Hello Rahvin,
Rahvin writes:
Whoa, there, Doc. You misunderstand. It has nothign to do with genetics.
Why not? If morality, an equally abstract concept, has everything to do with genetics, why not belief/disbelief? Where do you draw the line?
Perhaps you'll respond with "well, morality is not abstract, I can see electrochemical reactions that manifest themselves as emotions externally."
Still, the question remains. What part of man is the source of physically un-detectable ideas and concepts? If you agree that there is such a "abstract" center of thought, you are kind of compelled to believe in a thing which you can't see or touch.....
A newborn baby does not yet believe in God. The word is meaningless to a child until the concept is explained.
If you raise a child without ever telling him/her about Jesus, for example, the child will grow up not believing in Jesus, because he/she will have no idea what Jesus is in the first place.
Well, when you can have genes that influence (or give rise to?) morality, why can't you have genes that determine your position irrespective of your external circumstances/exposure/knowledge? Do you rule out the possibility of finding this to be fact pretty dogmatically?
My point is, you can never see the chemical basis (I don't think there is) for a person's belief/disbelief. Does this bother the naturalist who holds that nature is all there is? IS he comfortable with allowing a certain aspect of man that not tangible?
™ Version 4.2