Intro to Derf

[PureX]

Hi PureX,
I still think you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. How can we have a creator (who is obviously outside ourselves) when we don't have anything outside ourselves???

It is a mystery, isn't it. Here we are, these extraordinarily complex and self-aware beings, and yet we have no idea why we exist: what we're here, for. We have no understanding of our origin or purpose, except what we choose to imagine, and believe, for ourselves.

How can you tell me what God intended without somehow embodying God's authority?

It's easy, I just use logic, and then speculate. I don't now why we exist. But I can logically assume that my not knowing is part of the reason, if there is a reason. My not knowing is actually a kind of gift, because it allows me to speculate, and to choose from among the various possibilities my mind can conjure up, which reason I want to be true. And then I can choose to live, accordingly, and see what comes of it.

And lo and behold! I find that I am in effect, 'creating myself' through this process of inventing my own 'divine purpose', and then living to achieve it. And as I look around me, I see that everyone else is doing the same thing, each in their own way. So I'm feeling free to share my observations with you.

I have no "authority" over anyone. Nor do I want any. Nor will I allow anyone else to claim authority over me in this regard. I have free will, by nature of my being human, and I intend to exercise it. And protect it.

You sound like a religionist to me, telling me what God says and what He doesn't say, what He wants us to do and what He doesn't want us to do, while at the same time you are denigrating all religionists (does that include yourself, or are you somehow above the fray?).

God doesn't "say" anything to anyone, that I know of. All I'm telling you is what I have observed, and what I have come to believe as a result. None of us wield God's "authority". And any religion or religionist that tries to claim otherwise, is lying.

Discussing religious doctrines is mostly a waste of time. I think it's more effective to discuss ethics, instead. But even those discussions are mostly a waste of time, too. What matters more, is to study how what we claim to believe about our relationship with ourselves and each other (and "God") is honestly effecting ourselves and each other. THAT is how we can truly learn about ourselves and our behaviors and motivations. To the extent that religions can help us do this, they are useful. To the extent that religions distract or discourage us from doing this, they are an impediment, and should be discarded.

Where did you get the authority to make such statements? Answer these questions for me, please:

How do you know "We don't have anything outside ourselves"?

Because if we did, we would all know it, and could show how we know it. And we don't, and we can't.

How do you know "that 'true moral authority' and so many others seek does not exist in this world"?

Just look around you, it's obvious. Everyone is deciding for themselves what is "moral" and what isn't. Even the ones who claim they follow some divine moral authority are still choosing to do this, for themselves. And are each doing it in their own way, by their own understanding.

How do you know "our Creator has deemed it so"?

Because it IS SO. If there is a Creator, one has to assume that what has been created is what the Creator intended to be.

How do you know "We are all here to choose our own view of existence"?

Because we are all choosing our own view of (way of understanding) existence. Even those who join the cults, and let other people tell them what to think, believe, and how to live, are still choosing to turn themselves over to the cult. They have no escaped the responsibility of free will, even though they've tried.

How do you know "[My] Creator wants [me] (and all of us) to determine right from wrong for ourselves"?

Because you ARE choosing right and wrong for yourself. Even adopting someone else's criteria is still you, choosing.

How do you know "It is not the state's place, nor yours or mine, to dictate our moral imperatives of our fellow humans"?

Because we are all responsible for our own choices. And the "state" is us. When the state tries to force people to follow some particular ideology, all that's really going on is that one group of people are trying to force their ideology on everyone else using the power of the state. It defies the laws of human nature. Eventually people will revolt, blood is spilled, and the struggle for power and control starts all over again. The PROPER function of the state is to protect individual free will, while simultaneously protecting us each form the other. NOT to tell us what is right or wrong, or to make us behave accordingly.

How do you know "Whatever you think is a valid source of truth for you, is fine, for you"?

I now this because you have free will, and you are using it even if you think you aren't. And it's "OK" because it is inevitable. It is the will of the Creator (if there is one).

These are all statements of absolute truth, …

No they aren't. Not a single one of these observations is being presented to you as an "absolute truth". These are realizations that I have observed going on in myself and in my fellow humans. You are free to accept or reject them as you wish.

… even while many of them are also statements of relative truth. How is that possible?

It's possible because the 'truth', to we humans, is both relative and dynamic. Absolute truth, from the human perspective, exists only as an ideal.

How is it that you can give me assurance of the truth of a statement that says there is no absolute truth??

I can assure you that you are not omniscient. And that, therefor, you cannot know the 'whole truth' of anything. You can only know what appears to be true relative to what else appears to be true, to you. Sorry, but that is the human condition: limited/relative bits of the truth are all we get.

 

[PureX]

I appreciate that you have softened your statement about religion. Before you talked about "the superstitions of religion" (which is a bit of a broad brush), but now you've tempered it (appropraitely):

Yes, you are quite correct: A LOT of religious doctrine is based on superstition, or based on the desires of some to control the many, which you also mentioned. These things are valid concerns!

But how do you deal with them?

Why do I need to "deal with them"? I am not in charge of what other people choose to do with their free will. And it appears to me that if I were to assume that "authority", I would be defying the Creator's will.

We have to have a discussion over doctrine. We have to find out if there is one that is true and which ones are false.

That realization is not going to come from a discussion. That can only come from the practice of the doctrine. And even then, only if we are constantly monitoring the results we are getting as we practice the doctrine.

We do that with the powers of logic, yes, but logic does not develop these ideas, it only helps us to discuss them--it helps us to determine if these things are from men (and therefore suspect) or from God (and therefore above the petty whims of man).

Logic is good, but I think honesty is far better. If we really want to seek the truth, to the limited degree that we humans can know it, we need to be rigorously honest. We need to constantly re-evaluate our criteria for what is a valuable doctrine, or ethical imperative. We need to constantly evaluate how our behavior in alignment with that doctrine or ethical imperative is increasing or decreasing the value of our experience of existence and the experiences of those around us.

Because ultimately it's not knowledge that we need, it's wisdom. And the only pathway to wisdom that I know of requires persistent honesty, and courage. Not religious authorities, and obedience.

Maybe there's a better way to state that last thought, but the point is that doctrine is not something to be feared, but something to be analyzed for truth--for consistency, perhaps.

In fact, that is what you have been doing with me for the last few posts--arguing over doctrine. If it is so fruitless, why do you engage in it?

I'm not arguing with anyone. I'm just trying to clarify my own observations and understanding of what I observe. You are free to accept or reject them as you wish, of course. I'm not here to change your mind. In fact, I'd rather you changed mine. Because for me, that would indicate progress.

 

[Derf]

Sorry PureX. I completely dropped the ball on my end by not replying when I first read your post. 'Cause then I forgot to go back to it without the little emails and post notifications.

Why do I need to "deal with them"? I am not in charge of what other people choose to do with their free will. And it appears to me that if I were to assume that "authority", I would be defying the Creator's will.

I repeated what you said, essentially, noting that if you consider it wrong to base religion on superstition or wrong for some to desire to control the many, then you are making a judgment on the freewill of both groups. I don't see how you can take the moral high ground against the exercise of free will in that way, yet pretend that doing something about it is against the Creator's will. If the Creator decides to give a person some authority over another person, and that person exercises it rightly*, then the Creator's will is not defied. But it's based on what "rightly" means, isn't it. So it drives us back to a judgment of doctrine, which requires some kind of discussion about it.

That realization is not going to come from a discussion. That can only come from the practice of the doctrine. And even then, only if we are constantly monitoring the results we are getting as we practice the doctrine.

How do we determine if the results are good or bad? what standard can you propose other than your opinion or mine or someone else's? Now we have to have a discussion about judging the results of a trial and error period where each one does what is right in his own eyes, and then each one judges the results in his own eyes. You've made the discussion about doctrine twice as hard by looking to judge the results first.

Logic is good, but I think honesty is far better. If we really want to seek the truth, to the limited degree that we humans can know it, we need to be rigorously honest. We need to constantly re-evaluate our criteria for what is a valuable doctrine, or ethical imperative. We need to constantly evaluate how our behavior in alignment with that doctrine or ethical imperative is increasing or decreasing the value of our experience of existence and the experiences of those around us.

Honesty is essential. But why? You seem to be employing a standard of right and wrong, which means you've already chosen a doctrine of some sort.

Now, what is it called when one person decides what is right and wrong for everyone else? It's called "authority", and you've already denied the ability of humans to exercise such authority at the beginning of your post: 'I am not in charge of what other people choose to do with their free will. And it appears to me that if I were to assume that "authority", I would be defying the Creator's will.'

Because ultimately it's not knowledge that we need, it's wisdom. And the only pathway to wisdom that I know of requires persistent honesty, and courage. Not religious authorities, and obedience.

I'm not arguing with anyone. I'm just trying to clarify my own observations and understanding of what I observe. You are free to accept or reject them as you wish, of course. I'm not here to change your mind. In fact, I'd rather you changed mine. Because for me, that would indicate progress.

You aren't arguing with anyone, except, perhaps, yourself. And your Creator.

An all-wise creator would understand the results of different actions, and likely command accordingly; stuff we might not understand without His insight. Thus when He might say something like, "Do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil," we might say, "But it looks good to eat and it will make us wise," not knowing that it will bring death.

Yes, we should seek wisdom, but where do we seek it from? And what kind shall we seek? It needs to be the wisdom that stands the test of time--that is more than just the results of a temporal experiment with ethics.

1Co 1:19 KJV - For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
1Co 1:20 KJV - Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
1Co 1:21 KJV - For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
1Co 1:25 KJV - Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

 

[PureX]

… if you consider it wrong to base religion on superstition or wrong for some to desire to control the many, then you are making a judgment on the freewill of both groups.

My opinion is just one among many. So I do not presume that the righteousness of my opinions apply to everyone else. That was the reason for my comment.

I don't see how you can take the moral high ground against the exercise of free will in that way, yet pretend that doing something about it is against the Creator's will.

I'm not against the exercise of free will. But I often disagree with the choices people make in their exercise of it.

If the Creator decides to give a person some authority over another person, and that person exercises it rightly*, then the Creator's will is not defied.

I am aware of no evidence or circumstance that would suggest to me that God has given any human being 'dominion over' any other human being.

But it's based on what "rightly" means, isn't it. So it drives us back to a judgment of doctrine, which requires some kind of discussion about it.

Since I do not believe this 'human authority' that you propose, exists, I can't conclude the false presumption of it, over others, to be "righteous".

How do we determine if the results are good or bad? what standard can you propose other than your opinion or mine or someone else's? Now we have to have a discussion about judging the results of a trial and error period where each one does what is right in his own eyes, and then each one judges the results in his own eyes. You've made the discussion about doctrine twice as hard by looking to judge the results first.

What you've just described is inevitable. We DO each decide for ourselves what our criteria for "good" and "bad" are. And we DO each judge our experience and understanding of reality according to it. And all there really is to discuss, then, is why we chose that criteria, and whether or not we are achieving the goals that the criteria imply.

Honesty is essential. But why? You seem to be employing a standard of right and wrong, which means you've already chosen a doctrine of some sort.

It's not about "doctrines", it's about desire. We decide what is good and what is not good by how well the phenomena fulfills our desire. But we need honesty to recognize this fundamental selfishness in ourselves. And then to assess the value of our desires, accurately.

Now, what is it called when one person decides what is right and wrong for everyone else?

The foolishness of human nature. It's inevitable that we will do this, but we can also obtain a perspective that allows us not to act on it, through honest self-awareness. Which is very important, because acting on such hubris almost always has damaging results for everyone involved.

It's called "authority", and you've already denied the ability of humans to exercise such authority at the beginning of your post: 'I am not in charge of what other people choose to do with their free will. And it appears to me that if I were to assume that "authority", I would be defying the Creator's will.'

Ah, yes, "authority". The great blowhard and con-man of human relations. The ideological medium through which the abusers and the abusees find each other, and live on into a sick, co-dependent perpetuity. The old, "I know better what you think and feel than you do!" song with the "yes master! yes, master!" chorus.

:chuckle:

Yes, we should seek wisdom, but where do we seek it from? And what kind shall we seek? It needs to be the wisdom that stands the test of time--that is more than just the results of a temporal experiment with ethics.

Pursue honesty, rigorously, and wisdom will be yours. Pursue 'righteous authority', and all you'll find is enslavement.

 

[Derf]

My opinion is just one among many. So I do not presume that the righteousness of my opinions apply to everyone else. That was the reason for my comment.

I'm not against the exercise of free will. But I often disagree with the choices people make in their exercise of it.

I am aware of no evidence or circumstance that would suggest to me that God has given any human being 'dominion over' any other human being.

Since I do not believe this 'human authority' that you propose, exists, I can't conclude the false presumption of it, over others, to be "righteous".

What you've just described is inevitable. We DO each decide for ourselves what our criteria for "good" and "bad" are. And we DO each judge our experience and understanding of reality according to it. And all there really is to discuss, then, is why we chose that criteria, and whether or not we are achieving the goals that the criteria imply.

It's not about "doctrines", it's about desire. We decide what is good and what is not good by how well the phenomena fulfills our desire. But we need honesty to recognize this fundamental selfishness in ourselves. And then to assess the value of our desires, accurately.

The foolishness of human nature. It's inevitable that we will do this, but we can also obtain a perspective that allows us not to act on it, through honest self-awareness. Which is very important, because acting on such hubris almost always has damaging results for everyone involved.

Ah, yes, "authority". The great blowhard and con-man of human relations. The ideological medium through which the abusers and the abusees find each other, and live on into a sick, co-dependent perpetuity. The old, "I know better what you think and feel than you do!" song with the "yes master! yes, master!" chorus.

:chuckle:

Pursue honesty, rigorously, and wisdom will be yours. Pursue 'righteous authority', and all you'll find is enslavement.

Hi Purex,
I responded to this, but the response was lost in a TOL loss-of-posts event of some sort. I don't know if you got a chance to read it. It was beautifully written , and I'm sorry if you missed it. Now you're stuck with this run-of-the-mill response.

"Authority", "doctrines", "righteous", and "good" (all double-quoted in your post) all have valid and indispensable meanings in language about real and important concepts. Putting quotes around them may emphasize your distaste for how someone may have abused those concepts before (and I agree that such happens), but that doesn't mean those concepts are any less valid, nor any less important.

God exercises authority over the things He has made. He has the right to allow His creatures freedom of will, but He also has the right to punish His creatures for disobedience. If He made man in His image, it seems reasonable to me that some of that would also apply to humans--that some would be over others in authority, for instance. We see that in numerous examples in the bible, where God place certain people in positions of authority (like various angels, Moses, King Saul, King David, Jesus, and the apostles; and Paul did the same with his disciples Timothy and Titus, not to mention the churches he wrote to. God is considered a righteous judge, and He wants us to judge righteously. Paul said we believers are going to judge the world and angels (1 Cor 6:2-3). The context was that the Corinthian church was NOT judging, but going outside the church for judgment of internal affairs. So at least within the church, Paul says we need to exercise "authority", judge "righteously", determine what is "good" vs what is "bad". All that can be done using some kind of "doctrine"--something that tells us what is right and what is wrong, something that tells us how to "be righteous", something that is above the ability for man to invent. That something is often called, in Christian circles anyway, the word of God.

It CAN be abused. It often is. Like a first type of parents that abuses their children--little ones that are helpless against the bigness of their parents. It can also be given away, like a second type of parents who DON'T teach their children right vs wrong (the parents' "doctrine", if you will), or don't keep their young ones from hurting one another.

 

[PureX]

Hi Purex,
I responded to this, but the response was lost in a TOL loss-of-posts event of some sort. I don't know if you got a chance to read it. It was beautifully written , and I'm sorry if you missed it. Now you're stuck with this run-of-the-mill response.

That is frustrating, indeed. And I'm sorry I missed it.

"Authority", "doctrines", "righteous", and "good" (all double-quoted in your post) all have valid and indispensable meanings in language about real and important concepts. Putting quotes around them may emphasize your distaste for how someone may have abused those concepts before (and I agree that such happens), but that doesn't mean those concepts are any less valid, nor any less important.

The reason I do that, particularly when posting here on TOL, is to remind the readers that these ideas are very subjective in nature. When one posits some "authority", for example, they are almost always positing what they, personally, have accepted as being authoritative. Not necessarily what I or anyone else has accepted as such.

God exercises authority over the things He has made.

Maybe, and maybe not. Creative authority is not the same thing as existential authority. I am an artist, and so I have complete creative authority of my artworks. But once the creative process has been completed, I have little continuing authority over them, or what happens to them. I put them out into the world, and the world decides their future.

He has the right to allow His creatures freedom of will, but He also has the right to punish His creatures for disobedience.

Again, this "right" is both highly debatable, and rarely in evidence.

If He made man in His image, it seems reasonable to me that some of that would also apply to humans--that some would be over others in authority, for instance.

By what reasoning? If we are made in God's image, we would either already be perfect, needing no instruction or "punishment", or, God is imperfect, in which case he has no right to be determining and correcting the imperfections of others.

We see that in numerous examples in the bible, where God place certain people in positions of authority (like various angels, Moses, King Saul, King David, Jesus, and the apostles; and Paul did the same with his disciples Timothy and Titus, not to mention the churches he wrote to. God is considered a righteous judge, and He wants us to judge righteously. Paul said we believers are going to judge the world and angels (1 Cor 6:2-3). The context was that the Corinthian church was NOT judging, but going outside the church for judgment of internal affairs. So at least within the church, Paul says we need to exercise "authority", judge "righteously", determine what is "good" vs what is "bad". All that can be done using some kind of "doctrine"--something that tells us what is right and what is wrong, something that tells us how to "be righteous", something that is above the ability for man to invent. That something is often called, in Christian circles anyway, the word of God.

Human beings wrote those biblical texts. Not God. And humans have always been obsessed with the idea of ruling over and controlling each other. And with controlling their environment, generally. But nearly every time one human or a group of humans gains control over others, and/or the environment, they inevitably abuse that control to their own advantage, to the destruction of that which they sought to control. Thus proving that they did not deserve it to begin with. And those who want to be controlled by other human beings are weak and nihilistic, because to be fully human is to be autonomous and self-aware. And to want to give that up is to deny one's own humanity.

It CAN be abused. It often is. Like a first type of parents that abuses their children--little ones that are helpless against the bigness of their parents. It can also be given away, like a second type of parents who DON'T teach their children right vs wrong (the parents' "doctrine", if you will), or don't keep their young ones from hurting one another.

Our fellow human beings are not our "children". Weak and ignorant, or not, they have the right to make their own decisions. To deny them that right is to deny their humanity. To deny their very being.