If There Is No God

[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.