Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morality without god
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 151 of 1221 (678679)
11-09-2012 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Stile
11-09-2012 2:57 PM


Re: The First Stage
Stile writes:
I would add some caution here, though. The word "greater" in this scientific sense simply means "bigger" or "larger" in a "more" kind of way. Not necessarily "better" or something like that. It might be better... or it might be worse... or it might be like "more stars in the night sky" that don't make much of a difference to us one way or another. But the scientific analysis (so far) can't really say one way or the other.
I just wanted to comment on this. I don't see it that way. I envision a greater reality to be something that is essentially a part of our current universe that is imperceivable to us, although science seems to be getting closer interestingly enough.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Stile, posted 11-09-2012 2:57 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 152 of 1221 (678680)
11-09-2012 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Rahvin
11-09-2012 7:39 PM


Re: God and War
Rahvin writes:
That depends. Most people don't feel a lot of remorse over the chicken that died for their dinner. Fewer people feel remorse over killing a fish to eat. Even more people feel no remorse over killing a rat with a trap. Virtually nobody feels remorse for killing a cockroach.
Points taken--though I thought I had those covered (I see now too sketchily) with the "some" qualification.
My point re Dawn's claim of indifference is that society does proscribe the killing of some animals--especially pets, but also creatures of great beauty and no food value (how would people commonly respond to someone who enjoys crushing butterflies?)--and those who are indifferent to those proscriptions carry a predictive flag for sociopathy.
If we look back to our common heritage among hunter gatherers, we frequently find chants and prayers of thanks to prey and petitions for forgiveness and understanding, by successful hunters.
I think our notions of kin and caring, at their evolutionary roots, can and sometimes do extend not just beyond our own tribe but also our own species. Culture can take a long time to catch up.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Rahvin, posted 11-09-2012 7:39 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 153 of 1221 (678682)
11-09-2012 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by GDR
11-09-2012 7:02 PM


Re: Lack of Standard
I see it more as a case of the motivation or what it is that drives us. I would say that the right thing is the kind thing, the merciful thing or the just thing and discerning what that is isn't always clear.
If you examine how it is that you come to the conclusion that any particular act is an act of kindness or mercy you might see more of the strength of my position. Even the ideas of kindness and kind and kin are strong evidence that any concept of morality revolves around the self.
Two different people could come to opposite conclusions and yet both could be choosing the right thing as they both had a sincere motivation or heart to choose what was loving and without thought to the consequences for themselves.
I would say this is good evidence in support of the idea that everything in the universe is relative to me as far as I am concerned. As it is for you. Physics has a lot to say about this.
I think it goes deeper than that. As humans we even experience an emotional response to acts of fictional sacrificial kindness in our entertainment.
I am not sure that I follow you here. I am saying that it is part of our very fabric. I don't see how it can get any deeper in.
I don't think we should be ashamed of it either but on the other hand if I go around thinking what a wonderful person I am, then I think I'm missing the point.
I certainly don't go around that way. I am forever laughing at my near complete insignificance. I rail back against it but with little success.
I actually make a conscious effort to suppress my ego now that I have had plenty of experience with having it suppressed for me. I revel in the fact that doing nice things for other people makes me feel good. It is a win win situation.
It might shed some light to look at some examples. Let's play spot the moral consensus.
Why is it immoral to commit murder but not to kill in self defense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by GDR, posted 11-09-2012 7:02 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by GDR, posted 11-10-2012 1:19 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 154 of 1221 (678718)
11-10-2012 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Dawn Bertot
11-09-2012 5:12 PM


Re: God and War
Dawn Bertot writes:
Saying that I have ignored requests by not giving examples of absolute morality, is silly, because the burden of proof is on the one, that believes, morality can exist, without God. Hence the title of the thread.
And I have said that morality exists but it is not absolute. That is easily proved and you have done it yourself by explaining that we all believe murder to be wrong but can site many examples when we have found it less wrong or not wrong at all.
Morality obviously exists; whether it exists only if a god exists would be relevant if you could show that there was a god and that that god interacted directly somehow in our behaviour and conscience. (Which you obviously can't.)
All that can be said further is that a god is not necessary for *my* morality but it seems to be for yours. I'm an atheist and do not rely on a belief in God to make moral decisions about my life. Nor do I believe that some god is pulling my strings without my knowledge or has inbued me with a sense of morality at birth. Yet somehow I fail to rape and murder. You need to explain that.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-09-2012 5:12 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 155 of 1221 (678799)
11-10-2012 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Dogmafood
11-09-2012 8:07 PM


Re: Lack of Standard
Dogmafood writes:
If you examine how it is that you come to the conclusion that any particular act is an act of kindness or mercy you might see more of the strength of my position. Even the ideas of kindness and kind and kin are strong evidence that any concept of morality revolves around the self.
My small church raises money for a home for street girls in Uganda. They get fed, housed and educated. We give up our resources, (time and money), in order to support the strengthening of a different society who are in turn using up their resources. My society would be better off if the African societies would be wiped out freeing their resources for us. How do you see that form of morality revolve around the self.?
Dogmafood writes:
I am not sure that I follow you here. I am saying that it is part of our very fabric. I don't see how it can get any deeper in.
You talked about how when you do the moral or altruistic thing it makes you feel good. I’m saying that when someone else does something notably moral it can bring about a positive emotional response from u and that either further fictional accounts of moral sacrifice in our entertainment can bring a strong emotional response. It is more than just feeling good because we did the right thing.
Dogmafood writes:
It might shed some light to look at some examples. Let's play spot the moral consensus.
Why is it immoral to commit murder but not to kill in self defense?
I can’t properly respond to that because it is not how I understand morality. What you are talking about are actions that are a result of a person’s morality. If I don’t commit murder only because I’m afraid of getting caught and punished then from a moral perspective I’m no better than if I had actually committed the murder.
Essentially though I suppose that the difference is in the heart. If the murder is committed for selfish reasons then I think it is safe to be considered immoral. If I kill in self defence it is more of an open question. Who knows what is in a person’s heart at a time like that.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Dogmafood, posted 11-09-2012 8:07 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Dogmafood, posted 11-11-2012 11:03 AM GDR has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 156 of 1221 (678916)
11-11-2012 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by GDR
11-10-2012 1:19 PM


Re: Lack of Standard
My society would be better off if the African societies would be wiped out freeing their resources for us. How do you see that form of morality revolve around the self.?
Because I do not believe that your or my society would be better off if the Africans were wiped off the map and I don't think that you believe it either. I think that the thought of living on the street in Uganda is so repulsive to you that you are moved to action. Your sense of empathy is so strong that you invest in the remedy. If the reward wasn't there for you I don't think that you would do it.
It is more than just feeling good because we did the right thing.
I don't think so. I think that it can be reduced to the emotional mechanisms that control our behaviour.
There is a question that I asked in the Where is the point? thread about which instincts we should suppress and which we should indulge and, most importantly, what metric can we use that is not influenced by those instincts? I don't want to mix up the threads but it seems integral to both of them.
Who knows what is in a person’s heart at a time like that.
I would suggest that I would not murder someone because I would not like to be murdered. I think this is the reason most of us are not murderers and not because we think that we will get caught. I suggest that I would kill in self defence for the same reason, that I would rather not be murdered.
Edited by Dogmafood, : add a comma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by GDR, posted 11-10-2012 1:19 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by GDR, posted 11-11-2012 11:11 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 157 of 1221 (679033)
11-11-2012 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Dogmafood
11-11-2012 11:03 AM


Re: Lack of Standard
Dogmawood writes:
Because I do not believe that your or my society would be better off if the Africans were wiped off the map and I don't think that you believe it either. I think that the thought of living on the street in Uganda is so repulsive to you that you are moved to action. Your sense of empathy is so strong that you invest in the remedy. If the reward wasn't there for you I don't think that you would do it.
The Africans use up their resources that we could use. We have the weapons so if we wanted we could enslave them. (again ) We don’t send aid to Africa because it makes us feel good. There is something instinctive inside us that makes us want to choose what is right, and helping people in dire need just seems right to most of us.
Dogmafood writes:
There is a question that I asked in the Where is the point? thread about which instincts we should suppress and which we should indulge and, most importantly, what metric can we use that is not influenced by those instincts? I don't want to mix up the threads but it seems integral to both of them.
It seems to me that our basic instinct is to be selfish but at the same time we seem to have a knowledge that we can, and actually should, rise above that. In the end the matrix would the question of whether our action is one of self interest or is it kind, merciful and/or just. Again, it isn’t the action that is in question. It is the motivation or the heart that drives the action that constitutes the morality of any particular action.
Dogmafood writes:
I would suggest that I would not murder someone because I would not like to be murdered. I think this is the reason most of us are not murderers and not because we think that we will get caught. I suggest that I would kill in self defence for the same reason that I would rather not be murdered.
I’m sure that there are those who don’t murder because they might get caught, but that would be a small minority. However, I don’t think that your answer is correct either. I believe that most people don’t commit murder simply because they know in their conscience that it is fundamentally wrong.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Dogmafood, posted 11-11-2012 11:03 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Dogmafood, posted 11-12-2012 6:59 AM GDR has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 158 of 1221 (679049)
11-12-2012 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by GDR
11-11-2012 11:11 PM


Re: Lack of Standard
We don’t send aid to Africa because it makes us feel good. There is something instinctive inside us that makes us want to choose what is right, and helping people in dire need just seems right to most of us.
Well, we don't send aid to Africa because it makes us feel bad. It is when we become aware of their suffering and we don't send it that we feel bad.
You say that we choose to do what is right. We conclude what is 'right' by referring to how we feel about the various options available to us. Our instinct is to avoid those actions that make us feel uncomfortable. Can you identify how you would decide if some action is right or wrong without referring to yourself and how you feel about the action?
It looks to me as though I am saying that the behaviour is instinctive and you are saying that the behaviour is instinctive. If those instincts come from God then what real choice do we have in the matter? If this is the way that God made me then all of the credit goes to him and I am just a juicy machine following instructions.
It seems to me that our basic instinct is to be selfish but at the same time we seem to have a knowledge that we can, and actually should, rise above that.
Our instinct is to be selfish. The billions of years of the evolution of life in general has refined the instinct to incorporate the fact that cooperation is beneficial to the individual. From clumping cells to ants to wolf packs to people.
It is the motivation or the heart that drives the action that constitutes the morality of any particular action.
I think that all motivations are instinctive. I think that our motivations can be in conflict with each other. Morality is a concept that identifies when our actions reveal that we value the tribe and that our instinct to be selfish includes cooperation.
I really think that we need to explore why we suppress some instincts and encourage others and what informs those choices. I am at a loss for an answer to that question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by GDR, posted 11-11-2012 11:11 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by GDR, posted 11-12-2012 5:54 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 336 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 159 of 1221 (679082)
11-12-2012 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Dawn Bertot
11-08-2012 5:33 PM


Re: God and War
Dawn Bertot writes:
I know you are new to this website and quite possibly new to critical thinking in general. I say that with the greatest respect.
Not exactly sure where any respect exists in that comment, so please let us try to debate only the arguments and not comment on someone else's critical thinking skills. You have zero idea who I am and the amount of time in my life I have spent developing my critical thinking skills. But, I digress...on to the arguments you are making.
Dawn Bertot writes:
You first need to in logical and rational fashion demonstrate that an actual morailty exists
Ill give you the example again. Explain why murder is immoral, wrong or right, not from a human perspective, but from the standpoint of all species and from the standpoint of reality (existence) itself. Now i dont need examples of humans doing things, selfless or selfish acts. I need a well reasoned logically set out argument that demonstrates from the standpoint of reality, why murder is wrong
And I have done this, I have pointed to other species that have what seems to be a less evolved morality than ourselves. When looking at a pack of wolves, they instinctively understand that to kill another member of the pack (Outside of defending a cub or a move for dominanace) then the effects will be detrimental to the pack. The number in the pack will allow the wolves to control more territory, mate more often, and have all around better opportunities. Then when we go to chimps we see that they even display altruism. I linked to an article about this is Message 132. We see chimps willing to provide food to others and work together as a group for the same reasons we see wolves do so. Also, with chimps we begin to see emotional connections to other members of the group. We have witnessed one chimpanzee crying over another that had died. So it seems that even in the animal kingdom there is a structure that permits, but frowns, upon murder. The fact that it is permitted in the animal kingdom is enough to show that morals are not absolutes so even if morals were to come from God, we know they are not absolutes. It is definitely logical to see the structure for how morals could have evolved from the slow increasing in size of the group that our species had to care for together.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Ok, but you still havent explained why its ok to exterminate (murder) a colony of ants, because they seem to be INSECTnificant. Do you see how your "morality", changes, when it suits your purposes. Morality cannot both exist and not exist. It either does or it does not
Actually, my explanation of looking for other examples of basic morals in animals does apply here. As I stated, it seems that the benefits for living morally and not murdering members of the same species is better control of territory, more mating opportunities and the ability to expand control. However, all of these morals apply only to the species. A wolf is perfectly happy to kill me because it protects its territory and maintains control. However, it will not be as willing to kill another member of its pack. This would weaken the pack and perhaps cost territory or females. Similarly, our killing of insects would not have affected our specie's chances of survival, while murdering a fellow member of a tribe may (when the tribes were very small) leave the group susceptible to attack or loss of territory or females. I never stated that morality was absolute and I think a simple cursory glance at reality will show us that morality is a fluid thing. However, being fluid and alterable does not disqualify it from being objective, only absolute.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Thats the point friend, there is no testable hypothesis, from a logical standpoint that will allow you that luxury. If you think there is, then present it to me.
There are and they are being looked at. Studying the behavior of animals with less cognitive ability can show us different stages of morality that are not quite as developed as humans. These behaviors can show us a possible pathway that morals could have taken. We can find ways to test morals in other animals that should be (due to brain size/social structure/other telling signs) living based on simple morals. To claim there is no way to test it means that you have already made up your mind. You personally could not think of any possibility so you placed God in as a marker for that spot. However, that is simply an argument from incredulity and has no bearing on what reality is.
Dawn Bertot writes:
If you think you have the evidence or that it can be gathered, then simply present it. In actuality, there is no evidence in a logical or rational way that will aliviate you of this problem. no amount of information will make your position anything but subjective.
I believe that I have presented evidence. I will not say the idea is subjective as it is based on observable data.
Dawn Bertot writes:
No, its a simple logical problem that can be tested against realiy and reason. No more information will come in to demonstrate that "morality" is not morality actually without an absolute standard to judge it against.
Its a logical proposition, not a lack of evidence. Seriously, do you not see what you are trying to advocate. Simply present the information in some logical argument.
Here is an illustration. At one point in time, the taking of life by the gladiators was viewed by them as valid and right. We on the other hand would say it was atleast wrong, if not immoral.
Now who is right?
You cant demonstrate whether morality exists by examples, it has to be done from what reality and reason will allow
You keep speaking about an absolute standard, and yet, morality as we see it in reality is definitely not absolute. If it were, "Thou shalt not kill" would mean ever. Never, for any reason at all, should you kill another human being. However, our human morality tells us that in certain situations (Danger to life of offspring, imminent threat to well-being, threat to our country and values, etc...) killing is okay. How is this an absolute rule whatsoever? This falls into the "how on Earth are we supposed to know what this absolute moral controlling God would want" idea? To believe in absolute morals is to deny reality and the many shades of grey (More than 50, I am sure...Lol) that actually exist within our morality. There can still be an objective standard (as explained by Sam Harris), but there is definitely not absolutism.
As for the Gladiator question, I believe that this even shows the current evolution of morality that we are experiencing as our knowledge about the world grows! Our tribes/groups began very small and so our concern was for only our group. Then we began to live in larger and larger areas together. Our ideas of morality had to expand to encompass these settlements. Then, for a long time, we had our tribe as defined by nation-states. You do what you can that benefits your nation-state and people from outside that nation-state are not of concern. Watching them fight to the death is entertainment. These people also thought that Africans and others were a lesser species, so there was little remorse for what occured. As we learned more as a species, we realized this idea was wrong. All Homosapiens are basically the same and treating others based upon race and other similar qualifiers is incorrect and immoral. It wasn't religion that stopped the violent entertainment or violent treatment of human beings, but rather it was understanding that we are the same.

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. -Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. -Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing!
What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. -Robin Williams-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-08-2012 5:33 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 336 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 160 of 1221 (679099)
11-12-2012 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by GDR
11-09-2012 1:18 AM


Re: Lack of Standard
GDR writes:
I am a theist. However in this discussion we are talking about either the theistic or deistic POV verses the atheistic POV. I see no justification for starting with the assumption that our intelligence and morality evolved from a non-intelligent, non-moral first cause. Just because we can observe human evolution through the fossil record and we can observe our moral evolution through the historical record, (including the Bible), does not mean that we can extrapolate that into evidence for a non-intelligent, non-moral first cause.
The most important part of this statement is when you say, "I see no justification for starting with the assumption that our intelligence and morality evolved from..." to the end of the sentence. This is simply an argument from incredulity, which as I stated is why you are simply shoehorning God into the explanation.
You even state that we can currently see the evolution of morality happening as we have learned more about the world. So, it seems that you are simply denying the root cause of it being natural selection being responsible for the first cause. However, similar to evolution of species, what is the mechanism that stops the extrapolation at a certain point? If we were to travel back in time, would see a point were Homosapien went from zero morality to having a moral compass nearly instantly? This flies in the face of all evidence that we have ever observed about how the world works. All we have ever observed is natural causes, so it is far more parsimonious to assume a natural first cause versus a supernatural one. This is not to say that the supernatural answer is not possible, but it should not be the starting point.
GDR writes:
Many of us in the west send money to help those in the third world who can use a little help. Western society, (our group or tribe) would be better served by eliminating these people freeing up their resources for ourselves, but instead of the we weaken our group for their benefit.
This would not benefit you that much, the resources in the area you are speaking about are poor and so there was little desire in the past to control those areas. However, our tribe is currently getting much larger because of science. The understanding that all homosapiens are basically the same creates a bond to all our fellow members of the species that no other creature on Earth has. We are beginning the evolution of our morals toward looking at things as a world together...Sure it is in its basic stages now but this allows us to see why we are willing to give up some of what we have for those who have not just less, but so much less that it shows us how lucky we really are. This also explains why humanity has decided to stop destroying plant and animal life and cultures are now trying to protect and preserve for the future. Our understanding of our world through our evolved cognitive abilities moves the progression of our morals further and further.
GDR writes:
I think that I already dealt with that question in this thread. Message 88 or Message 130, and in other posts in this thread as well.
So, there is no objective standard for your ideals and I think that I am close to a similar idea. There is objectivity, but it sits only at the very heart of morality. The objective starting point is that bad is described as that which causes all beings to suffer, according to Sam Harris. All other moral decisions are subjective, but there is an objectivity at the heart of it. This speaks to the Christian argument that without evil, there can be no good. Well, even without religion we can determine that which would be objectively bad (evil) and so there can be proper responses (good) by moving from that moral base.
GDR writes:
My point wasn’t really about morality directly. The point was that in order to have a type of intelligence within computers it was necessary to have an intelligent first cause. I have never claimed that the requirement is guaranteed. I do submit that it seems reasonable to conclude that our intelligence is the result of an intelligent first cause.
I understand that you do not feel there is another answer without an intelligent first cause, but this metaphor still falls flat. I agree with you that the intelligence of a computer requires an intelligent cause. However, we are discussing an inanimate object. There is no reproduction with mutations, which are then selected for or against through natural selection. This means that this metaphor has nothing to do with anything in the biological world.
GDR writes:
If we limit ourselves to what we can sense physically then we don’t know what we are missing. Scientists use subjectivity all the time and then hope to prove it objectively, but many times they hold subjective opinions that they aren’t able to resolve. How many scientists have gone to their grave believing in string theory which is still completely unproven and even discredited. I can’t say that I know that my beliefs are correct and I have no doubt that some of what I believe is wrong, however my experiences in life and what I have learned lead me to believe that I am on the right track. If I am wrong so be it.
Pretty much everything that I read is either science, (at the Brian Greene level only), or theology and frankly I not only don’t find them contradictory but I find them complimentary. Yes my conclusions are subjective but so is your atheistic position.
Did these scientists believe it was a guarantee or were they proposing attempting to find tests for the idea? It seems to me that the idea still exists and it was discredited only because no one could devise a test at this time for the other dimensions it proposed. I could be incorrect on why it was discredited (or if it even was, as you stated), so someone who knows otherwise feel free to correct me. This does not mean the idea is incorrect (discredited), but simply that the technology we currently have is unable to test it. By you considering this discredited completely the same could be said of God, which we cannot devise a test for. If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander, if you will. String Theory should remain in the realm of hypothesis until it becomes testable. Scientists use subjectivity, but they do not rely upon absent evidence. I cannot think of one piece of evidence that is non-physical, and please correct me if I am wrong....
GDR writes:
As you point out I agree that our sense of morality is evolving but I see you shoehorning in your completely naturalistic answer to the question of morals. You then support this by saying that the research isn’t complete which is a science of the gaps argument. In addition you say that racism, sexism, ageism, murder and constant warring in the name of religion is wrong. Well I would suggest that racism, sexism, ageism, murder and constant warring in the name of anything is wrong. People, whether they be religious or not are still morally flawed and many will find any excuse to further their lust for power over others.
There is no such thing as "Science of the Gaps". The difference between the two ideas is that with "God of the Gaps" the answer stops there. There is no need for further research because we can simply claim God did it, and that is the answer. Whereas, with your "Science of the Gaps" idea, it is admitting ignorance and searching further for reason. It is the opposite of the inherent laziness in simply ascribing work to a divine power and walking away without further investigation. So, if "Science of the Gaps" exists, it is still positive because it admits to incomplete knowledge and that research will continue in the area.
Finally, I believe there was a miscommunication. I did not intend to state that sexism, ageism, and constant warring were done in the name of religion, although they were as well as in the rest of society. The only one I applied to religion was murder in the name of religion. Honestly, I was just looking for more specific examples of things that were done in the past that society is starting to frown upon. Murder, in and of itself, has seemed to be frowned upon for a long time in society. Although for a long time, it was considered justified in the name of religion, which was why I included that connotation. I would agree that these instances are now being looked at in a new light and we realize as a society that these do not benefit us. Again, I state we are witnessing morals evolve and there is no mechanism that stops this evolution that has been discovered, so backwards extrapolation is a valid practice at this point.
Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. -Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. -Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing!
What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. -Robin Williams-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by GDR, posted 11-09-2012 1:18 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by GDR, posted 11-12-2012 6:26 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 161 of 1221 (679103)
11-12-2012 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by GDR
11-08-2012 2:03 PM


Re: Lack of Standard
Straggler writes:
Is God responsible for all aspects of human psychology in your view or just some of them?
GDR writes:
In my view yes He is.
Then why hold up morality as some sort of indicator of God's existence any more than (for example) hatred?
[qs]Firstly if we weren’t free to choose selfishness we would not be free to choose unselfishness and we could no longer be moral creatures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by GDR, posted 11-08-2012 2:03 PM GDR has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 162 of 1221 (679104)
11-12-2012 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by GDR
11-08-2012 2:03 PM


Re: Lack of Standard
Straggler writes:
Is God responsible for all aspects of human psychology in your view or just some of them?
GDR writes:
In my view yes He is.
Then why hold up morality as some sort of indicator of God's existence any more than (for example) hatred?
GDR writes:
Firstly if we weren’t free to choose selfishness we would not be free to choose unselfishness and we could no longer be moral creatures.
God could have made only good and indifference. Moral and amoral. You don't have to have evil in order to have free will do you?
You seem intent on highlighting the things you think are good and holding them us as some sort of evidence of god's existence when there is no more reason to invoke morality than evil in your arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by GDR, posted 11-08-2012 2:03 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by GDR, posted 11-12-2012 6:39 PM Straggler has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 163 of 1221 (679161)
11-12-2012 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Dogmafood
11-12-2012 6:59 AM


Re: Lack of Standard
Dogmafood writes:
Well, we don't send aid to Africa because it makes us feel bad . It is when we become aware of their suffering and we don't send it that we feel bad.
I might feel bad when we can’t go our for dinner with the money we sent over.
Dogmafood writes:
You say that we choose to do what is right. We conclude what is 'right' by referring to how we feel about the various options available to us. Our instinct is to avoid those actions that make us feel uncomfortable. Can you identify how you would decide if some action is right or wrong without referring to yourself and how you feel about the action?
As I said earlier. It isn't about what we do, it is about our hearts. If it makes us feel uncomfortable then it seems to me that is our heart telling us that we should take a different course of action. In spite of this though we all seem to be able to easily overcome our uncomfortability, (how’s that for a word ) and look out for number one at someone else’s expense.
Dogmafood writes:
It looks to me as though I am sa ying that the behaviour is instinctive and you are saying that the behaviour is instinctive. If those instincts come from God then what real choice do we have in the matter? If this is the way that God made me then all of the credit goes to him and I am just a juicy machine following instructions.
Our instinct is one of self interest but I believe that we are called to rise above that. (I know I'm repeating myself here but we are covering the same ground.)
Dogmafood writes:
Our instinct is to be selfish. The billions of years of the evolution of life in general has refined the instinct to incorporate the fact that cooperation is beneficial to the individual. From clumping cells to ants to wolf packs to people.
But co-operation isn't always beneficial to the individual and sometimes it is just the opposite.
Dogmafood writes:
I really think that we need to explore why we suppress some instincts and encourage others and what informs those choices. I am at a loss for an answer to that question.
Well this of course is the question. IMHO it is the metaphorical still small voice of an actual intelligent moral god that speaks into our hearts.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Dogmafood, posted 11-12-2012 6:59 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Dogmafood, posted 11-16-2012 6:38 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 164 of 1221 (679165)
11-12-2012 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
11-12-2012 12:12 PM


Re: Lack of Standard
12 ft chicken writes:
The most important part of this statement is when you say, "I see no justification for starting with the assumption that our intelligence and morality evolved from..." to the end of the sentence. This is simply an argument from incredulity, which as I s tated is why you are simply shoehorning God into the explanation.
..and so is any other explanation for the origin of morality
12ft chicken writes:
You even state that we can currently see the evolution of morality happening as we have learned more about the world. So, it seems that you are simply denying the root cause of it being natural selection being responsible for the first cause. However, similar to evolution of species, what is the mechanism that stops the extrapolation at a certain point? If we were to travel back in time, would see a point were Homosapien went from zero morality to having a moral compass nearly instantly? This flies in the face of all evidence that we have ever observed about how the world works. All we have ever observed is natural causes, so it is far more parsimonious to assume a natural first cause versus a supernatural one. This is not to say that the supernatural answer is not possible, but it should not be the starting point.
I agree that it has evolved incrementally but that still tells us nothing about the impetus for it and whether we believe that it is rooted in non-intelligent non-moral sources or in if it has an external intelligent and moral first cause is the starting point that we come to from other reference points.
12 ft chicken writes:
This would not benefit you that much, the resources in the area you are speaking about are poor and so there was little desire in the past to control those areas. However, our tribe is currently getting much larger because of science. The understanding that all homosapiens are basically the same creates a bond to all our fellow members of the species that no other creature on Earth has. We are beginning the evolution of our morals toward looking at things as a world together...Sure it is in its basic stages now but this allows us to see why we are willing to give up some of what we have for those who have not just les s, but so much less that it shows us how lucky we really are. This also explains why humanity has decided to stop destroying plant and animal life and cultures are now trying to protect and preserve for the future. Our understanding of our world through our evolved cognitive abilities moves the progression of our morals further and further.
Sure science has done things that draw us closer together. Just look at the internet for example. But once again we have to go back and look at the root cause of the intelligence that developed the science. Is the root cause of that intelligence, intelligent or non-intelligent. As I have stated before, I view science as another form of theology and in fact it has brought the world closer together in the ways that you mention.
12 ft chicken writes:
So, there is no objective standard for your ideals and I think that I am close to a similar idea. There is objectivity, but it sits only at the very heart of morality. The objective starting point is that bad is described as that which causes all beings to suffer, according to Sam Harris. All other moral decisions are subjective, but th ere is an objectivity at the heart of it. This speaks to the Christian argument that without evil, there can be no good. Well, even without religion we can determine that which would be objectively bad (evil) and so there can be proper responses (good) by moving from that moral base.
Sure, but the question is, with or without religion, is it God that has given us the ability to make moral choices.
12 ft chicken writes:
Did these scientists believe it was a guarantee or were they proposing attempting to find tests for the idea? It seems to me that the idea still exists and it was discredited only because no one could devise a test at this time for the other dimensions it proposed. I could be incorrect on why it was discredited (or if it even was, as you stated), so someone who knows otherwise feel free to correct me. This does not mean the idea is incorrect (discredited), but simply that the technology we currently have is unable to test it. By you considering this discredited completely the same could be said of God, which we cannot devise a test for. If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander, if you will. String Theory should remain in the realm of hypothesis until it becomes testable. Scientists use subjectivity, but they do not rely upon absent evidence. I cannot think of one piece of evidence that is non-physical, and please correct me if I am wrong....
It seems to me that the physical evidence is the appearance of design in creation. Non-physical evidence would be intelligence and morality. We have to come to different conclusions about what the evidence tells us but that is often true in the scientific realm as well.
12 ft chicken writes:
There is no such thing as "Science of the Gaps". The difference between the two ideas is that with "God of the Gaps" the answer stops there. There is no need for further research because we can simply claim God did it, and that is the answer. Whereas, with your "Science of the Gaps" idea, it is admitting ignorance and searching further for reason. It is the opposite of the inherent laziness in simply ascribing work to a divine power and walking away without further investigation. So, if "Science of the Gaps" exists, it is still positive because it admits to incomplete knowledge and that research will continue in the area.
Science of the Gaps happens when you make the claim that something is true but that as yet science hasn’t found the degree of scientific proof to be able to come to a confident conclusion. When I say that God is responsible for intelligence and morality I’m not suggesting that any limitation be put on scientific research any more than you are.
12 ft chicken writes:
Finally, I believe there was a miscommunication. I did not intend to state that sexism, ageism, and constant warring were done in the name of religion, although they were as well as in the rest of society. The only one I applied to r eligion was murder in the name of religion. Honestly, I was just looking for more specific examples of things that were done in the past that society is starting to frown upon. Murder, in and of itself, has seemed to be frowned upon for a long time in society. Although for a long time, it was considered justified in the name of religion, which was why I included that connotation. I would agree that these instances are now being looked at in a new light and we realize as a society that these do not benefit us. Again, I state we are witnessing morals evolve and there is no mechanism that stops this evolution that has been discovered, so backwards extrapolation is a valid practice at this point.
No problem with any of that. Evolution keeps bring us closer and closer.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 11-12-2012 12:12 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 165 of 1221 (679166)
11-12-2012 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Straggler
11-12-2012 12:22 PM


Re: Lack of Standard
Straggler writes:
Then why hold up morality as some sort of indicator of God's existence any more than (for example) hatred?
I don’t think I do. Life is about choices. It isn’t what happens to us or what is done to us that is important, but it’s our responses that matter. My favourite theologian says that if you fight evil with evil then evil is bound to win. I believe that we are called to rise above that and always respond from a position of love. Personally, I’ve got a long way to go.
Straggler writes:
God could have made only good and indifference. Moral and amoral. You don't have to have evil in order to have free will do you?
I’m not sure indifference is very much different than evil. I would agree that there is considerable nuance to our choices.
Straggler writes:
You seem intent on highlighting the things you think are good and holding them us as some sort of evidence of god's existence when there is no more reason to invoke morality than evil in your arguments.
I don’t think I am. Morality includes the ability to choose good or evil. Just the fact that we can choose evil seems to me to point to something beyond our particle world.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Straggler, posted 11-12-2012 12:22 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Straggler, posted 11-12-2012 7:46 PM GDR has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024