My Beliefs- GDR

If you now accept that human morality as observed has a natural evolutionary explanation can you explain what difference there would be between a world in which "Tom" intervenes in human decisions and one in which "Tom" doesn't intervene at all?Because an evolutionary explanation for human moral behaviour as observed would seem to make "Tom" and his inaudible whisperings entirely superfluous. At best. It's got nothing to do with some sort of preconcieved premise at all. One can either follow the objective evidence. Or one can embrace the sort of thinking that has failed so woefully and repeatedly in the past and start invoking subjectively derived (AKA imagined) entities to explain things. I'm sure there are other choices too but those are the two at play here.

The scientific method provides us with the most objective, accurate and reliable conclusions available. Those you are arguing with in this thread are simply going with the science.Your "Tom" claims are however derived from nothing but wholly subjective notions about what you personally find "reasonable".It just is not true to say that the two positions regarding morality are equally subjective or equally valid as conclusions.In fact it's blatantly untrue.

How do you know that? If it's not knowable "in a scientific sense" in what sense is it knowable?Why would anyone who wants to draw accurate and reliable conclusions give any credence at all to this "sense" of knowing you allude to? ALL of the evidence tells us that intelligence is something which develops as a consequence of matter.

Unless belief is derived from an epistemological basis that actually works it amounts to nothing more than fantasy based on wishful thinking rationalised to seem like more.Not only are the epistemologies you cite (divine revelation, subjective feelings etc.) known to fail, they are also known to pander to human psychological weaknesses that lead to misplaced conviction. If one wants to to be deeply convinced of something that is almost certainly wrong then basing one's conclusions on apparently divine revelation and subjective experience combined is a fairly sure-fire way to achieve that. Not all "world views" are equally subjective or equally valid. Some are based on epistemologies with proven record of success whilst others embrace epistemologies which lead to misplaced conviction.You are doing the latter.

I'm sure that all sorts of things can make one happy. I may be absolutely blissful in believing myself to be the best looking and intelligent person on the planet. But this doesn't make that belief correct. It is perfectly possible to be blissful as a result of being delusional. So happiness isn't really relevant when considering the accuracy and reliability of one's conclusions is it?I'm talking about epistemology. Knowledge and how we acquire it. How we differentiate between knowledge and belief. Etc.What epistemological techniques are you applying (i.e. what methods of knowledge acquisition)? Why do you consider conclusions borne from these techniques to be accurate or reliable? What verifiable discoveries have resulted as a consequence of applying these epistemological techniques (i.e. what is their track record)?The 'Golden Rule' has been arrived at by numerous philosophies many of which are entirely secular. It seems to be based on the sort of recipricocity and empathetic abilities that we know are evolved traits. Certainly it is just wrong to say that knowledge of the golden rule depends on the sort of divine revelation and subjective religious expereince that you are promoting as worthwhile methods of knowledge acquisition here.So - I ask - What objective knowledge have these methods ever led to?

"Belief" isn't an epistemological technique. You can't say that we know something because we believe it. That is ridiculous.I am asking what method of knowledge acquisition has led to this belief of yours. I am asking why you think this method of knowledge acquisition results in conclusions that are likely to be correct? Of course there is. That is what scientific knowledge is. It suggests that there is a large degree of commonality between human societies. Given what we objectively know about the evolution of human empathy, morality, altruism etc. etc. that common factor would seem to be common aspects of human psychology. Why is it reasonable to conclude "divine origins"....? What method of knowledge acquisition led you to that conclusion? Why do you think this method of knowledge acquisition results in conclusions that are correct? But we know the origins of human empathy, morality et al (i.e. those things that lead to the 'golden rule') evolved naturally. Even if we know that thunder and lightning occur naturally by virtue of static electricity that doesn't disprove that Thor is willing things to behave in ways that seem entirely natural but which ultimately depend on his divine intervention to cause thunder.....Even if we know that human farts occur naturally that doesn't disprove the notion that fart fairies are willing things to behave in ways that seem entirely natural but which ultimately depend on their divine intervention as the cause of farts.....If we design the object of our un-evidenced beleif to be unassailable then, unsurprisingly, it will be un-disprovable. But that is no reason to give such notions any credence at all is it?

OK. But is this animal behaviour dependent at all on Tom's divine inaudible whispering intervention in the same way that you have suggested human moral decisions sometimes are? Or do genetic and social factors alone (i.e. without divine intervention) suffice here?How do you decide when Tom is intervening and when he isn't?

So your conclusions as to whether "Tom" is interfering in any given observed moral decision is nothing more than a baseless opinion. Even "Tom's" supposed influence on your own moral decision making is based on nothing more than a subjective feeling. Subjective feelings of the exact sort that we know to be pointlessly unreliable as a means of discerning anything about reality.The methods of knowledge acquisition on which you are basing your conclusions really don't justify any confidence at all in the conclusions you are reaching.

Because we, as a species throughout our history, have have tried various approaches to knowledge acquisition. Some demonstrably work. Others demonstrably don't.Unless your beliefs are derived from some method of knowledge acquisition that actually works, your beliefs are almost certainly wrong.That is the brutally harsh fact of the matter. You keep reciting this as if it is some sort of killer point. But phrasing something as an either/or option doesn't make it some sort of 50:50 choice with either option being equally valid.Either Satan is imperceptibly influencing me, Tangle and Oni to keep arguing with you in this thread, or he isn't and our respective ongoing contributions are entirely of our own volition.But the fact that I can phrase the unfalsifiable but evidentially baseless proposition that Satan is influencing participants in this thread in such an either/or manner doesn't mean that the belief he is and the belief he is not are equally reasonable or justified.Why do you think repeatedly phrasing your 'intelligent designer' belief in this either/or manner is any different to any other such baseless proposition put forward in the same format?