Un-conversion

It's interesting to note that sociopaths can actually exhibit empathic behavior even without feeling the emotional drive to do so. Those sociopaths who tend to get press time are not only sociopaths, but also have additional psychological issues like poor impulse control, among other things.The reason is deceptively simple - emotional attachment to others is not a prerequisite of altruism. Human beings are a social species, and our society requires integration with other human beings in order to function, there are direct non-emotional benefits associated with altruistic behavior, including social status and recognition, the simple fact that acting to benefit the group collectively ends up benefiting the individual, and the Prisoner's Dilemma - even if one feels absolutely no guilt or shame or empathy, one can still recognize that treating others in a particular way typically leads to reciprocation. We choose what kind of world we want to live in by how we treat others, and that applies to sociopaths just as much as everyone else.I wouldn't say that empathy is what "makes us human." There are human beings who have a cognitive defect preventing or dulling the emotional reactions we identify as empathy, and they are still people with hopes and dreams and desires and thoughts and feelings. The vast majority of them will not commit any great crime, but will appear to be perfectly normal people at first glance, and will still not actually be "evil" or "inhuman" if you spend a significant amount of time with them. Statistically speaking, it's highly likely we've all met at least a few sociopaths and had no idea; they may not even know, themselves.Instead, I think what makes us human is the capacity to have those thoughts and hopes and dreams and desires. "I think, therefore I am," essentially.It certainly does not seem as if there is any supernatural requirement to explain the appearance of altruistic behavior and the ubiquitous "Golden Rule." It's simply rational, and it remains valid even absent the emotional "gut feeling" usually associated with the term.

Interesting story and there is no doubt that our brains are subject to disease in the same way as is the rest of our body. I had a close friend who committed suicide as a result of being severely bi-polar. (He had a great mind in other ways. He had a PHD in physics and we both played in the music group at church.) My point is that he died from a diseased brain.I'm not sure at all though that you can tie it into consciousness. From the online dictionary:

quote:

---

a. Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts.

---

I don't think that a diseased brain has anything to do with self awareness. A diseased brain, or drugs for that matter, can cause us to do things that we wouldn't otherwise do. The point is though that without the tumour Fred wouldn't have done what he did. The actual moral code that Fred lived by was something other than what he exhibited with his diseased brain. If my friend wasn't bi-polar he would be alive today.Frankly I think that your point about Fred actually is an indication that there is more going on that just what comes from the meat that makes up our brain. We can do that and you have. Still though I go back to the point I’ve made before. Is it more plausible that intelligence and morality had an intelligent and moral first cause or is it more plausible that intelligence and morality had a non-intelligent, non-moral random collection of particles as a first cause.If the latter is correct then obviously you are right and there is no need for further discussion. If however we conclude that it is more plausible or even somewhat plausible that there might be an intelligent and moral prime mover, it seems rational to me that we would want to find out what we can about that prime mover.Even then we can take the deistic position that this prime mover got things going and then headed off to parts unknown. In my view that is a cop-out. This is an anthropomorphic point of view but it seems likely to me that an intelligence that brought all of this into existence would have an ongoing interest and involvement in what he/she/it had brought about. I think the theistic view makes sense.Yes, I agree that if religions are all about being moral then mostly they are all pretty much the same and there is no real difference in adhering to any one of them or to atheism for that matter. Let’s just all be nice. Mind you, without a moral and intelligent first cause I still fail to see how we would be able to have a concept of nice. I agree that it works well within a tribe but there are times when the interests of my tribe will interfere with the interest of yours.As Christianity is the religion that we are talking about I’ll go back to what I said. The writers of the gospels and the epistles all agreed that Jesus of Nazareth, was the Jewish Messiah and that God had resurrected Him to new life after death, in the same manner that at the end of time there will be a resurrection or re-creation of all creation. If this is all true then it isn’t redundant. There are all sorts of things that flow from this that can be found in the Bible and frankly in our hearts. Ultimately — Love Wins.

Actually, I think your well made point actually leans towards there being an intelligent moral first cause. If morality evolved from a non-intelligent non-moral first cause I would expect there to be a consistent result within humanity. If however our morality is the result of an intelligent moral first cause who has given us the ability to choose between the common interest and self interest then what we see in the world is entirely what I would expect.

Mind explaining why you think this? It would seem (and this happens to jive with what we see) that since morality evolved along with us and is almost necessary in order to survive as a communal species, it is inevitably going to be different among different sorts of people.However, if, as you seem to think, there is some moral ghost/being/whatever, wouldn't it go to say that morality would never change? Why the trial and error if this "ultimate moral being who is more moral than anything ever" not just provide the right morals from the get go and essentially hand homo-sapiens utopia on a silver platter?A lot of times I read GDR's posts and think you're a pretty rational guy.The rest of the time, I think you shoehorn your god guy in wherever you can because you reaaalllllllyyyy want him there.

Which we do find.

Maybe I'm reading something wrong, or something in me is askew, but how do you figure that morality is consistent among humanity in general?

This is painful but you're right, which means I was wrong. Just as we have evolved differently physically then we should expect that we would evolve differently morally regardless of the first cause. My contention is that morality has been consistent from the get go. People have always had the free will to choose that consistent morality or to reject it in favour of self-interest. If you are going to go back to quoting the OT and the instances of genocide and stoning then I would agree that that can't actually be of God in spite of their protestations that they were. You're probably right again but then I think we all do that. I can say though that in many cases my understanding of God and Christianity has changed as I've gained new insights, and I expect my beliefs will be adjusted again in the future.

People are also clever, they can learn to fake it. No, it's not all that makes us H. sapiens, I was on a bit of a rhetorical roll - but it is what makes us 'nice' (at least occasionally). And without it, I really doubt humanity could have evolved in the way we have.

I don't need to reference a book I find to made of fairy tales, GDR. We can look to actual evidence to see that different groups of people have different standards of ethics/morality. It's not like they knew they were being immoral and chose otherwise: they actually thought what they were doing was right and just. I hate to trot out Buz, but look at how he trivializes slavery and says that "life was better for them here, as slaves". This is someone now, here, in the 21st century Imagine how slaveholders viewed it back then?Are you saying the Mayans actually knew better, that they actually knew what they were doing was immoral but continued to do it anyways?Are you telling me that cannibal tribes actually realize they are being immoral, but continue their traditions anyways?Are you telling me that racists realize hating someone for the color of their skin is actually immoral, but continue doing it anyways?So your idea that people just choose to be immoral as a whole doesn't jive with what we actually see. Yes, there are people who do choose to be immoral, but we don't judge entire civilizations and categorize their actions based on those individuals, now do we?

This is a whole new argument and deserves it's own thread. But the fact that morality is a neurological function of the brain, is again something quite outside any concept of biblical Christianity. These arguments only resolve to some form of vague deism, not theism.

Obviously you must be askew.While the details may vary, we still find in all human societies common trends in those societies' morality, which we would expect given the factors that they have in common, namely people (and human nature), group dynamics, mating, children, survival needs, property, etc. We would expect those common factors to result in common "problems" that would require common approaches in their solution. So we do find in all human societies ways to get along with each other, restrictions on killing each other, restrictions on taking somebody else's property, some form of marriage and expected conduct within marriage, the need to care for and provide for one's children, etc.It's quite obvious.

Ok, I can see that as well. You just went much, much, more basic than I was thinking. Obviously, if we all didn't have some sort of the same (very basic) guidelines, we never would have thrived as a species. But once you get into any societal detail at all, it breaks down and moral guidelines are vastly different; as different as people are.

I agree that individuals and societies have the ability to rationalize immoral behaviour. Buz does it with slavery, (I didn't see the quote but I'll take your word for it), and the the nazis did in WW II. I see pedophiles that justify what they do. I still maintain that is consistent with the concept of a moral code that is fundamental to existence from the beginning of time along with our ability to over-ride that code in favour of self interest. Who knows? My thought would be that at some level they do but I think that a group mentality can easily allow people to stuff that fundamental morality down to the point that it is completely lost. I also suggest that we set ourselves as individuals and as societies on a moral trajectory. The more we break that fundamental moral code the easier it becomes and conversely, the more we adhere to it the easier it becomes. Actually, I think that what we see does jibe with what I believe. People make moral choices and often we know that what we are doing doesn't adhere to the GR but we do it anyway. Life is about choices and many of those choices are moral ones.I'm not sure about entire civilizations but there have certainly been large groups of individuals, (again the nazis, realizing that not all Germans in 1940 were nazis), that have acted in contravention of the GR in favour of their collective self interest.

I've got some objections against this... You see, Christian morality relies on this free choice, but recent developments in neurology have show that morality is heavily influenced by genes, development in the womb, and early upbringing. Some people end up being more selfish then others as a result. It's still possible to change , but that there is natural inequality in moral ''talent'' is pretty much proven right now. This is not a good thing, I know, but reality is harsh.. Unless you're got right genes, development as a fetus didn't run into trouble(Don't smoke mom!), and you got a stable upbringing.Still, we should never give up on a person, nor accept immorality, and it should also be noted most humans are naturally inclined to not accept this, although that actual degree does vary a bit as well, people can even be hypocrites about it.Edited by Kairyu, : No reason given.Edited by Kairyu, : No reason given.

I don't see that contradicting anything I've said. The question is whether those circumstances have an intelligent moral first cause or not.However, in your examples you are describing situations where acting in accordance with the GR is also in the collective self interest. That isn't always the case, and even within the collective there will be individuals who don't conform and will steal and murder in what they perceive as being in their individual best interest.Societies attempt to force the GR on it's members by setting laws and instituting punishments. Christianity IMHO is about people having hearts that don't need laws. As Paul says, "the laws are written on their hearts". We are called to have hearts that find their joy in doing the "right" thing regardless of whether it is in our self interest or not.