Massimo vs Logic

Massimo takes on spirituality, in the sense of spiritual but not religious.

”Despite the fact that more and more people are comfortable "coming out" as atheists, the word is still very much associated with being immoral, or at the very least amoral. This, of course, despite the fact that there is neither logical nor empirical reason to draw that conclusion. Ever since Plato's Euthyphro dialogue, philosophers have agreed that gods are simply irrelevant to morality, regardless of whether they exist or not. And of course modern sociological research shows that atheists are just as moral as religious believers. Still, the stigma persists.”

Statement of the Dichotomy:

Soc[rates]: We shall know better, my good friend, in a little while. The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods.

This is a False Dichotomy Fallacy: See the analysis in the next post.

Atheist Morality, as expressed per Obama:

”Immoral is when I deviate from my standards”.
(paraphrased slightly)

If this is the metric for determining Atheist morals, then Atheist morality is a tautological certainty. When one determines one’s own standards, it is not difficult to either behave within those standards or to modify the standard at will in order to bring the standard into congruence with the behavior. Assuming morality to include fixed metrics determined outside the individual’s hegemony, Atheist morality, then, is internally incoherent and self-contradictory as a concept (oxymoron).

Massimo continues:

”But what, exactly, does it mean to be "spiritual but not religious," or for that matter, just plain spiritual? One interpretation, of course, can be arrived at by taking the word literally: if you are spiritual you believe in spirits (not of the alcohol-laden type). In some sense, this must be right, as spiritual people seem to be averse to the idea that matter and energy are all there is to the universe (hence, the above mentioned cavalcade of new agers likely to populate your inbox). But if that is the case, it is not at all clear why holding such (entirely unfounded) beliefs should translate into someone being a better, more moral (and hence more datable) person. Being spiritual in this sense seems to me simply indicative of a slightly, if often benignly, deluded mind, not one with whom I would really enjoy associating for long periods of time.”

Applying the standards of coherence to the above, is it coherent for a person who is not in possession of a certain faculty to deny the existence of that faculty in others? For example, can a color blind person successfully deny the existence of the color blue? Can a non-spiritual person successfully deny the existence of spirituality in other persons?

Secondly, where is the physical evidence that monism is true and that dualism is not?

”But I'm not a dualist (another mild type of delusion), I don't think of my life as a dichotomous enterprise in the course of which I have to provide material/energy food for my stomach to process, as well as an entirely different kind of nourishment for my "spirit." My mind, whatever the detailed explanation of how it works, is a product of my brain, and the two simply can't be disconnected, upon penalty of the first one simply ceasing to exist.”

Admitting to a dogma, that of Material Monism, is admitting to calcified thinking. Any thoughts outside the rigidly dogmatic boundaries are automatically delusional. As usual, Massimo does not provide empirical validations for his claims, here specifically claiming the brain produces the mind, without any hypothesis of the mechanics of turning ionic electrical discharges into intellect, much less experimental, falsifiable verification. It is a belief system, unsubstantiated, but necessary to the monism dogma.

And he seems to deny that the mind, which he conflates with spirit here without explanation, requires a different kind of nourishment than the material/energy food he provides his body. This seems blatantly false, both on its face and in its substance; even Massimo provided his mind with decades of study to obtain his PhD’s. But the temptation to create whatever premise is needed at the moment – despite any contradictory facts – is an ongoing characteristic of not just Massimo, but the self-anointed intellectual–Atheist in general.

Massimo:

”Which brings me to the third interpretation of the word spiritual: someone who takes care of cultivating and reflecting on his ethics, of behaving justly and compassionately toward his fellow human beings, and of nurturing his aesthetic sense through arts and letters. Okay, by that definition, I am spiritual but not religious.”

Massimo, like all Public Intellectuals, fabricates his own ethics, his own theory of justice, compassion and aesthetic sense. This is not spiritual, of course, it is mental gaming where the owner of the mind makes up all the rules for the game. The rules are thus very flexible and fluid; situational and Consequentialist, convenient and independent of rationality. The owner of the mind is quite in control of all aspects of ethics, justice, etc Just like any deity would be. It is a very self-satisfying position to anoint oneself to hold, this faux deity-ship. And that is delusional.

Under monism, the believer is able to create his own universe, a truncated material reality overlaid with ad hoc Consequentialist prescriptions for what and how to believe regarding abstracts such as ethics and justice and compassion and so on. And the self-endowed elitism of monism allows the true believer to assert that this is the Truth that should be applied to all of mankind. (Never mind that the slipperiness of these volatile “truths” allows them to change without notice).

But most of all, the denial of the existence of that which you can’t see might well indicate blindness. Denial of existence is not proof of non-existence. Denial without evidence is empty posturing. The non-spiritual have no intellectual ground to claim the non-existence of spirituality. Such a denial merely reflects that the non-spiritual are also not logical or rational either.

Massimo:

”…humanist, as in someone who is trying to live up to the best of what humanity can be.”

Living for the "sake of humanity" means denial of self in order to work purely for the benefit of mankind: total submission to the objectives defined by the hyper-moral elites, who are entirely convinced that they know best what humanity needs. This is the “New Man” ideology of Mao, Lenin/Stalin, Castro/Guevara, Pol Pot. It is the inverse of religious ethics which urge an individual to be the best that an individual can be, under the constraints of absolute concepts concerning decent character values – values derived not by the individual.

Massimo:
”Odysseus famously puts it in Dante's Inferno, "Fatti non foste per viver come bruti, ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza" (We were not made to live like brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge). I suggest, therefore, that we reclaim the basic notion that a compassionate, ethical, and interesting human being doesn't need to be either religious or spiritual. He just needs to be human.”

As one commenter points out, the Materialist viewpoint proclaims that there is no purpose to life, that humans are the products of blind determinism: there is no teleology, period. So quoting Dante is outside the supposedly materialist viewpoint that Massimo professes. Can he empirically validate what he thinks we “should” do or be? Of course not. Imperatives are not Material; declaratives are, at least some of them.

It is not clear from all this just what limits are to be placed on compassion, or whether omni-benevolence is required, nor whether Massimo’s recommended ethics are congruent with those of any other human being (or even his own ethics from yesterday or last week). That doesn’t matter right now. Massimo will surely think about it and let us know.