So why are they holding to the evidence then if they have no reason to believe it? I prong you with a dilemna here. Either the preacher is commited to empirical accuracy in which case they'll be reasoning rather than taking things on faith, or they're taking things on 'faith' which means that they have a different motive to empirical accuracy. The motive isn't always honourable - some try to use it politically to force their beliefs on others. However, the ideal faith (and I think this is an achetype that cuts across all religions and cultures) is one of the tolerant and enlightened person who feels no need force their beliefs down others, merely live their own life to the full through their faith. So it's quite simple really - either they are going for empirical accuracy or they aren't. If they were really going for empirical accuracy then they would use the best methods for empirical accuracy. If they're not using the best methods for empirical accuracy then they're not really aiming for empirical accuracy. (and remember, these aims are subconscious rather than conscious - consciously they might believe that they are aiming for empirical accuracy...)
Well perhaps you’d like explain why. In the meantime, read about some research on this issue: http://www.slate.com/id/2162998 Of course not. It’s far more complex. This was just two examples of our reasoning in such situations. You said that there are people whose logical side is not utilitarianism, but there is a difference between utilitarianism as a philosophical school of though, and neuro-psychological utilitarian reasoning. Everyone has this neurological utilitarian reasoning (save those with brain damage), but everyone do not follow utilitarianism. If you disagree, please explain. I said it was subjectively good. As I stated earlier, there is nothing necessarily different in the behaviour of both, but there is a difference in the basis of the morality, and doing good out of fear of hell is a pre-conventional morality: ”The pre-conventional level of moral reasoning is especially common in children, although adults can also exhibit this level of reasoning. Reasoners in the pre-conventional level judge the morality of an action by its direct consequences. The pre-conventional level consists of the first and second stages of moral development, and are purely concerned with the self in an egocentric manner.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development In other words, this type of morality states that something is good if it provides good consequences for me, and bad if it doesn’t. That said, I don’t think most theists actually act out of a fear of hell in they’re day to day lives, which just shows that they rely on a secular morality. Yes, I have. The thread I linked to discussed them. All I said was that is could be instinctive to develop[i/i] a social system, not the intricacies of the social system itself. See this article of a recent study: http://www.slate.com/id/2162998 ”The catch is that what's normal, natural, necessary, and neurologically fit can change. In fact, it has been changing throughout history. As our ancestors adapted from small, kin-based groups toward elaborate nation-states, the brain evolved from reflexive emotions toward the abstract reasoning power that gave birth, in this millennium, to utilitarianism. The full story is a lot more complicated, but that's the rough outline.” The fact that Homo sapiens have been around longer than complex civilization does not mean our brain have not continued to develop. As per evolution, we adapt to our environment, and as our environment developed and became more complex, so did our reasoning abilities. It’s actually entirely relevant. Don’t just assert that isn’t, actually explain why. It’s relevant because it explains how we likely have developed from simple system, to more complex system. See the PDF link above.
You seem to think that if they are not using scientific evidence, then they must not be trying to prove their claim. The point is many *think* they have good evidence Are you denying that they use the bible as evidence? Ask a Christian why they believe Jesus rose from the dead. Some will say they just have faith, others (and not necessarily a fundamentalist, unless you consider the likes of Capt Ann a fundamentalist) will argue that the bible proves it. They can only accept the claim that bible is inspired or authored by god on faith, without evidence, but they then use that bible as evidence for further claim, or even say it is evidence because it is from god. Capt Ann, Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead, miracles have happened, etc, and that the Bible is evidence for this?
I already did. And you yourself admitted that logical morality doesn't always give clear cut answers--hence the room for dilema. Since I picked the scenario, and it's not a very unrealistic scenario (i.e. desire to commit the act, no reason to believe you'd get caught), I think you should answer it within the context that I asked the question. Is it utilitarian to help out at a soup kitchen when you'd really rather be doing something else and you don't believe there's actually any benefit to you? And I say fear of hell is a subjectively better motivation. That's the nice thing about saying things subjectively. We can say whatever we want. Not according to your morality. Your morality is also motivated by self interest, as you've said multiple times. Here's one of them, for the record: LJoll also repeatedly echoed this sentiment, that doing good things is tantamount to doing what we instinctively know is good for us. So, how is that different from doing things that we believe will keep us from suffering eternal torment in hell? This is exactly how you've defined moral behavior. Yes, and that thread was stupid. I remember it. What do you do in the event of conflicting desires? Why is the statement that everyone's desires are equal justified? Why is it any better than my system based on height and weight? (and don't tell me it's subjectively better, because I will argue that *my* system is subjectively better--I even demonstrated that objectively, there's less room for dilema) Because we're supposed to be discussing how you justify practicing a moral system, not how it came about. If morality is just a left over instinct that helped us survive back when we were swinging through the jungly tendrils, perhaps we should shuck it like we have with many of our other instincts.
I’ve posted evidence for my claim, you asserted that I am wrong. You said altruism only applies to relatives. I've show you that this is false. If you still disagree with this then I want to see the evidence, a link to an article or paper which refutes me. Otherwise please don’t be shocked if I don’t take your dismissal very seriously. My view on the origin of morality is based on the evidence. I’m not ignoring this. But it has nothing to do with my point, which is that our morality can have an evolutionary explanation. The ‘bad’ behaviour of animals (what animals are you referring to anyway?) which you refer to does not negate this point, as such, it’s irrelevant. Your error is analysing animal behaviour through current human morality. Sure, we would consider that bad, but what does it have to do with my argument? You seem to be saying: “one animal killed another, oh well, that negates the entire role evolution has in the origin of our moral and its development” Of course. I don’t disagree with the role it has played. But religion does not explain the origin of morality. For that, we must turn to evolution. On the contrary, I merely pointing to the role evolution played in the origin and development of morality. I don’t deny the role religion and culture played; in fact, I hold them to be an important part of the development of morality. My view is this: human nature/evolution explains the similarities in our morality, while culture and environment explains the differences. This explanation explains why we seem to have some universal morals, but also have differences in morality. I find it ironic that you are accusing me of trying to fit the "evidence to the conclusions" yet I am the one ask you specifically for your evidence. The fact I don't agree with if not because "I've already made up my mind" as you probably have erroneously assumed, it is because you've just provided naked assertion – saying I'm wrong, making claims, but failing to support them with evidence. I on the contrary have made my claim, and then cited my sources which support that claim.
I don't know if we 'should', but I think it's natural that we do. I don't think anyone's place is anywhere. We don't have places. I don't believe that I have been put here to play a role in some story; to put right the wrongs or the world and banish all evil. I can only do what feels right for me, or someone else (as I don't believe there is an objective right and wrong). You seemed to be implying that my post couldn't have been possibly a true representation of my beliefs, as it didn't proclaim the moral superiority of atheists. I probably misread, or perhaps something was lost without real speech. I'm not trying to say what is moral, so much as what morality is. Fine. I have no issue with the use of an axiom per se. My argument is that we cannot build up a morality based on axioms, like Euclid's geometry for instance. Or in other words, the only true moral axiom, is that there are no other true moral axioms. We can only choose to act as a utilitarian because it feels right instinctively, or you've arrived to the conclusion that it is objectively "right" through flawed reasoning and as I said in the first half of that sentence, it's only when you realize that there is no objective morality, do you have no choice but to act instinctively. Basically, I think our two choices are to act instinctively or through flawed reasoning. That's irrelevant if they do believe they are logical conclusions. That's just totally wrong. You don't seem to understand the difference between subjective experience and objective truth. Or course I attach a negative value to harm, but it is a personal, subjective value, not an objective truth. Perhaps your confusion is because you keep trying to second guess my opinions and extrapolate whole beliefs from them. When have I said that society determine what is right and wrong? I said that they punish people depending on what they consider to be right and wrong, but I admitted myself that the punishments are no so much justice as revenge. Ok, between us (probably mainly me), we've got a bit confused over the whole axiom business. I'm not claiming to use no axioms in any argument, I'm saying that there are no true axioms that determine how we 'ought' to act in the future. By instincts I mean all the decisions we make that aren't a result of logical deduction. You're instincts can still be refined over your life. Mozart would probably not have composed the music he did without influences he was exposed to in life, including musical training and practice. That does not mean that his compositions were not instinctive. He did not logically deduce which notes to write from a set of axioms. In the same way, your average member of society does not decide how to act after deducing the correct action logically, they do what they "feel" to be correct. This is obviously affected by their upbringing an culture. Errr...yeah. Don't you believe in guilt. Or is that simply realizing that a certain action was incorrect based on your axioms? Probably more than you think I think. I explained more clearly what I mean by instinctive above. I did, Yes. I have. You are ignoring the fact that we are emotionally complex and do not just follow a single drive. We have conflicting emotions that determine our decisions. Yes, I've wanted to punch someone in the nose, but at the same time I'll also feel different conflicting emotions. Guilt, fear, embarrasment for example. It is not a system that is built up axiomatically. However, that completely misses the point. When people follow the law, it is due to an instinctive, fear of punishment, not appreciation of the flawless logical grounds upon which the law was based. Do you believe people would follow the law if there were no punishments? It's what we instinctively want, not what is objectively right. I'm not sure if that's true, but whatever. Killing of neighbours then. IS that better? Objectively, it does not matter. With respect to our personal desires, I would not want people to act completely unrestricted. There is a difference between what should happen and what I want to happen though. The contradictions do not exist. This is where I agree with you. Your core beliefs ARE your feelings. My problem is with the idea that there is a logical morality that we can deduce without our own subjective experience. But does the Christian know that it is objectively wrong to say bad things about Jesus (or offend someone), or is his offense all that there is? His beliefs may be based on principles, but what are they based on, his instincts? I fear I sometimes come across as quite rude in internet discussions. Sorry if this post has confirmed that.
I have been pretty unclear when talking about instincts. By instinct, I mean the decisions we make that are not based on reasoning. For instance, we can make the instinctive choice to ignore what feels natural and be utilitarian. We would not have rationally deduced that we ought to do so, but would have simply decided, on a whim almost. I would consider that to be an instinctive decision, even though we choose to ignore some of our instincts (which seems paradoxical). An example would be forcing yourself to touch hot metal. It is possible. There will be an instinctive part of you that rejects the idea, but there will also be an instinctive component that allows you to do it. Perhaps it was a mistake to use such a broad concept under the word instinct, but I could not think of a better word to describe what I mean. By instinct I do not mean our most basic emotional reflexes, but the things we choose to do, that the objective universe of science has no preference over. That was basically what I was getting at.
Jesus rose from the dead: YES miracles have happened, etc,: YES and that the Bible is evidence for this? I believe the Bible is one specific stream of evidence, but there are others. (Like most things in this discussion, it is a lot more complicated than a simplistic answer will allow). The existence of prophecy in the Bible provides evidence to its divine inspiration and origin. History, archaeology, psychology provide circumstantial evidence supporting this conclusion. This provides enough of a rational basis to accept the premise of its divine origin, by faith. Personal experience (including speaking to this Jesus who has risen from the dead and personally witnessing miracles) has confirmed my initial axiom. The consequences of this belief have resulted in a consistent world-view that has enabled me to interpret and make predictions about the world around me. Topher/HJS, you're saying that using the Bible as evidence for Biblical things is circular. My contention is that accepting Biblical faith as axiomatic and evaluating the consequences is no more circular than developing a coherent mathematical system from a few starting postulates. I disagree, and I have Strafio to thank for the 'why'. Your kind comments about the Christians you've met and the morality they exhibit got me to think about why this might be so. I think perhaps it is because of one (and only one) underlying theological point that is common to all Christians, regardless of denomination, and that is 'Imago Dei' Central to all Biblical morality is the idea that Man is created in the image of God. This is why Christians do not kill those who are critically injured, or genetically 'defective', or terminally ill (even though utilitarian AND evolutionary moralities would prefer such actions). This is why Christians care for people they do not know (like the 'good Samaritan'), or even for those who would persecute or seek to kill them, contrary to basic survival instinct and/or impulses from competition for resources. This is why Christians hate immoral actions, because they denigrate or injure those created for greater glory. This is also why Christians separate the immoral actions (which they deplore) from those who commit them, who are still created in God's image. Imago Dei instills in the core of my being the idea that all people have worth and value apart from anything they do or can do, because they are created in the image of God - as objects of His love, they are deserving of my love. (Note: In the above sentence, I'm using 'love' as altruism in the truest sense, where I look out for your best interest, even if it is contrary to my best interest. This is in exact contraindication to the evolutionary model you proposed.) Of course, the ultimate source for Christian Morality is its Author (and that is why Imago Dei matters). Maybe I'll put some thoughts-on-blog about what difference that makes a little later. In the mean time, I'll just throw out the source, according to the Master:
So basically, you don’t hold them to be solely poetic/metaphorical, you hold them to be factual, as in they actually happened, they are part of history just as the Battle of Waterloo is part of history. And you also seek evidence for this, and you think you have evidence for it (the fact I disagree with your ‘evidence’ is beside the point; all I’m trying to establish is the basis of your belief.) That is good enough for my point. As for the bible being circular: Starting with the assumption of the bibles divine origin (of which you must, since no natural evidence can prove a supernatural claim) and then using it’s ‘divine origin’ as proof of its reliability/claims is circular. While historical and archaeological evidence can point us toward the natural origin of the book itself, it can not point us to a supernatural origin. No matter how you try to spin it, it simply has to be accepted on faith. So you start with faith that it is divine, which you youself agree with: "[t]his provides enough of a rational basis to accept the premise of its divine origin, by faith." However, the problem with this claim is that if you have reason, you don't need faith (and St Paul and Luther agree with me). And clearly, as I've discussed, there can be no rational basis for a supernatural claim. Simply put: trying to understand the supernatural is like trying to reach the 11th floor of a 10 story building. It must be taken on faith. The ramification of denying this is to say that morality never existed before religion, which is clearly false, and that no other social animal exhibits moral systems, which is also clearly false. As I’ve said, evolution explains the similarities in our morality. You tend to find that regardless of religion, culture or environment, certain things tend to be frowned upon in a society, and it is down to survival.
An assertion on your part, with which I disagree. Going back to my analogy with mathematics: Mathematical proofs generally start with an assumption, then show the consequences of that assumption result in a contradition. The original assumption is therefore proved false. If all naturalistic assumptions for the Bible's origin contradict the fact that the Bible includes prophecy, then those naturalistic explanations for the Biblie's origin are likewise shown to be false. Thus, the naturalistic evidence proves a supernatural origin. Paul never said this. I disagree with Luther on this point. Is not! (And my 'is not' has the same basis and as much force as your 'clearly' ). My contention is that morality never existed before GOD, and coherent morality (a moraliy that objectively 'makes sense' to follow) cannot exist apart from God. And as I've said, the sovereignty of God in creating Mankind in His image explains the similarities in our morality (and the 'fall' explains the degree to which they have come to diverge, but that's for some other thread).
Nothing can point to its opposite, i.e. its own antithesis. The supernatural is the antithesis of the natural. Hence, the natural cannot point to the supernatural. What you are actually doing is inferring the supernatural from the natural. They start with a self evident axiom. Yet some of the “prophecies” in the bible have been considered disproved as either being written after the fact, or as not refer to what it is claimed to be referring to. Almost all prophecy can be explained by postdiction and these are all more parsimonious explanation. The bottom line is ANY natural explanation far more parsimonious than any supernatural explanation. The supernatural is the ultimate violation of Occam’s razor. No, it wouldn’t. Even if there was no natural explanation it would still not prove the supernatural. Arguing that something is supernatural on the basis that we currently have no natural explanation is an argument from ignorance/incredulity. There cannot be any positive evidence for the supernatural, so you can only argue from default/ignorance/incredulity, which is exactly what IDer do: “X cannot explain it, so Y automatically wins.” This is not an argument. Yes, he did. "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see". -- Hebrews 11:1. i.e. it is belief based on hope, not evidence. Paul then explains precisely why theistic faith cannot be equated with with reason or evidence: Romans 8:24-25: “For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.” i.e. Why does one still hope (have faith) when he has evidence. When one has evidence, one does not need hope (faith). It’s quite clear here that hope/faith is relied on in the absence of evidence. Well god “existed” before ‘religion’, so you’re still wrong. And no morality is objective, but that’s another issue. You do realise this begs the question.
What I'm trying to find out is if you think that society as a whole should determine how its members act or if it doesn't matter whether or not society Ok, "should we be allowed to", then, is the question. You see a group of KKK members about to kill a black man. You know if you ask them nicely to stop, they'll walk away. Would you ask them to stop? You see a wallet on the ground with a lot of money in it. You know if you take it, no one would ever know. Would you take it? Speaking from the point of view of evolution, your natural "evolved" instincts would probably tell you to take the wallet. I'm even willing to bet that they'd tell you to leave the KKK guys alone. So what role does evolution play in either scenario? What role does utilitarianism play in the wallet scenario (many people would leave the wallet alone, or at least, consider that to be the moral thing to do)? These are the two sources of morality that you've posited, but they don't seem to be the primary motivators for most people's behavior. This means that there's some other principle other than evolution and utilitarianism that has guided your decision. It's not really utilitarian to leave the wallet behind. Or we could certainly think of scenarios where it isn't. Say it's a rich guy with money to spare, but who is stingy on the rewards. It's not evolutionarily advantageous to leave the wallet, either. It might be utilitarian to save the black man. It's probably not a natural outcome of evolution to help a stranger that's being attacked by three other strangers, though. So evolution, utilitarianism, and what else? What I meant is, while you say that this is what you think morality is, if you really believed the implications of everything you're saying, your "instinctive" behavior would probably be very different from the way it actually is. And I'm willing to bet that while your ideas sound good to you as your posting, they're not an actual part of the philosophy that really governs your behavior. Fine, I disagree that it's just a combination of evolution and utilitarianism because this cannot account for all of our behavior. Sure, you can. You may not be able to build up a morality that covers everything everybody has ever claimed to be moral, but you can certainly define the boundaries of an axiomatic morality to be whatever you want. In fact, many systems of morality do specifically say that other supposedly moral practices are actually immoral. I'm confused, are you trying to define what morality is, or where it comes from? Because before you said you were only trying to explain where it comes from, not what it actually is. The problem is that if you're trying to explain the origins of morality, this explanation is totally wrong, because our present moral behavior is defined by conclusions that previous generations have come to about what is and isn't moral. These conclusions aren't necessarily based on "instinct" but rather, often, on so called "flawed reasoning". Many moral systems are based on religion and taking the axioms of that religion to their logical conclusions, which are not necessarily instinctive. However, once that conclusion is reached logically, it can also become a part of our emotional behavior (our emotional instinct), but this doesn't mean that the choice of morals was instinctive at all. In short, your instincts could be very very different from the way they are had history been different. Your explanation for the origins of morality only explains why you act the way you do NOW after having been influenced by society, it doesn't give the actual origins of the principles that you (perhaps unkowingly) act on. Utilitarianism and evolution is not sufficient to derive our moral behavior. But the principles you've given as the origins of morality aren't sufficient to explain why you attach a negative value to the things that you do. It doesn't need to be objectively "correct" to assign them a negative value, but there should be an explanation. You also mentioned deterrents, which isn't really revenge. Sometimes, I think he did, because Sonatas, for example, have to fit a very specific form. If he didn't modulate correctly, his Sonatas would have ceased to be Sonatas. But that's beside the point. That's sort of the point, though. In a way, people are following their instincts, because it's instinctive not to get punished--BUT we're not just allowing them to follow their natural instincts without artificial measures to keep them in check. You had said that people have been just following their instincts since the beginning of civilization and we've done just fine. We WOULDN'T be doing just fine, though, if we didn't have some method of surpressing a good deal of people's instincts, the law. A lot of the law is based on what we generally would consider to be "right" behaviour. In Old Testemant Jewish law, the law was intimately tied with morality. If morality was based purely on instinct, then it seems like laws that have to do with morality (killing, stealing, raping, etc.) should always follow the natural instinct of the I agree that in a purely physical perspective, there is no such thing as objectively right. I agree that any system of morality we could create would be completely arbitrary. And I agree that killing people would not be any worse than not killing people, and that there is no actual reason that we SHOULD stop them from doing this, if we are to take that as a complete description of the universe. What I disagree on is that our natural instincts and some vague sense of utilitarianism are enough to keep our morality approximately what it is right now. I think if people were to actually believe the above for a couple of generations it would end up being very detrimental to socieity. I think that if people at one point in the past hadn't taken a set of beliefs that were counter instinctive and built moral systems out of them, the world would be very different. I think it would be very easy to internalize the idea of other people as valuless (as has been done in the past with specific groups of people, like slaves) and I don't think our revulsion at harming others is a product of natural selection. At various times in the past, executions were popular entertainment, whereas that would be considered horriffic today. So for a few generations, with the above beliefs that you have espoused, I think the values of our ancestors would carry over. Slowly, I think, they would begin to fade, and society would not fare so well. I'm not sure what exactly this means. If a Christian were to hear someone preaching that Jesus was a fraud and a liar, he would say that this person is spreading lies that could be detrimental to other people's salvation, which would probably make him angry, and possibly sad. He wouldn't get upset or offended if he didn't believe Jesus' message. So his emotional instinct is based on a choice he's made to believe in something--we can't say specifically how he arrived at that belief. There are millions of ways. Let me give another example. I used to post to a newsgroup called alt.sci.physics.new-theories years ago. There were basically a bunch of nutballs and wierdos that thought they would completely revolutionize physics on there, by postulating that Newton and Einstein were totally wrong and Aristotle was right, or other things equally stupid. I would get really annoyed and angry sometimes reading posts on there. My emotional reaction was caused by decisions that I had arrived at logically about physics, not by any inherent instincts. The anger itself may have been instinctive, but the cause of the anger wasn't. It was based on the violation of a logical set of axioms. Similarly with morality, we might get angry or repulsed when somebody violates a set of axioms that we have logically deduced and decided that people should live by. Don't worry about it.
I have to stop you here, because mathematical proofs start with an axiom, I don't really see how it can be considered self evident. The axioms that we build our system from don't necessarilly have to correspond to the real world. So, if the system doesn't correspond to the real world (it can still be logical and consistant), I don't see how the axiom can be self evident.
Toph: regarding the quotes from Paul: you are conflating 'hope' and 'faith' (they are not the same), and you are conflating absolute proof (sight) with evidence, reason, and logic (they are not the same, either). Please revisit the Scripture verses you quoted, with this in mind, and see how it affects your conclusion
I meant self evidence as in it proves itself, i.e. it doesn't need to be proven. If mathematics don't use self evident axioms then I take my original comment back.
Read what Paul wrote: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." He is not conflating faith and hope; he is saying that faith is just being sure of your hopes and certain of what you do not see. For example, if you hope for X, then having faith in X is to be sure that it is true.
I'm not sure, actually. Just things like Euclids postualte about parallel lines come to mind, which if we choose to accept, gives us Euclidean geometry, and if we don't gives us non-Euclidean geometry. I could be wrong in my definition of self evident, though.
