My Beliefs- GDR

Evolution made humans remarkably unlike. Unless there is a defect then we all have 10 fingers and toes etc. If evolution is responsible for our altruism and concern for others then why isn't that consistent as well? There are those who take a rather perverse pleasure in the misfortune of others and there are those who will spend their lives in the service of others. Whereas we are completely consistent physically we are all over the map morally.Morality as a strictly mindless evolutionary process makes no sense. It does however make sense if the evolutionary process is designed.

You need to move beyond this purely mechanistic idea of evolution when applied to people. We have emotions, inteligence and sophisticated communication. We also have laws and institutions to protect us. We have developed well beyond purely surviving. But we still have emotional responses to suffering - it's universal and perfectly natural.Now, you're perfectly at liberty to say that Tom put those emotions and instincts in us - he didn't, of course, but I would at least understand your position. What I really don't get is your near insistence that this is an active and real time thing - that your Tom is prodding us somehow to have these feelings when we have them. To me, that's simply absurd. This is immensely frustrating.When we're trying to solve a moral puzzle like the Trolley Problem where do the inputs come from and what do you think the brain is doing? How, specifically, is Tom involved?Trolley problem - Wikipedia

Actually my point is about an evolved morality being 100% materialistic without an intelligent moral planner.Here is a discussion we had earlier in this thread where you gave an explanation for your views. There is no objective evidence for that explanation. You have taken what we know objectively and have built a theory around those facts and have subjectively formed conclusions that fit your preconceived atheistic views.You can read what I just posted to Dr. A. As I said earlier the small hunter gatherer communities were always at each other’s throats so I think it is pretty far-fetched to conclude that our altruistic leanings evolved from them.

Well there is no secret that I am ignorant of both neurology and computer science, so within the bounds of my ignorance I was just trying to come up with a simple analogy. I accept that the analogy doesn't really work.

You are confused because you don;t understand the connection between neurology and behavior, and the other effects besides physical neurology that affect behavior. Because you don;t understand these things, you're inserting your own external factor, when simpler explanations exist that are backed by solid research and evidence.The brain is incredibly complex, and yet the mechanisms that generate that complexity are remarkably simple. The instruction set for the brain to grow is, essentially, a probabilistic recursive fractal - a simple set of instructions for a process that simply repeats itself in a pattern and generates incredible complexity.Take a look at the Mandelbrot Set. It's a fractal - an iterative equation that generates infinite complexity. THis is the equation: And this is some of what it creates when graphed: Take a look at the Wiki page for more. Infinite complexity is generated by simple, repeated iterations of a very small mathematical equation.Physiologically, including with regard to the brain, we are all virtually identical. There is a reason that a smile is a universal signal, and that you can tell when a person is angry even if they're from a completely different cultural background and speak a different language.Now, the brain does not grow as perfectly as a computer can draw a graph. A genetic mutation can cause the code for that iterative process to differ slightly; a few sick or faulty neurons during development (and sometimes even after) can cause major repercussions, the neurological equivalent of a butterfly flapping its wings and generating a distant hurricane.But more than that, the brain is not static.In a computer, the processor and the RAM do not physically rewire themselves to handle new programming.The brain does. We can even watch it happen with modern imaging technology. When your brain records a memory, it physically changes, establishing new connections between neurons (and it's not like a video player; it's more of a series of associations of regions that represent abstract concepts - when you remember a memory, you are in effect recreating the memory each time within your imagination, including filling in missing details, it's why eyewitness testimony is so unreliable).Because your brain is not a programmable device running abstract software, it has to actually reconfigure physically to perform new tasks. This is what we actually observe, it's not an opinion or a shaky conclusion, we can watch it happen.We've even been able to copy the physical structure from one brain to another, transplanting memories. I linked to that experiment earlier in this thread. You ignored it because it doesn't fit with your beliefs.So we start with virtualy identical brains. We all, every human being, has certain behaviors that are identical. We all start out with instincts to grasp with our hands and to suck with our mouths, while we all have to learn to walk.We all instinctually smile to express happiness, and we all have an ability to simulate the feelings and experiences of another - empathy (which has itself been extensively studied from a neurological basis - even in other primates, when Primate A sees Primate B do something that Primate A has done before, the neurons in Primate A's brain fire in exactly the way they would if Primate A were the one experiencing the event, rather than Primate B).But since our brains reconfigure to learn, differences develop based on what our brains learn while we mature. Our experiences, including much of our moral fabric, is learned and based on our environment, from immediate family to our larger surrounding cultural norms. These things change over time as well.So while we all have some of the same foundation for morality, like empathy, we don't always reach precisely the same moral frameworks. We all tend towards preferring fairness over unfairness; we care about what happens to people we can empathize with, and we have greater difficulty feeling that empathic impact when the suffering of others is more abstract, or related to experiences we don't have personal memories of sufficient similarity to significantly relate with. Depending on what our culture has reinforced, we may differently prioritize concepts like mercy, vengeance, punishment, rehabilitation, greed, charity, compassion, and so on.The nature vs nurture debate is not actually mutually exclusive. The answer in the case of morality is "both," to varying degrees. But in no case is there any requirement for either a "designer" or some great external objective standard of morality. Human morality is very well understood and explained from a biological, neurological, and social standpoint without unfounded leaps in logic.

Instead of looking at the collective let’s just look at the individual. When conception takes place there is no consciousness in this new embryo. Somehow by the time the baby is born we have a conscious being. However, it seems to me that that this new baby’s consciousness continues to expand through a myriad of influences that it is subjected to, and it was even being influenced while it was still in the womb by its mother’s moods and attitudes.Throughout our lives are consciousness continues to be influenced by our life experiences but still I agree that we are born with natural emotions and instincts that IMHO that Tom has instilled in us. I see Tom as one of the influences in our lives. I think that closest I can come as far as mechanism is concerned is to equate Tom with our conscience. In the Trolley Problem it isn’t that Tom is trying to tell us which specific action should be taken, he is at the heart of the problem itself. In the Trolley Problem everyone is concerned with trying to make the right moral choice. Sure the right moral choice is ambiguous but the point is the desire to make the right moral choice. As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians it is about the motives of our hearts.

So we're born with instincts and emotions - fine. And those instincts and emotions develop over time - fine. It's generally accepted that our moral outlook is made of three or so components, biological, psychological and social or cultural.If you want to say that Tom made it happen that way - well ok, that's the end of the conversation. You have no proof nor any evidence at; it's just what you believe, but ok, it's a common belief. This says the same but with fluffy language.But this belief is indistinguishable from morality being a perfectly natural emotion which have evolved in the way of other emotions. In scientific terms it's simply saying that moral decisions are executed in the brain and the brain is an evolved organ, therefore morality evolved in the brain.But the idea that God gave us morality as part of our make up - or is naturally evolved - is quite different to how you describe morality working in earlier posts.You talk of Tom intervening, talking to us at each occasion we are considering a moral puzzle. I take it you're backtracking on this - or that it's not what you actually mean?

Everything Straggler wrote is objectively evidenced.Break each one down: That is obviously a fact. This is also a fact for which we have museums of evidence for it. Obviously, it only follows that it would given the fact that our brains evolved in small communities. This is basically repeating fact number 3. This is also true. You are making this mistake.He goes on to say: This is also a fact, which doctors know and is the reason for modern day obesity.So....... Where is there no objective evidence as you claim? Please be specific. You've missed the point by a distance of a football field.Your brain evolved around small communities of YOUR relatives, and around small communities of close relatives of yours. Today your genes assume the same thing, that everyone is a close relative. We still live by the point of view of our ancestral environment in a modern world. First you need evidence for the intelligent designer. Then you can try to figure out what that designer did. Because, he could very well be a guy who likes to make stars and leave the rest to physics.- Oni

Thanks you for the time it took to contribute that. It was fascinating even though I don't have the background to understand the math involved or a lot of the biology either.I don't question any of that, or that we can observe the whole incredible process, understand how the process works and even find ways of utilizing the process.In the end though it still does not tell us whether or not the process was designed. It also does not tell us whether or not there might be other influences involved. For that matter, it does not tell us whether or not the processes that created beings that can actually figure that stuff out were intelligently designed or not.So we can look at this incredible process and say that it has evolved over time and is strictly the result of other mindless processes or we can look at it and think that such an incredible process is more likely to be the result of an intelligent plan.

I do see it that way except I don't see it as the whole story. I do believe that Tom does continue to interact with us subtly through our thought processes. I believe that we have been given the ability to know right and wrong and the ability to choose. I think that it has evolved as part of the plan with the three components that you mentioned.As to whether or not Tom prods our conscience with every moral decision or not I have no idea. It isn't that he necessarily prods us to make a specific choice but he prods us to make our choices based on a kind and loving heart. It isn't the actual moral choice we make, what matters is our motivationAgain, as Paul says in 1st Cor it is about the motives of our hearts. Tom's desire is that our hearts develop to the point that our motivation is always to make the right or the loving choice. Two people might make exactly opposite choices but from Tom's POV they may both have held the right motives for the choice they made. It is all a heart thing.

This.... ....and this.... ..... contradict each other.I'm still sensing that you believe god to be directly involved with our moral decision making. Prodding us to make a choice based on anything would be an active and real time involvement.This is the historical view of morality of course - the angel on one shoulder whispering nice thing, the devil on the other whispering nasty ones. It seems to me you've just abandoned the idea of the nasty voice but hung on to the nice one.

Right, it doesn't tell us any of that. Ask yourself WHY it doesn't? Perhaps, maybe, just maybe, none of that is relevant to understanding morality?You just agreed that everything can be understood and explained from a biological, neurological, and social standpoint without unfounded leaps in logic so then that ends the discussion about morality. Period.You keep doing this over and over in this thread where you present a gap that you see a designer can fit. Then, when everything is explained to you through science, you back off and say "Yeah, that's all true and I agree with it, but you still can't disprove it wasn't done by a designer."Well that's not we are trying to do. All we are trying to do is show you objective evidence that explains how we have morality without the need for a designer. The rest is up to you to prove.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

I won’t quote the rest of it as there really isn’t much to disagree with as it is essentially stuff we pretty much can know objectively. This quote from your post is where we really are far apart. You and Straggler claim that because we evolved from small hunter gatherer communities that we treat everyone as a close relative. Frankly I find it really hard to think that anyone actually believes that unless they are disparately trying to make the atheistic case.There are many of us who strongly support third world missions. Now you are saying that because of our common heritage that these people who are who knows how many generations removed from my own gene pool are in that sense just as close to me as my kids. Anything that I donate to the third world is coming out of my kid’s inheritance, but from your point of view as they are all one family it makes sense. That makes no sense to equate the gene pool of someone in Uganda that I have never met with my own offspring although I’m sure we have a common ancestor hundreds of years ago. My own offspring would be better off if people in third world countries would just disappear so that we would have unfettered access to their resources.For that matter, as I said we spend money saving animals, meaning again that there is left to leave to our offspring when we shuffle off to whatever comes next. How far do you want to stretch the common gene poll. We objectively know that we exist and that as part of that existence we have intelligence and that we have a sense of morality. All we can do is subjectively conclude what to make of that. It isn’t a case that I have to prove Tom or that you have to disprove him. I am convinced that the more reasonable subjective conclusion is that Tom exists. I have a hunch you might disagree.

I’ll deal with the nasty voice first. As Pogo said years ago, we have found the enemy and it is us. I think our first and instinctive response to things of a moral nature is to consider how this going to affect me. IMHO that makes sense even from an evolutionary point of view as is best epitomized by the wonderful mantra of the 60’s about looking out for number one.I understand your frustration in trying to pin me down but it is essentially because I don’t have absolute answers. Our individual sense of morality involves a multitude of factors. Obviously one of the main factors is how we were parented, which is affected by how our parents were parented and so on through the generations. We are also certainly affected by our social contacts particularly in our more formative years. I’m not completely convinced but I’ll accept that there is a genealogical aspect as well.I believe that what we see as being natural inputs into our sense of morality is part of Tom’s plan. In addition to that though I believe that Tom does still focus our minds so that we are truly cognizant of the morality of the choices we make. I have no idea where the balance is between the two, although it is my belief that they overlap anyway so in the end we can’t tell one from the other.

We have an understanding of morality and we know that there are wrong and right choices. If you want then you can say it doesn't matter whether or not there is a designer but on the other hand we do have a curiosity about these things and enquiring minds want to know. No, I said that all of those things are are true, but that it doesn't tell us whether or not it is the whole truth. You do not have any objective evidence that explains morality without a designer. You have objective facts and then subjectively conclude that the processes did not need a designer and that no further input is required. If I am filling a gap with my theistic beliefs then you are certainly just a guilty of filling a gap with your atheistic beliefs.