Michele Bachmann officially leaves her church

[ThisTooShallPass]

Thank you for posting the axioms. I have one problem when you say "...informed in part...," what do you mean by "informed?" Is that the common usage or a special philosophical usage. The common usage does not make sense to me.

I mean simply that the telos of those of man's faculties that are physical in nature can be discerned by a careful study of biology.

The human sexual act, for instance, generally concludes with the emission of semen. Why is semen emitted? Obviously not to achieve closeness or unity or to express love; nothing about the emission of semen brings two people closer together or expresses their love, and it is possible to bring two people closer together or to express love without it. The emission of semen serves the purpose of procreation: and since it is the logical end toward which the sexual act points, then procreation is the logical end of the sexual act.

And if goodness consists in using one's faculties in the manner consistent with their telos and avoiding using them in contrary ways, then it follows logically that the "good" sexual act is one that concludes with the emission of sperm into the vagina.

You can, of course, swing from the chandeliers all you like prior to that moment.

Seemed to be a concession that you were potentially wrong. I forgot what you were saying that you were right about. For now I will just say that any absolute statement of that nature in any philosophical argument is a philosophical arrogance unless the statement is clearly a tautology.

Of course I'm potentially wrong -- that's why I said that natural law is falsifiable.

It's a happy coincidence that I'm not wrong.

As you may have guessed, I don't believe in prayer in any sense. To me, the finest form of pantheistic "liturgy" is to study the laws of physics, but of course not everyone wants to expend that effort.

We all pray in our own ways, and since the highest calling of man is to know God, I see nothing wrong with studying creation scientifically. Science would be impossible, after all, if there weren't a logos inherent in the universe.

I can understand grace and forgiveness in the Catholic definition of prayer because it is so ethereal, but I have a problem with courage, and "etc." because courage is asking for an alteration in the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex structure of your brain. (Sorry about that. The nature of consciousness and intelligence is one of my favorite hobbies. http://www.livescience.com/8342-brai...r-located.html ) and that sounds like intervention to me.

But I will say that prayer can have a powerful placebo effect that will influence the brain.

A logical conclusion of the Unmoved Mover argument is that the entire universe operates on a kind of line of cosmological credit. You could say that literally every movement of your body necessitates divine intervention.

That argument is why, for the record, I am not convinced by pantheism.

I don't see why prayer would be incompatible with asking for courage. If prayer is molding your will to God's, and God's will is that you exhibit courage in the face of temptation, then successful prayer should logically conclude in an increase in courage. You can attribute this to the placebo effect, if you like.

 

[GenSeneca]

Of course I'm potentially wrong -- that's why I said that natural law is falsifiable.

How is the existence of God falsifiable? ...Do you not consider God the basis for natural law?

 

[Lagboltz]

I mean simply that the telos of those of man's faculties that are physical in nature can be discerned by a careful study of biology.

It seems that the first two axioms are basic.

It seems the third axiom is a footnote, which proposes a methodology for a very particular but most important example.

Take the first two axioms and substitute "the planet earth" as an instance of the word "everything"

The planet earth participates in some form or essence.
A thing can be said to be good which most fully instantiates the form or essence of the planet earth.

What is the form or essence of earth? For theological purposes I would say it is an environment that allows man to exist. Humans are at the top of the food chain of all flora and fauna. An environment that promotes a bounty of flora and fauna is good.

I am not finished. Let me know if you have any objection or modification to those rather informal arguments. If you have serious objections, then there is no point for me to continue.

The human sexual act, ...

I'm not concerned at this point about the sex act.

A logical conclusion of the Unmoved Mover argument is that the entire universe operates on a kind of line of cosmological credit. You could say that literally every movement of your body necessitates divine intervention.

That argument is why, for the record, I am not convinced by pantheism.

To me that is an empty statement. Since divine intervention has no observable influence, it is a nonentity scientifically. Since it means something to you. Fine. Go for it.

I don't see why prayer would be incompatible with asking for courage. If prayer is molding your will to God's, and God's will is that you exhibit courage in the face of temptation, then successful prayer should logically conclude in an increase in courage. You can attribute this to the placebo effect, if you like.

I will take the placebo effect.

 

[Lagboltz]

How is the existence of God falsifiable? ...Do you not consider God the basis for natural law?

This is from the last paragraph of ThisTooShallPass's post #90. Read the rest for details.

But you don't need to presuppose the existence of God to arrive at the conclusions of natural law

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

It seems that the first two axioms are basic.

It seems the third axiom is a footnote, which proposes a methodology for a very particular but most important example.

Take the first two axioms and substitute "the planet earth" as an instance of the word "everything"

The planet earth participates in some form or essence.
A thing can be said to be good which most fully instantiates the form or essence of the planet earth.

What is the form or essence of earth? For theological purposes I would say it is an environment that allows man to exist. Humans are at the top of the food chain of all flora and fauna. An environment that promotes a bounty of flora and fauna is good.

I grant the logic of it as far as it goes, but I don't see that it goes very far. Goodness consists in exemplifying a thing's own essence; what you're pointing out is merely that it's good for a planet to be earth-like. That fact alone implies no necessary obligation on the part of man, from a moral perspective (though you can derive an obligation for man to act effectively as a steward of the environment from natural law).

And even this assumes, of course, that planets have the goal of sustaining life as their telos, which is disputable. Not everything that occurs in nature has a telos, even if it has a more perfect form which it instantiates. There is not, for instance, any conceivable end toward which a rock points.

 

[Lagboltz]

I grant the logic of it as far as it goes, but I don't see that it goes very far. Goodness consists in exemplifying a thing's own essence; what you're pointing out is merely that it's good for a planet to be earth-like. That fact alone implies no necessary obligation on the part of man, from a moral perspective (though you can derive an obligation for man to act effectively as a steward of the environment from natural law).

That is exactly my goal, and I like your wording.

And even this assumes, of course, that planets have the goal of sustaining life as their telos, which is disputable. Not everything that occurs in nature has a telos, even if it has a more perfect form which it instantiates. There is not, for instance, any conceivable end toward which a rock points.

I agree we cannot claim that planets in general have a goal of sustaining life, e.g. Jupiter is a long shot for any type of life.

Previously I argued the following and I will continue the argument:
The planet earth participates in some form or essence.
A thing can be said to be good which most fully instantiates the form or essence of the planet earth.

The form or essence of the planet Earth is an environment that allows man to exist.
Human existence depends on a food chain of flora and fauna.
An environment that promotes a bounty of flora and fauna to that end is good.

It is not good if man brings harm to the environment to the extent that it harms individuals or mankind.
To that end, man has an obligation to act effectively as a steward of the environment.

Finite earth resources create an upper limit to the global population of man. How will the upper limit come into equilibrium? People must die at the same rate they are being born. What can cause population equilibrium? A higher death rate or a lower birth rate or both.

A higher death rate can arise from many things: war, starvation, plague or a shortening of longevity by some means. This is not good.
A lower birthrate can come about only by population control. Individuals cannot be trusted to provide population control through a manner defined by current thinking in natural law.

Therefore there is a conflict between natural law applied to individual morality in procreation, versus natural law as applied to the survival of a growing population of individuals in a good environment on planet Earth.

How do you resolve that conflict within the axioms of natural law?

 

[ProudLefty]

If Natural Law is a truth, as you suggest it to be, then Natural Law already has the answer. We may or may not like it, but thats immaterial.

Let me suggest this: Can humans destroy the ability of humans to live? Sure. But that doesn't mean the end of the planet. Natural law will readily provide more life forms able, ready, and willing to carry on. They may be higher, or lower, life forms.

 

[Lagboltz]

If Natural Law is a truth, as you suggest it to be, then Natural Law already has the answer. We may or may not like it, but thats immaterial.

Let me suggest this: Can humans destroy the ability of humans to live? Sure. But that doesn't mean the end of the planet. Natural law will readily provide more life forms able, ready, and willing to carry on. They may be higher, or lower, life forms.

You are right. Humans can never destroy the planet. Earth will just shake us off like fleas.

One of the purposes of my analysis is to show that Catholic theologians generally apply their thinking to the morality of individuals and not the morality of collective human action. For example, some say that the Vatican was too soft with Nazi Germany, which relates to a national entity and not an individual.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

That is exactly my goal, and I like your wording.

I agree we cannot claim that planets in general have a goal of sustaining life, e.g. Jupiter is a long shot for any type of life.

Previously I argued the following and I will continue the argument:
The planet earth participates in some form or essence.
A thing can be said to be good which most fully instantiates the form or essence of the planet earth.

The form or essence of the planet Earth is an environment that allows man to exist.
Human existence depends on a food chain of flora and fauna.
An environment that promotes a bounty of flora and fauna to that end is good.

It is not good if man brings harm to the environment to the extent that it harms individuals or mankind.
To that end, man has an obligation to act effectively as a steward of the environment.

Finite earth resources create an upper limit to the global population of man. How will the upper limit come into equilibrium? People must die at the same rate they are being born. What can cause population equilibrium? A higher death rate or a lower birth rate or both.

A higher death rate can arise from many things: war, starvation, plague or a shortening of longevity by some means. This is not good.
A lower birthrate can come about only by population control. Individuals cannot be trusted to provide population control through a manner defined by current thinking in natural law.

Therefore there is a conflict between natural law applied to individual morality in procreation, versus natural law as applied to the survival of a growing population of individuals in a good environment on planet Earth.

How do you resolve that conflict within the axioms of natural law?

The two paragraphs I bolded above are where your logic breaks down.

As I said previously, all you're pointing out in the first of those two paragraphs is that "goodness" for a planet consists in sustaining life. This implies no moral obligation on the part of man, for whom goodness consists in most fully instantiating the essence of man.

As I said, you can derive from natural law a moral obligation for man to be a steward of the environment. After all, if goodness consists in instantiating the essence of man, and this implies that we ought to use our faculties in accordance with their end, then certain rights follow logically. Obviously, if I'm contracted to pay a debt, I have the right to pay that debt; and the person who lent me money has a right to be paid by me. Thus, our rights derive from our obligations: we have such rights as are necessary to fulfill our duties. Primary among these is the right to live and to possess and utilize the resources necessary to act in accordance with it: thus, the right to life and property (the former of which is broader than most give credit for, the latter of which is stricter).

Obviously, the right to life entails a responsibility to maintain an environment in which life is capable of flourishing; hence, you cannot simply go around poisoning groundwater or pumping chemicals into the air. That also entails an obligation for responsible family planning (i.e., not having more kids than you can support).

One of the purposes of my analysis is to show that Catholic theologians generally apply their thinking to the morality of individuals and not the morality of collective human action. For example, some say that the Vatican was too soft with Nazi Germany, which relates to a national entity and not an individual.

Of course. What sense does it make to speak of collective human behavior as anything but the average of n people's individual behaviors? Otherwise I could be held morally responsible for the degeneracy and evil of my countrymen.

 

[Lagboltz]

The two paragraphs I bolded above are where your logic breaks down.

As I said previously, all you're pointing out in the first of those two paragraphs is that "goodness" for a planet consists in sustaining life. This implies no moral obligation on the part of man, for whom goodness consists in most fully instantiating the essence of man.

As I said, you can derive from natural law a moral obligation for man to be a steward of the environment. After all, if goodness consists in instantiating the essence of man, and this implies that we ought to use our faculties in accordance with their end, then certain rights follow logically.

The last sentence in my paragraph that you bolded says almost precisely what you are allowing right now. If you say my logic breaks down at that point I am willing to substitute any logic that you may come up with to make that same assertion at that point in my argument.

Obviously, if I'm contracted to pay a debt, I have the right to pay that debt; and the person who lent me money has a right to be paid by me. Thus, our rights derive from our obligations: we have such rights as are necessary to fulfill our duties. Primary among these is the right to live and to possess and utilize the resources necessary to act in accordance with it: thus, the right to life and property (the former of which is broader than most give credit for, the latter of which is stricter).

Obviously, the right to life entails a responsibility to maintain an environment in which life is capable of flourishing; hence, you cannot simply go around poisoning groundwater or pumping chemicals into the air. That also entails an obligation for responsible family planning (i.e., not having more kids than you can support).

The above is a further repetition of my argument in that the right to life entails a responsibility not to defile the environment.

You have not followed through to address the final question: How can equilibrium of global population be maintained when the environment reaches exhaustion of it's resources?

 

[ProudLefty]

...
You have not followed through to address the final question: How can equilibrium of global population be maintained when the environment reaches exhaustion of it's resources?

What vital resources get exhausted and not replenished?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

What vital resources get exhausted and not replenished?

Oil Coal Natural gas,,,,unless your waiting around a million years,

 

[Lagboltz]

What vital resources get exhausted and not replenished?

I'm talking about the deep future where the population has risen to the extent that all possible arable land is used for food or biofuel, and the population of sea life is depleted to the extent that it will require too much energy to be cost effective in catching fish.

Oil will not be cost effective:
In 1940 it took the energy of one gallon of oil to produce 100 gallons of oil.
In 1990 it took the energy of one gallon of oil to produce 4 gallons in the US.
In 1990 it took the energy of one gallon of oil to produce 10 gallons in Saudi Arabia.
It takes the energy of one gallon of ethanol to produce 1.7 gallons of ethanol.
There will be a time when it will take one gallon of oil to produce one gallon.

Advanced agricultural techniques require more and more energy. On the average today 4 calories of energy are needed to produce 1 calorie of food. This includes pesticides, fertilizer, harvesting, transportation, packaging, refrigeration, etc.

There used to be copper mines with veins of pure copper. Now the veins are largely rock with 1% copper and require increasing amounts of energy to dig up, transport, and purify. Other metals and rare earths are going the same way.

When we reach this point where the population is in equilibrium because of a high death rate, what will it be like to live on this planet?

 

[ProudLefty]

I do not have the information to enter a meaningful discussion on this topic.

I do have an observation. Last night I was listening to a farmer talk about farming today, and productivity. With his tractor and with his GPS positioning, his productivity per acre and per day and per season is at levels never imagined even 15 years ago. His rows are closer together, his plantings are closer together. He gets more plants per acre and more yield per plant. He was saying that with GPS, he doesn't even touch the steering wheel and his quarter-mile long rows are within 1" of perfectly straight for the whole field. All he has to do is turn the tractor around at the end of the rows.

Most of his energy is going for pumping water, and I am betting it will not be another generation before that pumping is not done with fossil fuel.

 

[Lagboltz]

I do not have the information to enter a meaningful discussion on this topic.

I do have an observation. Last night I was listening to a farmer talk about farming today, and productivity. With his tractor and with his GPS positioning, his productivity per acre and per day and per season is at levels never imagined even 15 years ago. His rows are closer together, his plantings are closer together. He gets more plants per acre and more yield per plant. He was saying that with GPS, he doesn't even touch the steering wheel and his quarter-mile long rows are within 1" of perfectly straight for the whole field. All he has to do is turn the tractor around at the end of the rows.

Most of his energy is going for pumping water, and I am betting it will not be another generation before that pumping is not done with fossil fuel.

Besides irrigation, he is also using energy indirectly by buying fertilizer and pesticides.

One problem I'm referring to is arable land.
In 2006, there was 1.15 acres of arable land per person, world-wide .
By 2039, there may be only 0.59 acres of arable land per person, world-wide.
That is about 1/3 of a small city block.
How much arable land will there be 100 years from now.
Agricultural efficiency has risen dramatically, but as it rises it requires more and more energy to sustain the high efficiency.

Population has tripled in my lifetime. When it triples again there will be .2 acres of arable land per person.
That is a plot 93x93 feet.

My point in all the arguing with a theologian in this thread is that the church is more concerned with individual morality, and not the morality as man as a shepherd of his environment. I think the church should take a more active role.