My Beliefs- GDR

Scientifically I suppose you might say that Tom doesn’t even rate with Big Foot. Big Foot might be captured and proven to exist. I don’t think that anyone is about to capture Tom. Science is agnostic in that it determines what it can about the physical world regardless of the question of Tom’s existence.Well we don’t really know whether or not Tom’s existence is a human construct or not, but it is pretty clear that the characteristics that define his nature have been at the very least primarily human constructs. It’s a question or origins If Tom exists then he is ultimately responsible for toenails. However, I don’t agree that morality falls into the same category as toenails. We are stuck with our toe nails. They are what they are from birth to death. We can however alter our morality. People do change. Our moral behaviour isn’t fixed for life. I absolutely agree that socialization plays a big part of that but it is my contention that that is the primary way the Tom does impact our moral views. A few years back I read the book Quantum Enigma. In this book the authors talk a great deal about consciousness and its interconnectedness with the world of QM. In a sense they ask the question of whether the universe created consciousness or whether consciousness created the universe.One of the points he makes in the book that consciousness, indirectly through observation or measurement, has a direct impact on our physical world without directly interacting with it. It doesn’t prove anything but it is food for thought. If consciousness is something more than brain activity then it seems reasonable to conclude that so is a thought.We can scan for activity in the brain which is the processing of inputs. Where did those inputs come from? I can’t scientifically say and from everything I read it is very much an open question. Different ideas and different emotions show differently on scans but I can’t see where that proves anything either. Science continues to work at understanding more about consciousness and conscious thought and we’ll see what they come up with, hopefully in my life time.None of what I have written provides the concrete reason that you asked for but this, along with what I’ve written previously, is the best I can do although I have no doubt that you don’t find it convincing.

But don't you see? You don't know so you've just made up a simple story to allay your ignorance and fit your belief. Again. Surely you understand the difference between a scientific paper providing a summary of our knowledge to date about the neuroscience behind the emotion that we call morality and a statement that x believes something therefore I must too? That's not what the paper is about at all. Research into the neuroscience of morality has focused on people who display amoral behaviour through brain damage or brain defects because, now that fMRI is fairly widely available we can look inside the damaged brain and compare them with normal brains. It proves that morality is a brain function like many others. It means that morality is a physical, neurological process. It's not some mysterious metaphysical idea.

I don't see why, since you don't believe in a general theistic deity, but rather a specific Christian one. That's not what you're doing at all.What you're doing is taking Christianity and paring bits away as they become untenable.You're doing a classic God of the Gaps, where your God is forced to retreat into the edges of scientific knowledge - your scientific knowledge that is, not the actual limits of scientific knowledge. So where God was once held responsible for creating the universe, the world, all life, you have retreated into making a much more modest claim, that he merely influenced human evolution.You're doing a similar thing with the Bible; you take all the nasty bits and pare them away, leaving a more palatable work that's a better fit for our modern sensibilities.You are not building from the ground up. Instead you are simply taking Christianity and snipping out the bits you don't like, either because they have been disproved or because they are morally repugnant. That's why I find this "Tom" business so silly; you're not starting with the evidence and seeing where it leads you, you're merely taking the Christian God and stripping him of his traditional attributes until you find him palatable enough to believe in. Well quite. Happy co-incidence then that God seems to agree with you about... well everything actually.Don't you find that a bit suspicious? The god you believe to exist is exactly the god you would choose. To me that sounds like a sign that he is inside your head. So please be specific; what part does the suffering of a child born with fibrodyslasia play in God's big plan? How is this necessary? How is it helpful? So children are born into pain and suffering so that we can learn to be kind? That's sick! Sick and evil! These kids are not props that others can use for self-improvement, they're people. Only a monster would use them for such purposes. That is all there is. This is 100% rationalisation. You're certainly not basing any of this nonsense on evidence. You're just rationalising away the messed-up implications of your beliefs. ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY I WOULD, and so should anyone who considers themselves to be moral.If the price of my existence is that innocents suffer and die, then I don't want to exist, not on those terms.If the price of my existence is that I have to kill just one child, then I don't want it.If that is the price but God makes the choice for me, then that's even more repugnant.If God couldn't create humanity without causing billions of children to suffer and die, then he should have held off with his grand project until he had ironed out such problems. If that wasn't possible, he should never have bothered.You might not have a problem with God callously using these children as sacrificial lambs, but I do. Only a monster would behave in such a way. That doesn't actually make it any better though does it? I mean, if I were to come round to your place and set fire to your house, it wouldn't make you feel much better if I told you that I'd set fire to my own house as well. How touching. It's based on anything though. It's just mindless optimism and projection again.The real truth is that in the scenario you present, God cannot make it right. Nothing can make the deliberate torture of billions of innocents right. It is inconceivable. The god who does this has passed over the moral event horizon. He does not deserve your devotion.Just as well then that you made him up.Mutate and Survive

I don’t but that. On other grounds I have to come to the conclusion that life is the result of an intelligent agency. Now, I am looking at what I can know about this world and my life to form an opinion of the nature of this intelligence. No, it means that moral behaviour can be impaired by brain damage. It does not change the fundamental morality of the individual. Drugs have a physical impact on the brain so that we do things that we wouldn't do if we weren't being affected by drugs, and brain damage can have the same effect.

Well I do believe in a general theistic deity but as a Christian I do have beliefs that are specific to Christianity. I thought that for a while that I would try and stick to the discussion of whether or not there is an intelligent agency responsible for our existence. However, that probably has run its course. Actually that isn’t the case. What makes you the arbiter of what is true Christianity. My beliefs are actually pretty mainstream Anglicanism and I am consistent with the writings of C S Lewis. The Christian scholar who has most influenced my thinking is N T Wright who is considered one of the top, if not the top, (depending on who you talk to of course), Christian scholar alive today.I don’t take the Bible as inerrant. I don’t think that our understanding of either God or Tom is just as simple as going to a Holy Book and essentially deifying it so that we can get direct answers from God, or Allah for that matter. No, that’s not true either. I did as come to the conclusion that we don’t necessarily require a first cause for the universe on the grounds that if our universe is just one part of a greater whole, and if the whole has multiple time dimensions then our universe could be part of an infinite universe and not require a first cause. However I do assign to God the responsibility for life, and in addition, if my highly speculative suggestion is correct, He is responsible for all life perceiving the universe in the manner that we do. However, I don’t eliminate the possibility that the universe is created from scratch by God. I’m just saying that there are other possibilities.I also don’t believe that He merely influenced evolution but that evolution would not have taken place at all if it weren’t for God. The point was to start with Tom as a basis and build from there. It was not meant to strip anything away. I’m not taking Christianity, (and there you are deciding again just what Christian beliefs are), and snipping out anything. As I said I don’t believe in an inerrant Bible. I understand Jesus through the Hebrew Scriptures as that is how He explained Himself in the Gospels and then I understand the OT by what we see of Jesus in the Gospels and as amplified in the Epistles. The OT talks about an eye for an eye whereas Jesus says forgive your enemies. I go with Jesus.So yes, I view Jesus as the incarnate word of God as John tells us in his Gospel. That is what forms my Christianity, not an inerrant Bible. Actually my understanding of God has evolved over the years. I now have fairly different understanding of the nature of God than I did ten years ago. What I have attempted to do is to understand the nature of God and then adapt my thinking to that. I don’t think it is helpful and I don’t know why it happens. All I do know that we are called to do all that we can to heal that child and to make his/her life as pleasant as we possibly can. I also believe that the child’s probably brief difficult life now will be made up for in some way in the life to come. That is where faith and trust truly come into play. That’s why I don’t believe that. I find the argument for a theistic god compelling. I find the argument for a resurrected Jesus compelling. I believe the good in the world far outweighs the bad and that the gap is widening as the centuries pass. I believe we are here for a purpose even though in many ways the purpose is vague. (We see through a glass darkly.)I don’t know why disease, tsunamis, birth defects etc are necessary. I don’t know why I’m healthy and a friend 20 years younger has advanced MS. I don’t know why I am still alive and a good friend who was bi-polar took his own life not long ago. There is a great deal I don’t understand. Life so often doesn’t seem fair. However, it seems to be a necessary part of the evolutionary process that will ultimately bring us to a world where illness, suffering and death will no longer exist.My devotion to God is to do my very imperfect best to live a life as He would have me live it. I believe that the way He would have me live it is in my signature. If I am wrong then so be it.

You are still avoiding the issue. Science tells us that morality is a brain function - a neurological process (actually several). Do you accept that?

Are toenails therefore evidence of Tom's existence?Despite it's seeming flippancy this is a serious question. Think about it. If you ultimately attribute everything to Tom then why cite morality as evidence of Tom rather than toenails or leaves or mouse droppings or rocks or viruses or parasites etc.Is everything evidence of Tom or just the things you find subjectively a bit special? Having less credence than Bigfoot is not a good place to be...... But I'm afraid that science is not at all agnostic about the existence of Tom as you have described him. Because science tells us that morality is the product of selfish genes, thoughts are brain activity and that conceptual entities like Tom are a product of human psychological tendencies.Science leads us to conclusions which run completely counter to your own.

No. Moral decisions are a brain function. We make decisions as to whether we will choose what is moral or not.

And you think that this is separate and distinct from the "morality of a person" why, precisely? Please be extremely specific. Explain as if I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about; as if you were trying to describe the distinction between the state of inebriation and being drunk.

I wrote a devastating answer to this but was rewarded with:Error: Dispatch table lookup failure, control does not exist:I'll see if I can summon the energy to re-write it.

Only when we ask the question of why does anything exist, at least in the way that we perceive things to be. Toe nails are concrete things. We can see them and touch them. Morality is from our perspective subjective. When is it moral to kill and when isn’t it. Is murdering someone for personal gain wrong because that is something that has evolved in human minds to protect society, or is there a universal truth regardless of whether or not there is life on Earth? I believe it is the latter. Humans have evolved over thousands of years so that we all have toenails that are pretty much alike but over thousands of years of evolution our moral codes vary significantly. If evolution has produced morality why is it not more consistent in the way that toe nails are? If Tom is responsible for life then I suppose we can say yes. However, from that point of view toe nails are just evidence for a designer whereas morality also gives us clues as to Tom’s nature. Not quite what I said. The point was that Big Foot , if he exists , is physical and would leave physical evidence and you might even have one show up in the campground looking for a hot dog. Not quite the case with Tom. Here is an excerpt from the foot notes of Dawkins The Selfish Gene

quote:

---

I am not advocating a morality based on evolution.

​

Critics have occasionally misunderstood The Selfish Gene to be advocating selfishness as a principle by which we should live! Others, perhaps because they read the book by title only or never made it past the first two pages, have thought that I was saying that, whether we like it or not, selfishness and other nasty ways are an inescapable part of our nature. This error is easy to fall into if you think, as many people unaccountably seem to, that genetic СdeterminationТ is for keeps Ч absolute and irreversible. In fact genes СdetermineТ behaviour only in a statistical sense (see also pp. 37-40). A good analogy is the widely conceded generalization that СA red sky at night is the shepherd's delightТ. It may be a statistical fact that a good red sunset portends a fine day on the morrow, but we would not bet a large sum on it. We know perfectly well that the weather is influenced in very complex ways by many factors. Any weather forecast is subject to error. It is a statistical forecast only. We don't see red sunsets as irrevocably determining fine weather the next day, and no more should we think of genes as irrevocably {268} determining anything. There is no reason why the influence of genes cannot easily be reversed by other influences. For a full discussion of Сgenetic determinismТ, and why misunderstandings have arisen, see chapter 2 of The Extended Phenotype, and my paper СSociobiology: The New Storm in a TeacupТ. I've even been accused of claiming that human beings are fundamentally all Chicago gangsters! But the essential point of my Chicago gangster analogy (p. 2) was, of course, that:
knowledge about the kind of world in which a man has prospered tells you something about that man. It had nothing to do with the particular qualities of Chicago gangsters. I could just as well have used the analogy of a man who had risen to the top of the Church of England, or been elected to the Athenaeum. In any case it was not people but genes that were the subject of my analogy.
I have discussed this, and other over-literal misunderstandings, in my paper СIn defence of selfish genesТ, from which the above quotation is taken.

---

Here is a summary of Dawkin’s views on selfish genes and morality from Atheistethicist

quote:

---

Four Forms of Altruism

​

Dawkins presented four ways in which ‘selfish genes’ may bring about altruistic individuals.

​

(1) Kin selection. Genes can replicate themselves by creating individuals who are prone to nurture and defend and otherwise aid in the reproduction of other individuals who have the same gene. We see instances of this in parental affection for a child, nieces, nephews, and grandchildren. The more distant the relationship becomes, the weaker the biological urge to nurture that individual.

​

(2) Reciprocity: Genes can promote their own replication by aiding individuals who, in turn, aid those who have the gene. Dawkins provides an example of the honey guide bird and the honey badger. The badger cannot find the honey, and the bird cannot break into the hive. So, the bird leads the badger to the honey, the badger breaks in, and they share the bounty.

​

(3) Reputation: Genes promote their own survival through reciprocity by creating individuals who can recognize who are reliably generous. The vampire bat shares its food when it has a surplus with others who share their food when they have a surplus.

​

(4) The Handicap Principle: Here, Dawkins’ mentions the case of the Arabian Warbler where, apparently, the strongest and best take on the most dangerous jobs of watching for hawks and providing for the less fortunate. The suggestion here is that these birds declare their superiority by showing that they can afford to take risks and to provide charity. This method of attracting a mate replaces colorful plumage or dances.

​

In our own biological past, our genes could have selected for these effects because they lived in small communities. Chances are good that they knew everybody in that community and would have opportunities to deal with them again and again. This would have given an opportunity for ‘reciprocation’ and ‘reputation’ to emerge. Of course, communities provided ample opportunity for individuals to aid and be aided by their kin.

​

However, Dawkins claims that this Darwinian account runs into trouble when it tries to explain altruism outside of these small tribal bands. It cannot, for example, explain why we give charitably to tsunami victims on the other side of the world. Those people are not, in any biologically meaningful way, our ‘kin’. We can expect no reciprocity, and our ‘reputation’ is largely anonymous. Nor is our generosity some form of ostentatious display that we have reason to hope will make us more attractive to potential mates.

​

According to Dawkins, the best Darwinian account that he can give for this type of behavior is that it is a mistake.

​

There is nothing in Darwinian Theory that requires a precise match between a trait and its benefit. Some traits over-extend their benefit. Our desire for sex, for example, overextends its effect in terms of reproduction. Our desire to eat overextends our need for calories, particularly in modern societies. Along similar lines, our altruistic sentiments can overextend our local tribe.

​

The fact that a desire overextends its trait does not make it bad. We have no reason to give up sex simply because the desire for sex is independent of the desire to procreate.

​

We can find an example of what Dawkins is talking about in our reaction to the offspring of several species. Evolutionary forces caused in us an impulse to nurture and protect small humans who have the physiological characteristics of children. This same quality also probably accounts for the fact that many of us get a similar impulse to protect and nurture kittens, puppies, and the children of species other than human. Our tendency comes from a broader trait among mammals. It still has an effect on our affections even though its evolutionary function is, shall we say, inefficient.

---

It isn't as simple or cut and dried as you make it out to be. I just read a post by Rahvin and it more specifically asks what my answer to this would be. Please refer to that.Maybe it is simply the result of human psychological tendencies but the question would then become why do we have these tendencies. From the beginning mankind has had this sense of something greater than ourselves and, IMHO, with good reason.

I’m walking down the street and the guy in front of me drops a hundred dollar bill. I pick it up and now I have a decision of what to do with that bill. Do I keep it or do I return it to the guy who dropped it? I have a mental decision to make. I instinctively know that the right thing to do is to return to it. We know that there is this universal standard that is instinctive. Now, I have to make the moral decision as to whether or not to live by that standard. Will I do the selfish thing or the unselfish thing? That universal standard is morality.

Just more clear evidence that Tom is on my side.

This applies to many of you who have been sharing posts with, so it will be a general reply. I just want to look at a couple of quotes from CS Lewis. If there are errors it is because I had to copy them out manually.These are both from his book Christian Reflections.

quote:

---

to say that a thing is good is merely to express our feeling about it; and our feeling aboput it is the feeling we have been socially conditioned to have....Unless the measuring rod is independent of the things measured, we can do no measuring....The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of planting a new sun in the sky or a new primary colour in the spectrum.

---

quote:

---

Does a permanent moral standard preclude progress? On the contrary, except on the supposition of a changeless standard, progress is impossible. If good is a fixed point, it is at least possible that we should get nearer and nearer to it, but if the terminus is as mobile as the train, how can a train progress towards it? Our ideas of the good may change, but they cannot change either for the better or the worse if there is no absolute and immutable good to which they can approximate or from which they can recede. We can go on getting a sum more and more nearly right only if the one perfectly right answer is stagnant...
If ‘good’ means only the local ideology, how can those who invent the local ideology be guided by any idea of good themselves? The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and rules alike...

---

We know absolutely no such thing. In fact, we have more than adequate evidence of precisely the opposite. Actual moral standards change from one culture to the next, even within the same culture over time.Slavery was considered perfectly morally acceptable in Western society at large, even morally praiseworthy in many circles (there were many who actually believed that keeping a man as a slave was good for him, better than letting him remain free in his home country), just 150 years ago! Today that moral standard has changed.Or look at homosexuality. Go back 50 years and homosexuality was regarded as unforgivably evil by the overwhelming majority of Western society. Alan Turing, the man responsible in large part for modern computing and breaking the Enigma code in WWII, saving thousands upon thousands of lives and radically changing the world we live in for the better, was convicted of homosexuality and eventually committed suicide over his reprehensible treatment. Only just a week or two ago did the British government get around to apologizing.These aren't people having difficulty adhering to their moral standards, GDR. The standards themselves are changing. It's blatantly obvious.And then look at cross-cultural differences. There are cultures where, even today, the consumption of human flesh is considered to be morally acceptable, even praiseworthy. Places where the live burning to death of "witches" is considered a moral imperative. I can show you video of that last, if you like.Again - these are not examples where the people think to themselves "well, I shouldn;t kill this person, it would be murder, but I really want to, so I'm just going to ignore my instinctual knowledge of the universal standards of good and evil and just do it anyway." These people actually believe in their instinctive emotional core that they are doing good.There is no universal standard of morality. It doesn't exist. Your denial is foolish at best.