5 ms·

> There is a strong motivation to be able to say that everyone is created equal, regardless of how uncontrollable factors affect you... This, this, this, this,

> There is a strong motivation to be able to say that everyone is created equal, regardless of how uncontrollable factors affect you... This, this, this, this, this! People are not created equal at all! That should be obvious to anyone evaluates the world in even a cursory manner. There are material, physical, emotional and intellectual differences between any two individuals. I have a (totally baseless and unvalidated) theory: If you accept that all people are not equal you are presented with a curious metaphysical problem when considered from a Western "Christian" perspective; why did God create both paupers and princes?--i.e., why are some born into ridiculous wealth and others crippling poverty? Eastern traditions handle this typically by some appeal to "reincarnation" and/or "karma." You can't do this in the Western view because everyone there is living to get into heaven, not escape samsara (it's funny that in some views these are actually the same thing :) In earlier times when I debated fundamentalists, the retort would be "each is tested in his own way" or something along those lines. How entirely unsatisfying, the game is rigged and we're all not starting from the same position! For the modern, non-secular mind, it seems people would rather maintain the fiction of equality than consider the fact that the world is a profoundly un-equal place.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
I.e. yet another place, where the just-world fallacy sneaked in.
swsieber 9y ago
Yeah, the world is incredibly unequal. I do think it's generally not explained well (or even understood well), and for most, they either ignore it, or acknowledge it and consciously set it to one side until it clicks. I'll bite though on the religious bit (I'm a practicing Christian). I think people give unsatisfying answers because a base assumption is that God can do anything. But really, there are things God cannot do, or he would cease to be God... Add in Christ's atonement making up for all injustices and pains, the ability to choose as paramount our being, and our existence extending beyond both ends of this mortal existence. And then I think we have most of the pieces necessary to construct an answer that's not entirely dissatisfying. I'm not here to discuss it per-say, just wanted to say that I think most (religious) people build their arguments from some unchecked assumptions that lead to unsatisfactory results. (As a mostly irrelevant aside - if you've ever read the second MistBorn series, I think the God-like figure in that series touches well on interventions of God)
ajuc 9y ago
> If you accept that all people are not equal you are presented with a curious metaphysical problem when considered from a Western "Christian" perspective; why did God create both paupers and princes?--i.e., why are some born into ridiculous wealth and others crippling poverty? When I was still a catholic I "solved" this by assuming God put souls with more capability to survive hardships in bodies that experience more hardships. Basically the world is a level-scaling MMORPG :) When I stopped being a catholic I just assumed there's nothing fair about universe, it's just random, so there's nothing to explain. The fact we don't have equal chances is obvious, even people saying otherways usually know this deep down, they just won't admit it because ideology, so they might say "people are equal, but society is keeping some of us down" (clearly not the only factor - see psychological development problems), or "people are equally talented at different things, some of us don't get to realize these talents" - which might be true, for general enough definition of talent, but is quite unlikely (if nobody's supervising the distribution of talents - how do you ensure everybody's got the same amount?). And even if it's true - the definition has to be so general that in practice it doesn't matter.
- nsomaru 9y ago
  > When I was still a catholic I "solved" this by assuming God put souls with more capability to survive hardships in bodies that experience more hardships. Basically the world is a level-scaling MMORPG :) Interestingly, if you an understand the synthesis of eastern metaphysical concepts such as "maya" (illusion), "karma" (causation) and their logical implications such as reincarnation, you arrive at a similar conclusion -- the world is essentially a game (meant to be enjoyed, a journey, a sport to be reveled in), which scales your instance based on your karma! There's respawning too :) Choose your own adventure! Just thought I'd drop a book recommendation here: "The Monk and the Philosopher" - Jean-François Revel and Matthieu Ricard [0]. A much younger, atheist, science-absolutionist (?-haha) me had his mind blown by this text. It made me seriously question my world view (which would be later be shattered by a friend with considerable philosophical talent). I do not currently identify as a Buddhist, and I'm not sure how it would be received now, but it certainly was useful in breaking a certain science-dogma in me. edit: punctuation, book recommendation [0] https://www.amazon.com/Monk-Philosopher-Father-Discuss-Meaning/dp/0805211039 https://www.amazon.com/Monk-Philosopher-Father-Discuss-Meani...
croon 9y ago
But aren't "created equal", and "set up with equal conditions" two entirely different discussions? While I'd personally assume "birth order effects" if a thing would be almost entirely nurtured based, that's not what OP was saying, at least not entirely. > The differences could be societal- perhaps first-borns are treated with more care by their parents, or they could be biological- perhaps the hormonal changes in a pregnant woman are different for each successive child, or they could be something else entirely No one brought it up directly, but I can't help but think that some of this thread has undertones of the Damore discussion, which drives the argument from: Societal changes we could make - to - these things (sorta kinda maybe based on pseudoscience) might not be societal and shouldn't be addressed (or at least not in the way they currently are). I tend to be strongly in the former camp, which it sounds like you could be too. But let's not conflate those two separate conversations. Race and gender has a profound effect on your prospects, but not in a way we can't fix.
agarden 9y ago
That God created people with different prospects -- "paupers and princes" -- is explicit in the bible. The ninth chapter of Romans is quite clear about it. Jacob and Esau were twins, but God loved one and hated the other. Their destinies were set before their birth. The conclusion of the matter is that it is not of him who runs, nor of him who wills, but of God who shows mercy. Romans 9 is rather controversial in Christianity these days. A lot of people will tell you it doesn't mean what it seems to be saying. But if you take it on face value, it explicitly acknowledges that the game is rigged. God makes different people to serve his different purposes, and that is the way it is meant to be.
- nsomaru 9y ago
  When you say 'purpose'; what do you mean? I have trouble conceiving an all-powerful entity having purpose at any level of the universe because it's meaningless to have purpose when you're all-powerful. Some clarity around "God's purpose" would be helpful.
  - agarden 9y ago
    I don't understand where you see a conflict. To be all-powerful means you have the ability to effect any and all ends that you desire. It means you can realize all your purposes. If one doesn't have any desires (i.e., purposes), I'm not sure it would mean anything to say one is all-powerful.
mcguire 9y ago
"If you accept that all people are not equal you are presented with a curious metaphysical problem..." If you accept that all people are not equal, then you are presented with a number of curious metaphysical problems. The big one is, how do you limit the damage caused by the lessers?

TeMPOraL 9y ago

I.e. yet another place, where the just-world fallacy sneaked in.

swsieber 9y ago

Yeah, the world is incredibly unequal. I do think it's generally not explained well (or even understood well), and for most, they either ignore it, or acknowledge it and consciously set it to one side until it clicks. I'll bite though on the religious bit (I'm a practicing Christian). I think people give unsatisfying answers because a base assumption is that God can do anything. But really, there are things God cannot do, or he would cease to be God... Add in Christ's atonement making up for all injustices and pains, the ability to choose as paramount our being, and our existence extending beyond both ends of this mortal existence. And then I think we have most of the pieces necessary to construct an answer that's not entirely dissatisfying. I'm not here to discuss it per-say, just wanted to say that I think most (religious) people build their arguments from some unchecked assumptions that lead to unsatisfactory results. (As a mostly irrelevant aside - if you've ever read the second MistBorn series, I think the God-like figure in that series touches well on interventions of God)

ajuc 9y ago

> If you accept that all people are not equal you are presented with a curious metaphysical problem when considered from a Western "Christian" perspective; why did God create both paupers and princes?--i.e., why are some born into ridiculous wealth and others crippling poverty? When I was still a catholic I "solved" this by assuming God put souls with more capability to survive hardships in bodies that experience more hardships. Basically the world is a level-scaling MMORPG :) When I stopped being a catholic I just assumed there's nothing fair about universe, it's just random, so there's nothing to explain. The fact we don't have equal chances is obvious, even people saying otherways usually know this deep down, they just won't admit it because ideology, so they might say "people are equal, but society is keeping some of us down" (clearly not the only factor - see psychological development problems), or "people are equally talented at different things, some of us don't get to realize these talents" - which might be true, for general enough definition of talent, but is quite unlikely (if nobody's supervising the distribution of talents - how do you ensure everybody's got the same amount?). And even if it's true - the definition has to be so general that in practice it doesn't matter.

nsomaru 9y ago
> When I was still a catholic I "solved" this by assuming God put souls with more capability to survive hardships in bodies that experience more hardships. Basically the world is a level-scaling MMORPG :) Interestingly, if you an understand the synthesis of eastern metaphysical concepts such as "maya" (illusion), "karma" (causation) and their logical implications such as reincarnation, you arrive at a similar conclusion -- the world is essentially a game (meant to be enjoyed, a journey, a sport to be reveled in), which scales your instance based on your karma! There's respawning too :) Choose your own adventure! Just thought I'd drop a book recommendation here: "The Monk and the Philosopher" - Jean-François Revel and Matthieu Ricard [0]. A much younger, atheist, science-absolutionist (?-haha) me had his mind blown by this text. It made me seriously question my world view (which would be later be shattered by a friend with considerable philosophical talent). I do not currently identify as a Buddhist, and I'm not sure how it would be received now, but it certainly was useful in breaking a certain science-dogma in me. edit: punctuation, book recommendation [0] https://www.amazon.com/Monk-Philosopher-Father-Discuss-Meaning/dp/0805211039 https://www.amazon.com/Monk-Philosopher-Father-Discuss-Meani...

croon 9y ago

But aren't "created equal", and "set up with equal conditions" two entirely different discussions? While I'd personally assume "birth order effects" if a thing would be almost entirely nurtured based, that's not what OP was saying, at least not entirely. > The differences could be societal- perhaps first-borns are treated with more care by their parents, or they could be biological- perhaps the hormonal changes in a pregnant woman are different for each successive child, or they could be something else entirely No one brought it up directly, but I can't help but think that some of this thread has undertones of the Damore discussion, which drives the argument from: Societal changes we could make - to - these things (sorta kinda maybe based on pseudoscience) might not be societal and shouldn't be addressed (or at least not in the way they currently are). I tend to be strongly in the former camp, which it sounds like you could be too. But let's not conflate those two separate conversations. Race and gender has a profound effect on your prospects, but not in a way we can't fix.

agarden 9y ago

That God created people with different prospects -- "paupers and princes" -- is explicit in the bible. The ninth chapter of Romans is quite clear about it. Jacob and Esau were twins, but God loved one and hated the other. Their destinies were set before their birth. The conclusion of the matter is that it is not of him who runs, nor of him who wills, but of God who shows mercy. Romans 9 is rather controversial in Christianity these days. A lot of people will tell you it doesn't mean what it seems to be saying. But if you take it on face value, it explicitly acknowledges that the game is rigged. God makes different people to serve his different purposes, and that is the way it is meant to be.

nsomaru 9y ago
When you say 'purpose'; what do you mean? I have trouble conceiving an all-powerful entity having purpose at any level of the universe because it's meaningless to have purpose when you're all-powerful. Some clarity around "God's purpose" would be helpful.
- agarden 9y ago
  I don't understand where you see a conflict. To be all-powerful means you have the ability to effect any and all ends that you desire. It means you can realize all your purposes. If one doesn't have any desires (i.e., purposes), I'm not sure it would mean anything to say one is all-powerful.

mcguire 9y ago

"If you accept that all people are not equal you are presented with a curious metaphysical problem..." If you accept that all people are not equal, then you are presented with a number of curious metaphysical problems. The big one is, how do you limit the damage caused by the lessers?