Parents: The Door of Paradise

[Killjoy]

I’m curious to know: how do you see the place of parents in your lives?

As an old tune went:
"How'd you dare to tell me that I'm my father's son,
When that was just an accident of birth?
I'd rather look around me, compose a better song,
'Cause that's the honest measure of my worth."

 

[Pinball1970]

Just to add, sometimes parents do not do a good job so do not deserve respect or love.
We do not have to revere our parents if they do not deserve it.

Morality isn’t truly objective. What one person sees as moral, another might see differently. That’s why there must be a standard to guide people toward what is right and protect them from confusion — and that standard can only come from the Creator who knows human nature best.

I agree with some of this. Societies must have rules or we would have anarchy, every man for himself and our communities would crumble.
Looking at our early history and archaeology the story seems to be a progression and evolution of cooperative societies, towns, cities, and civilizations and we reside in one now.
Not to say those societies were not brutal at times and wars between tribes, cities and civilizations happened.
The rules evolved too, they are still evolving, we have new laws all the time, these are presented, debated, finalized then finally announced and enforced.
These have little to do with any god today though, unless we are discussing theocracies.

 

[exchemist]

True. But I'm not against codification per se, but that they take credit for being the source behaviour of what they codify.

Oh I do agree it’s idiotic when defenders of Christianity make out that, but for their faith, they would go round raping and pillaging. That’s a really stupid view of religion*. But religion is a guide to help people live their lives so it can provide a general rationale for how to behave and interact with people. Others get that rationale in other ways, and wouldn’t express it in religious terms.

*Though I think I read recently that rehabilitation of young offenders has found that for a significant proportion an appeal to religion and culture has had success.

 

[Abdullah Masud]

As an old tune went:
"How'd you dare to tell me that I'm my father's son,
When that was just an accident of birth?

Premise 1: None of us chooses to be born; our existence is not the result of our will.
Premise 2: Birth, family, and upbringing are all imposed upon us without our consent.
Premise 3: Since existence is unchosen, the circumstances of our birth — including who our parents are — are accidents of a larger reality beyond our control.
Premise 4: If all these fundamental aspects of life are unchosen, then attributing personal identity solely to them misrepresents the true source of our existence.

Conclusion: Therefore, being someone’s “son” is not a matter of personal choice or intrinsic identity; it is an accidental circumstance of unchosen life. The deeper question is not who we were born to, but why and how existence itself was given, pointing to a conscious cause beyond the chain of unchosen lives.

 

[DaveC426913]

In Islam, worship is only for Allah — never for parents or anyone else. Every good deed done in obedience to His command is considered worship of Him. So respecting and caring for parents is an act of worship, not of them, but of Allah. Respecting parents doesn’t mean blind obedience or losing independence; it’s about gratitude and kindness, not unquestioning devotion.

Then perhaps we should use the correct terms.
Respect and care for parents.
Worship God.

Islam also encourages seeking knowledge, thinking critically, and standing for what is right, even when it differs from our parents. The balance between respect and independence is what makes it beautiful.

Sure, until the parents think 'standing for what's right' is being disrespectful to them.

 

[Sarkus]

... pointing to a conscious cause beyond the chain of unchosen lives.

Non sequitur. It simply does not follow as a conclusion, I'm afraid. It is perhaps wishful thinking on your part, but there is nothing in your premises that leads to the conclusion you have reached.

 

[Abdullah Masud]

Non sequitur. It simply does not follow as a conclusion, I'm afraid. It is perhaps wishful thinking on your part, but there is nothing in your premises that leads to the conclusion you have reached.

The conclusion naturally follows if the premises are taken not merely descriptively but causally. I made it more detailed simply for clearer understanding.
If existence itself, along with all its essential circumstances, is unchosen (Premises 1–3), then these unchosen conditions must originate from something beyond the self. Since an infinite regress of unchosen causes would explain nothing, the argument points to a first cause endowed with will; otherwise, the entire chain would remain causally unintelligible.

 

[Sarkus]

The conclusion naturally follows if the premises are taken not merely descriptively but causally.

Nope, they still don't. There's nothing in the Premises that gives rise to the conclusion you reached. You would need to add other premises, as a bare minimum.

I made it more detailed simply for clearer understanding.

And it is clear: it is fallacious logic. Your conclusion is a non sequitur. Further premises are required, as a minimum.

If existence itself, along with all its essential circumstances, is unchosen (Premises 1–3), then these unchosen conditions must originate from something beyond the self. Since an infinite regress of unchosen causes would explain nothing, the argument points to a first cause endowed with will; otherwise, the entire chain would remain causally unintelligible.

Again, this is a non sequitur. There is nothing in the premises that suggest (a) that there need be a "first cause", or (b) that such "first cause" need be endowed with will. That you think the entire chain would otherwise remain causally unintelligible is an appeal to ignorance on your part. Again, nothing in your premises suggest that which you conclude.

 

[DaveC426913]

Since an infinite regress of unchosen causes would explain nothing, the argument points to a first cause endowed with will; otherwise, the entire chain would remain causally unintelligible.

But nature does not care if you understand it.
The origin of the universe and the creation of life from non-life is sufficient to explain our current state of lineage.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

What he said. Plus the bit about "Yet today, many children neglect their parents" seemed to miss that many children are just returning the favor. I.e. they're doing exactly as they were taught.

One could say they are still children in a negative sense and haven't grown at all.

 

[Abdullah Masud]

Nope, they still don't. There's nothing in the Premises that gives rise to the conclusion you reached. You would need to add other premises, as a bare minimum.

And it is clear: it is fallacious logic. Your conclusion is a non sequitur. Further premises are required, as a minimum.

Again, this is a non sequitur. There is nothing in the premises that suggest (a) that there need be a "first cause", or (b) that such "first cause" need be endowed with will. That you think the entire chain would otherwise remain causally unintelligible is an appeal to ignorance on your part. Again, nothing in your premises suggest that which you conclude.

I’d note that simply labeling it a non sequitur doesn’t clarify where the reasoning breaks. If you believe further premises are needed, I’d be interested to know which ones you think would bridge the gap.

The inference isn’t from ignorance, it’s from what is already known. Our unchosen existence is a clear fact, and if all existence is unchosen, then the entire chain consists of dependent realities that cannot ground themselves. The inference to a necessary, independent cause follows standard causal reasoning. And the idea of will arises from the evident order and purposive structure of existence, which suggests intentional rather than blind causation.

 

[DaveC426913]

And the idea of will arises from the evident order and purposive structure of existence, which suggests intentional rather than blind causation.

This is where you drop the ball.

 

[exchemist]

I’d note that simply labeling it a non sequitur doesn’t clarify where the reasoning breaks. If you believe further premises are needed, I’d be interested to know which ones you think would bridge the gap.

The inference isn’t from ignorance, it’s from what is already known. Our unchosen existence is a clear fact, and if all existence is unchosen, then the entire chain consists of dependent realities that cannot ground themselves. The inference to a necessary, independent cause follows standard causal reasoning. And the idea of will arises from the evident order and purposive structure of existence, which suggests intentional rather than blind causation.

Yes, this is just the good old First Cause argument, isn’t it? It has a long history. Thomas Aquinas was I think its first exponent in Christianity. But it really goes back to the Ancient Greeks.

 

[Sarkus]

I’d note that simply labeling it a non sequitur doesn’t clarify where the reasoning breaks.

Apologies. To me it was obvious. The issue that, to me, makes it a non sequitur is your treatment of "will" or "consciousness". It is not present in the premises. Everything is "unchosen". Yet your conclusion asserts otherwise. Non sequitur.

If you believe further premises are needed, I’d be interested to know which ones you think would bridge the gap.

I don't think any can bridge the gap without begging the question which you're trying to achieve. You'd need to have premises that assert that creation requires a consciousness, for example. But then you'd get into matters of whether such premises are true, or just a matter of faith.
Ultimately, any valid deductive logical argument that tries to conclude "God" as the only possible answer will, in my view, be guilty of either informally fallacious logic, be it circular reasoning, or the soundness will be called into question. That is notwithstanding formal fallacies, such as ignoring "not-God" (i.e. an existence absent the need for God) as a possible conclusion that also fits all the premises.

The inference isn’t from ignorance, it’s from what is already known. Our unchosen existence is a clear fact, and if all existence is unchosen, then the entire chain consists of dependent realities that cannot ground themselves. The inference to a necessary, independent cause follows standard causal reasoning. And the idea of will arises from the evident order and purposive structure of existence, which suggests intentional rather than blind causation.

Thank you for the further clarification to your thinking.
As DaveC has succinctly stated: you drop the ball with regard will, and consciousness - your "intentional rather than blind causation". There is nothing in your premises that make this a valid conclusion.
Maybe you would need a premise such as "all causation is willful", or "existence has a purposive structure". I mean, you'd quite possibly be tying yourself in knots, or overcomplicating the resultant argument, but it is almost certain that any such premise that subsequently allows you to validly conclude "willful", or "intention", would be challenged and, by those of us who don't believe, would be deemed unaccepted. And thus your argument would only really be valid for someone who already accepts the argument.

Anyhoo - as an argument for God, it needs some work, for sure. And you'd be merely adding to a long list of such arguments that are either not accepted as sound by anyone other than those who already accept God exists, or are invalid.

 

[C C]

[...] Since an infinite regress of unchosen causes would explain nothing, the argument points to a first cause endowed with will; otherwise, the entire chain would remain causally unintelligible.

Action that falls out of preference (will, choice, intelligence, etc) is not necessarily any more moral than random action (without preference). Especially if what matters is the (final) goal rather than how it was achieved in between.

FIGURATIVE EXAMPLE: A 2000-meter tall giant walks a significant distance to a lesser mountain range, to sit on it. His decision was oblivious to all the countless individual tragedies and specific environmental damage that he caused along the way.

The capacity for choice in and of itself does not entail knowledge of and concern about everything that results from that selection.

But beliefs in our "being special" were surely part of the tool kit for early human survival. A motivation to keep going on despite being more aware of the miserable circumstances of the world than any other creatures before them.

So I'm not knocking it in an everyday, practical context. But reasoning (that often begins with motivated choice of premises) can't validate a particular conception of ultimate reality, only conjure or output those possibilities for it.
_

 

[(Q)]

Obeying Allah’s command is an act of worship. So helping the needy, respecting elders, and serving parents are all forms of worship

Yet, people did all those things long before they ever heard of Allah. You don't do those things to worship a god, you do those things because you want to, not because you have to obey a command.

— but worship of whom? Of Allah alone. Every good deed done in obedience to His rule is worship of Him.

So, when good deeds were done before anyone ever heard of Allah, to what are those deeds attributed?

Once that concept is clear, there’s no contradiction, because in Islam we worship only one God, none besides Him.

People who don't believe in Allah do good deeds and don't need to obey commands and worship gods. It would appear one does not need Allah in order to do good deeds.

 

[Pinball1970]

People who don't believe in Allah do good deeds and don't need to obey commands and worship gods. It would appear one does not need Allah in order to do good deeds.

That's key. Biological evolution of our primate species is zero to do with religion and gods. Social animals have a code of conduct which does not involve Moses, Jesus or Mohammed. Our social evolution of ancient civilizations all over the globe varies with where they are and the culture they happen to be in.

 

[(Q)]

Premise 1: None of us chooses to be born; our existence is not the result of our will.
Premise 2: Birth, family, and upbringing are all imposed upon us without our consent.
Premise 3: Since existence is unchosen, the circumstances of our birth — including who our parents are — are accidents of a larger reality beyond our control.
Premise 4: If all these fundamental aspects of life are unchosen, then attributing personal identity solely to them misrepresents the true source of our existence.

Conclusion: Therefore, being someone’s “son” is not a matter of personal choice or intrinsic identity; it is an accidental circumstance of unchosen life. The deeper question is not who we were born to, but why and how existence itself was given, pointing to a conscious cause beyond the chain of unchosen lives.

Yes, it was a conscious decision made by your parents to have a bit of the ole' in out in out. Your existence was given by them.

 

[(Q)]

That's key. Biological evolution of our primate species is zero to do with religion and gods.

It's one of the many questions religion pretended to answer with, God did it.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

I agree with some of this. Societies must have rules or we would have anarchy, every man for himself and our communities would crumble.
Looking at our early history and archaeology the story seems to be a progression and evolution of cooperative societies, towns, cities, and civilizations and we reside in one now.
Not to say those societies were not brutal at times and wars between tribes, cities and civilizations happened.
The rules evolved too, they are still evolving, we have new laws all the time, these are presented, debated, finalized then finally announced and enforced.
These have little to do with any god today though, unless we are discussing theocracies.

Too many laws. too many restrictions, compulsion, and in some rare cases perversions. The evolution of law for the benefit of people has gone past its' balance point and is tending toward totalitarianism. Laws are not for the benefit of society, but for the benefit of the people comprising it. You don't restrict most of peoples choices because you are a do-gooder and believe yourself to be righteous.