IAP Political Forum

Note: another thread touched on this topic but it contained so many side topics I chose to start a new one.

Morality, like logic and reason, exists.  Christians believe that we are made in God's image and carry with us many of his attributes.  One attribute Christians assign to God and man is morality. 

Those who's worldview does not include a creator, must also account for observed characteristics of this world otherwise their worldview is inconsistent and should be rejected with the world it attempts to explain and should be rejected. With that in mind what is the source of morality absent a creator?  How is it internally consistent with within the corresponding worldview and with what we observe of this world?

I don't understand, why is it I can decide for myself to behave in a moral fashion?

Morality exists? That's one bold claim.

Morality would not exist without moral beings. And human are the only moral beings we know. Thus mankind is the necessary condition for morality to exist. And this means that human are the source of morality.

Morality is a human invention - just like God. I don't see why you have a problem with it.

OMG, McDonalds, the Stock Market and slavery exist! God must be the source!

I would say morality is a product of evolution. It is a survival mechanism.

I still love how RF smuggles in ths "gob concept", as if it explains anything.

I say Gog did everything, including good and evil, Heaven and Hell. He kills arbitrarily, and may or may not hold a place in the afterlife for even his most ardent fans.  All philosophers. poets, prophets, kings and beggars and artists are his prophets.

I have just explained things better than RF's religion.

The thing is, to say the Muslim... err, Xian religion explains things by invoking a gutteral sound with reverence does no such thing. God = Black Box. It is a cover for ignorance.

The consensus seems to be that morality in the atheistic/materialistic worlview is a product of evolution.  Thus if evolutionary development.  If evolution is incorrect then morality could not be a result of evolutionary development.  Does this mean that atheism/materialism is overturned if evolutionary theory is overturned?

The only way to 'overturn' atheism is to prove a god exists. If the theory of evolution was rejected, it would leave a hole in modern thought that would be hard to fill with the phrase, 'I don't know what did it; It must be magical!'.

Wouldn't this hole, leave the atheistic explanation for morality floating in midair?  If a worldview is unable to comport with the observed world (in the world we observe that morality exists) then shouldn't it be rejected?  Are you suggesting that if evolutionary theory is overturned then atheists will find another explanation for morality?  If so what might it be?

Consensus? What consensus? Illy said it is evolutionary, but nobody else did. IamMe says morality is a human invention. I claim that morality does not exist on its own rather it exists as something human beings do.

If you claim that there is an outer source for morality then you must prove that, independently of whatever we can think or claim. That others can't prove themselves not-wrong or can't prove themselves right does not prove that you are right by default.

Show us the outer source, its existence, if that is your claim. Forget about what we think, rather just prove yourself right on your own.

I'm not asking for proof.  I am asking what assumptions are made by their worldview.  I am fairly certain IamMe will trace his "human invention back to evolutionary development, but he may surprise me.

MLZ if I improperly catagorized you, then by all means tell us how you believe humans came to do this thing called morality.  What do you see as its root cause?


Not the purpose of this thread.

I really didn't mean in a biological sense. My meaning was that morality was formed from a trial and error process, and some groups "moral" standards allowed them to survive and prosper. Morality itself evolved, but not by a biological process (other than groups with "unfit" morals dying off). Some patterns of mores governing behavior led to more success at survival and propagation than others, but the ideas definitely can be spread.  I believe that our morality evolved along side our genetics though. I see traces of morality in animals. For instance monkeys picking lice off each other, insects working toward the good of the hive, a mother bear being very protective of her cubs. I believe concepts like these are the basis on which human morality(s) is built.


As to if there was a designer or creator, an 'evolving' moral system wouldn't be ruled out. If we were "Created", that in no way means that we had things all figured out from day one. What's to say that we wouldn't have run around slaughtering each other in darkness for eons (tbh, I'm not at all convinced we're done with this stage in the evolution of our morality) before we figured out that stability necessitates a code of behavior. You just have to have some restraint on the killing, raping and pillaging if you intend to form a sustainable culture.





Additionally, if it were shown that there was an intelligent designer, or a creator, I think it would be the mark of superb arrogance for us to think that we've got it's thoughts pegged like that. To claim that we know what it really meant by different phenomena, and that we know it's will. The idea that our morality came from a supreme being, to me is somewhat of an insult to the concept of a supreme being.

If I understand your point, I think it comes down to the same.  In your model fitness and selection pressures favored groups that practiced cooperative behaviors.  These cooperative behaviors are what we now call morals.  In your model, morals are a product of experience and learning.  They are a product of thought.  Pathogens also, to an extent work, cooperatively.  They certainly do not actively work to undermine others like many of what we call "immoral" humans do.

So is the source of cooperative socialization organized thought, as in your human and animal examples, or does it trace its roots back further in your worldview?  It seems to me unless you see the mind as interdependent from body, you would want to trace it back further.

The modern secular/atheist view is that what we view as morality is the outgrowth of evolution, based upon what is good for our survival as well as the biological empathy we feel for others who suffer. If evolution were completely overturned then there would need to be some other explaination for why some people choose to be "good" and some choose to be "evil". (I will leave the semantics debate of what is good and evil for later)

However... if evolution were proved wrong it DOES NOT mean that Creationism is the winner by default. You would first, need to prove God exists and second, that God is benevolent. Just as scientists need to prove evolution exists, so to do Believers need to prove God exists.

At this time, is there an alternate explanation, or is evoultion the only one just now?


Understand and agree.

'interdependent'?  Don't get your point here.

I think we must beware of taking illy's examples as the sum of non-human morality.  They are very much anthropomorphized.  Morality is very much a set of behaviours that work for the particular species.  Thus the polar bear 'abandoning'  the mother of its children - and even devouring them if it finds them loose - is a MORAL behaviour in polar bears.  Thats the way they do it annd it works.

BTW how much 'organised THOUGHT to you ascribe to ants?

BTW2  when are you going to stop using 'worldview' as if there is a dogma, holy book and madrassa-style indoctrination involved?  Not everyone, or every society, has the same


Edit:   BTW3  there is is difference between 'what is its source?' and 'how did it come about'.  Most Monits will consider, investigte and try to answer the latter, theists will obsess about the former.

Actually, I believe that, in a statistically improbable event the universe appeared, ex nihlo, fully formed, circa 1989. Jimi Hendrix, The Vietnam War, dinosaurs, and rainbow suspenders are all an illusion of our minds. Prove me wrong!

Seriously, though, I would say evolution accounts for the origin of morality. But if evolution were overturned it doesn't mean there is a God. The case for atheism would be weakened somewhat, I admit, but there is still no evidence for the existence of God(s).

If evolution were overturned, there would still be a non-divine source for morality: human rationality. Morality is essential for use to live and prosper as a society. E.g. there would still be a murder taboo because murder is bad for the species.

This "worldview" stuff is weird, tbh.

The way I see things, the paradigms I use to look at things, are by no means restricted to any one fixed doctrine or "worldview".

The question is "does the survival mechanism predate those who use it?", if I'm understanding correctly (feel free to clarify if I'm misinterpreting here).

I would say no.

The group behaviors that will give the best chance of survival are dependent on the environment and the group. No group => no group behaviors.

Then that's your worldview. There's no escaping it (it annoys me too).

I don't ascribe much at all.  This is the atheistic/materialistic view we are describing  not my view.


When you offer a better term.


In this model of morality being a product of evolution and selection pressures, then the classification of good and evil loose meaning and give way to behaviors that further the species (any species) and those that are detrimental to the species.  Any behavior that runs counter to furthering the species should be judged inferior by this model.

I think I may take much of the blame for introducing "world view" (and, for that matter, "narrative") into RF's vocabulary.

I use "world view" as in "imago mundi", that is, I think everyone has a way of how they picture the universe.  Be it a Quantum Physicist, theologian, or bricklayer.  It is a sometimes vague image but a collection of what we know, what we think we know and what we imagine to be the best guess as to what the true reality is.

I have one but it has huge gaps and a even larger caveat: that something may be discovered tomorrow that overturns the whole model (much like people experienced when we went from Static Universe to BB, or Creationism to Evolution, or pre-Newtonian to post, or...).

This imago mundi (IM), in my definition, also includes international politics, commerce, legalities, history, art, etc.  It is everything you know (have heard, seen, experienced, learned, etc.) + everything you suspect(using inference) + your personal filter (the way your brain works).

It doesn't have to be dogmatic, since part of your IM can be that you don't know, and neither does anyone else, but we are in the early stages of learning. Or, some other caveat that keeps it from being dogmatic.  (for example, I was a big believer in NLP until I looked into it more and realized it is a crock - though, I still use it.)



A narrative, to me, is the tale we create in describing our IM, it is the best attempt at weaving together the incredible amounts of information we recieve and trying to take a stab at explaining it.  When a truth is discovered beyond most doubt (gravity, evolution, etc) then it is no longer a narrative, but a description, though descriptions are often added to narratives since they provide anchoring points to know you are not way off base.

For example, on the surface Xianity is idiotic to me because I know that people don't rise from the dead after 3 days and rigor mortis has set in.  In order for someone to include this in their narrative of "the universe, life and everything" they need to provide other outlandish explanations that don't conform to reality.  Suddenly their narrative becomes seperated from any reality we know or experience, and becomes mythology: yes, its an explanation, but not a very good one.



So, blame me for "worldview" but you don't need to take it as something negative, necessarily.  I don't know what RF means by it, but this is what I think of when I use it.  So, it would be easy for a student of philosophy to say: "my world view holds that I am interested only in valid argumentation, that all discoveries by science or mystics are held to the same standards and only true insofar as they continue to hold up to scrutiny. Even the preceding sentence is provisional."

Or, better: "All things may or may not be provisional, even this statement."  Is that dogma? If it is, then the word has little meaning.

The problem I see is that RF keeps asking us for dogma because he was raised to think in terms of dogma. That if there is no answer then the IM is flawed and his, which has had 2000 years to develop different dogmas, wins by default.  He keeps asking people who have no interest in regurgitating other peoples beliefs as if they are truths, but people who enjoy not knowing and pushing to find what truths can be discovered.

I see this problem often in the religious. They are looking for security in knowing, whereas a few people (10% or so) have no problem living with the distinct possibility that they will never know the answer, but better to know you don't know, then lie and make something up.

This is why the religious often ride piggyback on science, logic and philosophy. They know these are better ways of knowing, but they only use insofar as they can fit it into their narrative, their IM.  They will use what physics helps them as if it is dogmatic and just as certain a claim as the claim made by their priests. The irony is that physics is sometimes wrong, but the preists have no way of being right or wrong, since they have no way of verifying theirclaims - so in the mind of a believer, the preists win by default.

Basically, the religious distill mythologies into a compact tale and declare it true. If it is not literally true, it suddenly becomes "spiritually true" - which is to say, mythologically true for those who want to see it that way.


Anyhow.... :angel: :police: :sleepy: :sleepy: :sleepy: :sleepy: :sleepy: :sleepy:

All that to complain that I am asking too much for you to explain your assumptions and make coherent, consistent and harmonious accounting for what you believe about this world, and how and why it works.

You claim to base you conclusions on logic and reason.  You claim to be rational.  If this is so then you should know what you believe about this world and why you believe it.  If you don't then I would claim you are not the rational people you claim to be (I already have ample evidence that this is so, but let's see).

For adherents of atheism/materialism, we have morality as a product of evolutionary development (both physical and social) driven by selection pressure to improve survivability.  Therefore when you speak of good and bad, that is a misnomer since the proper measure in morality is improvement or reduction in survivability.  Is this correct or have I misread you folks?

I claim that reason, logic and science are the best methods for discovering truths. Many truths are unknown but we can make attempts at understanding our existence and the existence of the universe through these methods.


if I am not mistaken, your worldview starts with absolute knowledge (Magic Men Done It) and then proceeds to find ways of supporting that premise, and rejecting competing evidences.


They are two different starting points, two different methodologies, but your wording makes it seem as if you asssume Materialism is dogmatic.

You seem to assume that all answers exist and we all just shuffle them around to create our worldview.  If you haven't noticed, there are many religions in the world that have presented just as ccertain a case for existence as your religion, and they are equally unverifiable.

It is the difference between a math book and a fairy tale (your version being the fairy tale, in case you were confused).



Anyhow, what you propose as the materialistic view of morality is roughly correct.

Then in the materialistic framework we have the processes of natural selection fooling us into thinking there is good and bad because tricks and deception leads to survivability.  We have "higher order" life making use of tricks while lower order life does not.  Yet we consider deception "bad" not "good".  This is inconsistent and contradictory is it not?

no.

Hahahah  RF wants me to have a fully formed idea of how the universe, life and everything works - without using the Omnipotent hole-plugger himself: God.

This from a guy who claims that God can only be proven through revelation (contrary to biblical teaching, btw), and who has offered nothing in the way of explanation other than "God done it".

RF, you are a supreme, omnipotent, omnipresent Joke.

We now see what brand of hypocrite RF is.  He requires from everyone else (who doesn't believe in his world view) exactly what he has no intention of ever providing.

I didn't ask you to prove your explanation for morality. I only point out that it incomplete, is internally inconsistent and contradictory and doesn't tie back to the basic tenants of materialism or determinism.

You haven't shown that at all. You have asked a few questions, that's all.  Try to be more precise in your thinking, RF.

No, it is you who demonstrated by your explanations that it is incomplete, etc.  If you have more to say about it, I am still listening.

Please, RF, you know full well Materialism has perfectly good explanations for all these things. You are reguritating 200 year old theistic apologetics that are just plain sad.

Read a book other than you silly apologetic ones.

No I don't.  I have heard on numerous occasions that materialism does not provide a causal explanation for logic, morality, free will, or thought.  I have asked you to explain logic and morality and I see that just as I have read, materialism/atheism indeed does not anchor these concepts to the principles upon which the framework is based. It is not internally consistent on these points and in fact is contradictory.  In speaking with you and Callum about them I find indeed this is the case.

RF, you only read apologetics. Maybe if you broke out of your little religionist world you would see other points of view.

I asked numerous questions about your point of view and summarized it in the prior post.  If that is not breaking out then nothing is.

PLease, don't insult me by pretending you have asked meaningful questions, or have an open mind, or are even concerned whatsoever in discovering anything about philosophy.

RF, humanist morality (whose basic tenet is that you should avoid harming others) follows from evolution and from human reasoning since it is beneficial to all of us and allows us to live as a society and prosper.

That is the basis.

I agree that atheists claim evolution is the basis, but I note that it has not been tied back to material beginnings.  It seems to lack a foundation.

So you don't understand it. That's hardly our problem.

What's not to understand about abiogenesis?

There are a number of credible and well-developed hypotheses about how life began. Oddly, none of them include magic, a realm beyond the stars, or the creation of a whole new type of natural (so called "super"naturalism).

Since they are very plausible, I see no reason to dash off to Mythology for our answers.

Hypothesis........great......another wonderful "proposition".........I guess if they are so "plausible"....then life should be created from nothing all the time now in the laboratory.....I mean a "controlled environment".......

They've come close. The Miller-Urey experiment showed that much of the building blocks can be made by a few basic elements.

I'm sure if science was more than 300 years old, we'd have a better understanding.  Shame about that whole  Age of Faith, eh? ;)

Now when was this "experiment" done?

Any progress with technology since?  It is 2008 now......any difference between a 1953 Mercury and a 2008 Lexus?

I love your answer to a "proposition" is yet another "proposition"

You believe in things undiscovered?

Not at all. However, I can see why you would think that from the post. If you wish I can clarify my position, but I'm afraid it brings us no closer to agreement.

I believe in things we have discovered. The things we have discovered continue to point to material mechanisms. (There has been no discovery of a "Supernatural" element, or Being. You claim there is, but only through revelation - which would make Krishna, Reptilian Overlords and Jesus Christ all equal hypotheses.)

I believe in things as long as they hold up to critical analysis. Admittedly, I don't perform the experiments, but I accept the general process of science (as the best method to discover truths of our existence) and the peer-review process, etc.  Some would say it is Faith, but it isn't. I don't accept it as absolute truth. I accept it as provisionally true unless it is overturned.

It is not Faith when you have a reason, even if that reason could change. If that is Faith, then the word has no meaning for the person who claims to have Faith in God.

No one lives in a vacuum, no one knows everything and there are aspects of our lives that we must accept ignorance. We all have the ability to form our own filter with which to see the world.

The filter I try to build is one that accepts Reason, Knowledge, and Logic over Faith. Faith is a filter that attempts to undermine those three things - and that is undisputed except by people who have Faith take precedence.

Faith is a nice hope.  But I don't care to have a nice comfy existence in this one life. I am hungry to challenge what I know about the world, which is why I am so prolific in this forum. I enjoy it.

Intresting path you have created:


Only example given is a 54 year old pseudo-"propositional"-experiment that the strides of atomic microscopic technology, genetics, discovery of DNA, pharmacology and medicine haven't gotten anywhere since......


Your "life" from "material" is what is unknown/undiscovered....the whole "life from material" falls flat on it's face.....speaking like it is a given is intellectually dishonest.....do as you say you do and speak on the known.


Perhaps all you look at is the material.....look all you can for a material explanation for life from nothingness.


Life from nothing fails.


You seem to believe the word "faith" has one meaning.


It gets us as close to explaining life from nothing than science, logic and reasoning does.

I'll be happy to consider non-material or Supernatural methods once those have been discovered.

Still waiting....

Yes he does but his intellect won't let him describe it that way.  He prefers to call it a gap in our knowledge.

Looking beyond the problem of tying evolution back to material from a physical standpoint (you used the term abiogenesis) there is the pesky inconsistency in the atheistic/materialistic framework that has no explanation for how it is that some life makes use of morality while other life does not and certainly pre-biotic matter does not use morality at all.  Therefore morality has its beginnings somewhere in this time span but materialists don't offer any clue as to what caused morality or what is was sourced from.  Morality is not material so it is difficult to see how material could be its source.  Regardless I note that the materialist simply stops at this point leaving morality hanging in midair with no foundation.

Morality is easily explained.  You do Good for a greater Good. This greater Good can be judged subjectively and has no need for a God.  Since we are all human, we share many common experiences and so our morality comes out to be about the same, and adjusts over time as populations interact and grow and Evolve.

There is no great mystery... unless you and a Big Mystery Magic Man, then it is.  You really make it seem so mysterious and impossible - but then, your world view demands ignorance.

Not so easy.....morality is a human construct.....human life is required.....science, logic and reasoning offer a "proposition" as to how life began same as how religion offers a "proposition"

The material "proposition" holds no more answers than the religious "proposition"

Without materialists proving life from nothingness.....then life does not exist.....human life does not exist.....and the construct of morality does not exist.

Are you saying if you don't know how life started you'd start torturing babies?

It's not necessary to know everything in order to come up with a reason to do something moral.  We only need to assume that human life exists as a sufficient condition for morality.  We don't need to have all answers to explain some things.

After all that would leave the Theist up a creek without a paddle, since you have no way of explaining ANY mechanism that God used, uses or if he was involved in any of them or not.


Remember, if you are someone who needs to believe in god to keep from killing someone, I implore you: please believe in god!

Ummm.......only you could come up with something like this....I don't see how what I said is reflected in your reply at all.

The gist is yet again, my "mythological proposition" on the origins of life are equal to your "materialistic proposition" on the origins of life.....in that both fail the test in proof.

Without life, there is no morality construct.....unless you believe inanimate objects can be moral or immoral.

For you to say that morality was borne from materialistic influences is merely a proposition.........I am equally justified in proposing a mythological one, since it holds the same weight.

Like evolution....if you cannot definitively explain the origin of all life...then anything after that is a premise devised from somewhere further up the ladder.

An analogy would be a batter standing at second base waiting for the pitch........because he knows nothing about homeplate and first base.

Hi Patton, nice to see you back.   

I disagree with you on "my "mythological proposition" on the origins of life are equal to your "materialistic proposition" on the origins of life.....in that both fail the test in proof".

Neither Asafa Powell nor I can run 100 metres faster than 9 seconds - that doesn't make us equal.

Your argument is founded on the idea that there is a set (maybe only one) foundational knowable fact that can/will validate all arguments.  Whether such a fact does exist, I don't know - I do know we don't know it right now, nor do we have any research program that is working towards it.  So if we take your line then ALL conjectures and all postulates however bizarre must be taken as 'equal'.   I'm sure you didn't mean that to be the case.

I agree entirely that without life - in fact without 'moral beings' - there is no such thing as morality.  By moral beings I mean those whose species have attained minds that can question why they or other beings behave in certain ways. 

BTW how's Craig Ventner getting along?

What this is basically saying is:

Some of us have a catch-all answer for the unexplainable. Some of us don't. In order to prove a negative, that is to say in order to prove there isn't a Creator then the ones who don't believe in a catch-all answer must answer all unknowns to prove there isn't a 'creator' behind the scenes doing it. Further, not being able to disprove the existence of God means he exists.

And well no actually they don't. Unexplainable phenomenon does not prove a Creator not by a long shot. Just because you don't know what morality "is" doesn't mean you know where it came from. Quite the opposite.


"I don't know" -does not equal- "there must be a God." 
- no matter how hard you try. There is no correlation no matter how hard you try. Many will try and tell you that's "logical" and it's not, not by a long shot.
"I don't know" = "I don't know" and that's all it ever equals.

Nobody needed a book to tell us killing was 'wrong'.
If we're running on this kind of logic then it's easily applicable to state, "There can't be a God because so many terrible things in the world happen"....and while I'm sure you have a ready-made answer for that it's a shame you don't put as much energy into finding the real answers when you contest that a 'mystery' points to God.



Ahk

Thanks for going back to the original post Akhenaton.   Its something I suppose I should have done, if only to make some comments on ...I just chid Patton on making two things that are different in the same way "equal".  A similar point applies to RF here.  Morality exists as a concept (which morality? whose morality? what varieties are there of morality? can RF even start to DEFINE what the concept covers? is the only morality that of the christians?), and logic and reason exist both as abstracta and concepts.  But the use of 'like' needs to treated with care.  The idea of Harry Potter exists, so its 'like' morality.....? 

A propos the question heading this thread - perhaps if some of our thinkers could accept that there doesn't have to be a 'source' for evrything then they could fly a little more freely.  :)

Depends on the characteristic you are comparing. As human beings deserving basic human rights, I would say you are both equal.


No we do not. Barring definitive proof......we need only to assess the postulates that have been given credence throughout our history and have withstood the tests of time.

If you know of any other postulates besides the "materialistic" one Barney eludes to and the "mythological" one I elude to that meet the criteria.....then let's see it.


So I guess until definitive proof of our origin arises, the thought that morality has materialistic roots has as much weight as God providing it.....that is, the two postulates given credence by our history.


I don't know....how is a geneticists related to the topic?

(BTW thanks for the welcome back)

Does this notion apply equally to all human knowledge?

Sure, but watch how this comes back to bite you.


HInduism has been around longer than any other belief. Since it has withstood the test of time and is correct (remember, just as you have said both runners have basic human rights, you are allowing a comparision based on any category in which they can be compared, thus using this to validate).  Since Hinduism can be shown to be right if one uses the right comparision, or metric, then it stands as chief among religions.

However, this is clearly not what you mean to to say, but it fits within your paradigm. You would have to perform special pleading to bring one Theistic/religion/myhtological view to the forefront based on specially crafted comparisions in order to make sure your "horse" wins.

If this issue were in a vacuum, sure, but it isn't.  Since we don't have definitive proof can it be that morals come from Quartz?  My cat? Aliens? Pixies? Hollywood? Exist at all? etc.

The best that can be said is we don't know, but I'd refer back to Cal's point: why does morality have to come from some other source than our own experience of being human (or, if you are a dog, from the shard experience of being a dog? Since obviously animals have their own morality that they practice.)

I smell a trap.

Why not present a counter....and then a compare-and-contrast can be done to determine applicability.

The postulates under consideration are regarding the origin of life.

Where does Hinduism fall.....with the material, or the mythological?


Who postulates that  Quartz, your cat, aliens or pixies are the source for morality?

Of those who postulate that, have they been given credence throughout our history and withstood the tests of time?


Because it is a human construct.


I'd rather keep the discussion on human morality since I do not believe any species that would rather hump your leg than read a book shares my capacity and understanding of morality.

My point exactly, animals don't share the human experience, ergo, don't have human morality. They have THEIR morality.

Quartz: You said if we don't know, we can posit different scenarios.  Or are you now saying that one answer is better than another?  What makes one better quality than the other?

Hinduism: It explains the beginning of life, and everything. I'm not suggesting I believe it, but it fulfills your requirements.



Yes: Morality is a human construct. Human morality can only exist with the existence of humans.  You are taking a different view than most Theists. They claim Morality is a construct of God.

I think we both agree that Human Morality is based in Humans.  Before we were human, it was based in Australopithecine experience or whatever and it evolved as we did.

We consider it superior because we relate to it, not because it IS OBJECTIVELY superior.  For example, butterflies have a better moral behavior in many aspects then we do.  In fact, we often frame our morals in terms of other animals:  Xians use the image of Sheep or Lamb to suggest a moral ideal - rather than a Snake or Wolf.  We recognize BETTER behavior in other species, at the same time, recognizing our difference.

LOL, now we have atheists telling us butterflys are morally superior.  One is always amazed at how they reach for those things (and they think theists are somehow stretching).

At least butterflies actually exist. ;)

And how does barney identify their morality?  He can't, he can't name a source of course, and he cannot show that morality, a concept based on free will, somehow exists with a butterfly.  Perhaps he can point to the morality of the butterfly and show us how the butterfly has sometimes taken different options and made thoughtful moral decisions.

I think it would be funny to hear him support his claim.  Or is he once again arguing in circles?

I suppose it would be inconsistent of me to ask what Jesus knew about the Nature of seeds, and how they represent the human soul.

Shame on me for speaking in parables.  Only RF, Baldar and God can do that, I suppose.... ;)

or, is it that Baldar has no capacity for thinking?....  Hmmmmmmm.... That's a tough one.....


However, I will point out to Baldar an observable fact: Butterflies don't kill their own, and don't threaten their own with war, debtors prison, etc.

I doubt Baldar would admit it, but I'm sure the rest of us with moral centers can recognize that if humans didn't wish to kill each other (Hey, Baldar, remember the story of Cain and Abel?  Do you understand my reference? Have you read the Bible?), that there would be a different (better) Moral baseline.

I'm sure, though, that the staunch Republican Baldar will only admit that killing is the only way to garner Peace.....  A true Xian, if only an honorary one! ;)

I think this is very telling of the issue I am trying to discuss.  One who doesn't see the need to look critically at their belief system for internal consistency won't notice if it does not hang together.  Callum, you and barney have suggested on several occasions that we shouldn't have to look for a source for everything and if we didn't we would be less constrained.  By this I suppose you mean your intellect is less conflicted when you don't need to have a foundation for such things.  Materialism is the idea that material and material processes accounts for everything.  But in the case of morality you suggest that we not look to hard for a source in material or material processes.  I presume it is because your intellect would force you to admit the inconsistency if you were to confront this challenge.

Now in addition to the issue I raise above we have barney hyjacking concepts of morality from Christian theism when he suggests that morality has properties of goodness and badness.  Here is one implied example:

In the evolutionary natural selection concept of morality barney claims he subscribes to, there is no good and  bad, just advantage and disadvantage.

The fact that atheists/materialists hijack theistic concepts for morality suggests that the theistic position comports with reality and since we all run around behaving as if there is good and bad and since society would cease to function as we know it if we all suddenly switched to advantage and disadvantage.

RF, do you think that you, Cal and I will ever agree on a general morality with or without a God belief, or without our accepting that God exists or not?

Is it possible, even if we were to exhaust all Philosophical arguments?

If so, what are we arguing about?  Do you WANT to kill women and children in God's name?  i doubt it.

Do I want to kill indiscriminately in "Darwins" ( ::) I have to roll my eyes) name?  No.

you are asking for a "Source".  Since you have already determined it, why do you ask?  If you also claim you can't prove God, why bother dragging the "God concept" out for another run around the track?

She's an old hag.  She wants rest.  Be kind.

So barney is telling us morality is instinct and butterflys are moral.  Now that is funny!!!

Are you really attempting to tell us this barney?  Or are you making more mistakes.  Do you see the difference between instinct and morality or is difference too subtle?

Wow! Your Ad Hom's have surely leveled a devastating blow against all Atheist's, Philosophers, Scientists and Thinkers alike!  I bow to your brilliant rebuttals against my character!





(sarcasm, btw, "chief" ;-))

I'd say its just a matter of degree, with a vague (in the philosophical meaning of the term) boundary.  Its a continuum of organised intra-species behavioural regularities, that all members of the species can work within ('instinctive' in your black-and-white terms), with particular local conventions ('morality' in my terms).   Morality differing from instinct only in the degree to which local conventions are used by moral beings.  I would define moral beings as those capable of discussing the concept of morality - and it is likely (yes, before you say it, it's not proven) that the conceptual and linguistic abilities needed for that are not sudden leaps of evolution, but are themselves more a matter of degree in the development of brains.   

Where do you see the dividing line coming?  And why do you choose that point?

Interesting discussion, particularly the area of morality v. instinct. Where does one begin and the other end? Chimpanzees have been observed committing “crimes” such as theft from pack members, murder and even waging war. Individuals have been ostracized in several mammal species for violating pack rules. Since we can only observe and not converse with other species, who can say for sure? Other species do communicate, so they could be discussing 'morality', could they not?

I read this thread and haven’t seen a definition of what morality is, though that would seem to be the natural first step. I take morality to mean a highly subjective sense of “right v. wrong” that is self-defined, though I acknowledge how religious and social traditions have an impact in the development of one’s understanding. Yet every single one of us has a different morality in the same situations, whether it be war, driving over the speed limit, the “thou shalt not’s” or returning money when a sales clerk gives us too much change. I think whoever suggested morality is based on our experience is correct, and that it boils down to a flexible notion of “what is best for me” at a given point in time. That many, or even most, people may agree on many principles of morality seems to be little more than a collective agreement with the goal of individual security. If we all agree that murder is wrong, then someone else may be less likely to murder me.

I don’t see how it necessarily derives from any divine source. It’s just a matter of survival. Which then gets back to instinct.

So care to answer the question?  After all, I am not the one who stated butterflys were moral beings who chose to be moral.  ;D  Sorry if you consider every interrogatory an ad hom.  I suppose if you cannot answer it, you just feel insulted by it and call it an ad hom.

Kind of funny really.

I think maybe I should add that the influence of our intersubjective knowledge/beliefs/desires - call it culture, I suppose - can be quite deep in defining the norms of behaviour (aka morality).   So whether 'morality' is wholely attributable to instinct is subject to discussion. I think it is unlikely.  This view has a certain support from the differences in 'morality' between cultures and subcultures, as well as the underlying similarities.  (Note I am avoiding any reference to religions here - the point is far more general than individual strands of cultural influence - although obviously some strands are more dominant in certain cultures)

Look up the word "conflate".

To state that instinctive reaction is the same as moral decision is almost ridiculous.  Behaviour is a vast tent that can be any reaction, morality is not all behaviour.  Yet here we see you conflating the two in order to avoid criticizing barney when I have so clearly pointed out and requested that barney show us how butterflies exhibit moral thoughtful behavour.

Apparently you don't really want to think about it.

Blader, stop trying to make every thread about me, and your vile spewing hatred of your existence.

Isn't that the same as saying it is based on our experiences? In other words, learned?

I guess the boy is giving up on attempting to show us his reasoning that somehow butterflies make moral decisions.  So his retreat is now going to point 2.  First it was claiming "ad hom", then when he paints himself in the corner and cannot answer the question, its "don't talk about me".

Sorry kid, its not about you, its your bigotry and your incredibly limited reasoning when attempting to attack other people's belief system.

Again, care to explain in detail how a butterfly makes moral decisions?  Or are you going to claim its all about you?

It's awfully difficult to separate all our experiences, evolution, culture, etc. from a distinct rational process.

The irony is that this ability that separates us from other animals is one that not only allows us to make Moral decisions, but Immoral ones.  The general propensity is towards more moral, but that is a hard sell, since the baseline is unclear.  Without comparing ourselves to animals we have no true baseline (since even our own human history would then be in a vacuum: are we more moral today than 1000 years ago?)

Certainly our actions rule out much obvious gain in morality except in isolated pockets of cultures (that is, crimes against humanity still exist, but you can find moral actions in any culture based on their view of morality.

Even if we take morals as a distinctly linguistic/cognitive/rational process based on reason, it is always in a context of the social group.  If morals are strictly "instinctual" (or "god given"), perhaps we only have the capacity to describe our actions, rather than decide.

Perhaps we only reason in order to "apologize" for our behavior; behavior that we would do anyway, despite the reasoning. That is, the difference humans have over other animals is we get to express a running commentary on what we do, though it hardly changes what we do.

Different people will have different reasons for why they are moral: they will frame it in certain langauge, but the truth may be that the reasons are innate, and we simply describe the feeling we have and express it as a desirable quality (since, after all, we would prefer to describe our qualities as desirable).

Even people who are generally considered Immoral explain their actions as moral; and in their paradigm it makes sense.

Hitler was factually wrong about the danger of Jews, but if he were right about the threat Jews faced, he would have been hailed a hero and a Moral Being. As Moses and Joshua are considered (if you accept that they were factually right about the threat).

I am on the verge of calling Morality a product of nothing but evolution (and instinct), but am uncomfortable since it brushes up against Determinism, which, as I have said, I hate the idea, but have seen no good argument against it.



Science has shown that moral behavior can be explained through evolution, and I would also argue that this explains the marginal gains in global moral values, since we are only generally on a path towards some other baseline, though we don't know what it is.  I see no way of separating morals from evolution and our intrinsic nature, and the ability to reason doesn't seem to increase moral actions in a person, it only seems to be able to explain ones actions more convincingly.


edit: A thought. It's hard to think of any distinctly Moral act that is objectively Moral.  All Good is subjective, there doesn't seem to be any act that is moral on its own.  In fact, it seems that we all do generally immoral things, but we can opt out (whether FW or Determined) and it becomes Good.

It hinges on our reasoning (whether before or after) the gain of an action.

Generally, people consider the torturing of children as Immoral (many Xians don't, since many feel that some babies go to Hell, but lets consider them an anomaly!). However, the REASON it is immoral is because there is no gain.  To torture an adult MAY be moral if that adult has information that needs to be obtained (so the argument goes.) It is still an immoral act to torture, but it is MORE immoral to hide information that may result in great harm.  (Of course, if you are the American POW who has knowledge, you would consider the fire bombing of Dresden a good thing and thus the torture immoral since it is trying to stop a Good.)

I'm taking quite a Utilitarian view, but I still think it is less calculated. It seems more instinctual and then we tally up afterwards and explain the Good that came out of the event.  Had Germany won, we would still be tallying up all the Good that had happened and explained it in moral terms (not without caveats, I'm sure.  For example, we don't still praise the Spanish for eradicating the Native People of S.A., though, they believed they were ridding the world of evil people who were an affront to God.  Likewise, had Germany killed off the Jews to the same level, we would still think it horrible, though, this - I believe - has to do with the natural instinct: Once the threat is reduced to a managable amount, we can afford the moderate amount of Natural morality imbued within us by evolution. Otherwise a threat is a threat and must be eradicated.)

Of course, my ability to sit back and describe it as a Natural process creates a difficult position, since if it is innate, how can I reason about it as if it is separate from myself.  I would simply explain it as my rationalizing of it, though it will have no affect on how I act. Or anyone else.

Hiter would applaud you your utilitarian view, he did the same thing you are, using pretty much the same logic.  Good going barney...

Now have you figured out yet, how to explain the butterflies are creatures that make moral decisons?



You have just described why religion can exist while still being difficult to explain.  Now lets see if you understand your own words.  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: ;D

Nope.  I'm not for all-or-nothing soundbites.   Instinct plays a part, development another, ongoing cultural adaption another.  Some people still believe in good old-fashioned communism, others have adapted; some think it was right to you-know-what in 2003, others have changed their views on the 'morality' of it.   Some think its a good idea to let people starve because they resent their views, others see the effedcts and change their minds etc etc.   One thing for sure, morality is not stable.

Not only unstable, but it seems to be a vicitm of a kind of Post hoc ergo procter hoc reasoning.

Oh look barney is trying to use google again.  Sigh.  And another one bites the dust.

As I stated, Hitler would applaud barney's utilitarian view (or did barney feel hitler was not utilitarian?).

I want to return to this. I see it as a great opportunity where we may differ, or where we may agree through different routes.

Let me posit that each individual is Determined. That, yes, some people may change their views on the morality of an act but others may not - but that is all based on their make-up and not Reason (again, I know I am playing a dangerous game here - but bear with me).

In a nut shell: Are we all acting on instinct? That morals are not a guide, but a description. That is, morals are a description just as Newtonian physics: we watch events play out and then run commentary. And that commentary never really affects the actions, just as describing a planets orbit would change the trajectory.  Especially on a global scale, generation after generation.

The evidence I would offer is that all morals are subjective. Take the seemingly objective one: Thou Shalt Not Torture Babies.

However, there is a plausible scenario in which a terrorist knows were the bomb is, but you only have him baby in custody and him on video phone (okay, I'm stretching - but bear with me).  The only way to get him to talk is to torture the baby.

Or, for example, killing the entire population of South American natives is considered Immoral. I agree, but then, I may just be wired to be moral.  During their time, however, the Spanish simply acted in what they felt was appropriate.  They saw the natives as a distinct threat, and a threat needs to be managed.

And for all these events, we never get less massacres.

That is, if morals can be determined and reasoned then one would expect a gradual increase in moral behavior, and decrease in immoral behavior. However, the 19th and 20th Centuries have been marked by grand displays of immorality. (balanced by what we consider moral or heroic acts - but this is what I mean).

The Allies in WWII were killing and committing as many immoral acts as the Axis, maybe not in total weight, but in a Kantian sense. (We didn't kill our Japanese prisoners, but it is still immoral to imprison them).

Since we won, we get to declare what was moral or immoral. And what better thing to do than declare our opponents behavior Immoral, and some of ours Immoral so that we can justify the Demonization of anyone who challenges us.

Even though the Nazi purge of Jews is held up as an immoral atrocity, we see it happen before our eyes: Serbs-Croats, Darfur, etc.  Not systemized, true, but does that parsing make it all that different? (Of course, there is no threat to us. One could even imagine that if Hitler had ONLY killed the Jews in Germany that the world may not have stepped in.  It was only when he crossed borders).

I see "Moral" to mean: it is no threat to me and my progeny, whereas "immoral" means it threatens me and my offspring.  We can use floral language to describe it and explain WHY, but there seems to be no more to morals other than these basic emotions that are hard-wired through evolution and supported by culture, etc.

Is it only when you and yours are threatened?  Does your morality ignore everyone else?  I only ask because mine does not.  Is this your atheism?  Guess mine might by my agnosticism then.  Couldn't ask for a better demonstration of the difference between atheism and agnosticism.  Despite your protestation that both groups are the same.  We know better.

Precisely.   When comparing two rival hypotheses, you need to consider more than just one aspect.  Thus, if you accept this, your reply as follows is insufficient...


... since just having tradition on its side does not necessarily make a hypothesis 'good'.   The 'test of time' is I think you must agree a pretty useless one.  At the point when they were overthrown, the geocentric universe, the theory of humours and young earth had all 'stood the test of time'.


Which criteria?   Your contribution to the 'How do we account for things' thread would be interesting.  As for another hypothesis, I can invent one that says that 'life' is part of the essence of all matter and that under certain conditions it will emerge.... OK?  It may not have a timestamp, but seems to meet your general view.

[/quote]

I guess not.  Until Newton stood on the shoulders of giants and hypothesized about gravity, the origin of things falling to Earth was that 'God made it happen'.  The 'mythological' hypothesis lacks the weight (sorry, no pun intended) of Newton's views.


Its just that a month or so back, according to the news media this side of the pond, Ventner has announced that he will create life in the laboratory, 'soon'. 

Oops just checked google..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/06/genetics (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/06/genetics)

I'm actually trying to flesh out the limits of Determinism and some thoughts. I don't know if I believe this as true, I am trying to form it into something to see it it is believable.

But feel free to jump to conclusions. I suppose I deserve it, after having been the "angry athiest" to so many people. ;)

Not angry atheist, try stupid.  Hey you lit the fuse, don't get all passive aggressive about it now.

Angry atheists are very good at putting together "fleshed out" arguments.

The fact is yours is a very nihilistic view in which it certainly is "all about you".  Recall how I was searching for the truth and a religion I would like to adhere to and you called it cowardice.  Are you now attempting the same thing you call others cowards for? 

Atheism, unlike barney's characterization, need not be self centered or nihilistic.  But atheists themselves falter when it comes to explaining how self sacrifice, or sacrifice for others, or putting others above themselves, is justified from an atheistic standpoint.  I do not, for example, recall the charitable works of atheist hospitals among the poorest of the poor, or atheist organizations (dare we say monastaries) in which lives are dedicated to helping others.

So in world of atheists, given what we have seen atheists accomplish, does morality, ie the morality of self sacrifice for others really have a place?

Wow daebalus, how does it feel to have your own personal stalker.  I the last day and a half I haven't seen many of your posts go by without your stalker buddy popping up to call you some names, boast about his life, and then attempt to bring up a point layered in personal attacks. 

Barney posts a great deal when he flails in this forum Perrin, if you choose to say stupid things, and have bad logic, I am sure I can discourse with you too.  But then you don't say much.  Kind of like an audience member, very passive eh?

As far as boasting, often people assume accomplishments made known is boasting, but those people usually have no accomplishments to boast of  :'(.  I am sure however that you are still young, perhaps one day you will accomplish something and someone else will have the opportunity to accuse you of boasting.  ;)

Yes, the criteria seem to be the thing missing in both this thread and the other.

Another interesting aspect about Venter is will the life he creates (if he creates it) have a "soul" according to the religious?  (Though I realize some peope feel all life has a soul, regardless, whereas other people only feel that humans do - or those people "Made in Heaven".

The reason I ask this is because the ID'ists will claim Venter's work as proof for their hypothesis (which we know is a Category Error), but is this life a life that would be allowed into heaven, have moral status, etc...?

Bla