|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Morality without God is impossible | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Sorry to be so slow replying. Life keeps happening.
Stile writes: The difference is that with the physical you can objectively say that a foot is longer than inch. However to say that generosity is classified as good and selfishness is bad is a subjective conclusion.
Physical or non-physical doesn't matter - it's irrelevant.What matters is having "something to compare against" - like a ruler or a moral rule. Stile writes: OK, but the point is that people intuitively seem to know that generosity is good and selfishness is bad regardless of whether we live by that axiom or not. I agree that what you have here is unusable as there is no moral rule to compare anything with and therefore come up with a "what is good?" or "what is bad?" answer.What you've stated here is an attempt to compare things without anything to compare them against. It's like discussing the length of a bridge and the length of a shoe without allowing any discussion of any kind of "ruler." One can easily see that a bridge is longer than a shoe. But, specifically, how "long" is a bridge? a shoe? -without a ruler, this cannot be defined, and remains unknown. Also, I contend with morality it isn’t about comparing specific actions or their outcomes but it is about what motivates our actions. Most of what we do is morally neutral but when it isn’t we can ask whether we are acting from a position of doing unto others as we would have them do unto us or are we doing what we do with the motive of benefiting ourselves at the expense of others. So yes, it isn’t objectively known but I suggest that it is intuitively or subjectively known.
Stile writes: But I don’t think it is about whether it works or not. The question is whether it actually is right or not. The Nazi society thought that committing genocide was ok but I suggest that they simply became hardened to what they were doing. I’d suggest that the vast majority of human kind know that to be wrong even if they were anti-Semitic.
God-given moral rules (10 commandments, say...) work just fine to compare any and all morals. (more on this below...)However - God-given moral rules will only work for a society in general if the society agrees to use God-given moral rules and it becomes "common understanding" for the society. Stile's moral rule (good is helping, bad is hurting, say...) works just fine to compare any and all morals. (more on this below...) However - Stile's moral rule will only work for a society in general if the society agrees to use Stile's moral rule and it becomes "common understanding" for the society. Stile writes: But again, you are making it about actions and things that are physical. For example we can say that murder is bad but maybe murder is possibly a good thing when it would save several lives. (There was an unsuccessful plot to murder Hitler.)
You can have rules such as The 10 Commandments or Stile's rule, or even something silly like "anything with apples is good, without apples is bad...Stile writes: But when you talk about rules you are talking about humans trying to control the actions of others. It may be called The Golden Rule but it isn’t really a rule. It is something that we believe in, and then hopefully having it impact on our thinking, which then results in positive actions. The actions are a result of our moral beliefs but they aren’t morality itself.
Morality is simply working it's way through this process, and hasn't gotten very far yet:-people are arguing over who's "rules" should be used to indicate good/bad -people are creating better and better ideas for good/bad moral comparison rules -people are arguing over how hard it will be to "get everyone on board" with any particular system -it hasn't gotten further than this, yet - but it will as there's nothing stopping it Stile writes:
We agree that morality is important. And I agree that there is no indication that we can perceive of whether or not there is a moral outside influence having an impact on us. It is a matter of belief. There's no problem of "it must be independent of human thought!" - that's silly.There's only a problem of creating/imagining a "very useful" moral-rule; just as "very useful" length-rulers were eventually created/imagined. There's no indication that this creating/imagining must come from an outside source at all (although that isn't ruled out... it's just not necessary, and doesn't really matter what the "source" may be); just as there was no indication where the source for length-rulers had to come from. -yes, the issues of "agreeing on a very useful moral rule" and "getting this moral rule understood and used around the world" are very large issues -just as they were for length-rulers (it took thousands of years to work through them) -but, again, there's no indication that anything other than "human imagination" is required If we believe that we are the result of mindless processes then it is clear that we would accept the belief that morality is simply a human construct. However if we believe that we are the result of an intelligent agency then we would reasonably believe that there is a morality that exists regardless of whether or not humanity exists. I’m in the latter camp. 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: 2.1 |
Tangle writes: We are evolved creatures and we can see that morality does evolve within cultures. The evolution of cultural traits are the result of cultural replicators which Dawkins cleverly labelled as memes. It was GDR that claims otherwise, but he's not saying how he reached that conclusion other than it being what he believes. For example tastes in music evolve within a cultural as we are subject to the various musical memes that we infect each other with. We do the same with morals. However, we also all have part of us as humans that draw us towards the dark side of selfishness, where we are prepared to affect each other negatively for our own benefit. It is my belief that within that mix there is a God meme that also subconsciously tells us that we should live by the Golden Rule. Like all memes we are free to reject it. It is your belief that no such meme exists. It is all belief.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: 2.1 |
Tangle writes: Just as it is about what you believe that is beyond what we actually know.
You see, everything comes back to what you believe, regardless of what we actually know. Tangle writes: I am simply using the term meme in lieu of the still small voice of God or in specifically Christian terms the Holy Spirit. It is the medium through which God impacts our lives but that doesn’t mean that God isn’t more than just the meme.
The god you believe in is not a meme; he's supposed to be very real. *I* believe that your god is a meme - purely an idea spread throughout our cultures.Tangle writes: Our brain interprets what we see with our eyes and paints a mental picture for us but we can only see the functioning of the brain. We can’t look inside the brain and determine what it is the brain is actually seeing. Can you tell me how it is that we can measure morality in the brain?
What we *know* as facts, rather than beliefs, are that morality is an emotion measurable in the human brain and is present in many other advanced social species.Tangle writes: Just as you do with physical evolution you are doing here. You conflate the process with the agency.
It is therefore an evolved trait like all others. We also know that there is no extern ally operating 'still small voice' telling us what to do and what not to do. Moral impulses are internal and individual. Tangle writes: We can grow up in a loving home and in a loving culture and if our brain gets damaged then we can behave in grossly immoral ways. Just as if we break a leg we can’t walk. It has nothing to do as to whether or not there is an intelligence behind our sense of morality or not. We know this because if the parts of the brain responsible for our moral choices get damaged our 'still small voice' is silenced and we behave in grossly immoral ways. I refer you back to Fred. How does your social meme, your God-voice explain this? Can god be silenced?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: 2.1
|
Tangle writes: You don’t use the word belief but for example you say this further down in your post. As far as I'm aware, I've been speaking only of what we know and certainly I have not used the word 'believe' in anything I've said.Tangle writes: That is a belief. Essentially just as we have fundamentalist Christians or Muslims you are a fundamentalist atheist. Just as a fundamentalist Christian believes that God brought the world, as we currently know it, into existence ex nihilo you believe that natural processes such as evolution, or even abiogenesis came into existence ex nihilo as a result of natural processes without being able to explain what those pre-existing natural processes are.
The process *is* the agency Tangle writes: Fine but you can’t see the moral thinking that is going on. All you can see is parts of the brain working. It is the same as the example of eyesight that I used previously. You can see the parts of brain switch on but you have no idea what it is that is being seen. There is no screen.
I've told you a thousand times, we present a person with a moral puzzle while in a fRMI scanner and watch which parts of the brain 'switch on'. Tangle writes: We both know that I can’t do that, just as you can’t prove the negative. I’m am quite happy to call it belief but you believe I am wrong. If you believe that there's some external agency interfering with your brain creating your moral choices you're going to have to show how, where and who. My only point, which of course you reject, is that we can reasonably conclude that as I had loving parents there is a good chance that I would become a loving parent. The question is why does love exist at all. If my beliefs are correct that God is a god of love and that we are to reflect His love then God is necessary for morality. If however, you are correct and that love has evolved out of mindlessness then no deity at all is necessary. It's belief.
Tangle writes: If the god meme is like other memes then it behaves like them. I have never suggested that it isn't subject to brain function. Again, we can look at the parent meme. Loving parents should strongly influence their offspring to be loving people. However brain damage can prevent that from happening. If, as I say, our sense of morality is partly learned from our environment and partly intrinsic - an emotion, like all others - then it should be changed if the parts of our brain that are responsible for it are damaged. This is what we see. If, however, our morality is created by this external Holy Spirit somehow whispering in our ear, not subject to brain function but some magical and undetectable influence, it should not be changed by physical damage. Why can't the Holy Spirit permiate through a damaged brain?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: 2.1 |
Tangle writes: Let’s go away from the meme thing for now and refer to it as an influence as maybe it is easier to think of it that way. We are all bombarded with influences in our lives. For example if someone accidentally cuts us off in traffic and we give them a friendly wave instead of the finger then we increase the likelihood that they will respond to someone else the same way in the future. As I said previously loving parents influence their kids to be loving parents. If it's a brain function - which you now seem to accept? - then it's as independent of external super-natural interference by the Holy Spirits as any other. Or are you saying that it isn't?I am simply saying that there is a god influence in all of us, calling us to love and treat others as we would have them love and treat us. Tangle writes: That is the same question as why does God allow cancer. As I have said before it is the toughest issue that Christians have to deal with. Also as I have said before, I have to assume that it is a necessary aspect of an existence subject to entropy and decay, but that ultimately God is a god of perfect fairness and justice.
If you are, then why is this Spirit unable to affect brain damaged individuals? It seems like a very limited and pointless form of magic, removing morality from vulnerable people. Tangle writes: Fair enough.
I know that it can, I can explain why - the part of the human brain that processes morality has been destroyed so morality goes with it. That's a purely physical process explained by processes that are purely natural.Tangle writes: The physical pathway is necessary for all that we do. External memes or influences of any sort aren’t physical. A loving or an abusive parent has indirectly effects the physical process, not directly.
But your model has external intervention by super-natural beings; why do they need this physical pathway to communicate this message? Tangle writes: I suppose so, in the same way that we can see it processing any other influence in our lives. And, when we see the brain processing the moral decision making do you say that it is the Holy Spirit at work in real time. Are we witnessing god in action here?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: 2.1
|
Tangle writes: Yes, we can't see it. It is a matter of faith that it is there. From an atheistic position of course it doesn't exist. If one is a theist then it makes it possible and I suggest that it even makes it likely. The point is that we *can't* see that! What we see are purely natural processes influenced by a purely natural environment. It all depends on our starting point or our beliefs.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: 2.1 |
I’ll answer this instead of Tangle’s post as I feel I did what I could to answer his question, although he contends that I haven’t.
RAZD writes: ..or a Muslim finger etc. I’m trying to approach this from a theistic POV and not just from the Christian perspective. I’m not suggesting nor do I believe that this god meme is strictly given to Christians. It is my belief that it is universal.
"it" ... the finger of god? Is this a Christian finger or a generic finger (and which one? )RAZD writes: Just a thought on the ID movement. I see it as being consistent with either deism or theism. As a deist/agnostic one essentially believes in non-communication from deities, IDists (a poor cousin to deism imho) think they can see the finger of god but I remain skeptical. I can't see how any communication can readily occur with god/s that are able to create a universe.We would agree that we are affected by cultural memes, whether it be family, friends or our specific culture. We also know that all cultures are able to give examples of those who are fundamentally altruistic or fundamentally selfish. In other words we essentially choose which memes that we will have an impact on our lives RAZD writes:
Our minds are affected by external influences and I don’t see it as such a stretch to believe that a deity able to bring about life as we know it can’t be one of those influences.
Morality derived from the finger of god pointing the way seems a stretch, imho.RAZD writes:
I don’t deny that morality does evolve. It also seems to me that morality in other animals is more prevalent among those that are subject to the loving care of humans. If I am correct then it seems to me that the evolution of morality is what we should expect. As it would be one influence among many it would be something that would grow within a culture over generations. I don’t see the evidence that points to it evolving rules out either view. Currentl y I am reading "The Bonobo and the Atheist" (see Message 205) and it is providing strong evidence of evolution of the basics of morality (emotion, empathy, self awareness, love, altruism, etc.) in other animals, hence it cannot be human centric, but an emergent property of evolution.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: 2.1 |
Tangle writes: You seem to be claiming that as you can see moral impulses acting on the brain that it explains everything. What I'm still confused about is what your actual supernatural claim is. Are or are you not saying that god is intervening directly, in real time with people's moral decision making? Tell me how on reading those impulses on the brain you can tell which impulse is influenced by a parent’s love and which is influenced by some friend influencing him/her to go shoplifting. In the same way how can you tell the difference between a god influence, if it exists, or any other influence. I’m saying that I don’t believe you can. Parental influence is with us for life and it is my contention that the same is true for divine influence. I suppose in either case it is not intervening directly but indirectly.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: 2.1 |
RAZD writes: In the same way that we are influenced by other relationships.
How?RAZD writes: I don't disagree with that. I said more prevalent in animals influenced by the loving care of humans.
Not necessarily, it's observed in cases devoid of human intervention (other than observation) according to de Waal.RAZD writes: Exactly. Fairness appears to be a universal morality. What is good for the group can be selected over behavior not good for the group. The idea of fairness seems prevalent in virtually all primates. That's a rule.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: 2.1 |
GDR writes: Tell me how on reading those impulses on the brain you can tell which impulse is influenced by a parent’s love and which is influenced by some friend influencing him/her to go shoplifting.Tangle writes: That is not necessary, the effect is seen as a brain function regardless of the external causation. We know that the basic empathetic reactions are intrinsic just like our other emotional responses. But it is those external causations that we are talking about. Good old Dad may in early life told young Tangle that stealing is wrong. That meme has been there ever since, and now you are years later out with a group that is encouraging you to shop lift. You have a decision to make. What dad said years before is still influencing you but you now have this new influence. What do you do. You can look at your brain functions all you want but that isn't going to tell you which choice you made. It is only your subsequent actions that give the answer. Also of course, if I am correct, then there is a god meme in there as well that is influencing you not to shoplift. Once again that influence along with dad's influence can be overridden, and again you aren't going to be able to ascertain your decision but observing a brain scan.
GDR writes: Parental influence is with us for life and it is my contention that the same is true for divine influence. I suppose in either case it is not intervening directly but indirectly.Tangle writes: Ok, maybe we're getting close, are you now saying that god is *not* intervening directly in real time? Maybe his influence is through directed evolution which inbuilt a moral function? That is one way of putting it. The "still small voice of God" is an influencer not a director, just as is parental guidance. I'm not sure what you mean though by directed evolution. I don't see it as being a part of physical evolution but actually much closer to Dawkin's ideas of social evolution. For example somewhere along the line a parent has learned that honesty is a positive attribute that we should adhere to. That parent influences his/her children with that gene and maybe passes it on to others as well. Hopefully that gene is then passed on exponentially through others around them. I am saying that it is the same for a god meme. None of this can be determined by a brain scan. The different conclusions that we have come to actually are simply the fact that you hold atheistic beliefs as opposed to my theistic beliefs. If your atheistic world view is accurate then obviously no deity is needed for morality. If however my theistic views are correct then a deity is required for morality to exist, and even for us to exist at all. As I said earlier, it all goes back to our basic beliefs.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: 2.1 |
dwise1 writes: Once again you're confusing process with agency. Yes natural processes exist but you assume that natural processes came about by other natural processes that came from other natural processes and on and on. But basically your own argument eliminates the need for a deity for something that exists naturally. To put it in other terms, we have the ID mentality that insists that science to include God in its equations. The problem there is that the natural universe will operate in exactly the same manner with or without that "God Term", so adding God to the equation is the same as adding Zero, therefore God equals Zero (not the result that they had wished for) which changes nothing. Trying that with a "God Factor", then God would equal Unity (1), which also changes nothing. Therefore, either way that ID insistence results in the same outcome: adding or omitting God changes nothing whatsoever. Also the question again is whether or not our universe and the processes that have resulted in life, are the result of an intelligent creator or not.it is all belief dwise1 writes: However, the concept of empathy or the golden rule is pretty much universal in all religions.
The only difference that can make is to your own subjective sensitivities, but no difference to objective reality. Plus your own subjective sensitivities about "God" can be and most often are very different from millions/billions of others own subjective sensitivities about "God". Objective reality is as close to universal as we can get. Billions of different individual subjective sensitivities about some kind of "God idea" seems to be as opposite from universal as I can imagine. dwise1 writes: None of that though has anything to do as to whether or not there is a god meme in the mix of the myriad of other memes in our lives.
Yes, parents teach their children so many things, both right and wrong, but also about right from wrong. That is the traditional mode of transmission of cultural values from one generation to the next. That's how it naturally works; nothing supernatural about it in its implementation. Through the natural operation of a society, it collectively "learns" which behaviors work and which don't and which promote and strengthen the society and which weaken or even endanger the society. Over the generations, that creates a common wisdom about right and wrong which comes to be known as "morality". Society creates mechanisms to pass that common wisdom, that "morality", from one generation to the next. Most often, it's parents teaching their children well. Often, those mechanisms become institutionalized and codified as a series of arbitrary rules and then incorporated into religion even though no god ever had anything to do with any of it. And at that point, we lose all memory of why that rule is even necessary. And it loses all moral authority. dwise1 writes: Firstly, it has nothing to do with profit margins. Secondly if serving others is being done for some kind of reward in this life or the next, then it isn't done from a positive sense of morality.
What would any god care about any merchant's profit margin? But empathy, which is the basis of so much morality, would and should influence us much more. Again, arbitrary rules don't mean anything outside of a God-driven fear of punishment. Feeling, if not yet understanding, how your behavior would affect others (AKA "empathy") means so much more. A "god meme" is the promise of long-delayed punishment for wrong-doing. Empathy and morality is the realization of the consequences of all your actions. Which should have more influence? dwise1 writes: Once more you're calling the process the agency. Yes, the process exists. The question is the what is the cause for its existence.
There was an experiment in Finland. First the students were given dog puppies to raise and test. Then they were given wolf cubs to raise and test in the same manner they had learned. The experiences were entirely different. The puppies paid close attention to their humans, while the cubs couldn't care less. Eg, in tests involving treats hidden under bowls, the puppies watched the humans and where they were looking, but the cubs paid the humans no attention whatsoever. Eg, the puppies were very sensitive to the desires of the humans (eg, get off the furniture) whereas the cubs couldn't care less (eg, they'd be on top of the tables and couldn't get scooted off). That means that you not only have to evolve a social order, but you also have to evolve a biological inclination towards following that kind of social order. That means that cultural evolution can only work if the physical evolution to support it has already evolved. Or more accurately both the cultural and physical evolution have coevolved. dwise writes: How am I inflicting my theistic beliefs on others anymore than you are inflicting your atheistic beliefs on others? If it makes you feel better, then indulge yourself but do not inflict yourself on others. We already know that any "goddidit" dicta being imposed on natural systems just end up as "God = Zero". So what's your point? I think I have made my point.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: 2.1 |
Tangle writes: Maybe one of the things that is driving you at the time is the god meme. You wouldn't know. You do whatever is driving you at the time, balanced by your upbringing, your immediate need - and, very important this - whether anyone is watching.Tangle writes: It's a choice and for some good behaviour is more natural than bad and the opposite for others. Whether anyone is watching or not is just another influence.
Bad behaviour is as natural as good. Tangle writes: No problem with that. The question is whether or not there is a god meme involved in the "learnt" part.
That isn't, of course, the point of trying to explain what neuroscience knows about how the brain processes moral choices. It's the fact that the brain *does* process moral choices that is point I'm trying to make. It's a brain function, part learnt, part instinct and part intellect. Tangle writes: No, the god meme would just have been ignored in the same way that the parental guiding meme was ignored.
Uh, how, where? If the choice is made to steal, what has happened to the god 'meme'? Does it become a devil meme? Tangle writes: It is heard in the same way that you hear parental advice years after it has been given. It becomes part of who you are. IMHO it speaks to everyone.
So we're back to direct interference. I have no idea how you think that works. Can you explain how this voice is heard by people and how - and even why - he speaks to some people and not others? Tangle writes: People don't have to work co-cooperatively with those in far flung societies. There would actually be more resources for me if those far flung societies ceased to exist. IMHO this god of mine created a process that evolved people capable of loving others even to their own detriment. You have never been able to objectively show why it is that someone in the western world will spend their whole life ministering to someone in the third world. I have a friend who is a doctor and his wife a lawyer, and they have spent the bulk of their adult lives in the third world serving others. He works at healing disease and teaching others to do the same, while she is involved in improving the lot of women in the third world. Directed evolution would be that this god of yours makes sure that evolution eventually creates creatures that are required to work together to survive. In order to do that they have to evolve instinctual mechanisms that allows them to live with each other rather than kill and eat each other. And then a brain that can override instinct.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: 2.1 |
Tangle writes: Once again, you confuse process with agency. Maybe it does all happen naturally but what is the agency for that natural process to exist at all. We wouldn't know if it was a pink pixie either would we? Sure, you can make up any kind of supernatural interference that you like but it's not only not evidenced, it's not even necessary. The entire thing we call morality works by itself in perfectly natural and explicable ways. We are all susceptible to a wide variety of influences. Yes, as humans we have a responsibility to raise our kids in a loving manner that hopefully winds up producing an adult that will raise their kids the same way. I agree that the world isn't always fair. However, for those that have brain damage as humans we are called to exhibit sacrificially love in caring for those that need help.
Tangle writes: It can also work in an anti-social way.
Sure, we call it normative behaviour. But it only works in a prosocial way if parents are good at their job. Tangle writes: There are many that are brought up in loving homes who are essentially selfish and those that are brought up in abusive homes that are essentially altruistic. Just because people don't respond positively to a god meme does not mean that it isn't there.
But we know it doesn't! We know this! We know the circumstances where people are incapable of of hearing it and we know where they don't because they have never had the upbringing to learn it. Tangle writes: That is a stereotypical view that was at least somewhat true decades ago and is only true within certain religious communities today. As I have said before our church along with others have sponsored numerous Islamic refugee families without trying to convert them, and none have to the best of my knowledge. We are just trying to give them a better life in Canada. There are many reasons why people do these things. In the religious world it is mainly an attempt to save souls for the Lord, and therefore their own. It's an instruction from their institution. In my opinion that is corrupt, self-serving, patronising and evil. Ie immoral. Also as you know most of us don't hold to the idea that it isn't about our religious beliefs that get us on the right side of the equation in the next life anyway. You provide a link to an article in Psychology Today. quote: He says in that quote that evolution on its own should have made us selfish, which also answers your question about a selfish gene. He then goes on to say this. quote: So we are saying that when we started living in groups that it was to our mutual benefit to work cooperatively and behave empathetically for the betterment of the group. If the group does better then so do I. The motive is ultimately selfish. However humans can and do go much further. They can display empathy and ultimately display sacrificial love for members of other groups including those they haven't met and maybe live on the other side of the world. We also see some sacrificing their own life to save the life of others. I am not saying that this proves my views, but it is IMHO a very good indication that there is more going on that what is obvious.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: 2.1 |
Tangle writes: So you claim but you have no way of objectively knowing that. It is simply your subjective belief which IMHO doesn’t make any sense. As I have said before, the idea that the incredible process of the evolution of life could come from mindless chance stretches all credibility.
And once again you claim agency where agency is unnecessary for the process.Tangle writes: I claim that agency is responsible for life and the natural occurrences such as you describe, so of course I do.
Do you claim agency for feeling angry or embarrassed or happy? Or scratching your bum because it itches?Tangle writes: No. I am claiming that agency is responsible for the natural processes that we experience. However, I also contend that this agency has given us as part of our consciousness an innate sense of empathy and the compulsion to act on that sense that we can either repress or respond to.
The only place I could feasibly put agency anywhere in this is the moment of creation. Otherwise you are claiming real-time, discriminating, supernatural interference in our lives. Is that your position? Tangle writes: That does not preclude in any way that within that mix is the still small voice of a deity nudging us to do the loving thing.
Our behaviour is a combination of our genes, our upbringing, our personality, our environment and immediate circumstances. Tangle writes: I am defending my beliefs not that of others. There have been terrible things done in the name of Christianity and other religions. There have been terrible things done in the name of atheism.
You can't sweep the disgusting missionary movement under the carpet with a wave of your hand by calling it history. It's still widespread amongst several very large Christian faiths - Catholics and evangelicals are still very big on it for example.Tangle writes: That is your belief. It isn’t mine.
I'm not doubting your personal motives. I'm just trying to explain that a god is not necessary for you to feel the need to do these things. Tangle writes: I honestly don’t know how it makes me feel. For me it is just about trying to do the right thing. I suppose it is more the other way around. I feel badly when I don’t do the right thing which happens way too often.
But as you're now making it personal, tell me, when you do these things, does it make you feel good? It certainly makes me feel good when I do the odd charitable thing for someone. It doesn't feel 'sacrificial' to me. Charity is its own reward. Tangle writes: Of course we could get into the extremes of this behaviour, of real sacrifice - running into a burning building to save a baby ... or a dog. But they are all driven by the same instincts and emotions.The motivation is survival. T he tools we evolved to survive as a group of individuals rather than single organisms helped us survive together. But this was over millions of years. We also evolved a brain capable of future thought and understanding others needs. If we have basic emotions such empathy and compassion plus the knowledge and understanding of what others are suffering, of course we help. This is not a surprising or supernatural thing. I’ll quote again the article that you linked to. quote:The explanation is that it seemed to be better for us as individuals when we cooperatively worked together within a group. However the things you talk about such as risking one’s life to save a dog does not benefit either the individual or the group. It seems clear to me, though obviously not to you, that there is more than simple evolutionary forces behind such actions. Tangle writes: They both come from God IMHO but in different ways. The nasty part is the part that is there because of the way the evolutionary process is driven towards looking after number one. The good part comes in the form of the still small voice of God that enables us to overcome the evolutionary forces.
Yes, and? We are complex beings; we are not driven simply by our emotions we also have a calculating brain. We are capable of creating both immense suffering and incr edible compassion. But somehow only the compassion part was created by god. The nasty part comes from where?Tangle writes: I guess the simplest answer is that it is my belief that God is always there nudging us into doing the right thing. However that nudging can easily and usually is ignored, and it can also be bypassed, as can all memes good and bad, by mental illness. Is this god acting supernaturally today to directly influence people or was it something he built into our evolutionary development?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: 2.1 |
We just keep going over the same stuff so I am going to try and present a summary of where we are. First though, I’d just like to quickly respond to this which is actually off subject anyway.
Tangle writes: I agree that there is no Christian requirement to risk your life for a dog. I would go further and say that there is no such thing as a Christian requirement for anything in particular. The first thing to say is that there is no religious reason is there? No Christian requirement. So why would god's 'still small voice' compell you to risk your life for dog, or a kid's hamster? Firstly it begs the question of requirement for what purpose. When you say it is a requirement it strongly implies that you would rescue the dog with the idea of doing it with a purpose beyond just saving the dog’s life. If you mean that it is going to get you in God’s good books and that you will ultimately be rewarded then I suggest that is exactly what the Gospels don’t teach. The Gospel message is just that we are to love others, presumably including dogs, as we love ourselves. It is simply about doing the loving thing as we perceive it. It might even mean that by putting your own life at risk because of the pain that you might feel with the loss of a beloved dog, while ignoring the pain and suffering that your own death might cause your own family, that you have actually been unloving. It isn’t about what you do but how you love and your desire to do the right thing. Yes, it is easier for those who grow up in a loving environment then for those brought up in abusive homes. But we are called, IMHO, to do the best we can with the hand we’ve been dealt.
Tangle writes: You do the same thing as you find the idea of a theistic deity unbelievable in the same way that I find your atheistic views unbelievable.
Sure, but that's just an argument from incredulity - a basic fallacy. Tangle writes: But even so, if you said that your god created all this with the intent that natural processes evolved that would eventually produce a moral behaviour, I'd just say ok, let's debate big physics and the necessity for a creator. But you won't be pushed that far back, you really need a present, active and personal god even though such a being is simply not necessary nor evidenced. This is the crux of it all though. You want me to show scientifically how it is that God works through our consciousness to influence us. I can’t do that. I agree there is no scientific way of demonstrating it. I contend that there is a great deal that we can learn empirically through the scientific method. I however contend that we can learn about mankind through centuries of philosophy and theology although we can’t come to know things objectively as we can often do with science. It appears to me that you see the scientific method as the only means by which we can rationally believe something. It sounds like Descarte who is quoted as saying, I concluded never to accept anything for true which I did not clearly know to be such. Yes, I have accepted things as true that I cannot objectively know. I can’t prove them, or even support them, using the scientific method. I am left with having to use the philosophical and theological understandings from over the centuries and try and reason my way through those understandings, and see how they fit within my own life experience and observations. Personally I very much relate to this quote from C S Lewis. quote:I realize that you view that as absolute nonsense, however it does resonate with me. We will never agree as we come from very different starting points and, including our very basic conceptions of the meaning and purpose of life. Edited by GDR, : Hit submit instead of preview and having to clean it upHe 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024