If There Is No God

[David Sklansky]

then we are using our consciousness and our ability to reason to further animalistic goals. To alter the chemistry in our brain to give us more pleasure. Just like chimpanzees would if they were bred to become smarter and were surgically given voiceboxes.

When we don't murder in situations where we could gain from it, it is either because our well developed brains realize that in the long run we will get less, rather than more chemical pleasure due to the possibility of getting caught, or because there is instant chemical displeasure in the form of disgust, that was a product of molecular evolution in the past, where those who lacked this disgust did not pass on their genes. Period

Or there is God. An unlikely but not out of the question alternative.

Not Ready has this nailed. Why he then screws it all up by insisting that the god in question is so narrowly and precisely defined that the vast majority of even highly religous scholarly monotheists say he is in error, is beyond me.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
then we are using our consciousness and our ability to reason to further animalistic goals. To alter the chemistry in our brain to give us more pleasure. Just like chimpanzees would if they were bred to become smarter and were surgically given voiceboxes.

When we don't murder in situations where we could gain from it, it is either because our well developed brains realize that in the long run we will get less, rather than more chemical pleasure due to the possibility of getting caught, or because there is instant chemical displeasure in the form of disgust, that was a product of molecular evolution in the past, where those who lacked this disgust did not pass on their genes. Period

Or there is God. An unlikely but not out of the question alternative.

Not Ready has this nailed. Why he then screws it all up by insisting that the god in question is so narrowly and precisely defined that the vast majority of even highly religous scholarly monotheists say he is in error, is beyond me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, where NotReady has it screwed up is in thinking that because morality is evolved it doesn't matter what we do.

It matters a great deal, and the fact that one day we will all be dead and forgotten doesn't matter.

chez

[tolbiny]

" it is either because our well developed brains realize that in the long run we will get less"

I agree for the most part, but you use weighted words like "realize" which could easily become contentious.

I believe that I have no right to take away the liberty or life of another unless they severely threaten my own life or liberty. I choose to live by this belief. It is not based on utility, but is partly based on that 'disgust' you mention. However, the choice itself, and the will behind it, do not come from disgust or pleasure.

Explain it to me via your model please.

Aside - your chemical pleasure model does not adequately explain the existence of a strong will, or choices based on will.

[eOXevious]

[ QUOTE ]
the god in question is so narrowly and precisely defined

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't beleive God can be defined or explained, and that's why so many people who need scientific evidence for God fail to look down other roads of possibility, and is why science is corrupt and instead of science asking questions, and getting answers, they only make answers and fit them to questions.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the god in question is so narrowly and precisely defined

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't beleive God can be defined or explained, and that's why so many people who need scientific evidence for God fail to look down other roads of possibility, and is why science is corrupt and instead of science asking questions, and getting answers, they only make answers and fit them to questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

How schooled are you on the scientific method??

[RJT]

Can we make this post a sticky? It really will save a lot of bantering. (Although, maybe 2+2 makes more $$ the more action the forums gets. – The more posts, the better the site looks to advertisers and therefore more revenue. – So, ok, no sticky, but I am going to save the link to this post for my future reference.) Thank you, David. Good post.

RJT

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the god in question is so narrowly and precisely defined

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't beleive God can be defined or explained, and that's why so many people who need scientific evidence for God fail to look down other roads of possibility, and is why science is corrupt and instead of science asking questions, and getting answers, they only make answers and fit them to questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

So science is corrupt? What about religion where the words of a few powerfull members not only hold massive weight but are backed by the "divine rightness" of their words?

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
...and is why science is corrupt and instead of science asking questions, and getting answers, they only make answers and fit them to questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please elaborate.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree with the spirit of the first two paragraphs but possibly not the details. Did a text search for guilt and found disgust instead.

[ QUOTE ]
Or there is God.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where you loose it.

The reason people don’t murder or do crimes is due to reasons related to those of the first two paragraphs independent of God’s existence

This includes people who believe fully in God existence.

Even if a few of the God believers are actually correct in their claim that the reason that they do not commit crimes is because of their belief in God, this does apply that the existence of God has any bearing on their refusal to commit crimes, it is just their belief (and consequence thereof) that prevents them.

If God existed, people who believe in God would still believe in a god even if God did not exist.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
When we don't murder in situations where we could gain from it, it is either because our well developed brains realize that in the long run we will get less, rather than more chemical pleasure due to the possibility of getting caught, or because there is instant chemical displeasure in the form of disgust, that was a product of molecular evolution in the past, where those who lacked this disgust did not pass on their genes. Period

[/ QUOTE ]

My antenna twitch when I see "either-or" especially in complex situations. Here, I see no reason to exclude "either AB and/or C". Even then I don't think AB here includes all the non-theist explanations and more specifically I don't think it contains the better non-theist explanations. Further, I don't see why if the AB suggestions are falsified that C becomes true.

I'd add "or some process along these lines" to the AB concepts above and put and/or before the existance of god choice. The important point is that the existance of morality doesn't add or detract from the argument for the existance of god.

That said, I'm a fan of either-or approaches as a method of simplifying a tough topic, to tease apart some attributes, but at the end of that excerise it is necessary to reassemble the complex whole.

luckyme ...
..if I thought I was wrong I'd change my mind

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
When we don't murder in situations where we could gain from it, it is either because our well developed brains realize that in the long run we will get less, rather than more chemical pleasure due to the possibility of getting caught, or because there is instant chemical displeasure in the form of disgust, that was a product of molecular evolution in the past, where those who lacked this disgust did not pass on their genes. Period

[/ QUOTE ]

There is also the possibility that some humans actually have the capacity for genuine empathy, and weigh their empathy against their projected personal gain in some situations, even if they happen to be quite certain they would not get caught. This empathy does not HAVE to be genetically/chemically produced, nor do they HAVE to be looking to greater personbal gain in the future. It is possible they simply don't view inflicting great harm upon another for most forms of gain as being something they think is OK.

[ QUOTE ]
Or there is God. An unlikely but not out of the question alternative.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe there is God; but there does not have to be a God to explain the existence of higher levels of feeling towards others, or that some humans may have a way of looking at things that goes beyond the evaluation of purely personal gain. Nor does this necessarily have to be a result of chemical displeasure and molecular genetic heredity such as you mention.

Why can't there be higher levels of spirituality even without God? And why cannot some attain to such higher levels as a natural progression, just as some attain to higher levels of intellectual powers? Do we say the existence of God is a necessary prerequisite for higher levels of intelligence? No? Then why should God be a necessary prerequisite for higher levels of spirituality, compassion, etc.?

I think you may have have oversimplified things by not taking into account all possibilities.

Also, sorry I am late getting into some of these topics, but I dispute the assertion that God is necessary for absolute morality. Note; I'm not asserting that absolute morality necessarily exists, but if it does it should not HAVE to be hinged upon whether God exists. Apparently NotReady convinced you that it must so hinge, but I've argued about this in another forum some time ago and remain wholly unconvinced. A quick counterexample: math exists with or without God, so why *couldn't* an independent framework of morality exist with or without God? One can argue that much math is provable and morality is not, but that doesn't invalidate the possibility of a morality framework. Something like individual needs/gain weighed against detriment to others: a sort of sliding-scale prisoner's dilemma sort of structure might be part of it. Under such a framework, seeking comparatively little personal gain at comparatively great cost to others could be considered immoral.

In order not to hijack this thread, if you or NotReady would care to refer me to a particular "conclusive" or "summary" post which encapsulated the argument as to why absolute morality must hinge upon God, that would be welcome.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
There is also the possibility that some humans actually have the capacity for genuine empathy, and weigh their empathy against their projected personal gain in some situations, even if they happen to be quite certain they would not get caught.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just going to say something similar. Isn't that the only possibility?

If I don't do something because of some calculation about my best interest, or because it disgusts me, then that isn't moral at all, its just rational selfishness.

Morality is about not harming others because you don't want them to be harmed.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, sorry I am late getting into some of these topics, but I dispute the assertion that God is necessary for absolute morality. Note; I'm not asserting that absolute morality necessarily exists, but if it does it should not HAVE to be hinged upon whether God exists. Apparently NotReady convinced you that it must so hinge, but I've argued about this in another forum some time ago and remain wholly unconvinced. A quick counterexample: math exists with or without God, so why *couldn't* an independent framework of morality exist with or without God?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been trying to argue that as well. People are so bound up with the idea that in the end nothing matters that they don't see there could be absolute morality as well.

All the 'in the end nothing matters' argument means is that if even if there is an absolute morality then in the end it doesn't matter whether you are moral or not.

chez

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
molecular evolution

[/ QUOTE ]

How about just "evolution"??
"Molecular" evolution is a tool, not the process.

Sorry, bored at work.

[Lestat]

<font color="red">When we don't murder in situations where we could gain from it, it is either because our well developed brains realize that in the long run we will get less, rather than more chemical pleasure due to the possibility of getting caught, or because there is instant chemical displeasure in the form of disgust, that was a product of molecular evolution in the past, where those who lacked this disgust did not pass on their genes. Period </font>

You make no mention of pity. Unlike animals, human being have developed the capacity to take pity on other living things. This is neither pleasure nor disgust.

I think you're ok if you substitute "pain" for "disgust". I am of the belief that ALL motivation is derived either from the desire to gain some sort of pleasure, or the need to avoid some type of pain. Either real or perceived.

[Lestat]

I should have read this before making my reply. I agree. Humans are able to avoid murder even in the face of tremendous gain, not because of disgust, and not because of God. But because we are able to take pity on a would-be victim if you will.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I should have read this before making my reply. I agree. Humans are able to avoid murder even in the face of trendous gain, not because of God, and because of disgust, but because we are able to take pity on a would-be victim if you will.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think its more than pity. We have the capacity to want others to be well/happy.

chez

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I should have read this before making my reply. I agree. Humans are able to avoid murder even in the face of trendous gain, not because of God, and because of disgust, but because we are able to take pity on a would-be victim if you will.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think its more than pity. We have the capacity to want others to be well/happy.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. I don't know. I would go to far greater lengths in order to prevent someone's suffering than I ever would to make sure they were well or happy.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I should have read this before making my reply. I agree. Humans are able to avoid murder even in the face of trendous gain, not because of God, and because of disgust, but because we are able to take pity on a would-be victim if you will.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think its more than pity. We have the capacity to want others to be well/happy.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. I don't know. I would go to far greater lengths in order to prevent someone's suffering than I ever would to make sure they were well or happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe, but the point is that you would go to some lengths to make people well/happy. The more you care about the people the greater lengths you will go to.

chez

[Cooker]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that I have no right to take away the liberty or life of another unless they severely threaten my own life or liberty. I choose to live by this belief. It is not based on utility, but is partly based on that 'disgust' you mention. However, the choice itself, and the will behind it, do not come from disgust or pleasure.

Explain it to me via your model please.

Aside - your chemical pleasure model does not adequately explain the existence of a strong will, or choices based on will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your "belief" appears to be the disgust that comes from evolution in David's theory. If you have the disgust and no ability to overcome it, then you have no will. Just because you call it a choice doesn't make it so. If you are mentaly incapable of doing something, how can that be a choice? Have you ever felt neutral on the point of killing people to benefit yourself? (I suspect you will say no) Then you never really even considered the possibilities, so how can you say you made a choice? You have likely never made a choice that killing people was wrong. You have likely always believed that (or were indoctrinated at such a young age that you don't remember when the belief was forced upon you). I contend you are incapable of overcoming the disgust and have no choice at all in the matter. I am the same way, but I try to be honest with myself about it. I think free will probably doesn't exist. At the end of the day, you are doing something because you just feel like it is the best thing and this is not a choice.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
but I dispute the assertion that God is necessary for absolute morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely.

They tend to just get linked because people who believe in absolute morality typically believe in God as well.

[purnell]

It seems to me that empathy or pity or whatever works both ways. If I can feel pain because of another's suffering, I can also feel pleasure because of another's joy.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
Just like chimpanzees would if they were bred to become smarter and were surgically given voiceboxes.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the best statements on this board since I've been here.

See what happens when you mix a Stargate SG-1 marathon with mesculin? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that empathy or pity or whatever works both ways. If I can feel pain because of another's suffering, I can also feel pleasure because of another's joy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Its the idea that caring about others is purely a negative thing that is wrong i.e. that we are moral because we are disusted (or hurt) by their suffering.

As I undersatnd it DS is saying that we take what we want unless we calculate it will harm us or it causes us disgust. He is suggestig that 'morality' is the calculation or the disgust that inhibits us from just doing whatever we want.

But it misses the main point which is that the well-being/happyness of those we care about (not all people equally) is itself something we want.

chez

[Lestat]

<font color="red"> The more you care about the people the greater lengths you will go to.
</font>

We may be talking about the same thing, but I'm not sure.

I'm thinking more of strangers. While I don't wish bad upon them, I can't say that I'm much concerned with whether or not they're happy. However, I would have very strong emotions if I knew a stranger were suffering. This I believe, is pity or emphathy for their situation.

It's only when you get to people I love or care about that I'm concerned with their happiness. But this is a bit self-serving..

As I stated to DS, I believe all motivation stems from the basic need to gain pleasure or avoid pain. I take pleasure in seeing my children, girlfriend, and those I love be in a state of happiness.

Anyway, I realize this makes me seem kinda cold. But I'm just trying to be very candid and self-evaluating.

[ QUOTE ]
if you or NotReady would care to refer me to a particular "conclusive" or "summary" post which encapsulated the argument as to why absolute morality must hinge upon God, that would be welcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

After reading dozens of NotReady's posts, I think his carefully crafted argument can be summarized as such:

"I believe morality comes from God."

You didn't miss much.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> The more you care about the people the greater lengths you will go to.
</font>

We may be talking about the same thing, but I'm not sure.

I'm thinking more of strangers. While I don't wish bad upon them, I can't say that I'm much concerned with whether or not they're happy. However, I would have very strong emotions if I knew a stranger were suffering. This I believe, is pity or emphathy for their situation.

It's only when you get to people I love or care about that I'm concerned with their happiness. But this is a bit self-serving..

As I stated to DS, I believe all motivation stems from the basic need to gain pleasure or avoid pain. I take pleasure in seeing my children, girlfriend, and those I love be in a state of happiness.

Anyway, I realize this makes me seem kinda cold. But I'm just trying to be very candid and self-evaluating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like the same thing. If evolved, it makes sense that morality is 'designed' for families/smallish communities. It makes sense that the more remote the person, the weaker the moral feeling.

I dont see why it should sound cold. Nothing cold about caring most for those closest to us. As long as we don't expect others not to also care most for those closest to them.

chez

[Peter666]

I don't understand why Atheists don't kill themselves when they are sick. There were times when I was sick or injured and the pain was so bad that I wanted to die immediately, just to end it. Emotions took over all Reason, and it would have been a reasonable response if there is no God and my existence turns into nothingness.

But of course, as my existence began from nothingness without my consent, it would be unnatural to think there is not a higher power ruling over things.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why Atheists don't kill themselves when they are sick. There were times when I was sick or injured and the pain was so bad that I wanted to die immediately, just to end it. Emotions took over all Reason, and it would have been a reasonable response if there is no God and my existence turns into nothingness.

But of course, as my existence began from nothingness without my consent, it would be unnatural to think there is not a higher power ruling over things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Atheists and theists alike do kill themselves in times of suffering. Just curious, but do you think all suicides are done by atheists?

Also, your second point doesn't really say much of anything at all. Just because you do not know from whence you came, it doesn't mean you are correct in making the leap of logic to a "higher power" ruling over things. Lightning was once thought to come from a higher power. Do you still believe that?

[David Sklansky]

"You make no mention of pity. Unlike animals, human being have developed the capacity to take pity on other living things. This is neither pleasure nor disgust.

I think you're ok if you substitute "pain" for "disgust". I am of the belief that ALL motivation is derived either from the desire to gain some sort of pleasure, or the need to avoid some type of pain. Either real or perceived."

Cmon guys. Why do you do this stuff to me? Obviously the word "disgust" was used simply as a placeholder for any emotion that evolved, had survival benefits, and was apt to reduce murders. Pain, pity, empathy, even love.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"You make no mention of pity. Unlike animals, human being have developed the capacity to take pity on other living things. This is neither pleasure nor disgust.

I think you're ok if you substitute "pain" for "disgust". I am of the belief that ALL motivation is derived either from the desire to gain some sort of pleasure, or the need to avoid some type of pain. Either real or perceived."

Cmon guys. Why do you do this stuff to me? Obviously the word "disgust" was used simply as a placeholder for any emotion that evolved, had survival benefits, and was apt to reduce murders. Pain, pity, empathy, even love.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a reason, its not just to annoy you /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I understand your view to be that:

Desires (non-moral) are sometimes turned down for reasons (moral).

That's just plain wrong imo, for the reasons I've already given.

Maybe its not what you meant. Go on, I know you're just dieing to explain what you really meant.


chez

[Peter666]

I think the number of suicides compared to the number of people suffering gravely for a period of time is disproportionate. If a person was convinced there was no God, surely the reasonable thing to do would be to kill himself in time of grave suffering.

Anyone espousing any religion can kill themselves, but only an Atheist a good reason to do so.

As for higher powers, surely the fact that so much is unexplained would lead one to believe that there is something out there worth knowing, even if it is just static electricity. The man who thinks he is the centre of the Universe and the whole meaning of his life was the attainment of temporary pleasure and avoiding temporary pain is unnatural. The consequences of mortality convinces him of that.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]

As for higher powers, surely the fact that so much is unexplained would lead one to believe that there is something out there worth knowing, even if it is just static electricity. The man who thinks he is the centre of the Universe and the whole meaning of his life was the attainment of temporary pleasure and avoiding temporary pain is unnatural. The consequences of mortality convinces him of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does this address the point I made? You stated the argument that it is reasonable to believe in a higher power since you cannot explain how you came to exist. I made an analogous argument by pointing out that not so long ago men ascribed the existence of lightning to a higher power, yet we came to learn that we could indeed understand where lighting came from.

Point being, leave the book open as it is quite possible that man will be able to explain his own existence in the future if we continue to search. Your position appears to be to close the book now as it is clear that a higher power created us, just as a higher power created lightning in previous times.

[andyfox]

"Or there is God. An unlikely but not out of the question alternative."

Why is it either/or? I don't understand why your first two paragraphs cannot be true even if there is a god.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Cmon guys. Why do you do this stuff to me? Obviously the word "disgust" was used simply as a placeholder for any emotion that evolved, had survival benefits, and was apt to reduce murders. Pain, pity, empathy, even love.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, the word was a placeholder.

With the above statement, though, you define the origins of, and limit the listed emotions. I'm not convinced that that is ALL there is to those emotions. Nor am I fully convinced that survival benefits/evolution are the ONLY reason we have those emotions in the first place. And even if survival benefits/evolution are the only reason for the initial origins of those emotions, it does not follow that developed humans must have those emotions only in such limited original capacity--put another way, the capacity for empathy can grow in some humans, and develop into more than it was originally.

Also, empathy can be more than merely an emotion--it can also be an intellectual awareness that others have feelings just like you do. That being the case it would seem best to not frivolously cause pain or harm to others--even if there would be no repercussions to one's self.

In some (relatively few) humans this capacity for empathy grows to such an extent that the entire world seems an extension of one's self, or in the phrasing of a Zen practitioner, "...from that time on, whenever I looked at something, it seemed as if I were looking at a reflection of my own face." Ths may tie in with a feeling or the awareness of inseparability from the world and the universe, and that the notion of individuality is but a brief and limited perspective. And considering that we in fact do "come from" the universe, and eventually "return to" the universe, this very well might be a valid perspective supported by reality.

The human infant's worldview, once it starts to develop, is entirely "I"-centered. As most humans mature, they increasingly gain an appreciation that the world does not revolve around themselves, and that others' feelings matter too. This may not entirely be due to survival/evolutionary reasons; it may also be that humans develop an awareness in that direction because it actually reflects a truth of existence and the universe. Nobody exists externally from the universe, so an awareness of this greater and encompassing set (as in set theory) may actually support empathy as being part of an accurate reflection of reality.

I'm not taking a firm stance that these things are so; rather, I'm leery of limiting things too much. So I'm not too keen on hastily and narrowly defining the origins or current form or purposes of emotions such as empathy.

[David Sklansky]

"Or there is God. An unlikely but not out of the question alternative."

Why is it either/or? I don't understand why your first two paragraphs cannot be true even if there is a god."

You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. My statement does not preclude this possibility. Me and Not Ready say that if there are absolute morals then there must be a God. We don't say that if there is a God there must be absolute morals. Although I think I make that third possibility a lot more likely than he does.

[Peter666]

Why would a man care for the answer of why he exists if he believes that after death it will be turned into nothingess?

People can discover whatever they will in the future, but that does not change the final scenario that death presents.

Why does a man want to continue to live even in the state of grave pain if death can take it all away and will eventually happen anyway, perhaps at a worse time?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does a man want to continue to live even in the state of grave pain if death can take it all away and will eventually happen anyway, perhaps at a worse time?


[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps bcause he feels he might have some works yet to do; or for learning; or to make things better for others.

[Peter666]

I believe those feelings are obliterated when a person is in great pain. In fact, in that situation, people can't stop thinking about themselves! All they want is the pain to end.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would a man care for the answer of why he exists if he believes that after death it will be turned into nothingess?

People can discover whatever they will in the future, but that does not change the final scenario that death presents.

Why does a man want to continue to live even in the state of grave pain if death can take it all away and will eventually happen anyway, perhaps at a worse time?

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not know why man has the urge to continue to live when very ill, or why we actively try to avoid death.

I do not know why we even exist in the first place, which is a prerequisite to ever being in a position to suffer, nor do I know why suffering exists.

I do know that I am not going to make the assumption that I know when I do not. I also know that concluding that a higher power is the reason is not going to lead to man finding answers to these types of questions.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

I believe those feelings are obliterated when a person is in great pain. In fact, in that situation, people can't stop thinking about themselves! All they want is the pain to end.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes; it must in part depend on the severity of the pain.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not know why man has the urge to continue to live when very ill, or why we actively try to avoid death.


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess there might be some evolutionary advantage in a strong survival instinct.

chez

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do not know why man has the urge to continue to live when very ill, or why we actively try to avoid death.


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess there might be some evolutionary advantage in a strong survival instinct.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

This is quite true, and I had it in mind when I typed my post. I chose to say I did not know because ultimately we do not know why evolution or survival instincts came into existence.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe those feelings are obliterated when a person is in great pain. In fact, in that situation, people can't stop thinking about themselves! All they want is the pain to end.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm gald you brought up hierachy of needs, it as an important topic in the ethics of man as you can get.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do not know why man has the urge to continue to live when very ill, or why we actively try to avoid death.


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess there might be some evolutionary advantage in a strong survival instinct.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

This is quite true, and I had it in mind when I typed my post. I chose to say I did not know because ultimately we do not know why evolution or survival instincts came into existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you did. I was really responding to the poster who seemed to think the lack of mass suicide was particularly puzzling.

chez

[RJT]

M to the 6th,

[ QUOTE ]
A quick counterexample: math exists with or without God, so why *couldn't* an independent framework of morality exist with or without God? One can argue that much math is provable and morality is not, but that doesn't invalidate the possibility of a morality framework. Something like individual needs/gain weighed against detriment to others: a sort of sliding-scale prisoner's dilemma sort of structure might be part of it. Under such a framework, seeking comparatively little personal gain at comparatively great cost to others could be considered immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man created/invented math. Man did not discover Math. It does not exist on its own. Math is merely a language (like Spanish) we use to describe the universe. Perhaps, math can exist without God. It does not exist without man though.

Likewise, man can create/invent morality. Man can even create a morality perfect enough that all can agree to and live by. (I doubt if all can ever live by it always, if happens then you got utopia on earth is about it.) This invention of the method to achieve utopia is not Absolute Morality. It is simply a morality that would be agreed to unanimously.

Discover Absolute Morality (as opposed to invent a perfect moral system) and you either discover God or you discover the reason for the Universe (to me you probably do both simultaneously).

RJT

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Man created/invented math. Man did not discover Math. It does not exist on its own. Math is merely a language (like Spanish) we use to describe the universe. Perhaps, math can exist without God. It does not exist without man though.

[/ QUOTE ]

but that's the point. Just because its dependent on man for its existence doesn't mean its not objective.


chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Man created/invented math. Man did not discover Math. It does not exist on its own. Math is merely a language (like Spanish) we use to describe the universe. Perhaps, math can exist without God. It does not exist without man though.

[/ QUOTE ]

but that's the point. Just because its dependent on man for its existence doesn't mean its not objective.
chez

[/ QUOTE ]


Math - is objective, sure.

Morality?

Are saying that not only can Absolute Morality exists without a God, that it exists (even any morality) without man? That we didn't invent it? Or are you saying that morality is a language like math that describes something objective? If so what does it describe? Does it describe something existent?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Man created/invented math. Man did not discover Math. It does not exist on its own. Math is merely a language (like Spanish) we use to describe the universe. Perhaps, math can exist without God. It does not exist without man though.

[/ QUOTE ]


but that's the point. Just because its dependent on man for its existence doesn't mean its not objective.
chez

[/ QUOTE ]


Math - is objective, sure.

Morality?

Are saying that not only can Absolute Morality exists without a God, that it exists (even any morality) without man? That we didn't invent it? Or are you saying that morality is a language like math that describes something objective? If so what does it describe? Does it describe something existent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that maths describes something objective? If so what does it describe? Does it describe something existent?

I don't mean to be awkward parroting the questions back to about maths. The point is that objective truths can exist without god and maybe they depend on man for their existence in some sense. [and to use the phrase of the day, it doesn't matter if in the end nothing matters]

If we answer the question for maths we might find we can do the same for morality. Personally I doubt it, I think Kant tried and failed, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible.

chez

[Peter666]

Let us suppose we have an incredibly strong instinct to live as an evolutionary advantage.

The quandary is that at the same time we are rational creatures. We know that some pain like going to the dentist is good for us in the long run, but other pain is so great that we just want it to end and nothing more. We actually WILL to die, which is our rational nature at work. But why don't we pull the gun out of the drawer and end it right there? We cannot be acting on emotions as those are telling us to kill ourselves now because of the pain. We are not acting through reason, as we know it is better to stop the suffering now because death takes it away (if you are an atheist).

Is there a natural instinct so strong that causes us to fight on? Maybe, but then why do some people still manage to commit suicide on a purely rational basis. For instance I am talking about rich people who do not have physical suffering, or the Swedes who have the best social safety net in the world yet the highest rate of suicide too. And of course there are some people who manage to kill themselves on an emotional level such as when they are spurned by a lover or a loved one dies and they go crazy for a bit.

This suggests that our instinct is not developed to the point of being stronger than our reasoning or our emotions, but there is still no mass suicide amongst atheists. Why? Where are their convictions?

Now religious people who are often derided for their beliefs by many atheists seem to have a much better tolerance for pain. There are instances of them going through what we would deem as unbearable suffering, but able to bear it through their religious convictions, such as the early Christian martyrs.

So from a scientific viewpoint we must conclude that either:

1) When an atheist has suffered great pain and stays alive despite the ability to easily kill himself, he is lying to himself and everybody else if he thinks there is nothing beyond death.

Or

2) Religious people are higher on the evolutionary scale because they have found a way to preserve and perpetuate the human race to a much greater degree due to their ability to suffer, and are thus superior. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Let us suppose we have an incredibly strong instinct to live as an evolutionary advantage.

The quandary is that at the same time we are rational creatures. We know that some pain like going to the dentist is good for us in the long run, but other pain is so great that we just want it to end and nothing more. We actually WILL to die, which is our rational nature at work. But why don't we pull the gun out of the drawer and end it right there? We cannot be acting on emotions as those are telling us to kill ourselves now because of the pain. We are not acting through reason, as we know it is better to stop the suffering now because death takes it away (if you are an atheist).

Is there a natural instinct so strong that causes us to fight on? Maybe, but then why do some people still manage to commit suicide on a purely rational basis. For instance I am talking about rich people who do not have physical suffering, or the Swedes who have the best social safety net in the world yet the highest rate of suicide too. And of course there are some people who manage to kill themselves on an emotional level such as when they are spurned by a lover or a loved one dies and they go crazy for a bit.

This suggests that our instinct is not developed to the point of being stronger than our reasoning or our emotions, but there is still no mass suicide amongst atheists. Why? Where are their convictions?

Now religious people who are often derided for their beliefs by many atheists seem to have a much better tolerance for pain. There are instances of them going through what we would deem as unbearable suffering, but able to bear it through their religious convictions, such as the early Christian martyrs.

So from a scientific viewpoint we must conclude that either:

1) When an atheist has suffered great pain and stays alive despite the ability to easily kill himself, he is lying to himself and everybody else if he thinks there is nothing beyond death.

Or

2) Religious people are higher on the evolutionary scale because they have found a way to preserve and perpetuate the human race to a much greater degree due to their ability to suffer, and are thus superior. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Or the survival instinct is stronger than the desire to end the pain. so strong, in fact, that some people can convince themselves of almost anything, no matter how silly, to avoid the thought of not surviving.

chez

[RJT]

Math describes the physical universe (mass - energy, whatever) as I understand it. Morals deal with the “thought” or the mental universe it seems.

I doubt very much that there are Absolute Morals. You obviously seem to think there are or at least might be.

If I were one who thought such a possibility, I, for sure, would be working on its discovery/proof. I would at least be thinking of a single one that I thought might be provable to be Absolute.

I can’t even think of any morals we are aware of that I can think might even be absolute. (That’s why NotReady’s used the extreme example of murder.)

The only “moral” that I can even think of that I would find a worthwhile endeavor to prove is the concept of is “love”. That, to me, would be a worthwhile endeavor. Any thoughts on how we can prove love is an Absolute?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]

Math describes the physical universe (mass - energy, whatever) as I understand it. Morals deal with the “thought” or the mental universe it seems.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maths is not about mass energy or the universe although it has proved useful in that area.

Mathematical truths are things like there is no largest prime number or PI is irrational.

I think these are objectively true because the fact that there is no largest prime number is part of the concept of prime number. Logic is used to find out what we mean by prime number and we 'discover' there cannot be a largest one.

It may be that once we know what morality is, we can use logic to discover its properties in a similar manner to maths.

chez

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
Me and Not Ready say that if there are absolute morals then there must be a God

[/ QUOTE ]

Ehm! Why?

Why couldn’t the universal council of morality and ethics determine absolute morality? It could meet once an eon to decide the details, then an army of minions could sow their decree into the fabric of the universe making them fundermental laws of the universe?

[spaminator101]

Man wheres Not ready i thought hed have replied by now. I cant remember anything about any one so i dont dont know how to answer

[RJT]

Well, I was using physics, too, when I used the word math. If this is a technical error, I think my point still holds, doesn't it?

[Peter666]

So what does an atheist convince himself at this point?

And why do some rational people still kill themselves? Are they the supermen?

[RJT]

Well, that is a good point that we know little about the concept of morality. Perhaps, because it is such a relatively new thing (appeared only since man evolved, I assume) its study is in its infancy.

I do suggest the following quotes though from the link in the new post here by Holdingfolding.

[ QUOTE ]
While nobody has identified any gene for religion, there are certainly some candidate genes that may influence human personality and confer a tendency to religious feelings.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
This would suggest that there is a sort of "morality module" in the brain that is activated at an early age. Evidence from neuroscience would back this up, to a degree. In my last book, The Human Mind, I noted that certain brain areas become activated when we engage in cooperation with others, and that these areas are associated with feelings of pleasure and reward. It also seems that certain areas of the brain are brought into action in situations where we feel empathy and forgiveness.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is a “morality gene” or something similar then would not that suggest that it can’t be absolute. That it too evolves?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I was using physics, too, when I used the word math. If this is a technical error, I think my point still holds, doesn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with much of the rest. As I said before I doubt the existence of absolute morality but its nothing to do with the idea that in the end nothing matters.

I dont see it being something like murder, it will be much more situational that that. An absolute moral law could be something like 'In situation X a rational person must act in way Y'

chez

[bearly]

david has taken a very rational position here. he is pretty dangerous to mess about. i think the way for his opponents to go is to make a case for examining the nature of belief. my 1/2 cent.....b

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
As I said before I doubt the existence of absolute morality but its nothing to do with the idea that in the end nothing matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your writing style is turning Sklansky-esque. In other words - why didn't you just say that, chez? (Btw, take out the words "in the end" and I agree with you.)

Anyway, I think we might have hit on something along the way. Help me prove that "love" is a moral Absolute. (In the idealized usage of the word love.)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This would suggest that there is a sort of "morality module" in the brain that is activated at an early age. Evidence from neuroscience would back this up, to a degree. In my last book, The Human Mind, I noted that certain brain areas become activated when we engage in cooperation with others, and that these areas are associated with feelings of pleasure and reward. It also seems that certain areas of the brain are brought into action in situations where we feel empathy and forgiveness.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If there is a “morality gene” or something similar then would not that suggest that it can’t be absolute. That it too evolves?


[/ QUOTE ]

Could be. But its obvious that morality is related to pain/pleasure and cooperation so it would be surprising if those areas of the brain weren't involved.

No doubt there could be maths genes as well but they cant make any difference to whether maths its objective or not.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I said before I doubt the existence of absolute morality but its nothing to do with the idea that in the end nothing matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your writing style is turning Sklansky-esque. In other words - why didn't you just say that, chez? (Btw, take out the words "in the end" and I agree with you.)


[/ QUOTE ]

I said it, last post on page 5 of this thread. I've also said it in previous threads, lord knows where.

chez

[RJT]

I am out of my league when discussing genes, chez. But, I can certainly see a gene that relates to our understanding of math, but not a gene that gives maths its exsitence.

Anyway, I am calling in my marker. (The favor when I helped you edit.) Help me prove love. Just kidding, buddy. I don't hold markers for helping friends. And I don't think we can prove love. Was just a brief moment of hope was all.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I am out of my league when discussing genes, chez. But, I can certainly see a gene that relates to our understanding of math, but not a gene that gives maths its exsitence.

Anyway, I am calling in my marker. (The favor when I helped you edit.) Help me prove love. Just kidding, buddy. I don't hold markers for helping friends. And I don't think we can prove love. Was just a brief moment of hope was all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay plan to prove love. Define love for someone as when we care more about their well-being than our own. Develop neuroscience to the point we can measure how much we care about something. voila.

chez

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

Man created/invented math. Man did not discover Math. It does not exist on its own. Math is merely a language (like Spanish) we use to describe the universe. Perhaps, math can exist without God. It does not exist without man though.

[/ QUOTE ]

So take humans out of the picture or universe entirely. Gorilla A, eating two bananas, still eats twice as much food as Gorilla B eating one banana (assuming similar bananas of course). Gorilla C, eating 3 bananas, eats 150% as much as Gorilla A and 200% as much as Gorilla B. These are simple examples of mathematical truths existing independently of humans or human thought.


[ QUOTE ]
Likewise, man can create/invent morality. Man can even create a morality perfect enough that all can agree to and live by. (I doubt if all can ever live by it always, if happens then you got utopia on earth is about it.) This invention of the method to achieve utopia is not Absolute Morality. It is simply a morality that would be agreed to unanimously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps humans can invent morality, or perhaps it exists on its own and humans can only perceive it--as mathematical truths exist independently of humans.

[ QUOTE ]
Discover Absolute Morality (as opposed to invent a perfect moral system) and you either discover God or you discover the reason for the Universe (to me you probably do both simultaneously).

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting assertion, but unconvincing.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Me and Not Ready say that if there are absolute morals then there must be a God.

[/ QUOTE ]

That can only be if the question is being begged and the unstated definition of absolute morals = those that come from god. It's not hard to think of other reasons for absolute morals if the right half of the equation is left open. (not that I see any evidence that there are any)

luckyme..
.. if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

[Cyrus]

Your logic is confined within crass materialism.

[ QUOTE ]
When we don't murder in situations where we could gain from it, it is either
because our well developed brains realize that in the long run we will get less, rather than more chemical pleasure due to the possibility of getting caught, or
because there is instant chemical displeasure in the form of disgust, that was a product of molecular evolution in the past, where those who lacked this disgust did not pass on their genes.
Period.

[/ QUOTE ]



You are watching a film. The main character is murdered. The main character is an old illiterate woman in Tibuktu. (In other words, someone as far away from your situation, as posible.)

You feel awe and regret.

Why ?



(Responses that involve the film maker's technique are legitimate but can only be part of the correct answer.)

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not hard to think of other reasons for absolute morals if the right half of the equation is left open.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is hard for me. I can’t think of any. Have any examples in mind?

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
then we are using our consciousness and our ability to reason to further animalistic goals. To alter the chemistry in our brain to give us more pleasure. Just like chimpanzees would if they were bred to become smarter and were surgically given voiceboxes.

When we don't murder in situations where we could gain from it, it is either because our well developed brains realize that in the long run we will get less, rather than more chemical pleasure due to the possibility of getting caught, or because there is instant chemical displeasure in the form of disgust, that was a product of molecular evolution in the past, where those who lacked this disgust did not pass on their genes. Period

Or there is God. An unlikely but not out of the question alternative.

Not Ready has this nailed. Why he then screws it all up by insisting that the god in question is so narrowly and precisely defined that the vast majority of even highly religous scholarly monotheists say he is in error, is beyond me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree to an extent here David that we use reason to further animalistic goals. However, I don't think you're giving due credit to the coercive nature of society. I think that society alters our behavior such that it goes beyond pursuing our various carnal drives and even a long term average maximum in our reward pathway activation. I'm saying that what all people want, because of a society's influence on the psyche does not always boil down to animalistic pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of displeasure. Your evolutionary disgust sounds like disguised id to me. I'm saying more than id governing human behavior, though it does simplify to humans evolving into social animals subject to societal influences as well as animal influences in their behavior. And some people even think for themselves, though it's all too rare. I think you're on the right track, but overly simplistic here.

I think you could more elegantly state what you mean by saying "Either our behavior is limited by evolutionary parameters to prevent us from murdering our fellow man or there is a G-d."

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Why can't there be higher levels of spirituality even without God?


[/ QUOTE ]

Your comparison of spirituality with intelligence doesn't work because intelligence can be measured by IQ,SAT, etc, that is, there are standards which can be used to "quantify" intelligence. If by spirituality you mean morality, what standard do you use? When I talk about absolute morality I mean an absolute standard, or absolute source. If you deny there's a standard how can you have different levels, your "natural progression"?

[ QUOTE ]

A quick counterexample: math exists with or without God,


[/ QUOTE ]

This is enormously important. Your assertion seems so obvious and true, hardly worth mentioning. But it's almost the whole enchilada. If you admit that math can exist without God you have excluded the possibility of God. If this statement was true there would be nothing more to debate. This statement is what the debate is about.

[ QUOTE ]

Something like individual needs/gain weighed against detriment to others:


[/ QUOTE ]

At this point you are lapsing into defining morality by pragmatism. Morality is the question of "ought". Why ought I ....? That can't be determined empirically. You can determine what someone thinks is HIS ought by examination. But you can't determine the ought itself that way.

[Indiana]

I have only lurked in this forum so this may be a really dumb question. If there is no God Mr. Sklansky then how the hell did all of these intelligent, sophisticated humans get here? Further, why did thousands of smart jewish people write down all of these miracles on paper that they saw in the streets over 2000 yrs ago. What am I missing? Like I say, big bangs create dustballs not intelligent humans.

Indy

[ QUOTE ]
this may be a really dumb question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good guess.

[Indiana]

If its dumb, then explain. This isnt OOT.

Indy

[ QUOTE ]
This suggests that our instinct is not developed to the point of being stronger than our reasoning or our emotions, but there is still no mass suicide amongst atheists. Why? Where are their convictions?

[/ QUOTE ]

I swear I have yet to see a non-intellectually dishonest post from you. If someone earnestly believes that he has to live a certain way or do something to 'survive' to the afterlife, that's where his survial instinct gravitate towards. For instance, if someone believes that in order to have 98 virgins and everlasting cherry-popping bliss he has to join a jihad and crash a plane into a building, of course he will, that's his survival instinct. If I feel that in order to live longer in my only life I can't kill myself when I'm in pain, I won't. It's still an instinct, but what it means to 'survive' is different.

[ QUOTE ]
1) When an atheist has suffered great pain and stays alive despite the ability to easily kill himself, he is lying to himself and everybody else if he thinks there is nothing beyond death.

Or

2) Religious people are higher on the evolutionary scale because they have found a way to preserve and perpetuate the human race to a much greater degree due to their ability to suffer, and are thus superior.

[/ QUOTE ]

More airtight logic from Saint Peter. Why don't I kill myself when I'm in pain? How many answers will it take to satisfy you? Maybe because I realize I have one life and that this pain is temporary? Maybe survival instinct? They don't want their loved ones to feel pain? There are an infinite number of logical reasons not to kill yourself when you're in pain. It makes no difference whether some people irrationally kill themselves (see radical Muslims), whether or not they come to the conclusion through logic (see radical Muslims).

I think your 'ability to suffer' statement is a little dishonest. People have different chemical reactions in different situations. A person can lift a car if he thinks his child is trapped underneath. This same person might be able to overcome the pain of a gunshot to the leg to save their spouse. Without certain stimuli, this would not be able to happen. A person can't just lift a car out of nowhere when he feels like it. Just like a Christian can't just take a large amount of suffering in stride. There's got to be a stimulus that triggers the ability to suffer a great deal. But that's not just a special Christian response. Look at the example above with the gunshot wound. Saving a spouse is enough for some to trigger the response. Not wanting to renounce your faith may trigger the response for some (Christians tortured until they renounce faith). The 'higher on the evolutionary scale' has nothing to do with being a Christian, it has to do with what makes someone able to lift a car or withstand pain, which is that chemical response. So yes, being able to trigger that response makes one higher on the scale.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not hard to think of other reasons for absolute morals if the right half of the equation is left open.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It is hard for me. I can’t think of any. Have any examples in mind?

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect that's because you have a definition of Absolute Morals that you haven't shared yet. If you make a clear statement along the lines of - An Absolute Moral is one that action X is always immoral. ( or whatever definition you are using, ... have at it)
then we'll see if the examples I have in mind fit the definition you set.

your move, luckyme..
.. if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

[purnell]

There are essentially two schools of thought on this.

1) Life has evolved on Earth over the last few billion years.

2) Life was created by a supernatural being.

There have been many discussion of the subject on this board. Sorry, I think typing them all out for you would be -EV for me, so I'm not gonna do it. You can read the arguments if you like.

[ QUOTE ]
If its dumb, then explain. This isnt OOT.

Indy

[/ QUOTE ]

Comments in bold.
---

I have only lurked in this forum so this may be a really dumb question. If there is no God Mr. Sklansky then how the hell did all of these intelligent, sophisticated humans get here?
There are other explanations besides "God", and I'm sure you are aware of that already.

Further, why did thousands of smart jewish people write down all of these miracles on paper that they saw in the streets over 2000 yrs ago. What am I missing?
Absurd logic. A bunch of kooks claim to have been abducted by UFOs, too -- do you buy their story? A bunch of other religions make supernatural claims -- do you buy their story? No. You just buy THIS story. Also, where did you hear that "thousands" of smart Jews recorded these stories? It's fun to make up facts, isn't it?

Like I say, big bangs create dustballs not intelligent humans.
Natural forces can result in a lot more than just dustballs, if you haven't been made aware of.

Indy

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why can't there be higher levels of spirituality even without God?


[/ QUOTE ]



Your comparison of spirituality with intelligence doesn't work because intelligence can be measured by IQ,SAT, etc, that is, there are standards which can be used to "quantify" intelligence. If by spirituality you mean morality, what standard do you use? When I talk about absolute morality I mean an absolute standard, or absolute source. If you deny there's a standard how can you have different levels, your "natural progression"?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't claim that the comparison "doesn't work"; you can only claim that we don't have a ready means or easy understanding of how to measure spirituality or morality. NOT the same thing at all. The absence of obvious confirmation does not deny the possible existence of something.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A quick counterexample: math exists with or without God,

[/ QUOTE ]

This is enormously important. Your assertion seems so obvious and true, hardly worth mentioning. But it's almost the whole enchilada. If you admit that math can exist without God you have excluded the possibility of God. If this statement was true there would be nothing more to debate. This statement is what the debate is about.

[/ QUOTE ]

No; if math exists with or without God, that does not necessarily exclude the possibility of God. Unsupported and likely false dichotomy. You are making what is far from an airtight assertion. I would even go so far as to call it an unrelated assertion.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Something like individual needs/gain weighed against detriment to others:

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point you are lapsing into defining morality by pragmatism. Morality is the question of "ought". Why ought I ....? That can't be determined empirically. You can determine what someone thinks is HIS ought by examination. But you can't determine the ought itself that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you or I can't determine it empirically at present, DOES NOT mean that it does not exist, or that it not possible to eventually determine pragmatically. Consider the outer reaches of particle physics and abstruse physics theories, of which we yet know relatively little, to see why this is so. Maybe we can't yet determine much about the framework of dark matter--or of things even more abstruse--but that does not imply that frameworks of which we can presently measure little or nothing do not exist. Heck it is quite possible--maybe even likely--that frameworks exist in the physical universe which we haven't even begun to guess the existence of yet.

Please note again that I'm not saying that an absolute framework of morality dfinitely exists and exists irrespective of God. However I can see no reason to completely rule that possibility out, and thus far I don't see that you have presented any such reason.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
This suggests that our instinct is not developed to the point of being stronger than our reasoning or our emotions, but there is still no mass suicide amongst atheists. Why? Where are their convictions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe one of the most ignorant statements I have read in this forum to date.

An atheists conviction is to live at all cost because there is nothing after death. How does mass suicide jive with that?

A more interesting question is why don't all theists that believe in heaven kill themselves? Are you aware that there is no place in the bible that says if you commit suicide you won't go to heaven. But since they did not think about that when they first wrote the bible they had to change the interpretation of some of the passages in the bible to prevent people from killing themselves. 'Thou shalt not kill' was not referring to suicide. But I have heard people argue that means if you do you won't go to heaven.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

understanding of how to measure spirituality or morality


[/ QUOTE ]

If you measure something you do so by a standard. Measurement in morality is by a moral standard.

[ QUOTE ]

No; if math exists with or without God, that does not necessarily exclude the possibility of God.


[/ QUOTE ]

I define God as the Being Who existed before anything else and created everything else that exists. If anything else exists apart from God's creating activity He isn't God. To posit math as self-existent is to deny God.

[ QUOTE ]

Just because you or I can't determine it empirically at present


[/ QUOTE ]

You can never determine morality empirically, by definition. Morality is "ought". Ought can't be measured scientifically.

[Indiana]

I am not saying that Christianity is the truth, just the most logical in relation to the other options. Its a matter of sample size. Buddism? One man saw something. Islam? One man saw something. Mormonism? You get my point. What I have the most trouble with is the originiation of humans. That cannot have come from a textbook scientific process.

Indy

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not saying that Christianity is the truth, just the most logical in relation to the other options. Its a matter of sample size. Buddism? One man saw something. Islam? One man saw something. Mormonism? You get my point. What I have the most trouble with is the originiation of humans. That cannot have come from a textbook scientific process.

Indy

[/ QUOTE ]

Sample size?? There are far more non-christians than christians. One man started Buddism, Islam. What about christianity? One man - Jesus? Since you, in your infinite wisdom, have trouble understanding the origin of man, then it must be wrong.

[Indiana]

No what I mean is that thousands of people saw Jesus in the streets doing stuff and wrote it down. Muhammad went off into a cave and thought he might have seen something. Then he goes home and gets further validation from his wife that he did. Then he goes on to use force to spread his ideas and becomes a powerful, and abusive, world leader. Not too many people freely committed themselves to the core message that is Islam in the beginning.

Indy

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
No what I mean is that thousands of people saw Jesus in the streets doing stuff and wrote it down. Muhammad went off into a cave and thought he might have seen something. Then he goes home and gets further validation from his wife that he did. Then he goes on to use force to spread his ideas and becomes a powerful, and abusive, world leader. Not too many people freely committed themselves to the core message that is Islam in the beginning.

Indy

[/ QUOTE ]

Thousands??? Wrote it down??? Most of the bible was written long after Jesus' death by a handful of prophets. You are taking the word of a few men 2000 years ago and accepting everything they wrote as truthful. That's REAL logical.

[eOXevious]

[ QUOTE ]
No what I mean is that thousands of people saw Jesus in the streets doing stuff and wrote it down. Muhammad went off into a cave and thought he might have seen something. Then he goes home and gets further validation from his wife that he did. Then he goes on to use force to spread his ideas and becomes a powerful, and abusive, world leader. Not too many people freely committed themselves to the core message that is Islam in the beginning.

Indy

[/ QUOTE ]

It says in the Koran that their so-called "ala" tells Muhammad to basiclly kill everyone who opposes you. There are other dicussions and theories that the Catholics actually started Islam in order to take the holy land back from the Jews.. well as history would show that back fired.

[eOXevious]

[ QUOTE ]


Thousands??? Wrote it down??? Most of the bible was written long after Jesus' death by a handful of prophets. You are taking the word of a few men 2000 years ago and accepting everything they wrote as truthful. That's REAL logical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually most of the bible was written before Jesus, it was first put together and printed after Jesus.

[Indiana]

Ok forget the christiainity thing, perhaps it is a hoax. I cant be sure. But the supernatural creation of humans does make sense. I cannot bring myself to fathom that we were invented my cell evolution.

Indy

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Thousands??? Wrote it down??? Most of the bible was written long after Jesus' death by a handful of prophets. You are taking the word of a few men 2000 years ago and accepting everything they wrote as truthful. That's REAL logical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually most of the bible was written before Jesus, it was first put together and printed after Jesus.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was talking about christianity which implies the new testament - NO?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...understanding of how to measure spirituality or morality

[/ QUOTE ]

If you measure something you do so by a standard. Measurement in morality is by a moral standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some things may be measurable just not measurable by us at present.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No; if math exists with or without God, that does not necessarily exclude the possibility of God.

[/ QUOTE ]


I define God as the Being Who existed before anything else and created everything else that exists. If anything else exists apart from God's creating activity He isn't God.To posit math as self-existent is to deny God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even taking your definition at face value does not preclude the possibility of mathematics having the property of capability of independent existence. The obvious counterexample is that of God creating something with the property of henceforth being able to exist independently of him: God could have created mathematics as a permanent and immutable framework which would be capable of existing even in his absence.

God could also have created a moral or spiritual framework with the capacity to exist on its own.

Alternatively, if God does not exist, these frameworks might still exist. Mathematical truths clearly exist even without humans to observe that 2 bananas + 2 bananas = 4 bananas. Just because we humans cannot at present so clearly see, define or measure a spiritual or moral framework does not prove that it does not exist.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... Just because you or I can't determine it empirically at present

[/ QUOTE ]

You can never determine morality empirically, by definition. Morality is "ought". Ought can't be measured scientifically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Change your "never" to "at present" and I would agree for the most part.

Just for fun, imagine that at the end of the universe, time stands still and all events are somehow retraced and reconstructed, and analyzed exhaustively. Perhaps then every act that ever occurred could be assigned a measurement based on its morality and spirituality.

[ QUOTE ]
Ok forget the christiainity thing, perhaps it is a hoax. I cant be sure. But the supernatural creation of humans does make sense. I cannot bring myself to fathom that we were invented my cell evolution.

Indy [/quote




You should try reading some Richard Dawkins. You would be amazed.
Or, read this

Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)

[Peter666]

As usual, you have failed to comprehend the whole argument. I already stated that the person in the state of grave pain WANTS to die. This is the state where they have not gone crazy yet due to the pain, but nevertheless cannot focus on anything else but ending the pain by any means necessary.

Now you may answer the two questions I posed in this situation.

And speaking of intellectual honesty, I do not recall you answering me as to what is the rational distinction between two men sodomizing each other versus two brothers. Or maybe you approve of both.

[Peter666]

To answer your first response: Pain

And although your Biblical scholarship may seem advanced to you, trust me, the rest of the world thinks it is idiotic.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why Atheists don't kill themselves when they are sick.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "survival instinct" is pretty strong in all animals. For a good reason too.

[David Sklansky]

Why are you, and everybody else for that matter, ignoring the second part of my post, The Not Ready Lament? That was what I want discussed. The first part was self evident and not nearly as interesting or important.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you, and everybody else for that matter, ignoring the second part of my post, The Not Ready Lament? That was what I want discussed. The first part was self evident and not nearly as interesting or important.

[/ QUOTE ]Perhaps because people need to be brought up to speed that physcology is an important aspect of the science of ethics.

It also appears the religious people of all sorts, tend to examine all other religions skeptically but don't examine their own with the same ammount of skepticism. Mainly because the costs of it being wrong(real and percieved) are far greater than the benefits of being correct. It may in fact be unethical to try to convince someone that God doesn't exist. However, in may be ethical to convince someone that the percieved benefits of god aren't real and can be fulfilled in other ways, and the real benefits of god aren't needed. Of course there is a distinct possiblity that ehtics don't exist.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you, and everybody else for that matter, ignoring the second part of my post, The Not Ready Lament? That was what I want discussed. The first part was self evident and not nearly as interesting or important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, the first part wasn't self evident.

The first part is also a question of interest to many. The study of NotReady interests only a few of us.

chez

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

Why are you, and everybody else for that matter, ignoring the second part of my post, The Not Ready Lament? That was what I want discussed. The first part was self evident and not nearly as interesting or important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps because you have it reversed?
The 1st part is contentious, interesting and important. The second part is irrelevant, uninteresting and see below.

The second part was --

[ QUOTE ]
Why he then screws it all up by insisting that the god in question is so narrowly and precisely defined that the vast majority of even highly religous scholarly monotheists say he is in error, is beyond me.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you asked 'How' he screws it up that would be interesting in a logic101 review way, but why should I be interested in "Why" he screws it up, I'm not trying to fix him. In a forum of debating ideas ( if that's what this is) there seems no need to turn it into a pyschology forum and end up analyzing the man and not the idea.

maybe that helps explain the interest in your 1st part and non-interest in the second,

luckyme

[RxForMoreCowbell]

[ QUOTE ]


You are watching a film. The main character is murdered. The main character is an old illiterate woman in Tibuktu. (In other words, someone as far away from your situation, as posible.)

You feel awe and regret.

Why ?



[/ QUOTE ]

Empathy. I'm pretty sure DS's "disgust" is more or less a form of empathy as well.

[RxForMoreCowbell]

My personal view is pretty much the opposite of what you've said. The fact that I don't believe there is anything beyond this life makes me value this life more, and therefore I think my will to survive is likely greater than believers, who believe at the end of this life is a better place.

I'd actually be interested if there are statistics on this, though I understand it would be hard to determine what people believe at any given time.

[John Cole]

Why does the hair on the back of my neck stand on end when "St. James Infirmary" kicks in at the end of A Taste of Cherry?

Because I am human, all too human. But it's also an intellectual response, too.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Some things may be measurable just not measurable by us at present.


[/ QUOTE ]

Even so the future standard would still be a standard. And it would exist now waiting for us to discover. But atheists deny even the possibility of such a standard.

[ QUOTE ]

Even taking your definition at face value does not preclude the possibility of mathematics having the property of capability of independent existence. The obvious counterexample is that of God creating something with the property of henceforth being able to exist independently of him: God could have created mathematics as a permanent and immutable framework which would be capable of existing even in his absence.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree but even if true by your own words it was created by God thus not independently existing. That is, it wasn't eternal but contingent and to become it needed God.

[ QUOTE ]

Alternatively, if God does not exist, these frameworks might still exist.


[/ QUOTE ]

I consider this on the same order as a square circle. If God exists then it's impossible to speak of existence apart from Him. To do so requires the assumption that He doesn't exist. It's a paradox, or really a contradiction. You have to assume the impossible - once you do that you destroy all foundation for existence itself.

[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps then every act that ever occurred could be assigned a measurement based on its morality and spirituality.


[/ QUOTE ]

But you would still need a standard, an "ought". You still couldn't get it empirically, from what "is", or in this case "was".

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Empathy.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's right.

We empathize with most, if not all*, humans, at some level of our consciousness. What DS is missing in his mechanical/vulgar-materialistic argumentation is most of what sets apart the mere animal from homo sapiens, which is our ability to conjure abstractions. (Notice that the DS justification about the formulation of human morality is equally applicable, with minor technical alreations to terms, to the rest of the animal kingdom in the formulation of their own "morality", i.e. their code for living out their lives and living in groups. What DS describes is Pavlovian "thought" process.)

It's the realization, however deeply buried, that we all share, when it comes down to it, the same fate, that is the main factor in the formulation of human morality.

It's either that -- or De Sade if we want to be honest in our thinking.




* This empathy does not, in fact, stop when we are torturing a fellow human. (Or killing him, doing him wrong, etc.) In such a case, we are generally trying to get away from this empathy as far as possible and to get on a different, superior level by playing god. All futile, natch.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The hair on the back of my neck stand[s] on end when "St. James Infirmary" kicks in at the end of A Taste of (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/6305362688/104-4874102-8415139?v=glance&amp;n=130) Cherry.

[/ QUOTE ]
I did not know that this was a Cab Calloway tune. I will try and get it.

What a director.

[ QUOTE ]
Responses that involve the film maker's technique are legitimate but can only be part of the correct answer.

[/ QUOTE ]
By this, I meant that if empathy is facilitated or promoted through the artist's technique, this does not take anything away from either the artist's worth or the empathy, in general. (The more the artist is trapping his audience and leading it by iron steps to his objective, the less of an artist and the more of a hack he is, of course. But this here discussion is not about Art.)

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not hard to think of other reasons for absolute morals if the right half of the equation is left open.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It is hard for me. I can’t think of any. Have any examples in mind?

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect that's because you have a definition of Absolute Morals that you haven't shared yet. If you make a clear statement along the lines of - An Absolute Moral is one that action X is always immoral. ( or whatever definition you are using, ... have at it)
then we'll see if the examples I have in mind fit the definition you set.

your move, luckyme..
.. if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

[/ QUOTE ]

LuckyMan,

Any of my definitions of Absolute Morality would be within the context of a God. That would not add to the discussion. Indeed it would probably only lead to diverting the point to whether or not said Absolutes are indeed Absolutes.

In other words, my definitions would only muddy the conversation. So, I again ask (and I am not at all being facetious or rhetorical) – do you have any examples in mind? I can’t think of any myself.

RJT

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Me and Not Ready say that if there are absolute morals then there must be a God.

[/ QUOTE ]



That can only be if the question is being begged and the unstated definition of absolute morals = those that come from god. It's not hard to think of other reasons for absolute morals if the right half of the equation is left open. (not that I see any evidence that there are any)

It's not hard to think of other reasons for absolute morals if the right half of the equation is left open.


[/ QUOTE ]


It is hard for me. I can’t think of any. Have any examples in mind?


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, a moral framework could be an inherent part of the natural structure or framework of the universe--which makes AT LEAST as much sense as first positing a God and then attributing such a structure or framework to him.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alternatively, if God does not exist, these frameworks might still exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I consider this on the same order as a square circle. If God exists then it's impossible to speak of existence apart from Him. To do so requires the assumption that He doesn't exist. It's a paradox, or really a contradiction. You have to assume the impossible - once you do that you destroy all foundation for existence itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's only appearing as a paradox to you because you are effectively defining God in a manner which suits your assertions. This is circular logic leading to a false dichotomy.

Specifically, as I pointed out, God could have created a framework which has the capability of existing on its own merit; that is, irrespective of him--such as the framework of mathematical truths. That's the "from God" possibility. Or, certain frameworks could exist even without there ever having been a God at all--that's the "no God" theory. But it doesn't matter to argue about these things, because either one could be true and we have no way of proving either. So you can't make an ineluctable case that an absolute framework--even an absolute moral framework--necessarily must derive from God. You can't even prove that God exists so how can you assert that various frameworks must derive from him? We don't know if an absolute moral framework exists or not. That we cannot presently measure it does not deny its possible existence. All you're doing is ASSERTING that if it exists it must derive from God.

Also, as I point out elsewhere in this thread, it makes AT LEAST as much sense to posit a naturally existing universal framework, as it does to first posit a God and then attribute that framework to him. And actually, the first scenario is simpler and therefore more elegant.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

because you are effectively defining God in a manner which suits your assertions.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm defining God the way the Bible does. I don't base His definition on my logic. All human reason is circular in the larger sense. You have to start with a presupposition. That presupposition defines and limits what conclusions you will reach.

[ QUOTE ]

Specifically, as I pointed out, God could have created a framework which has the capability of existing on its own merit


[/ QUOTE ]

He could not have done this because it is logically impossible given the nature of God, anymore than He can lie or create a square circle. I know, that's circular. It's a presupposition. It's what the Bible says God is.

[ QUOTE ]

All you're doing is ASSERTING that if it exists it must derive from God.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I'm asserting what the Bible says, "Nothing has come into being apart from Him". Because if something exists apart from God He isn't God.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, as I point out elsewhere in this thread, it makes AT LEAST as much sense to posit a naturally existing universal framework,


[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't because to do so you must presuppose the non-existence of the Biblical God, which destroys all sense.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

All you're doing is ASSERTING that if it exists it must derive from God.

[/ QUOTE ]




Exactly. I'm asserting what the Bible says, "Nothing has come into being apart from Him". Because if something exists apart from God He isn't God.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I said God MIGHT have created mathematical laws such that they would exist with or without him. If you view that as a square circle (I don't), then just consider the alternative possibility that such laws could simply exist as a natural part of the universe, as in the atheists view. Either way, frameworks could exist which have the capability of existence either with or without God. You haven't demonstrated otherwise; you've only made assertions.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, as I point out elsewhere in this thread, it makes AT LEAST as much sense to posit a naturally existing universal framework, as it does to first posit a God and then attribute that framework to him

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't because to do so you must presuppose the non-existence of the Biblical God, which destroys all sense.


[/ QUOTE ]

Positing the non-existence of God doesn't destroy sense in the least. It's merely one possibility to consider. If God does not exist, how exactly do you propose that sense is destroyed?

[ QUOTE ]
As usual, you have failed to comprehend the whole argument. I already stated that the person in the state of grave pain WANTS to die. This is the state where they have not gone crazy yet due to the pain, but nevertheless cannot focus on anything else but ending the pain by any means necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I have been in that pain before and I didn't kill myself. Why was this? Because I wanted to live. I knew the pain to be temporary. People can logically realize that the pleasure of living after a great amount of pain would be greater than the amount of pain. However if I got shot in the belly with no one else around you in the middle of the desert, and I had a gun in my hand, pretty quickly I'd end it.

People go through the pain of dieting because they know they will get more pleasure later when thinner. People go through the agony of pain w/o killing themselves because
living without pain later will give them pleasure. But put me in a situation where I can't get out of a great amount of pain, then yes, I'll kill myself.

[ QUOTE ]
And speaking of intellectual honesty, I do not recall you answering me as to what is the rational distinction between two men sodomizing each other versus two brothers. Or maybe you approve of both.

[/ QUOTE ]

I apologize if I missed your post. I spend time at many threads which causes me to forget about others.

To answer your incest question. To me it doesn't matter what two consenting adults do. Although I don't think the pro-gay incest lobby is quite large enough to make this a serious issue for you or anybody. I'm worried about all my gay friends that may have a difficult future because of 'family values' politicians. If ever there's a civil rights movement to let two brothers do it with each other it wouldn't bother me, although it gets that negative emotional reaction out of me that you wanted when you pointed to an absurd extreme example.
The distinction you want is an easy one. It's the same distinction between a man and his girlfriend having sex and a man and his sister having sex. I don't think anyone other than conservatives buy into the "if we allow two guys to have sex then next thing you know incest and bestiality will take over the world" slippery slope (which is a logical fallacy, by the way) argument.
I may think gay incest is disgusting. I also think eating your own [censored] and vomit is disgusting. I don't think either are a big enough issue to worry about and even if they were I wouldn't want them to be illegal. I also think smoking is disgusting. I still want it legal.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

Any of my definitions of Absolute Morality would be within the context of a God.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to have impassed us here, but maybe you'll see a way thru this for us if I recap -

Mr S posts - "Me and Not Ready say that if there are absolute morals then there must be a God"

I reply - "It's not hard to think of other reasons for absolute morals if the right half of the equation is left open."

You request an example. I ask for a definition of YOUR version of absolute morals so then I can give you another reason for it. You respond -

"Any of my definitions of Absolute Morality would be within the context of a God."

Haven't you just taken us back to Mr S's claim, but modified it? Perhaps I'm viewing this wrong, Mr S as claiming--
a) If There is this thing "Absolute Morality"
b) Then Only god can be the source.

I want to challenge him ( and now you) that there are other b's. To do that I need to get a description of this AM ( and not assume my interpretation of those words is the same as others are using).

You essentially state that there is no if-then a-b, only a premise statement 'a' "All AM belongs to God" or some such. Fair enough, but since now there's no logical claim, therefore no logical dialogue can ensue.

unless I've missed something, luckyme..
..if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

[RJT]

The statement is made that if AMs then God. You said it is not hard to think of other ways that there can be AMs other then God. I am just saying if you can find any, then you should be able to disprove the original. I asked for examples. If you have any, let’s hear ‘em. If they seem worthwhile, I will help you with your attempt. I say there are none outside a context of some “thing” that dictates by decree the AMs (they are really a “gift” but to not sound un-objective I use the words dictate and decree).

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Either way, frameworks could exist which have the capability of existence either with or without God. You haven't demonstrated otherwise; you've only made assertions.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. It's a presupposition. You presuppose the opposite.

[ QUOTE ]

If God does not exist, how exactly do you propose that sense is destroyed?


[/ QUOTE ]

How can the irrational produce sense?

I want to repeat so maybe you will address it. This is not an argument invented by Christians. At least since Nietzsche it's a fundamental part of atheistic philosophy. Nietzsche said "There is no teleology. There are no absolute values". So you don't need to attack my position because I'm a Christian. You have modern atheistic philosophy to contend with as well.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Either way, frameworks could exist which have the capability of existence either with or without God. You haven't demonstrated otherwise; you've only made assertions.

[/ QUOTE ]




Exactly. It's a presupposition. You presuppose the opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm allowing for all possibilities; you're not. I'm not taking a diametrically opposed position to yours. And my argument doesn't hinge on this point, whereas yours seems to: it matters not to my argument at all if there is, or is not, an absolute moral framework; nor if there is such, whether it does, or does not, derive from God. I'm just saying that you haven't made a strong case that such a moral framework, if it exists, MUST derive from God. And I personally doubt that such a framework if it exists MUST derive from God. As I pointed out, mathematical truths are an absolute framework, and nobody in this thread has shown that mathematical truths MUST derive from God--you've asserted as much by definition and your interpretation of the Bible, which is to say, without reasoned argument or proof.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If God does not exist, how exactly do you propose that sense is destroyed?

[/ QUOTE ]

How can the irrational produce sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't shown that the non-existence of God would be irrational in the first place. Would you care to elaborate?

[ QUOTE ]
I want to repeat so maybe you will address it. This is not an argument invented by Christians. At least since Nietzsche it's a fundamental part of atheistic philosophy. Nietzsche said "There is no teleology. There are no absolute values". So you don't need to attack my position because I'm a Christian. You have modern atheistic philosophy to contend with as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm not attacking your position because you are a Christian.

Your assertions and the assertion of Nietzche which you cited are very far from being PROOFS. The odd part is, I'm not even arguing for the existence of an absolute moral framework. I'm just saying that: 1) such a framework MIGHT exist, and 2) the assertion that it could ONLY exist if God also exists is an unproven assertion--and not only is is unproven but it doesn't even seem to be highly reasoned. Thus far you haven't offered anything but assertions to back up your conclusion/assertion. No offense meant but I fail to see why Sklansky shares your view on this.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm allowing for all possibilities


[/ QUOTE ]

That's a presupposition which presupposes the impossibility of the Biblical God.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm just saying that you haven't made a strong case that such a moral framework, if it exists, must derive from God.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is virtually self-evident. How could absolute morality exist apart from mind?

[ QUOTE ]

You haven't shown that the non-existence of God would be irrational in the first place


[/ QUOTE ]

If no God no Mind. No Mind no ultimate reason, ergo irrational.

[ QUOTE ]

Fine, but your assertions and the assertion of Nietzche you cited are very far from being PROOFS


[/ QUOTE ]

I tolja - it's not a proof. I agreed, it's an assertion, a presupposition. Nietzsche makes the opposite presupposition, that the universe is irrational. He doesn't prove it. He can't. He asserts it. Given that the universe is irrational, what logically follows? Forget that nothing CAN logically follow from the ultimately irrational. Irrationally apply logic anyway. Rationalize the irrational. Whatever you come up with is based ultimately on the irrational and is thus ultimately irrational.

[ QUOTE ]

No offense meant but I fail to see why Sklansky shares your view on this.


[/ QUOTE ]

He got this many hundreds of posts ago.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The statement is made that if AMs then God. You said it is not hard to think of other ways that there can be AMs other then God. I am just saying if you can find any, then you should be able to disprove the original. I asked for examples. If you have any, let’s hear ‘em.

[/ QUOTE ]



OK here is a loose attempt to give a possible moral framework:

1) All sentient beings living in the physical world must cause some harm in order to live (eating, crushing tiny insects underfoot, etc).

2) Harm done to other sentient beings out of necessity is acceptable.

3) Harm done to other sentient beings for non-necessity: for things such as discretionary enjoyment, etc.--are to be weighed against the degree and amount of harm done.

4) Thus, doing immense harm to other sentient beings for minor or frivolous gain is on the "bad" side of the sliding scale.

5) There could theoretically be measured the degrees of harm done for the amounts of gain or pleasure accrued, with exceptions made for necessity. "Moral" is taking the feelings and well-being of others into reasonable consideration under such a model; "immoral" is a purely selfish path irrespective of costs or considerations to others.

6) Since the everything is part of the universe, a sentient being minimizing instead of maximizing harm done (outside of necessity) is treading a more moral path. And of course helping others can be on the plus side of that too.

I'm not saying this IS the model, but it could be a rough representation of such a model. And since the universe itself might be considered a great organism of some sort, this would also make sense in another way as well.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm allowing for all possibilities



[/ QUOTE ]


That's a presupposition which presupposes the impossibility of the Biblical God.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it just allows for other possibilities as well. I'm not ruling out the possibility of the Biblical God.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm just saying that you haven't made a strong case that such a moral framework, if it exists, must derive from God.

[/ QUOTE ]




This is virtually self-evident. How could absolute morality exist apart from mind?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's erroneous to think that it is self-evident. As I already said, imagine a moral framework in the weay that mathematical laws exist. The framework is just less clear or measurable to us at present. Mathematical truths DO exist even without our minds to think of them. A gorilla eating twice as many bananas as another gorilla is eating twice as much food--even without our minds.



[ QUOTE ]
Y[ QUOTE ]
ou haven't shown that the non-existence of God would be irrational in the first place

[/ QUOTE ]




If no God no Mind. No Mind no ultimate reason, ergo irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

More circular reasoning. You haven't shown: if no God no Mind; you've only used the Bible to imply that assertion. I'm not asking just what the Bible says or what you take it to imply; I'm asking for REASONED ARGUMENTS. If you're asserting that absolute morals can only exist from God, I can see why YOU would feel so, given that you feel the Bible is sufficient evidence. But why would Sklansky? Can you give a rationale that goes beyond just having complete faith in your interpretation of the Bible?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fine, but your assertions and the assertion of Nietzche you cited are very far from being PROOFS

[/ QUOTE ]

I tolja - it's not a proof. I agreed, it's an assertion, a presupposition. Nietzsche makes the opposite presupposition, that the universe is irrational. He doesn't prove it. He can't. He asserts it. Given that the universe is irrational, what logically follows? Forget that nothing CAN logically follow from the ultimately irrational. Irrationally apply logic anyway. Rationalize the irrational. Whatever you come up with is based ultimately on the irrational and is thus ultimately irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should the universe have to be either wholly rational or wholly irrational? Why couldn't it contain elements of BOTH?



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No offense meant but I fail to see why Sklansky shares your view on this.


[/ QUOTE ]



He got this many hundreds of posts ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well based on this thread thus far I think you and he are both quite likely wrong on this. An absolute moral framework does not NECESSARILY IMPLY the existence of God, and neither does an absolute mathematical framework. Granted they are not the same thing, but if one absolute framework does not imply the existence of God then there is little reason to suspect that the existence of another framework would so imply.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're asserting that absolute morals can only exist from God, I can see why YOU would feel so, given that you feel the Bible is sufficient evidence. But why would Sklansky?

[/ QUOTE ]

You touch on one reason I've been intrigued by this exchanges. I see the issue as begging the question/circular and normally I'd just say nothing since most people can't get out of their loop. However, when Mr S seems to support it I use a version of his theory ... a mind that may well be smarter than me would be very unlikely to propose such a flawed argument so it is very possible the real argument is correct and it is my take on it that is wrong. So far, it's remained circular but we haven't heard from Mr S yet to clarify his claim.

luckyme

[David Sklansky]

Would you feel better if I said that even with God there was no absolute morality, just his wishes?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

Would you feel better if I said that even with God there was no absolute morality, just his wishes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi David,

That is certainly one possibility, and I would not object or require further elaboration unless you held that it must be true.

What I am taking exception to, from a purely logical standpoint, is the following statement:

IF there is absolute morality, God MUST exist.

I simply don't think that the second part MUST follow from the first.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you feel better if I said that even with God there was no absolute morality, just his wishes?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is of course a possibility. I am not sure we even have to add "just his wishes". Who knows if He wishes anything?

But if AM then there must be an AM authority is all. Some thing to decree it.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
But if AM then there must be an AM authority is all. Some thing to decree it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily so. Just because you cannot conceptualize the notion of something existing without it having been decreed--or created--does not mean that it cannot have happened or be happening, or even that it could not have always existed.

Taking this a step further, if we presume a Big Bang, what was before the Big Bang? Call it a "pre-universe", perhaps. Did the "pre-universe" have to be created, or could it have always existed? The correct answer is, "I don't know."

It is not logical--although it is intuitive--to presume that EVERY thing must have had a starting point or creation. Maybe all things did have an origin, but not necessarily so. It is perhaps possible that some things (or perhaps some abstract frameworks) have simply always existed, as odd as that concept might seem. Maybe not, but we don't know that.

[RJT]

So are you saying if AM can exist outside of a AM authority, that the said AM has yet to be "discovered"? Or do you have suggestions of what that AM is? Also, is there a purpose or some usefullness to this AM. That is, if one or all follows the AM then x happens.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
So are you saying if AM can exist outside of a AM authority, that the said AM has yet to be "discovered"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Possibly.

[ QUOTE ]
Or do you have suggestions of what that AM is? Also, is there a purpose or some usefullness to this AM. That is, if one or all follows the AM then x happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I posted elsewhere in this thread, it *might* have to do gain versus harm; and with intelligent sentient beings weighing their own potential gains against potential harms to others, and showing some discretion or consideration for others especially when the personal gains would be dwarfed by the harms caused. Conversely, it could be applied in considering harm to one's self when such would help others--if the harm to one's self is relatively slight yet there would be great benefit to another, it could be considered a good or moral action.

This sort of applied thinking could have a beneficial effect on the "organism" of the local community, the world, or even the universe as a whole. And it is just possible that this sort of framework is part of the foundation for a moral framework that exists within any system comprised of individual yet interacting entities.

When interests conflict (instead of interests being cooperative in nature, a different case), then comparative beneficial or ill effects might be considered--and while one naturally weights one's own interest more heavily, if the disparity in effect is beyond a certain guideline then the action should or should not be undetaken.

For instance, an extreme example: it would be clearly wrong to cause 10,000 people to die a cruel death just so you could get an second helping of ice cream after dinner. Conversely, if you gave up a free pizza to save 10,000 people from misery and death, that would clearly be a good thing to do (presuming no complex truly terrible overpopulation scenarios, of course).

If on the other hand you have to cause two people to die in order to save yourself from being eaten by a tiger, that is understandable even though there is a disparity. In that case the disparity is not terribly enormous, nor is your need or desire frivoulous; so you are morally allowed some leeway in the self-interested disparity. If however you caused two people to be tortured to death merely to avoid getting bitten by a mosquito, that would be too great a disparity and your self-interest would not be great enough to justify it morally.

I'm not saying that that *is* the moral framework; just a rough outline of what could possibly be such a framework or part of some such framework.

[RJT]

I am in the process of starting a new thread - I think some of your thoughts are echoed in it. Talk then.

[Piers]

If you define absolute morality as God’s wishes then it makes sense that absolute morality can only exist if God does.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
If you define absolute morality as God’s wishes then it makes sense that absolute morality can only exist if God does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well yes, that follows. Maybe that's what David was trying to say.

I just don't think that the following stand-alone statement necessarily has to be true: "IF Absolute Morals, THEN God"

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I just don't think that the following stand-alone statement necessarily has to be true: "IF Absolute Morals, THEN God"


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is you can't have a standard above God if God is defined as absolute, otherwise He isn't absolute and therefore not God. It's the old Euthyphro problem of Plato, is something good because God says so (arbitrary) or does God say it's good because of an independent standard (in which case He's not absolute, not God). This is a false dilemma according to theism because AM is an expression of God's nature or character. He is goodness itself and what He says is good, not because it's arbitrary, but because it comes from His character. God isn't free to make up just any kind of moral imperative because He can't violate His own nature.

Euthyphro is really just a disguised way of saying that it's impossible for an absolute being to exist. I saw Martin attempt to disprove the theistic explanation of Euthyphro by saying that theism is just moving the issue back one step - how do you know God's character is good? You have to use a standard, etc. What I said in another dialogue with you applies here. Martin is presupposing the impossibility of God, as was Plato. The reason the cosmological theistic proof doesn't work as stated is because the impossibility of God is presupposed.

And yes, it's an assertion. We don't know God's character is good because of an independent standard. God is Himself the definition of good. Any other approach denies the possibility of God, sets man's reason above God, seeks absolutes in an impersonal and independent standard. A logical starting point is required. There are only two. God and not-God.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't think that the following stand-alone statement necessarily has to be true: "IF Absolute Morals, THEN God"

[/ QUOTE ]


The problem is you can't have a standard above God if God is defined as absolute,

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not a problem for my statement above; there are two ways around it.

The first way around your stated "problem" for my statement would be: that there is no God, but there do exist certain absolute frameworks--such as mathematical laws, for instance. One less likely such framework might be an absolute moral framework. So there could exist no God, and exist an absolute moral framework (perhaps the framework would be regarding how sentient, intelligent, self-aware beings interact with other sentient beings). In this case, your objection that "you can't have a standard above God" would not be applicable.

The second way around your stated "problem" for my statement would be that God created some specific frameworks, not such that they would surpass himself, but so as to also possess certain immutable and eternal characteristics. In this case too, your objection that "you can't have a standard above God" would not apply.

[imported_luckyme]

I enjoy the scene in "Kate and Leopold" where he is warned not to turn on the dishwasher until Kate is up to see it because, "If a man does the dishes and nobody sees it, did it really happen."

I'd be interested in any comments on what the standing of AM would be if nobody paid any attention to it. Unlike the speed of light or the force of gravity ( which seem to Absolutely apply whether we want them to or not), what does it mean to say something exists if it influences nothing? How is that different from not existing. or to paraphrase Bill, "what is the meaning of 'is'".

luckyme,
.. if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I enjoy the scene in "Kate and Leopold" where he is warned not to turn on the dishwasher until Kate is up to see it because, "If a man does the dishes and nobody sees it, did it really happen."

[/ QUOTE ]


*******'s stole my joke (okay I stole it as well)

If no women can hear a group of men talking in a forest then are they still wrong?

chez