My Beliefs- GDR

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.

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.

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. I suppose they are pretty much in the same category as an emotion but just as plants grow leaves we can grow thumbs.Our emotions, intelligence and morality can all change due to nurturing and socialization but a thumb is just a thumb.

Anglican IS liberal. Centrist or otherwise. But you consider other emotions like anger, love, happiness to have evolved - or not?

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. 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.

So what? I don't get your point. The Anglican/Episcopalian denomination is a pretty large chunk of the Christian church worldwide. 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 SkepticismHere is a quote from the article.

quote:

---

The backlash against neuroskeptics also reflects something deeper, a belief that science is inherently progressive, that it never asks questions it cannot answer, and that with enough time, investment, and intellectual effort, all will be made clear.

​

The truth is, it might not.

​

Much of the hype over neuroscience is symptomatic of a desire for a reductive explanation of human thought and behaviour, said Walter Glannon, professor of philosophy of mind at the University of Calgary.

​

That reductionism is itself a matter of hot debate.

​

In Brain Wars, published last year by Canadian neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, he suggested that the root of neuro-hype, at least among scientists, was the belief in materialism, the view that matter is all that exists, and therefore the mind is nothing more than the physical behaviour of the brain.

​

Along with an increasing number of scientists, I believe vehemently that the materialist framework is not science, he wrote. Rather, it reflects an unjustified belief that life and consciousness can be reduced, via objective science, to nothing more than matter and energy.

​

Skepticism shouldn’t tip over into total disbelief, said Bethany Brookshire, a PhD in physiology and pharmacology, specializing in neuroscience, who blogs for Scientific American at The Scicurious Brain. Neuroscience is still a young field, it has a lot to teach us, and good quality studies could tell us a lot about how we function.

​

Still, as Mr. Obama’s BRAIN initiative finally launches, with similar projects ongoing in Europe and Canada, the goal seems more distant than the moon. As Dr. Satel put it, the brain will always be about mechanism, and the mind will be about meaning.

---

I agree. In many case we can see religion causing people to behave badly.

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. 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.

You previously said in this thread that there is no scientific explanation for human morality as observed. 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.

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. 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?

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. 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.

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.

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.....?

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. 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. 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. Yes it does, it tells us we are un-conscious in the most definitive way. If you think I'm wrong show me. Because we can see them happening in our brain in the areas we know manage emotions. Just google, fMRI images - plenty to see No, it's the actual emotion. If it isn't what is the emotion? Where is anger? Show me your workings. 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?