FAULTLINE PRESENTATION

[Cary Cook]

FAULTLINE PRESENTATION

https://www.facebook.com/groups/460063527956933

Mark Smith has invited me to do a 10-15 min Zoom presentation on nsm.

I already posted it on FB, and got no criticism.  I doubt that it will get any here either, but I want all of you to have access to it.

------------------------------

The world is insane - criminally and self-destructively insane.

The only people who can save it are rational truth seekers.

Therefore, rational truth seekers are the only people I'm talking to.

If you're not rational, no one can help you.

If you're not seeking truth, I don't even want to help you; you're part of the problem.

Truth is that which is. OR... Reality is that which is; and truth is a verbal description of reality. Usually it doesn't matter which way you say it.

Rationality consists of logic and common sense.

Logic is that set of statements that is universally and eternally true of the relationships of variables.  But you don't need to agree with that; you just need to understand logic.  If you don't, go learn it.

People often say logic is a tool.  It can be USED as a tool.  But the more you understand it, the more you will see that it makes a better master than a slave.

Premises happen in minds.

Foundational premises happen prior to choice.

Other premises are willfully chosen, usually by common sense.

You need common sense in order to know what common sense is.

But that's OK, because all sentient beings have it, though some choose not to use it, because some common-sense premises, when processed by logic, lead to unpleasant conclusions.

Emotion dislikes unpleasantness; and emotion also chooses premises.

When a premise is not known to be true or false, it can usually be judged to be probable or improbable.

Probability judged by reason is likely to be correct.

If judged by emotion, it's likely to be incorrect.

Emotion ALWAYS affects probability judgment adversely - even when it accidentally leads to a correct conclusion.  A correct conclusion does not imply correct methodology in getting to it.

Emotion is, however, a big deal.  It's where values are judged, including the value of life itself.  Unfortunately, emotion is stupid.  It wants things that are contrary to its own best interest.  That's why reason exists.  Reason tells you, if you grab what you want now, you will get more of what you don't want later.  If you don't prepare for the future you will be unhappy in it.  If you're a rational truth seeker, you eventually figure out that it is in your best interest to get the greatest ratio of happiness over unhappiness for the duration of your existence.

What kind of behavior is likely to do that?  It depends on duration of existence, which is unknown.  Not only do we not know how long we will live in our present bodies, we also don't know if there is an afterlife, or have a way to judge the probability of it.  So, we all place a bet - afterlife or no afterlife. The degree to which we bet on afterlife is the degree to which we restrain our immoral desires - most of us that is. Afterlife is irrelevant to those who would behave morally either way.  But if IMmorality appears to be in your best interest, you're gonna do it.  And most people who think there is no afterlife will act immorally when nobody's looking.

Afterlife entails all the necessary preconditions of afterlife; and to most people, that implies theism.  It doesn't really, but most people think it does.  So, the bet shifts to God vs. no God.  We all know the arguments.  No need to repeat them.

Next question: if God, then what kind of God?

No problem if people would admit they don't know.  But people can't do that.  They have to speculate.  They don't have to make dogmatic assertions, but they do it anyway.  This is where emotion dumps reason, and wings it.  "God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent."  None of those things are necessary attributes of a Supreme Being.  But asserting them feels safe.

People look around at their insane world, and figure "Whatever created this must be the scariest thing imaginable. Let's not piss him off.  Let's worship him, flatter him, fake all the gratitude we wish our kids would fake toward us. Maybe he'll treat us better."  And whaddaya know - it works... about half the time.  When it doesn't work, "we musta done something wrong".  Enter the speculators.  When somebody gets it right, record it; he may be a prophet.  If he wrote anything, save it.  All the ones who got it wrong - forget'em. If they wrote anything, trash it.

A few generations down the line, this record is not just a record; it's seen as communication from God himself.  If a speculator says something new, it better line up with what's written.  If it doesn't, but it still looks right, "maybe we have to reinterpret the writings".

This is scripturalism - the idea that some particular body of scripture is inspired by God, and all of it is true when interpreted correctly; none of it goes out of date, and if you think otherwise, you're anti-God.  Scripturalism survives because, like Trump, it is perceived as less odious than the alternative.  If the least irrational scripture package is not inspired by a God who is identical or subordinate to the Supreme Being, then the perceived alternative is nihilism.  Scripturalists can't imagine an existing Creator-God who would not inspire a written record of his instructions to humanity, despite the facts that:

1. There are many scripture packages, all in conflict.

2. All contain absurdities.

3. Human moral awareness evolves beyond what is written.

4. Extremist believers commit atrocities.

Atheists rightly reject the irrational God they find in even the least irrational scripture package - a God of conflicting attributes, who rewards and punishes people first according to what they believe, then only secondarily according to how they behave.  But atheists don't like nihilism either.  So, they redefine it so it doesn't apply to them.  "I'm not a nihilist; I have values."  Still with no objective standard for those values.  They prove they can be moral without belief in a God, by making up a moral system identical to what a sensible God would create.  

Maybe there is a God to whom we are accountable, and maybe he's not an Asshole. The Supreme Being is probably a non-omnipotent, non-omniscient Mind that wants to figure things out.  So he starts creating stuff.  What works? What doesn't?  Eventually he creates other minds that want to figure things out.  He knows they don't like living in a test tube.  He knows they hate him for his apparent unconcern for their unhappiness.

But all that can be justified, if there are judgment days and afterlives in which everyone gets what they deserve.  That doesn't mean it IS that way.  But it's still the most sensible bet.  I call it non-scriptural monotheism. But it doesn't matter what it's called.  It only matters that the world figures it out before Muslim fundamentalists acquire nuclear bombs, and go to the Quran for directions on whom to nuke.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Cary

[Ronald Morley]

Cary,

I did not see this on faultline, but things get buried there quite quickly so it doesn't surprise me. I want to respond to this... I just need a couple/few days to think it through and get my thoughts straight. The top half I am mostly in agreement with. The bottom half has some problems that I see, but thanks for posting this... it seems well thought out. I'll get back with you here.

Ron M.

[Cary Cook]

Ron,

Thanks.  I did not post it on Faultline.  I posted it on my own FB page (thought I friended you).

This is for the next Zoom meeting.

Cary

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/f765be47-30c0-49a5-bca0-ce3158991322n%40googlegroups.com.