Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Morality or Obedience?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
    Yes, I think we may have to disagree. I believe that ultimately, as human beings, we all value the same thing, such as life, liberty and happiness. Whatever the moral system is that ultimately best serves that purpose for human society as a whole would incorporate the "universal best" moral code. Morals aren't just about what we value as individuals, they're about how we incorporate those values in a way that serves us best as a society.
    Then disagree we shall have to. You appear to be attempting to take your definition of "best" and impose it on all of us. It doesn't work that way. And we DON'T all value the same things, as I noted. So your insistence that we do appears to me to simply be turning a blind eye to the reality to put forward a case.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      That does not make sense Carp, you said the whole body was GOVERNEDby genetics. That would include the brain.
      Note sure why you find it nonsensical. Yes, the physical structure of the brain is coded by genetics.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      So all our physical parts are governed by genetics. So what exactly it is that is not so governed by genetics, what is this non-physical thing that has some modicum of freedom?
      Brain "pathways." We know that the structure of neurons is dictated by genetics, as is their arrangement in the brain. But we also know that the synapses between neurons are dynamic. As we learn (i.e., sense, experience, etc.), the neurons forge new synaptic pathways in response to that learning process. The specific pathways are dictated by experience, not genetics. Genetics codes the ability to forge pathways, not the specific pathways forged.

      If I use the hardware/software analogy, that suggests the neurons are the hardware, and the synaptic pathways are the software.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      I was more dealing with this: Tass' claimed that our belief in the Divine is merely or only the result of evolutionary processes is not a scientific claim, but a metaphysical one. He can not demonstrate that scientifically.
      AFAIK, religious beliefs are no different than any other thoughts/reasoning. Our ability to have those beliefs is built into the machinery of our brains (hardware). Whether or not we actually have religious beliefs is a function of our experiences. Because we have had religious beliefs for most of our existence, is it possible that the brain has evolved in such a way as to make religious beliefs more likely? There has certianly been some suggestion that our brains are actually designed to make that kind of belief more likely. That being said, most of that is in the popular press and I have not seen formal, peer-reviewed studies on it, so I do not know the answer to that.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      And BTW - a self-programmed machine is still a machine...
      Yes it is - and we are indeed a biological (i.e., electrochemical) machine. I have no issue with that whatsoever. I'm not sure why it matters to you...?
      Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-13-2018, 06:56 PM.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        Then disagree we shall have to. You appear to be attempting to take your definition of "best" and impose it on all of us. It doesn't work that way. And we DON'T all value the same things, as I noted. So your insistence that we do appears to me to simply be turning a blind eye to the reality to put forward a case.
        No, I'm not trying to impose my definition of "best" on everyone. I'm probably not articulating my position very clearly and you're probably just misunderstanding. We do all value the same fundamental things. We all value life/survival, we all value freedom, we all value happiness. I don't know what values you're talking about that we differ on, but I doubt that they're fundamental.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
          No, I'm not trying to impose my definition of "best" on everyone. I'm probably not articulating my position very clearly and you're probably just misunderstanding. We do all value the same fundamental things. We all value life/survival, we all value freedom, we all value happiness. I don't know what values you're talking about that we differ on, but I doubt that they're fundamental.
          As I noted, Jim, we don't necessarily even value these things the same. I know many who would agree with Patrick Henry's "give me liberty or give me death." I know many who would prefer to live in bondage than die. I know some who believe happiness is the greatest thing and without it, life and liberty are meaningless. I know others who would accept a life of strife and unhappiness to preserve their liberty or their life. Even on these three basic things, we do not all think or agree on the order in which they should be valued, never mind other things like prosperity, health, etc. The moral code that results from these differences will likewise differ. Someone who values life above liberty will arrive at a moral code that is (at least somewhat) different form someone who values liberty above life.

          Yet you seem to believe that there is one, objectively real "best" moral code that ignores all of these realities. Your have rejected religion, but (IMO) you have not fully accepted the ramifications of that, and seem to be trying to cling to some of its claims. Instead of a god dictating what is objectively moral - you're trying to relocate that to "society." I suggest you just let it go. Morality is a subjective exercise. The moral code expressed by a society is nothing more or less than the subjective elements of morality it's individuals hold in common. That best describes what we see happening all around us.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            I had no idea he subscribed to strict determinism. I always found that position a bit odd.
            "He" doesn't subscribe to strict determinism as seer knows full well, and I would be glad if he didn't speak on my behalf. I'm a compatibilist in the tradition of Dan Dennett,, although one must acknowledge that our decisions are largely shaped and formed by unconscious processes from inputs and memory function etc.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              As I noted, Jim, we don't necessarily even value these things the same. I know many who would agree with Patrick Henry's "give me liberty or give me death." I know many who would prefer to live in bondage than die. I know some who believe happiness is the greatest thing and without it, life and liberty are meaningless. I know others who would accept a life of strife and unhappiness to preserve their liberty or their life. Even on these three basic things, we do not all think or agree on the order in which they should be valued, never mind other things like prosperity, health, etc. The moral code that results from these differences will likewise differ. Someone who values life above liberty will arrive at a moral code that is (at least somewhat) different form someone who values liberty above life.

              Yet you seem to believe that there is one, objectively real "best" moral code that ignores all of these realities. Your have rejected religion, but (IMO) you have not fully accepted the ramifications of that, and seem to be trying to cling to some of its claims. Instead of a god dictating what is objectively moral - you're trying to relocate that to "society." I suggest you just let it go. Morality is a subjective exercise. The moral code expressed by a society is nothing more or less than the subjective elements of morality it's individuals hold in common. That best describes what we see happening all around us.
              Well again, you're misunderstanding. The fact is that we all value life, the fact is that we all value freedom, the fact is that we all value happiness, the fact is that we all have these same fundamental values in common, and the order in which we value them is irrelevant. People, as you have suggested, do not value death, people do not value bondage. They may prefer them to the alternative they may be living with, but they don't value them. So you're confusing those things with what people fundamentally value. A moral system that allows for the greatest survival, the most freedom, the greatest happiness is what I'm talking about. In other words a moral system that serves human society best in the allowance of those things that we all as individual members thereof fundamentally value.
              And by the way, it isn't my idea of what is best, or that I am trying to impose what I think is best on everyone else, the best moral system would have nothing to do with what I think, or what you or anybody else thinks, because morals are not about individuals, they are about communities, and what is in the best interests of those communities as a whole.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                Then here we disagree. Evolution has given rise to many characteristics. That both "instinct" and "reasoning" are the product of evolution does not make them equivalent. They are orders of magnitude separated. Not differentating them is (to me) like not differentiating between a tricycle and a lamborghini because they both have wheels and can move you from Point A to Point B.
                To devise a working morality I think that it has to closely align with our natural instincts, if it does not, it won't work. I don't believe a society can be forced to behave against its natural urges and instincts. And, from infancy onward, we are inculcated in community values by family and the society at large. These values include mutual reciprocity and the importance of overriding our selfish instincts in favour of community cohesion.

                Oh I wasn't suggesting the cockroaches would be intelligent.
                I know. I was being tongue-in-cheek.

                I was suggesting that it could well be that sentience itself only gives a species a short-term survival advantage, but the species will inevitably die out in a fog of its own self-centeredness. If cockroaches gained sentience - they would basically do the same thing.
                Maybe cockroaches and the like are the optimum life form for the planet (and universe) given their ability to survive. OTOH sentient creatures are on the verge of creating artificially intelligent entities that may well spread into the universe and achieve wondrous things over tens of millions of years.
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  Brain "pathways." We know that the structure of neurons is dictated by genetics, as is their arrangement in the brain. But we also know that the synapses between neurons are dynamic. As we learn (i.e., sense, experience, etc.), the neurons forge new synaptic pathways in response to that learning process. The specific pathways are dictated by experience, not genetics. Genetics codes the ability to forge pathways, not the specific pathways forged.

                  If I use the hardware/software analogy, that suggests the neurons are the hardware, and the synaptic pathways are the software.
                  I still don't see any freedom in software. Like we have a choice on how we process or react to experience. It is still turtles all the way down...

                  AFAIK, religious beliefs are no different than any other thoughts/reasoning. Our ability to have those beliefs is built into the machinery of our brains (hardware). Whether or not we actually have religious beliefs is a function of our experiences. Because we have had religious beliefs for most of our existence, is it possible that the brain has evolved in such a way as to make religious beliefs more likely? There has certianly been some suggestion that our brains are actually designed to make that kind of belief more likely. That being said, most of that is in the popular press and I have not seen formal, peer-reviewed studies on it, so I do not know the answer to that.
                  Designed to make that kind of belief more likely? Bingo!

                  Yes it is - and we are indeed a biological (i.e., electrochemical) machine. I have no issue with that whatsoever. I'm not sure why it matters to you...?
                  And where do machines have freedom of the will?
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    "He" doesn't subscribe to strict determinism as seer knows full well, and I would be glad if he didn't speak on my behalf. I'm a compatibilist in the tradition of Dan Dennett,, although one must acknowledge that our decisions are largely shaped and formed by unconscious processes from inputs and memory function etc.
                    Oh please Tass, you keep changing your position. A year ago you did not agree with Dennett, you were on the fence, before that you were a strict determinist. Fine, you changed, that is progress. But Dennett does not believe in free will as classically defined: the ability to do otherwise. All the compatibilists have done was to redefine free will.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      OTOH sentient creatures are on the verge of creating artificially intelligent entities that may well spread into the universe and achieve wondrous things over tens of millions of years.
                      If this after they kill all of us?

                      Stephen Hawking says A.I. could be 'worst event in the history of our civilization'

                      https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/06/step...ilization.html
                      R.I.P. Mr Hawking...
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        To devise a working morality I think that it has to closely align with our natural instincts, if it does not, it won't work. I don't believe a society can be forced to behave against its natural urges and instincts. And, from infancy onward, we are inculcated in community values by family and the society at large. These values include mutual reciprocity and the importance of overriding our selfish instincts in favour of community cohesion.
                        This statement makes no sense. You say that a working morality must align with our natural instincts, then you turn around and say we must override one of our most powerful natural instincts - selfishness...
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          Well again, you're misunderstanding. The fact is that we all value life, the fact is that we all value freedom, the fact is that we all value happiness, the fact is that we all have these same fundamental values in common, and the order in which we value them is irrelevant.
                          No - it's not. That's where we disagree. You are trying to arrive at a generic "best" for all of a society. If we don't value these things equally - we will disagree on what is "best" for society. You cannot arrive at a subjective "best" when there is not agreement on how "best" is measured.

                          Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          People, as you have suggested, do not value death, people do not value bondage. They may prefer them to the alternative they may be living with, but they don't value them. So you're confusing those things with what people fundamentally value. A moral system that allows for the greatest survival, the most freedom, the greatest happiness is what I'm talking about. In other words a moral system that serves human society best in the allowance of those things that we all as individual members thereof fundamentally value.

                          And by the way, it isn't my idea of what is best, or that I am trying to impose what I think is best on everyone else, the best moral system would have nothing to do with what I think, or what you or anybody else thinks, because morals are not about individuals, they are about communities, and what is in the best interests of those communities as a whole.
                          Except your basis for this "best" is a subjective basis. You can't get to objective by accumulating subjective. It just doesn't work.

                          Forget morality. Think "cars." What you are trying to do is say that there is an objectively "best" car that is independent of what people think/feel. Except "best" has to be quantified. Is it the Fastest? Largest? Least maintenance? Best Safety? You're trying to say it is possible to arrive as an objective "best" that is independent of what anyone thinks, except without a universally agreed upon metric, that's not even possible.

                          The same applies for morality.
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            To devise a working morality I think that it has to closely align with our natural instincts, if it does not, it won't work.
                            I have to think about this - but at first glance I would agree, though I'm not sure I'm comfortable with "devise."

                            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            I don't believe a society can be forced to behave against its natural urges and instincts. And, from infancy onward, we are inculcated in community values by family and the society at large. These values include mutual reciprocity and the importance of overriding our selfish instincts in favour of community cohesion.
                            Yes - to a degree. But you just reversed yourself, didn't you?

                            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            I know. I was being tongue-in-cheek.

                            Maybe cockroaches and the like are the optimum life form for the planet (and universe) given their ability to survive. OTOH sentient creatures are on the verge of creating artificially intelligent entities that may well spread into the universe and achieve wondrous things over tens of millions of years.
                            Indeed - an AI sentience, if fears about the so-called "singularity" are valid, way well displace biological sentience completely.
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              I still don't see any freedom in software. Like we have a choice on how we process or react to experience. It is still turtles all the way down...
                              You are assuming. That is not necessarily so. A hardware that can dynamically adapt to its software could have properties we cannot begin to fathom. This is the world of "emergent properties." We know it's real - but we don't understand what makes it happen.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Designed to make that kind of belief more likely? Bingo!
                              Yeah - I figured you'd jump on that, but I elected to leave it. The fact is, evolution produces design. It produces pattern/order. "Design" does not mean that there has to be a sentient force behind it. If religious beliefs provide an advantage for survival (e.g., less killing, less death, less stress, etc.), and there is anything about the physuical structure of the brain that influences the development of such beliefs, then the brain will evolve in a way to make those beliefs more likely. We don't know that to be the fact, but it is how evolution works - so it is a possibility.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              And where do machines have freedom of the will?
                              Well - I am a biological machine who has freedom of will - so I am an example, as are you. We have examples of freedom of will (to lesser degrees) in other species, until we reach these level of animal that functions completely on instinct. There are no artificial machines (i.e,, built by a sentience) that exhibit this capability - yet. But then again, the machines we have built are orders of magnitude less complex than any living organism. We've only been building machines for a few millenia, and only built "intelligent" machines for a few decades.
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                You are assuming. That is not necessarily so. A hardware that can dynamically adapt to its software could have properties we cannot begin to fathom. This is the world of "emergent properties." We know it's real - but we don't understand what makes it happen.
                                If the studies I mentioned, like the Libet and Haynes studies hold, then the physical brain drives it all, the decision is made before we are conscious of it. Our thoughts become epiphenomenal, we no causal effect on the decision making process.


                                Yeah - I figured you'd jump on that, but I elected to leave it.
                                Aren't you precious...

                                The fact is, evolution produces design. It produces pattern/order. "Design" does not mean that there has to be a sentient force behind it. If religious beliefs provide an advantage for survival (e.g., less killing, less death, less stress, etc.), and there is anything about the physuical structure of the brain that influences the development of such beliefs, then the brain will evolve in a way to make those beliefs more likely. We don't know that to be the fact, but it is how evolution works - so it is a possibility.
                                Yes, but my point with Tass was that this cannot be demonstrated scientifically, it is not a theory that can be falsified.


                                Well - I am a biological machine who has freedom of will - so I am an example, as are you. We have examples of freedom of will (to lesser degrees) in other species, until we reach these level of animal that functions completely on instinct. There are no artificial machines (i.e,, built by a sentience) that exhibit this capability - yet. But then again, the machines we have built are orders of magnitude less complex than any living organism. We've only been building machines for a few millenia, and only built "intelligent" machines for a few decades.
                                But you are assuming that you actually have free will, but as one of the links I posted said, this may simply be a trick of the brain.
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                414 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X