If There Is No God

[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