Socrates's Question
-
Peace to all,
So Lobster, you say you would believe if you can scientifically verify something, you also said people seeing pink elephants is not reality, well what is this?
http//images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/9/9a/Not_Pink_Elephants.png/500px-Not_Pink_Elephants.png
Kurt
-
Peace to all,
So Lobster, you say you would believe if you can scientifically verify something, you also said people seeing pink elephants is not reality, well what is this?
http//images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/9/9a/Not_Pink_Elephants.png/500px-Not_Pink_Elephants.png
Kurt
Nicely painted how you did that ;D
-
Is something right because the Gods command it, or do the Gods command something because it is right?
Well, if you agree with the former, then you're plain wrong, because there is just too much wrong with it.
So the only valid choice is the latter part of the question. God commands certain actions because they are right.
So God doesn't create right and wrong, God, through His infinite wisdom, recognizes the right and wrong, and commands us to do it.
So morality and God are seperate.
I don't get how, from this...^^^
....you jumped to this...
So we can learn about right and wrong without God.And then you try to protect yourself quickly with...
p.s. I'm not trying to criticize the quran here, or trying to get God out of the equation...
Actually, you're 'trying' real hard, to do exactly that. Just because you said you're not, doesn't mean it's so (Just to clarify; I don't mean you're doing it intentionally).I said this to you before, and I'll say it again, Lobster... without GOD, there is no we, there is no learn, there is no 'right'/'wrong'.
Peace.
PS - Thanks for sharing the Socrates story, I have no clue about that stuff. http//i28.photobucket.com/albums/c236/zenje/smilies/dunce.jpg
-
Totally understand that. I'm not promoting new age spirituality rubbish, and I never brought up the idea of soul.
Haha that's right.
But my question is, is it even possible for everyone to think murder is right? When I said we are innately moral, I wasn't talking about a supernatural soul, I was talking about a biological trait very much like eyes and hands and feet.And even if "perception B" was the majority opinion, would that make it right?
Sure, most people would believe that it is, but that doesn't make it so.I'm not talking about supernatural stuff here, I'm talking about reality. People seeing pink elephants is not reality. And reality is not dependent upon majority opinion, you should know that.If I can scientifically verify what I see, then yes, I can certainly say my perception of reality is greater. I'm typing on a keyboard right now. I know that the keyboard exists because the keys I hit show up on the screen. If I ask someone to touch it for me, they will be able to touch it. I can use all five of my senses to percieve it (in case one is faulty). I can bring in an animal and make it touch it (just in case all humans have gone mad). There are many ways to verify reality.
As humans, part of our reality is that we all want to be happy. I don't care what you call that, it's part of reality, it's part of our psyche and you can't program it out no matter what you like (notice the lack of the words "new age" and "soul". And the way we work, we do this thing called "role playing" where we put ourselves in someone else shoes. We do this when communicating all the time to know how to say something to someone. And because of this quality of ours, we want others to feel what we want to feel.
Plus we are social animals (Aristotle said so!), and we like to spend time with other humans. That's another reason why we have evolved this system of morality.
Like free-will and language, the concept of morality is uniquely human, and it's very real, not just a hallucination.Reality is not materialism. Something doesn't have to be an object to be real. An idea is a very real thing, a word is a real thing, even emotions are real. Again, it doesn't matter if they are complex chemical reactions or not, they still exist!So? How does that make morality any less real? I just don't get you.
Oh, and the author of that book, he believes that free-will does exist, but not because of a supernatural soul (like religious scriptures put it), but because of the way humans have evolved. He likens it to language. We started out like animals, but slowly we have evolved this ability to make decisions independent to our emotions and beliefs.Okay, please define morality, programming, and perception, if you don't mind.
If I'm annoying you we can end this, I've got no problem with that. But we have a disagreement here and I would like to know why it's there.
I can't touch, see, hear, or taste this disagreement, but I think it's real.But my question is, is it even possible for everyone to think murder is right? When I said we are innately moral, I wasn't talking about a supernatural soul, I was talking about a biological trait very much like eyes and hands and feet.
Exactly. Yes, it's possible for everyone to think murder is right. When you eat chicken, is it not dead? It's been murdered. Do you feel murder? No. You aren't programmed to look at the chicken and think "Murder!!!", you are programmed to look at it and think " eat".
And even if "perception B" was the majority opinion, would that make it right?
Sure, most people would believe that it is, but that doesn't make it so.If Perception B was majority opinion, then presumeably they had to adapt to something that made only Perception B stick around. Meaning, yes, it would be right, in those conditions (I can't imagine them, but it doesn't matter, pure speculation). If it was in this world, where A takes the lead, B would be completely ridiculous. But in the world of B, A is more ridiculous.
I'm not talking about supernatural stuff here, I'm talking about reality. People seeing pink elephants is not reality. And reality is not dependent upon majority opinion, you should know that.If I can scientifically verify what I see, then yes, I can certainly say my perception of reality is greater. I'm typing on a keyboard right now. I know that the keyboard exists because the keys I hit show up on the screen. If I ask someone to touch it for me, they will be able to touch it. I can use all five of my senses to percieve it (in case one is faulty). I can bring in an animal and make it touch it (just in case all humans have gone mad). There are many ways to verify reality.
No, not really. What if this mentally insane person could run an x-ray and see pink-elephant bones? Let's assume we are all in a "matrix" and some people are running on different parts of the "matrix". To those people, it is VERY real.
I'm typing on a keyboard right now. I know that the keyboard exists because the keys I hit show up on the screen. If I ask someone to touch it for me, they will be able to touch it. I can use all five of my senses to percieve it (in case one is faulty). I can bring in an animal and make it touch it (just in case all humans have gone mad).
Here's a fictional story
Scientists were conducting an experiment on 50 mentally ill people. They would lock them into a room with completely foam padded walls, and sealed off from the outside world in every concievable way, with a few ventilation slots at the top, also disguised. So, these mentally ill patients would be in effect, stuck inside a plain cube. The only feature present was a niche in the wall, painted to look exactly like a door. When the experiment started, 49 patients attempted to exit the cube. None could - they would turn the door handle, but nothing would change. 1 person sat in the corner, laughing like a maniac. When asked why he was laughing and not trying to exit the cube, he replied "Pssst, they don't know I have the only key!".
You might understand something from that
Anyway, you moved onto majority consensus. Bringing in a second opinion, an animal's opinion. Let's assume that for every entity you bring on your side, there is an entity on the "loony" side that testifies to the loony side's perception.
As humans, part of our reality is that we all want to be happy. I don't care what you call that, it's part of reality, it's part of our psyche and you can't program it out no matter what you like (notice the lack of the words "new age" and "soul". And the way we work, we do this thing called "role playing" where we put ourselves in someone else shoes. We do this when communicating all the time to know how to say something to someone. And because of this quality of ours, we want others to feel what we want to feel.
That can, will, and has already been programmed out. Look at a few torture victims, look at the victims of CIA experimentation (one prolific experiment involving children, I think). There was a documentary a while back on people born, lived, married, had children, died - what was their affliction? They were literally without the ability to love, empathise, sympathise or socialise in any way that needed those things. One of them had some form of disease that took it away, or maybe a hard impact to the brain, I forgot. The fact remains that something disturbed the arrangement in his head, and that was completely removed. By now, everyone surely has heard of Phineas Gage, who was tapping dynamite in a railway when a pole went through his head, disturbed the arrangement, and transformed him into an aggressive, moral-lacking beast.
Reality is not materialism. Something doesn't have to be an object to be real. An idea is a very real thing, a word is a real thing, even emotions are real. Again, it doesn't matter if they are complex chemical reactions or not, they still exist!So? How does that make morality any less real? I just don't get you.
Actually, it is. An idea has no basis in reality. An idea, again, is the arrangement of a zillion atoms in your brain. A word, is the arrangement of a zillion atoms in your brain. And so on. Shooting someone in the head puts an end to that "morality" by... moving a zillion atoms in the brain. The fact remains that a person ends when that arrangement is disturbed too much. Abstraction layer, keep that in mind. It makes morality part of perception and not "absolute". It puts morality into the hands of the creator/programmer. Meaning, without "God", there is no morality. THE God, in the Quranic sense, defined by his attributes, not "God" as in the being that claims to be talking from many religious books (if you can understand that).
Oh, and the author of that book, he believes that free-will does exist, but not because of a supernatural soul (like religious scriptures put it), but because of the way humans have evolved. He likens it to language. We started out like animals, but slowly we have evolved this ability to make decisions independent to our emotions and beliefs.Okay, please define morality, programming, and perception, if you don't mind.
Exactly, he believes freedom of will exists by the development of the ability to change/learn. We already have this in computers (chess computers are a good example). Shame, however, that our author was preceded by the Quran 1400 years ago (see 853). Now, perception can be described as your arrangement of a zillion x zillion atoms, morality can be again, described that. Programming is how that arrangement comes by, think of the natural conditions needed to get Perception B above, will it be anything like this world now? The Quran's definition of "God" is immaculate. People are changed by natural conditions, God is described as the one who changes natural conditions on many occasions (see the verses on 'Ad for instance).
I can't touch, see, hear, or taste this disagreement, but I think it's real.
Incorrect. You can do all of the above, but if you got caught, you would be spending life in prison for murder, or brain surgery without a license.
-
I don't get how, from this...^^^
....you jumped to this...And then you try to protect yourself quickly with...Actually, you're 'trying' real hard, to do exactly that. Just because you said you're not, doesn't mean it's so P (Just to clarify; I don't mean you're doing it intentionally).I said this to you before, and I'll say it again, Lobster... without GOD, there is no we, there is no learn, there is no 'right'/'wrong'.
Peace.
PS - Thanks for sharing the Socrates story, I have no clue about that stuff. http//i28.photobucket.com/albums/c236/zenje/smilies/dunce.jpg
Actually I was reading about this in a philosophy book. I think the only rational conclusion we can make is that God does not make morality, but through His infinite wisdom guides us to it.
I don't see how this is trying to get rid of god.
But now we have OPF arguing that morality isn't even real... -
Actually I was reading about this in a philosophy book. I think the only rational conclusion we can make is that God does not make morality, but through His infinite wisdom guides us to it.
I don't see how this is trying to get rid of god.
But now we have OPF arguing that morality isn't even real...Please read. A two-bit author is NOT going to change reality. Neither am I. As for the rational conclusion, you have already acknowledged that morals depend on perception, and to say otherwise is logically fallacious.
-
Please read. A two-bit author is NOT going to change reality. Neither am I. As for the rational conclusion, you have already acknowledged that morals depend on perception, and to say otherwise is logically fallacious.
Did I say that?
If Perception B was majority opinion, then presumeably they had to adapt to something that made only Perception B stick around. Meaning, yes, it would be right, in those conditions (I can't imagine them, but it doesn't matter, pure speculation). If it was in this world, where A takes the lead, B would be completely ridiculous. But in the world of B, A is more ridiculous.
No! how can it be right just because more people believe in it? How do you define "right?"
No, not really. What if this mentally insane person could run an x-ray and see pink-elephant bones? Let's assume we are all in a "matrix" and some people are running on different parts of the "matrix". To those people, it is VERY real.
I will admit that reality depends on perception sort of. For example, if we are in fact in a matrix, this is our reality because this is the only thing we can percieve. But it's not really reality is it? If one of us was to break through the matrix, we would know the true reality.
Anyway, you moved onto majority consensus. Bringing in a second opinion, an animal's opinion. Let's assume that for every entity you bring on your side, there is an entity on the "loony" side that testifies to the loony side's perception.
What you are doing here is completely undermining science. 2+2=4, no matter how many people say otherwise. That is a verifiable fact that always is, regardless of how many people disagree with it.
Do you agree that there is ONE true reality?That can, will, and has already been programmed out. Look at a few torture victims, look at the victims of CIA experimentation (one prolific experiment involving children, I think). There was a documentary a while back on people born, lived, married, had children, died - what was their affliction? They were literally without the ability to love, empathise, sympathise or socialise in any way that needed those things. One of them had some form of disease that took it away, or maybe a hard impact to the brain, I forgot. The fact remains that something disturbed the arrangement in his head, and that was completely removed. By now, everyone surely has heard of Phineas Gage, who was tapping dynamite in a railway when a pole went through his head, disturbed the arrangement, and transformed him into an aggressive, moral-lacking beast.
Yes, it got programmed out only because the structure of their brains changed. They are not "human" anymore, because physically they work differently.
They didn't develop a new moral system based on perception, they lost the ability to be moral because of a physical change in their bodies.
Your position would only be proven if you could TEACH a person to be amoral. We all have the ability to empathize, just like we all have the ability to talk, and I believe it is this ability which allows us to be moral. If you take that part of the brain that enables empathy, you lose that ability.
The examples you gave do not support your position.Actually, it is. An idea has no basis in reality. An idea, again, is the arrangement of a zillion atoms in your brain. A word, is the arrangement of a zillion atoms in your brain. And so on. Shooting someone in the head puts an end to that "morality" by... moving a zillion atoms in the brain. The fact remains that a person ends when that arrangement is disturbed too much. Abstraction layer, keep that in mind. It makes morality part of perception and not "absolute". It puts morality into the hands of the creator/programmer. Meaning, without "God", there is no morality. THE God, in the Quranic sense, defined by his attributes, not "God" as in the being that claims to be talking from many religious books (if you can understand that).
An idea is real...again, it doesn't matter if it is a zillion atoms in your brain. The electric impulses from your neurons arranged in a certain way what we call an "idea." It is real!
You can end that idea by changing the arrangment. I don't understand how that makes it part of "perception?"I would say the creator creates reality, and morality is part of that. It is part of our human psychology. It is part of what makes us human.
But anyway, do you think morality is something subjective or is it objective? I think morality is the same for everyone. And I guess you believe morality is different for every individual?
Exactly, he believes freedom of will exists by the development of the ability to change/learn. We already have this in computers (chess computers are a good example). Shame, however, that our author was preceded by the Quran 1400 years ago (see 853). Now, perception can be described as your arrangement of a zillion x zillion atoms, morality can be again, described that. Programming is how that arrangement comes by, think of the natural conditions needed to get Perception B above, will it be anything like this world now? The Quran's definition of "God" is immaculate. People are changed by natural conditions, God is described as the one who changes natural conditions on many occasions (see the verses on 'Ad for instance).
Okay, I agree that morality depends on our ability to learn. I think that morality, language, and free-will are similar. We all have the potential for it, due to our genetic make-up. We can all be moral, we can all talk, and we can all make free choices, but that doesn't mean all of us do. A child needs to learn how to talk, and we need constant practice to keep up our skill. Similarly, we all have the ability to be moral, but it needs to be brought out...it can be supressed, even without physical damage, but you can't completely take it away.
and can you elaborate a little on "morality depends upon the creator/programmer?" I'm afraid I haven't yet grasped what you're trying to say there.
-
peace to all,
yes lobster, you can clearly see it cant you, just as you can see the clouds and the sun, they exist dont they, can you prove my pink elephants dont exist?
Kurt
peace
You're saying it like it's a bad thing! I'm not really trying to disprove the existence of god in this thread...I'm just trying to find a place for god in reality.
I haven't, and will not in the future, give up a chance to question the existence of God. You shouldn't either. -
Is something right because the Gods command it, or do the Gods command something because it is right?
The former is correct something is right because God commands it. There is no morality beside the standard in God, or to put it in another way, it is pure blasphemy and rejection of God's supremacy to refer to Him based on an external standard of morality that exists outside of Him.
The Holy Quran says
Then are men returned unto Allah, their protector, the (only) Reality Is not His the command? and He is the swiftest in taking account (662)
The sufis have not only used this verse to show that Allah alone is the only Reality, and there is no reality in His absence, but that he is Al-Haq (The Truth). If Allah is the Truth, than He is the standard of Truth, not simply the God who acts in accordance with Truth, but He is in fact the Manifestation of Truth.
Similarly, there is no concept of peace outside of the standard in Allah. Allah is not the God who is peaceful, but Allah is the very Manifestation, Source and Definition of Peace (As-Salaam)
Allah is He, than Whom there is no other god; the Sovereign, the Holy One, the Source of Peace (and Perfection), the Guardian of Faith, the Preserver of Safety, the Exalted in Might, the Irresistible, the Supreme Glory to Allah. (High is He) above the partners they attribute to Him. (al-Hashr 5923)
So according to my understanding of the Holy Quran, morality and goodness are in God, and He is the definition of them, not that these are outside of Him and that He acts accordingly and is therefore worthy of our worship (God forbid). The reason God is worthy of our worship is simply by virtue of being God, there is no other reason. The real essence of shirk (idolatry) is to not only worship false gods, but also to judge God by another standard
Say "Shall I seek for Judge other than Allah - when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail." They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt (al-Anam 6114)
-
I didn't read through all the posts in the thread, so I apologize if someone already mentioned this. We're told that Good and Evil are different things, but are they really? They are two poles of the same magnet, Good needs evil to exist, just as the opposite is true. The fun in life is that it appears that Evil is going to always overtake the Good, this is the drama, but this will never happen. Just as Chaos doesn't overtake Order, and Nothing doesn't overtake Something, so too, evil doesn't overtake Good. They are just opposite ends of the same thing. If you didn't hear silence in between sounds, you would never hear music, and if you didn't experience death, you wouldn't know what life is.
-
Yusha, so whatever god tells you to do is right?
but that raises a problem, doesn't it?
If you're criteria of judging right or wrong and truth is based on what god says, then what do you do if I tell you "god says you should kill your friends right now." How do you judge that?
There are so many "voices" of god, so many different scriptures all saying different things...which one is true? and which commands are right?and if you decide right and wrong based on what god says, then that means you only do right because god told you to. The only reason you aren't killing everyone you don't like, then, is because god said killing is wrong.
and if god decides morality, then can't god just change morality whenever god wants? what if the next generations of humans are commanded to "kill thy neighbors?"
did god just pick and choose which deeds to make wrong and which deeds to make right? or was their a reason? does god know what he's doing?
-
Yusha, so whatever god tells you to do is right?
Yes.
If you're criteria of judging right or wrong and truth is based on what god says, then what do you do if I tell you "god says you should kill your friends right now." How do you judge that?
What kind of question is this? First of all I have already told you God is the Truth (Al-Haq) which means he doesn't lie, and in the Holy Quran He has revealed that this is the final law, so youre question doesn't make any sense. I follow what God says directly in His revealed scripture, not what you claim to say about Him without any reason.
There are so many "voices" of god, so many different scriptures all saying different things...which one is true? and which commands are right?
There is only one voice of God, and the Holy Quran has superceded and abrogated all the old scriptures.
and if you decide right and wrong based on what god says, then that means you only do right because god told you to. The only reason you aren't killing everyone you don't like, then, is because god said killing is wrong.
Exactly, I don't kill because God doesn't like that. That should be sufficient reason not to kill. And to demonstrate this point, the Holy Quran has mentioned that God commanded Abraham (alaihi salaam) to sacrifice his son, and Abraham (alaihi salaam) obeyed unquestionably, because this came from God. This story demonstrates that there is no moral standard outside of God by which we can judge. God is the moral standard.
and if god decides morality, then can't god just change morality whenever god wants? what if the next generations of humans are commanded to "kill thy neighbors?"
I have already mentioned that God does not lie, and never fails in His promise
for Allah never fails in His promise (al-Imran 39)
And the promise of Allah is that Islam is completed and so are the commandments, there will be no next generation with a new covenant. This is the final dispensation until the day of judgment.
did god just pick and choose which deeds to make wrong and which deeds to make right? or was their a reason? does god know what he's doing?
God is the Most Wise (Al-Hakeem), and He knows what we know not. We should not speculate or judge Him.
-
Navid, the question here is, what is "immoral?"
Yusha is saying that if god commands us to kill people, killing people becomes right.Your statement assumes that morality and god are different. If god makes morality, how can god command people to do "immoral" things?
Yusha, just one question, how do you know the quran is telling the truth?
I mean, if I wrote a book that said "this scripture abrogates all others and is the true voice of god, and god commands Yusha to commit suicide this instant" would you believe it? -
Navid, the question here is, what is "immoral?"
Yusha is saying that if god commands us to kill people, killing people becomes right.He says that because he believes God is the moral standard. Saying "What if God told you do something immoral?" is contradictory. That is, if you believe as Yusha believes. God is the truth, the moral standard.
Your statement assumes that morality and god are different. If god makes morality, how can god command people to do "immoral" things?
No, you are assuming that. I am assuming they are the same. Hence "God is the moral standard." That's why I put "immoral" in quotes.
-
peace Navid, everyone
He says that because he believes God is the moral standard. Saying "What if God told you do something immoral?" is contradictory. That is, if you believe as Yusha believes. God is the truth, the moral standard.
Exactly. So I am right in saying that if God commands us to kill others for fun, that will be "good." If God was a liar, then lying would be good. If you believe as Yusha believes, there is no reason for things being right or wrong except that god randomly chose them that way.
My argument is that...
killing people is wrong because of the way reality is. Killing others takes away their life, and causes grief and suffering for many others. That's why it's wrong.
So morality is determined by nature.
God has created reality, and that reality determines morality.
God can only change morality if God changes reality itself.
Right now, shooting people in the face is wrong (it causes harm), but if God had created us with bullet-proof faces, shooting people in the face wouldn't harm them, so it wouldn't be wrong (in normal circumstances).
God cannot say shooting people in the face is good even if it causes harm, because harm is bad. Get it?And there are people who do not follow any religion. There are people who do not believe in God.
How do these people understand morality then? Are good athiests believers then?If you think God creates morality, then you have to admit that God is arbitrary...he can do whatever the hell he wants, and whatever he does is GOOD because he defines morality. There is no reason for right or wrong, it just is the way it is because god decided it that way.
In a way god does create morality because god has created reality, but the point is that the relationship between god and morality is not direct.
And here God has free-will. If you believe in a different type of god this doesn't apply to you at all.I believe the Quran thinks god and morality are seperate. (It's right again!)
Why? Because the Quran praises god. There are a lot of good quality attributed to god in the quran. "Most merciful and most gracious" would mean absolutely nothing if god decided what was good and bad. If god was evil and a liar, we'd praise him with "the most evil, the most dishonest" and those would be considered good qualities.
So god's goodness doesn't mean anything at all.Now Yusha's answer to all of my (excellent) questions was "Allah never breaks his promise and the quran is the last covanent or whatever" which is a statement he can't ever prove.
To think that the one God (if you assume He exists) would arbitrarily command people do "immoral" things doesn't really make sense. As Yusha said, He is the moral standard.
Okay, so let me ask you this
Why doesn't it make sense?