|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Just in case you didn't read to the end, the trolley problem(s) is no longer just an experimnetal thought excercise, it's become very real.
quote: Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... So the answer to your observation is I agree. Well that's a start.
Different sure, morality no. Matter in motion Well I understand you define morality differently than I do.
quote: We saw in the Capuchin monkey experiment that "Monkeys Show Sense Of Fairness", which is a basis of morality (can a moral code be unfair? Is the golden rule unfair?). That fairness is monitored and enforced by older members -- isn't that morality?
No I'm not without actual objective empirical evidence. I'm sorry did you do away with all the evidence for God's existence and the scriptures as his Word, while I was away from the website. No Dawn, if I cannot see it or test for its existence it is not objective by definition. What you have is a strongly held subjective opinion that your evidence is objective, but that doesn't pass the smell test. A book with words is not evidence that the words are true.
Why would i. I was trying to be kind. But as has been indicated by you and others here, this moral code could change in an instance. The reason it could change is that it is based on biological and mental functions, which are biological in natrue. It's a vicious circle of nonsense And you keep spinning in it. The three laws are visibly no different empirically than the 10 commandments, a list of behaviors.
... But as has been indicated by you and others here, this moral code could change in an instance. ... Really. Have you ever witnessed such a rapid change in morality? What I see is that it takes generations.
You haven't even got started. You cant Started and not refuted. The onus is on you to demonstrate your argument is valid and you have failed to date.
RAZD. I could provide any example of mental processes across the animal kingdom, they would be nothing more than matter in motion. It's sad that you and Asimov's can develope moral codes for imaginary robots, but can't apply the same rules to the animal kingdom. I bet Asimov's had some murdered animals, the same month he was developing these imaginary robots. Mmmmmmm, murdered chicken. Again you try this invalidated argument. Sad. Repetition does not make it any more valid or worth discussing. You're just dodging the question posed by the three laws.
I'm not saying men can't develope ideas biologically by mental processes. I'm just saying there just processes, that can't be consistent in reality. ... Who says they need to be consistent? Within any one group I would expect relative consistency but not absolute consistency, nor would I expect consistency with a different group. That's the reality.
... Besides, this a simple brain tumor or something else can shut down these processes. But then that is a biological processes as well Why would we NOT expect brain damage to affect brain function? That this affects perceptions of moral behavior is proof that it is not an absolute code from an infinite source, as that would not be damaged.
But if you think I've missed something please present it. Please , but not with one of your disortations, maybe just a question or a simple point Actually no. I see no bluffs on my part. But disortations are hard to engage maybe you could simplify a bit. This will make it easier and a little easier for readers that may not understand what we are tying to say Ummm, that morality is subjective, not objective. It's not so much that you "missed" it but you are dealing with cognitive dissonance in accepting this truth. That's not necessarily a bad thing, if you have an open mind. I could say that the whole reason you have for posting this thread is to try and reduce your dissonance between your belief and social morality.
I don't think I've failed to respond to this, you just don't like the answer or are unable, as far as I can see to answer the objection. That being, that what ever word salad you put on it, a it's nothing more than biological process. A biological and sociological process. Biology alone does not account for memes, they come from sharing ideas.
quote: bold for emphasis. If all thought is just a biological process and not some synergetic mind process, then does a meme from one person infect the other people and change their biology? Is the Noosphere greater than the sum of its parts? Morality is a meme.
The obvious contradiction should be aware especially to you RAZD. You claim that consciences is a product of evolution and processes, but don't know how to demonstrate that in a biological way. Shouldn't we be able to demonstrate a simple process. Shouldn't the CAUSALITY between brain function and consciouness be simple enough to track. You keep saying "contradiction," but I don't think you know what it means ... That something is difficult or has not been fully demonstrated does not mean that the process is not partially understood nor does it contradict the process being biological and sociological.
I think we need another explanation for consciouness and morality, one that biological processes won't allow you. But hats only your first problem. ... No, you think we need another explanation because the one everyone on this thread is talking about is dissonant with your personal opinion\belief. Nobody else here - as far as I can see - has a need for a different explanation.
... Besides this, only an outside standard, absolute in nature will ever make Morality consistent in any rational way If absolute consistency is even required. Curiously subjective morals seem to operate quite well. The sky isn't always blue.
I appreciate your above elaborate explanation and even if it were true, wouldn't solve any problems in any rational way Real problems, or ones in your head?
No I'm only telling you what reality will allow you Which is talking about realities, such as morality being a subjective social construct that operates to normalize behavior within the social group. Observable, testable, real.
I've demonstrated it rationally. ... Asserting it repeatedly is not demonstrating it.
P1: morals are absolute P2: ? C: ? ... Since consciouness exists, reasoning exists, ethics exist, ... Agreed
... they could only rationally come from a source outside themself. ... Does not follow, you are guilty of hidden premise fallacy at a minimum, one you take as a given? and leaping to a conclusion that is unevidenced and unsupported. This is araional.
... If not they would make no sense. An ethic would make no sense, if there were no standard, by which it could be judged, evaluated or measured. ... Sense to whom? If it needs to make sense to the individual with the ethic, then job done. If it needs to make sense to you, then perhaps you are the problem? Can we evaluate, measure, quantify and judge a moral code? Of course we can. We can compare it to our own codes (ie consistency between codes), and we can see if they produce the desired (by the code) behavior (ie consistency with social behavior). Of course in the first instance we would be judging the other code by our own (see how Faith judges the Islamic codes against hers for example). You are doing it here by comparing the morals developed by atheists and others with your own. This has been a time-tested approach to demonize other cultures and beliefs, but it doesn't have to be adversarial -- we can also look to see how we could improve our moral code from how well the others work and taking the best to use ourselves. This is a learning process. The second way is to look for internal consistency, such as the belief that pre-marital sex and adultery are wrong (sins) with the number of cases of pre-marital sex and adultery that come to light. Or that abortion is killing/murder with the number of fundamental Christians that have abortions. High numbers indicate that the code is not working\useful. Going back to the first method, It is instructive to look at fundamental Christian dominated areas and compare rates of divorce, teenage pregnancy, adultery and sex crimes with more liberal areas. The numbers indicate that these areas do worse than other parts of America.
If it's just your present thinking and it could change in a moment, as your cohorts have asserted, then it's just someone postulating... Not without cause and deliberation and study of the pros and cons to any proposed changes. Look at the way gay marriage has become acceptable when it wasn't even discussed in the '50's. This change occurs because there is no harm to other people.
Then it's complicated by the fact that EVERY SINGLE PERSON could have a different idea about a single thing, making it further confused nonsense. I see no way around and you have presented no evidence to the contrary, to this AGE OLD PROBLEM. Possible but highly unlikely. You develop your personal morals as you grow from toddler to adult (over 20 years when the areas of the brain that are involved in moral decision making are completed). That means you have 20 years of interactions and discussions with others in your social group, 20 years of education in what the social moral code is in your group. You inherit the memes of your social group by absorbing them. This is why it is a biological and a sociological system.
Let's say your next immediate step in helping us , would be to show the causality between the brain and consciouness. In the meantime, I'll keep looking for the answer as to why this all came about by Natural processes and I don't mean just the process I'm mean everything. Can you help us with that one. It seems you have your work cut out for you as well Sure, since you keep moving the goalposts
You see Zen Deist, your conscience which God gave you will not let answer this, because you are violating your conscince, in favor of your error. This is you exercising your free will, even in light of that which you know to be wrong absolutely Except I have answered it. People (most, not all) within a social group tend to think that the general behavior of their social group is moral and justified behavior. Whether it is Maori eating their enemies or Nazis killing Jews, or more immediately and local, that it was moral and justified to kill slaves by hanging and burning, or that it is moral and justified to bomb and burn mosques, to murder Muslims and to keep them out of America because of a mistaken belief that all Muslims are secret terrorists. It isn't widespread, it doesn't have to dominate a culture, but you would have to agree that it exists and that is all that is needed to make my point. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
Well simply put I'll just invoke the fact that God can and has created freewill. I won't develope that yet. I'll wait for your response to see how that fits in too your assertions In actuality, it doesn't. Free will is often cited as the 'reason' things have not transpired according to god's plan or will. But it is an oxymoron. If god is all knowing, he would be cognizant of the outcome of whatever scenario is meant to transpire regardless. If one creates a specific set of variables knowing full well the outcome of what will occur, then any tests are meaningless. Also, being 'all knowing' actually undermines the 'free will' argument. If god is all knowing and is fully aware of the outcome of future events, then free will is a complete illusion.
Father the Tests as you call them were for Abraham's freewill, to help him grow Once again, a pointless exercise. If god is all powerful, he would already be aware of Abraham's faith. The test is irrelevant. And a little sadistic quite frankly.
US equally you'll find in the context, some purpose God acted in a certain way. But does not affect whether he is or is not all powerful. I am afraid I don't understand what you are stating here. If the bible is the word of god, as is cited by fundamentalists, then I am reading it in absolute terms as it pertains to your assertions. Are you implying it isn't the word of god?
If I believed the Bible was wrong about God being omniscient work all powerful, I couldn't care less about what else it said Well that's an interesting view. You basically label yourself as a Christian with specific views about god. Your primary reference for those views is the bible. Yet if the bible contradicts those views, you ignore it?Circular logic anyone?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
So you don't know. Got it. I don't know either. Because I am not infinitely wise, how would I determine this creatures demonstrations aren't deceptive inventions from a more intelligent but not infinitely wise creature? Being imperfect, I can't rely on my own judgements when it comes to determining if something else is infinitely wise. Well NO, you missed the point of my response, then you ignored the answer. You said if I come across a creature such as God. Well if you've come across him I'm assuming you've met him. You ignored that fact. Then if you've met him, him being infinte in knowledge would be able, beyond any reasonable doubt demonstrate he is God. And besides this, even if you couldn't understand him, it wouldn't eliminate him as being God. Your not the deciding factor, correct?
Bigger meaning? Meaning is subjective too. It has meaning to me, and other people. That meaning does not exist external to us though. If I were to show you some 'bigger meaning' it would in fact undermine my entire argument, so it's not really a 'real test' of my ideas at all. Well we know for sure that there is matter in motion. We know for sure that your thought and ideas are just matter in motion. But admittedly, even from your own position or stance, we would not be able to establish, whether there's any meaning outside It doesn't need to be a test of your ideas. It needs to be a test in reality
It matters to me. Again, something 'mattering' is a subjective perspective. I'm sure you'll get the hang of it, if you really wanted to. If it's entirely subjective, my proposition is established, you have no way of explaining morals. Morals are no more than your imaginary contemplations., differing from one person to the other. Your morals are no more important or different than any other thing happening. This is what you need to demonstrate, why you ideas are somehow have more meaning than a car hitting a cat in the road or someone putting a bullet in you.. Your major problem is simply no possible way to demonstrate anything besides matter in motion
I reject your criteria of legitimacy as illegitimate. Is it morally right to steal food to feed a starving child? Yourself? A horse thief? A murderer? Please, I've answered plenty of your moral questions - you continue to ignore mine. Don't mean to sound harsh but saying I'm avoiding answering your questions is a lie. Is it wrong to steal to feed a starving child?. Well from what position are you wanting me to answer it. From yours, even the question makes no sense and is irrelevant, because I could say is it wrong to steal food from an animal, if I was starving and you'd answer if the affirmative, that yes it is, every time. But why. But why should morality be limited to your little species. From my perspective that absolute morality exists, its never right to lie, in any circumstances. Why because it's a misrepresentation of what is true. But now play close attention. For a lie to be a lie, it has to be pitted against an absolute truth. If it's not how could we say it's a lie Now would i lie to the Nazis to hide someone. Absolutley. But that doesn't mean the lie was not UNTRUTHFUL. It simply means I did not represent the truth. Happily, God does not strike us us down, when we do, anymore that he did Rahab or Abraham lying to pharaoh . But the lie did not somehow become subjective because I misrepresented the truth. Stealing is always wrong because it's a lie at its core. But if we have no absolute standard as Do not Steal, then it wouldn't be wrong in any instance. It would be anyones choice whether it was wrong or right
Great. Now 'social rules for how primates believe is the optimum way to order society and interact with one another' is just another in the list. The explanation for morality is the same as the explanation for sweetness and pain, and humour. Atheism, or rather science, provisions us with explanations. Your thesis is defeated. It can only be shown to be moral if it makes rational sense. If it's random, inconsistent, illogical, only applies to your species, then it is just stuff happening. If other species receive just the opposite of what you describe as good and right, then it can't be called ethical. Science might provide you with explanations, but it doesn't give u morals. You making that up
They are happening to me. A subject. Therefore they are subjective. Hrm, could you describe the difference between objective and subjective for me? I think we're using different definitions. Objective in a moral sense would be any thought concept or idea, that is true absolutely. Subjective would be anything that is not that Jesus said,, for this reason I was born and came into the world, to testify to the TRUTH. If truth is realive, I have no reason to believe that that statement of his is true, correct? But I have been given no good reason to not believe he was who he said he was either He said,you will KNOW the TRUTH and it will set you free. I am the way the TRUTH and the life. If that is not absolutely true, why should I believe him about that or anything else he says But it makes sense rationally too doesn't it. He came from an outside source or place to testify to the THE truth. That's how we can KNOW things are absolutely true Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
In dawns head, morality isn't morality at all unless it is perfect. This is a self-serving definition for one, but even if we accept it, there are still problems that dawn is ignoring. Obviously, if morality must be perfect then it's source can only be a perfect being. That is why dawn must assert that morality must be perfect, it has no basis in reality but it helps get to the conclusion desired. Identifying morality as defined is impossible for any human, if only a perfect being can create morality than only a perfect being can identify it. Since dawn cannot possibly verify whether or not morality exists(as defined) he has no 'morality' himself. While I have no real basic disagreement agreement with the above statement, I would ask one basic question? Is your statement above absolutely true or only relatively true. How did you arrive at such a certainity. From reality, just your thought. Just you perceptions, what? Tell me how Secondly,there is an evidential way for me to identify absolute morality. Both by the general evidence for God's existence and the evidence from specific revelation Thirdly, absolute morality is evidenced by simple rational observation. So I would classify your above statement, more of an observation than an actual argument, because it is predicated on the assumption I cannot identify God's existence or Word by and evidential perspective Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
If you were capable of either reading or honesty you would see that I already provided both the conditions and how we would decide if something is true. No where did I mention absolutely but in reality neither the meaning or context world change is the word absolutely were inserted. It was absolutely true that I wanted a BLT for lunch but when I got it I found I really didn't want it. Truth often is solely dependent on the context and moment. What is absolutely true now may well be absolutely false a minute later. Fortunately as humans we have been given a brain and if we use it we can even discover that even though it was absolutely true that I wanted a BLT for lunch, when I got it I found I really didn't want it. And if I was unaware of any kind of reality, your above statement is how I would define absolutely and reality, also. But its not. Here's the absolute reality and truth of your scenario, you seem to be completely unaware of. Your could have no desires, interests, like or dislikes for the BLT, IF THE BLT DID NOT EXIST IN REALITY. Truth is like that, if it does exist in reality, then I can like or dislike a certain thing, I can obey or ignore it. If someone else definitely likes a BLT , it does not affect the reality of the BLT. Truth actual truth and Absolutely truth must actually exist, before i can disobey it, like it or not Your conditions on how to establish truth are not valid and consist of complete idiocy. If we did not know that it existed, or had trouble describing BLT, then u might have a point. We dont.
Dawn, you've never honestly read the Bible have you? It is filled with stories showing that the God character is NOT all knowing. Honestly, why is it you Bible Thumpers have never honestly read the book? Perhaps you could give us an example of this assertion, then according to your definition of truth, let us know how it's true, or not true. Example please. I can and have done so right here in River City many a time. It begins in Genesis. The God character shows up and does not know where Adam and Eve are so has to cal them. Later the God character has heard stories about what has been happening so he comes down to walk about to find out if the reports are true. Begin with Genesis 1: quote:31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Note it is after the fact that he sees it was good. Then Genesis 2: quote:18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone; xI will make him a helper comparable to him. 19 yOut of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and zbrought them to 7Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. Of course the God character really is just a bumbling fool in this story, learning by doing, but you would think he would have know what the best help meet for Adam was, but according to the story he didn't. and from Genesis 3: quote:8 And they heard the 3sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the 4cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, Where are you? You would think an all knowing being wouldn't have to ask were they were hiding. and Genesis 18: quote:20And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; 21I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. I didn't really ask for an example because I didn know what you believed. I do. I actually ask so people could actually see what you believed. Amazing. And of course Jar has never asked a question, he did not already know the answer. He is permitted this but God is not
Again, the God character demonstrates he is not all knowing (and he also shows that at times humans need to teach him about morality and correct his poor sense of morality). And there are yet more. Yes Jar and here they are This first one actually gives you chill bumps
Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please (Isaiah 46:9-10). Who can fathom the Spirit of the LORD, or instruct the LORD as his counselor? Whom did the LORD consult to enlighten him, and who taught him the right way? Who was it that taught him knowledge, or showed him the path of understanding? (Isaiah 40:13-14). Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD (Psalm 139:4). O LORD, you have searched me and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways (Psalm 139:1-3). My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. How precious to me are your thoughts, God! How vast is the sum of them! Were I to count them, they would outnumber the grains of sandwhen I awake, I am still with you (Psalm 139:15-16). Can anyone teach knowledge to God, since he judges even the highest? (Job 21:22). He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name. Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit (Psalm 147:4-5). And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the LORD searches every heart and understands every desire and every thought. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever (1 Chronicles 28:9). Do you know how the clouds hang poised, those wonders of him who has perfect knowledge? (Job 37:16). From heaven the LORD looks down and sees all mankind; from his dwelling place he watches all who live on earthhe who forms the hearts of all, who considers everything they do (Psalm 33:13-15). Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! (Romans 11:33). Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account (Hebrews 4:13). Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows (Luke 12:7). Whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything (1 John 3:20). Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered (Matthew 10:29-30). Your awful attempt to explain morals is only superceeded by your poor Biblical interpretation skills Dawn Bertot. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
This is the nearest you've come to understanding how moral decisions are made by real people living real lives. They make the best choices given their biological make up and socialised upbringing. What you think I understand is just me presenting your position. I certainly do NOT agree that that position is correct in reality. Best choices are fine, but when they have no direction, the are like a fart in the wind. And in your system everyone's fart goes a different direction, aimlessly and to no purpose There's no truth to the direction of the gases of a fart, much like yoour or anybody choices in your system
Morality IS a biological process, it's an emotion like sadness or love that can be detected in the brain. Perceptions, idea, thoughts and concepts may be bio processes, but morality or truth would need to be something, outside and independent of those processes, much like Jars BLT illustration. His illustration has no purpose without a reality outside himself. Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
We saw in the Capuchin monkey experiment that"Monkeys Show Sense Of Fairness", which is a basis of morality (can a moral code be unfair? Is the golden rule unfair?). Do you realize how ignorant this sounds. You can't just start with a perception or random idea that fairness is the basis of morality, when you find it exhibited in one species, let alone in nature itself, which is suppose to be the creator of the entire process.Do you have a clue how unfair nature is itself. If the entire primate or animal kingdom, we're to go,extinct, would this alleged morality still exist. Then answer is no. A TREE SHARES THE SUNLIGHT WITH YOU BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKERS IT MORAL But it wouldn't matter would it, because in reality, atleast according to the cold hard facts of your position, Morals don't exist now
If absolute consistency is even required. Curiously subjective morals seem to operate quite well. The sky isn't always blue. That's the point Zen Deist. Is the sky Moral or just what you call blue, a thing? Your actions and perceptions, as asapecies re just another thing, the have no value in your system, except that which ascribe to them. Is blue a value Could not show otherwise if you wanted to Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
A biological and sociological process. Biology alone does not account formemes, they come from sharing ideas. Sharing ideas is nothing more than natural processes, unless you can demonstrate otherwise Can you show me how sharing ideas is any better or different than any other part of natural selection or survival of the fittest? Evolution has no purpose, so why would something like sharing ideas in that same context, be anything more or better If evolution is true, you'll be extinct in a several million years. What will be the meaning of sharing them I'm sure the dinosaurs showed some of this same behavior, but to what end? If an asteroid took out the entire planet tomorrow, would fairness and morality still exist. You don't even follow the tenets and the fundamental principles of evolution. Evolution doesn't care what you think, why do you, if your a part of the same process? Trying to make yourself something more or better in that system, is an illusion It's sad that I can represent the actual "morals" of evolution better than you can Mindless evolution has played the ULTIMATE joke on you, it's made you think u MATTER, as matter, when u really dont. It won't allow it in reality Then Pilate said to him, So you are a king? Jesus answered, You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the worldto bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice. For him to testify to the TRUTH, he had to be truth absolutely. Or absolute truth He said I AM the WAY THE TRUTH AND the life. If he is not and was not absolute truth, there would be no reason to believe those words or anything else he said Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Dawn writes: Best choices are fine, but when they have no direction, the are like a fart in the wind. And in your system everyone's fart goes a different direction, aimlessly and to no purpose. That would be OUR system, the system that we actually work with, not the one you fantasise about. I note that you ignore the evidence I gave you that demonstrtaes that morality is a biological process and that everyone's morality doesn't go in different directions except when the brain's neurology gets kicked out of ballance by drugs, illness or genetics. The supernatural process that you propose would be unaffected by such 'meat-based' stuff.
Perceptions, idea, thoughts and concepts may be bio processes, but morality or truth would need to be something, outside and independent of those processes, Morality is self-evidently confined inside individual entities and can easily be shown to be so using FMRI scans, changes to behaviour caused by drugs and illness and the study of the brains of those that lack the ability to make moral choices - psychopaths and sociopaths. No entity outside the body has ever been identified that could influence our thoughts and behaviours and if it existed and could do so, it would render us puppets. The entire laughable edifice of free will collapses. Congrats.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
DB writes: Your awful attempt to explain morals is only superceeded by your poor Biblical interpretation skills Thank you for providing additional evidence to support my position. As you so aptly demonstrate the Bible is filled with inconsistencies and contradictions. It clearly shows that God is ignorant and all knowing, moral, immoral and amoral. One thing that is consistent is its inconsistency and relativity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
A biological and sociological process. Biology alone does not account for memes, they come from sharing ideas. Sharing ideas is nothing more than natural processes, unless you can demonstrate otherwise Indeed, but the differences are in the details. You can reduce all of the universe into quarks in random motion, and explain atoms with them, but chemistry explains molecules and organic chemistry explains the combinations of organic molecules and the formation of objects, pre-biotic molecules explain self-replicating molecules that explain life that explains biology. This all occurs by natural processes but the details of those processes are different at different levels. There is a synergy that occurs at each stage as well, where the sum is greater than the parts, the atom is not just quarks, molecules aren't just atoms, life is not just pre-biotic molecules. Self-consciousness is not just biology and thought is not just electrical activity in a brain, it is more than the sum of the parts, it is synergy. Now you can choose to point your finger at the synergies and say "that is god/s working" but you don't have to and it adds no information of value to the process, it would only make you comfortable, and assuage your dissonance perhaps. Microevolution alone is not enough to explain macroevolution, because you need to have diversity in different ecologies to change daughter populations in different ways. Biology is not enough to explain memes because the sociological processes of communication and interaction of ideas is a group activity not an individual one. Isolated single individuals do not have memes by definition. So this again is a synergy from interaction and communication that creates something greater than the sum of the parts, the individuals in the group. Morals are memes. Memes are shared concepts, but moral codes are not just any concepts lumped together, they are ones that benefit the social group to survive and reproduce as a group.
Sharing ideas is nothing more than natural processes, unless you can demonstrate otherwise quote: Note the "feelings of discomfort" are when you find it difficult to think about the conflicting information rationally. By reducing the arguments on this thread that moral codes are subjective consensus within a social group to "just natural processes" you are trying to make them seem inconsequential, but this only works for you.
Evolution has no purpose, so why would something like sharing ideas in that same context, be anything more or better There you go again, cognitive dissonance, to attempt to reduce the actual importance of information in conflict with your beliefs. Evolution has no purpose or goal, agreed. It is a synergy process that allows life to ... live. Which individual lives and which dies before reproducing is a matter of selection for fitness to survive and breed. Likewise, which species live and which species die (go extinct) is a matter of fitness of the species to survive and breed. And again we have a synergy where the shared ideas that develops in a group that becomes more than the sum of ideas of single individuals, there is an interaction, and the whole group benefits from those concepts that improve the survival and reproduction of the group, possibly at the loss of an individual (streetcar). The rest of your post is just more cognitive dissonance dismissal of what is really happening in the world in spite of your beliefs. Sorry, they are not worth further comment. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Do you realize how ignorant this sounds. You can't just start with a perception or random idea that fairness is the basis of morality, when you find it exhibited in one species, let alone in nature itself, which is suppose to be the creator of the entire process. Do you have a clue how unfair nature is itself. If the entire primate or animal kingdom, we're to go,extinct, would this alleged morality still exist. Then answer is no. A TREE SHARES THE SUNLIGHT WITH YOU BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKERS IT MORAL But it wouldn't matter would it, because in reality, atleast according to the cold hard facts of your position, Morals don't exist now See What Is Cognitive Dissonance in Message 177 regarding your attempts to reduce your cognitive dissonance by diminishing your perception of the arguments made that are in conflict with your beliefs. This is just more of same and thus irrelevant to the discussion of how morals are actually developed in societies.
That's the point Zen Deist. Is the sky Moral or just what you call blue, a thing? Your actions and perceptions, as asapecies re just another thing, the have no value in your system, except that which ascribe to them. Is blue a value Could not show otherwise if you wanted to That you find it difficult to understand how it works is evidence of your dissonance, and it doesn't actually show that it doesn't work. Not only do we see fairness in Capuchin monkeys we also observe shared memes in bears, elephants, whales and macaques:
quote: Any animal that teaches their young how to get food or hunt is passing memes from generation to generation. And, of course, morals are a subset of memes, as discussed in Message 177. The experiment on fairness in Capuchin monkeys was done with females, because they were the ones that enforced behavior within the troop.
quote: They enforced Capuchin morality. Enforcement of certain behaviors is observed in many primates when misbehavior is punished. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Perceptions, idea, thoughts and concepts may be bio processes, but morality or truth would need to be something, outside and independent of those processes, much like Jars BLT illustration. His illustration has no purpose without a reality outside himself. And what if morality is not objective, and has no purpose outside of ourselves?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dawn bertot writes:
You're looking at it backwards. It isn't that the social contract "is moral". It's that morality is a social contract. It's something that you comply with voluntarily in your day-to-day life, not just an edict from an alien overlord that you must obey. You comply because it makes your interactions with your fellow humans easier.
So this social moral contract you reference, is it moral, should you obey it. Dawn Bertot writes:
Again, you're assuming that there is an absolute right and wrong. There isn't. Somebody else can disagree with you until the cows come home but that doesn't make either of you "right" or "wrong". If someone else, human that is,disagrees with your answer,are you right and they wrong,or something else? Morality is more about what works or doesn't work than about "right" or "wrong".
Dawn Bertot writes:
And He didn't. So how is stoning "right"?
Jesus purpose here was not to indicate that adultery was not wrong, or that it should not be punished by stoning. His purpose was to teach a more valuable lesson, within morality. The lesson was forgiveness and to recognize that all but him there could NOT cast the stone. Dawn Bertot writes:
Indeed. And if it can be set aside, how is it absolute?
It was not that adultery was not wrong then or still wrong, only that the Law Giver was present, to set it aside, to teach a more important principle than punishment. Dawn Bertot writes:
On the contrary, forgiveness is about the forgiver, not the forgiven. It is often about letting go of imagined offenses. Forgiveness is about getting past the idea that somebody wronged you.
But forgiveness would make no sense if they're were no sin to forgive. Dawn Bertot writes:
See above. Jesus was pointing out that the man's "sins" were in the imaginations of the people whom he had supposedly "wronged", that if God could forgive, so could they.
Jesus was saying I'm the standard of morality to forgive sin, absolute wrong doing. Notice he did not say, it doesn't matter or there is no such thing as sin, or there is NO standard, in fact he corroborated this fact,by demonstrating there is a standard. Dawn Bertot writes:
That shows that God's standards are relative too. Then in the ultimate example of absolute morality, God says even though you've broke my law, absolute in reality, due to sin, a reality, I'll forgive it You didn't answer my question: Is "Thou shalt not kill" absolute? Or are there exceptions?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024