Where Do Moral Questions Stop?

[Tassman]

Tass, I was answering crepuscule who said that free will was compatible with materialism. Obviously you disagree with him.

The illusion of free-will is compatible with materialism; we have this illusion in common with all the higher animals. But if you think it is actual free will you need to say where in the evolutionary tree it developed and whether it developed in other creatures as well…and how do you know?

http://amiquote.tumblr.com/post/2318...ople-have-free

And yes, Tass I do believe that men are different than animals - I am a dualist after all.

What evidence do you have that men are anything more than intelligent primates?

[The Pixie]

Really? How do you, a product of nature alone, get outside of nature?

By thinking. Mathematics can think about abstract ideas that exist outside nature, science fiction writers can imagine worlds that exist outside of nature.

Why would you believe that a natural brain can only imagine what already exists in nature?

You are programmed by the forces of nature to think as you do. Nothing escapes the Matrix, including what you think or believe is moral.

Is this you once again telling atheists what atheists believe? Because this atheist certainly does not believe that, and I doubt any do.

They don't believe what?

What you typed above.

That you are predetermined by the forces of nature to think and act as you do? Tass, believes that and he is an atheist.

Apparently no, you do not remember what you typed just twenty one minutes earlier! I suspect this is why Jichard has that particular opinion of you seer. You are happy to chop and change your argument on a post-by-post basis.

Now can you explain why you think atheists think atheists believe that what is moral is based on what is moral in nature, in the lions killing gazelles sense?

Can you point to any post Tassman has made that indicates he gets his morality from lions killing gazelles or similar?

I think you can find evidence that Tassman believes everything is in nature, sure. But then you have made a leap into the unknown, and supposed that atheist morality must come from the morality observed in nature, from lions killing gazelles and so forth. And that is just not true.

Personally I do not think you are being dishonest here, but you are being obtuse and stubborn.

[seer]

The illusion of free-will is compatible with materialism; we have this illusion in common with all the higher animals. But if you think it is actual free will you need to say where in the evolutionary tree it developed and whether it developed in other creatures as well…and how do you know?

Right the illusion of free-will, but that was not what crepuscule was claiming.

[Tassman]

Right the illusion of free-will, but that was not what crepuscule was claiming.

It’s what I’m claiming. If you think otherwise, namely that human’s alone have actual free will, as opposed to any other creature; you need to say where in the evolutionary tree it developed and why it didn’t develop in other creatures.

http://amiquote.tumblr.com/post/2318...ople-have-free

Also, I’m waiting for you to say what evidence you have that men are anything more than intelligent primates?

[seer]

I think you can find evidence that Tassman believes everything is in nature, sure. But then you have made a leap into the unknown, and supposed that atheist morality must come from the morality observed in nature, from lions killing gazelles and so forth. And that is just not true.

Personally I do not think you are being dishonest here, but you are being obtuse and stubborn.

Of course morality comes from nature. Tass has claimed this time after time. That we are altruistic, like what we see in the higher primates. Or that we cooperate because we are genetically disposed to cooperate. If we are really predetermined by the forces of nature to think and act as we do then it is nature that dictates our moral sense and conclusions. All our ethical reasoning comes from observing nature because we are nature, we observe ourselves, there is nothing else.

[seer]

It’s what I’m claiming. If you think otherwise, namely that human’s alone have actual free will, as opposed to any other creature; you need to say where in the evolutionary tree it developed and why it didn’t develop in other creatures.

No Tass, ask crepuscule what he means. He is the one who said that materialism was compatible with free will.

[The Pixie]

Of course morality comes from nature. Tass has claimed this time after time. That we are altruistic, like what we see in the higher primates. Or that we cooperate because we are genetically disposed to cooperate. If we are really predetermined by the forces of nature to think and act as we do then it is nature that dictates our moral sense and conclusions. All our ethical reasoning comes from observing nature because we are nature, we observe ourselves, there is nothing else.

You are confusing two different things.

Tass claims, as do other atheists, that we get our morality from thought processes that occur in the natural world. Those thought processes are in part a result of our evolutionary heritage, but over thousands of years our morality has changed. Nowadays we can do all sorts of things that evolution did not give us, such as travelling at high speed, communicating over huge distances, flying, etc.

We have also adopted a better morality. Nowadays we think slavery is wrong, we think wiping out another people to grab their land is wrong. We believe these things because we are capable of thinking outside of our nature.

He is not, as far as I know, claiming that we get our morality by observing the morality of nature. If you continue to assert that he does without providing any supporting evidence then I will reluctantly have to agree with Jichard's assessment of you.

[The Pixie]

Tassman, I would appreciate it if you could confirm or deny you hold to the bit in bold:

Of course morality comes from nature. Tass has claimed this time after time. That we are altruistic, like what we see in the higher primates. Or that we cooperate because we are genetically disposed to cooperate. If we are really predetermined by the forces of nature to think and act as we do then it is nature that dictates our moral sense and conclusions. All our ethical reasoning comes from observing nature because we are nature, we observe ourselves, there is nothing else.

[seer]

We have also adopted a better morality. Nowadays we think slavery is wrong, we think wiping out another people to grab their land is wrong. We believe these things because we are capable of thinking outside of our nature.

He is not, as far as I know, claiming that we get our morality by observing the morality of nature. If you continue to assert that he does without providing any supporting evidence then I will reluctantly have to agree with Jichard's assessment of you.

To be clear Pixie I did not say that we got our morality from observing nature (you added the observing part), but that our moral sense comes from nature alone. That all our behaviors are perfectly natural whether they be kind or cruel, selfish or not. And when I asked how we jump out of this Matrix you said by thinking - but that tells me nothing. The Nazi, the Maoist, the Stalinist or Jihadist have their moral reasoning too. Their thinking leads them to different ethical conclusions. But their acts are in keeping with their biological nature. So your moral sense is dictated by your predetermined biological nature, and you conclusions are no more correct or valid than the Stalinist. And there is no "better" morality because there is no objective standard by which to judge. There is only change and survival.

[seer]

Tassman, I would appreciate it if you could confirm or deny you hold to the bit in bold:

I did not mean that Tass agreed with the observing part, that is something you introduced and I was trying to work with, but I believe Tass will agree with the rest:

Of course morality comes from nature. Tass has claimed this time after time. That we are altruistic, like what we see in the higher primates. Or that we cooperate because we are genetically disposed to cooperate. If we are really predetermined by the forces of nature to think and act as we do then it is nature that dictates our moral sense and conclusions.

[crepuscule]

I see it as the same. God may have created me, but is no more the first cause of my movement than I am the first cause of my son's movement. Assuming genuine freedom of the will.

Ah, but as said earlier I think this is a problem for the theist. God, if He exists, is by definition the first cause of everything that begins to exist, and therefore of moving the glass, and therefore you or your son are not the first cause.

What do you mean it does not imply cause and effect?

It means materialism being true in itself does not necessarily mean the laws of causation are true.

Do you disagree with Dawkins here:

https://edge.org/response-detail/11416

Or with Sam Harris that free will is an illusion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmO5uwzFg0M

First, atheists may vary in their ideas or worldview (except of course in their disbelief in God, which they share by definition) as much as, well, theists. That aside, I agree partly with Dawkins, especially when he says “our brains are governed by the laws of physics”, but the thing is we don’t know all those laws, only approximations.

Harris makes a good point, and I certainly agree that we may not have freedom of choice to the extent, if any at all, that many believe we do.

[seer]

Ah, but as said earlier I think this is a problem for the theist. God, if He exists, is by definition the first cause of everything that begins to exist, and therefore of moving the glass, and therefore you or your son are not the first cause.

No that does not follow, if we have genuine freedom of the will then we can do what God did not design us to do. Or desires us to do.

It means materialism being true in itself does not necessarily mean the laws of causation are true

.

So you don't believe in cause and effect?

First, atheists may vary in their ideas or worldview (except of course in their disbelief in God, which they share by definition) as much as, well, theists. That aside, I agree partly with Dawkins, especially when he says “our brains are governed by the laws of physics”, but the thing is we don’t know all those laws, only approximations.

Harris makes a good point, and I certainly agree that we may not have freedom of choice to the extent, if any at all, that many believe we do.

In any case neither Dawkins nor Harris, based on the materialistic nature of the universe, believe that freedom of the will is possible.

[crepuscule]

No that does not follow, if we have genuine freedom of the will then we can do what God did not design us to do. Or desires us to do.

But it does follow, regardless of free will existing or not. If you think it does exist, then this:

If 'genuine freedom of the will' exists, then there are at least 7 billion (i.e. all humans) first causes for our actions.
If there are 7 billion first causes, then there is not only one first cause for everything that begins to exist.
If there is not one single first cause for everything that begins to exist, then there is no God.

So you don't believe in cause and effect?

Of course I do. How on earth did you get that I don't? I suppose reading is an art.

It's determinism I have serious doubts about.

[seer]

But it does follow, regardless of free will existing or not. If you think it does exist, then this:

If 'genuine freedom of the will' exists, then there are at least 7 billion (i.e. all humans) first causes for our actions.
If there are 7 billion first causes, then there is not only one first cause for everything that begins to exist.
If there is not one single first cause for everything that begins to exist, then there is no God.

Then I have no idea what your point is. God is the Creator of everything, but not the cause of our choices.

Of course I do. How on earth did you get that I don't? I suppose reading is an art.

It's determinism I have serious doubts about.

Well according to Harris and Dawkins it is the material nature of the universe that precludes genuine freedom. The long chain of cause and effect.

[Tassman]

Tassman, I would appreciate it if you could confirm or deny you hold to the bit in bold:

I hold to our ethical reasoning coming from nature, both in our observation of it plus our evolved predisposition as a social species towards reciprocal altruism and response to the social rules of the group.

I did not mean that Tass agreed with the observing part, that is something you introduced and I was trying to work with, but I believe Tass will agree with the rest:

Of course morality comes from nature. Tass has claimed this time after time. That we are altruistic, like what we see in the higher primates. Or that we cooperate because we are genetically disposed to cooperate. If we are really predetermined by the forces of nature to think and act as we do then it is nature that dictates our moral sense and conclusions.

No I don't agree with the bolded, this is a typical misrepresentation...we don't live in a fatalist universe. Being predisposed towards cooperative behaviour doesn't mean we have no choice as to whether or not we comply.