Morals without God or Darwin, just Empathy

Ana, things don't evolve for anything.They evolve because (insert causal input here).We infer causality because are brains make mistakes because it it better to have a false positive than a false negative; any clearer?Take a look at how we recognise faces in clouds. That's out brains making a false positive; why? Because our brains are good at recognising faces (or inferring causality) that it recognises faces (or causality) where there is none.You are making a false positive when you ascribe causality to the sentient action of a god because, again our brains are geared to detecting intentional actions (this has survival value). Sorry, I don't get your point, here. No it has not! Please show where it has or retract your assertion.

It most certainly does not. Look up any theory of emotion and you will find that cognition plays a massive role in emotion.

Ana, this sounds like the typical xian tactic of dismissing evidence presented that conflicts with the xian world view. For the nth time you can't use feelings to investigate reality!Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

You know, this is where the problem rests. When you ask some of us on this board a question we try to answer it as objectively as we can; wicked scientists that some of us are The fact of the matter is that we do good because it is so very rarely convenient to do bad.Here are some reasons why:1-One risks hurting people who will one day be in a position to pay you back in kind.2-Hurting someone else causes you to experience some of their discomfort due to our evolved ability to recognise other people as sentient beings like oursleves. This is Theory of Mind.3-Whether you like it or not we do learn that acting one way helps us in the long run and one way does not.I'm out of time (and will get back to you on this) but asking for a non-science answer is asking for an opinion.I could tell you that I do right because I feel a spiritual tug when I contemplate doing something antisocial or because humans are hardwired by evolution to respond in certain ways to each other.The scientist in me will always look to where the evidence is.Take it easy.

Nope, not true.See Stiles msg 150 on this thread for why it appears that you have.

I have a proposition for you.How about a crash course in cognitive behavioural psychology?It's my field and we could look at some research into the very questions we are examining here.Up for a great debate?

Then you will never find the answers you require. Intersting point. If you relate to a god as you would a loved one I can see how you would not want to hurt it (for the reasons explained in this thread).However, as I said above, to find out why you have to look to the study of cognition, emotion and behaviour i.e. psychology.If you ignore a branch of learn geared towards answering the very questiosn you ask, well what more can anyone do?It's pretty common, by the way; xians ignoring science. Check out the Geology/Flood threads. Yes, and that motivationis learnt!Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

I infered from this that Ana proposed a 'higher force' as a driver for morality.I stated that she would need to substantiate this 'higher force' if she wants to hang her point on it.

Yeah, I do get on my 'science is the way' hobby horse from time to time, I do try to check the Forum I'm in (science or not) but sometimes I need a boot up my arse to keep me straight.And to be honest, I can't help thinking I have been riding Ana's posts lately, maybe I should back off a bit and reflect (or reload my guns, lol).