perhaps, however, what about things like an infant beginning to crawl? Woulkdn’t that be something that happens without input from an outside source? It’s an instictual act- and when it begins, it begins making all kinds of connections in the brain that will help the infant become more adept at mobility the more the brain reasons the act out. Can’t it be said the brain at the point of mobility becomes conscious of mobility without having any input? I suppose it could be argued though that the mobility itself is the input. I suppose as well that there was an emotional input respomse that was brought on by discomfort or perhaps desire to reach soemthing even before the mobility began that urged the infant to move. hmm, interesting.
This seems rather ridiculous to me. How can you claim to know anything about morality without taking a rational approach to the matter? If you choose to take the following steps of belief (see below), that’s well and good for you, but it isn’t logically justified, and it wouldn’t be philosophically accepted.
- God exists; Christianity is true
- God is the source of all morality
- Ok, let’s talk about morality! Anyone? Anyone?
No, if you want to talk about morality in a way that is intellectually honest, here’s how you have to do it.
- People act morally.
- To the best of our knowledge, all decisions and desires occur in the brain. Thus it is reasonable to hypothesize that morality occurs in the brain.
- We can test our hypothesis in step 2. If certain brain injuries disable or enhance morality, that seems to be an argument in our favor. If there are no cases of brain injuries affecting morality, that is an argument against our hypothesis.
- There are many, many such documented cases, Phinneus Gage being the historically most popular one.
- Barring future evidence to the contrary, morality probably occurs in the brain.
Why would you believe anything different from this? There’s a huge difference between believing what a random book says, “on faith”, and believing “on faith” what your eyes tell you.
Well twiffy- it might seem rediculous to you- but perhaps there are deeper understandings to be had that might just not be all based on faith- Church institutions have long looked into things once taken on faith, but shown by science to contain rational reasonable scientific explanations that brought to light previously unthought of bits of knowledge- Not everythign pertaining to God has to be taken strictly on faith- science can and does answer much for us, but we’d never know that if we didn’t look more deeply into matters. Perhaps there are soem microevolutions that occure that enhance our reasonings- I’m not ruling that out. There as well may be certain issues that we mistake for Divine moral code, and these might be made clear by examining different angles and taking a deeper look.
In another forum on this very topic- I’ve actually learned quite a bit and it is not clear at all that certain brain injuries affect morality, but rather it affects emotions- There may be a scientific explanation that is reasonable for this, or it may just be that the moral code is still intact while the person is unable or unwilling to act on it- I personally think they are unwilling, but again, I don’t know, and that’s what I’m trying to figure out because I think if the answer strengthens one position, that it is important to an overall understanding of the issue of morality as a whole. Not that it would be the end all discovery, but to me it’s interesting and I think important non the less.
I’ve been upfront about what I personally beleive so people know where I stand on the issue, and am not baiting as you seem to be suggesting, but genuinely interested in the science, and why things work the way they do, and if there might be scientific discoveries that might show there was a progression of certain beleifs, and if so, how that might both correspond with universal moral code system, and show a difference between our affections for justice and our affections for advantage.
you laid out 5 steps in the second scenario- and that’s exactly what I’m asking here and in the other forum- and just for the record- your first scenario- God may not be the source of all morality, but rather just the core universal moralities, while man might be responsible for additional moralities that are based not on absolutes, but on compassions that might just violate the strictness of righteous universal moral codes. Obviously these wouldn’t be God inspired, and there might be micro-evolutionary reasons why we’ve come up with such ‘moralities’ apart from God. So it’s not like I’m saying 1: God is moral, therefore 2: our morals are strictly His- anyone? anyone?
No, if you want to talk about morality in a way that is intellectually honest, here’s how you have to do it.
Not only is this supremely cliché, this is also disrespectful.
-
Theology is an intellectual tradition. Being intellectually honest is not only the place of the Sciences, which, by the way, are not anti-Christian. Richard Dawkins is actually a minority among British scientists, if you actually read the literature rather than the polarized highlights. The number of Christian Scientists in Oxford outweighs the number of Secular, interestingly. The reverse is true in the Humanities.
-
Read Kierkegaard. Read C. S. Lewis. Read Donald Mackay. Read Karl Popper. Read Thomas Aquinas. Even read Levinas and Viktor Frankl, for goodness sakes. Just because they’re Jewish does not mean they do not think, write, and speak rationally. The list goes on for a long time.
-
What I am speaking to is the misconception of this confinement of morality within the brain. Secularists can speak to morality on two levels: the aesthetic and the ethical. The Christian can speak to morality on three levels: the aesthetic, the ethical, and God. Rationality is not particular to Secular thought.
I am not talking about a soul on top of someone’s head inputting ideas into the system. That is just silly. I am not talking about input as some sort of outside guidance, either. I am talking about input on the basis of peoples’ senses. If one were to take away a person’s sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch, s/he would not be conscious. A person needs input to think. That is what I mean by input.
Instinct is not consciousness. Instinct shapes choice. Genetics predispose. People choose, not instinct or genetics. Predisposition is probabilistic and demonstrably so.
I entirely appreciate that religion can give us deeper understanding. I simply recognize that religion gives us deeper understanding of humanity - and specifically, humanity in a spiritual context. It’s true that religion can tell us some truths about the human condition, including about what we find to be moral and immoral - but it cannot tell us anything whatsoever about the foundations of that morality. It can ASSERT stuff - it can SAY it comes from God - but it cannot say that with any shred of validity, or demonstrated evidence.
On a related note, here’s a wonderful recent article. It supports the conjecture that emotions are in the brain as well as the conjecture that morals are in the brain.
nytimes.com/2007/03/21/healt … ref=slogin
LittleSkittle, you are certainly correct that theology is an intellectual tradition. It simply isn’t a very worthwhile one. Before you get pissed off, let me explain. History of Religion is a very worthwhile topic. Psychology of Religion is a very worthwhile topic. But what is “Theology”? Theology is two things: 1) Philosophy from the perspective of a theist (almost always a Christian), and 2) A study of theism (usually Christianity) from the perspective of that religion being correct.
Both core compontents of theology require the assumption that the religion is true. Theology is much less the study of what the religion entails - that’s what professors of Religion study. But a Theologist says, “ok, I am a Christian, and I’m not going to question that. So what next?” That is a valid persuit if Christianity is true, and invalid if Xtianity is false. So it then comes down to the question, is Xtianity true or false? Since this isn’t exactly a resolved question, this makes the field of Theology suspect at best.
Historically, sure, lots of people did it. But that doesn’t mean it’s a worthwhile area of study.
-
You state that the number of Christian scientists exceeds the secular. Are you appealing to the majority? Trying to claim that the majority beliefs must be correct? You are aware, of course, that 2/3 of the planet actively believes that Christianity is false.
-
I’ve read them. They’re stupid. Not universally, not in every point that they make - but take two of the most universally and staunchly Christian of the people you mention: CS Lewis and Aquinas. Have you READ Mere Christianity??? It’s drivel! It’s quite literally TERRIBLE philosophy. Its points are poorly stated, vacuous, and riddled with logical errors. Bertrand Russel’s “Why I am Not a Christian” rips it to shreds with the precision of a mathematician and the articulation of a Nobel Laureate in Literature. And Aquinas?? The most intellectually respectable thing a theist can say is “I cannot prove my beliefs; I simply have faith”. But when someone is a Natural Theologist (a belief system that Aquinas popularized), and claims that god or evidence of god can be found empirically, they are quite simply wrong. There is no empirical evidence for god. There are no gaps in scientific theory which are most easily solved by the idea of a creator. It’s all ridiculous.
I apologize if you are offended, but you mention “this is disrespectful”. Of course it’s disrespectful. I have absolutely zero intellectual respect for theism. It’s intellectually vacuous. It is academically interesting to say “assuming god, then what?”, but it is not philosophically worthwhile. There are no good arguments for the existence of god. There are terrific scientific arguments (and even a few good logical ones) against the existence of god. Why should I respect theism? It’s quite simply SILLY.
The problem I have with saying that morals are from God is: what about moral, non-human agents? In the altruism thread I posted earlier, I gave examples and wrote about disinterested altruistic behaviour in non-human organisms.
Of course, this is defining disinterested altruism as ‘moral’, which I suppose one could disagree with (though I would be surprised if someone did), or it could be argued that I am anthropomorphizing, which is true to a certain extent, but the behaviour is what it is.
So, has God implanted morality in other creatures as well?
which god?
-Imp
Well, the OP has been more than honest about his belief that it is the Christian God, specifically the Holy Spirit aspect.
And I have, likewise, been honest about not buying into that particular stock, but this thread isn’t about debating theology but rather the applied aspect thereof. If one were to accept morality as coming from God and being inborn, the question is: where did God implant morality? This gets especially tricky if one takes a Creationist view of the situation.
I didn’t mean to leave that impression- What I meant was that outside influence triggers a response which leads to a conscious decision -much like you state when you say [Genetics predispose. People choose, not instinct or genetics.]- I guess I didn’t lay it out very clearly
Which is why I said perhaps, Perhaps there is another explantion, perhaps not then as I reasoned through it, I agreed based on what I’d noodled over, and based on the limtted knowledge I have on this issue.
Twiffy
And you know this how? God exhorts us to use our minds tonoodle through issues, and perhaps find that science more fully explains religous belief. You and I agree that religious belief for the majority of people consists of generalities and not specifics, however, I think for the reasoner, the examinations of why we beleive can and often do lead to scientific evidences that strengthen the faith. I think I said it in this forum (might have been the other one) that for me, the idea of an evolving morality is a bit problematic for me, and hte reason I posted the thread was to dig into the science- not for the sake of ‘winning an argument’ but much more so for the sake of a deeper clarity based on facts if possible.
And 2/3 of the population don’t have more than a superficial knowledge of why they believe what they beleive- Not sure how their majority relates to the point Skittles made
I think it can and should and perhaps even does go beyond that simplistic description. I think it explores the science as well.
So because it isn’t resolved it shouldn’t be noodled over in the most all inclusive manner possible?
While you’re quite welcome to your opinion, simply dismissing it and the evidences which when taken together give a strongish evidence for a designer is a bit shallow and shows a bias that isn’t objective- you claim Bertrand ‘ripped to shreds’ yet Betrand’s ‘rupping’ had serious flaws as well
You claim that theology focusses only on the spiritual, yet as Xunzian, certain theoilogical questions bring up certain philisophical questions that arte important- Xunzian asked
The Christian reasoner and theologean doesn’t run from problem questions, and doesn’t necessarily write everythign off as ‘unknowable and therefore in need of blind faith.’ You can look down your nose at theology if you like- But I asked for people to take an objective look at both sides in this thread, and you’ve shown an unwillingness to do so, and hsown an insistence that your bias is the only logical answer and therefore, any other reasoning is nothign but drivel- which is disrespectful as Skittles points out. If such reasoning is beneath you, then why would you bother posting in such an ‘unworthy’ thread otehr than to put on display your self perceived intellectual superiority?
Many great theologeans had problems with their reasoning, but that is not to state that their contributions had NO value whatsoever as they have spurred on different lines of reasoning to counter them- and as such have proven valuable and proven an asset, not a complete lack of worth as you suggest. As much as I dissagree with the reasonings of Dawkins and Bertrand, what little I know of them, they have incited further examinations and rebuttles and counter points, and as such have been valuable in that sense.
It’s fine to have a differing opinion, and to give examples of why you came to your conclusions, but to drop into a thread claiming the topic is assinine simply because you’ve come to a conclusion that satisfies your conscience, and claiming that there is no value for others to explore an issue in an attempt to discover previously unknown to them lines of reasoning both from folks here and from those in the past who have noodled the question of morality over, is a bit rude and shows a bias that is closeminded to anyone elses’ opinion- quite frankly, it’s a display of intellectual snobbery.
I don’t claim to be learned in intellectual ponderings, but I do claim to be quite interested in finding out the reasoning behind the idea that morals evolved. I also claim to be interested in more fully understanding the reasons I bleeive the things I believe, and I understand that many things are scientifically, philosiphically unresolved, but I also recognize that they have value when explored in that they can help strengthen both sides a bit. I’m not looking for the hoyl grail end all be all answer, I’m simply looking for a deeper understanding of the reasoning behind both lines of thought.
I will of course argue points from my point of view, as coutner points help to further the reasoning lines taken by either side, and I expect folks to counter my points as well for the same reason. I’m not expecting to change anyone’s mind, nor do other expect to change mine- however, arguing points helps to gain previously unknown knowledge, and in my opinion, that is never a bad thing- especially when that knowledge is based on as clear a reasoning as possible given what we both know and discover through debating an issue. I’m sorry that you apparently don’t find much value in this, but eprhaps you could deign to allow others the luxury of discovery without feeling the need to deride them?
But yet it’s philosophically worthwhile to you to pursue 'assuming evolution, then what?"? If not worthy, then I guess someone forgot to tell the great minds who have explored the issue. And I guess someone forgot to tell the reasoners whos opinions have influenced you own personal opinion about origins.
Well, that’s one of the reasons I started this thread, to try to discover if there is evidence for both the evolution of morals, and if animals can display morals. Based on what I know at this point, I’d have to say there is a different system at play in animals that don’t carry an oughtness to it- even though at first glance it may seem as though they do. I think a more exact defining of morality (which is what we’ve been striving for here) will show the difference between animal decisions and man’s.
Scotus came up with ‘affections for justice, and affections for advantage’ but I think I might see a problem with those terms. Scotus beleived animals were unable to act in a way that demanded justice (based on a moral system), however, as I mentioned, it does appear that certain animals might possibly display acts of justice- However, as I mentioned above, perhaps we misinterpete their actions, and while I think this might be the case, I also conceed I might not be entirely right. You mention altruism, and this is an important concideration, one which I’m not too familiar with right now. Perhaps someone can more fully define altruism? I’ll ook more into it today thoguh.
Altruism is defined (or at least, I understand it as) benefiting another at the expense of one’s self. Interested altruism is benefiting another that is related to them in some way at the expense of themselves and disinterested altruism is benefiting a randon individual at the expense of one’s self. And, for kicks, let’s throw in false altruism or self-interested altruism where someone benefits another at an expense to themselves, hoping for a future return on the investment.
I think you can find all three in nature (to some degree). Prarie Dogs are the canonical example of interested altruism. Dictostelium (and other organisms, I just can’t think of any examples right now) exhibit the second, and the last, well, it could be argued that parent-child relations have that going on.
Honestly, the more uniquely human trait is the aspect of reciprocity. To my knowledge, humans are the only organism that will ‘return’ a favour (positive or negative) to the point of actually harming themselves. It reminds me of a game my friends and I used to play called ‘vengence Uno’ where the point wasn’t to win, but to make other players not-win. If you ask me, that is the area I’d focus on.
Back to definitions – morality is a little trickier, and for the purpose of this thread, I think it is best to take the ‘porn’ definition of morality in that ‘we know it when we see it’, because the basis of moral theory can rest on a variety of different sources and can become quite troublesome.
For example, Motoori Norinaga, argued that morality was a gift from the Shinto Gods and, as such, only the Japanese truly possessed it and by their exclusive possession of it, the manifestation of their actions was moral by definition and the manifestation of the actions of others was immoral. Clearly that definition of morality would make this discussion somewhat difficult if we wanted to define it – but, since Motoori Norinaga did think that morality was innate (for/to the Japanese), a follower of his could actually join in on the discussion about the source rather than the nature of morality.
Xunzian, here’s an interesting study on ‘altruism tests’ done on chimps dienekes.blogspot.com/2006/01/ch … istic.html
The study apparently found no evidence that chimps were either altruistic or spiteful, but were entirely focussed on just the task of getting the food. But, it must be pointed out that when you introduce the ‘mothering’ instinct, it might introduce a new variable, or it might not- I think the test should have included the mother chimp pulling on the rope, and a hungry infant in the room to which the mother chimp could deliver the food. I also think it’s important to further examine the reasons behind chimps ‘punishing’ individual chimps who with-held food, while doing thorough studies to rule out other possible explanations in order to be more certain one way or the other.
I see you posted before I did- Could you explain the acts that the prarie dogs and other organism you mentioned carry out a bit more?
I just read a book by Crichton that went into some detail explaining the Japanese thought on morality- but I’ll have to stick to my claim that people’s interpretations don’t undermine the fact that there is a universal moral code, just as the spitter’s own interpretation doesn’t undermine the universal law that spitting is against the law. The Japanese may have thought their morality was unique to them, but the reality is that it wasn’t/isn’t, there are universal morals that are common to most except to those who I contend ignore their ‘inner promptings’ and are able to convince htemselves the law doesn’t exist or even to apply to themselves.
I’m not sure which journal Jansen published in, but Science (one of the most respected magazines in science, but in a Babe Ruth sort of way) has an article that does suggest altruism in chimps. Here is a tidbit about it as filtered by the BBC:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4766490.stm
Here is the abstract from Science, with access to the full article if you have access to an academic server (or a personal subscription):
sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a … /5765/1301
If you scroll past the abstract, you can see links to other abstracts that explore the similar subject matter.
Here is a tidbit about the article you posted:
From: bps-research-digest.blogspot.com … chive.html
Which I think brings up a good point – at what point does our desire to benefit ourselves tip the balance away from our desire to help altruism? I think that Mucius had what was probably the best point in the altruism thread when he said:
As for prarie dogs, they work cooperatively with some members of the colony serving as lookouts. To warn the colony that a predator is approaching, the lookout yells and, consequently, has a very low survival rate. Biologists justified this sort of ‘altruism’ as being selective because the lookouts are bound to be related to other colony members, and so their genes will have a better chance of survival, even if the individual does not. Hence ‘interested’ atruism. Prairie dogs also practice communal nursing and other communal behaviour where the welfare of the colony is stressed more than the welfare of the individual.
As for good ol’ slime mould, I though this abstact was interesting:
Mucius is talking a see-saw effect that goes back and forth that stabalizes a clan (I think this would have to be taken down to a claN level rather than a whole species level as certain clans obviously differ in actions that would be seen as ‘altruistic’. Now, assuming their is an ‘altruism gene’, this would tend to make sense in some clans, but there are obviously species that don’t clan together and who don’t act in any way except for self-centeredly, and htey have survived for many centuries just fine. I just don’t see how it can be claimed that one species, and not every species would need a form of altruism in order to survive. I can see where it might help to make things better, but not really needed for survival
As for the chimps showing ‘altruism’ in the experiements? As you know, the suggestion of altruism in species other than himans has many skeptics- some skeptics even being folk/scientists who beleive in evolution I’m sure- I’m just not real up on this issue, but I would have liked to see the whole study- I wonder how many times the chimps either got it wrong, kept the item for themselves, or simply didn’t react- if indeed these thigns did happen. We’re just shown a succesful clip. Many animals show differing degrees of understanding/problem solving and learn by imitation (not that I’m ruling out altruism, But I’d like to know if the chimps ever say someone pick somethign up and hand it off to someone else.
I nkow all I’m saying is argumentative in nature, but I guess I’d liek to know certain things first before deciding. As well, being that the young chimps sees people as higher ranks, and we know that chimps in the wild will hand off things to higher ranking members, or even to other members as well, could it not be rather that the chimp wanted to hand off the dropped items out of a sense of lower rank instead of a sense of doing somethign helpful for the human?
opening the door- we’re told was to ‘help the other chimp reach the food platform’ but could it not have rather been instead for the one chimp to be together with the other regardless of there being food in the room or not? Or to be closer? The tests in the link I provided didn’t indicate any altruism when it came to one chimp helpign another, and we got more information (unless there is more info on the test on the science sites) than the science site gave- ie: number of times chimp helped/didn’t help/slightly helped etc.
I’m not saying emphatically chimps don’t show altruism, as I’m pretty convinced human infants show a form of altruism perhaps (but again, I haven’t really studied this area, and would problably raise soem countering questions there as well)
[b]LittleSkittle, you are certainly correct that theology is an intellectual tradition. It simply isn’t a very worthwhile one. Before you get pissed off, let me explain. History of Religion is a very worthwhile topic. Psychology of Religion is a very worthwhile topic. But what is “Theology”? Theology is two things: 1) Philosophy from the perspective of a theist (almost always a Christian), and 2) A study of theism (usually Christianity) from the perspective of that religion being correct.
Both core compontents of theology require the assumption that the religion is true. Theology is much less the study of what the religion entails - that’s what professors of Religion study. But a Theologist says, “ok, I am a Christian, and I’m not going to question that. So what next?” That is a valid persuit if Christianity is true, and invalid if Xtianity is false. So it then comes down to the question, is Xtianity true or false? Since this isn’t exactly a resolved question, this makes the field of Theology suspect at best.
Historically, sure, lots of people did it. But that doesn’t mean it’s a worthwhile area of study.
-
You state that the number of Christian scientists exceeds the secular. Are you appealing to the majority? Trying to claim that the majority beliefs must be correct? You are aware, of course, that 2/3 of the planet actively believes that Christianity is false.
-
I’ve read them. They’re stupid. Not universally, not in every point that they make - but take two of the most universally and staunchly Christian of the people you mention: CS Lewis and Aquinas. Have you READ Mere Christianity??? It’s drivel! It’s quite literally TERRIBLE philosophy. Its points are poorly stated, vacuous, and riddled with logical errors. Bertrand Russel’s “Why I am Not a Christian” rips it to shreds with the precision of a mathematician and the articulation of a Nobel Laureate in Literature. And Aquinas?? The most intellectually respectable thing a theist can say is “I cannot prove my beliefs; I simply have faith”. But when someone is a Natural Theologist (a belief system that Aquinas popularized), and claims that god or evidence of god can be found empirically, they are quite simply wrong. There is no empirical evidence for god. There are no gaps in scientific theory which are most easily solved by the idea of a creator. It’s all ridiculous.
I apologize if you are offended, but you mention “this is disrespectful”. Of course it’s disrespectful. I have absolutely zero intellectual respect for theism. It’s intellectually vacuous. It is academically interesting to say “assuming god, then what?”, but it is not philosophically worthwhile. There are no good arguments for the existence of god. There are terrific scientific arguments (and even a few good logical ones) against the existence of god. Why should I respect theism? It’s quite simply SILLY.[/b]
and…
I entirely appreciate that religion can give us deeper understanding.
Wow. What a way to insert the foot directly into the mouth. Maybe come back later when (if ever?) you understand Russel better.
As for now, God bless.
Skittle, what is the point of quoting the entire of Twiffy’s post just to add one line? One line, I might add that is lacking in substance and purely ad hom?
I hate it when people post “harhar, I’ll wait for you to understand X before I discuss it with you”. Why? What possible justification do you have for believing that your personal interpretation of Russell is any better than Twiffy’s if you’re not willing to show how you believe he’s misunderstood him?
Nazerth - You haven’t just quoted Dawkins, you’ve extrapolated his original arguments and gone off the chart! e.g.
What’s clear is that you keep confusing genes and memes. They are not the same thing, one is a physical process involved in the replication of an organism, the other is an idea that only exists with intelligence. They are utterly different. Dawkins hypothesis is that memes are very similar to genes in behaviour. That is the fundamental error that you’ve made which has caused you to attribute some pretty crazy stuff to Dawkins.
The point is that ‘the universal moral code’ you mentioned was never ‘invented’, it was genetically evolved so the normal human brain would be predisposed to act in particular ways in particular situations, hence the apparant appearance of a universal moral code. This natural predisposition is reinforced through societal rules and codes that ARE invented, that really are memes that are passed from generation to generation.
Later people ‘invented’ ideas like religion that happened to base themselves on both the genetically inspired codes and added a few others to their own nefarious ends (e.g. no false idols, worship only one god). However the idea of religion also allows people to circumvent their natural human tendencies to commit acts of evil in the name of religion, and yet still believe they are acting morally. Note it’s not just Religion, Nationalism is another ‘meme’ which allows people to circumvent their normal behaviour.
That’s not really true, although I don’t think he’s majorly advanced any new lines of reasoning, his great contribution is to be the first to really stand up and say ‘Come on now, enough of this nonsense, it’s time we stop tolerating religion and start exposing it for the nonsense it is’.
While that may sound overly harsh, I’m afraid when the best people can come up with as a defence is something like:
What nonsense! If there were really experiential evidence than it would be observable. But it’s not. What Nazareth is actually saying is that he’s prepared to doublethink to allow his religious delusion to continue. He’s prepared to allow the gaping inconsistencies in the idea of God to persist to preserve his sanity.
And as for theology being intectually robust, please! Theolgians have spent entire careers trying to explain away the logical inconsitency of the holy trinity. What a waste.
What’s your evidence for that one? There is a well known correlation between intelligence and atheism, there more intelligent you are the more likely that you are an atheist (note that I’m not implying that if you are religious you are stupid, it’s just that you’re more likely to be 
). So why should we believe that Oxford bucks that trend?
either ratchet up your responses to a more mature level or I’m done with you- I’ll not bother myself with someone too imature to be civil, and too closeminded to reason without feeling as though you need to deride the other side because they hold different opinions than you. If your two posts are any indication of your level of debate maturity, then I’ll simply further this discussion in the other forum where we’re discussing many interesting things in a civil manner resulting in a deeper understanding of all sides precisely because people don’t feel that they need to defend their opinions by using childish insults
[What nonsense! If there were really experiential evidence than it would be observable. But it’s not.]
It is observable- when I ask God a specific question, and He leads me to a very specific answer, this is observable- you can deny it and explain it away as ‘coincidence’ however it happens far to frequently, and too specific to be simple random coincidence. People pray for specific things to happen, and they happen upon God’s approval- again- observable-
Besides, experience does NOT have to be observable as you so adamantly demand they be-
As for Dawkins- you might want to tell him he confused the two because in one instance he claims one hting- in another he claims something completely different- He is fully aware that he did because he then goes on and makes footnotes trying to explain it away.
And the polarized masses come in…
Russel developed a system of logic that fell in on itself. Morris Kline speaks to this in his Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty.
My evidence for the number of Christian Scientists in Oxford outweighing the number of Secular? Personal contact, of course.
Here’s the absurdity of claiming there’s correlation between intelligence and atheism any more than another framework: Intelligence is complicated - whether you’re speaking of IQ, which varies greatly in what it measures in the first place, complexity of thought process, emotional intelligence, etc., you cannot quantify or measure intelligence to any worthwhile degree (far from all-encompassing). To claim what you just did is to claim prejudice - Eysenck fell into the same trap with racial Intelligence Quotients.
Now I can’t believe I just wasted that thirty seconds, but oh well. I’ve done worse.
I have said that for me, it’s enough based on a personal relationship- however, that is not to say that I don’t have problems and simply arrive at ‘God’s existence is true therefore everythign can be explained by God doing the thigns’
Which is the very reason I posted this thread- I’m asking if there are reasonbale enough explanations/evidences/scientific facts that can go toward explaining one way or the other if morality evolved, or if there are evidences that can suggest more clearly that God did in fact do the thing- for hte sake of reasoning, it’s not enough to simply state God did the thing, nor is it enough to simply state that “Morality is subjective” or that “Noone can tell what is right or wrong with any degree of certainty.” These are blanket statements that go nowhere when trying to explain a position.
Philosopher James Rachels rebuttled the idea that morality is relative by stating:
Basinger rebuttled a fella that claimed man’s morals aren’t based on God’s because man would have to have a system of evaluation inplace before undertaking the evaluation of God’s morality, therefore man isn’t really evaluating God’s morality, goodness and character objectively- Bassinger said that this is not true because it ignores the fact that man compares his own moral sensitivities with the absolute character of God to see if the two agree, and in almost every society, they do.
This leads to the problem of whether or not it is only because of an evolving reasoning due to an evolving brain that most folks agree with an absolute not because it comes from the character of God, but rather from a universal agreement of what is good which brings us back to the reason of this thread. Contrary to Matt’s deriding contention that I simply take everything purely on faith and need no further explanation, there are problematic issues of the faith that I like to explore deeper for a better clarity. Ultimately, yes, experiential evidences have convinced me of the reality of God and the trueness of His word and promisses, however, God never said we had to be simple-minded and not explore issues of importance.
Matt claims man ‘invented religion for nefarious reasons’ yet this doesn’t jive with folks who, after practicing immoral deeds such as canibalism, human sacrifice etc, that weren’t condemned by their society for many years, and who have left such systems, have confessed that they did the things, but always felt uneasy, a ‘prick of the conscience’ so to speak. Entire villages who have stopped certain practices have confessed to this underlying conwscience which they felt they were betraying by practicing their ‘culturally derived’ practices.
These folks didn’t ‘invent’ any system of religious beleif, nor did they feel the stab of their consciences for any manipulative reasons. They simply bore their souls and confessed that they always felt something was just not right -contrary to folks contedning that ‘moral ethics are cultural in nature, and therefore subjective at best’ and pointing to cultures that practice what we might concider immoral.
The moral relativest has a conundrum on their hands when they point out that because other cultures display differences in morals, that we should tolorate those practices and see them as moral subjectivity. Yet, when we view the cannible, and then ask why we should stop at simply allowing another culture to practice what they beleive, in the name of tolorance, and why we shouldn’t pick the practice up here, then the problem becomes one of stating that there are indeed moral absolutes which should not be breached by ‘higher societies’- so in a sense, the moral relativist is claiming that there are moral absolutes after all that should not be broken. But in the spirit of moral relativity inpired tolorance, this is a highly intolorant position to take.
The moral relativist must also make an assumption that all citizens in the other cultures must feel absolutely no conscious repulsion what-so-ever when practicing immorality. We know from observation and from study, that this is simply not the case so we can know more certainly that the case for a universal moral code does exist- High degrees of certainty are often all that are needed to come to reasonable conclusions.