S
Sciborg_S_Patel
Discuss.
I find myself sort of on a middle road between the two. Will try to comment more but some quick thoughts:
I'd say "materialist propositions" rather than "dopey atheist creed" as it's more neutral language.
1. There is no purpose to anything. I maintain that my life has no purpose, no meaning, and no destiny. The same is true of the entire universe.
I think this is a complicated question, as some of the proposed metaphysics that include an afterlife seem meaningless to me. So even within a spiritual framework we might have destinies that feel meaningless, whereas in a world without spiritual forces on can forge their own meaning.
(Though one might argue that something feeling meaningful is itself a qualia offering credence to the Hard Problem.)
2. There is no "right" or "wrong". Free will is an illusion. I affirm that my morals come from my genes and my conditioning rather than any decisions I make, because there is no "me". It's an illusion.
I have to agree with Alex here. It's hard to see where anyone has solved the is-ought problem. From what I read of Harris, he simply asserts there are obvious goods and then slides this observation into the next one where he asserts utilitarianism is the best choice.
I've yet to see any argument for skeptical morality that doesn't make certain baseline assumptions, such as people having intrinsic rights. It seems determinist morality hinges on making sure your pretend choices are the right choices.
3. And there are no "good people". Nor have there ever been any mystics, sages, prophets, or saints. There are no "bad people" either.
Good people and bad people is a difficult question, regardless of a spiritual framework or one's position on free will. It seems that a host of factors will affect our decision making, if by no other means than what choices we think are available to us and how we evaluate those choices.
A kid raised to be a child soldier is going to look at the world in a way that is fundamentally different than how someone raised in the comforting arms of a wealthy NYC family will.
All that said, I do think one can still believe in Good and Evil without holding on to definitive evaluations of a person's alignment toward Good/Evil. None of what I've said above is really that far from Jesus's "hate the sin, love the sinner".
As for mystics and prophets, personally I'd say the jury is still out. Is Alex thinking of particular persons when asking about this?
4. All reports throughout history of encounters with spirits, angles, ghosts and supernatural beings are bunk, regardless of the credibility of the witnesses or there number.
This is an interesting question. I've wondered about this myself as I've talked to lots of people online and off about "paranormal" encounters in addition to reading some varied accounts. Could all these people by lying or suddenly experiencing a glitch in their sense?
This would mean even my close personal friends were deluded or intentionally deceiving me though I have little to no reason to doubt their sensory faculties in any other instance. Even Sam Harris noted -IIRC at an atheist conference- the separate, confirmed encounters people had with certain beings (machine elves?) while on DMT.
As he said then, I don't know what's up with that.
This question would likely benefit from the introduction of particular cases.
5. I am my brain. The death of my body is the death of me and my consciousness. All encounters with those who have died are an illusion.
Similar to question 4, it is difficult for me to simply accept all the people who've encountered spirits to be lying or deceived. It is possible however.
The other part of this is the arguments and evidence that suggests Mind comes before Matter. Nothing definitive for me, so jury is still out.
This question, like #4, would benefit from the introduction of particular cases, but also some philosophical arguments relating to the Hard Problem might be of use.
I find myself sort of on a middle road between the two. Will try to comment more but some quick thoughts:
I'd say "materialist propositions" rather than "dopey atheist creed" as it's more neutral language.
1. There is no purpose to anything. I maintain that my life has no purpose, no meaning, and no destiny. The same is true of the entire universe.
I think this is a complicated question, as some of the proposed metaphysics that include an afterlife seem meaningless to me. So even within a spiritual framework we might have destinies that feel meaningless, whereas in a world without spiritual forces on can forge their own meaning.
(Though one might argue that something feeling meaningful is itself a qualia offering credence to the Hard Problem.)
2. There is no "right" or "wrong". Free will is an illusion. I affirm that my morals come from my genes and my conditioning rather than any decisions I make, because there is no "me". It's an illusion.
I have to agree with Alex here. It's hard to see where anyone has solved the is-ought problem. From what I read of Harris, he simply asserts there are obvious goods and then slides this observation into the next one where he asserts utilitarianism is the best choice.
I've yet to see any argument for skeptical morality that doesn't make certain baseline assumptions, such as people having intrinsic rights. It seems determinist morality hinges on making sure your pretend choices are the right choices.
3. And there are no "good people". Nor have there ever been any mystics, sages, prophets, or saints. There are no "bad people" either.
Good people and bad people is a difficult question, regardless of a spiritual framework or one's position on free will. It seems that a host of factors will affect our decision making, if by no other means than what choices we think are available to us and how we evaluate those choices.
A kid raised to be a child soldier is going to look at the world in a way that is fundamentally different than how someone raised in the comforting arms of a wealthy NYC family will.
All that said, I do think one can still believe in Good and Evil without holding on to definitive evaluations of a person's alignment toward Good/Evil. None of what I've said above is really that far from Jesus's "hate the sin, love the sinner".
As for mystics and prophets, personally I'd say the jury is still out. Is Alex thinking of particular persons when asking about this?
4. All reports throughout history of encounters with spirits, angles, ghosts and supernatural beings are bunk, regardless of the credibility of the witnesses or there number.
This is an interesting question. I've wondered about this myself as I've talked to lots of people online and off about "paranormal" encounters in addition to reading some varied accounts. Could all these people by lying or suddenly experiencing a glitch in their sense?
This would mean even my close personal friends were deluded or intentionally deceiving me though I have little to no reason to doubt their sensory faculties in any other instance. Even Sam Harris noted -IIRC at an atheist conference- the separate, confirmed encounters people had with certain beings (machine elves?) while on DMT.
As he said then, I don't know what's up with that.
This question would likely benefit from the introduction of particular cases.
5. I am my brain. The death of my body is the death of me and my consciousness. All encounters with those who have died are an illusion.
Similar to question 4, it is difficult for me to simply accept all the people who've encountered spirits to be lying or deceived. It is possible however.
The other part of this is the arguments and evidence that suggests Mind comes before Matter. Nothing definitive for me, so jury is still out.
This question, like #4, would benefit from the introduction of particular cases, but also some philosophical arguments relating to the Hard Problem might be of use.