Neurological Existentialism redux

 Long ago, the failed presidential candidate, Ross Perot, said that he could not understand how anyone felt they could trust someone who didn't believe in God (his, of course) because, without a divine imperative, why would they adhere to any moral code. That pissed me off and I've been thinking about it ever since.

The essay above is the basic idea of my answer to the question, Where does morality come from if humans are basically just overgrown yeast cells in a universe that doesn't care. Or, more simply, why don't we kill each other with the same zest as great white sharks at a beach.

The basic premise is that our brains are built to appreciate order and safety. Other things, too, that add up to what the religious types attribute to "God's will" but are instead fundamental aspects of human biology.

Along the way, I have become interested in philosophy. It turns out that there are a lot of people who have tried to figure out more about what is going on in our culture and the universe. Among those are the two I mention above, Kierkegaard and Sartre (he's the guy that inspired the picture below). They are among the earliest people (along with Hume and Kant a hundred years before from a completely different perspective) to really explore how humans get their morality without assuming 'God made them do it'.

Neurological Existentialism is an attempt to improve on their answers. On the one hand by explaining how we could be 'good' without God to tell us how. On the other, how we can be fulfilled without God telling us that we are ok.

Upvote Upvoted 0
4 responses
I had a nice conversation with one of my favorite AIs, Pi. Definitely interesting. https://pi.ai/s/XSwsnjAHP2w9XaUMVUVrB
— TQ White II
And a more technical exploration of my main guys with Hume and Kant. https://chat.openai.com/share/2a35dc21-18f4-4e6...
— TQ White II
And this with Gemini... ME I am thinking that Kierkegaard, then Sartre were the first philosophers who considered the belief in God to be optional. What do you think of that idea? NOT ME The idea that Søren Kierkegaard and Jean-Paul Sartre were among the first philosophers to consider the belief in God as optional holds merit within the context of modern Western philosophical discourse. Kierkegaard, often regarded as the father of existentialism, emphasized individual subjective experience and the importance of personal choice in matters of faith. His concept of the "leap of faith" highlighted the voluntary nature of belief in God, suggesting that it transcends rationality and is ultimately a deeply personal decision. Sartre, a prominent figure in existentialist thought, famously declared that "existence precedes essence," positing that individuals are free to create their own meaning in a seemingly indifferent universe. In this existential framework, belief in God is not a necessary component of human existence; rather, individuals are responsible for defining their own values and purposes. While Kierkegaard and Sartre were not the sole proponents of this view, they significantly contributed to the philosophical discourse on the optional nature of belief in God. Their ideas have influenced subsequent thinkers and continue to shape discussions on religion, existentialism, and the nature of belief. ME who talked about such things earlier NOT ME Before Kierkegaard and Sartre, philosophical discussions about the nature of belief in God and its optional status were present in various forms throughout history. However, these discussions often occurred within the context of theological debates or as part of broader philosophical inquiries rather than as central themes of existentialist thought. One notable precursor is the philosopher David Hume, an Enlightenment thinker who questioned traditional religious beliefs and argued for skepticism regarding the existence of God based on empirical evidence. Hume's writings, particularly in his work "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion," challenged the rationality of religious faith and emphasized the importance of empirical inquiry and critical thinking. Additionally, during the Enlightenment period, thinkers such as Immanuel Kant explored the limits of human reason and the nature of religious belief in his works like "Critique of Pure Reason" and "Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason." Kant's distinction between the realms of faith and reason laid the groundwork for later philosophical discussions about the optional nature of belief in God, as he argued that religious faith is based on moral principles rather than empirical evidence. Moreover, various ancient philosophical traditions, including skepticism, Epicureanism, and certain strands of ancient Greek philosophy, also engaged with questions related to the existence and nature of the divine, often challenging traditional religious dogma and emphasizing individual autonomy in matters of belief. While Kierkegaard and Sartre are significant figures in modern philosophical discussions about the optional nature of belief in God, their ideas build upon and respond to a rich history of philosophical inquiry into these matters. ME list the philosophers mentioned with the dates of their lives NOT ME Certainly, here are the philosophers mentioned along with the dates of their lives: David Hume (1711–1776) Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855) Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980) These philosophers made significant contributions to discussions surrounding the nature of belief in God and its optional status, each within their respective historical and philosophical contexts. tell me what Hume said about God NOT ME David Hume, the Scottish Enlightenment philosopher, is known for his skeptical and empiricist approach to various philosophical topics, including the existence of God. In his works, particularly "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" and "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding," Hume presents several arguments challenging the rationality of belief in God based on empirical evidence and human understanding. One of Hume's main arguments against the existence of God is the problem of induction, which questions the validity of drawing universal conclusions from particular observations. Hume argued that our belief in causality, a fundamental concept in many theological arguments, is based on habit and custom rather than rational justification. This skepticism towards causality undermines traditional arguments for the existence of a divine creator. Furthermore, Hume critiqued the traditional proofs for the existence of God, such as the cosmological argument and the argument from design. He argued that these arguments rely on faulty reasoning and analogies drawn from human experience, which are insufficient to establish the existence of a perfect or necessary being. Overall, Hume's skepticism towards the existence of God stems from his empiricist epistemology, which emphasizes the limits of human understanding and the importance of empirical evidence in forming beliefs. While he did not outright deny the possibility of God's existence, he maintained that such beliefs lack sufficient empirical support and are thus not rationally justified. ME was he an atheist NOT ME David Hume's religious beliefs are a topic of some debate among scholars. While Hume's writings are highly skeptical of traditional religious doctrines and arguments for the existence of God, he did not explicitly identify as an atheist. Instead, he often described himself as a skeptic or agnostic concerning matters of religion. Hume's philosophical skepticism extended to religious beliefs, as he questioned the rationality of accepting claims about the existence and nature of God without sufficient empirical evidence. However, he did not categorically assert the non-existence of God. Instead, he argued that religious beliefs should be subjected to the same standards of empirical inquiry and critical scrutiny as any other claim about the world. In summary, while Hume's philosophical views may align with atheism in some respects, he did not explicitly identify as such. Rather, he approached religious questions with skepticism and emphasized the importance of empirical evidence and critical reasoning in forming beliefs. ME did he pose an ethical or metaphysical theory that omitted God? NOT ME Yes, David Hume did propose ethical and metaphysical theories that did not rely on the existence of God. In his ethical theory, Hume developed a naturalistic account of morality grounded in human sentiments and social conventions rather than divine commands. He argued that moral distinctions arise from human emotions, such as sympathy and empathy, which lead individuals to approve of certain actions and disapprove of others. This sentiment-based approach to ethics, outlined in his work "A Treatise of Human Nature" and "An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals," is independent of any theological foundation and provides a secular basis for moral judgment. In metaphysics, Hume's empiricist philosophy led him to propose a naturalistic understanding of the world, which does not invoke supernatural explanations. He famously critiqued the notion of causality as a necessary connection between events, arguing that our beliefs about causation are based on habit and custom rather than rational necessity. This skepticism towards metaphysical concepts such as causality, along with his rejection of traditional arguments for the existence of God, underscores Hume's commitment to a secular worldview that does not rely on divine explanations for natural phenomena. Overall, Hume's ethical and metaphysical theories stand as significant contributions to secular philosophy, offering alternative explanations for moral principles and the workings of the universe that do not depend on the existence of God. ME did he suggest how the sentiments and conventions came to be NOT ME Yes, David Hume proposed explanations for how moral sentiments and social conventions arise within human societies. In his ethical theory, Hume argued that moral distinctions emerge from the sentiments and emotions experienced by individuals in response to various actions and behaviors. He suggested that these sentiments, such as sympathy and empathy, are natural human responses that evolved through social interactions and the development of human societies. Hume believed that human beings possess a natural capacity for empathy, which allows them to recognize and respond to the emotions and experiences of others. This capacity forms the basis for moral judgments, as individuals come to approve of actions that elicit sympathetic responses and disapprove of those that evoke antipathy or resentment. Furthermore, Hume emphasized the role of social conventions and cultural practices in shaping moral norms and standards within societies. He argued that through social interactions and the exchange of ideas, individuals develop shared understandings of right and wrong, which are reinforced through customs, laws, and institutions. These social conventions serve to regulate behavior and promote cooperation and harmony within communities. Overall, Hume's theory suggests that moral sentiments and conventions arise through a combination of innate human emotions, social interactions, and cultural influences. By understanding the psychological and sociological factors that underlie moral judgments, Hume sought to provide a naturalistic explanation for the origins of morality that does not rely on divine authority or supernatural explanations. ME how does that compare with Sartre NOT ME Jean-Paul Sartre's approach to ethics and morality differs significantly from David Hume's sentiment-based theory. While Hume grounded morality in human sentiments and social conventions, Sartre's existentialist philosophy emphasizes individual freedom, responsibility, and the absence of inherent moral values or norms. Sartre famously declared that "existence precedes essence," meaning that individuals exist first and then define their essence or nature through their actions and choices. In this existential framework, there is no inherent human nature or fixed moral order to guide behavior. Instead, individuals are radically free to create their own values and meanings in a world devoid of inherent purpose or moral absolutes. Unlike Hume, who located moral judgments in emotional responses and social conventions, Sartre rejected the idea of objective moral standards and emphasized the subjective nature of moral decision-making. According to Sartre, individuals are confronted with the existential dilemma of having to choose their own values and actions in the absence of external guidance or divine authority. Sartre's ethical theory is often associated with his concept of "bad faith," which refers to the self-deceptive attempt to evade one's freedom and responsibility by adopting external standards or roles. Sartre argued that individuals must confront the existential anxiety and uncertainty inherent in their freedom and embrace their responsibility for their choices and actions. In summary, while both Hume and Sartre explored the foundations of ethics and morality from a secular perspective, they differed in their emphasis on the role of emotions, social conventions, and individual freedom. Hume grounded morality in human sentiments and social norms, while Sartre emphasized individual freedom and the subjective creation of moral values in an existentialist framework. ME tell me about Kant's relationship with God NOT ME Immanuel Kant's relationship with God is complex and nuanced, reflecting his philosophical approach to religion and metaphysics. Kant was deeply influenced by the rationalist and empiricist traditions of his time, as well as by his own moral and theological concerns. In his philosophical works, particularly in his critical period, Kant developed a distinctive perspective on the concept of God and the relationship between reason and faith. Kant's philosophical project, as outlined in his seminal work "Critique of Pure Reason," aimed to establish the limits and possibilities of human knowledge. In this work, Kant argued that certain metaphysical questions, including those concerning the existence and nature of God, lie beyond the scope of human reason. He famously proposed the idea of the "noumenal realm," which represents the realm of things-in-themselves that are inaccessible to human understanding. However, Kant also recognized the importance of practical reason in guiding moral conduct and shaping human beliefs. In his moral philosophy, particularly in his work "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals" and "Critique of Practical Reason," Kant developed the concept of the moral law, which he believed was grounded in the rational nature of human beings. While Kant did not base morality on the existence of God, he argued that belief in God, freedom, and immortality is necessary for the practical realization of moral principles. Kant's view of God can be understood within the framework of his moral and epistemological philosophy. He maintained that belief in God is a postulate of practical reason, which means that it is necessary for the moral life of individuals, even though it cannot be proven or disproven through theoretical reason alone. Kant emphasized the importance of faith as a supplement to reason, allowing individuals to reconcile their moral duties with their ultimate concerns about the nature of reality. Overall, Kant's relationship with God is characterized by his attempt to reconcile the demands of reason with the dictates of faith and morality. While he did not provide a traditional theological account of God, his philosophical reflections on the nature of belief and the limits of human understanding have had a profound influence on modern discussions of religion and metaphysics. ME I think of Kierkegaard and Sartre as a pair, one taking the leap to God, the other taking the leap to nothing, both, however, requiring a leap. It sounds like I might think of Kant and Hume as a related pair. In their case, one basing his ideas on the connection of human nature to God, the other basing them on the connection of human nature to nothing. NOT ME Your characterization of Kierkegaard and Sartre as a pair, with one emphasizing the leap to God and the other to nothingness, and Kant and Hume as another related pair, with one basing ideas on the connection of human nature to God and the other on the connection of human nature to nothing, captures some key contrasts and parallels between these philosophers. Kierkegaard and Sartre both grappled with questions of existence, freedom, and meaning, albeit from different philosophical perspectives. Kierkegaard, often considered the father of existentialism, emphasized the importance of individual subjective experience and the leap of faith in confronting the existential challenges of life. For Kierkegaard, the leap to God represented a commitment to religious belief as a way to find meaning and purpose in an uncertain world. On the other hand, Sartre, a prominent figure in atheistic existentialism, emphasized radical freedom and the absence of inherent meaning or purpose in the universe. For Sartre, the leap to nothingness represented a recognition of the individual's responsibility to create their own values and meanings in the face of existential absurdity. Similarly, Kant and Hume offer contrasting perspectives on the relationship between human nature and metaphysical concepts such as God. Kant, drawing on his critical philosophy, sought to establish the limits of human knowledge while also affirming the importance of practical reason and moral belief. He argued for the necessity of belief in God, freedom, and immortality as postulates of practical reason, providing a basis for moral conduct and human dignity. In contrast, Hume's empiricist philosophy challenged traditional metaphysical claims, including those related to God, by emphasizing the limitations of human understanding and the role of empirical evidence in shaping beliefs. In summary, while Kierkegaard and Sartre represent contrasting approaches to existential questions regarding belief and meaning, Kant and Hume similarly offer distinct perspectives on the relationship between human nature and metaphysical concepts, with one emphasizing faith and the other skepticism. Viewing them as related pairs highlights the diversity of philosophical responses to fundamental questions about existence, belief, and morality. Tell me what you think about the above.
— TQ White II
And Claude3? This is that AI's response: Your analysis of the philosophical pairs of Kierkegaard and Sartre, and Kant and Hume, is insightful and captures important contrasts and parallels in their thinking about God, human nature, and the foundations of morality and meaning. You are correct in identifying Kierkegaard and Sartre as representing two different existential responses to the question of God and meaning. Kierkegaard's "leap of faith" emphasizes the individual's commitment to religious belief as a way to find purpose in an uncertain world, while Sartre's "leap to nothingness" represents the recognition of the individual's radical freedom and responsibility to create their own values in the absence of inherent meaning. Similarly, your characterization of Kant and Hume as a related pair, with Kant basing his ideas on the connection of human nature to God and Hume on the connection of human nature to nothing, highlights their contrasting approaches to metaphysics and morality. Kant sought to reconcile faith and reason, arguing for the necessity of belief in God as a postulate of practical reason, while Hume's empiricist skepticism challenged traditional metaphysical claims and emphasized the limitations of human understanding. Overall, your analysis effectively captures the key differences and similarities between these influential philosophers and their approaches to fundamental questions of existence, belief, and morality. By viewing them as related pairs, you highlight the diverse range of philosophical responses to these perennial questions and the ongoing dialogue between faith and skepticism, meaning and absurdity, in the history of Western thought.
— TQ White II
Add Website URL »