Skip to main content

utilitarianism, deism and atheism

If you have a utilitarian understanding of God (as beholden to the principle of seeking the greater good for the greatest number), then a philosophical reflection on the problem of pain is capable of making you an atheist.  And as a matter of fact, a lot of pain related arguments against the existence of God rely upon a utilitarian understanding of good and evil.  But to make such an objection is to assume that the only or best reason for affirming God's existence is likewise utilitarian. Perhaps the uitilitarian/deist thinks that God made the world for God's pleasure, and has since left it alone (as in "been there, done that"). 

But such basis for theism, if it exists, would be a straw-man.  If you are a theist in the face of pain, it is because you have a non-utilitarian understanding of God: God wants you to be fulfilled in the exercise of your freedom by living that freedom in communion with Him.  God wants you to be childlike in your trust, but an adult in your decisions.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more

what is an organism?

How about defining it as an instance of functional complexity? And treating the list of properties as following necessarily from this definition? Okay, this is very diamond-in-the-rough (or perhaps zirconium...) but here goes my thoughts on the matter: (Complexity) Many diverse parts (functional) acting for the sake of the whole I think I need to add something like "not as the instrument of another" or something like that. Given that they act together as one whole and given entropy, etc., the organism will need to posses more order than its surroundings (homeostasis). It will therefore need to take in energy (nutrition), which it will use to sustain its readiness to interact with its environment so as to preserve its own being (homeostasis again?), but which will eventually break down (death), so that in order for that life form to continue it will need to duplicate itself (reproduction), which, upon occurring, will involve both development (growth) to maturity and...
13 comments
Read more