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
Comments
-
-
Jakkass,
It alarms me when you claim that morality can only be studied as a branch of philosophy. Science certainly isn't philosophy but that doesn't mean you can so easily shrug it off as not being capable of understanding morality.
Take the example of a car crash with a woman pinned underneath the wreckage why would a passerby come and hold her hand to comfort her? The answer is that he felt empathetic towards the pain and agony of the young woman. Let's be cruel to animals (or more specificially lab rats) for a second. Imagine the following scenario:
A lab rat is suspended in the air by a rope it screeches and wails loudly in discomfort. What happens next? Another fellow rat helps his pal out by raising a platform so the rat on the rope is comforted.
Scenario 2.
There a seven monkeys who are all trained in pulling a cord to get food.
Each time one of a selected group of six monkey pulls on cord A that monkey receives a small minute bit of food but induces a shock in Monkey 7. If the monkey pulls on cord B they will receive food but not shock Monkey 7. Eventually all Monkeys begin by pulling cord A. Monkeys 1-4 quickly realise that pulling Cord B is better. Monkey 5 goes one further by abstaining from both cords for 5 days, and Monkey 6 goes even further again by abstaining from cord pulling for 12 days! - The monkeys starve themselves so they that they don't cause Monkey 7 to be in pain.
When a baby see's or for that matter hears another baby crying they usually start to cry too. Cue the next scenario:
Play a recording of baby B crying to baby A : baby A almost always cries too.
Play a recording of baby A crying to baby A : baby A almost always does not cry!
When differing ages of baby's are taken into account it is found that around 14 months of age the infant is no longer crying but will actually try to comfort another baby crying by some form of toddler help by sharing a dummy for example.
These scenarios, my friend, are examples of scientific experiments to help understand the origins and working of empathy - a precursor to morality.
Neuroscience and the study of emotions/morality is a fascinating subject that is really only scratching the tip of the iceberg. If'd you like more examples then by all means ask but give me some time as it's been quite a while since I read up on this stuff. What saddens me is that you think this stuff is not happening:(
Science tries to understand morality and its origin; Philosophy merely speculates what it is.
Current thinking (a there is huge volume of evidence to support it) is that morality is innate within our subconscience. We gained an evolutionary advantage from being sociable and friendly, because of that our brains are hard wired towards it.
So a couple of questions,
If as you claim that morality,understanding,love,compassion is got from the bible why are things that never read the bible (or any other thing that states rules/morals for that matter) showing signs of empathy?
Also, if this is the first characteristic we develop why did God give us any more?? Why for instance as we age can we ignore this primitive urge to help others and be selfish if we choose to do so??[Although the majority of us will still feel morally conflicted by that primitive urge] If we were only just empathetic then surely there would be no evil? Perhaps a naturalistic survival process suggested it necessary to be otherwise?? Surely an intelligent designer would not make such a mistake though?0 -
-
Jakkass,
It alarms me when you claim that morality can only be studied as a branch of philosophy. Science certainly isn't philosophy but that doesn't mean you can so easily shrug it off as not being capable of understanding morality.
Take the example of a car crash with a woman pinned underneath the wreckage why would a passerby come and hold her hand to comfort her? The answer is that he felt empathetic towards the pain and agony of the young woman. Let's be cruel to animals (or more specificially lab rats) for a second. Imagine the following scenario:
A lab rat is suspended in the air by a rope it screeches and wails loudly in discomfort. What happens next? Another fellow rat helps his pal out by raising a platform so the rat on the rope is comforted.
Scenario 2.
There a seven monkeys who are all trained in pulling a cord to get food.
Each time one of a selected group of six monkey pulls on cord A that monkey receives a small minute bit of food but induces a shock in Monkey 7. If the monkey pulls on cord B they will receive food but not shock Monkey 7. Eventually all Monkeys begin by pulling cord A. Monkeys 1-4 quickly realise that pulling Cord B is better. Monkey 5 goes one further by abstaining from both cords for 5 days, and Monkey 6 goes even further again by abstaining from cord pulling for 12 days! - The monkeys starve themselves so they that they don't cause Monkey 7 to be in pain.
When a baby see's or for that matter hears another baby crying they usually start to cry too. Cue the next scenario:
Play a recording of baby B crying to baby A : baby A almost always cries too.
Play a recording of baby A crying to baby A : baby A almost always does not cry!
When differing ages of baby's are taken into account it is found that around 14 months of age the infant is no longer crying but will actually try to comfort another baby crying by some form of toddler help by sharing a dummy for example.
These scenarios, my friend, are examples of scientific experiments to help understand the origins and working of empathy - a precursor to morality.
Neuroscience and the study of emotions/morality is a fascinating subject that is really only scratching the tip of the iceberg. If'd you like more examples then by all means ask but give me some time as it's been quite a while since I read up on this stuff. What saddens me is that you think this stuff is not happening:(
Science tries to understand morality and its origin; Philosophy merely speculates what it is.
Current thinking (a there is huge volume of evidence to support it) is that morality is innate within our subconscience. We gained an evolutionary advantage from being sociable and friendly, because of that our brains are hard wired towards it.
So a couple of questions,
If as you claim that morality,understanding,love,compassion is got from the bible why are things that never read the bible (or any other thing that states rules/morals for that matter) showing signs of empathy?
Also, if this is the first characteristic we develop why did God give us any more?? Why for instance as we age can we ignore this primitive urge to help others and be selfish if we choose to do so??[Although the majority of us will still feel morally conflicted by that primitive urge] If we were only just empathetic then surely there would be no evil? Perhaps a naturalistic survival process suggested it necessary to be otherwise?? Surely an intelligent designer would not make such a mistake though?
I think the development and cause of our moral decisions can be studied by scientists. However, I think the field of ethics/morality is not a scientific field. I would say such fields have more in common with mathematics (which I consider a field of philosophy) than with science because moral and ethical systems are rooted in assumptions that are intangible.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
you might like this so: http://www.zazzle.co.uk/religion_****_it_stephen_fry_tshirt-235675911275932064To quote Stephen Fry, "Religion - Sh*t it"
Sums it all up nicely I feel
And another quote:
"Anybody who tells me what happens to me after I'm dead is either a liar or a fool"
The man is a leg-end
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
gaynorvader wrote: »Indeed, I am interested on hearing a Christian's views on it. I find religious belief a fascinating subject. I also find atheists' beliefs fascinating.
You are in big trouble now; ascribing beliefs to atheists is a big no-no. They have no beliefs. Their views re: God are very similar to their views re: tooth fairies. They just dont believe in them, no more, no less.
Which is why the posters who frequent this forum are also regulars in the "tooth fairy" forum over in "Recreation".0 -
gaynorvader wrote: »Indeed, I am interested on hearing a Christian's views on it. I find religious belief a fascinating subject. I also find atheists' beliefs fascinating.
That will be what any believers will say. The things that suggest that their version of God might exist are evidence and the vastly greatly number of things that suggest it doesn't are "a mystery". You and I both know of course that the fact that animals anatomy which has the sole purpose of inflicting pain is only a mystery if you begin with the assumption that we were created by a loving God.
Even if we were created by a God, giving animals claws is akin to giving a gun to a child but they won't say that because that doesn't fit with their preconceived notion of what God's plan is. God's plan is only a mystery when stuff happens that doesn't fit with the idea that he loves us0 -
-
-
-
-
gaynorvader wrote: »Exactly, this is pretty much what I was trying to say. I would contend, on your second paragraph, that it is possible that a religious person has some kind of personal evidence which he/she can draw on which substantiates his/her belief.
Loads of religious people have 'personal evidence' but in most cases it can very easily be shown to have a rational explanation that the person refuses to accept, again because they're only interested in confirmatory evidence. For example the moving statues in 1985. My aunt was dragged there by two friends who stood in front of it and could see the statues moving. My aunt pointed out that it was moving because dozens of candles had been placed under it and the hot air was making it appear to move. She was nearly chased out of the building
And let's not forget the Limerick tree stump, which came out the same week that a law was passed meaning that insulting religious people was a €25,000 fine. The government's plan to get some money into their coffers? :pac:0 -
Loads of religious people have 'personal evidence' but in most cases it can very easily be shown to have a rational explanation that the person refuses to accept, again because they're only interested in confirmatory evidence. For example the moving statues in 1985. My aunt was dragged there by two friends who stood in front of it and could see the statues moving. My aunt pointed out that it was moving because dozens of candles had been placed under it and the hot air was making it appear to move. She was nearly chased out of the building
And let's not forget the Limerick tree stump, which came out the same week that a law was passed meaning that insulting religious people was a €25,000 fine. The government's plan to get some money into their coffers? :pac:
Heh, that's not quite what I meant by personal experiences!
I was talking of getting emotions after prayer, etc. While most cases could be explained scientifically, it's another facet of religion that's impossible to prove either way. 0 -
gaynorvader wrote: »Heh, that's not quite what I meant by personal experiences! I was talking of getting emotions after prayer, etc. While most cases could be explained scientifically, it's another facet of religion that's impossible to prove either way.
Emotions after prayer can always be explained scientifically. Prayer is a form of meditation which can have effects on the mind. Completely natural effects that have long been mistaken for supernatural0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Interesting, would you mind telling me what churches officially supported the blasphemy legislation in Ireland?
Why is it theists almost always assumes that all atheists & agnostics are constantly trying to attack them?
'personal experience' might perhaps be the better description....
Yes, I did correct myself a little further on, it was bad wording on my part.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zHcBF-g7-c
Advertisement