|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Morality without God is impossible | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Tangle writes: What I'm trying to unpick is your question about how could the behaviour of what you call 'sacrificial love' be natural. You claim that people are acting on the 'still small voice' when they run into a burning building to rescue a child. You say that this is against our natural survival interests. I don’t think that I actually said that. I did in reference to a risking your life for a dog, with the point being that the dog is not just from another human tribe but from a different species. It is more akin to medical people who risk their lives to go in and minister to people in far flung countries around the world. Here is a Dawkins quote from River Out of Eden
quote: In his book the Selfish Gene he then promotes the idea that out of this pitiless indifference we eventually found that cooperating in groups could improve the lives of the self. We can often see that in the animal kingdom as well. However, it does not explain why we self sacrifice for other people, and even other species, at the detriment of the self and possibly even our own tribe.So yes, I can see those things happening without any specific interference. In an earlier post you did allow for the idea that the properties of self giving love could have been built into creation at the beginning and then allowing for, from your perspective, a deistic view of things. (This might be RAZD’s position.) Yes I can accept that, but, it does not preclude that still small voice being ever present to be with us to overcome Dawkins view of the universe in the quote above. Yes, we can see it as a cultural meme in our society but it doesn’t explain why that cultural meme exists at all. I read an excellent book a couple of years ago by Christian Barrigar our of Montreal. It is call Freedom All the Way Up. It is an excellent book, that when I get through 4 other books I have on the go I want to read again. Here is a pdf article on the book and quotes from it. Chris BarrigarBarrigar talks about the concept that randomness is not only an aspect of our universe but that it is essential to it. Here is a piece from the above pdf. quote:Barrigar’s position that that the universe exists the way it does as God brought it into existence with the very high probability that ultimately, through randomness, bring about creatures that could be capable of agape (essentially unconditional and sacrificial) love. Tangle writes: Actually we don’t know that they don’t perceive it. We only know that if it exists they don’t respond to it.
That's just a rationalisation of a serious problem with your position. If the most vulnerable people can't hear the voice, it strongly argues that ei ther the voice doesn't exist or it is not supernatural. Tangle writes: I’m not denying that there are natural processes, such as a parent influencing their children, that take place. I am only saying that the natural process requires an agency. I contend that it is rational to believe that to believe that the process is from a pre-existing intelligence. No, what I want you to do is seriously consider all the evidence showing the natural process that create our moral behaviours and not simply push it aside like you do with other major difficulties with your beliefs like the problem of suffering.It doesn't mean that you'll lose a belief that's important to you, just that you're not hiding from reality. Yes, I go further and believe that that intelligence is still there as an influencer along with all the other influences in our lives. The former does not preclude the latter.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Tangle writes: This is the problem in discussing things like this with fundamentalists be they Christian or atheist. It is like a discussion with Faith in the opposite end of things. If it says something in the Bible then it is from God and it has to be true. With you it is because I can show you a natural process of how something can have happened then that becomes how it did happen. But I've shown you that they do not! It couldn't be clearer, there is no necessity of real-time, discriminatory interference in this process. It's neither evidenced, nor necessary. I believe is the last ditch defence of a lost argument. We both have our beliefs. I'm just not concerned about acknowledging that it is belief.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Tangle writes: Unfortunately for me when I checked I found that they won't ship to Canada so as near as I can tell it is only you Brits that will be ok. How is it working so far BTW? People are often not rational. Maybe this is a scam but the Bishop claims to believe it and that it has a basis in the bible and will argue at length that it is.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Tangle writes: It is both. As an atheist there is no other position than to reject the whole idea. I'm not sure what you mean by a scientific Christian. Scientists like John Polkinghorne, Alister McGrath, Francis Collins etc would agree with my position.Scientists like Dawkins, Greene, Sagan etc would agree with you. We all have our beliefs. You need to knock this off; this isn't an atheist argument, it's a scientific one. You could have this discussion with a scientific Christian - it's not about belief, it's about facts and knowledge. I acknowledge that I can't evidence my beliefs scientifically. However, science only tells me that what I believe is outside the bounds of empirical evidence which is what science looks at. I enjoy reading people like Brian Greene and others like him in an attempt to gain a minimal grasp of scientific concepts. I don't use my religious beliefs to inform what I believe about science but I do use the little I do know about science on occasion to inform my religious beliefs.
Tangle writes: Science shows us with brain scans that thought processes, including moral thought processes, can be observed. However, you cannot tell what the conclusions are. They don't tell you whether the decision was steal or not to steal or whether they chose coffee or tea. After all this time ... We're talking about how moral decisions are made. Science can show you how. It doesn't need a god; it's fully explained. That's all. If you deny in your face evidence there's not much more that can be done. It must have felt like this in Darwin,s time. You claim it doesn't need a god. Maybe you're right. That is your belief. However, if we exist because of a deity then a god is necessary from the outset. Beyond that ii is still about belief. An atheist has to reject the possibility whereas a theist would most likely be open to the possibility. Brain scans show us the brain in action but it doesn't show us parental, cultural or possible god influences on the decision.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Tangle writes: The following quote is from the premise of BioLogos the organization that Francis Collins formed.
But that's by-the-by, at least your other two are real scientists - if not in any field relevant to what we're discussing. And they're honest people, unlike that slimeball McGrath. Anyway, there are thousands of Christ ian scientists that would not take the extreme position you have on god's real-time intervention in moral choice. I doubt a single neuroscientist would.quote:Here is a Christian neuroscientist named William Newsome as an example. Tangle writes: So you are saying that you can, by reading a brain scan, read the thoughts of the individual. I realize that you can distinguish sad thoughts vs happy thoughts as different parts of the brain light up but I question the idea that you can tell me what it is that is making that person sad or happy by looking at the scan.
Yes they do. The experiments show the decision making process in action including the decision.Tangle writes: I agree that the concept of morality was inherent in human creatures, (and maybe others) right from the start. However, using Christian language, I also believe, based on the recorded words of Jesus in the NT, and some personal experience, that God does communicate with us through His Holy Spirit.
I don't have a problem with that. A deistic god is impossible to disprove and is another argument altogether.Tangle writes: Theists have come to certain conclusions about what they believe just as atheists have. A theist has already made up his mind by definition and no amount of facts will change their minds. Historically, it's not the generation that gets the new knowledge that changes their beliefs, it's the one after. It's not a coincidence that you believe something wildly differenct to Christians three or four generations ago. I agree that Christian beliefs have changed quite a bit over the last few generations. I believe that there is a very good reason for that. There is obviously more to it but under Constantine and his successors Christianity essentially became a religion and specifically a state religion. With that the church became more that just followers of Jesus but an institution which quickly took on the Roman style of governance. Ultimately some Popes even became Emperors. Also Greek thought and particularly Platonism became part of Christian thinking. This carried on for centuries allowing for so called holy wars, and all sorts of abusive behavior. The reformation of the 1500’s came along and reformed a number of the problems in the Roman church such as indulgences and Bibles being only available in Latin, but one thing that remained was the tendency to understand Scriptures in the context of the day. More recently there has been a very strong movement by Christian scholars to study the Bible and particularly the NT in its historical setting and within the framework of the cultures, beliefs and the politics of the time. As a result I would agree that Christian faith has always been a progressive understanding which I don’t imagine we are through with yet. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Tangle quoted writes:
I find that a little ambiguous. I see them saying that if we are only a bag of genes and chemicals then we shouldn't be held responsible for our actions.
quoteIf we are nothing but a bag of genes and chemicals, as Steven Pinker, Francis Crick, and others have famously written, do we bear responsibility for our own actions?"I'm on Pinker's side, there's no ghost in the machine," Newsome said, rejecting the Christian notion of a moral soul. Tangle writes: They are compilations from overlapping sources of the recollections of eyewitnesses and others. There are no recorded words of Jesus. There are some writings by unknown authors between 25 and 50 years after his alleged death. Most of them are copies of each other with inherent omissions and contradictions. Actually we know that isn’t true. We have people brought up Christian converting to Islam and vice versa. People change their religious beliefs all the time. I have even heard accounts of people being brought up Christian and converting to atheism.
Tangle writes: The Anglican church has since the time of Richard Hooker held to the belief that our theology is based on reason, tradition and scripture. In the past 2000 years we have had considerable time to reason as well as build up tradition. Christian theology is evolving and IMHO will continue to evolve. I would add that because of improved understanding of the early Greek language, partly because of the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls’ that we have a lot better understanding of the original texts, which is resulting in a lot better understanding of Jesus’ culture, Jesus was a 1st century Jew speaking primarily to 1st century Jews. He wasn’t a 21st century white westerner.
t's not an understanding, it's a belief system. Understanding requires knowledge and you have no new knowledge for 2,000 years. The entire source of 'information, about you belief is contained in your book. Tangle quote writes:
I have no problem with any of that. It also doesn’t preclude external influences.
Using evidence from evolutionary biology, developmental psychology, and neuroscience, we have come to realize that morality is not merely the result of cultural learning, handed to us from our families, peers, and environment. Morality was selected by evolution in our human ancestors in order to promote cooperation and smooth social interactions. Developmental psychologists have demonstrated that some building blocks of morality are in place very early in development [3]. Additionally, the parts of the brain and the brain chemicals involved in morality and decision-making are beginning to be identified. Morality is a product of evolution but that does not mean that it is set in stone and totally unchangeable. The culture in which we live influences what we think is right and wrong. For instance, second-hand smoking was totally ignored some decades ago, while in Western Europe and North America, it is now considered morally (as well as medically) wrong. In a nutshell, we create our own definition of morality through our interactions the people around us. Ideas about what is and what is not moral are guided by our unique human reasoning and intelligence, and not just by our feelings or gut reactions. It is reason, and not emotion, that provides the push to widen the circle of empathy and concern for others beyond those related to us and our community. Neuroscience, psychology, and evolutionary biology will continue to help us gain a better understanding of how we think and make moral decisions [2]. Future research in neuroscience will help us to explain how we make decisions, weigh our options, reflect on our desires, and modify our behaviors on the basis of their moral consequences. Hopefully, Science will also help us to understand why some people, like psychopaths, are not able to act morally, and discover ways to help them. Tangle writes:
Again I have no problem with that and actually it confirms what C S Lewis wrote about in Mere Christianity. He wrote about the law of human nature that we are born with and talks about infants having a sense of fairness. (If there are 2 cookies then there is one for you and one for me.) The present study examined the neural underpinnings of and precursors to moral sensitivity in infants and toddlers (n = 73, ages 12—24 mo) through a series of interwoven measures, combining multiple levels of analysis including electrophysiological, eye-tracking, behavioral, and socioenvironmental.Continuous EEG and time-locked event-related potentials (ERPs) and gaze fixation were recorded while children watched characters engaging in prosocial and antisocial actions in two different tasks. All children demonstrated a neural differentiation in both spectral EEG power density modulations and time-locked ERPs when perceiving prosocial or antisocial agents. Time-locked neural differences predicted children’s preference for prosocial characters and were influenced by parental values regarding justice and fairness. Overall, this investigation casts light on the fundamental nature of moral cognition, including its underpinnings in general processes such as attention and approach—withdrawal, providing plausible mechanisms of early change and a foundation for forward movement in the field of developmental social neuroscience.I don’t question that there is built into our nature a basic sense of morality as well as a basic sense of self centeredness. Throughout our lives we are bombarded with cultural influences. There is no empirical evidence for the fact that I believe that within that there is God’s small still voice or His spirit that nudges us to do the loving thing. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Tangle writes: I quoted the part I found ambiguous and that wasn’t it. Not sure what you find ambiguous about him rejecting the Christian notion of a moral soul but the believer's ability to ignore inconvenient evidence is bottomless. I’ll go on to the article you quoted. That article is very interesting and I certainly can’t disagree with any of it. It does talk about how moral and empathetic thoughts can be traced to different parts of the brain. However nothing in the article measures the input and changes in the brain marked by cultural memes, which might or might not include a god meme.I’ll go over some specific parts of the article. quote: I found it interesting, and I see it as being correct when they say that, It is important to note that while empathy is a powerful motivation for prosocial behavior, it should not be equated with morality. I think that we,{at least I), have been seeing them as being essentially the same. I think the point is that morality is about the social norms that we use to relate to our society and make it function. This goes back to the idea that essentially my life will be better if I behave cooperatively and in harmony within my own social group which can include my next door neighbour, any social group I’m part of, my work place etc. Their thoughts on empathy ring so true. I can only relate to the world through my own consciousness. It is unique to me. Everyone one is I. This article is so right. The further away we get from that I’ the less effect it has on my empathetic feelings. My best friend lost his wife recently. This continues to cause me distress a month later. If I read about someone else I don’t know in even more tragic circumstances, it bothers briefly but usually is gone from mind fairly quickly. It seems to me that people can learn about the plight of others where it is possible to help, and the their sense of empathy is pushed to go beyond the the more local sense and be prepared to sacrifice for those outside and even well outside their own social networks. We would both agree that our relationships with parents and others have an impact on our response to our empathetic feelings. The question is whether or not the still small voice of God’ is one of the others. The fact that we can see different parts of the brain being energized by our conclusions does not tell us about the social interactions that formed the conclusions.
quote:This does indicate that we start off in this life with a basic sense of right and wrong which would agree with C S Lewis, as well as your quote, as I mentioned earlier. Why this exists as part of our conscious nature is of course the question. To say that it simply evolved does not answer the question of why it evolved or whether there was an intelligent agent responsible or whether it evolved simply as a result of other non-intelligent processes. quote:Once again it does demonstrate that a psychopath has knowledge that what he/she is doing is wrong and is responsible for their actions. quote:As I see this it is going back again to separating morality and empathy. This is saying that morality is more governed by the domain-general reward. I think then that the implication is that empathy is motivated in a different way. With this in mind I’ll amend my thinking to agree that morality is something that has socially evolved naturally, (without addressing the question of why which can only produce a subjective conclusion), but I would still subjectively maintain that the God meme still nudges us in the direction of empathy. Right off subject, but one of my musical heroes lives in Sussex. (Ditchling) That would be Vera Lynn who turned 103 on Mar 20.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
GDR writes: The question is whether or not the still small voice of God’ is one of the others.Tangle writes: I would agree that it can be explained naturally, but that doesn't explain "why" it can be explained naturally. The articles that you linked earlier do suggest that a sense of morality is universal. Is there a universal morality built into the evolutionary process that is there as the result of intelligence? The answer is subjective and flows from belief. That's not in doubt either. There's no necessity for it; it's totally explicable naturally. It's like still insisting that Thor is behind lightening - yet we have a natural explanation. Just because you don't deem it as necessary does not mean that it isn't there.
Tangle writes: Sure, deism vs theism.
If you could start distinguishing between a god that intervened at creation then stood by and watched and a god that's intervening with all of us in real time it would be helpful. The first is quite, quite different to the second. Tangle writes: The windshield wipers aren't a necessity for me to drive my car but they sure can be a big help.
Of course you do. Nevertheless, god is not a necessary component of the process. Tangle writes: I met Vera Lynn once a long time ago. She is and was a great woman. It was inspiring that at 103 she was still able to give an inspiring message for the times. Ditchling is pretty, and about 10 miles away. Has a great pub too.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Tangle writes: The 'why' is the same as it is for all other naturally evolved traits - it has a survival advantage. We evolved emotions like empathy and calculating brains because they helped us to become the most successful critter on the planet. I find those two sentences contradictory. We have evolved natural traits that have given us a survival advantage and one of them is that we survive better as individuals when we work cooperatively in groups than we do on our own. Incidentally even the Bible tells us that. However, when we make personal sacrifices which will also weaken the group I contend that we are going against natural evolution. For example our church raises a fair bit of money to send to non-related groups including to having it go to the third world, and then we struggle to raise the money for the new furnaces we had to put in recently. IMHO opinion this is evidence that there is more going on than simply the evolutionary process which would lead us to work collectively in a group.
Tangle writes: I think what I have changed is that I separated morality from empathy. I see that designed in the evolutionary process a sense of morality involved in how we work collectively in our groups. However, I do contend that we have a "God meme" that nudges us to empathy and then act upon that empathy when we are able to do so.
But it seems that you have shifted your position from your god being an interventionist one whispering in our ears moment to moment, to one that created a process that achieved the same effect without his direct involvement. Tangle writes: OK we agree that there is a universal sense of morality. Would you agree that is represented by "The Golden Rule"?
We don't need scientific articles to tell us that do we? Even CS bleedin' Lewis could tell you that. Even my old mum could tell you that! Tangle writes: You know I actually agree with that. In accessing the ducks this sure looks to me like a world designed by intelligence, and that being the case then it looks to me like a world designed with a purpose. Hopefully I have all my ducks in a row.
We will never have an answer to whether a god exists because it's evidentially impossible if he prefers to hide and all his 'effects' are made to look totally natural. Rationally we are left with shrugging our shoulders and saying that if it looks like a duck etc, it is a duck. Tangle writes: I would contend that "processes" should not be multiplied without necessity. Or more formally, Entities should not be multiplied without necessity. For many years I worked as a volunteer with a political party. I believed that by getting my representative elected and the party in government that Canadians would collectively be better off. I see my Christianity in very much the same light. Yes I believe it intellectually, but that isn't the point. I believe that hopefully, by becoming a volunteer for the Christian God that I can in a minuscule way make this a better world.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
GDR writes: You know I actually agree with that. In accessing the ducks this sure looks to me like a world designed by intelligence, and that being the case then it looks to me like a world designed with a purpose. Hopefully I have all my ducks in a row.Tangle writes: I'm going to just focus on this as I think it is the basis of where we disagree, but first off I agree that physical evolution is not the same thing as cultural evolution. However I don't see it as moving the goal posts at all. I wish you'd stop doing this. We're discussing our sense of morality, not life the universe and everything. Just as I think we’ve agreed something you move the bloody goal posts again. The problem in dealing with that is that we are starting with a very different core belief about our world. We are miles apart on why things are the way they are. If we aren't here as a result of intelligence then there is no reason in the world to consider a divine interaction, (which is not the same as intervention), with our lives. I believe that there is a god and you believe that there isn't. Neither of us can prove our beliefs. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that you would say that the limit to what we can know, or even believe, is going to be based on science and reason. As someone who believes in God I could believe, as I assume RAZD does that it is simply a deistic god and then I am back essentially in the same position as you as to what we can know or believe. However I do go further than that and I'm interested in the how it is that God interacts in my life. I'm a Christian so now I attempt to form my subjective beliefs based on that. I believe that God resurrected Jesus. How does that fit in? So yes, I can learn from you and others and my views are pretty much in a constant state of flux as when I'm presented with new idea they will often change my views, such as seeing as distinct emotions morality and empathy, although there obviously is a connection as well. So, if I were to reject my theism and accept atheism I would agree with everything that you have said. You have laid out what it is that we can observe about human behaviour. There wouldn't be much if anything to disagree about. However, if you were to reject atheism and accept theism you still might disagree as I doubt you can find 2 theists anywhere that will agree on everything. There is much in life that is a mystery and our individual theistic views are subjective, and we all muddle on as best we can. The point is that we will never agree on any of this as our starting points are so far removed from each other. However, what helps me is that your views are helpful in helping me form my subjective theistic beliefs. Thanks for that.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I came across this quote by Nietzche I think is kind applicable.
quote: We have opposing views on the "why" we are here. I find it interesting to learn how but no matter what conclusion that we come to in the "how" it doesn't affect the "why". I won't presume to suggest as to how you would answer about why you are here except that it appears to me that the "how" in your case has a significant impact on the "why" you are here.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Tangle writes: Of course it doesn't. However, looking at brain scans is science. Observing that moral traits are transmitted within a culture is simply an observation and not science.
I happen to be an atheist. That has absolutely nothing to do with what science is saying about what it knows about morality and neuroscience. Tangle writes: They utilized clever marketing. When I first heard about it of course I thought great news. Then when I read up on it I found that although it sounded like they held objective scientific views. Yes, I believe in intelligent design but the ID movement as understood by the Discovery Institute is simply a pseudo-scientific argument against evolution, and something altogether different that what the term implies.
To put it in more personal perspective, years ago I heard about what I thought was a new scientific discovery called Intelligent Design. I was excited. Something had been discovered that pointed to a god of creation. I read everything I could about it and found that it was a pile of bollox. Not science at all; another religious scam. I was disappointed for two reasons, firstly because it wasn't true and secondly because the religious community had created another scam. If it had been good science it would have been great. Tangle writes: I don't see them as equal and opposite. It is a belief at least to the extent that you consider my theistic beliefs to be wrong. Also I don't see atheism as being opposite to my beliefs. I am closer to seeing them as simply different. I've watched debates between Chris Hitchens and various Christians. Quite often I would agree that Hitchens presented a stronger case than his opponents on some issues, and on those points I agreed with Hitchens.
As a believer you attempt - not just you, every believer I've ever met - to make an equivalence between belief and atheism. You want them to be equal and opposite and you consistently refuse to accept that atheism in not in itself a belief. Tangle writes: Essentially I agree but I might just nit pick and say that from what I have read, scientists will often have a theory and will sideline evidence that doesn't support their theory. However I certainly agree that philosophical and theological beliefs should not effect an objective view of scientists.
You think/believe that an atheist will force everything they learn into an atheistic world view just as you feel forced to jemmy everything I point you at into your belief. That's simply not the case. Science is objective - or as much as it possibly can be. Its findings are independent of belief. That's why believers can be, and usually are, good scientists. And so can atheists. Tangle writes: The trouble is that you are claiming that things are fact when they are just your subjective opinion. We can look at all the brain scans we like, and see what is going on when moral decisions are being made. That is science. However, it isn't science to understand the influences that went into that decision. By observation we can see that a person who grew up in a loving environment is more likely to become a loving adult. (Mind you it doesn't always work out the way.) However, that isn't science.
It's only when science's findings conflict with a belief that there's a problem. You can accept science's findings without question when science tells you the genetic make up of Corvid 19 but if it suggests that the earth orbits the sun it's immediately dismissed as a conflict. You say it yourself So, if I were to reject my theism and accept atheism I would agree with everything that you have said. Like I said before, you're a version of Faith. A nice liberal one but you're fighting facts to save your belief and that's ultimately disastrous for your faith. Someone capable of real critical thinking would not allow a belief to overcome a fact. A real fact will last while belief will change. Tangle writes: I agree, and I believe that is just what I do. I like to read books, like Greene that give me some level of knowledge of some of the concepts of science. Science has influenced my thinking on theological subjects and sometimes my views overlap but only really to the extent of thinking that maybe this is how it works. Often then I read something by someone else and modify my views.
That's the history of both magisterial, your faith will adapt to encompass the new knowledge science produces or it will die. You'll call it an increasing understanding of god and you'll argue increasingly for a kind of cosmic background sort of god if you're sensible. Tangle writes: I agree that there is no scientific evidence. It is belief.
Try to get beyond this atheism problem you have, it's colouring your thinking. If I was a Muslim neuroscientist the facts would be the same. There is no evidence for a god or anything else intervening with how moral problems are dealt with in the brain. Tangle writes: I agree. I have no doubt that some of what I believe is wrong. I just don't what part of my beliefs they are. Cheers Why doesn't that force you to think that maybe the beliefs are all wrong? Or at best, only one is right and it might as well be a buddhist in Nepal as you.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Tangle writes: Well firstly I don't see it as being exempt from study. However I don't see how the study of the fact that morality is culturally spread is science. You can do studies that show that children from loving moral home are more likely to be loving and moral. I don't see that as scientific. It is sorta like saying that as we have storm clouds to the west we're likely to get rain today. I certainly am not saying it should be exempt from study.
So what's different about studying how a particular observation that some higher-order mammal exhibit moral behaviours and that humans are extreme examples of this? To a scientist it's simply another area of study but to a believer is exempt from study as god given and inexplicable by normal means. It's a silly exceptionalism that science just shrugs at and goes on to explain. Tangle writes: I don't question that morality is spread naturally. We, I think, have agreed that there is a universal sense of morality. The question is then, did that sense of morality exist prior to there being sentient life and is external to it. What is it that you think is so special, so different about morality to excludes it from scientific study? What is it that's missing from explanations you've seen so far? As far as I can understand it's something to do with the cultural transmission of moral norms - what you keep calling memes. I don't see any problem there at all. My theistic, subjective belief is that their is a moral agency that is responsible for our sense of morality. I also subjectively believe that that moral agency influences us to respond positively to that sense of morality but has allowed us the free will to totally reject it. I'm not questioning the science but I do add subjective, non-scientific beliefs to it.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Tangle writes: That's what science is. It takes a simple anecdotal observation and tests it. Does it always rain? How often? Does it work for every season in every continent? Can we predict it? Can we build it into other observations and begin to build a general weather model? OK. Here is the dictionary definition of science.
quote: Hmmm. It turns out that you are right and I am wrong. Who would ever have seen that coming.
Tangle writes: I'm not really sure why you feel the need to be so patronizing, but if that is what you need to get through your day then so be it. Yeh well, if that's what you need to get you through your day, there's not much else I can say other than it's just plain silly. That is my belief which is also held by millions which of course does not make it true, but maybe not silly.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Tangle writes: Accepted
Fair enough, I apologise. Tangle writes: Even here in the UK where religion is a minority and dying pastime the bloody stuff is everywhere. Every village has a church - often more - we have non-elected bishops in our Parliament, the BB C broadcasts a mass every day and we have JWs banging on our doors and hanging around town proclaiming the 'good news'. The propaganda is everywhere and it annoys the hell out of me. Firstly I agree with you about Bishops in your parliament. However as far as the rest of it goes you should try looking at it from the other side. Everywhere we are bombarded with advertisements with messages promoting self centeredness and greed. Our entertainment in virtually all cases includes blasphemy and portrays life styles built on the belief that happiness or contentment comes from wealth, pride and personal influence or power, as something highly desirable. We essentially worship entertainment figures as being successful, and models for what we should all want and totally disregard their morality. It is interesting that many of these very human gods have found that when they have achieved all this human success of money and fame they are far less happy or content than they had been before. Still, we still hold up that human success as being highly desirable. I am bombarded with all of that every time I turn around. The propaganda is far more pervasive that what you deal with. Personally I’m not annoyed with the way things are, just sad, and I worry about the world my descendants will live in. Frankly, I don’t think that you have a lot to complain about.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024