Evidence for God from Science

Spock wrote:Altruism cannot be a moral principle because it leads to a contradiction.

Such is the inescapable conclusion of a theory devoid of any objectivity or morality. It makes altruism incoherent.

Byblos wrote:

Spock wrote:Altruism cannot be a moral principle because it leads to a contradiction.

Such is the inescapable conclusion of a theory devoid of any objectivity or morality. It makes altruism incoherent.

Your comment is irrational. I did not use my theory to show that altruism is logically incoherent. I used nothing but the assumption that altruism is a moral principle and then showed it leads directly to a contradiction. In other words, I showed that your beliefs, in as much as you think that altruism is a moral principle, are logically incoherent.

Spock wrote: Altruism is logically incoherent as a moral principle. Consider two people who are in a situation where one must sacrifice himself so the other can survive. Person A and person B are both committed to the highest moral values. Should person A sacrifice himself for person B or should person B sacrifice himself for person A? If altruism is a moral principle, then the answer is self-contradictory because each would be morally obligated to sacrifice himself for the other.

I'm not defending this, and IMO it's just another rabbit trail, but how is it contradictory? It is a dilemma to be sure, but how is it contradictory?

jlay wrote:

Spock wrote: Altruism is logically incoherent as a moral principle. Consider two people who are in a situation where one must sacrifice himself so the other can survive. Person A and person B are both committed to the highest moral values. Should person A sacrifice himself for person B or should person B sacrifice himself for person A? If altruism is a moral principle, then the answer is self-contradictory because each would be morally obligated to sacrifice himself for the other.

I'm not defending this, and IMO it's just another rabbit trail, but how is it contradictory? It is a dilemma to be sure, but how is it contradictory?

If altruism is a moral principle, then it applies to all moral agents. This means that person A should sacrifice himself to save person B, AND that person B should sacrifice himself to save person A. But if both obey this principle then both die and neither successfully fulfills the purpose of the principle. This is the contradiction. Altruism cannot be a moral principle because it cannot apply to all moral agents.

jlay wrote:

Your reduction of self-love to self-interest reveals a profound failure to understand what it means to be human. We are social organisms. We each physically emerge from the bowels of our mother. We cannot separate self from others without destroying our humanity. Self-interest ignores our profound interconnectedness with others. It is a terrible caricature of real self-love. Erich Fromm explained all this in great detail. Did you not read it? Here it is again:

Spock. What it means? You import phrases like "meaning" when it suits your theory. If we are social organisms then we are organisms, and love has no more biological significance than an elephant fart. What is meaning but an abstract concept and illusion. If there are no humans here, what meaning does love have? It's an accident of nature.

I did not "import" the idea of meaning. Neither you nor your religion are the owners of the concept of "meaning." It exists in all cultures and it existed long before Christianity came on the scene.

And you are presenting a false caricature of my thesis. It is absurd to say that "love has no more biological significance than an elephant fart." It appears that you are following Craig's false dichotomy that says the only two options are theism vs. atheistic materialistic reductionism. That simply is not the case at all.

And again, when you reduce everything to "accident" - that is just a rhetorical trick. I have never said everything is an "accident" and that is not a necessary implication of the rejection of ancient theistic superstitions.

jlay wrote:

So now we see how you are confusing the whole issue. First you misidentify self-love as self-interest (words I never used and which are blatantly misdirecting) and then you toss in the abstract concept of "goodness" which I do not use in my argument and which is fraught with philosophical ambiguity. Such is the recipe of confusion. Is this your intent?

I've yet to see anything that ultimately distinguishes the two. It's fluffy feel good stuff, but I see no PROOF. Asserting it doesn't establish it.

I believe self has significance because people have intrinsic value. They have purpose. That the essence of love is that we are loved, first. And love has genuine meaning beyond some symmetrical anomaly.

OK - you want to play the semantic game. Great. If you see no difference between self-love and self-interest, then why did you feel a need to CHANGE MY WORDS when you made your caricature of my argument? You actions prove your true intent. You obviously think there is a massive difference between self-love and self-interest. You needed to get the word "love" out of the equation so you could mislead folks into dismissing my argument as if it had nothing to do with the universal concept of love that is common to all people.

Your attempt to ground "significance of people" in both "intrinsic value" and "purpose" is self-contradictory. The idea of "value based on purpose" is directly opposed to the idea of "intrinsic value" which means something is "valuable in and of itself" and specifically NOT because it may fulfill a "purpose."

jlay wrote:

So now we see how you are confusing the whole issue. First you misidentify self-love as self-interest (words I never used and which are blatantly misdirecting) and then you toss in the abstract concept of "goodness" which I do not use in my argument and which is fraught with philosophical ambiguity. Such is the recipe of confusion. Is this your intent?

As pointed out you seem to dismiss the classical philosophers. So these aren't good? care, respect, responsibility, and knowledge.
I'd love to see you discuss your theory with Ed Fesser. Either Spock is the most remarkable philosopher of the past 1,000 years, or there is a reason so many before him have avoided this road and its epistemological costs.

I don't dismiss them - I just don't think their theories were successful. They contain various degrees of insight but I don't think they successfully answered the question of morality.

jlay wrote: Why good? Well I stated
"I can only assume self-love to mean self-interest, (that which seeks what is good for self.) And I think that is correct, but is that a primitive notion?"
I've given the reason. I see no reason to distinquish that self-love is nothing more than a feel good term for self-interest.

If you can "only assume self-love to mean self-interest" then you have no understanding of what we are talking about, unless you think that "interest" means "love." But if that is the case, then you would not have tried to make a straw man by CHANGING MY WORDS.

jlay wrote:

That was an explanation I quoted from Erich Fromm to help people understand basic facts about love. It not a "preference" - it is a fact about human nature.

We can make all these statements about what love is, but why is it good?

Questions like "why is love good?" show what it takes to avoid the force of my argument. What would happen if you applied the same sort of semantic skepticism to your biblical beliefs? They would instantly degrade into vain philosophy void of meaning.

Spock wrote:Questions like "why is love good?" show what it takes to avoid the force of my argument. What would happen if you applied the same sort of semantic skepticism to your biblical beliefs? They would instantly degrade into vain philosophy void of meaning.

You have the uncanny ability to not answer questions but make yourself look smart in the process.

For the record, spock was given the opportunity to defend his theory elsewhere, with others who are much more proficient with philosophy than I or anyone else here. He didn't flat out refuse but he did pretty much dismiss the idea because he is not "impressed with Medieval metaphysical philosophy" (his words).

This thread has run its course and is now locked.