Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[Wysiwyg]

Perhaps, the question "what lies beyong this universal limit?"

If time is infinite then space must also be. It is hard to believe time began at some point. Events unfolding from nothing is highly unlikely. There can only be no beginning and no end.

 

[luutzu]

This still isn't answering my questions.

If survival of the species is "good" as opposed to "not good" (i.e. "neutral or bad") , how was this logically determined from a secular viewpoint?

Sometime I swear you're just trolling. But having read your other debates, you're not kidding at all.

 

[bellenuit]

This still isn't answering my questions.

If survival of the species is "good" as opposed to "not good" (i.e. "neutral or bad") , how was this logically determined from a secular viewpoint?

It doesn't require to be logically determined. The mechanism of evolution is natural selection through random mutation. If those who are predisposed to cooperation tend to survive and reproduce better than those who fight among themselves, then the culture that encompasses the former will be more likely to become dominant in succeeding generations (I am using culture very loosely here). That is the natural selection. Those cooperative traits (epitomised by "do unto others ... ") become the dominant morality of that society and deviations from it tend to be ostracised.

In a way one cannot say that this evolved morality is either good or bad as our evolved concept of good and bad is likely determined by the same evolutionary mechanics and thus that which we see as morally good is that which helps our survival as a species.That would also account for changes in morality over time as that which was beneficial previously may not be so today.

 

[cynic]

It doesn't require to be logically determined. The mechanism of evolution is natural selection through random mutation. If those who are predisposed to cooperation tend to survive and reproduce better than those who fight among themselves, then the culture that encompasses the former will be more likely to become dominant in succeeding generations (I am using culture very loosely here). That is the natural selection. Those cooperative traits (epitomised by "do unto others ... ") become the dominant morality of that society and deviations from it tend to be ostracised.

In a way one cannot say that this evolved morality is either good or bad as our evolved concept of good and bad is likely determined by the same evolutionary mechanics and thus that which we see as morally good is that which helps our survival as a species.That would also account for changes in morality over time as that which was beneficial previously may not be so today.

You are still failing to answer the question!

What you are describing here is an evolved behaviour or behavioural trait, that cannot be said to be "good" or "bad" from a purely secular perspective.

 

[bellenuit]

You are still failing to answer the question!

What you are describing here is an evolved behaviour or behavioural trait, that cannot be said to be "good" or "bad" from a purely secular perspective.

No. That is not what I said. Our understanding of "good" or "bad" is very likely an evolved understanding and it is based on what behaviours have led to the success of the survival of our species. It is in a sense tautological. Certain behaviours have resulted in the successful survival of our species and are thus labelled "good".

Whether there is an absolute "good" or "bad" is probably beyond our ability to determine as we cannot judge outside of our evolutionary constraints. But those who claim that a theistic determined morality is absolute would need to reconcile lots of inconsistencies across religions and even within the same religion. When you asked why I think Christian morality is based on secular morality the answer is simply that there is really no other morality than secular morality. The Bible is essentially a man made product and of course the morality of the Bible will then be congruent with the secular morality of the time. And that is why as secular morality evolves, the morality of the Bible, since it is a snapshot of the times in which it was written, gets left behind.

But it is you who haven't answered many of my questions. If our morality is not secular and the product of our evolution, where does it come from? If imbedded in our consciousness by a deity, when did this occur and was it across all of mankind simultaneously? If it came from reading scriptures or "good" books, why is that morality similar to what was accepted by society at that time and since the morality of the many religious scriptures is different in some fundamentals, which is right?

The evolution of the secular morality and the secular concept of "good" and "bad" makes sense from my point of view even though I am a layman in terms of the "science" involved. But alternative explanations, particularly those based on divine intervention of some sort, seem to be full of inconsistencies and leave so many fundamental questions unanswered. But feel free to educate us on what you think it correct.

 

[cynic]

No. That is not what I said. Our understanding of "good" or "bad" is very likely an evolved understanding and it is based on what behaviours have led to the success of the survival of our species. It is in a sense tautological. Certain behaviours have resulted in the successful survival of our species and are thus labelled "good".

Whether there is an absolute "good" or "bad" is probably beyond our ability to determine as we cannot judge outside of our evolutionary constraints. But those who claim that a theistic determined morality is absolute would need to reconcile lots of inconsistencies across religions and even within the same religion. When you asked why I think Christian morality is based on secular morality the answer is simply that there is really no other morality than secular morality. The Bible is essentially a man made product and of course the morality of the Bible will then be congruent with the secular morality of the time. And that is why as secular morality evolves, the morality of the Bible, since it is a snapshot of the times in which it was written, gets left behind.

But it is you who haven't answered many of my questions. If our morality is not secular and the product of our evolution, where does it come from? If imbedded in our consciousness by a deity, when did this occur and was it across all of mankind simultaneously? If it came from reading scriptures or "good" books, why is that morality similar to what was accepted by society at that time and since the morality of the many religious scriptures is different in some fundamentals, which is right?

The evolution of the secular morality and the secular concept of "good" and "bad" makes sense from my point of view even though I am a layman in terms of the "science" involved. But alternative explanations, particularly those based on divine intervention of some sort, seem to be full of inconsistencies and leave so many fundamental questions unanswered. But feel free to educate us on what you think it correct.

My apologies if I misinterpreted your response, but please be aware that you are still misunderstanding the point that my question is raising.

(Perhaps I haven't expressed myself as clearly as I had hoped!).

How can anyone deviate from a plan, when no plan exists?

 

[bellenuit]

How can anyone deviate from a plan, when no plan exists?

But evolution isn't a plan nor is morality.

Animals have different characteristics that help them survive, reproduce and pass on their genes better than others. Ancestors of the cheetah were probably cat like creatures that had different running capabilities. Those that could run faster might have had a survival edge over the others in that they were better able to hunt prey. They were they ones most likely to survive and reproduce. So overtime, the gene pool became dominated by those within the species whose genes enabled faster running and the cheetah evolved from animals within that gene pool. This is natural selection. Although the mutations in the gene that cause variations in animals capabilities is random, natural selection isn't. There may be a random chance that an animal is born sickly or healthy, but survival probability (and thus ability to reproduce) is not the same for both.

So the cheetahs ancestors didn't plan to evolve into cheetahs and become the fastest land animal. It was the outcome of natural selection. We regard certain behavioural traits as morally good because evolution caused us to assess behaviour that promotes the success of our species as morally good. If we had evolved differently, our morality (what is regarded as good) could be quite different. It is quite probable that the morality of our early ancestors might have condoned the murder of those in other tribes that competed for the limited resources needed for survival. But over time, if cooperating with the other tribes were to prove more productive, then murder would start to be shunned and eventually seen as immoral.

 

[cynic]

But evolution isn't a plan nor is morality.
....

I quite agree!
But you are still missing the point!

In order for something to be truly wrong, it must surely be out of accord with a purpose, intent or design, otherwise it could not be objectively deemed to be wrong, aberrant, sinful, or in any way incorrect!

In our current secular understanding of existence, where is the objective purpose, intent or design to be found?

 

[bellenuit]

I quite agree!
But you are still missing the point!

In order for something to be truly wrong, it must surely be out of accord with a purpose, intent or design, otherwise it could not be objectively deemed to be wrong, aberrant, sinful, or in any way incorrect!

In our current secular understanding of existence, where is the objective purpose, intent or design to be found?

But nothing is truly wrong as our morality is not the product of a purpose, intent or design. Things are only relatively wrong with reference to our currently accepted morality, which is the product of our evolution (both physical and cultural) which arguably is without purpose, intent or design. That is why I said that murder (of people from other tribes) was quite possibly morally acceptable to our ancestors in earlier times, but is not accepted by most societies today.

I'm still awaiting your answers regarding morality that I posed this evening.

 

[Value Collector]

In our current secular understanding of existence, where is the objective purpose, intent or design to be found?

Morality doesn’t need to have a purpose or design, it’s just another thing we have discovered, and are learning more about as we go along.

The leading factor of morality is harm, and that is objective.

If you are just following instructions from a religious text or church leader you can’t really call yourself moral, you are Amoral at best, and if those instructions are immoral then you are acting immorally regardless of whether you follow the rules or not.

 

[sptrawler]

I guess it all boils back to the old belief, that if you do the right thing are honest and help others, the favour will be repaid.
I think that fable has been well and truly squashed, in most facets of life.
In the old days, you would stop to pick up a hitch hiker.
In the old days, you would let anyone into your house, to give them a cup of tea.
In the old days, you would leave your back door unlocked.
In the old days, you would expect not to be attacked, if you were old.
In the old days, you would stand up on public transport, to give a seat to someone more needy.
In the old days, you wouldn't swear in front of a Lady or in public.

Oh well get over it, times are changing, no one has time to talk about the old times.
This is the here and now, we don't need to be told, we know and if we don't know, we can facebook it.

 

[Value Collector]

But nothing is truly wrong as our morality is not the product of a purpose, intent or design. Things are only relatively wrong with reference to our currently accepted morality, which is the product of our evolution (both physical and cultural) which arguably is without purpose, intent or design. That is why I said that murder (of people from other tribes) was quite possibly morally acceptable to our ancestors in earlier times, but is not accepted by most societies today.

I'm still awaiting your answers regarding morality that I posed this evening.

I would say the ancient tribesman thought they were acting morally when they murdered, but that was only because their understanding of objective morals wasn’t there yet.

Just like the laws of physics, the objective morality exists even if people don’t understand it, it’s something we are discovering over time, not something that is decided by a tribe or a god.

 

[Value Collector]

I guess it all boils back to the old belief, that if you do the right thing are honest and help others, the favour will be repaid.
I think that fable has been well and truly squashed, in most facets of life.
In the old days, you would stop to pick up a hitch hiker.
In the old days, you would let anyone into your house, to give them a cup of tea.
In the old days, you would leave your back door unlocked.
In the old days, you would expect not to be attacked, if you were old.
In the old days, you would stand up on public transport, to give a seat to someone more needy.
In the old days, you wouldn't swear in front of a Lady or in public.

Oh well get over it, times are changing, no one has time to talk about the old times.
This is the here and now, we don't need to be told, we know and if we don't know, we can facebook it.

Things are getting better, sure some trivial things are changing but in general things are better.

For every small trivial thing that’s changed for the bad there are huge changes for the good.

Watch this short video.

 

[cynic]

As far as I can see, all the so called Christian morals can be encapsulated in the sentence "do unto others as you would like them to do unto you". All the 10 commandments, except the first 3 (which have more to do with a jealous and insecure God than morality), can are encapsulated in that sentence. Even the exhortation "love thy neighbour as thyself" is encompassed.

And if that sentence is the sum of Christian morality, how do you account for the fact that those same words (paraphrased, but with the same meaning) were expressed by others long before Christ was born. Thus what is Christian morality other than a re-expression of long held secular morality?

I am quite unable to recognise the validity of any question that presumes the existence of a non-existent thing.
As I am extremely doubtful of the possibility of morality, of any form, to be supportable from a purely secular viewpoint, the best I can currently offer in partial response to your question is, that I recognise, the presence of Christian morality, to be discernible, in other philosophies and religious belief systems, and also recognise that a number of such philosophies, predated the birth of Christ. I do not consider any of these incarnations of morality, to be truly secular, by reason of the absence of account, for the requisite purpose,intent or design, in our contemporary secular viewpoint.

 

[cynic]

Where else did it come from? If you suggest some divine intervention, then on what basis do you hold that? If a divine intervention, when on our evolutionary scale did it happen if it predated Christianity? And if the result of divine intervention, why has it changed over time?



As has been explained by VC on numerous occasions, morality as has been honed throughout the ages is entirely consistent with other aspects of our evolution that allowed to to reach where we currently are in our evolutionary path. Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you is far more likely to allow groups to survive than a selfish free for all. As societies evolved, those social attitudes that helped the species survive and reproduce were, by natural selection, also those attitudes that were going to be passed on.

I maintain that the existence of morality demands the presence of purpose, intent or design, else morality cannot truly be said to exist!
If an intelligent agent creates a thing, then that thing has inherited purpose from its creator!
Once a thing has purpose, its behaviour, can be deemed to be accordant, or discordant, via reference to its purpose!
Without purpose intent or design, how can anyone objectively lay claim to the accordance, or discordance, of any behaviour?

 

[sptrawler]

Very uplifting, but from a personal perspective, having lived in Australia for most of my life.

I don't see a better life, I agree some things may be seen as trivial, but to me respect and honesty is far more important than how many people get sick.

Sickness can always be repaired, social degradation is much harder to repair.

Just because you have more people surviving, doesn't in itself mean things are getting better, when those who survive have less respect for those preceding them.

Yes child mortality in third World countries is reducing, but the incidence of machette attacks in Victoria is increasing.
Some may say, it isn't due to refugees from third world countries, but machette use as a weapon is relatively new in Australia.
The weapon was always available, from army surplus stores, it just wasn't a part of our psyche.
So IMO, you can put lipstick on it, but it doesn't change it.
Just my opinion.

 

[grah33]

As I said, denying rights to gay couples is an example of Christian immorality, but the fact that you are brain washed into the culture means you probably can’t see it.

Also the very foundation of Christianity is based on scape goating, I happen to find that immorral.

If Christ were being killed in front of me I would do everything in my power to stop it, you however would take joy in his sacrifice and think it a good thing, then stand around and pretend to end his flesh and drink his blood.

As stated before in 1000s of posts, you were not able to prove that it's normal behavior. God is into legislating equality for normal things. Anyone can understand that if they want to. And what of those who will have future employment problems? Your side never said anything . They don't seem to care about anyone but their own side. I guess it's good from an evolution stand point.


“ but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. “

(Cor)

So, the Christian faith may seem like nonsense to many people, but to those who believe , whether a toilet cleaner or a doctor, it makes good sense.

 

[bellenuit]

Just like the laws of physics, the objective morality exists even if people don’t understand it, it’s something we are discovering over time, not something that is decided by a tribe or a god.

......

The leading factor of morality is harm, and that is objective

I know that is very much the opinion of Sam Harris, but I still think he is basing his criteria for classifying what morality is objective based very much on the relative morality of where we currently are in our evolutionary progress. He has this vague notion of actions that cause the least harm being a criterium for objective good. I am not using the word vague as a criticism, but just as an acceptance that his ideas on this are still in the embryonic stage.

But having escaped (at least in the developed world) from subsistence living, we have the luxury to exclude actions that are harmful because not only are they they are not needed for our survival currently but excluding them assists in our survival.

But, in a way agreeing with Cynic, what is the criteria for determining objective morality. Survival of our species? Would morality that leads to a pain-free death of our species be morally good objectively if objectively morally bad actions would have ensured survival?

 

[SirRumpole]

It doesn't require to be logically determined. The mechanism of evolution is natural selection through random mutation. If those who are predisposed to cooperation tend to survive and reproduce better than those who fight among themselves, then the culture that encompasses the former will be more likely to become dominant in succeeding generations (I am using culture very loosely here). That is the natural selection. Those cooperative traits (epitomised by "do unto others ... ") become the dominant morality of that society and deviations from it tend to be ostracised.

Except that our morality also involves committing large amounts of resources looking after the old and weak instead of applying those resources to helping the fit and strong achieve higher results which would contribute more to the advancement of society.

It also involves caring about animal welfare where the the survival of other species has little effect on the advancement of humankind, so what is the evolutionary imperative for this type of caring morality ?

 

[grah33]

As far as I can see, all the so called Christian morals can be encapsulated in the sentence "do unto others as you would like them to do unto you". All the 10 commandments, except the first 3 (which have more to do with a jealous and insecure God than morality), can are encapsulated in that sentence. Even the exhortation "love thy neighbour as thyself" is encompassed.

And if that sentence is the sum of Christian morality, how do you account for the fact that those same words (paraphrased, but with the same meaning) were expressed by others long before Christ was born. Thus what is Christian morality other than a re-expression of long held secular morality?

Part of what you say I agree with. After all, morality is built into us. We have a conscience. But we needed Jesus to get us there, since some morals aren't obvious enough (we can't see clearly), and some we wouldn't follow unless He taught.

Also, all this debating is about the Bible God, it seems to me ? Why is that God the only one people here are so concerned about, given all the game playing? Maybe that is the likely candidate for God they think if there is one, because His morals are true (and confronting). If it were Zeus, or even a deceiving anti-Christ preaching a flexible secular morality, I think many people might be siding with Cynic's arguments, as they do make sense.

Furthermore, secular morals aren't that good when compared to Christian alternatives. e.g. 'freedom to choose' abortion, and other things too.

And I don't think you can say atheism has morals. Morals don't change imv. Some of you seem to disagree with that, trying to explain it away, but it's a good point that comes up in the pro debating world. It obviously makes sense to many people. There is the right thing and the wrong thing, but it often isn't clear to us. We're 'blinded' , because of our sins (Christian view).

I heard something interesting. There is a story about Stalin, the communist ( atheist) who killed millions. Just before he died, he raised his fist up at God...