Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: The world as it is without a designer is amazing, but with an intelligent designer, it just sucks.

I can't see why that would be true; you've got the same world either way, don't you?

Of course you have the same world but the perception changes. It is like being shown a copy of the Mona Lisa. We think, "oh, a copy of the Mona Lisa. Big Deal" Then someone points out that a little chihuahua made the copy and now suddenly your perception of the copy changes.

The world, if not created by a God, is a miracle. The world created by a God is an abomination.

sthitapragya wrote:Sort of like Brahman. I get that. Even so, the inherent violence in nature is not evil. Animals killing animals to feed themselves is not evil. But if you claim that an intelligent designer deliberately made a system like that, then the system becomes evil. I thin you are assuming I am trying to say why evil exists. I am not. I don't think there is any evil in this world, as long as God does not exist. As soon as you put God in the picture, the problem of evil comes up.

But if what you're saying is true, then the existence of evils, even things like paeodphelia, is not actually something anyone can complain about. But you have already complained that the world is not a nice place -- so awful, in fact, that you claim not to be able to believe in a Creator. But absent a Creator God, as you rightly say, the problem of evil cannot even be raised.

Without God, evil doesn't exist, you say. But then you complain about the evil state of the world. Therefore, you must think He exists. Otherwise, your complaint itself becomes nonsense, does it not?

Take paedophelia. You say you know it's wrong. I thoroughly agree. But, if I may ask, how do you know? What gives you that confidence, since you live in a world where there is no Creator, and no objective morality, and hence (at least in principle) everything is permissible?

Do you remember what Krishna says to Arjuna: "...arise for battle, O Arjuna...All these warriors have been slain already by me..." In other words, there's no sin in doing to others what Krishna has fated to happen to them already. Arjuna, then, cannot even rightly fear to DO evil. What will be, will be.

Any facts which explain why this world, if designed by an intelligent designer, is wonderful is welcome.

But Theism does not say this world is wonderful. It claims it's not. It claims the world is out of joint with relationship to God, not that it is as God wants it to be.

That's different from Hinduism, isn't it?

sthitapragya wrote:The world, if not created by a God, is a miracle. The world created by a God is an abomination.

A "miracle"? How can one have a "miracle" without a "Miracle Worker"? Rather, if the world is not created by God, the most apt word to describe it is "accident." It's certainly no "miracle," then. Unless by "miracle" you just mean, "I happen to like it." But that seems a feeble interpretation of your intent.

And how can a world be "an abomination," when you have already denied the only standard that exists that can justify calling something an "abomination," objective morality grounded in the Creator? That is, unless all you mean to say by the use of the word "abomination" is "something that is not actually evil, but I don't happen to prefer." And that seems to weak a sentiment for your wording, doesn't it?

sthitapragya wrote:
Having said that, I definitely believe the world would have been a much "better" place if it were designed by an Intelligent Being Worth the admiration being shown. If you are saying this world with all the inherent violence, some of which seems absolutely pointless, is the work of an impersonal God, it still does not explain the Intelligence.

.

You seem to believe that intelligent design should serve you. What if you are here to serve intelligent design? You seem to be defining intelligence by results. But the universe is a process in endless change. There are no static results. From this perspective intelligence is proven by the interaction of universal laws only made possible through conscious intent. An accident can just be the result of our inability to consciously appreciate the variables that create an accident but this has nothing to do with admitting that universal laws do not just appear accidentally.

Is karmic reaction evil since it doesn't serve Man? You always appear to be arguing against a personal God. But what of a transcendent God within which the process of creation takes place? Is it evil just because it doesn't serve the animal Man? Perhaps animal Man doesn't have to remain strictly an animal and serve a more conscious purpose within creation worthy of the term "Man."

Immanuel Can wrote:
But if what you're saying is true, then the existence of evils, even things like paeodphelia, is not actually something anyone can complain about. But you have already complained that the world is not a nice place -- so awful, in fact, that you claim not to be able to believe in a Creator. But absent a Creator God, as you rightly say, the problem of evil cannot even be raised.

Absolutely, provided God did not create the universe. Paedophilia is not something to be complained about. It is something to be dealt with, because it harms chidren.

Without God, evil doesn't exist, you say. But then you complain about the evil state of the world. Therefore, you must think He exists. Otherwise, your complaint itself becomes nonsense, does it not?

I think I am not being able to get my point across. I am complaining about the evil state of the world only if a creator created it. I do not think He exists. But if He did, then by creating such a malevolent system, He did something evil. If God does not exist, then the existing system is not designed and it exists as is. There is nothing to complain about, is there?

Take paedophelia. You say you know it's wrong. I thoroughly agree. But, if I may ask, how do you know? What gives you that confidence, since you live in a world where there is no Creator, and no objective morality, and hence (at least in principle) everything is permissible?

Paedophilia harms children. And that is why it must be prevented. Not because it is wrong or right. As a species we are bound to ensure that the species survives and to ensure that no harm comes to other members of the species. So everything does not become permissible in the absence of a creator. Ethics and morality are independent of God.

Do you remember what Krishna says to Arjuna: "...arise for battle, O Arjuna...All these warriors have been slain already by me..." In other words, there's no sin in doing to others what Krishna has fated to happen to them already. Arjuna, then, cannot even rightly fear to DO evil. What will be, will be.

well, Aruna was an idiot and Krishna needed to say something to get the guy to fight. Doesn't mean everything He said is true. The Gita is much more complicated. I am sure Vyasa never intended it to be taken so out of context. But that is for another discussion. It is my opinion that the true message of the Mahabharata (along with the Gita) has been completely lost on everybody. The real message is that only those who adapt quickly survive.

But Theism does not say this world is wonderful. It claims it's not. It claims the world is out of joint with relationship to God, not that it is as God wants it to be.

That's different from Hinduism, isn't it?

[/quote][/quote]

Yes and no. Hinduism has two main thoughts. One says the world is suffering and moksha is the way out. The other simply focuses on finding happiness through self awareness and getting rid of the ego. These are oversimplifications on my part just to stay in context. In reality, Hinduism caters to every kind of need. From complete superstition to the complete non existence of God.

Nick_A wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:
Having said that, I definitely believe the world would have been a much "better" place if it were designed by an Intelligent Being Worth the admiration being shown. If you are saying this world with all the inherent violence, some of which seems absolutely pointless, is the work of an impersonal God, it still does not explain the Intelligence.

.

You seem to believe that intelligent design should serve you. What if you are here to serve intelligent design? You seem to be defining intelligence by results. But the universe is a process in endless change. There are no static results. From this perspective intelligence is proven by the interaction of universal laws only made possible through conscious intent. An accident can just be the result of our inability to consciously appreciate the variables that create an accident but this has nothing to do with admitting that universal laws do not just appear accidentally.

Is karmic reaction evil since it doesn't serve Man? You always appear to be arguing against a personal God. But what of a transcendent God within which the process of creation takes place? Is it evil just because it doesn't serve the animal Man? Perhaps animal Man doesn't have to remain strictly an animal and serve a more conscious purpose within creation worthy of the term "Man."

It is not about serving man. It is about creating a system which facilitates the survival of your creation. What is the point of creating you and then throwing you into a system that is designed to obliterate you? It seems like a senseless and stupid thing to do. The system itself is violent and every living being suffers because of it. And I don't care if the god is personal or transcendent. If he designed this system, it is pure evil and monstrous. And if I am here to serve intelligent design, then consider me on an indefinite strike. I refuse to do it, on the grounds that I don't want to.

If the figures are to be believed, 99.9 % of all species ever born are extinct. I mean, come on!! I admire His perseverance, but you have to admit that we probably need a new Intelligent Designer.

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:The world, if not created by a God, is a miracle. The world created by a God is an abomination.

A "miracle"? How can one have a "miracle" without a "Miracle Worker"? Rather, if the world is not created by God, the most apt word to describe it is "accident." It's certainly no "miracle," then. Unless by "miracle" you just mean, "I happen to like it." But that seems a feeble interpretation of your intent.

And how can a world be "an abomination," when you have already denied the only standard that exists that can justify calling something an "abomination," objective morality grounded in the Creator? That is, unless all you mean to say by the use of the word "abomination" is "something that is not actually evil, but I don't happen to prefer." And that seems to weak a sentiment for your wording, doesn't it?

I think you read too much into the words I used. I am not a philosopher so you will have to excuse a wrong choice of word here and there. I cannot be as precise as you are.
But I will say that the word miracle was chosen to express the incredulous achievement of spontaneity. I looked up the definition of abomination and you are right. That is a completely wrongly used word. So let me rephrase. The world, if not created by a God, is unbelievably extraordinary. If created by a God, the system under which the world operates is evil. How is that?

I should argue with you more. There is a lot I can learn from you about phrasing.

sthitapragya wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Take paedophelia. You say you know it's wrong. I thoroughly agree. But, if I may ask, how do you know? What gives you that confidence, since you live in a world where there is no Creator, and no objective morality, and hence (at least in principle) everything is permissible?

Paedophilia harms children. And that is why it must be prevented. Not because it is wrong or right. As a species we are bound to ensure that the species survives and to ensure that no harm comes to other members of the species. So everything does not become permissible in the absence of a creator. Ethics and morality are independent of God.

But how does one get the premise, "Harming children is wrong," since there is no objective truth to such a judgment, according to you? It's certainly not the case that everyone agrees: for older conservative Muslims marry children as young as six, and rape them at 9 or 12, and consider that proper. Moreover, the Muslims are, if anything, procreating more often and earlier than we are, so "survival of the species" looks to be on their side, not ours.

What you are saying is that you feel you want to assert ethics and morality independent of God; you're not showing by doing so that you have any right or legitimacy in doing so, since you don't believe those things are grounded in any objective truth. Your whole prohibition against paedophelia, on your account, has to be merely arbitrary on your part.

Yes and no. Hinduism has two main thoughts. One says the world is suffering and moksha is the way out. The other simply focuses on finding happiness through self awareness and getting rid of the ego.

By "self awareness," I presume you mean "the realization that the self (atman) does not really exist at all. It is an illusion (maya), a mere projection of the great oneness (brahman) out of which all things have their appearance. This is the "happiness" Hinduism promises, no?

These are oversimplifications on my part just to stay in context. In reality, Hinduism caters to every kind of need. From complete superstition to the complete non existence of God.

If so, it is not likely to prove ethically informative. For if a system can rationalize anything and preclude nothing, then it sheds no light at all on what we ought and ought not to do, and tells us nothing about good or bad, right or wrong, or even preferable and non-preferable.

But, in fact, this omni-inclusiveness is a way in which Hinduism speaks, but is not consistent with itself. For it also speaks oppositely. Even the most devout Hindu will tell you that Hinduism itself is the preferable way, and that, say Muslims or Catholics or Jews are pursuing alternate (but inferior) ways. And absent that assertion, Hinduism cannot even recommend itself...not even to a natural-born Indian. For if it is in no way "better" than alternatives, then embracing it has no value, and rejecting it has no cost for anyone. Thus the entire system could simply be dismissed.

sthitapragya wrote:The world, if not created by a God, is unbelievably extraordinary. If created by a God, the system under which the world operates is evil. How is that?

I agree with the "unbelievably extraordinary" nature of reality. This "unbelieveableness" is one of the things that makes Intelligent Design such a hard thesis to resist. Even Richard Dawkins claims this is true. Now, he says you've got to resist it anyway, but even he acknowledges that we are all inclined to be drawn to worship by it.

But you are right on two counts: the category "evil" only appears if there is a God. Otherwise, it is an illusion, or a mere statement of personal preference, not an objective reality.

So let me try a simple thesis on you:

1. If God does not exist, there is no category by which paedophelia can rightly be called "evil."
2. But paedophelia IS evil.
3. Therefore, there is a God.

I should argue with you more. There is a lot I can learn from you about phrasing.

I would be honoured. But let us not argue. Arguing involves entrenched positions and anger, and is done by opponents. Let us rather share insights and discuss ideas calmly, and be friends.

Immanuel Can wrote: But how does one get the premise, "Harming children is wrong," since there is no objective truth to such a judgment, according to you? It's certainly not the case that everyone agrees: for older conservative Muslims marry children as young as six, and rape them at 9 or 12, and consider that proper. Moreover, the Muslims are, if anything, procreating more often and earlier than we are, so "survival of the species" looks to be on their side, not ours.

What you are saying is that you feel you want to assert ethics and morality independent of God; you're not showing by doing so that you have any right or legitimacy in doing so, since you don't believe those things are grounded in any objective truth. Your whole prohibition against paedophelia, on your account, has to be merely arbitrary on your part.

I am not saying harming children is right or wrong. But education brings with it the realization that harming children is going to cause a problem towards the propagation of the species. Those who understand that, try and prevent it. And you are right. Everyone does not agree. Even in India, child marriage is prevalent among the more economically and socially backward societies. We can attribute the marriage or rape of children to ignorance or pure self interest. As you say, the muslims are procreating more often and earlier than we are so their population is increasing at a rapid pace. But other than the oil rich countries, you can see that quality of life is abysmal in most islamic countries and that is again due to rampant illitracy.

I don't want to assert any ethics and morality independent of God. All I am saying is that unless our species acts in a manner which does not benefit the species as a whole, sooner or later we will become extinct. The choice is ours to make. Reality will simply do what it does best. If I am wrong and paedophilia is not bad for the species then it will continue as will the species. Otherwise we will become extinct if pedophilia becomes all pervasive.

By "self awareness," I presume you mean "the realization that the self (atman) does not really exist at all. It is an illusion (maya), a mere projection of the great oneness (brahman) out of which all things have their appearance. This is the "happiness" Hinduism promises, no?

By self awareness I mean the realization of the self. All its limitations and all its strengths. And there are two schools of thought with respect to the atman. One believes that it does not exist at all and is one and the same as the brahman. The other believes that the two are different. But both believe that the "I" is not the atman and must be taken out of the equation if one wants true happiness.

If so, it is not likely to prove ethically informative. For if a system can rationalize anything and preclude nothing, then it sheds no light at all on what we ought and ought not to do, and tells us nothing about good or bad, right or wrong, or even preferable and non-preferable.

Well, that is debatable. I suppose you would have to imbibe the hindu culture along with the scriptures to understand that a lot of light can be shed on things without shedding any light on them at all.

But, in fact, this omni-inclusiveness is a way in which Hinduism speaks, but is not consistent with itself. For it also speaks oppositely. Even the most devout Hindu will tell you that Hinduism itself is the preferable way, and that, say Muslims or Catholics or Jews are pursuing alternate (but inferior) ways. And absent that assertion, Hinduism cannot even recommend itself...not even to a natural-born Indian. For if it is in no way "better" than alternatives, then embracing it has no value, and rejecting it has no cost for anyone. Thus the entire system could simply be dismissed.

I have not come across many Hindus who claim that Hinduism is the preferable way.( I am assuming you are talking about the Krishna sect or the Swaminarayan sect). If they do, they do not really understand Hinduism. Hinduism is not really a religion at all. It is simply a way of life. Hindus have never ever tried to convert anyone to Hinduism. In fact, strictly you could not become one even if you wanted to. You are only born a Hindu. It is a pretty exclusive club. Hinduism learns from other religions and if it likes something, it just incorporates it into Hinduism and moves on. And Hindus don't really differentiate between the Gods of one religion or the other. You will find a hindu walking into a church and pray to Jesus as devoutly as any other Christian. To him, it does not matter that Jesus is not a Hindu God. What matters is that you think he is God and that is good enough for him. He will respect your God as much as his own. So I will have to disagree with your belief that Hindus will say their religion is better and yours in inferior.

And you are right. A Hindu does not care if you embrace the values of Hinduism or not or reject it. You are welcome to any choice you make including the one to dismiss it. But you must understand that Hinduism survived centuries of muslim rule without being obliterated. It never even occurred to the muslims to convert Hindus to their fold in an aggressive manner. And that probably is because Hindus are not aggressive about their religion which again is because it is not really a religion but a way of life. Religion is a part of it of course.

Take for example, someone like me. I am an atheist. I am still a Hindu. I am welcome to not believe in God and still other Hindus will welcome me as a Hindu. It just does not matter what my beliefs are. I suppose it is something you have to experience to understand truly.

Immanuel Can wrote: I agree with the "unbelievably extraordinary" nature of reality. This "unbelieveableness" is one of the things that makes Intelligent Design such a hard thesis to resist. Even Richard Dawkins claims this is true. Now, he says you've got to resist it anyway, but even he acknowledges that we are all inclined to be drawn to worship by it.

But you are right on two counts: the category "evil" only appears if there is a God. Otherwise, it is an illusion, or a mere statement of personal preference, not an objective reality.

So let me try a simple thesis on you:

1. If God does not exist, there is no category by which paedophelia can rightly be called "evil."
2. But paedophelia IS evil.
3. Therefore, there is a God.

1. Whether God exists or not, paedophilia harms children and those who understand that should try to prevent it because healthy children are important for the propagation of the species.

2. Paedophilia is evil only if God exists and designed the world and its systems.

3. No intelligent being would design the inhabitants and provide them with an environment to thrive in and at the same time allow kinks in the environment to last which would harm the inhabitants of that environment because it would be a senseless thing to do. God would not create humans and allow pedophilia to last since all it would take is a slight tweak in the design. Pedophilia exists. Therefore there is no God.

I would be honoured. But let us not argue. Arguing involves entrenched positions and anger, and is done by opponents. Let us rather share insights and discuss ideas calmly, and be friends.

Again, the phrasing. I should debate more with you. How's that?

sthitapragya wrote: How's that?

Honestly? I remain perplexed.

It's like when I was speaking of the two different ways Hinduism speaks -- as both inclusive and exclusive. Note that you do the same: for when you say,

If they do, they do not really understand Hinduism.

...you are excluding them from "the knowing" of Hinduism, and placing the Krishna sect or the Swaminarayan sect (which you specifically mention) as a kind of second-rate or inferior Hindu. How you can do this while claiming there are no standards for being a Hindu, and that Hinduism is entirely inclusive -- a philosophy, not a religion -- is really incomprehensible...even, apparently, to Hindus of those sects.

Something just doesn't make any sense there. If there are no standards for being a Hindu, then no one can "not really understand" them. And if there are standards, then Hinduism is not inclusive, and speaks with two voices...one inclusive, one exclusive.

More importantly for our discussion, when you brought up paedophelia, it was as an example of a horror that you used to assert that it simply should not exist if any God did. But now you say paedophelia isn't even really wrong. So if that's the case, you've just undermined your own key example of why you feel justified in believing God doesn't exist.

So two questions: is Hinduism a particular belief, or just any belief anyone wants to invent; and secondly, is paedophelia wrong or not, in your worldview?

Moreover, if it's not, then you have answered your own question: for you, anyway, God can exist again, because there is really nothing wrong with the world.

Are you happy with that conclusion?

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: How's that?

Honestly? I remain perplexed.

It's like when I was speaking of the two different ways Hinduism speaks -- as both inclusive and exclusive. Note that you do the same: for when you say,

If they do, they do not really understand Hinduism.

...you are excluding them from "the knowing" of Hinduism, and placing the Krishna sect or the Swaminarayan sect (which you specifically mention) as a kind of second-rate or inferior Hindu. How you can do this while claiming there are no standards for being a Hindu, and that Hinduism is entirely inclusive -- a philosophy, not a religion -- is really incomprehensible...even, apparently, to Hindus of those sects.

Something just doesn't make any sense there. If there are no standards for being a Hindu, then no one can "not really understand" them. And if there are standards, then Hinduism is not inclusive, and speaks with two voices...one inclusive, one exclusive.

More importantly for our discussion, when you brought up paedophelia, it was as an example of a horror that you used to assert that it simply should not exist if any God did. But now you say paedophelia isn't even really wrong. So if that's the case, you've just undermined your own key example of why you feel justified in believing God doesn't exist.

So two questions: is Hinduism a particular belief, or just any belief anyone wants to invent; and secondly, is paedophelia wrong or not, in your worldview?

Moreover, if it's not, then you have answered your own question: for you, anyway, God can exist again, because there is really nothing wrong with the world.

Are you happy with that conclusion?

First of all not understanding Hinduism is not being inferior to Hinduism. The krishna sect or the swaminarayan sects are subsets of Hinduism which focus on the religious aspect of Hinduism more than the way of life Hinduism. So definitely followers of a sect are not exposed to the fullness of Hinduism as that might be against the interest of the sect itself.

There are standards for being a Hindu. You have to be born one. And I never said Hinduism was inclusive. It is exclusive. I made that clear at the outset. You seem to have missed that. Hinduism caters to all kinds of belief systems. If you want to gain from prayer, there are mantras. If you want to be happy, there are alternatives. If you want to find God, Hinduism shows you how. If you want mocha, no problem. Don't believe in God, no problem. It has something for you too.

I can't seem to get the point across how ever I try. The concept of right and wrong, sin etc are directly associated with God. If God does not exist, sin, right and wrong do not exist. They are interdependent. If God exists, paedophilia is wrong and a sin. If God does not exist, paedophilia is harmful to children and those who understand that should prevent it for the good of the species.

So in my world view, there are no rights or wrongs. There are things which are good for the species and detrimental to it. Paedophilia is detrimental to the species and should therefore be prevented by those who understand this. Our ultimate aim is survival of the species. If we can maximise the benefits and minimise the damage to the species, we will survive. Otherwise we will become extinct.

sthitapragya wrote:
So in my world view, there are no rights or wrongs. There are things which are good for the species and detrimental to it. Paedophilia is detrimental to the species and should therefore be prevented by those who understand this. Our ultimate aim is survival of the species. If we can maximise the benefits and minimise the damage to the species, we will survive. Otherwise we will become extinct.

Like I said before, you seem like a Machiavellian kind of guy.

NO rights or wrongs ???

Excuse me then while I murder you and eat your liver because I like liver and yours is as good as any to eat.

I like heart too.

sthitapragya wrote:First of all not understanding Hinduism is not being inferior to Hinduism.

That doesn't solve the problem. You've redefined the axis, but retained the dichotomy here. Now the dichotomy is "understand/not understand." And then there's

fullness of Hinduism

...in contrast to less-than-fully-exposed Hinduism.

Then you say,

There are standards for being a Hindu. You have to be born one.

Then it's neither a religion nor a philosophy. It's genetic, and that's all. And you cannot recommend it to anyone, because lacking the "birth" criterion, they cannot be a Hindu.

Now you have a further dichotomy: Hindu / non-Hindu.

If you want to find God, Hinduism shows you how.

More implicit dichotomy: those who (want to) find god / those who do not.

I can't seem to get the point across how ever I try.

I think that Ravi Zacharias (a former Hindu himself) has correctly identified the reason for that. It's not your fault you find it difficult to defend Hinduism rationally; Hinduism itself is simply inconsistent on that point.

If God does not exist, paedophilia is harmful to children and those who understand that should prevent it for the good of the species.
There's no reason to accept the supposition "We must do the good of the species," particularly when it contradicts our personal interest. You would need to prove that one.

Meanwhile, even if you could (which I think you cannot, at least not in a rational way from your worldview) you would be now making an argument for the paedophelia of all young women of fertile age, and the turning of all adult women into breeding stock. That would serve the survival interests of the species, since it would be the surest way to the creating of the most people. But I'm relieved to say you have no grounds for any belief we owe anything to the species, if that same species is nothing but the contingent product of an indifferent universe.

Even extinction is not "wrong" for the race, if there are no rights and wrongs. Species die all the time, some by human causes and others by natural selection or climate change, such as the ice age. Thus you are left without a rational, non-partisan basis for caring about the extinction of your own species.

So in my world view, there are no rights or wrongs.

Then you have not a single basis for complaint against the belief in God. Nothing's wrong with the world, just as I said earlier. Even false belief in God is not "wrong," for no such thing as "wrong" exists. And we have solved your anxieties on that point.

Or have we? I suspect we have not.