The particular circumstances of their lives allowed and influenced them to be incredible.
Like I've repeatedly said, human social behavior is an extremely complex thing and cannot be described in dichotomies or simple sound bites.
quote:
Let's not forget, religion is a big source of influence.
Of course it is.
But so what? It is an influence to some to do great things. So are people's parents, or teachers, or ambition, or love of money, or attention, or a million other influences.
No magic needed.
I ask again; Why is that thought so empty?
quote:
Because 'better' becomes subjective and relative. Not real.
How is subjective morality not "real"? All morality is relative, including yours.
If you can give an example of an objective morality, there is a whole thread devoted to that. So far, nobody has ever been able to provide one. Perhaps you will be the first.
It certainly looks very much to me as though you simply do not like the idea of morality being natural because to you, it is "empty" without God being the origin of morality.
I never said that belief in God, per se, was a kind of vanity, but specifically that being disappointed with and resistant to the prospect that God did not magically imbue us with a special moral sense most certainly is vain.
quote:
I never said morality was not 'natural'...we have a conscience, remember?
What I have said is that making moral choices is not natural. We have a choice whether we want to act morally or not. We do not naturally do 'good'.
Sure we do. The many ways that we do have been explained to you umpteen times, but you've dismissed them because you find them "unsatisfying".
quote:
I have no idea what is vain about saying that God gave us a conscience.
Nothing is vain about that. This is not what you said, though.
What you said was:
quote:
but that the thought of morality without God is so empty. It sorta makes all of our sacrifice and all of our heroism just another possible outcome of biological stimulus; a learned behaviour, both replicable and mechanical.
You certainly are saying that it would be a big let-down if our moral sense was natural. This can only be interpreted as being bummed out by the idea that your God didn't give us something special. That's vain.
quote:
I am quite sure that we have one, whether we put it in scientific terms or not. In fact, there is no need for science for you to tell me why you believe that something is right.
True, but there is a need for science for you to
understand why I believe I believe something is right.
quote:
I believe that there is a right way to do things. I believe that we have skills and emotions which make up a 'conscience' and which help us to figure out what the right things for us are. We learn from our experiences and those of others. Sometimes we just have to wing it.
I believe that our conscience goes far beyond mere survival of the species. If it does not, it can most certainly be used for more.
You are welcome to tell me what you believe.
I don't have "beliefs" related to this subject.
I have knowledge in which I place greater or lesser confidence.
What I "believe" is irrelevant to reality.
'Explanations like "God won't be tested by scientific studies" but local yokels can figure it out just by staying aware of what's going on have no rational basis whatsoever.' -Percy
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."- Richard Feynman
"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders
™ Version 4.2
