My Beliefs- GDR

Oh come on, that's intervening. You know, getting involved. What else could it be? You're suggesting that god puts thoughts directly into our heads - that's a physical interaction, that's something that needs receptors and in principle can be measured - just like we can for sight, smell, taste and touch. Where are these receptors? Why haven't we found them?

I agree that it is an intervention but not that it contradicts free will which is why I said that it wasn't a direct intervention which maybe was still the wrong term. Not at all. It is an interaction but it isn't physical. We have a huge jumble of extraneous thoughts in our head that don't come from sight, smell, taste or touch. Our thoughts and actions are influenced non-physically by all sorts of inputs in our lives and Tom is just one of those influences that can be accepted or rejected.

Well thank the Lord for that at least :-) It MUST contradict free will if some supernatural being is whispering in your ear not to do something - how could it not? Just saying that you can choose to ignore the whisper isn't enough, your will has already been compromised. How can an interaction not be physical? Everything our brain does is physical - it uses electrochemical impulses, even for dreaming.

You’re walking down the street and you see someone drop a 10 lb note. Essentially, other than ignoring the whole thing one of 4 things happens.1/ You instinctively pick up the bill and return it.2/ You struggle with the decision but you can’t stand the guilt and then return it.3/ You consider returning it but you think about what you could do with it and keep it.4/ You instinctively pick up the bill and slip it into your pocket.Now whatever choice we make causes an electrochemical impulse in the brain but we are a conglomeration of influences in our lives that caused us to make that decision. I’m just saying that the influence that causes choices 1 or 2 originated with Tom and was likely reinforced by others who had been so influenced.The influence to do the right or wrong thing is not a physical part of the brain function. The influences in our life exist whether we are actually thinking about them or not. They become part of who we are. It is not the same thing of perceiving something physical through our 5 senses.Actually dreams are really interesting. Certainly they cause activity in the brain but where do the images come from when the eyes are closed and there is no sound and what we dream bears no resemblance to any reality we have ever experienced. I travelled a great deal for a living and I often dream about being in cities I have travelled to, (usually Hong Kong for whatever reason), but the city as I dream about it bears no resemblance whatsoever to that actual city. The only thing I see that this suggests is that ideas aren’t only generated from our 5 senses or from our memories. Ideas are not the electrochemical impulses but the cause of them.

Who then is responsible for choices 3 & 4? Rememeber, God made us. No. You're saying that Tom whispers in our ears. There's a big difference. Which is it? Yes it is, we can see moral decision making using fMRI.we can actually see it happening in the brain.

From that perspective then God is, but we have to go back to the fact that if we don’t have the choice to choose 3 & 4, or 2 for that matter, then we can’t freely choose 1. Even then the idea isn’t so much choosing one as it is 1 just becoming part of our nature.We are born into this world with essentially an instinct for survival and it is all about us as that is all we know. Over our lifetimes we are subjected to a virtually infinite number of influences. The hope is that over that time, better sooner rather than later, we become a person where there isn’t really any choice left as choice 1 is just who we are. We also have the potential of course where there is no choice left as our nature has become selfish and 4 is simply automatic.It is what we choose that makes us what we are. If we move from 2 to 1 perfectly we grow more and more human and if we move from 3 to 4 we become less and less human. Well the whisper is a metaphor of course but I see it as Tom influencing the consciousness of all of us to want to make choice 1, however we still have our evolutionary instincts to look out for number one which influences us the other way. We are also influenced by those that we interact with which can influence one way or the other but in the end we make our own choices. We can see the hard drive which is our brain processing the infinite number of influences but that doesn’t tell us anything.

And how silly is that? This is God we're talking about - he purposely designs a world in which we all fail to match a standard he devises, then calls it free will - nonsense.The reason we have the world we live in with all it's flaws is because we evolved in a kill or be killed enviroment and most of those instincts are still in us. Those insticts are balanced by our requirement to live in communities - that's all. The whisper is a metaphor but it's pretty close to what you seem to believe isn't it? You keep talking in terms of individual interventions. But we know that our moral choices are emotions and instincts - like anger and happiness. We are born with the instict of fairness - it's not an intervention. But of course it does - it tells us that moral choices are as natural to us as a sense of sadness or love. It's another emotion that operates in the brain like all others. It is not supernaturally influenced. In any way.

Hey GDR,I have been following along with this thread for a while now and I would like to verify that I have your viewpoint correctly. It appears to me that you are simply trying to say that Tom is possible (and in your opinion more likely). That there is not any objective evidence of his existence, but rather only subjective evidence that must be interpreted to come to any conclusion about the existence of Tom. Is this the correct viewpoint that you are taking?If it is not, then I have no follow-up questions. However, if I do have an accurate portrayal of your beliefs, I would like to follow up with a couple of questions.1. First off, I do not think I have seen anyone in this thread arguing with you one the fact that Tom is possible. Rather, what they seem to be arguing is that while possible, your idea of Tom is not plausible, based upon the entirety of evidence that has been gathered to this point. My question about this idea then is, Why do you give credence to this one unevidenced (hard evidence) personage and avoid giving credence to the thousands of other propositions that have been asserted without evidence (telepathy, alien visitation, etc...)?2. You seem to be relying on very subjective evidence that lies at the fringes of discovery at this time. You continually use morality (The Golden Rule) as an example of "soft" evidence that can be interpreted into your specific viewpoint, through semantics. However, this strikes me as nothing more than a Tom of the Gaps argument that could suffer from further research into the workings of the human brain. Also, "Hard" evidence, to use your terms, already does exist throughout the animal kingdom in way of rudimentary morality systems evolving within social animals. Is the human morality more developed? I would hazard a guess that says yes, but this can stem from the fact that our social structures are so much larger than most animal social structures requiring more social contracts were needed to ensure positive growth within the tribe(s). So, my question out of this part, is two fold. First, does the fact that evolving as a social animal leads to cooperative behavior seem to follow the evidence that we currently see in humanity and the animal kingdom? (Worded another way, are animals with larger social groups more likely to have systems of caring for one another and display altruism?) Also, Why should the "soft" evidence relying upon subjective reasoning be given more credence than the "hard" evidence seen within nature of social structures complete with social contracts of behavior? Shouldn't Occum's Razor suggest that we go with the idea that suggests the exact same premise, but without the introduction of an unevidenced being fully responsible for it?3. The Big Bang...In this you seem to want to put science and religion on equal footing by claiming that it is Turtles all the way down. However, this does not hold up to scrutiny.In your scenario, it does require Turtles all the way down because of the main subjective argument you are using to propose the idea of Tom. You state that we could not have morality or consciousness without a greater being to create or grant it to us. This being must then have morality and consciousness to know what is was granting to us. Therefore, because you state that for us to have these traits there must be something bigger than us, this being (who also must have these traits) would also require something bigger than him/her/it. And this pattern would follow, not because we can't conceive of an uncaused first being, but because of the subjective evidence you have set forth as being a requirement of a bigger being.Science does not make this same error. Science is currently working (If I am correct, please let me know if not) at one Planck second after the Big Bang and before, trying to understand what occurred at this time. However, the important fact to remember is the willingness at this time to state, in the science community, that we do not know what occurred. There are hypotheses that are formulated and tested, but no answer has been forthcoming in this region of space-time. Until an answer is found, science will continue to investigate and determine more about the nature of this time. Then, a testable hypothesis can be formulated and tested. Should this prove to be effective, then science will simply take one more step forward toward greater understanding. Science does not postulate that this existence is too complex to exist without influence from something else, that a creator cannot exist, nor that something cannot come from nothing. It will leave options open until evidence (hard evidence) comes forth to lead it toward the next hurdle it must jump.The reason yours is called Turtles all the way down and the methodical practice of science is not is based on the evidence used. According to your evidence, you specifically state that consciousness and morality show a higher power because it could not come about naturally. Yet, then you have to simply hand wave the next question of how could a creator exist with all of those same traits without also having a creator? This is where you completely go into the unevidenced and state that there is an uncaused first cause. The evidence that science is based upon must be repeatable, testable, or in your words, hard evidence. Facts such as the basic morality of animals, the CMB, the processes of stellar evolution (light to heavy elements) fall into this category and show how these different ideas could have come about. For science there are a multitude of ways that things could go after we discover what occurred during the first Planck second of this Universe, from something to something/nothing to something/something different to something we know. However, science will more than likely not run into the exact same question about the next stage of knowledge it attempts to figure out.Could you agree that Turtles all the way down does not apply in this scenario and how it is different from your concept of: Humankind has morals, therefore they must have been created. If something created something else with morals, this entity must therefore have morals and must have been created....? The evidence forces you into the Turtles all the Way down dealing with similar entities all requiring similar things. Science's evidence leads it to new discoveries and possibilities that were not thought of before.

I think though that you view it as a behavioural standard. I don’t see it that way and neither does Jesus or Paul. The standard is that we find joy in doing the loving thing or to see the loving thing being done. Yes we are born with basic selfish instincts but we can rise above them and we can match the standard even though our actions don’t always reflect it.The instinctive environment that you say are balanced off by our sense of community, in spite of your, in my view highly unlikely theories, does not reasonably explain why we support third world charities when we and our tribe would be better off without them, or why we nurture puppies back to health at sometimes great expense in both time and money. We certainly seem to pick up to one degree or another a sense of fairness at a very early age. I think it would be very hard to determine whether or not we are born with it but I’m fine one way or the other. I would agree that our moral choices can become instinctive but those instincts can be conditioned so that they change over our lifetimes. The hope is that we will instinctively choose the right thing. Our emotions in some way reflect our instincts in that we are instinctively compassionate or at worst we can become instinctively cruel. You can keep repeating that all you want but what you are seeing in the brain is the affect that the emotions have on the brain and not the emotion itself.

Close enough except that I think it would be closer to say that we form subjective conclusions about what we objectively know. Frankly I don’t see a contradiction between either telepathy of alien visitation and the idea of Tom or of Christianity. True I don’t believe in those things but I suppose that I have come to my conclusions in much the same way that atheists don’t believe in Tom. I look at what I know and form subjective conclusions. I have outlined in many postings on this thread why I believe as I do. 1/ I agree that we are evolving as a social animal and that is a factor that leads to co-operative behaviour. I would agree that we have a higher level of consciousness which allows us to have moved further down that path. I see our consciousness as being fundamental to our perceived reality and it is through consciousness that life is capable of becoming more or less moral in our outlook. The animal world is conscious so yes they do have a capacity to evolve morally. I think however it is very rare other than for maternal instincts to see altruistic behaviour in animals particularly outside of the species. It seems to me that they are much mor inclined to behave instinctively to the point that some will eat their young.2/ There is no hard evidence one way or the other. We can see that socialization has in impact on our moral behaviour, but that does not tell us objectively that socialization is not part of a plan or if that is the sole reason for altruistic choices. I went through this with Straggler. There are two ways of coming to a conclusion on this and it is either turtles all the way down for either conclusion or there are no turtles required for either conclusion. I’ll go with the latter first. Straggler quoted cavediver in saying that at the quantum level cause and effect can are essentially interchangeable and time is symmetrical. Science even sees in our own world at the quantum or particle level that time is not the same as what we experience at the macro level. This essentially does away with the necessity of a first cause for the universe or for God.If however you hold that a first cause is necessary then you are left either having to explain a first cause for God or a naturalistic first cause. If you are looking for a naturalistic first cause then you need a process for the process for the process for the........ process that kicked off the evolutionary process and it is turtles all the way down for either explanation.

Which? That we are animals that have evolved from other animals and have had to fight for our lives and our food like those animals and therefore still carry many of those instincts? That seems pretty damn obvious to me - if you accept evolution.Or that we've had to learn to live together and, like many other social creatures that live closely in groups, we have developed instincts for caring and sharing? Again - how could it be otherwise? Why not? We have these emotions and we have intelligence, we feel bad when we see others suffer no matter where they are. It's worth noting though that we are very careful also not to let this get too overpowering - we do not, for example, give everything we have to the poor and we will try to look the other way if we can when people in other countries are murdering each other. Our ability to care is limited. Our sense of fairness can be seen very early in life - even as infants. Are We Born With a Sense of Fairness? - Pacific Standard Of course, our sense of morality is both innate and developmental. I really wish I didn't have to. This makes no sense at all.What we are seeing is the brain processing a moral problem - working out what to do about it. That's what the brain does. We also know that when the parts of the brain that deal with moral judgements are damaged, those individuals exhibit amoral behaviours.It's QED I'm afraid - the brain is the organ that processes and defines our moral behaviour. Morality is an emotion, similar to others that you don't appear to have special significance.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

But that is exactly what the theory of evolution explains.We want to stop people whom we know about from hurting. This is obviously caused by "our sense of community", which is adaptive. Our media then presents us with facts about people whom we would not otherwise have known about, such as people in the third world. So we want to help them just like we have a craving for fats and sugar.And this is the case. Evolution screws us from an evolutionary perspective, and we have so been screwed. We wish to help people outside our tribe. Evolution made us moral, and so here we are.

Sure when we co-operate for mutual benefit within our tribe but when you try to extrapolate that into helping those not of our tribe whom we’ve never met at the expense of the self then, it doesn’t fit with the evolutionary model IMHO. For that matter we have people who expand time, money and energy to rescue pets they’ve never met in foreign lands. Well there are those who, unlike myself, do give their lives to serving the poor but that isn’t really the point. If you want to believe that evolution alone can produce the type of self sacrificing actions done for the benefit of those well outside our own gene pool then so be it. I have been given naturalistic theories for why that is in this thread but as far as I can see it all based on the idea that as we know there is no god then there has to be some other explanation no matter how farfetched. Interesting web site. However, it didn’t make any point that I wouldn’t have expected. In a sense I see that as the spark of the divine in all of us. Exactly, the brain is the processor, it isn't the software that provides the inputs to be processed. It has to sort out all the sensory inputs plus the jumble of thoughts that we have.

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

This, like just about everything else you say, is an unfounded assumption, in this case based upon your ignorance of both neurology and computer science twisted by post-hoc rationalization."Software" is not always something that "runs on" hardware. We make programmable computers because it is convenient for us - but even inside of your computer much of the actual processing and the algorithms that are processed are hardware.You're drawing a distinction where there is none, and for no reason other than trying to fit the square peg of evidence into the round hole of your irrational assumptions.