Would Polytheism Be Better For Us ?

[Catison]

The whole notion of a "prime mover" or "intelligent designer" as necessary starting point has been refuted.  Dawkins and other have done this again and again.  And, for what it's worth, it was obvious to me decades before I read Dawkins.  The key points boil down to simple, reductive logic:  if the universe required an intelligent designer, where did the intellgent designer come from?

I immediately get suspicious when I have to be told that I am about to get "simple, reductive logic".  Of course it is a natural question to ask.  If the universe needs a prime mover then why not just make the universe the prime mover?  The problem with the universe itself is that it does not contain any of the metaphysical ideas we take for granted every day.  The laws of physics cannot form a basis for morality, they cannot give us a meaning for love or music or art.  It all just becomes "stuff".  This is fine, but...

The freedom of people to choose "right" or "wrong" is not in question.  And there is no necessity that this freedom was confered by a supernatural being.  By the way my definition of right vs. wrong is utilitarian -- what is conducive of the greatest good for the greatest number;  it categorically does not derive from devine ordinance.

...then there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" in the sense you want those words to mean.  Your utilitarian definition seems good enough until you try to apply it.  If I have a different utilitarian definition, like, what is conducive for the greatest good for me, then we are in conflict.  And good luck trying to convince me otherwise, if you don't appeal to something greater than both of us that is "right" no matter who believes it.  Under a strictly material universe, the word "right" changes depending on who is invoking it.  But then if someone breaks one of your "rights", what gives you the authority to punish them?  How do we know that he/she isn't just following their own conception of what is "right".  Once you get rid of a prime mover, you immediately have no justification for the concept of "natural" law.

[Dr. Dread]

I like cheese.

[karlhenning]

...then there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" in the sense you want those words to mean.  Your utilitarian definition seems good enough until you try to apply it.

A hit, a very palpable hit.

[Florestan]

what is conducive of the greatest good for the greatest number

This is a pure ideological construct bearing no relevance at all to the real world. The greatest good for the greatest number has never been possible, nor will it ever be. What is good for me might not be good for you; happiness is an individual, personal thing and the only way to make the greatest number happy involves first, decreeing what constitutes the greatest good and second, decreeing who belongs to the greatest number. If it sounds like totalitarianism, it is not for a reason: utilitarianism differs from it by only three letters .

[Elgarian]

Here is my position in a nutshell:

May I make a recommendation without seeming to be patronising (which, I promise, isn't my intention)? I know it's tempting, but I'd resist the impulse to do the nutshell thing. Someone (I forget who) once said that any argument that can be put in a nutshell probably belongs in one, and although that may sound a bit too clever by half, I think it's probably wise in the context of a discussion like this one.

1.  I was born into a Catholic family but I now understand that Christianity is simply a big myth. I am now a rationalist.
2.  I find the teleological arguments for a supernatural being very convincing.
3.  I do not believe that a person can be considered truly mature if he or she is an adherent to one of the organized religions : Judaism, Christianity, Islam.
4.  I believe that philosophy and living in accordance with  natural law  is the best way.

I'd be surprised if anyone with such convictions as these - and such apparently firmly held convictions - would find much value in the responses I've given to your questions so far.

[DavidRoss]

It's not easy to know which is which, don't you think? [You betcha!] We're very good at fooling ourselves (and sometimes, others) about precisely what is driving us - and the recognition of your last point there ("with reason applied only insofar as it can rationalize a decision already made") can be the most elusive of all. What we might call 'the Dawkins position', for example, is a classic example of it, with a flurry of apparent rationalism providing a smokescreen for the essentially emotional core.

The role that intuition plays in science is interesting. One of the classic examples is Millikan's discovery of the electron. His notebooks make it pretty clear that his intuition was the primary driving force behind his experiments - even to the point of him finding reasons for excluding results that didn't fit the hypothesis. Don't get me wrong - Millikan was a fine scientist; but even the best scientists don't always behave as rationally as we might suppose.

Yes--when I first began studying such matters I was fascinated by Millikan, Kekule's dream, Pauling's paper dolls, and so on as evidence that something more was going on than the classical model of scientific inquiry and progress could account for.  Consideration of precisely these examples suggested the model positing background processing of data coupled with a knower both consciously and unconsciously sifting that data to exclude some results and shout "Eureka!" at others.  Is Millikan essentially different from the wife who vaguely "intuits" that something's not right and follows her intuitions to discover the lipstick stains and mid-day motel receipts that then constitute evidence of her husband's affair?

The problem with the universe itself is that it does not contain any of the metaphysical ideas we take for granted every day.  The laws of physics cannot form a basis for morality, they cannot give us a meaning for love or music or art. 

Indeed, the "laws of physics" don't even exist in the material universe, but only as imaginary entities valued for our practical applications of their predictive power--which laws are modified or discarded as soon as we "discover" (or invent) laws with greater predictive power.

[Elgarian]

I like cheese.

Then it's a jolly good job that the Divine Cheesemaker, in His boundless Wisdom, likes cheese too, don't y'think? Otherwise, I shudder to contemplate what the consequences might be.

[Fëanor]

...  If the universe needs a prime mover then why not just make the universe the prime mover?  The problem with the universe itself is that it does not contain any of the metaphysical ideas we take for granted every day.  The laws of physics cannot form a basis for morality, they cannot give us a meaning for love or music or art.  It all just becomes "stuff".  ...

Huh

If "metaphysical ideas" exist, the universe contains them ipso facto.  Like many religionists, you are trying to enforce a dualism that is unnecessary in the interpretation of reality.

[Fëanor]

This is a pure ideological construct bearing no relevance at all to the real world. The greatest good for the greatest number has never been possible, nor will it ever be. What is good for me might not be good for you; happiness is an individual, personal thing and the only way to make the greatest number happy involves first, decreeing what constitutes the greatest good and second, decreeing who belongs to the greatest number. If it sounds like totalitarianism, it is not for a reason: utilitarianism differs from it by only three letters .

Well, I don't agree.

"The greatest good for the greatest number" is indeed an ideological construct.  You are quite correct, of course, that no two people in the world will ever completely agree on what comprises it.  But that's why we have democratic government forms, that is, in order that we can arrive at a consensus or at least a majority view of what it is and attempt to bring it about.

After all, what is the alternative?  Reliance on devine ordinance?  Can any two people agree exactly what that is either?  Or do we rely on, say, the Roman Catholic Church to tell us?  That certainly is totalitarian.

[karlhenning]

Then it's a jolly good job that the Divine Cheesemaker, in His boundless Wisdom, likes cheese too, don't y'think? Otherwise, I shudder to contemplate what the consequences might be.

You've got hold of entirely the wrong end of the matter.

In all events, it's a good thing the Most High is not capriciously vindictive in the manner of some of His creatures  0:)

[karlhenning]

"The greatest good for the greatest number" is indeed an ideological construct.  You are quite correct, of course, that no two people in the world will ever completely agree on what comprises it.  But that's why we have democratic government forms, that is, in order that we can arrive at a consensus or at least a majority view of what it is and attempt to bring it about.

So good changes with statistical fluctuations, yes?  May not at all be what you think it is (depending on how often yours is a minority opinion).

If I understand you correctly, the value good is practically meaningless, which bodes ill for your ideological construct.

[Florestan]

"The greatest good for the greatest number" is indeed an ideological construct.  You are quite correct, of course, that no two people in the world will ever completely agree on what comprises it.  But that's why we have democratic government forms, that is, in order that we can arrive at a consensus or at least a majority view of what it is and attempt to bring it about.

Are you implying that governments are about bringing happiness to people? If yes, I reiterate: it is an ideological fantasy to believe this task will ever be accomplished.

After all, what is the alternative? 

The alternative to what? I don't quite understand you. Mixing politics with religion is not going to clarify your position.

[Dr. Dread]

What does "good" have to do with "happiness"?

[karlhenning]

Who fetched happiness into this mulligatawny? 

[Dr. Dread]

Who fetched happiness into this mulligatawny? 

Read the post above mine.

[Florestan]

Who fetched happiness into this mulligatawny? 

I did. What meaning can have "the greatest good for the greatest number" if not "happiness prevails in the world"?

[karlhenning]

I did. What meaning can have "the greatest good for the greatest number" if not "happiness prevails in the world"?

Well, Feanor could be proposing good for people, whether or not it makes them happy. He may wish to push them to happiness with an iron fist 

[Dr. Dread]

I did. What meaning can have "the greatest good for the greatest number" if not "happiness prevails in the world"?

Some people don't know what's good for them, therefore they are unhappy.

[Elgarian]

You've got hold of entirely the wrong end of the matter.

But Karl, are we not told: 'Blessed are the cheesemakers'? Or did I mishear that one?

[Catison]

But Karl, are we not told: 'Blessed are the cheesemakers'? Or did I mishear that one?

In that case, "Holy Green Bay" now has nothing to do with their swiss cheese production.