P2. God, Imperatively Must Be Absolutely Perfect

[Dontaskme]

Nope, a belief in God is based on faith, i.e. belief without proof nor justifiable rational reasons.

Do you exist?

.

Nope, a belief in YOU is based on faith, i.e. belief without proof nor justifiable rational reasons..

AV...debunked.

[Immanuel Can]

Actually the whole of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Critique of Practical Reason is one deductive argument culminating in the conclusion of the grounding for absolute moral laws.

But this is a "deductive argument" that, by vast consensus of modern philosophers, falls short of its professed goal. It does not give us "absolute moral laws," but rather only those that are an optional product of Kant's own substantive commitments. It's at most an elegant but failed try at what you need here.

So we cannot use it to inform ourselves or others of what "absolute moral laws" exist. We would need to move beyond Kant to get that.

I am not getting into the details here and you can qualify that limitation for my views re morality.

You should get into the details. We need them here, if I'm to understand you.

This is a complex issue and the discussion will get frayed and split into off topic side issues like the one on chattel slavery.

In my view, the chattel slavery issue isn't a "side issue" but is rather an important test case. Test cases are very useful in examining moral problems when "the rubber meets the road," so to speak, or better put, where metaethics meets applied ethics.

I deliberately chose chattel slavery as an issue because I was quite sure you and I, and many other people on this particular forum, would be in agreement that (at least intuitively) we would regard it as immoral. By moving beyond the contentious, we can ask, "How is it that we all know slavery is wrong, especially when it is an old, dignified practice of many other societies?" And by tracing our own reasoning backwards, we can arrive at rational agreement.

I have explained this elsewhere on a collective basis.

I would like to understand your claim. So then, please point me to where you have done that.

Note I mentioned on the conventional perspective a piece of charcoal [pure carbon] is distinctively different from a diamond gem.
But if we shift to a finer perspective, the both the charcoal and diamond are exactly the same in terms of elements. If we use an electronic microscope to view both, they will have the same atomic properties except the atoms are closer together.

I'm afraid I don't grasp your explanation. It seems that you're trying to argue merely by analogy there.

The existence and acceptance of the illusory idea of God collectively provide the indirect support for some theists to commit their evil acts in the name of God.

Sure: but that is a trivial point. You may as well argue that knives provide support for some muggers to stab people, so we should ban all knives; all the while forgetting that knives also make possible both surgery and dining. In all cases, it's not Theism that's to blame; it's the particular type of Theism, along with the immoral disposition of the one using it.

Again, the fair-minded viewpoint distinguishes the cases. There are great outcomes of Theism (such as the UN statistics on Theistic charities worldwide), and bad outcomes of some very particular types of Theism, such as ISIL terrorists.

I agree the caste system is a part of Hinduism but not all Hindu sects adopt the caste system and in modern times the caste system is made illegal.

And yet, it is an inextricable part of Hinduism: meaning that Hinduism can abandon its fundamental concepts of "reincarnation" and "karma" only by becoming something other than Hinduism. And that may well be happening in the West. But a traditional Hindu can certainly tell you that that is not Hinduism as he knows it, and not as it still exists in most of India.

160 million voices can tell you that.

It is very shallow to lump up non-theists which is related to a negative.

If it's shallow for Non-Theists to be classified as "negative", it's their own fault. They picked the prefix "Non-" all by themselves, and chose to define their view as pure negation of the idea of God, with nothing positive. In fact, they're proud of it, and regard it as a strength; for they think it delivers them from having to justify any positive claims at all.

Ironically, their "Non-" if it is a claim to know something, is their only "positive" statement: namely, that they say "We positively know there is no God." If they say less (for example, "We don't know if there is a God or not, and don't want to talk about it.") then they're simply putting themselves out of the question altogether -- they are admitting they don't know, or declaring they don't care.

You can see this discussion elsewhere. It's been had.

It would be stupid to insist non-theists killed because they are not involved in theism.

I'd go further. I'd say it would be immoral to say or do such a thing.

Your number aside, I agree many are killed in secular wars but in this case we effectively must trace to the respective individual positive root ideology that trigger the killing, e.g. communism, fascism, Nazism, tribal/clan wars, drug wars, gang wars, etc.

If the variety of Atheism matters, then why doesn't the variety of Theism? Again, fair's fair: if you expect us to distinguish among Atheists, why wouldn't you expect you ought to distinguish among Theists?

However the NT and ideology of Christianity in general has shades of lesser evils like hatred for Jews and the condoning of creationism against the theory of evolution, aggressive proselytization, arrogance/superiority of their religion, etc.

You and I would have to dispute these cases individually. I don't agree with any of them. However, for the moment we can leave them aside.

The matter of the present is merely this: Non-Theism has no universal, objective standard by which to condemn anything -- anything any Theist might do, but also anything anyone else might do. And conversely, Non-Theism has no basis for praising any "good" action. It has, in fact, no information on any moral question at all. It is, as you have said, mere negation, and negation limited to a single issue.

It stays "slender" in order to avoid creating its own ideology, and then having to defend it. But in placing itself in that epistemologically-slender position, it is empty of value. It cannot ground morality, human rights, fairness and justice, political solutions, social customs, or any values whatsoever. It' is simply silent on all these questions.

And this is why it has nothing to offer on the "chattel slavery" question, too.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Actually the whole of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Critique of Practical Reason is one deductive argument culminating in the conclusion of the grounding for absolute moral laws.

But this is a "deductive argument" that, by vast consensus of modern philosophers, falls short of its professed goal. It does not give us "absolute moral laws," but rather only those that are an optional product of Kant's own substantive commitments. It's at most an elegant but failed try at what you need here.

So we cannot use it to inform ourselves or others of what "absolute moral laws" exist. We would need to move beyond Kant to get that.

Yes, I agree Kant's philosophy do not generate precise absolute moral laws but the Five Categorical Imperative is near enough for humanity to refine it by providing deeper groundings from other sources of knowledge based on empirical evidence with higher critical thinking.

As I had stated it is matter of sooner that we [humanity] will be able to establish an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics based on the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology.

This is a matter of achieving a critical mass where the inherent moral drive is expedite to higher levels within the average person.

You should get into the details. We need them here, if I'm to understand you.

This is a complex issue and the discussion will get frayed and split into off topic side issues like the one on chattel slavery.

In my view, the chattel slavery issue isn't a "side issue" but is rather an important test case. Test cases are very useful in examining moral problems when "the rubber meets the road," so to speak, or better put, where metaethics meets applied ethics.

I deliberately chose chattel slavery as an issue because I was quite sure you and I, and many other people on this particular forum, would be in agreement that (at least intuitively) we would regard it as immoral. By moving beyond the contentious, we can ask, "How is it that we all know slavery is wrong, especially when it is an old, dignified practice of many other societies?" And by tracing our own reasoning backwards, we can arrive at rational agreement.

I mentioned the principle of respecting one basic human dignity and also the Golden Rules plus other approaches to get to the deepest groundings.

I would like to understand your claim. So then, please point me to where you have done that.

Note I mentioned on the conventional perspective a piece of charcoal [pure carbon] is distinctively different from a diamond gem.
But if we shift to a finer perspective, the both the charcoal and diamond are exactly the same in terms of elements. If we use an electronic microscope to view both, they will have the same atomic properties except the atoms are closer together.

I'm afraid I don't grasp your explanation. It seems that you're trying to argue merely by analogy there.

My point is we need to shift perspectives to understand different view points, e.g. theism can be bad [collectively] and good [individually] at the same time but in different perspective.
An individual can be good when on his own but when influenced into a mob, that good person can be evil.
Thus theism on its own has its pros but the cons of theism collectively is outweighing its individual pros as we move into the future. Thus there is a need to wean off theism as a whole in the future.
Theism is after all merely a psychological impulse that drives theists to believe in a God for very selfish reason, i.e. one personal salvation from an existential crisis.
Point is this inherent existential crisis can be resolved by non-theistic means which are fool proof.

The existence and acceptance of the illusory idea of God collectively provide the indirect support for some theists to commit their evil acts in the name of God.

Sure: but that is a trivial point. You may as well argue that knives provide support for some muggers to stab people, so we should ban all knives; all the while forgetting that knives also make possible both surgery and dining. In all cases, it's not Theism that's to blame; it's the particular type of Theism, along with the immoral disposition of the one using it.

Again, the fair-minded viewpoint distinguishes the cases. There are great outcomes of Theism (such as the UN statistics on Theistic charities worldwide), and bad outcomes of some very particular types of Theism, such as ISIL terrorists.

There is a big difference between knives and ideologies.
Ideologies are mental sets [memes, viruses] that are embedded in the brain/mind that can trigger a person to act good or evil depending on elements within the ideology.

In addition, theism is an ideology that is leveraged on the most primal impulse of an existential crisis where desperate theists [like drowning people] are blinded to do the worst evils [where it is a part of their doctrine] to secure their salvation.

True, not all theists and theistic ideology are evil laden but the idea of theism works on a collective basis to provide psychological support for the evil prone to commit terrible evils in the name of God.

Thus if we can find fool proof alternatives to deal with the same existential crisis, this total replacement would be very pragmatic to resolve whatever evils that arise from theism.

I agree the caste system is a part of Hinduism but not all Hindu sects adopt the caste system and in modern times the caste system is made illegal.

And yet, it is an inextricable part of Hinduism: meaning that Hinduism can abandon its fundamental concepts of "reincarnation" and "karma" only by becoming something other than Hinduism. And that may well be happening in the West. But a traditional Hindu can certainly tell you that that is not Hinduism as he knows it, and not as it still exists in most of India.

160 million voices can tell you that.

As I had stated not all sects of Hinduism agree with the caste system.
One point with Hinduism is, the doctrines are not claimed to be immutable or cannot be changed at all as in Islam, mostly in Christianity and Judaism.
Thus a Hindu can easily discard [or has the discretion] certain doctrines which has evil elements and suffer no guilt at all.

It is very shallow to lump up non-theists which is related to a negative.

If it's shallow for Non-Theists to be classified as "negative", it's their own fault. They picked the prefix "Non-" all by themselves, and chose to define their view as pure negation of the idea of God, with nothing positive. In fact, they're proud of it, and regard it as a strength; for they think it delivers them from having to justify any positive claims at all.

Ironically, their "Non-" if it is a claim to know something, is their only "positive" statement: namely, that they say "We positively know there is no God." If they say less (for example, "We don't know if there is a God or not, and don't want to talk about it.") then they're simply putting themselves out of the question altogether -- they are admitting they don't know, or declaring they don't care.

You can see this discussion elsewhere. It's been had.

Re history, if theists had not killed non-theists and imposed theism on non-theists there would be no serious issues.
In fact the term 'atheists' was coined somewhere during the 16th century as a derogatory term to condemn non-theists for being non-believers which is 'perceived' as a threat.
Actually in the OT, non-theists are condemned as 'fools' and other name.

Thus it is the theists who initiate to transpose their psychological insecurities onto non-theists due to their own psychological weakness.
This is like thieves who commit crimes and condemned those who do not steal along with them.

Many people are not theists because they find a belief in God to be irrational which is very true due to lack of evidence.
I used to think of non-theists as fools not to believe the 'so-obvious-God' but now I know that thought was merely a psychological consolation for my own weakness.

So the most rational approach is to base on the positive approach, i.e. theism, and if non-theistic then on whatever the positive ideology that the non-theist hold, e.g. communism, fascism or whatever.
So there is no need to give serious attention to Buddhism and Jainism since they are benign positive non-theistic ideologies.

I agree there is likely for a small group who are against theists because theists believe in God but this would be very rare. It is most likely that they are against theism due to bad experiences with other theists, e.g. pedophilla priests and encountering other evil acts of theists in their life.

Your number aside, I agree many are killed in secular wars but in this case we effectively must trace to the respective individual positive root ideology that trigger the killing, e.g. communism, fascism, Nazism, tribal/clan wars, drug wars, gang wars, etc.

If the variety of Atheism matters, then why doesn't the variety of Theism? Again, fair's fair: if you expect us to distinguish among Atheists, why wouldn't you expect you ought to distinguish among Theists?

Note my point above.
We need to focus on the positive claims to identify the root causes.
It would be ridiculous to say that all non-theists must be theists to meet the theist expectations.
Thus if non-theistic communism is evil, then deal with communism specifically.

However the NT and ideology of Christianity in general has shades of lesser evils like hatred for Jews and the condoning of creationism against the theory of evolution, aggressive proselytization, arrogance/superiority of their religion, etc.

You and I would have to dispute these cases individually. I don't agree with any of them. However, for the moment we can leave them aside.

The matter of the present is merely this: Non-Theism has no universal, objective standard by which to condemn anything -- anything any Theist might do, but also anything anyone else might do.
And conversely, Non-Theism has no basis for praising any "good" action. It has, in fact, no information on any moral question at all. It is, as you have said, mere negation, and negation limited to a single issue.

It stays "slender" in order to avoid creating its own ideology, and then having to defend it. But in placing itself in that epistemologically-slender position, it is empty of value. It cannot ground morality, human rights, fairness and justice, political solutions, social customs, or any values whatsoever. It' is simply silent on all these questions.

And this is why it has nothing to offer on the "chattel slavery" question, too.

What???
Non-theists do not have any basis to condemn the killings by certain theistic Muslims?

Are you saying theists has moral grounds to make moral judgments on all human acts?
This is crazy, e.g. Muslims will insist they have a divine right to kill non-Muslim because their God sanction it as an absolute moral law. All this when God is grounded on an illusion.

Point is, at present there is an implicit moral drive that is evolving via some sort of 'invisible hand' and non-theists and theists are making general moral judgments.

It is not there explicitly at present, what humanity need to do is to abstract the underlying natural moral drives and put them to work within a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics in the near future [using Kantian Morality as a guide].

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, I agree Kant's philosophy do not generate precise absolute moral laws but the Five Categorical Imperative is near enough for humanity to refine it by providing deeper groundings from other sources of knowledge based on empirical evidence with higher critical thinking.

You can't refine dust. If Kant's philosophy does not generate an absolute moral law, then even the CI is dust. There's nothing from which humans can build anything there...no foundation, no "grounding."

Even Kant knew precisely that "grounding" was exactly what he would have to do. He hoped he had achieved his "groundwork." But you and I know he did not.

As I had stated it is matter of sooner that we [humanity] will be able to establish an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics based on the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology.

Neither "knowledge" nor "technology" are morally-generative entities. Our "knowledge" has given us perverse things like mass-manipulation and eugenics, and our "technology" has given us superviruses and atomic bombs. Too look only at the things we happen to like is to be hopelessly naive about the powers of these things. They don't make us better: they make us more powerful whether or not we happen to be good.

And power without concomitant goodness is very dangerous.

This is a complex issue and the discussion will get frayed and split into off topic side issues like the one on chattel slavery.

In my view, the chattel slavery issue isn't a "side issue" but is rather an important test case. Test cases are very useful in examining moral problems when "the rubber meets the road," so to speak, or better put, where metaethics meets applied ethics.

I deliberately chose chattel slavery as an issue because I was quite sure you and I, and many other people on this particular forum, would be in agreement that (at least intuitively) we would regard it as immoral. By moving beyond the contentious, we can ask, "How is it that we all know slavery is wrong, especially when it is an old, dignified practice of many other societies?" And by tracing our own reasoning backwards, we can arrive at rational agreement.

I mentioned the principle of respecting one basic human dignity and also the Golden Rules plus other approaches to get to the deepest groundings.

Well, unfortunately, these are so far entirely ungrounded. The GR needs to be grounded, as does the notion of "human dignity." What are your grounds for them?

Theism is after all merely a psychological impulse that drives theists to believe in a God for very selfish reason, i.e. one personal salvation from an existential crisis.

This is again, the ad hominem Freudian thing. You really need to give that up. It's such a bad fallacy.

True, not all theists and theistic ideology are evil laden but the idea of theism works on a collective basis to provide psychological support for the evil prone to commit terrible evils in the name of God.

So...Theism, you imagine, causes "terrible evils," but Atheism causes sunshine and light? Wow. Ask the victims of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot or today, North Korea what they think of the power of Atheism to save us from evils.

I agree the caste system is a part of Hinduism but not all Hindu sects adopt the caste system and in modern times the caste system is made illegal.

And yet, it is an inextricable part of Hinduism: meaning that Hinduism can abandon its fundamental concepts of "reincarnation" and "karma" only by becoming something other than Hinduism. And that may well be happening in the West. But a traditional Hindu can certainly tell you that that is not Hinduism as he knows it, and not as it still exists in most of India.

160 million voices can tell you that.

As I had stated not all sects of Hinduism agree with the caste system.

Well, the "Untouchables" have certainly been skeptical of it. Some of them have converted to Buddhism, in an effort to escape it. But that's not really relevant, even if their are other "sects" you refer to who reject those beliefs. The real question is, "Does a genuine Hinduism require those things?"

It does, unless Hinduism can exist without any doctrines of reincarnation, samsara, and karmic cycles. But I suspect that any Hindu you ask will tell you that's not possible. It would completely shatter the Hindu cosmology upon which everything depends.

One point with Hinduism is, the doctrines are not claimed to be immutable...

No, that's not how it is: in Hinduism, reality is claimed to be mutable -- but the fact that reality is mutable is not mutable. That latter belief mutates, then Hinduism itself becomes untrue.

Re history, if theists had not killed non-theists and imposed theism on non-theists there would be no serious issues.

???

I'm sorry: no "principle of charity" can save a statement so vague and wild.

Actually in the OT, non-theists are condemned as 'fools'

This is true. "The fool has said in his heart, 'No God.'" Is how it literally reads. The debatable point is not what it says, but whether or not it's true.

However, you will not find it says, "Therefore, kill all the fools." In the Bible, the existence of such fools is taken as a permanent fact in human history. It may be regrettable; but it is not something one can change. The fool can only change himself.

Many people are not theists because they find a belief in God to be irrational which is very true due to lack of evidence.

When you say "lack of evidence, " do you mean "I, AV have no evidence of God," or "Nobody else has evidence of God?" In charity, I have to ask before commenting further, because your claim could be either.

I used to think of non-theists as fools not to believe the 'so-obvious-God' but now I know that thought was merely a psychological consolation for my own weakness.

I can't believe you're so impressed with the Freudian psychological dismissal of Theism, but don't even think about Freud's parallel dismissal of Atheism in his book "Totem and Taboo." And I can't believe you still can't see that it's ad hominem and ridiculous as an argument. But okay.

Your number aside, I agree many are killed in secular wars but in this case we effectively must trace to the respective individual positive root ideology that trigger the killing, e.g. communism, fascism, Nazism, tribal/clan wars, drug wars, gang wars, etc.

Where then is this wonderful effect of Atheism to induce moral improvement?

The answer is quite simple, really. Atheism, being empty of anything but the disavowal of belief in God, offers nothing by which to structure a society, a concept of justice, a legal system, education or whatever. Instead it leaves a complete vacuum, into which some other secular ideology must rush -- for people must go on living together, and cannot do without morals, laws, education, equity, and so on -- with the result that that ideology produces all manner of evils.

But Theism's not even involved in that. And, as I say, 148 million people paid the price for our ignorance of this principle.

It would be ridiculous to say that all non-theists must be theists to meet the theist expectations.

It would, however, be impossible to say that they could do so for sound reasons. Non-Theism gives no reasons for any "expectations." It's a big, fat void on all positive questions, except for its one basic claim -- that there is no God.

Thus if non-theistic communism is evil, then deal with communism specifically.

See above. I have outlined the natural symbiosis between Atheism and malignant secular ideologies there.

The matter of the present is merely this: Non-Theism has no universal, objective standard by which to condemn anything -- anything any Theist might do, but also anything anyone else might do.
And conversely, Non-Theism has no basis for praising any "good" action. It has, in fact, no information on any moral question at all. It is, as you have said, mere negation, and negation limited to a single issue.

It stays "slender" in order to avoid creating its own ideology, and then having to defend it. But in placing itself in that epistemologically-slender position, it is empty of value. It cannot ground morality, human rights, fairness and justice, political solutions, social customs, or any values whatsoever. It' is simply silent on all these questions.

And this is why it has nothing to offer on the "chattel slavery" question, too.

What???

You want me to repeat? Okay.

Non-Theism can tell us nothing about the "chattel slavery" question. To put it another way, the statement "There is no God" does not give us any more information than that. It does not even have an implication for chattel slavery. It has absolutely no moral content, just as Peter has elsewhere so clearly said.

Non-theists do not have any basis to condemn the killings by certain theistic Muslims?

Correct. But you can see this for yourself. Try to get the claim, "There is no God" to be rationally connected to the conclusion, "Therefore, killing people is wrong." You'll quickly find that there's no logical connection possible there at all.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, I agree Kant's philosophy do not generate precise absolute moral laws but the Five Categorical Imperative is near enough for humanity to refine it by providing deeper groundings from other sources of knowledge based on empirical evidence with higher critical thinking.

You can't refine dust. If Kant's philosophy does not generate an absolute moral law, then even the CI is dust. There's nothing from which humans can build anything there...no foundation, no "grounding."

Even Kant knew precisely that "grounding" was exactly what he would have to do. He hoped he had achieved his "groundwork." But you and I know he did not.

What I meant was Kant did not propose something like theological based moral laws like those of the Torah, Bible or Quran which is supposedly delivered his message through messenger and prophet by a real God.

Note I stated the CIs are good enough for refinement as 'absolute' moral principles/laws and they are to be grounded from the arguments given by Kant plus other fields of knowledge.
I am not going into the details of the grounding but I propose they are hypothetical at this stage.

As I had stated it is matter of sooner that we [humanity] will be able to establish an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics based on the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology.

Neither "knowledge" nor "technology" are morally-generative entities. Our "knowledge" has given us perverse things like mass-manipulation and eugenics, and our "technology" has given us superviruses and atomic bombs. Too look only at the things we happen to like is to be hopelessly naive about the powers of these things. They don't make us better: they make us more powerful whether or not we happen to be good.

And power without concomitant goodness is very dangerous.

Your view is very pessimistic.
Btw, surely you are aware humanity has not completed the Human Genome Project [HGP] which was once thought as impossible.
At present, humanity is working on the Human Connectome Project to map the circuits of the whole human brain. The pessimists at present claimed this is an impossible task but I am optimistic it is possible like how we overcome the initial pessimism of the HGP.
Regardless we can achieve sufficient progress to establish an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics [FSME]. Note the blueprints of this FSME is very extensive and complex so jump to conclusion based on narrow and shallow views.

I mentioned the principle of respecting one basic human dignity and also the Golden Rules plus other approaches to get to the deepest groundings.

Well, unfortunately, these are so far entirely ungrounded. The GR needs to be grounded, as does the notion of "human dignity." What are your grounds for them?[/u]

I agree in principle, definitely they must be grounded on something objective. As mentioned I am not going into the details.

Theism is after all merely a psychological impulse that drives theists to believe in a God for very selfish reason, i.e. one personal salvation from an existential crisis.

This is again, the ad hominem Freudian thing. You really need to give that up. It's such a bad fallacy.

What ad hominen?
That is a general statement and not something personal to you.
The task is we must study the psychological and neural mechanics involved in the existential crisis.

Clue:
Hiedegger's concept of Angst [you need to dig deep into this] provide very good argument to substantiate the existential crisis.

True, not all theists and theistic ideology are evil laden but the idea of theism works on a collective basis to provide psychological support for the evil prone to commit terrible evils in the name of God.

So...Theism, you imagine, causes "terrible evils," but Atheism causes sunshine and light? Wow. Ask the victims of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot or today, North Korea what they think of the power of Atheism to save us from evils.

I have argue while we can generalize theism [positive claim for God] we cannot generalize non-theism [negative].
Thus we need to deal with each non-theistic positive ideology respectively which humanity has done, re getting rid of Nazism, Pol Pot, Communism [defanging], North Korea [negotiating], drugs, illegal immigration, crimes, etc.

And yet, it is an inextricable part of Hinduism: meaning that Hinduism can abandon its fundamental concepts of "reincarnation" and "karma" only by becoming something other than Hinduism. And that may well be happening in the West. But a traditional Hindu can certainly tell you that that is not Hinduism as he knows it, and not as it still exists in most of India.

160 million voices can tell you that.

As I had stated not all sects of Hinduism agree with the caste system.

Well, the "Untouchables" have certainly been skeptical of it. Some of them have converted to Buddhism, in an effort to escape it. But that's not really relevant, even if their are other "sects" you refer to who reject those beliefs. The real question is, "Does a genuine Hinduism require those things?"

It does, unless Hinduism can exist without any doctrines of reincarnation, samsara, and karmic cycles. But I suspect that any Hindu you ask will tell you that's not possible. It would completely shatter the Hindu cosmology upon which everything depends.

One point with Hinduism is, the doctrines are not claimed to be immutable...

No, that's not how it is: in Hinduism, reality is claimed to be mutable -- but the fact that reality is mutable is not mutable. That latter belief mutates, then Hinduism itself becomes untrue.

India has already banned the caste system which indicate there is no such thing as 'genuine' Hinduism, like Judaism, Christianity and Islam which is conditioned to a specific book.
Hinduism is represented by a few mainstream religions and hundreds of sects.

Note Buddhism mutated from Hinduism in general and became independent of Hinduism in general.
Thus it is possible for all the current schools and sects within 'Hinduism' to mutate with different core principles but can still be contained within 'Hinduism'.

It is said the Hinduism is merely a collection of religious practice East [?] of or surrounding the Hindus river.

[Immanuel Can]

What I meant was Kant did not propose something like theological based moral laws like those of the Torah, Bible or Quran which is supposedly delivered his message through messenger and prophet by a real God.

No grounding, though. To say, "Kant did not" only tells is what he did not do, NOT what he achieved.

Note I stated the CIs are good enough for refinement as 'absolute' moral principles/laws and they are to be grounded from the arguments given by Kant plus other fields of knowledge.
I am not going into the details of the grounding but I propose they are hypothetical at this stage.

They're non-existent, actually. There is not only no grounding in Kant, but you really can't expect to rush past with a phrase like "other fields of knowledge" without being questioned. Throwing, "I am not going into the details" in at the end just marks the whole thing indubitably as a bluff.

As I had stated it is matter of sooner that we [humanity] will be able to establish an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics based on the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology.

Neither "knowledge" nor "technology" are morally-generative entities. Our "knowledge" has given us perverse things like mass-manipulation and eugenics, and our "technology" has given us superviruses and atomic bombs. Too look only at the things we happen to like is to be hopelessly naive about the powers of these things. They don't make us better: they make us more powerful whether or not we happen to be good.

And power without concomitant goodness is very dangerous.

Your view is very pessimistic.

No, not at all. I'm a believer in morality -- but I can see were never going to find it suddenly, magically emerges from more "knowledge and technology." That's a fantasy, as history has already taught us. Our most "knowledgeable" and "technological" societies have also sometimes been our most brutal. Think of Germany just before WWII, for example: a world leader in technology, knowledge, power, scholarship and culture. But what a disaster, from a moral perspective.

I mentioned the principle of respecting one basic human dignity and also the Golden Rules plus other approaches to get to the deepest groundings.

Well, unfortunately, these are so far entirely ungrounded. The GR needs to be grounded, as does the notion of "human dignity." What are your grounds for them?[/u]

I agree in principle, definitely they must be grounded on something objective. As mentioned I am not going into the details.

But that is the most urgent issue: just HOW are they to be grounded? Absent an answer to that, you've left us all with no means of knowing we actually owe them to anyone -- and how can that be good? Our belief in them must remain uncertain until we know the WHY.

Any child knows enough to ask that question. We must surely answer.

Note Buddhism mutated from Hinduism in general and became independent of Hinduism in general.
Thus it is possible for all the current schools and sects within 'Hinduism' to mutate with different core principles but can still be contained within 'Hinduism'.

Buddhists consider themselves different from Hindus...hence the change in name and a special motivating figure (Buddha). It was the caste system primarily that they rejected; and once they did, they could no longer remain "Hindus," you see.

So it simply makes my case: there are limits to what you can do to any religious system before it ceases to be a possible "mutation" and has to become a separate thing. Buddhism did just that, despite its origin and some remaining similarities with Hinduism.

[uwot]

Try to get the claim, "There is no God" to be rationally connected to the conclusion, "Therefore, killing people is wrong." You'll quickly find that there's no logical connection possible there at all.

Mr Can, you cannot even demonstrate that there is a god, so by your reasoning you cannot conclude that "killing people is wrong." Your belief that killing people is wrong, because god says so is no stronger than the belief that killing people is wrong that most sane people worked out for themselves.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Try to get the claim, "There is no God" to be rationally connected to the conclusion, "Therefore, killing people is wrong." You'll quickly find that there's no logical connection possible there at all.

Mr Can, you cannot even demonstrate that there is a god, so by your reasoning you cannot conclude that "killing people is wrong." Your belief that killing people is wrong, because god says so is no stronger than the belief that killing people is wrong that most sane people worked out for themselves.

Come on uwot, you know he's a mindless twit that requires commandments or he wouldn't have a clue as to how he should act. So I've come to the conclusion that he's either a liar or a fool. Quite possibly both, as neither one necessarily precludes the other.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What I meant was Kant did not propose something like theological based moral laws like those of the Torah, Bible or Quran which is supposedly delivered his message through messenger and prophet by a real God.

No grounding, though. To say, "Kant did not" only tells is what he did not do, NOT what he achieved.

Note I stated the CIs are good enough for refinement as 'absolute' moral principles/laws and they are to be grounded from the arguments given by Kant plus other fields of knowledge.
I am not going into the details of the grounding but I propose they are hypothetical at this stage.

They're non-existent, actually. There is not only no grounding in Kant, but you really can't expect to rush past with a phrase like "other fields of knowledge" without being questioned. Throwing, "I am not going into the details" in at the end just marks the whole thing indubitably as a bluff.

As I had questioned in the other post, have you read Kant fully and thoroughly to make the above judgment that is introduced no grounding at all?
The point is Kant understood the need for grounding is imperative and he did argue for it.
In principle I agree there must be grounding that are objective, which is better than a dismissive view.
It is just that I am not going into the details [imo, no point when you do not have the basics] and I will accept this limitation.

Neither "knowledge" nor "technology" are morally-generative entities. Our "knowledge" has given us perverse things like mass-manipulation and eugenics, and our "technology" has given us superviruses and atomic bombs. Too look only at the things we happen to like is to be hopelessly naive about the powers of these things. They don't make us better: they make us more powerful whether or not we happen to be good.

And power without concomitant goodness is very dangerous.

Your view is very pessimistic.

No, not at all. I'm a believer in morality -- but I can see were never going to find it suddenly, magically emerges from more "knowledge and technology." That's a fantasy, as history has already taught us. Our most "knowledgeable" and "technological" societies have also sometimes been our most brutal.
Think of Germany just before WWII, for example: a world leader in technology, knowledge, power, scholarship and culture. But what a disaster, from a moral perspective.

In terms of knowledge and technology it is too crude to refer to the past in view of the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology.
Note I had mentioned for example the Human Genome Project and Human Connectome Project plus many others. We do have these and others prior and during WWII/

My optimism is based on the potential of advancing knowledge that will be able to expedite the progress of the inherent moral drive on neural basis within the average human being exponentially. It will not happen at present by very possible in the near future.

I believe there are already the trend of an evolving inherent moral drive within humanity, e.g. the abolition of chattel slavery and improvements other moral issues on a global scale.

You are one of those who belong to the group of pessimists who would pour cold water over whatever is proposed for good, e.g. those who believe no human will be able to step on the moon, etc. Resistance to change is a strong instinct for some.

Well, unfortunately, these are so far entirely ungrounded. The GR needs to be grounded, as does the notion of "human dignity." What are your grounds for them?[/u]

I agree in principle, definitely they must be grounded on something objective. As mentioned I am not going into the details.

But that is the most urgent issue: just HOW are they to be grounded? Absent an answer to that, you've left us all with no means of knowing we actually owe them to anyone -- and how can that be good? Our belief in them must remain uncertain until we know the WHY.

Any child knows enough to ask that question. We must surely answer.

Note my reason above on why in principle I agree there must be grounding [objective] but I am not going into a discussion of grounding.

Note Buddhism mutated from Hinduism in general and became independent of Hinduism in general.
Thus it is possible for all the current schools and sects within 'Hinduism' to mutate with different core principles but can still be contained within 'Hinduism'.

Buddhists consider themselves different from Hindus...hence the change in name and a special motivating figure (Buddha). It was the caste system primarily that they rejected; and once they did, they could no longer remain "Hindus," you see.

So it simply makes my case: there are limits to what you can do to any religious system before it ceases to be a possible "mutation" and has to become a separate thing. Buddhism did just that, despite its origin and some remaining similarities with Hinduism.

Obviously you are ignorant of the core principles and reasons why Buddhism parted from general Hinduism.

The main contention between Buddhism and Hinduism [general] is the dichotomy between anatman versus atman respectively, and no-Brahman versus Brahman.

[Immanuel Can]

As I had questioned in the other post, have you read Kant fully and thoroughly to make the above judgment that is introduced no grounding at all?

And as I answered there, yes, I believe I have: but if you have anything I have not seen in that regard, I'd be delighted to have the reference.

The point is Kant understood the need for grounding is imperative and he did argue for it.

No, he didn't. If you think he did, then let's have the reference, and that will settle what he did or did not do.

My optimism is based on the potential of advancing knowledge that will be able to expedite the progress of the inherent moral drive on neural basis within the average human being exponentially. It will not happen at present by very possible in the near future.

As I say, I think this is all "sunshine and roses." Neither history, nor, (I expect) the future, will buoy that optimism.

I agree in principle, definitely they must be grounded on something objective. As mentioned I am not going into the details.

But that is the most urgent issue: just HOW are they to be grounded? Absent an answer to that, you've left us all with no means of knowing we actually owe them to anyone -- and how can that be good? Our belief in them must remain uncertain until we know the WHY.

Any child knows enough to ask that question. We must surely answer.

Note my reason above on why in principle I agree there must be grounding [objective] but I am not going into a discussion of grounding.

Again, I can see why. You have no answer.

There is no grounding for secular morality. No wonder you don't want to have to suggest any. I can't blame you, given your situation. But maybe, if that's the case, it's a situation you shouldn't remain in.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had questioned in the other post, have you read Kant fully and thoroughly to make the above judgment that is introduced no grounding at all?

And as I answered there, yes, I believe I have: but if you have anything I have not seen in that regard, I'd be delighted to have the reference.

The point is Kant understood the need for grounding is imperative and he did argue for it.

No, he didn't. If you think he did, then let's have the reference, and that will settle what he did or did not do.

The whole of Kant's grounding is represented by his book, i.e. The Critique of Practical Reason. In this case it would not be effective for me to quote a few verses/passages.

My optimism is based on the potential of advancing knowledge that will be able to expedite the progress of the inherent moral drive on neural basis within the average human being exponentially. It will not happen at present by very possible in the near future.

As I say, I think this is all "sunshine and roses." Neither history, nor, (I expect) the future, will buoy that optimism.

It is my optimism versus your pessimism which is very negative.
I have already supported my optimism the exponential advancement of knowledge and the trend of the progress of acts that are good [e.g. chattel slavery, co-operation on global warming, ISS, pollution, etc.].

But that is the most urgent issue: just HOW are they to be grounded? Absent an answer to that, you've left us all with no means of knowing we actually owe them to anyone -- and how can that be good? Our belief in them must remain uncertain until we know the WHY.

Any child knows enough to ask that question. We must surely answer.

Note my reason above on why in principle I agree there must be grounding [objective] but I am not going into a discussion of grounding.

Again, I can see why. You have no answer.

So be it.
I have provided the necessary.

There is no grounding for secular morality. No wonder you don't want to have to suggest any. I can't blame you, given your situation. But maybe, if that's the case, it's a situation you shouldn't remain in.

I did not claim there are explicit groundings for secular morality AT PRESENT.
What I have proposed is humanity must establish moral groundings [improved from the CI] within an effective Framework and System of Morality and System.
I have already explained the basis for such a framework to be installed in the future.

Perhaps we can borrow some good points from the current theological moral model but we need to throw away wholesale the immutable theological moral model.

It is obvious the theological moral model is very limited and has side effects that inspire SOME believers to do evil acts to please God.
The immoral thing is that you want to stick to such an effective theological moral model?

On the other hand, the average human must take responsible to build an effective secular Framework and System of Morality and Ethics toward the future that is fool proof to facilitate the continual progress of humanity.
You seemingly prefer to live within a moral straight-jacket and do not want progress at all which in a way that you are indirectly complicit to the evil acts from that rigid theological moral model.

[Immanuel Can]

The whole of Kant's grounding is represented by his book, i.e. The Critique of Practical Reason. In this case it would not be effective for me to quote a few verses/passages.

If that's your answer, then I'm quite confident it's not there.

Note my reason above on why in principle I agree there must be grounding [objective] but I am not going into a discussion of grounding.

Again, I can see why. You have no answer.

So be it.
I have provided the necessary.

You have not. You could have, and you even said you knew it existed, for a fact; but you didn't. The natural conclusion: you don't have it.

I did not claim there are explicit groundings for secular morality AT PRESENT.

Good. That's true. But then it destroys your earlier claims that Kant did it. He did not, you now admit.

Perhaps we can borrow some good points from the current theological moral model but we need to throw away wholesale the immutable theological moral model.

That's been suggested. The problem with that that's always been found is that it throws away the groundwork for that morality. And then one can believe a precept like, say, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," if one wants to -- but one can't explain why anyone is bad to commit adultery, if they don't share your opinion.

Without groundwork, morality is mere propaganda, a mere power-play in which the weak try to bamboozle the strong into behaving the way that serves the weak's interests. Nietzsche saw that clearly.

It is obvious the theological moral model is very limited and has side effects that inspire SOME believers to do evil acts to please God.
The immoral thing is that you want to stick to such an effective theological moral model?

Islam is not my theological model -- not my god, not my prophet, not my book, not my community, and not my morality.

[Reflex]

P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

P1. Perfection cannot be realized in space-time.
P2. Therefore, a perfect God cannot fully manifest in space-time.
C. “God does not exist” does not follow P1 and 2.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The whole of Kant's grounding is represented by his book, i.e. The Critique of Practical Reason. In this case it would not be effective for me to quote a few verses/passages.

If that's your answer, then I'm quite confident it's not there.

Again, I can see why. You have no answer.

So be it.
I have provided the necessary.

You have not. You could have, and you even said you knew it existed, for a fact; but you didn't. The natural conclusion: you don't have it.

I did not claim there are explicit groundings for secular morality AT PRESENT.

Good. That's true. But then it destroys your earlier claims that Kant did it. He did not, you now admit.

Perhaps we can borrow some good points from the current theological moral model but we need to throw away wholesale the immutable theological moral model.

That's been suggested. The problem with that that's always been found is that it throws away the groundwork for that morality. And then one can believe a precept like, say, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," if one wants to -- but one can't explain why anyone is bad to commit adultery, if they don't share your opinion.

Without groundwork, morality is mere propaganda, a mere power-play in which the weak try to bamboozle the strong into behaving the way that serves the weak's interests. Nietzsche saw that clearly.

It is obvious the theological moral model is very limited and has side effects that inspire SOME believers to do evil acts to please God.
The immoral thing is that you want to stick to such an effective theological moral model?

Islam is not my theological model -- not my god, not my prophet, not my book, not my community, and not my morality.

Note I stated [somewhere] Kant's grounding is 90% not 95% or 99%.
For more reliable grounding we need > 90% grounding.
This is why I stated at present there are no claim for >90% grounding, thus we have to work on it via a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics using the Kantian model as a guide.

Do you have a Moral System with a better grounding than the Kantian Model?
As far as I am aware yours is the theistic moral model grounded on a God which is illusory who delivered moral laws via a messenger or Son. Actually whatever is claimed to be from a Son of God and written in a holy book is man-made.

[Veritas Aequitas]

P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

P1. Perfection cannot be realized in space-time.
P2. Therefore, a perfect God cannot fully manifest in space-time.
C. “God does not exist” does not follow P1 and 2.

Agree.

My point is theists claim God as implied has to be imperatively and absolutely perfect in space-time.
There are many forms of God.
The God of the majority answers prayers thus has to be in space-time to listen and response to the prayers of human in space-time.
The pantheist God is embedded with space-time.

Panentheism (meaning "all-in-God", from the Ancient Greek πᾶν pân, "all", ἐν en, "in" and Θεός Theós, "God")[1] is the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond time and space.
-wiki

Panentheism claims God is beyond time and space but nevertheless is still within time and space in every part of the universe.

So,
Theists claim,
God must be absolutely perfect [cannot be compromised in any lesser way]
God is within space and time,
Your P1; Perfection cannot be realized in space-time.
Therefore it is impossible for God to exists as real within space-time.