My Beliefs- GDR

I think frustration is creeping in because you keep asserting that we must all come to some sort of subjective conclusion about "Tom, his nature and involvement in our lives" despite everyone you are talking to emphatically telling you that they most definitely are not drawing these subjective conclusions.And the reason we are not subjectively deciding anything about Tom is because in the absolute absence of any objective evidence of "Tom" we can be certain that "Tom" is entirely a subjective invention no more worthy of sensible consideration than any other evidentially baseless but unfalsifiable concept one can imagine.It's not about some subjective decision to be pro or anti "Tom". It is all about invoking unevidenced entities Vs not invoking unevidenced entities.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Again, you create a false dichotomy. A dichotomy where one is either pro or anti "Tom" on the basis of some sort of subjective pondering of "Tom, his nature and involvement in our lives".But I don't need to ponder any more about Tom than I do any other unevidenced entity to conclude that such an entirely subjective notion is (practically by definition) made-up.If I tell you that there is an undetectable ethereal crab living inside your underpants do you really need to go away and seriously contemplate that proposition, come to some subjective conclusion about it, before discarding it as made-up?If I told you that this ethereal crab will cause testicular cancer if you don't change your underpants in the next hour would you:A) Go and change your underpants because this is very likely to be true?
B) Dismiss the whole idea as obviously made-up and not worry about it?
C) Go and change your underpants because whilst you don't know whether it is true or not it is better to be safe than sorry.I choose B). And whist I get that you find it hard to accept that not everyone is giving Tom the same serious consideration you are I genuinely see Tom as the cause of morality as entirely comparable to the Immaterial Pink Unicorn as the cause of bumper crop harvests and ethereal crabs as the cause of testicular cancer.As soon as you tell me that "Tom" is an undetectable subjective creation I know that he is made-up and don't need to give it any more serious consideration before dismissing it. Whilst it is possible in some philosophical anything-is-possible sense that some undetectable unfalisifiable figment of one's imagination may actually exist "Tom" is in the same class as ethereal crabs in terms of how likely this is. That is like seeing genuine cases of testicular cancer as evidence of ethereal crabs living in people's underpants. It's the cart before the horse mentality again.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I'm asking if saving puppies demands something other than natural processes or not.Do you now accept that risking one's life to save a puppy (as per your example) can be perfectly well accounted for by an entirely natural account of morality without any need for "Tom" and his influence at all?Or does saving puppies necessitate some un-evolved pre-existing intelligence that is not the product of natural processes (i.e. "Tom") Yours is a false dichotomy. The reason we have language and culture is because genetics has provided us with the equipment to be linguistic and cultural (unlike lobsters and melons which is why you can't transmit cultural mems to them). Language and culture are naturally occurring. Being correct more often than one would be by blind random chance is a good starting point. Whatever method of knowing you are applying to conclude Tom - Apply it to something less ethereal and more testable. Does it ever give a demonstrably correct answer? Does it have a success rate greater than that of merely guessing?For example - If you say that you can 'subjectively feel' that Tom is there then try subjectively feeling what number a dice will land on to see if this 'subjectively feeling' approach actually has any merit.If it doesn't (or if you are unable to apply this method of knowing to anything testable) then why would anyone treat your conclusions as any more reliable or accurate than randomly guessing as to what may or may not exist? Ah - Gaps. I'll let others deal with that.

Right. Hence you raising the example of saving puppies in the first place. Raising it as an example of moral behaviour that, in your view, falsifies "an evolutionary view of morality that only has mindless and non-moral underpinnings".So (again) - We have an evolutionary account of morality which explains human moral behaviour as observed in terms of entirely natural processes. A scientific account where "Tom" and his influence is entirely superfluous.And we have your account of morality in which human behaviour as observed cannot be accounted for by natural processes alone and in which "Tom" is thus a necessary requirement.The scientific view of morality and your view of morality are obviously completely at odds in terms of moral behaviours that can and cannot be accounted for by natural processes and how superfluous or necessary "Tom" thus is.You say you accept science whilst maintaining that the scientific conclusion here has been falsified. The point is that unless one is applying a method of knowledge acquisition that actually works the chances of any conclusion being correct are a matter of odds. Why?Your subjective "view" is utterly and completely irrelevant when assessing whether or not the method of knowledge acquisition you are applying to conclude "Tom" is any more likely to yield accurate and reliable results than blind random chance. What leads you to this conclusion? What method of knowledge acquisition are you applying to draw this conclusion? What track record of demonstrable success does this approach to knowledge have?What objective reason is there for me to give any more credence to the notion that "Tom" is the causes of morality than the notion that ethereal crabs are the cause of male cancer?

But we've already been through this in quite a lot of detail. Message 165You even agreed that the notion of causality you are invoking in order to arrive at your 'creator' is wrong. But your position depends on invoking subjectively derived entities for which there is no objective evidence whatsoever. And my position involves only those things whose existence is objectively evidenced.So the two positions are patently neither evidentially equivalent nor equally subjective.

However you phrase it, however you try to re-define the issue, we will always come back to the same simple fact.You are invoking the existence of an entity for which there is no objective evidence, an entity which is necessarily a subjective human creation.This is an epistemological approach that we know to have been an abject failure and one which we most definitely should not adopt in in place of a scientific approach if we are remotely interested in either accuracy or reliability of conclusion.History tells us this unequivocally. If causality is an emergent property of our universe (as per Message 165) then talking about a first cause in the way that you are is nonsensical. Do you mean we need to study how consciousness arose in evolutionary terms? Or "Why is there something rather than nothing?" - A question which Tom himself would have to ask should he find himself being that "something".But in the absence of any objective evidence for Tom the turtles stop with that which is objectively evidenced. Invoking the existence of anything un-evidenced is just subjective wishful thinking.

But it remains the case that one side is invoking un-evidenced entities and the other isn't. This is just indisputable. What un-evidenced entity do you think I am invoking? You need to read Message 165 again. Because you are applying common sense notions of caulsaity where they just don't belong. No. I am saying that applying causality to the origins of the universe if causality is an emergent and internal property of the universe makes no sense at all.The turtles literally stop at that which is objectively evidenced.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Do you accept that time is an internal aspect of our universe? Can you explain how cause and effect applies in the absence of time? You've lost me here. Obviously we are the product of a causal chain within our universe and I have no idea why you think we would be eternal........? What? No. The existence of imperfect replicators are the 'cause' of evolution (if you insist on applying this sort of terminology) What I think is unclear is why you think life requires a supernatural cause any more than (for example) a volcano (or indeed any other observable phenomenon) requires a supernatural cause?Is it just the gap thing?

Frankly your response is both pretty confused and confusing.I think the thing you are missing about time and common conceptions of cause and effect relate to the following: When you talk about life and death and abiogenesis etc. you need to realise that these are macroscopic phenomena that are not time reversible in then same way that quantum effects are. No I'm not. Entropy means that time is directional at the macroscopic level in a way that it is not at the quantum level. Entropy and the arrow of timeSo any macroscopic phenomena will follow the arrow of time. In the end I think we should heed cavediver's words - But you cannot talk about a "cause" for the Universe without first appreciating "causes".OK. But however you phrase it, however you try to re-define the issue, we will always come back to the same simple fact. You are invoking the existence of an entity for which there is no objective evidence, an entity which is necessarily a subjective human creation.We can talk about causation all you like (and I have tried to explain to you why causation as commonly conceived is an internal aspect of our universe rather than something which should be applied to the origins of the universe itself) but the bottom line here is that we know the universe exists.There is no objective evidence for the existence of an uncaused being who causes the universe (or indeed anything else). It remains the case that one side is invoking un-evidenced subjectively derived entities and the other isn't.This is just indisputable.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

OK. At the quantum level this is true. It's actually quite different. Because 'macro-evolution' is little more than a term made-up by creationists whilst entropy is very real and very relevant to macroscopic phenomena in a way that it isn't at the quantum level. Which is macroscopic and thus subject to entropy. No. You've got the wrong end of the stick. Entropy is very real. You try creating a perpetual motion machine and then tell me otherwise...... Then you would be simply wrong. The reason perpetual motion machines don't exist is not because of consciousness. In a word - Entropy. I suggest you read the rest of cavediver's post Message 59

quote:

---

What then creates this great disparity between the macroscopic view and the microscopic view? Principally the same macroscopic thing that gives rise to the idea of time: entropy.

​

When the cup falls and smashes, it takes one path through the space of all possibilites to end up in the smashed state. One path out of a gazillion possible paths. And where just about every one of those gazillion paths ends up in a macroscopically identical state: cup smahed into thousands of shards and scattered over the floor, each piece having come to rest by interacting with elements of the floor and passing over the kinetic energy.

​

It is completely possible for each element of the floor to interact with a neighbouring shard of cup, to impart just the right amount of kinetic energy to make each shard leap together to form a perfectly formed cup - the energy being sufficient to re-create all the chemical bonds that were brokern in the fall, and being sufficient to lift the cup back into the air back into our hand.

​

How possible? Just about as equally probable as it was for the cup to fall and smash in the way it did! One in a gazillion.

​

The difference is that the particular path that leads to the cup resurrection is surrounded by a gazillion paths that look nothing like a cup resurrection, where-as the path that our cup took on its fall was surrounded by a gazillion other paths that all looked essentially the same - a cup falling and smashing.

---

It's basically statistics of a sort that cannot be applied to individual particles. The only context in which a cause for "Tom" is demanded is when theists state that everything requires a cause and then invoke "Tom" as an uncaused entity. Evidentially speaking the "cause" of "Tom" is the same as the "cause" of Immaterial Unicorns. Namely the demonstrable ability of humans to invent things which don't actually exist. That is where the evidence regarding the concept that is "Tom", and the "cause" of said concept, leads us. There is no evidential basis for invoking "Tom" at all. Except that we do know for sure that making subjective conclusions like this (along with talk about "purpose") is a feature of human psychology and invariably leads to conclusions which are neither reliable nor accurate.In short we know that conclusions borne from such thinking are almost certainly wrong.

No. If your argument here rests on decreasing entropy then you really have no argument at all.

quote:

---

The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)

---

If abiogenesis required the second law of thermodynamics to be violated I think someone might have noticed this......Life on Earth depends on energy from the Sun, geothermal energy and other such sources. Life isn't a closed system. No. It's not at all what cavediver is talking about. You have completely got the wrong end of the stick regarding this time reversability stuff. Why is that reasonable?It's about entropy. You can't just ignore the actual science and insert some mystical notion of "consciousness" in it's place.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The second law of thermodynamics tells us that dS>0 - The change in entropy is always positive. So I have no idea what period of negative entropy you are talking about. The scientific evidence tells us that the basis for the evolution of these things is the same as the the evolution of any other evolved attributes you can name. Namely that they facilitated gene propagation in the ancestral environment.I realise you subjectively consider these particular things too special to have arisen in the same way as everything else. But your subjective incredulity is really neither here nor there. I'm not invoking "endless natural processes". I'm saying that commonsense notions of cause and effect do not apply to the existence/origins of the universe. The causal chain stops at that which is objecrtively evidenced. The turtles stop at that which is objectively evidenced. Categorically wrong. We know which epistemological techniques work and which ones don't. We know that evidentially baseless subjective notions about what exists have a track record of abject failure and we know that objective evidence and the methods of science lead to the most accurate and reliable conclusions available.In short we know that conclusions borne from the sort of thinking that you are applying are almost certainly wrong.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling.

Can you explicitly explain why you think evolved morality can't account for these things?

So now you consider the scientific, evolutionary account of morality to be some sort of atheistic plot.......? Pardon.....?Genes exist. Attributes that facilitate the propagation of genes flourish.Now I could also talk about the commonality of human psychology, the fact that the human brain is an evolved organ, the effects of physiological damage to the brain on moral reasoning, MRI scans, moral and altruistic behaviours in non-human species, altruism, compassion et al as instincts borne from the ancestral environment, the golden rule AND our inclination to make exceptions to it as naturally derived....and so on and so forth.I could mention all those things. But there is no need.Because just the fact that genes exist and that attributes which facilitate the propagation of genes flourish puts the evolutionary account of morality on a level of objective evidence that undetectable Tom and his undetectable influence on some undetectable mind-body-problem-plagued aspect of ourselves can only dream of.I'm afraid that in terms of objective evidence there is just no contest.Here is Wright on evolution, compassion and the golden rule - Link

In response to Collins....

quote:

---

Collins’ case for the supernatural origin of morality rests on the further assertion that there can be no evolutionary explanation for genuine altruism. Because self-sacrifice cannot increase the likelihood that an individual creature will survive and reproduce, truly self-sacrificing behavior stands as a primordial rejoinder to any biological account of morality. In Collins’ view the mere existence of altruism offers compelling evidence of a personal God. But a moment’s thought reveals that if we were to accept this neutered biology, almost everything about us would be bathed in the warm glow of religious mystery. Does our interest in astronomy owe its existence to the successful reproduction of ancient astronomers? (What about the practices of celibacy and birth control? Are they all about reproduction too?) Collins can’t seem to see that human morality and selfless love may be elaborations of more basic biological and psychological traits, which were themselves products of evolution. It is hard to interpret this oversight in light of his scientific training. If one didn’t know better, one might be tempted to conclude that religious dogmatism presents an obstacle to scientific reasoning.

---

LinkIn fact on the subject of morality Collins seems intent on being wilfully ignorant:

quote:

---

Though other animals may at times appear to show glimmerings of a moral sense, they are certainly not widespread, and in many instances other species’ behavior seems to be in dramatic contrast to any sense of universal rightness.(Collins, 2006, p.23)

---

To whihc Harris responds:

quote:

---

One wonders if the author has ever read a newspaper. The behavior of humans offers no such dramatic contrast??? How badly must human beings behave to put this sense of universal rightness in doubt? While no other species can match us for altruism, none can match us for sadistic cruelty either. And just how widespread must glimmerings of morality be among other animals before Collinswho, after all, knows a thing or two about genesbegins to wonder whether our moral sense has evolutionary precursors in the natural world? What if mice showed greater distress at the suffering of familiar mice than unfamiliar ones? (They do.[11]) What if monkeys will starve themselves to prevent their cage-mates from receiving painful shocks? (They will.[12]) What if chimps have a demonstrable sense of fairness when receiving food rewards? (They might.[13]) Wouldn’t these be precisely the sorts of findings one would expect if our morality were the product of evolution?

---