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.