Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

5 Questions Every Intelligent Atheist MUST Answer

1…567810

Comments

  • #272
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I've watched a lot of this guys (philos71) videos before, and I don't think he is arrogant in so much as trying to pose interesting questions for discussion of which there is a lot on youtube. I think he's an intelligent guy from what I've seen of him.

    I've only watched this video, so I'm not trying to judge him as that would be ridiculous, but I think this video makes him appear arrogant as many of his points would appear to be under-researched and badly thought out (by which I mean the logic he used is flawed). Also originally, all I was saying was his comparison of man-made objects to the universe is a bit silly, it makes it sound like he's putting or trying to put us on a par with God! (in my mind anyway)


  • #273
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    ....So yes, I reject your understanding outright, but I am open to the theory of evolution in a biological context.

    Is was going to ask you a few questions on your post but the above answers it all. It also shows that any further conversation with you on this topic is futile becuase with what you've said in bold you've closed yourself of to so many possibilties. With all due respect you should really reconsider just what the theory of evolution and all it entails implies in the context of society, culture, technology and not just biology? The gene and the organisms its used to construct are not the only replicators subject to natural selection, no lie.


  • #274
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Who is to say that their subjective understanding is correct? I think it is more reliable to pursue an objective standard rather than a subjective one.
    Until your god's existence is proven, who's to say it's correct?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Not particularly. This view of Creation is perfectly compatible with science, hence why you have had many Christians who have contributed much to the field of biology in the last few years and many Christians who are behind the scenes learning about biology and science while regarding it the product of a higher creation. It doesn't impact their work negatively in any shape or form.

    I'm not rejecting any form of science. I'm rejecting your understanding of science. Utter nonsense.
    Could you show me the part of the theory of evolution which states "and then God inserted our conscience" please? Because I can show you the part where the brain evolved through random mutations directed by natural selection and nothing else
    Jakkass wrote: »
    You also act as if science should be regarded above every other academic field. I think again that this is ridiculous. There are different fields of study for different subjects. Most ethicists happen to be philosophy graduates. Science has a limited scope, I find. I don't think the theory of evolution has any impact on my morality, it does impact to an extent how I view origins, but apart from that not particularly. It serves a purpose other than to deal with morality. Your invocation of evolution is just that an invocation. It's a theory on biology, not a moral philosophy.

    An ethicist's opinion on what is right or wrong is worth listening to but his opinions on the origins of morality are entirely irrelevant. That is a question for a scientist.


  • #275
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Until your god's existence is proven, who's to say it's correct?

    That's what's up for discussion. What indicates to us that God is true and His revelation is true. It depends what conclusion you come to on this as to whether or not you are willing to accept His authority.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Could you show me the part of the theory of evolution which states "and then God inserted our conscience" please? Because I can show you the part where the brain evolved through random mutations directed by natural selection and nothing else

    Can you show me what exactly this has to do with morality?

    The question isn't where does the theory of evolution state this. The theory of evolution doesn't state lots of things, yet I still accept them. Poor argument.

    You would need to show me where the theory of evolution excludes the possibility of a higher power. Simply put, you can't. Nobody can. Hence why the God question is still wide open.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    An ethicist's opinion on what is right or wrong is worth listening to but his opinions on the origins of morality are entirely irrelevant. That is a question for a scientist.

    That's where I disagree with you. I think that is a philosophical question rather than a scientific question.

    I.E I don't think Darwin or anyone else intended to discuss morality when they were discussing about how biological organisms formed.

    Infact if were to form any morality from the theory of evolution, it would be Social Darwinism.


  • #276
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Jakkass wrote: »
    You also act as if science should be regarded above every other academic field. I think again that this is ridiculous. There are different fields of study for different subjects. Most ethicists happen to be philosophy graduates. Science has a limited scope, I find. I don't think the theory of evolution has any impact on my morality, it does impact to an extent how I view origins, but apart from that not particularly. It serves a purpose other than to deal with morality. Your invocation of evolution is just that an invocation. It's a theory on biology, not a moral philosophy.

    So yes, I reject your understanding outright, but I am open to the theory of evolution in a biological context.

    But humans are products of natural selection, a biological process, and it shapes our mind as well as our body. You seem to be saying "okay evolution gave me opposible thumbs, but it didn't give me my mind." Most psychologists nowadays are getting into evolutionary psychology, and studying the brain from an evolutionary perspective.

    It's like saying "I'm open to orthopedics in a skeletal context, but not in a medical context". Evolution shapes alot more than physical characteristics.


  • Advertisement
  • #277
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Jakkass wrote: »

    That's where I disagree with you. I think that is a philosophical question rather than a scientific question.

    I.E I don't think Darwin or anyone else intended to discuss morality when they were discussing about how biological organisms formed.

    Infact if were to form any morality from the theory of evolution, it would be Social Darwinism.

    Oh, the ultimate straw man that that moron creationist f*ck brought up in the recent video with Richard Dawkins :rolleyes:

    NOBODY ADVOCATES NATURAL SELECTION AS A MORAL GUIDE

    WE ARE SUGGESTING THAT NATURAL SELECTION IS THE SOURCE OF OUR CURRENT MORAL INTUITION


    You'd probably similarly suggest that if we're trying to understand how music spontaneously arose, you should ask a musician. Why? What the f*ck do they know about it? Ask a biologist, a psychologist, a cognitive scientist.

    This annoys me. It's like those morons who see a light in the sky, so they rush onto the paranormal forum and ask what it is.

    ASK AN ASTRONOMER YOU GIMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


  • #278
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Dave, I just think that morality comes independent from science. I don't find that so unreasonable. Science deals with scientific claims. Moral philosophy, sociology, anthropology deals with morality for the most part.


  • #279
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    That's what's up for discussion. What indicates to us that God is true and His revelation is true. It depends what conclusion you come to on this as to whether or not you are willing to accept His authority.
    so what you're saying is that there is nothing to say that your religious morality is any more correct than non-religious. Right so

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Can you show me what exactly this has to do with morality?

    The question isn't where does the theory of evolution state this. The theory of evolution doesn't state lots of things, yet I still accept them. Poor argument.

    You would need to show me where the theory of evolution excludes the possibility of a higher power. Simply put, you can't. Nobody can. Hence why the God question is still wide open.
    Ah the old "you can't prove God doesn't exist" argument. I think the flying spaghetti monster implanted morality with his noodly appendage and you can't prove he didn't :rolleyes:

    Evolution doesn't exclude the possibility that a higher power guided it to create morality but it explains it perfectly adequately without one, making that higher power an unnecessary entity. Not to mention that if you think evolution was guided then what you believe in is not evolution, it's intelligent design using the process of evolution in an intelligently controlled way. Evolution requires randomness guided by nature, not by an omnipotent intelligence

    Jakkass wrote: »
    That's where I disagree with you. I think that is a philosophical question rather than a scientific question.

    I.E I don't think Darwin or anyone else intended to discuss morality when they were discussing about how biological organisms formed.

    Infact if were to form any morality from the theory of evolution, it would be Social Darwinism.
    Darwin does not discuss what is right and wrong but evolution most certainly discusses where our sense of right and wrong came from


  • #280
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    so what you're saying is that there is nothing to say that your religious morality is any more correct than non-religious. Right so

    No, that isn't what I'm saying. What I'm saying is we'll need to discuss that subject as a prerequisite to this one. You won't accept God's authority unless you are convinced that God is likely to be a reality. I would have thought that was fairly obvious.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Ah the old "you can't prove God doesn't exist" argument. I think God implanted morality and you can't prove he didn't :rolleyes:

    FYP - I will be continuing to do so as well.

    Strawmanning again. Let's recap shall we. This is your fallacious argument:
    Could you show me the part of the theory of evolution which states "and then God inserted our conscience" please? Because I can show you the part where the brain evolved through random mutations directed by natural selection and nothing else

    You argue that because God is not explicitly referred to in Darwin's theory that this excludes the possibility of the existence of God. This is clearly false, and it would be good if you could at least concede that Darwin's theory doesn't do this.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Evolution doesn't exclude the possibility that a higher power guided it to create morality but it explains it perfectly adequately without one, making that higher power an unnecessary entity. Not to mention that if you think evolution was guided then what you believe in is not evolution, it's intelligent design using the process of evolution in an intelligently controlled way.

    Thank you. That's all I was looking for!
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Darwin does not discuss what is right and wrong but evolution most certainly discusses where our sense of right and wrong came from

    An explanation of morality from Darwinian evolution isn't factual in any shape or form. It is a mere philosophy based on evolution for the explanation of morals. It isn't science, it's philosophy based on science. It's fine if you want to do this, but let's be honest about what it really is.

    I prefer to deal with evolution in the context that it was intended to be dealt with as a means of explaining the development of biological organisms.

    If you want to use it as a philosophy for how morals came into existence, that's fine, but don't expect me to accept it as factual.


  • #281
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    No, that isn't what I'm saying. What I'm saying is we'll need to discuss that subject as a prerequisite to this one. You won't accept God's authority unless you are convinced that God is likely to be a reality. I would have thought that was fairly obvious.



    FYP - I will be continuing to do so as well.

    Strawmanning again.
    I love how you say things like " I would have thought that was fairly obvious." and accuse me of logical fallacies when you can't back up your point :D

    You asked me how do I know if the subjective morality of my peers is correct and I asked how I know that your morality is correct until your god's existence is proven. you can't answer other than to say "if you believe in God you think it's correct". Point proven
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Let's recap shall we. This is your fallacious argument:
    You argue that because God is not explicitly referred to in Darwin's theory that this excludes the possibility of the existence of God. This is clearly false, and it would be good if you could at least concede that Darwin's theory doesn't do this.
    You said that christians believe that evolution was the method by which God put morality into us. I pointed out that nothing in evolution says this and you changed to saying "you can't prove it didn't happen". There are an infinite number of things that I can't prove didn't happen. It's up to you to show that they did happen. The entire concept of believing something just because it can't be disproven is fallacious and is pretty much the definition of confirmation bias, if not further into fallacious territory than confirmation bias

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Thank you. That's all I was looking for!
    All you're looking for is for me to say that there is nothing in the origins of morality to suggest that a God was involved at any stage :confused:

    Jakkass wrote: »
    An explanation of morality from Darwinian evolution isn't factual in any shape or form. It is a mere philosophy based on evolution for the explanation of morals. It isn't science, it's philosophy based on science. It's fine if you want to do this, but let's be honest about what it really is.
    You need to read a science book mate
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I prefer to deal with evolution in the context that it was intended to be dealt with as a means of explaining the development of biological organisms.

    If you want to use it as a philosophy for how morals came into existence, that's fine, but don't expect me to accept it as factual.

    Morality is a function of our brains, our biological brains, just like all of our instinctual thought processes. There is nothing supernatural involved. Evolution can completely explain the origins of morality. That is not a philosophical position, it is scientific fact


  • Advertisement
  • #282
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Jakkass wrote: »
    NAn explanation of morality from Darwinian evolution isn't factual in any shape or form. It is a mere philosophy based on evolution for the explanation of morals. It isn't science, it's philosophy based on science. It's fine if you want to do this, but let's be honest about what it really is.

    I prefer to deal with evolution in the context that it was intended to be dealt with as a means of explaining the development of biological organisms.

    If you want to use it as a philosophy for how morals came into existence, that's fine, but don't expect me to accept it as factual.

    Jakkass do you apply the same rationale to say, physical attraction, or tribal warfare? They're not biological notions, but most scientists would contend that evolution explains these just fine. What theories would be better to explain them?


  • #283
    Carpo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 135 ✭✭Carpo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    You argue that because God is not explicitly referred to in Darwin's theory that this excludes the possibility of the existence of God. This is clearly false, and it would be good if you could at least concede that Darwin's theory doesn't do this.

    Do you really think that being unable to rule something out is a good reason to rule it in?

    We cant rule out the possibility that god guided Ronan O'Gara's 'manky' drop goal against the welsh in the 6 nations but that is no reason to believe that it wasn't just down to ROG's kicking skill and a bit of luck.

    Likewise, we can extend the that argument further. We cannot rule out gods involvement in any thought, event, or action ever. To assume then that god must have had something to do with them on this basis would completely destroy the concept of free will, so I guess you are not going to argue this?

    Would it not be better to wait until there is an evidential indication that ruled x in (x being god, FSM, aliens, whatever) and then evaluate that evidence before assuming it is the case?


  • #284
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Dave! wrote: »
    Jakkass do you apply the same rationale to say, physical attraction, or tribal warfare? They're not biological notions, but most scientists would contend that evolution explains these just fine. What theories would be better to explain them?

    Tribal warfare is more explicable through psychology. I understand where you are coming from, at the same time though, biology doesn't explain why I believe what I do, and biology doesn't explain why I hold the values I do.

    I think philosophy is better at explaining morality than science. Moral philosophers that is, such as Kant, Aquinas, Habermas, Arendt, Stein, Nietzsche and others of course. These people differ, but they offer reasonably rational viewpoints on why morality exists as it does.

    I don't agree with many of these viewpoints, I can understand why people will hold them, but I don't regard them as being absolute. Likewise I disagree with the viewpoint that morals are a result of biological evolution, I can see why you would believe it, but when people like Sam Vimes claim that this is factual it's just tedious to say the least.

    It's fine to base a moral philosophy on evolution, but that's all it is.


  • #285
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Carpo wrote: »
    Do you really think that being unable to rule something out is a good reason to rule it in?

    We cant rule out the possibility that god guided Ronan O'Gara's 'manky' drop goal against the welsh in the 6 nations but that is no reason to believe that it wasn't just down to ROG's kicking skill and a bit of luck.

    Likewise, we can extend the that argument further. We cannot rule out gods involvement in any thought, event, or action ever. To assume then that god must have had something to do with them on this basis would completely destroy the concept of free will, so I guess you are not going to argue this?

    Would it not be better to wait until there is an evidential indication that ruled x in (x being god, FSM, aliens, whatever) and then evaluate that evidence before assuming it is the case?

    It would also completely destroy science because we would be unable to do anything but this:

    88397.gif


  • #286
    smokingman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,773 ✭✭✭smokingman


    As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as "morality" - it is just another human construct to try beat religion into the masses. Basic empathy is inherrent in us humans and apes as well for that matter. It's only life experience that moulds this empathy and not in any way some form attributable to invisible beings. That even apes are capable of empathy, shows that it is not something given to us but something that is a result of evolution. It's a trait that was advantageous for early life as it helped groups stick together in a family unit.
    More strenght in numbers and all that.

    This is not some god given gift, it's just evolution, get over it.


  • #287
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    My problem with God guiding evolution is some of his choices fit in with the Jewish God, but not the Christian God. For instance, why did he fit stags with antlers for the sole purpose of fighting? Why give humans the ability to create massively destructive weapons but not the wisdom not to use them?


  • #288
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You said that christians believe that evolution was the method by which God put morality into us. I pointed out that nothing in evolution says this and you changed to saying "you can't prove it didn't happen". There are an infinite number of things that I can't prove didn't happen. It's up to you to show that they did happen. The entire concept of believing something just because it can't be disproven is fallacious and is pretty much the definition of confirmation bias, if not further into fallacious territory than confirmation bias

    If that was actually what I said it might be a bit of a help.

    I said, that God has given us a conscience. We have free will, we can decide whether or not to seek a higher moral standard with that conscience. Humans have a moral sense if you will. I never said that this was attributed to evolution, it could well be attributed to evolution as a part of God's intention for mankind. That's a possibility, but I never claimed that it was for sure that evolution was the source of morals. Infact I would be more convinced that morality is separate from evolution if there is a universal standard for said morality.

    Paul in Romans says that it is possible for a Gentile to do God's will according to the law without realising it. Indeed, it is. It's very difficult, but using the moral sense that God has given us it is possible.
    gaynorvader wrote: »
    My problem with God guiding evolution is some of his choices fit in with the Jewish God, but not the Christian God. For instance, why did he fit stags with antlers for the sole purpose of fighting? Why give humans the ability to create massively destructive weapons but not the wisdom not to use them?

    Animals aren't bound by moral laws, but the laws of nature.

    It's why we don't try animals in court.

    Edit:
    smokingman wrote: »
    As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as "morality" - it is just another human construct to try beat religion into the masses. Basic empathy is inherrent in us humans and apes as well for that matter. It's only life experience that moulds this empathy and not in any way some form attributable to invisible beings. That even apes are capable of empathy, shows that it is not something given to us but something that is a result of evolution. It's a trait that was advantageous for early life as it helped groups stick together in a family unit.
    More strenght in numbers and all that.

    This is not some god given gift, it's just evolution, get over it.

    This was an argument that many people put across in my philosophy class on Moral Philosophy last year.

    The lecture I had responded that even if something is constructed, it still exists. I don't hold the view that morality is constructed, but it is a notable point to put across to those people who believe it does. It's a mere cop out argument to say that something doesn't exist when it clearly does.


  • #289
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Hence why the God question is still wide open.

    As is pretty much everything else you can imagine (and some you can't)

    "The Space Bunny" did it is as supported as "God did it", yet curiously you guys only consider your god.

    You only have to spend a few minutes looking at the idea that we can't disprove God's involvement so this means something to see the flaw in that thinking. It only holds if you only consider God's involvement. If you (correctly) realise that we also can't disprove the involvement of any other supernatural being then it becomes utterly daft to assume God's involvement because you cannot tell if it was God or the infinite other possible supernatural beings that may exist. It becomes pointless then to assume God's involvement at all (and statistically non-viable). So we don't.

    Religious people only ever seem to want the rest of us to consider their God under the "you can't prove he didn't do it" argument. They seem happy to ignore all the other possible supernatural beings that could exist.


  • #290
    smokingman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,773 ✭✭✭smokingman


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's a mere cop out argument to say that something doesn't exist when it clearly does.

    It's also a mere cop out argument to say that something does exist when it clearly doesn't. :p

    Morality is an idea, a perception of the unknown put into a construct to make sense of physical acts. It is not anything real, merely an idea. Some ideas become popular, some become lore, others become the cornerstone of an arguement. They are not however, things to be substituted in for basic homosapian traits in the name of spaggetti monsters.


  • #291
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    If that was actually what I said it might be a bit of a help.
    This is what you said
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I reject an evolutionary viewpoint in explaining morality. It might be possible to explain it this way, but it is also possible to explain it in more effective ways. Even if you did say it was from an evolutionary viewpoint, you know full well that many Christians regard it possible for evolution to be a part of a divine creation. Leaving us back at square one.
    I was responding to the part in bold


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I said, that God has given us a conscience. We have free will, we can decide whether or not to seek a higher moral standard with that conscience. Humans have a moral sense if you will. I never said that this was attributed to evolution, it could well be attributed to evolution as a part of God's intention for mankind. That's a possibility, but I never claimed that it was for sure that evolution was the source of morals. Infact I would be more convinced that morality is separate from evolution if there is a universal standard for said morality.

    And you have nothing to back any of that up other than to say "you can't prove God didn't do it". You are believing because you want to believe and not because there is the slightest bit of evidence that you might be right.

    Maybe I can't prove that god wasn't involved but I can show that morality can evolve completely independently of a God. God is an unnecessary entity in morality, in the formation of humans and all life, in the formation of the planet, the solar system, the galaxy and all galaxies. The only gap left for your god is the actual creation of the matter and science is chipping away at that question more and more every day. Soon everything will be rationally explained without requiring any supernatural elements and there will be nowhere left for your God to hide. There will be nothing left for you to point to and say "only God could have done that". All you will be able to do is ignore the rational scientific explanation and say "I like to think it was God anyway. You can't prove it wasn't"


  • Advertisement
  • #292
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    An analogy:


    I have seen the evidence for the theory of electromagnetism. It is consistent with the laws of nature and the theory adequately explains all aspects of how electricity works. I recognise that this theory has been successfully applied all over the world to produce the electronic wonders I see before me.

    I recognise that the theory says that electrons are made to travel around the circuit by creating a potential difference (voltage) at the other end of the wire which attracts them in a manner consistent with the laws of electromagnetism.

    But I believe that the electrons travel around because God pushes them and you can't prove me wrong.

    Does the above logic not strike you as odd in any way?


  • #293
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Yet, nobody has used the theory of electromagnetism to explain morality. The mere pretence that your views on morality are scientific fact is just non-sensical. The difference between you and I Sam is that I don't claim my views on morality to be factual, but rather something I believe in based on indication. That's the problem with this discussion. Atheism claiming monopoly on scientific fact again, when it clearly doesn't have it.


  • #294
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Yet, nobody has used the theory of electromagnetism to explain morality. The mere pretence that your views on morality are scientific fact is just non-sensical. The difference between you and I Sam is that I don't claim my views on morality to be factual, but rather something I believe in based on indication. That's the problem with this discussion. Atheism claiming monopoly on scientific fact again, when it clearly doesn't have it.

    No Jakkass the problem is with your continual efforts to dodge the issue. As Dave! and myself keep pointing out in vain, we are not talking about what is right and what is wrong, that is a question for philosophy. We are talking about the source of our moral instinct, not the nature of it. The source of it is a matter for a scientist. Explaining where morality originated is no different to explaining the fight or flight response, our instinctive fear of the dark and the unknown or how cats know how to hunt without being instructed by their parents. It's just another instinct that allowed our species to survive. Physical attributes are not the only thing that evolved, the brain evolved in exactly the same way


  • #295
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam, your issue is passing off your own philosophy as science. It's absurd. If there is a scientific consensus on morality, please link to it.

    I don't see how biological changes can be the source of morality. Not for a second. How do biological changes promote our thoughts on what is correct or incorrect over time? It doesn't make a touch of sense to me.

    I just reject your understanding.


  • #296
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Sam, your issue is passing off your own philosophy as science. It's absurd. If there is a scientific consensus on morality, please link to it.
    There may never be consensus because of people such as yourself who refuse to accept the facts. In circles where people accept evolution as the evidence suggests it is and nothing more, there is consensus
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't see how biological changes can be the source of morality. Not for a second. How do biological changes promote our thoughts on what is correct or incorrect over time? It doesn't make a touch of sense to me.

    I just reject your understanding.

    The lack of ability of boards.ie member Jakkass to see it does not change its truth. If you can believe that all of these can evolve:
    1. The physical attributes of animals with all of their complexities
    2. The ability to accurately throw a ball into a hoop 30 metres away. A computer would have to do dozens of calculations
    3. The ability of turtles to swim thousands of miles to their birth place to lay eggs
    4. The ability of birds to fly thousands of miles twice a year to move with the seasons and to instinctively get into the triangular formation that reduces wind resistance, taking turns to go at the front so one bird doesn't get too tired (morality?)
    5. The ability of bears to know that they have to eat loads of food before they hibernate
    6. The ability of many lone predators to hunt successfully without any parental instruction
    7. The ability of wolves to live and hunt in a pack without killing each other (an early form of morality?)

    I could go on all day but the point is that complex behaviour can evolve just as complex bodies can evolve. If you believe all of this can evolve, why is it so hard to believe that the instinct of "if I help my pack and don't hurt them I will survive better" can evolve? Or do you just not want to believe it?


  • #297
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. We have profoundly different thinking in the origins of morality.


  • #298
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. We have profoundly different thinking in the origins of morality.

    Yes we do. My thinking matches the scientific reality and your thinking rejects the scientific reality that the origin of morality can be completely explained by evolution, saying "I don't see how biological changes can be the source of morality", because it doesn't fit with what you want to be true. Biological changes can be the source of morality and if you were willing to look at the facts you would see that


  • #299
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. We have profoundly different thinking in the origins of morality.

    The reason you say this is because your notion of morality is that it is MAGICAL. You are unable to explain or justify this ludicrous assertion so we end up where we are now; you slightly disorientated, Sam with a bleeding forehead.

    Sam has made his case very well, it just won't fit inside your brain. Complex behavioural traits evolve over time just like complex physical traits. Morality is one of those. The fact that this is a perfect argument doesn't matter, because you've got that wonderful surety of coming to the answer before looking at the evidence so you end up with that divide by zero sensation you're going through right now.


  • #300
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Since you can't see how morality can evolve, I suggest you start here
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality#Animal_sociality

    And come back to us when you have updated your understanding enough to realise not only that it's possible, not only that it's plausible but that there is abundant evidence of it


  • Advertisement
  • #301
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't see how biological changes can be the source of morality. Not for a second. How do biological changes promote our thoughts on what is correct or incorrect over time? It doesn't make a touch of sense to me.

    Our thoughts on what is correct or incorrect are no different from any other thoughts, so when considering wether or not they could be biologically effected by evolutionary changes you cant hold them higher than other thoughts.
    Given that thoughts and thinking in general can be greatly effected in a short time by consuming chemicals (eg alcohol and other mood altering drugs), I fail to see the difficulty in the basic thoughts of morality being influenced by brain chemisty changes over a longer period of time.

    EDIT: Of course, which thoughts get promoted and get to stick in the social consciousness are those which help the society the most ie those that survive natural selection.


Advertisement