Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eärniel
There isn't necesarily a connection between our abilty to go around hurting people and a being outside of the universe, or the chance that we are all accidents.

I'm sorry, Eärniel, I did a lot of typing today and I got lazy and used the term "accident", thinking that people would know what I meant. They didn't, and now I have to type MORE and clear it up!

Basically, I see a logical problem with the worldview of atheism in dealing with the very observable fact of the existence of morality in humans.

The Christian worldview is that God has placed in every person a moral code - the sense that certain actions are either RIGHT or WRONG. And what do we observe? That this is indeed the case! (much to our chagrin when we go against what we think is right - that darn uncomfy feeling in our conscience....)

The athiestic worldview, and the worldview of the most commonly accepted version of evolution, is that there is no God, and that there is no intelligent, moral guiding force behind the universe. And if you think thru the implications, this means that there is NO basis for people having moral values. IOW, we happened to evolve the way we did, but there is no right or wrong about it. How can there be right or wrong about random chance and natural selection? The mechanism of natural selection does not allow only the "nice" organisms thru, does it? The mech. of NS does not make moral judgements; it does not make ANY judgements - it is just a name given to the idea that those species that just happen to have beneficial mutations will naturally survive. So we have a very stubbornly-observable fact that humankind has moral values, and yet have no basis in that worldview for saying that ANY decision we make is either right or wrong. And this is a SERIOUS logical defect in atheism/atheistic evolution. Do you see, or do I need to explain it more, or do you see but disagree (and in that case, please present your case )

If you were nothing more than instincts, I probably can't judge whether you hurting people is right or wrong from your perspective. Right or wrong are IMHO elements belonging to reason, not instinct. But I don't see why I can't object to it.

First sentence - I agree. Second sentence - but what is your reasoned choice based on? Morals.

Instincts aren't all about hurting others either.

I believe that the only way that instincts are pertinent to this discussion is the very odd way that humans will fight to overcome instincts when their MORAL sense says the right thing to do is the thing that goes against their instincts.

Why would we end up as slime again? Just because we might have started like it quite a while ago doesn't mean we'll end up like it again.

Oh, I just meant when we died, we decompose (just like that joke about Beethoven's grave ... do you know it?)

It could be just me but these deductions look slightly illogical to me. Here and there, there are some very big leaps taken to arrive at the next point.

Are they more logical now that I've un-lazied myself (see, my moral sense triumphed over my instinct to be lazy! ) and tried to explain better?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
It's not a logical problem. The impact of your theoretical act of violence is a direct result of that (theorectical) physical action. The consequences would be real suffering. It is still pontless and the victim certainly doesn't benefit and it seems to have no purpose. Logic has no constraining effect. If you can kill everyone without creating misery in order to end it then we need you in Washington because they haven't figured out that on yet.

The logical problem is the one that I stated in the above post. Can you explain it?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
I know. Both points vastly underestimate the independent value of ethical action in the sphere of human existence. That, however, is only the life aspect of the equation. It is zeroed out by the universe aspect of the equation in which all action is eventually pointless as it ends when all existence ends. This means, of course that the answer is zero and not 42.

Am I the only one that doesn't understand what this means?

Why do ethical actions even happen, unless they are based on moral judgement, which cannot be explained in an atheistic worldview?

What law says things should zero out? If it is a physical law, then it has no bearing on a moral question.

If all action is eventually pointless, why do you think certain things are good and bad anyway?

I disagree that the answer is 0. I think the answer is God, and He is a glorious, positive infinity

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
1. Re the rabbits - is it even pertinent *drat, must check spelling* to the discussion? I don't see how it is

yes its pertinent. Rabbits don’t have morals. They are just stupid animals right? Yet they don’t go killing each other as a rule. This is NOT because they are high minded godly moral creatures. Its because they have evolved in such a way that killing other rabbits is unnecessary and therefore rarely if ever happens. The rabbit who doesn’t kill arbitrarily has been more successful. Same goes for humans (although we are more homicidal then rabbits. Whats up with that? So much for grand morals).

Do machines appreciate beauty?

sure. When I see beauty in a female I want to mate with her. My living machine instructions are working perfectly to propagate my genes then wouldn’t you say?

Do machines create art?

well anyone who has used a CAD design program should know the answer to that.

It appears that you are placing humans in among the other animals.

which is of course where they belong. Because we are animals.

My answer is that I'll believe that you believe that ... when you tell me you'd hit the human with the car just as easily as the rabbit

are you kidding?? Id dent my car!

3. Since the only morality you appear to recognize is the value of passing on your genes (to which I say why bother if we're only machines? I'd rather be dead! )

careful with that kinda attitude youll go extinct. theres plenty of willing living machine females out there happy to go right ahead and breed and live and enjoy themselves. And genes for wanting to live will always do better then genes for wanting to die of course.

I still say why is it even good that we survive? Why do we even have the idea that it is GOOD to survive? Note the moral judgements here - in YOUR set-up, it would be equally "good" to NOT survive, because there is no morality involved in the choice of a machine.

oh boy. Here we go with the word games again. Didn’t we already deflate the terms “good� and “morality� a long time ago in a thread far far away when you tried to use them there to fuddle the issue? It is “GOOD� to survive because that way our genes are more likely to get passed on. Same is true for all living creatures. If you don’t survive then you don’t pass on your genes so that’s not so “good�. Are we done with elementary genetics yet?

A machine can be programmed to make good survival choices, but only by a PROGRAMMER that KNOWS that it's GOOD to survive.

yeah. Our genes.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
BTW, IRex, you are a splendidly joyful contradiction to your claim to be a living machine every time you make one of your wonderfully funny posts.

well my genes tell me chicks dig guys who act funny and not guys who are always hostile. and you know what I get to do with chicks. happy genes.

[Insidious Rex]

is it me or are we talking about the same thing in three different threads?

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Thanks, Gaffer, and congrats on your new Elven Warrior status! woo-hoo!!! *throws frog-shaped confetti in honor of your lovely avatar* I've enjoyed your posts very much. From what I've read, you're 1) intelligent, 2) courteous, 3) funny, and 3) able to disagree without taking it personally, which makes for very good discussions, IMO!

Um, BTW, have you met Eärniel? (this could be a match made in heaven..... Or does the Gaffer have a Gammer already?)

(Just to fill you in, because you're a bit new, Eärniel is very fond of frogs!)

Which reminds me - how's your practical going, Eärniel? Is it still about frogs?

What lovely people! Thank you so much.

Thanks for the matchmaking, but the Gaffer's spoken for. Believe me, hell hath no fury like the Widow Rumble scorned.

BTW, it's a toad. The hypno-toad, in fact.

We interrupt this mutual appreciation society to bring you an on-topic comment:

I think "machine" is a pretty limited description of what people are (or even animals).

When they invented the telephone exchange, people started to say "well, if you think of the brain as a telephone exchange". When they invented the computer, people started to say "well, if you think of the brain as a computer". These are useful analogies, but nothing more.

It's experience that really matters, and that's something machines don't have. It may well be that there ARE mechanical correlates for all that goes on in my tiny amphibian mind, but that doesn't explain why a sunset is beautiful or what it means to me to love and care for my tadpole or what it feels like to walk barefoot in the grass on a summer afternoon.

Ever seen a dog run just for the sheer joy of it? Does that look like a machine?

Equally, I think that attributing these things to the "love of God" is too easy an answer.

Mystery rules!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

It's experience that really matters, and that's something machines don't have. It may well be that there ARE mechanical correlates for all that goes on in my tiny amphibian mind, but that doesn't explain why a sunset is beautiful or what it means to me to love and care for my tadpole or what it feels like to walk barefoot in the grass on a summer afternoon.

Beautifully put.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
Mouser,

You said earlier that the world is how it is despite human desire. Then you said that the universe is nothing more than a combination of physical laws and randomness. It seems that you are stating that the universe is an objective reality that is independent of the human mind. However, in saying that the universe is physical laws, and all laws are mental constructs, you place the universe back in the sphere of subjectivism. So do you think the universe is an objective reality, or a reality that is dependent on mental constructs and thus dependent on human mind?


Regards,
Dave

By 'physical laws' I simply meant that there are certain ways things are arranged in our universe ( the speed of light, the gravitational constant, Planck's constant) that result in the way things are. I don't think I ever said these laws are mental constructs - I'm not a big fan of the "science as social construct' school of postmodernism; I tend to believe in an objective reality- in fact, I know so little about it that I would probably fall into the category of "naive realist"

I’m not clear what you mean by randomness. Do you mean that the universe is governed by random occurrences of physical bodies or energies interacting with other physical bodies or energies? or random effects of random causes? or the random perceptions of rational minds?

Numbers 1 and 2. I wasn't tring to get into a deep epistemological discussion- just basically trying to state the naturalistic view- that there is no overall purpose or moral order inherent in the Cosmos.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Valandil
Hey Gwaimir,

I THINK GrayMouser is introspecting nicely and admitting some gaps in atheistic thinking in these areas Rian brings to attention. I think he's not saying, it SHOULD be based on "that's not the way we do it in my tribe"... rather, I think he's admitting that this is what it sometimes boils down to... when atheists set moral standards.

GrayMouser - am I reading you correctly there?

Yes, that's what I mean - though not all atheists are moral relativists, check out the Objectivists (followers of Ayn Rand)- but I think it's much harder for an atheist to justify a universal moral standard, mostly because I think it's harder for an atheist to justify any moral standard(note I said harder, not impossible)

[GrayMouser]

IRex (may I call you IRex?)

I agree that our moral values come from our origin as social animals. In th Ancestral Environment, living in small family groups on the savannah, it was better for our survival if you could trust people most of the time- you could turn your back on someone without worrying that they were going to jump you, or steal your food, so the most sociopathic genes got eliminated. Everyone knew who could be trusted, and who couldn't, so a basic moral sense got instilled.

And here's an article that suggests we may be evolving into a more peacable and co-operative species.

Evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond of the University of California at Los Angeles once classified humans as the "third chimpanzee" (the second being the bonobo). Genetically, we are very similar, and when it comes to high levels of aggression between members of two different groups, as I noted in last month's column on "The Ignoble Savage," we also resemble chimpanzees. Although humans have a brutal history, there's hope that the pessimists who forecast our eventual demise are wrong: recent evidence indicates that, like bonobos, we may be evolving in a more peaceful direction.

http://scientificamerican.com/articl...D380A84189F2D7




BUT (it's a big but) there was still the counter force of trying to survive and pass on your genes at any cost (as you pointed out to Rian, the ones who gave up aren't around).

I see that in human history as a working out of these competing instincts.
Work together; but try and dominate the group.
Have laws and rules so you can let your guard down among your own (who originally were close relatives), but wage war against outsiders.
Form pair-bonds, but get some on the side to spread your genes (male) or get better genes or resources (females)

So the wonderful power of speech, which is based on trust, also gives us liars and conmen (some would add lawyers and politicians)

So if we know our moral impulses come from our evolutionary psychology, the correct option would be to follow the rules unless you can get away with it- if either your breaking them won't become known, which could lead to a general collapse of social order; or if the advantage is so great that it's worth it- then go for it, all the while trying to convince everybody else that they should follow the rules.

So just knowing where our moral impulses come from doesn't really justify them or cause us to agree that we should follow them all the time- it may even weaken our principles.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Only the evolutionist (note: not all who believe in evolution) view of them; to me, the two are quite different.

*scratches head* It'd be the first time I hear that the evolutionist view thinks all accidents are without value.

Accidents can be good, but they rarely are. The vast majority of the time, they are not good things.

I still follow you here but you lose me in the next part:

So then, assuming that we as accidents have value; do then the beasts and birds as "lesser accidents" not have value? Few accidents turn out to really be good things, few accidents lead to things of value.

Why would animals be 'lesser accidents'? I suppose I'm missing the point here because I don't really understand. (Boy, do I feel stupid ) Just because certain accidents don't turn out to be good things, doesn't mean they're without value.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Um, BTW, have you met Eärniel? (this could be a match made in heaven..... Or does the Gaffer have a Gammer already?) (Just to fill you in, because you're a bit new, Eärniel is very fond of frogs!)

Neh neh neh, you know me too well, RÃ*an. I've been oggling his amphibian avatar ever since he joined. Though I'd better be careful as not to get widow Rumble on my bad side.

Which reminds me - how's your practical going, Eärniel? Is it still about frogs?

I'm very close to finding a place for that dreaded practical of mine. I will know probably on thursday. As for my dissentation, thesis, final essay or whatever you'd call it (Bugrit, I can't find a decent translation for the right Dutch word), yes it's still about FROGS so far , though I'll have to work my way around a few sideproblems.

Do you see, or do I need to explain it more, or do you see but disagree (and in that case, please present your case )

Ah, this I understand(about time too) . I agree that evolution-mechanisms do seem to work without morals and right and wrong. And that if god does not exist, humans can't have gotten morals from him. Though I am inclined to believe that humans (and any other species with enough intelligence for it) are able to develop morals of and on their own without those morals being fitted into their design by a creator.

(just like that joke about Beethoven's grave ... do you know it?)

LOL! Hadn't heard that one before, must try to remember it.

Are they more logical now that I've un-lazied myself (see, my moral sense triumphed over my instinct to be lazy! ) and tried to explain better?

Thanks for the explanation, I think I see now how you deducted the different points.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
IRex (may I call you IRex?)

please. call me anything you like. May I call you GMouser?

And here's an article that suggests we may be evolving into a more peacable and co-operative species.
http://scientificamerican.com/articl...D380A84189F2D7

yes I have found this subject interesting for a long time in fact. Are we (as a species) growing less tolerant of brutality and cruelty and is it because as we gain higher and higher technology it becomes easier to fight the entropy that leads in our eyes to the horrors of evil man can impose on his fellow man (or on his earth or environment for that matter)? For example look at past history where war and brutality seemed to be the defining feature. You had more disease and natural horrors, and you had unjust social hierarchies and governmental bodies (monarchies, emperors, popes, etc.) that naturally lead to a higher level of brutality among humans. And this was more or less accepted as just the way it is. Well now we have medicines and feeding programs and countless developments that help us fight disease and starvation and the horrors that can befall humans in the natural world. Plus we have more democracy and a higher conciousness about equality of men on the social and governmental level. Is this going to be a continuing trend? Will we have a star trek like utopia in a few thousand years or is this just a blip that will come round again to chaos?

I see that in human history as a working out of these competing instincts.
Work together; but try and dominate the group.
Have laws and rules so you can let your guard down among your own (who originally were close relatives), but wage war against outsiders.
Form pair-bonds, but get some on the side to spread your genes (male) or get better genes or resources (females)

Great points! Balance and counter balance. Weighing things always against other things. Benefit to anti-benefit. Always always always. That’s what its all about. Behave in which ever way is best suited for maximizing your breeding ability. If it’s a “nice� way then fine. If it’s a “mean� way well so be it. It happens. Think you are superior and righteous and always doing the “right thing� if you like but as a population and as a species we fit right in with the natural model. Its about numbers people.

So if we know our moral impulses come from our evolutionary psychology, the correct option would be to follow the rules unless you can get away with it- if either your breaking them won't become known, which could lead to a general collapse of social order; or if the advantage is so great that it's worth it- then go for it, all the while trying to convince everybody else that they should follow the rules.

exactly!! Finally someone who understands. Ive never understood why this is such a grasp for some people to be honest.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
It may well be that there ARE mechanical correlates for all that goes on in my tiny amphibian mind, but that doesn't explain why a sunset is beautiful or what it means to me to love and care for my tadpole or what it feels like to walk barefoot in the grass on a summer afternoon.

but all those things can be explained on the "living machine" level. They all make sense. just like the grand canyon and the full moon can be explained on a stricly scientific (geological/astronomical) level. Doesnt mean they arent impressive to look at. But their origins are cut and dry and can be expressed in numbers like anything else. They arent a product of a diety simply because they are big or grand or overwelming (which I know you also said just to aknowledge).

Ever seen a dog run just for the sheer joy of it? Does that look like a machine?

yes?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Why would animals be 'lesser accidents'? I suppose I'm missing the point here because I don't really understand. (Boy, do I feel stupid ) Just because certain accidents don't turn out to be good things, doesn't mean they're without value.

I probably should have worded it better. My apologies.

Okay, I agree that some accidents are good accidents; but, it seems to me very rare that an accident is a good thing. Let us then suppose just for the sake of this argument that human beings are from the "good accident"; or, if you prefer, frogs . Then it seems to me that for this one good accident, there must be a host of "bad accidents", those which did not prove to have a good result. This would then, it seems to me, be all, or almost all, of the living things, except for frogs. Does that explain it better?

[Arien the Maia]

ok, this question is in response to several things that have been discussed on the Gays/Lesbians/Bisexual thread.
anyway, I'm trying to gauge an opinion of various Christian beliefs regarding contraception. What do you believe to be morally acceptable and why? I'll start by saying tha the Church opposes ALL forms of contraception and only promots NFP or Natural Family Planning. That is the belief I follow as well. Anyone else? BTW Christians aren't the only ones who can post regarding this topic...I'm also interested in the views of anyone else (Jewish, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, Buddist etc)

[Rían]

IRex, I added the bolding to this quote by GrayMouser:

Originally posted by GrayMouser
So if we know our moral impulses come from our evolutionary psychology, the correct option would be to follow the rules unless you can get away with it- if either your breaking them won't become known, which could lead to a general collapse of social order; or if the advantage is so great that it's worth it- then go for it, all the while trying to convince everybody else that they should follow the rules.

Your response was :

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
exactly!! Finally someone who understands. Ive never understood why this is such a grasp for some people to be honest.

Then this means that you would have no problem at all with a person killing any number of babies in terrible, drawn-out, vicious ways, as long as they can "get away with it?"

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
[B]yes its pertinent. Rabbits don’t have morals. They are just stupid animals right? Yet they don’t go killing each other as a rule. This is NOT because they are high minded godly moral creatures. Its because they have evolved in such a way that killing other rabbits is unnecessary and therefore rarely if ever happens. The rabbit who doesn’t kill arbitrarily has been more successful. Same goes for humans (although we are more homicidal then rabbits. Whats up with that? So much for grand morals).

I disagree that the "same goes for humans". IMO, from observation, humans have moral feelings about the act of murder.

well anyone who has used a CAD design program should know the answer to that.

Do you really think the machines turn themselves on at night and have fun drawing beautiful sunsets and things? By your use of the word "anyone", you have just demonstrated that the machine has a PERSON behind it that is the source of the drawing.

which is of course where they belong. Because we are animals. ... are you kidding?? Id dent my car!

You avoided the question - are humans of the same value as rabbits or any other animal? Or do neither of them have value (which is another way of saying the same thing).

careful with that kinda attitude youll go extinct.

Wouldja miss me? If so, why, since there are plenty of other machine females?

And genes for wanting to live will always do better then genes for wanting to die of course.

Which proves nothing about the existence of morals, of course.

oh boy. Here we go with the word games again. Didn’t we already deflate the terms “good� and “morality� a long time ago in a thread far far away when you tried to use them there to fuddle the issue? It is “GOOD� to survive because that way our genes are more likely to get passed on. Same is true for all living creatures. If you don’t survive then you don’t pass on your genes so that’s not so “good�. Are we done with elementary genetics yet?

No, we did NOT deflate the terms "good" and "morality"; they are the crux of the discussion, and I will not allow you to get away with saying that morality is merely what is good for survivial unless you are willing to admit that you would have no inherent problem slaughtering babies as long as it did not affect survival at all.

I'm sorry, IRex, but I cannot let that one slide, because it's so critical to the discussion. Even tho the Gaffer and I are on opposite sides of the question on whether or not God exists, I am firmly on the Gaffer's side that beauty exists, and has nothing to do with whether or not it's good for survival. In your scenario, there is no value in beauty unless it helps survival, right? Do you really believe that? If so, that's tragic, IMO.

I'm going to go play my harp and enjoy some beauty - cya later!

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem

To what are you referring to by "accidents"? Do you mean mutations?

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I probably should have worded it better. My apologies.

Okay, I agree that some accidents are good accidents; but, it seems to me very rare that an accident is a good thing. Let us then suppose just for the sake of this argument that human beings are from the "good accident"; or, if you prefer, frogs . Then it seems to me that for this one good accident, there must be a host of "bad accidents", those which did not prove to have a good result. This would then, it seems to me, be all, or almost all, of the living things, except for frogs. Does that explain it better?

UMMM....No?

I don't follow what you mean about "bad accidents". If you're coming at this from an evolutionary point of view, bad accidents are simply those which have a bad effect on survival.

Human beings are not privileged above other animals; evolution is not a ladder.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
IRex, I added the bolding to this quote by GrayMouser:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by GrayMouser
So if we know our moral impulses come from our evolutionary psychology, the correct option would be to follow the rules unless you can get away with it- if either your breaking them won't become known, which could lead to a general collapse of social order; or if the advantage is so great that it's worth it- then go for it, all the while trying to convince everybody else that they should follow the rules.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Your response was :
Originally posted by Insidious Rex
exactly!! Finally someone who understands. Ive never understood why this is such a grasp for some people to be honest.

From Rian
Then this means that you would have no problem at all with a person killing any number of babies in terrible, drawn-out, vicious ways, as long as they can "get away with it?"

I guess I should have put a conclusion on that- my point was that Evolutionary Psychology (EP) can, IMHO, provide an explanation for the origin of ethical behaviour, answering the objections of those who say that the Theory of Evolution can't account for our moral feelings- but it's not good enough to provide a guide to live by.

A thorough-going ethical theory has to provide a reason as to why we should behave properly even when we can get away with behaving badly.