Where do good and evil come from?

Corkfeen

Onesimus wrote: »

Corkfeen, ask any psychiatrist, Morality is invisible and cannot be studied physcially, neither can human thoughts/mind. Therefore Atheists believe in something invisible. But if it is not part of physical human nature and lives apart from the human body, then where does it come from? If it cannot be studied in the physcial realm at all?

Two atheist philosphers ( I seriously can't remember their names ) really dislike the atheistic books by hitchens and dawkins etc because they are embarrassed by the fact that the real serious intellectuals ( not bible bashers like hitchens ) like themselves and Christian intellectuals as well both know that morality is invisible and that atheists cannot account for the human mind or morality and know it is not part of the physical human nature. But free will being as strong as it is and as stubborn as it gets, these great intellectuals after all of this simply don't WANT to believe in God. It is not a matter or proof or evidence, its a matter of not wanting to believe or wanting to believe.

We can talk about moral absolutes and non-moral absolutes until the cows come home and scream MOOOOO. But before all this, where does the invisible human/mind or morality come from at all if not from the physical? Then we can discuss objective and subjective morality.

I know you don't agree with Dawkins or Hitchens but they are very much in the category of 'real serious intellectuals', they just don't fit your world view..... Psychology is classified as studying the mind and human behaviour, defining what we believe to be moral is human behaviour(instead of saying 'see, god did it!'). For example, many things that would be considered to be immoral now would have been considered to be perfectly fine thousands(or even decades ago) of years ago.

It appears that you're here to preach more than discuss......

Onesimus

Michael Nugent wrote: »

There are no gods, and there are atheists.

If there were any gods, there would be fewer atheists.

I guess you've run a worldwide survey on how many atheists there are huh?

strobe

Just to bring you back to this if I could Onesimus? Could you attempt to put forward your(a) argument that objective morality exists?

Onesimus

Corkfeen wrote: »

I know you don't agree with Dawkins or Hitchens but they are very much in the category of 'real serious intellectuals', they just don't fit your world view..... Psychology is classified as studying the mind and human behaviour, defining what we believe to be moral is human behaviour(instead of saying 'see, god did it!'). For example, many things that would be considered to be immoral now would have been considered to be perfectly fine thousands(or even decades ago) of years ago.

It appears that you're here to preach more than discuss......

*sigh*. Corkfeen, yes one can study someones behaviour, but human thoughts and morality does not exist in our ''physical'' make up. Every big Atheist in the ivory tower knows this. Bigger intellectuals than dawkins and hitchens who are just upset with religion and their books are milked and just shyte really.

Let me get back to it. Our very ability to study behaviour and watch how it does this and that is one thing. SEEING THAT BEHAVIOUR with your OWN PHYSICAL EYES is another. Because you can't, its invisible, not even found in the physical body. Every scientist worth his salty taste knows this.

Sycopat

Onesimus wrote: »

Syco. How can morals come from human beings when they do not exist in the human being at all? they are not physical? how can humans invent something ( morals ) that are invisible and not even part of their physcial nature?

I have to assume you understand the idea of a concept, or an idea.

Permit me a small thought exercise, I assure you I'm not taking the piss.

Imagine a dragon. Seriously, think about a dragon for a minute. You know what a dragon is, I don't need to describe it to you, you can picture hundreds in your head no doubt. Ones you've seen in movies, ones that live only in your imagination.

But dragons don't exist. Humans invented them. They are 'invisible' and not part of physical nature.

Morals are like dragons, you've seen some written down (drawn in the case of dragons) but there are many variations on the theme, some already written or drawn, some remain only in our heads. They can vary wildly between cultures, and between individuals. But they were never physically real, except for when people tried to make them real by carving them in stone or wood, or writing them down, or telling them as stories to their children.

Corkfeen

Onesimus wrote: »

*sigh*. Corkfeen, yes one can study someones behaviour, but human thoughts and morality does not exist in our ''physical'' make up. Every big Atheist in the ivory tower knows this. Bigger intellectuals than dawkins and hitchens who are just upset with religion and their books are milked and just shyte really.

Let me get back to it. Our very ability to study behaviour and watch how it does this and that is one thing. SEEING THAT BEHAVIOUR with your OWN PHYSICAL EYES is another. Because you can't, its invisible, not even found in the physical body. Every scientist worth his salty taste knows this.

Hitchens has plenty of writings outside of religion(and was acclaimed for that work) and Dawkins was a highly respected biologist prior to 'The God Delusion' so not exactly centered primarily around religion. I've read the rest of what you've written and it just seems to be incoherent rambling more than anything else. Can you make an actual argument for an objective morality or is it just going to be a rant?

Onesimus

Sycopat wrote: »

I have to assume you understand the idea of a concept, or an idea.

Permit me a small thought exercise, I assure you I'm not taking the piss.

Imagine a dragon. Seriously, think about a dragon for a minute. You know what a dragon is, I don't need to describe it to you, you can picture hundreds in your head no doubt. Ones you've seen in movies, ones that live only in your imagination.

But dragons don't exist. Humans invented them. They are 'invisible' and not part of physical nature.

Morals are like dragons, you've seen some written down (drawn in the case of dragons) but there are many variations on the theme, some already written or drawn, some remain only in our heads. They can vary wildly between cultures, and between individuals. But they were never physically real, except for when people tried to make them real by carving them in stone or wood, or writing them down, or telling them as stories to their children.

You seem to think that the humans ability to imagine a Dragon is somehow in comparison with morals that are written within us.

But the very mind itself is invisible. Scientists are unable to detect physcially what it is that allows a human to actually imagine a dragon. Its not physical. The human mind can not be accounted for physcially. We are therefore aware of something ( and believe in ) something invisible when it comes to the human mind/morals. The very mind itself which is invisible exists apart from the human body, because it cannot be there for it cannot been SEEN physcially.

the very ability we have to study human behaviour cannot be seen physically.

Its a fact, not fiction. Anyone trying to argue against the fact that we cannot account for these things physcially would be seen as mad by the scientific crowd and the heavyweight atheist philosophers.

King Mob

Onesimus wrote: »

*sigh*. Corkfeen, yes one can study someones behaviour, but human thoughts and morality does not exist in our ''physical'' make up. Every big Atheist in the ivory tower knows this. Bigger intellectuals than dawkins and hitchens who are just upset with religion and their books are milked and just shyte really.

Let me get back to it. Our very ability to study behaviour and watch how it does this and that is one thing. SEEING THAT BEHAVIOUR with your OWN PHYSICAL EYES is another. Because you can't, its invisible, not even found in the physical body. Every scientist worth his salty taste knows this.

But we can see were thoughts come from. It's called neuroscience.

Onesimus

Corkfeen wrote: »

Hitchens has plenty of writings outside of religion(and was acclaimed for that work) and Dawkins was a highly respected biologist prior to 'The God Delusion' so not exactly centered primarily around religion. I've read the rest of what you've written and it just seems to be incoherent rambling more than anything else. Can you make an actual argument for an objective morality or is it just going to be a rant?

Why is everyone trying to get me to make an argument for objective reality? First we need to settle the argument that atheists will accept that they are aware and do believe in the invisible mind or behaviour and that it is not part of the human physical make-up. Because many heavyweight atheistic philosophers do.

Corkfeen

King Mob wrote: »

But we can see were thoughts come from. It's called neuroscience.

I think Onesimus expects live video playback of the human thought processes. Otherwise t'is just invisible ****e that god put there.....

Sycopat

Onesimus wrote: »

You seem to think that the humans ability to imagine a Dragon is somehow in comparison with morals that are written within us.

But the very mind itself is invisible. Scientists are unable to detect physcially what it is that allows a human to actually imagine a dragon. Its not physical. The human mind can not be accounted for physcially. We are therefore aware of something ( and believe in ) something invisible when it comes to the human mind/morals. The very mind itself which is invisible exists apart from the human body, because it cannot be there for it cannot been SEEN physcially.

the very ability we have to study human behaviour cannot be seen physically.

Its a fact, not fiction. Anyone trying to argue against the fact that we cannot account for these things physcially would be seen as mad by the scientific crowd and the heavyweight atheist philosophers.

Who says morals are written within us?

You seem unable to seperate the mind from morals, but they are not one and the same thing. We can't explain the mind fully, physically, yet, nor have I made any attempt to. It's considered an emergent property of the brain and there is a lot we don't know (And we can damage the mind by causing damage to the brain, and fix some minor forms of damage to the mind by treating the brain with chemicals) but we can observe human behaviour, and listen to other humans spoken thoughts and we can this way observe that different people have different morals.

I'm not trying to account for the physicality of morals, because I don't believe morals are physical. That argument makes no difference to me, it has no bearing whatsoever on my argument because I believe morals are conceptual and subjective. That's why I compared them to dragons. (Also because dragons, like morals, exist in most cultures but are very different and tend to reflect both social and individual tastes wherever found, but I guess that was unappreciated.)

Onesimus

Science and religion both believe and understand that the mind and the body are poles apart. One is physical ( the body ) and the other abstract ( the mind ). In other words the mind cannot be accounted for scientifically.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_in_a_human_body_is_the_mind_located

Of course it's hard for many here to accept this fact. It has never been proven ever that the mind is part of the physical body. Because it isn't. We are aware of and believe in something invisible.

Sycopat

Onesimus wrote: »

Science and religion both believe and understand that the mind and the body are poles apart. One is physical ( the body ) and the other abstract ( the mind ). In other words the mind cannot be accounted for scientifically.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_in_a_human_body_is_the_mind_located

Of course it's hard for many here to accept this fact. It has never been proven ever that the mind is part of the physical body. Because it isn't. We are aware of and believe in something invisible.

It's not hard to accept at all, other than the observed disruption of the mind by various physical interventions and vice-versa (Brain damage and anti-depression meds) there is a lot we don't understand about the mind.

But you've made no argument for why you think morality is innate and objective.

Sofaspud

Morality is a consequence of empathy. A person with morals simply wouldn't want to physically or emotionally harm another, as they can understand the negative feelings involved.

There, morality explained.

Onesimus

Sycopat wrote: »

It's not hard to accept at all, other than the observed disruption of the mind by various physical interventions and vice-versa (Brain damage and anti-depression meds) there is a lot we don't understand about the mind.

But you've made no argument for why you think morality is innate and objective.

If you accept that then where does the mind come from? If not from the human physical body and not from the physical earth and not from the physical universe, then where does it come from? This abstract mind atheists cannot account for.Could it not cross the atheist mind ( who believe only in the physical ) that this invisible mind of ours was given to us by an invisible but very real supernatural being?.

But we are told that ''one day will be able to know'' wow, in saying that your no different than mystic meg and all those charlatans you make fun of and deride here on your forum for being delusional.

Mardy Bum

Onesimus wrote: »

Science and religion both believe and understand that the mind and the body are poles apart. One is physical ( the body ) and the other abstract ( the mind ). In other words the mind cannot be accounted for scientifically.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_in_a_human_body_is_the_mind_located

Of course it's hard for many here to accept this fact. It has never been proven ever that the mind is part of the physical body. Because it isn't. We are aware of and believe in something invisible.

Posters could try to bring you round to their view a hundred times over Onesimus but as you probably know yourself you are not going to change your mind as a result of what someone says on boards so maybe go one better and do a bit of background reading regarding the subject.
You have very little background knowledge acquired and it shows in your comments. If you actually want to learn something about the mind read Steven Pinker's rather excellent book How the Mind Works. Follow that up with another in his collection called The Blank Slate.

If you have managed that you should try Evolutionary Psychology: A New Science of the Mind by David Buss, a really enlightening read. Now if you have come that far you might as well read Robert Wrights The Moral Animal: Why we are the way we are. I guarantee you will have completely changed your views regarding morality at this stage. Finally now that you are on Wright you should read The Evolution of God.

You may just change your world view or you won't read them at all and retain the same world view.

Sycopat

Onesimus wrote: »

If you accept that then where does the mind come from? If not from the human physical body and not from the physical earth and not from the physical universe, then where does it come from? This abstract mind atheists cannot account for.Could it not cross the atheist mind ( who believe only in the physical ) that this invisible mind of ours was given to us by an invisible but very real supernatural being?.

But we are told that ''one day will be able to know'' wow, in saying that your no different than mystic meg and all those charlatans you make fun of and deride here on your forum for being delusional.

It's probably an emergent property of the brain, as described already, based on current observations. Why should I assume the supernatural when there is so much of the natural left to explore?

Also, admitting we don't know the answer to a question yet is very different to claiming magical powers.

But all that is of course, completely off topic.

Do you actually have an argument for innate objective morality? Or are you just hoping someone is going to argue with you about the nature of the mind?

Sarky

Sycopat wrote: »

It's probably an emergent property of the brain, as described already, based on current observations.

Based on my own experiences, including a taking wide range of various medications from antibiotics to sleep enhancers to antidepressants to steroids to alcohol, and the similar experiences of several friends, not to mention all the research I've read and done on systems that can generate emergent processes, I'd bet good money on this being the case. It's certainly the way all the evidence found so far is pointing.

Unless of course antibiotics, sleep enhancers, antidepressants and alcohol are magical and contain something intangible that can somehow reach this invisible separate mind of Onesimus'. Those tricksy big pharma corporations, eh? They never said ritual prayer or pixie dust in the ingredients...

King Mob

Onesimus wrote: »

Of course it's hard for many here to accept this fact. It has never been proven ever that the mind is part of the physical body. Because it isn't. We are aware of and believe in something invisible.

How do you know it isn't?
You are assuming this premise while ignore several fields of science for no good reason beyond that you prefer to believe your premise.

How do you know for certain that the mind is supernatural other than you do not understand how it might be natural?

Or should we just accept an argument from ignorance as the basis for your logic?

Mark Hamill

Onesimus wrote: »

If you accept that then where does the mind come from? If not from the human physical body ...

It comes from the human physical body. The mind is in the brain. Don't believe me? Go ask your doctor for a lobotomy and see how much of your mind remains. We actually have a pretty good idea of where the different aspects of the mind sit in the human brain (emotions, spatial reasoning, language etc.) , what we lack is complete understanding of how they function and interact (although the existence of various mood altering drugs show that we can alter them).

Sarky

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I what we lack is complete understanding of how they function and interact (although the existence of various mood altering drugs show that we can alter them).

Any mood altering drugs I've taken leave me with the impression that the mind is a whole load of various processes clashing together and the consensus is what people like to call consciousness. It's why you can argue with yourself, or do several things at once, or have doubts or cognitive dissonance or think of music in harmony or a load of other different things.

It's complicated. Very, VERY complicated. But it's not magic.

Andrewf20

The video has some intersting points that seem reasonable. However, heres some concerns I have...

The bible says "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." So why do some people assume that God is perfectly moral?

Also he says in the video: "I doubt you would want to live a world where there is free reign". But isnt that what God supposedly offers us? i.e free will.

The conclusion in the video may get you as far as the idea of deism (which im not convinced it does), but theism is another kettle of fish if thats what he is trying to get at.

Also to describe morality as supernatural is to say that it cannot be explained by natural law, therefore God is the answer. However this hints at the God of the gaps hypothesis. Either God is the source of morality (and immorality perhaps?) or we simply dont know enough yet to fully understand it.

Also he says because morals dont exist physically they must be supernatural. But do emotions exist physically? Are the causes of emotions supernatural as well, because his line of thinking would suggest that they are.

Also, how about the fact that religon was not needed for the 90+ thousand years in which the human population grew before the notion of a supernatural law setter came to be. As the Hitch said, we would not have gotten this far if it wasnt for some semblance of people being good to one another for the most part (without the need to appeal to a supernatural moral instructor).

Zombrex

Onesimus wrote: »

What do you think of this short 5 minute explanation?

Well I thought it was impressive how much nonsense he could fit into 5 minutes, so we have to give him that.

As for what morality is, it is pretty simple, it is human opinion on human behaviour. It is what you think about what you or someone else did. It is heavily influenced by evolution (his explanation for why evolution cannot explain morality is beyond laughable), influenced by reason, and influenced by culture. But it is just that, opinion. It is the same as thinking chocolate ice cream is the best ice cream or that Star Wars Episode I was a terrible film.

That doesn't mean the often quoted by Christian straw man that if morality is subjective it means we must respect everyone's moral opinion, even Hitler, because we cannot objectively say it is wrong.

You must respect a moral opinion unless you can objectively show it is wrong is after all, just an opinion that in of itself cannot be shown to be objectively right or wrong either. Or to put it another way, Who says?

I'm perfectly happy with the idea that my morality is "just" my opinion (as Christians like to say as if the "just" is some how a detractor), and I'm perfectly happy not respecting your moral opinion as well. If you think that is inconsistent well great, that is your opinion.

In fact Christians themselves do this all the time with opinions that cannot be justified objectively. Even if you accept the existence of God the opinion that if God exists and decides something moral that moral opinion must trump all others, or the moral notion that if God created life he can rightfully do what he likes with it, are just that, opinions.

Both those things are "just" moral opinions of Christians that cannot be referenced back to God as an authority without self referencing (God is the ultimate source of morality, we know this because God says so and he is the ultimate source of morality ... circular logic).

So, just like everyone else, Christians have to rely on their own moral opinions in order to even assert moral objectivity in the first place.

Zombrex

Onesimus wrote: »

If you accept that then where does the mind come from? If not from the human physical body and not from the physical earth and not from the physical universe, then where does it come from? This abstract mind atheists cannot account for.Could it not cross the atheist mind ( who believe only in the physical ) that this invisible mind of ours was given to us by an invisible but very real supernatural being?.

But we are told that ''one day will be able to know'' wow, in saying that your no different than mystic meg and all those charlatans you make fun of and deride here on your forum for being delusional.

The only evidence we have ever found is that the mind is a produce of the human brain (again extensive research into brain damage shows that said damage causes significant alteration of personality, memory, cognitive processes, desires and emotional responses.

But more interestingly we have also discovered why humans don't like this idea so much, despite it being the only one even remotely supported by the evidence.

It is because we evolved to abstractly think about identity separate to physical bodies. This allowed our ancestors to model and consider the actions and motivations of people who were not physically present, a mental skill that seems to exist only in humans and some other primates. We tend to think of the mind as separate to the body to allow us to think about the mind without the need of the body.

Or to put it another way, when I'm sitting in my hut thinking about you (a chieftain in another tribe on the other side of the river who we have been at war with for the last few weeks) I am concerned about what you are thinking, not what you are physically doing. I don't care if you are eating an apple, or sitting on the toilet. I care about what I think you are thinking, what your motivation is, what your plan of attack is.

So I don't think about what you are physically doing, I don't mentally model your entire body, I think of you an abstract "mind", simply the decision making process.

As we evolved to consciously consider what we are selves are thinking we naturally noticed we had this tendency to think of the mind separate to the body. The mistake a lot of religious and supernaturalists make is some how thinking this means something significant with regards to the physical make up of the brain and the mind.

The argument being, Well we think about the body and the mind as separate things, so surely that is at least evidence that they are separate things. Which of course it isn't. The only evidence we have discovered is that the brain produces the mind.

A good analogy is day and night. For a significant amount of human history day and night were considered two separate things, simply because that is how we mentally considered them.

We now know that in reality day and night are simply different stages of the same thing, the rotation of the Earth. At some points in this rotation we face the sun and others we don't and it is dark. Day and night are not two distinct things, they are simply markers on a continuos scale of rotation. But of course we still think of them as distinct, after all we still say "day" and "night".

ShooterSF

Onesimus wrote: »

Every scientist worth his salty taste knows this.

So yeah here's the thing. The scientists and I have been talking and while they don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or make a scene they did asked me to tell you that licking them while they work is making them a bit uncomfortable. I hope you understand. I'm sure a few would be up to consensual licking after hours!

pauldla

Onesimus wrote: »

But we are told that ''one day will be able to know'' wow, in saying that your no different than mystic meg and all those charlatans you make fun of and deride here on your forum for being delusional.

I don't see that this is a valid comparison. Science does indeed push forward the boundries of human understanding; Mystic Meg does not. Instead, she peddles vague assurances, half-truths and lies to the overcredulous (and no doubt pockets a tidy little dividend for her efforts). Science puts forward the message 'one day we will know, and we should keep striving to know, and by the way, here are the tools we're using', while Meg and her ilk teach 'only I know, through the mystery of <insert mumbo-jumbo here>'.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Onesimus wrote: »

Science and religion both believe and understand that the mind and the body are poles apart. One is physical ( the body ) and the other abstract ( the mind ). In other words the mind cannot be accounted for scientifically.

Certainly, there are dualists, who assert that there is a mind and a body. Descartes is probably the most famous example. The problem with this view is explaining how this invisible, spiritual mind can act on physical reality.

For what it's worth, Descartes contended that the connection between mind and body was through the pineal gland. I don't think anyone takes that specific proposition seriously these days.

And there are certainly many, many philosophers who contend that the implication of the mind/body problem is that no sound argument can be made for dualism. There probably are a couple of atheist dualists, somewhere, but I think dualism is pretty much a theist view of the world. Certainly, it absolutely is not a philosophical consensus position.

robindch

Onesimus wrote: »

how can humans invent something ( morals ) that are invisible and not even part of their physcial nature?

Maths is "invisible and not even part of (human) physcial nature" -- is that impossible too?

Dades

Onesimus, you are very clearly trying to find arguments to fit your preferred conclusion here. And every single one has been politely and comprehensively refuted, or at least shown to have no merit.

I'd almost sticky this thread as an example of the right way to counter an argument.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Maths is "invisible and not even part of (human) physcial nature" -- is that impossible too?

As is every religion, or every other religion if you are religious. Neither a Christian nor an atheist thinks Zeus is real,thus he is invented, invisible and not part of nature. In reality inventing such concepts seem to be the easiest of things to invent for humans.