|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: My Beliefs- GDR | |||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If you want to assume that we are selfish in our nature, and that religion is what allows for our selfless behaviors, you still cannot conclude that the religion is correct.
Parents can use Santa Claus to get their kids to behave, but that don't make him real.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Stile writes: Things can be scientific and not be deterministic at all.A lot of quantum mechanics (very scientific stuff) deals with probabilities... the exact opposite of being deterministic. Socialization is also very scientific. There are entire fields of science devoted to studying and explaining social atmospheres. When someone says "altruism has an objective, scientific basis" they don't have to be talking about a deterministic system, or some system made up entirely by genes at birth. Reading your response seems to indicate that your idea of "what science is" does not actually line up with what science actually is. Perhaps your definition of science contains some confusion that needs to be cleared up. Well, I don't see an that an explanation that speculates that altruism evolved out of co-operation within ancient hunter gatherer societies scientific. It is a naturalistic explanation that doesn't IMHO hold up to any form of scrutiny. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Tangle writes: And, of course, Christian Orthodox, Baptists, Methodist, Catholics etc etc. In fact your beliefs are restricted to a small section of liberal Christians - mostly Anglican - a denomination made up by a King so he could do what he liked with his women. Actually my views are pretty centrist Anglican and don't consider myself liberal. Henry was the founder of the CofE but he had a great deal of popular support within the country to separate from Rome. It did however solve some of his personal difficulties. He didn't however make up the religion.
Tangle writes:
I suppose they are pretty much in the same category as an emotion but just as plants grow leaves we can grow thumbs. I still see nothing special about intelligence and morality that makes them un-evolveable - tell me, why are they different from say, an opposable thumb or an emotion such as, say, anger? Our emotions, intelligence and morality can all change due to nurturing and socialization but a thumb is just a thumb.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
GDR writes: Actually my views are pretty centrist Anglican and don't consider myself liberal Anglican IS liberal. Centrist or otherwise.
Our emotions, intelligence and morality can all change due to nurturing and socialization but a thumb is just a thumb. But you consider other emotions like anger, love, happiness to have evolved - or not?Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Straggler writes: In a nutshell - Science has provided us with an objectively evidenced explanation for human moral behaviour as observed. Genetic and social - But entirely natural (i.e. not supernatural)Do you accept this fact? I accept there is research that indicates that morality has a genetic component and it is obvious that a strong social component is part of it.
Straggler writes: Or do you still insist that human moral behaviour cannot be explained without recourse to imperceptible "Tom" and his imperceptible influence? I believe that the most reasonable explanation is that life exists because of Tom and that morality is part of human and some animal life. That doesn't mean that there isn't a naturalistic component to it, in much the same way that physical evolution has a naturalistic explanation which tells us nothing about whether or not it is planned or designed. Whether or not Tom continues to influence us is a separate issue but I do believe it is the case. Actually I don't even think it is imperceptible. It is just the way life is and it is a thought in our head just as is any other thought so we don't recognize the source of the influence. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Tangle writes: Anglican IS liberal. Centrist or otherwise. So what? I don't get your point. The Anglican/Episcopalian denomination is a pretty large chunk of the Christian church worldwide.
Tangle writes: But you consider other emotions like anger, love, happiness to have evolved - or not? I see human emotions as being part of human consciousness which I think is distinct from our physical being. Interestingly enough this article appeared in our newspaper a couple of days ago. Brain Science Turns to Skepticism Here is a quote from the article.
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Catholic Scientist writes: If you want to assume that we are selfish in our nature, and that religion is what allows for our selfless behaviors, you still cannot conclude that the religion is correct.Parents can use Santa Claus to get their kids to behave, but that don't make him real. I agree. In many case we can see religion causing people to behave badly. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
GDR writes:
So what? I don't get your point. The Anglican/Episcopalian denomination is a pretty large chunk of the Christian church worldwide. I was saying that your definition of God is a minority view. Anglicans in total are about 70m - and I'm guessing that a only a minority of those believe that their God is imperfect. Catholics alone are 1.5bn and they're told what they have to believe and it's not an imperfect god.
I see human emotions as being part of human consciousness which I think is distinct from our physical being. Interestingly enough this article appeared in our newspaper a couple of days ago But that's just pure twaddle. We know that emotions are physical things happening in our body - specifical our brain. There is nothing outside our physical being where an emotion can be. When we die all our brain functions stop - you're inferring that when dead we can still be angry or vaguely amused. That's plain ludicrous.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You previously said in this thread that there is no scientific explanation for human morality as observed.
Straggler writes: Do you accept that there is a scientific evolutionary account of human morality as observed (altruism, compassion, self sacrifice etc etc etc)? Or not? GDR writes: No. Science relies on evidence. What you have offered is simply a speculative account. Do you now accept that you were wrong about this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Straggler writes: Do you now accept that you were wrong about this? No. What you had offered was speculative materialistic account. The only scientific account which isn't conclusive was the one oni offered.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
It's not about a single quote or any individual research paper.
It's about a body of evidence. It's about the fact that science has investigated the origins and development of human morality and come to objectively evidenced conclusions. If you don't accept that there is a scientific evolutionary account of human morality as observed (altruism, compassion, self sacrifice etc etc etc) then your beliefs have taken you to a place where you are in denial of objectively evidenced scientific conclusions. This is not a good place to be.
GDR writes: What you had offered was speculative materialistic account. Maybe you think my phrasing of the scientific account was lacking or inaccurate.... Whatever - We are talking about the objectively evidenced scientific evolutionary account of human morality as observed: Are you denying that such a thing exists?Or are you saying that the science is wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Tangle writes: I was saying that your definition of God is a minority view. Anglicans in total are about 70m - and I'm guessing that a only a minority of those believe that their God is imperfect. Catholics alone are 1.5bn and they're told what they have to believe and it's not an imperfect god. I don't see it a case of being perfect or imperfect. I accept that things are the way they are because that is how they have to be. You can say that Tom could have created a perfect world without suffering right out of the gate but you have no way of knowing that.
Tangle writes: But that's just pure twaddle. We know that emotions are physical things happening in our body - specifical our brain. There is nothing outside our physical being where an emotion can be. When we die all our brain functions stop - you're inferring that when dead we can still be angry or vaguely amused. That's plain ludicrous. When we die our brain functions stop which tells us nothing about the continuation of our consciousness. How do you know that emotions are a physical thing? Show me a picture of one. Certainly our emotions are sensed through the brain and cause various reactions in the brain and the whole body for that matter but what we see on a brain scan is the result of the emotion. You can look at a brain scan and see that I'm angry,(at least I believe that to be the case), but you can't tell me why I'm angry or gain knowledge of my subjective view point of the situation that has made me angry.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Straggler writes: It's not about a single quote or any individual research paper.It's about a body of evidence. It's about the fact that science has investigated the origins and development of human morality and come to objectively evidenced conclusions. If you don't accept that there is a scientific evolutionary account of human morality as observed (altruism, compassion, self sacrifice etc etc etc) then your beliefs have taken you to a place where you are in denial of objectively evidenced scientific conclusions. This is not a good place to be. I'm still waiting for you to show me that account. However, the fact remains that we are intelligent beings with an understanding of morality, and the open question is more about whether it is part of a design or if it happened through nothing but a series of mindless natural processes.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
GDR writes: I'm still waiting for you to show me that account. Well I've done my best..... But whether you think I (and all the others in this thread) have successfully summarised the scientific evolutionary account of human morality as observed (altruism, compassion, self sacrifice etc etc etc) is ultimately neither here nor there. At this stage I am simply asking whether or not you accept that there IS a scientific evolutionary account of human morality as observed (altruism, compassion, self sacrifice etc etc etc). Do you accept that such a thing exists? If you still deny that such a thing exists then The Stanford Encyclopedia provides an imperfect but accessible summary, Robert Wright's book The Moral Animal provides a lengthier but very accessible account or try The Adapted Mind for a more technical discussion. GDR - Are you really going to maintain that there is no scientific explanation for human morality as observed? That altruism, compassion, self-sacrifice etc. etc. lack a scientific explanation? Really.....?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
GDR writes: I don't see it a case of being perfect or imperfect. It doesn't matter whether you se it that way or not - it's a factual thing. Your god is imperfct if he can't prevent suffering.
I accept that things are the way they are because that is how they have to be. Yes, you've rationalised it. But I say that if your god thinks that this is the best he can do, he's no god.
You can say that Tom could have created a perfect world without suffering right out of the gate but you have no way of knowing that. Of course I can know that - he's god. Except in your case he's an imperfect lessor god who can't do some simple things like getting his creation right.
When we die our brain functions stop which tells us nothing about the continuation of our consciousness. Yes it does, it tells us we are un-conscious in the most definitive way. If you think I'm wrong show me.
How do you know that emotions are a physical thing? Because we can see them happening in our brain in the areas we know manage emotions.
Show me a picture of one. Just google, fMRI images - plenty to see
Certainly our emotions are sensed through the brain and cause various reactions in the brain and the whole body for that matter but what we see on a brain scan is the result of the emotion. No, it's the actual emotion. If it isn't what is the emotion? Where is anger? Show me your workings.
You can look at a brain scan and see that I'm angry,(at least I believe that to be the case), but you can't tell me why I'm angry or gain knowledge of my subjective view point of the situation that has made me angry. This is irrelevant. The fact is that I can cause you to be angry and watch your brain exhibit an anger. Cause and effect. Once again, if this anger is not in the body, where is it?Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024