Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,628 Year: 4,885/9,624 Month: 233/427 Week: 43/103 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morality without God is impossible
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


(4)
Message 38 of 472 (872707)
03-02-2020 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Phat
03-02-2020 5:11 PM


Re: Morality with God is imaginary
Phat writes:
The only reason your argument carries any weight is if the people of that time were judged through human-centrism. The fact is, they were Theo-centric.
Since theology was created by humans within a society, it circles back on itself.
Morality makes no sense once it is taken out of the human context. If God ordered humanity to do something that went against our most basic moral sense then it is immoral for God to make that command. There is no way around it. If morality is simply based on what God commands then we are no different than dogs who take commands or computers. Following orders isn't morality.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Phat, posted 03-02-2020 5:11 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 03-02-2020 7:06 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 40 by Phat, posted 03-02-2020 7:19 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 64 of 472 (872751)
03-03-2020 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Phat
03-02-2020 7:19 PM


Re: Morality with God is imaginary
Phat writes:
But this is an assumption made by secular humanists. While the ideas about God were written by humans, God the concept is Himself Creator of all things---including humans.
So says a human.
God was testing Abraham, so the story goes. If human justice places God no higher of an authority than humans, your argument has merit. Critics would argue that God by definition represented the main authority in those times. Just as presidents enjoy diplomatic immunity for a season, so would God.
If someone claims that God ordered them to slay a bunch of innocent people, what do we do? Do we throw them in jail?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Phat, posted 03-02-2020 7:19 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


(5)
Message 76 of 472 (872825)
03-05-2020 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by GDR
03-05-2020 12:23 PM


Re: A Universal Morality
GDR writes:
I'm simply saying that if there is a morality that exists outside of human existence then there needs to be a source for that. If however, there is no morality outside of human existence then morality is simply what any group or even individual decides it to be.
Morality doesn't make any sense outside of human existence. If there was this alleged objective morality that existed outside of human existence and it went against everything humans believed to be moral, then what good is that objective morality? If an objective morality told us that we should randomly kill half of all children under the age of 5, would we obey that objective moral code? Would we even want to?
The source of morality is interaction between emotional beings. When one person can harm another it gives birth to morality. Morality doesn't exist outside of that interaction. Furthermore, each intelligent, sentient, and emotional species is going to have their own moral code defined by their specific interactions and emotions. We even see this with life on Earth. We don't arrest animals that kill another member of their species like we do in our own species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by GDR, posted 03-05-2020 12:23 PM GDR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


(2)
Message 77 of 472 (872826)
03-05-2020 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by GDR
03-05-2020 11:37 AM


Re: A Universal Morality
GDR writes:
The Golden Rule
The Golden Rule is an entirely subjective morality. It is based solely on our own subjective opinions of how we want to be treated, what would harm us, and what would benefit us. It is based entirely on the human condition.
Morality isn't an emotion.
You may want to think about that one for a while. Injustice, pain, harm, and well being are all emotions, and they form the foundation of morality.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by GDR, posted 03-05-2020 11:37 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by GDR, posted 03-05-2020 1:00 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 80 of 472 (872829)
03-05-2020 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by GDR
03-05-2020 1:00 PM


Re: A Universal Morality
GDR writes:
It does mean however that it allows for other subjective views that we would consider to be immoral to be moral.
Absolutely. This is why views on morality have changed through many ages. As our philosophies and worldviews change our morality changes with it. That's the way it should be. How awful would it be to have an unchanging moral code that no longer reflects the beliefs of the human population?
They effect our moral behaviour but they aren't morality itself.
Then what is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by GDR, posted 03-05-2020 1:00 PM GDR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 82 of 472 (872832)
03-05-2020 1:26 PM


Two Good References
Here are a couple of good references I have found on objective and subjective morality. They reflect my own conclusions on the subject.
quote:
Is it even possible to have an objective morality? I would argue that it is not possible, and even if such existed it would be irrelevant because we could not know about it. Further, there is no compelling evidence that anyone, any group or society, has access to an objective morality.
The notion of an objective morality assumes that morality is something that can make sense apart from the context in which it is used (in our case, human society). Is it objectively wrong, according to some moral law of the universe, to harm another creature? If you try to justify this moral position, then you are actually engaging in moral philosophy — the complex and messy human understanding of morals.
This is what leads proponents of objective morality to the conclusion that objective morals require a lawgiver (actually, I think they work backward from their desire to prove a lawgiver, but that is a separate point). This does not solve the problem, however, just removes it one degree. How, then, does the lawgiver derive their morality? This leads to Euthyprho’s dilemma — are the morals of God right because God says so or does God say so because they are objectively right? Of course, it can be both, but that does not really solve anything. We are still left with the problem of what possible basis there can be for objective morality. If it’s not God says so then what is it?
Objective vs Subjective Morality - NeuroLogica Blog
quote:
Thus, if morality were an absolute set by a god, something could be immoral even if every human disagreed. If, instead, human feelings and desires are what ultimately count, then that is a subjective morality.
Thus, a subjective morality is strongly preferable to an objective one! That’s because, by definition, it is about what we humans want. Would we prefer to be told by some third party what we should do, even if it is directly contrary to our own deeply held sense of morality?
Given that an objective morality would be highly undesirable, why do so many philosophers and others continue to try hard to rescue an objective morality?
I suspect that they’re actually trying to attain objective backing for what is merely their own subjective opinion of what is moral. This is the trick the religious have long played, inventing a god in their own image who can back them up by turning I want into God wants .
Six reasons why objective morality is nonsense | coelsblog
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by GDR, posted 03-05-2020 2:43 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 92 of 472 (872844)
03-05-2020 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by ringo
03-05-2020 2:05 PM


Re: A Universal Morality
ringo writes:
Why would a god's morality benefit us at all?
It also begs the question of why different gods have different moral codes. For all the effort spent propping up a theistic objective morality, we see those same people objecting to the idea of having to follow Sharia law, an objective moral law laid down by God (allegedly). The massive contradictions between alleged objective moral codes should be a big warning sign for those who ascribe to an absolute objective morality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by ringo, posted 03-05-2020 2:05 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 93 of 472 (872845)
03-05-2020 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by GDR
03-05-2020 2:43 PM


Re: Two Good References
GDR writes:
I am not making up a god in my own image.
Are you following a religion made in the image of someone else?
My Christian faith is based on the belief that God resurrected Jesus. If I am wrong in that, they my Christian faith is a waste of time. However if I am right then I have good reason for my belief in a universal morality that is based on the Golden Rule.
The Golden Rule isn't universal. It only applies to humans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by GDR, posted 03-05-2020 2:43 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by GDR, posted 03-05-2020 4:46 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 98 of 472 (872854)
03-05-2020 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by GDR
03-05-2020 4:46 PM


Re: Two Good References
GDR writes:
Yes. Jesus
Last I checked, Jesus didn't write the gospels.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by GDR, posted 03-05-2020 4:46 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by GDR, posted 03-06-2020 5:00 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 463 of 472 (917501)
04-09-2024 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 462 by ChemEngineer
04-09-2024 3:17 PM


Re: The evolution of morality
ChemEngineer writes:
Titin is the largest protein in the human body. It consists of 38,138 amino acid residues in a precise sequence. The first naturalistic synthesis, whether stepwise or in one single, continuous process, consisted of “selecting” 1 out of 20 amino acids which make up humans, 38,138 times in succession,
Google searches are free. Why don't you use them?
quote:
Higgins DG, Labeit S, Gautel M, Gibson TJ. The evolution of titin and related giant muscle proteins. J Mol Evol. 1994 Apr;38(4):395-404. doi: 10.1007/BF00163156. PMID: 8007007.
Titin and twitchin are giant proteins expressed in muscle. They are mainly composed of domains belonging to the fibronectin class III and immunoglobulin c2 families, repeated many times. In addition, both proteins have a protein kinase domain near the C-terminus. This paper explores the evolution of these and related muscle proteins in an attempt to determine the order of events that gave rise to the different repeat patterns and the order of appearance of the proteins. Despite their great similarity at the level of sequence organization, titin and twitchin diverged from each other at least as early as the divergence between vertebrates and nematodes. Most of the repeating units in titin and twitchin were estimated to derive from three original domains. Chicken smooth-muscle myosin light-chain kinase (smMLCK) also has a kinase domain, several immunoglobulin domains, and a fibronectin domain. From a comparison of the kinase domains, titin is predicted to have appeared first during the evolution of the family, followed by twitchin and with the vertebrate MLCKs last to appear. The so-called C-protein from chicken is also a member of this family but has no kinase domain. Its origin remains unclear but it most probably pre-dates the titin/twitchin duplication.
The evolution of titin and related giant muscle proteins - PubMed
Titin evolved WELL after the first life appeared on Earth as shown by the absence of titin in any prokaryotic genome. If you think titin had to occur through abiogenesis then you don't understand abiogenesis, evolution, or even basic biology.
Titin evolved by many duplications of a handful of sequences, not one codon at a time.
There is also massive variation in titin sequences across life, demonstrating that there are many, many different protein sequences that will perform this function.
Why don't you join us here in the real world?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by ChemEngineer, posted 04-09-2024 3:17 PM ChemEngineer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 465 by ChemEngineer, posted 04-09-2024 4:14 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 467 of 472 (917518)
04-09-2024 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 465 by ChemEngineer
04-09-2024 4:14 PM


Re: The evolution of morality
ChemEngineer writes:
YOU said "occur through abiogenesis," I did not.
You implied abiogenesis here:
"Only Levorotary (left-handed) amino acids were used, not Dextrorotary (right-handed) amino acids, so 1 in 10 to the 49,618th power has to be multiplied by 1/2 to the 38,138th power or 1 in 10 to the 11,480th power. One more time for all consecutive peptide bonds, which are equally probable as the random formation of non-peptide bonds, thus 1/2 to the 38,138th power."
This would only apply to abiogenesis since the pathways that build amino acids in life have no problem with only producing left handed amino acids, nor do they have a problem with repeatedly linking amino acids through peptide bonds in the same order over and over and over.
Or do you think each and every protein in the human body is the product of some supernatural miracle? Do you reject the known and well understood process of protein translation?
I said "Original synthesis." As in the first human who had titin in their muscles.
Titin was already present in the common ancestor of all vertebrates.
ChemEngineerMBA: "handful of sequences." Does that come terribly close to 10 to the 79,000 in number of possible sequences?
Ahh, we finally come to the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You are painting the bulls eye around the bullet hole.
The handful of sequences repeated over and over is exactly what titin is. You can look for yourself here:
titin [Homo sapiens] - Protein - NCBI
Look at all of the domains listed. Notice how they are all related to Ig? That's immunoglobulin. It's just a bunch of repeats of immunoglobulin motifs with some fibronectin motifs thrown in.
Ten to the minus 50 is "impossible."
I can show you a simple experiment that disproves your claim.
Get a deck of playing cards. Shuffle them. Lay out the cards one by one face up, and record the order of the cards. The order of cards you just produced has a 1 in 52! chance of occuring, or 1 in 8x10^67 chance of occurring. And yet, you did it on the very first try.
Impossible? Hardly. Events with those types of probabilities happen every nanosecond on Earth.
You're trying to compensate for that with a "handful."
You are committing the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
I have read several of Dawkins' books and critiqued them, and sent my critiques to his publisher. The best Dawkins could do was call me names and ignore my valid critiques. Same thing occurred with Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan.
They are valid why? Because you say so?
You think monetary wealth is a measure of fitness? If so, I can understand why scientists would laugh at you.
Many thousands of scientists around the world have published papers and books refuting your Darwinian religion.
I find it hilarious when religionists try to discredit the theory of evolution by calling it a religion. Hoisting and petards come to mind.
If you are going to argue that evolution is false because it resembles your own beliefs then perhaps you should rethink your argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by ChemEngineer, posted 04-09-2024 4:14 PM ChemEngineer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 469 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-09-2024 5:34 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 468 of 472 (917520)
04-09-2024 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 466 by ChemEngineer
04-09-2024 4:21 PM


Re: Moderator Comment
ChemEngineer writes:
As for 'cut-n-paste,' I am the original author of the assessment of titin's insuperable statistics. I wrote it and submitted it to a biochemistry professor who agreed with it completely and then a friend who has a PhD in biochemistry who seconded the vote.
Did neither of these people teach you what protein translation is or how it works?
Do you think the proteins in your cells are just randomly assembled sequences from an equimolar pool of both L- and D- amino acids?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by ChemEngineer, posted 04-09-2024 4:21 PM ChemEngineer has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 471 of 472 (917532)
04-09-2024 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 469 by Tanypteryx
04-09-2024 5:34 PM


Re: The evolution of morality
Tanypteryx writes:
I would like to add that to my signature, please?
Permission granted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-09-2024 5:34 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024