How are intelligent, critical thinkers still religious?

Daftendirekt · 20-09-2010 08:56PM

Des Carter wrote: »

Im just after finding concrete evidence that God exists, I sense a book deal in my future .

Don't suppose you want to share?

PhiloCypher · 20-09-2010 09:09PM

Des Carter wrote: »

I never said that it was proof that god exists I said it was evidence (which it is) just like abductions are evidence that aliens exist.

If we take the court case example many witnesses truly believe they saw a certain person kill someone (when in reality the person they saw was innocent) however their testamony/eye-witness account is still evidence (although it is false)

Im just after finding concrete evidence that God exists, I sense a book deal in my future .

When I was a kid and I lost a tooth and I'd find a punt under my pillow in the morning is that proof that the tooth fairy exists ? is that where Shane McGowan got all his drinking money :eek:

liamw · 20-09-2010 09:43PM

Des Carter wrote: »

Im sorry but it is clear that humans are inherintaly selfish creatures who wish to maximize there profit/pleasure.

That is incorrect. Evolution of altruism is well understood.
Read up on 'kin selection' and 'recriprocal altruism' in particular.

I suggest you read "The Selfish Gene" which explains it very well.

Dades · 20-09-2010 10:01PM

Des Carter wrote: »

Yes but most theists are just as narrowminded (if not more so) as Atheists.

Here's me thinking you'd got to grips with the actual definition of an atheist, and not your preconceived one.

Nemi · 20-09-2010 10:02PM

liamw wrote: »

Evolution of altruism is well understood.

I'm not sure that 'well understood' is the right way of saying it. There are ways in which it can be accounted for. But that's not the same as 'well understood'.

Some of the explanations are not dissimilar to the invention of Infinite Improbability Drive by working out how exactly improbable such a machine is and feeding that figure into a finite improbability generator.

But I agree Dawkins' Selfish Gene is very good at setting out the issue.

MagicMarker · 20-09-2010 10:42PM

Des Carter wrote: »

I have already answered this in post #37 but I will repeat myself

Actually many people have put forward convincing arguments/evidence for the existence of a deity its just that a lot of them were later disproven by science. There are so many books written on this topic that it would be impossible to read them all but im sure there are good arguments there somewhere. For example Jesus rising from the dead is pretty convincing and countless miracles. however the vast majority of these can be disputed (not disproven) so I believe that people should be open to the possibility of a God.

Similarly There is no convincing evidence or arguments for the existence of aliens or ghosts and so I would be skeptical but at the same time I would not rule out the possibility of them existing.

Can you provide one good argument for the existence of god?

It would be illogical to rule out the existence of aliens because there is a logical reason for believing they may exist.

Valmont · 20-09-2010 10:54PM

Des Carter wrote: »

Im just after finding concrete evidence that God exists, I sense a book deal in my future .

Jesus Christ.

Goduznt Xzst · 21-09-2010 09:28AM

Well, sidestepping the trite "Introduction to common Atheism for the Theist newcomer" tangent that this thread (as well as many into the foreseeable future I'd imagine) has taken I'll answer the question posed in the OP.

I see an intelligent person believing in God as no different to the numerous intelligent people I see smoking or drinking excessively. Take Hitchens for example, on the one hand, a great mind, producing articulate and succinct arguments for Atheism. On the other, he handled his body like a moron.

We all have our poisons, or our choices that we know, rationally, are stupid, yet we do it anyway because we want to.

Intelligence has nothing to do with being an Atheist. Knowledge and how we choose to understand it does. Intelligence will just lead a person to understand more knowledge quickly and seek out further sources of it. Depending on which knowledge we are exposed to and how we have learned to assimilate it we may become Atheist or Theist or... whatever.

But even then, we will still do stupid things, and continue to do them, even though others will tell us we are wrong for doing so.

Next time you are sitting, smoking, in front of your computer screen smirking at the Theist with his literal understanding of Genesis, take a look at that smouldering stick of tobacco between your fingers and think about how different is it, really, to that Theists bible that they hold in their hands.

axer · 21-09-2010 09:50AM

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Next time you are sitting, smoking, in front of your computer screen smirking at the Theist with his literal understanding of Genesis, take a look at that smouldering stick of tobacco between your fingers and think about how different is it, really, to that Theists bible that they hold in their hands.

I don't smoke so can I smirk?

raah! · 21-09-2010 09:51AM

Sorry, I think there is some confusion about the nature of morality (either on my side or on another) on here. I've pointed it out before on other forums, but perhaps it would be helpful to address it here.

Wicknight wrote: »

Most people "do good" because they have strong emotional instincts that reward socially benefitial behavior and discourage socially determental behavior through emotional systems such as pride, guilt, empathy.

So, most people act morally because of those chemical rewards for doing so. They do it automatically. This is "moral action" only from the point of view of someone with a pre-existing moral system. In a previous th read I went to bring out the definition of morality a million times, and perhaps I could link to this. But "doing good" requires a definition of what good is, "moral action" requires a set of rules which state what moral action is.

This system of chemical rewards/punishments is only a moral system if you say "things that feel good are Good, things that feel bad are Bad"

They can of course not function the same in everyone which is why you get people on different scales of morality. Various genetic and environmental factors can greatly alter how they work. While being social creatures we also have concepts of aggression and protective behavior that lessing these instincts. We treat our family or close social group (tribe) different to how we view outsiders. Where this line is drawn is different for different people.

Indeed there is scope for variation within this evolutionary plan of action. We feel less bad for hurting people we like less.

But it would be silly to say that this is the only thing dictating anyone's actions. There are people out there who think it is morally wrong to touch a religious statue, or something.

Morality and emotions systems are complex and variable, but in my opinion the only context they make any sense in is in an naturalistic/evolutionary context. Introduce God and you end up with a whole host of contradictory and convoluted reasoning.

Emotions make sense in a naturalistic/evolutionary system, morality does not really. Especially when we apply reason to it. For example, if the ideal good, is feeling good. Then the ideal good is heroine.

Also I would say that in general, moral systems are quite simple, especially those metaphysical/absolute systems.

Edit: Just to adress another thing

Statements like that really annoy me. Why does rationality have to be "cold". The universe is far more beautiful and exciting when one looks at what it actual is than what some ancient farmers and sheep herders imaged it to be.

The reason rationality is "cold" is that it plays no part in appreciating the beautiful universe. Reason and emotion are generally considered to be separate and opposite. Perhaps you have some theory unifying the two, it will be necessary to expound this before statements like this one make any sense.

robindch · 21-09-2010 09:54AM

Des Carter wrote: »

Yes but most theists are just as narrowminded (if not more so) as Atheists.

The Oracle is amused at your presumption and orders you to chill a bit and not to say 100 Hail Maries.

philologos · 21-09-2010 09:54AM

OP: Admittedly, I wonder why intelligent, critical thinkers would even pose this question.

raah! · 21-09-2010 09:58AM

Ignorance of any reading or philosophy outside of Richard Dawkins? Misconceptions about the implications of science? It makes them feel good about themselves?

Nemi · 21-09-2010 10:08AM

raah! wrote: »

This system of chemical rewards/punishments is only a moral system if you say "things that feel good are Good, things that feel bad are Bad"

And if we want to hover over why that isn't a reliable system of what we would culturally expect to be 'morality', we need only consider that well known quote from Genghis Khan (which, I think, also features in Conan the Barbarian)

The greatest joy for a man is to defeat his enemies, to drive them before him, to take from them all they possess, to see those they love in tears, to ride their horses, and to hold their wives and daughters in his arms.

Isn't that how Dawkins' concludes his re-issue of the Selfish Gene? (I don't mean by quoting Genghis Khan - but by addressing this point) His point is not just that evolution is not a moral system, but that morality needs to be found elsewhere, as it is not present in the natural forces that gave rise to humans.

Because Dawkins is, I think, both an intelligent and a decent man.

Zombrex · 21-09-2010 10:15AM

raah! wrote: »

So, most people act morally because of those chemical rewards for doing so. They do it automatically.

I wouldn't say they do it automatically, but there are chemical rewards and punishments for doing so. In most people that is, as I said some people these systems don't work like they do in the rest of us, either due to genetic factors or environmental factors.

raah! wrote: »

This is "moral action" only from the point of view of someone with a pre-existing moral system. In a previous th read I went to bring out the definition of morality a million times, and perhaps I could link to this. But "doing good" requires a definition of what good is, "moral action" requires a set of rules which state what moral action is.

We already have a basic pre-existing moral system, it is instinctive. We layer more context and detail on top of it thanks to our rational and social brains. But this builds upon what is already there. So we rationally think high finance fraud is morally wrong because it is linked back to a far more basic instinct of fairness and stealing.

raah! wrote: »

This system of chemical rewards/punishments is only a moral system if you say "things that feel good are Good, things that feel bad are Bad"

Good and bad don't exist outside of the context of what we think is good and bad, and what we think is good and bad is defined by these systems. In essence they are our morality.

raah! wrote: »

Indeed there is scope for variation within this evolutionary plan of action. We feel less bad for hurting people we like less.

But it would be silly to say that this is the only thing dictating anyone's actions. There are people out there who think it is morally wrong to touch a religious statue, or something.

Like I said above I don't believe these systems are automatic. Feeling guilty at stealing something doesn't mean no one ever steals things.

raah! wrote: »

Emotions make sense in a naturalistic/evolutionary system, morality does not really. Especially when we apply reason to it. For example, if the ideal good, is feeling good. Then the ideal good is heroine.

Feeling good or bad is some what of an inaccurate way of describing emotions like guilt. We don't simply feel bad, we feel what we did was bad. It is not like the emotion is an electric shock when you steal something. We understand that we feel something was wrong.

raah! wrote: »

The reason rationality is "cold" is that it plays no part in appreciating the beutiful universe.

Of course it does. I appreciate the beauty of the universe far more the more I actual understand it. A maths solution becomes beautiful when you understand it.

philologos · 21-09-2010 10:17AM

Wicknight, what about selfless moral action? - I.E Putting up your own life to save others. Surely there is no benefit, chemical or otherwise in doing so?

21-09-2010 10:23AM

raah! wrote: »

The reason rationality is "cold" is that it plays no part in appreciating the beautiful universe.

Bollocks!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSZNsIFID28

Nemi · 21-09-2010 10:28AM

Wicknight wrote: »

I wouldn't say they do it automatically, but there are chemical rewards and punishments for doing so. In most people that is, as I said some people these systems don't work like they do in the rest of us, either due to genetic factors or environmental factors.

I think this is a little short of the situation. Breaking Godwin's Law, isn't Hannah Arendt's point in "The Banality of Evil" that perfectly awful things are done by perfectly normal people. The Rwandan Genocide wasn't carried out by a mass invasion of serial killers. It was carried out by people who, the day before, said 'hello' as they passed their neighbours.

I think you're not addressing a set of concerns that have been acknowledged and debated for quite a long time. Its the theme of Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness', just to pick one well-known text, and 'Apocalypse Now'.

Now, people do generally co-operate. If they didn't, the world around you would look like Zombie Attack. But to pretend that some 'natural' system of morality prevents us from doing bad stuff is unrealistic. What our minds actually do is filter bad stuff. So the massacre of a wedding party in Afghanistan is nothing to do with US troops passing through Shannon Airport, where they could do with a little business anyway. But if an Irish aid worker goes missing, suddenly its 'exterminate all the brutes', if that's what it takes to secure a release.

Zombrex · 21-09-2010 10:31AM

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight, what about selfless moral action? - I.E Putting up your own life to save others. Surely there is no benefit, chemical or otherwise in doing so?

Well first of I never said that morality is all selfish, nor that morality is based around doing what feels good (see my reply above for clarification). Feeling good or bad in the sense of pure pleasure is not what I meant by emotions like pride or guilt.

But to answer your question the "benefit" of a selfless moral action (ie why we would evolve the instinct for these) depends on the context.

Something like laying down your life to save your offspring clearly has evolutionary advantage since your genes (and thus the genetic instinct to do this) survive.

This leads to a more general instinctive sense to protect children, even if they aren't our own. The evolutionary benefit to your genes direct is less, but it is not difficult to see this as a by product of the original instinct, or the instinct to empathy and social cohesion (ie if I save your child your are more likely to save or help mine)

Moving away from children there are general instincts towards social cohesion and "brotherhood" produce selfish acts. We have no rational expectation of reward but we help others because this forms bonds between people that, over time, help all involved. You don't have to consciously require that someone pay you back if you give them money. If you are interested in a social bond with them you instinctively feel it is good to do this. This creates this social bond which can benefit you in the future.

This can be taken to extreme. A solider with a strong social bond with his commanding officer may lay down his life for him. There is no evolutionary benefit to doing this, but that is only because it is an extreme. There is an evolutionary benefit for the instinct to form these strong social bonds in the first place and to protect each other in tehse social bonds, so the instinct survives in humans because 99.99% of the time the social bond does not put the person in the position of having to lay down their lives.

Or to put it another way the benefit of these social bonds from an evolutionary point of view far out weights the negative. For every 1 soldier who dies protecting his buddies there are a thousand people who form equally strong social bonds but have the full benefit of these bonds into old age.

Nemi · 21-09-2010 10:36AM

Wicknight wrote: »

There is an evolutionary benefit for the instinct for form these social bonds in the first place and to protect each other in tehse social bonds, so the instinct survives because 99% of the time the social bond does not put the person in the position of having to lay down their lives.

But this doesn't work, as I think Dawkins even explains in 'The Selfish Gene'. Natural selection would favour the free rider - the person who accepts your protection of his child, but who doesn't reciprocate.

Now, clearly it happens. We even have the social insects, which are hard to account for as it requires the inheritence of the feature of sterility. But I'm not sure anyone has done more than account for why this might arise. No-one has yet discovered a real dynamic to account for it as, conceptually, the dynamic should work the other way.

raah! · 21-09-2010 10:42AM

Wicknight wrote: »

I wouldn't say they do it automatically, but there are chemical rewards and punishments for doing so. In most people that is, as I said some people these systems don't work like they do in the rest of us, either due to genetic factors or environmental factors.

Well, here when i said automatically, I meant without reflection.

We already have a basic pre-existing moral system, it is instinctive. We layer more context and detail on top of it thanks to our rational and social brains. But this builds upon what is already there. So we rationally think high finance fraud is morally wrong because it is linked back to a far more basic instinct of fairness and stealing.

You are saying we have an instinctive definition of good? There's a difference between feeling bad and having a distinctive notion of that which is morally undesirable.

And your second point is that we can build up moral systems from what feels bad and good. From those chemical bases. I agree here, but those moral systems aren't necessarily going to be of the type you are suggesting.

Examples of things acceptable in this system: Raping people you don't like, killing people you don't like and stealing their money etc. both of these fill the ultimate categories of feeling good, and then not feeling bad. Also note that the more one does somethign, the less bad one feels each time it is done.

Another thing to be said here is when these sorts of systems are looked at rationaly. And I'll use guilt as a good example. You feel guilty if you think you've killed someone, then you can , through rational argument overcome this guilt by convincing yourself you infact did not kill the person.

So, for a moral system based on what feels good, if we possess the suitable mental faculties, we can minimise what feels bad, and maximise what feels good.

Also, with reference to the ghengis khan quote, it's silly to think that emotions and thigns lead us to be civilised and moral as those words are used today. There are many social, ideological factors in play.

Good and bad don't exist outside of the context of what we think is good and bad, and what we think is good and bad is defined by these systems. In essence they are our morality.

Well this is why i used the capitals. There is a difference in saying that something "feels unpleasant" and that it is morally Good.

Feeling good or bad is some what of an inaccurate way of describing emotions like guilt. We don't simply feel bad, we feel what we did was bad. It is not like the emotion is an electric shock when you steal something. We understand that we feel something was wrong.

At the end of the day, it's an unpleasant feeling due to a transgression committed against another person.

Of course it does. I appreciate the beauty of the universe far more the more I actual understand it. A maths solution becomes beautiful when you understand it.

Again, it becomes beautiful only through active use of things like emotion. In a purely rational case, it would not appear anything, it would appear to be what it is. It could make sense or not make sense. But the minute you use the word beautiful you are talking about emotions, and subjective appreciation. It then is your subjective opinion that understanding things adds to one's aesthetic appreciation of those things.

raah! · 21-09-2010 10:45AM

Nemi wrote: »

His point is not just that evolution is not a moral system, but that morality needs to be found elsewhere, as it is not present in the natural forces that gave rise to humans.

Well it seems that many people here would disagree with this sentiment.

21-09-2010 10:50AM

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight, what about selfless moral action? - I.E Putting up your own life to save others. Surely there is no benefit, chemical or otherwise in doing so?

Jakkass can you please explain why this happened?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM

Or does God also give morals to Buffalo?

philologos · 21-09-2010 10:50AM

Wicknight, it still seems to leave a little bit of a blank. What about laying down your life for people you don't know?

There are clear situations where we do things without any expectation of reward for others.

Ickle Magoo · 21-09-2010 10:51AM

King Mob wrote: »

Jakkass can you please explain why this happened?
....
Or does God also give morals to Buffalo?

I was just about to ask the same & post the one about elephants that go after a lion...

robindch · 21-09-2010 10:52AM

King Mob wrote: »

Bollocks!

I completely fail to understand why people who do not study and do not understand the physical universe feel they can claim to be more amazed by it than those of us who spend our lifetimes doing so.

21-09-2010 10:53AM

robindch wrote: »

I completely fail to understand why people who do not study and do not understand the physical universe feel they can claim to be more amazed by it than those of us who spend our lifetimes doing so.

Because they have never watched Carl Sagan.

Dades · 21-09-2010 10:55AM

raah! wrote: »

Ignorance of any reading or philosophy outside of Richard Dawkins? Misconceptions about the implications of science? It makes them feel good about themselves?

Atheism doesn't require Dawkins or science as far as I'm concerned.

Step (1) (For us products of the Irish school system)
Take the Christian story and sum it up on a single piece of paper. Read it out loud. In a blinding flash of logic it becomes abundantly clear how absolutely barmy it is, how it is simply a half-baked human creation with mythical characters and a human-like God.

Step (2)
Repeat for any other religion someone tries to peddle you.

Zombrex · 21-09-2010 10:59AM

Nemi wrote: »

I think this is a little short of the situation. Breaking Godwin's Law, isn't Hannah Arendt's point in "The Banality of Evil" that perfectly awful things are done by perfectly normal people. The Rwandan Genocide wasn't carried out by a mass invasion of serial killers. It was carried out by people who, the day before, said 'hello' as they passed their neighbours.

That wasn't quite my point. Normal people certain do really bad things, I touched on that in the bit about sense of distance to people and whether the person is in your "tribe" or seen as a danger to it.

I just meant more in terms of countering the inevitable If we have evolved to be nice to each other how do you explain serial killers type questions

raah! · 21-09-2010 11:26AM

robindch wrote: »

I completely fail to understand why people who do not study and do not understand the physical universe feel they can claim to be more amazed by it than those of us who spend our lifetimes doing so.

King Mob wrote: »

Because they have never watched Carl Sagan.

The pont made was unaffected by this. It doesn't matter how much you understand something. A purely rationalistic account of the unvierse is "purely rationalistic". Of course, the more you understand the more there is to appreciate, that's not the point.

I don't know that that's a proper way to use the word amazed either. The word has connotations of surprise with it, and surely the more you understand somethign the less surprised you'll be.

Just a further point with regard to morality. To say that it is evolved is to say we are born with innate ideas. Because that is what it is, a set of ideas and definitions concerning how we ought to act.

How are intelligent, critical thinkers still religious?

Comments