Is there a God?

[RickD]

Kenny, where is the human desire to live peacefully from?

Jumping in to say its from the same source as the pro-survival "desire" of a flock of birds, or a pack of hyaenas to get along with eachother.

Could you be any more vague?

Sorry, I was just trying to avoid being overly wordy.

Animals that "get along" in a group have a better survival chance than those that do not.

The ability for group animals such as primates, or ants, to live peacefully deeply predates the existence of modern man.

But you still haven't said where you believe it comes from.

[PaulSacramento]

Kenny, where is the human desire to live peacefully from?

Jumping in to say its from the same source as the pro-survival "desire" of a flock of birds, or a pack of hyaenas to get along with eachother.

Could you be any more vague?

Sorry, I was just trying to avoid being overly wordy.

Animals that "get along" in a group have a better survival chance than those that do not.

The ability for group animals such as primates, or ants, to live peacefully deeply predates the existence of modern man.

Many animals do not live in groups and they predate modern man too, sharks for example or solitary predators like tigers.

[Kenny]

1over137
Kenny, where is the human desire to live peacefully from?

Kuriou
I'm not sure how much further I can press matters if you really do see "the fire" as an innate "desire to live peacefully". But, let me try.
Hana raises a valid question I think: "where is the human desire to live peacefully from?"
Maybe I am missing some connection that you see.
So, is there any reason why you believe "the desire to live peacefully" is "the fire" -- the source of moral good?
Or, is it just something you choose to believe because right now, you're just not sure right now?
I'd more prefer your most honest answer

Ken
I am reminded of an interview of a prisoner of war veteran from Vietnam who was tortured in solitary confinement for years. He was not allowed any human contact, the food and after was slid through the bottom of the door without being able to see the people giving it to him and he described how horrible it was, how he talked to insects and rodents just to keep from going crazy during this time. Even though this happened to him when he was in his 20’s and he is now in his 60’s, he says he will still shake hands with anyone whenever he has the opportunity just to feel the human contact; it still has an effect on him even to this day.
In US prisons the worse punishment they can dole out (other than the death penalty) is solitary confinement. My point is; human contact is necessary for people in order to be happy because as I said before, we are social creatures.
Because people require human contact and wish to live with each other, it becomes a matter of which is more desirable; to live in harmony, or to live with friction; to live in peace or to live amongst hostility.
As I mentioned earlier, humans for the most part are peaceful people; we prefer to build peaceful relationships with each other rather than hostile relationships. I believe this is where our desire to live peacefully originates from.

I suspect the next question will be, where the desire to live with others come from, and to that I don’t have an answer. For the Christian the answer is easy; because God created Eve so Adam would not be alone so it is obvious God made us that way; but because as a skeptic I don’t see the evidence of God that you see it is necessary for me to leave God off the table when addressing such questions, thus Goddidit isn’t an option for me.

But to answer your question; “where the desire to live peaceful come from;’ Because it’s easier to live in peace than in hostility.

Ken

[1over137]

Yes, it's easier. And I will stop my questions here.

Peace.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

But to answer your question; “where the desire to live peaceful come from;’ Because it’s easier to live in peace than in hostility.

Actually, it isn't. It is far easier to live in hostility which erupts into war often, very often. It is more desireable to live in peace but it isn't easier.

You need to get up from your lotus position and take a good, hard look at the world around you.

FL

[B. W.]

Jesus does not give the same kind of peace the world gives and aspires too. His peace is far greater...

Maybe you would like to discover His peace, Kenny?
-
-
-

[Kenny]

But to answer your question; “where the desire to live peaceful come from;’ Because it’s easier to live in peace than in hostility.

Actually, it isn't. It is far easier to live in hostility which erupts into war often, very often. It is more desireable to live in peace but it isn't easier.

You need to get up from your lotus position and take a good, hard look at the world around you.

FL

I guess it depends upon the person. For me, it is easier to live in peace.The idea of living my life knowing someone wants to stab me in the back doesn't sound like a comfortable life to me. But that's just me, I can't speak for anyone else.

Ken

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I guess it depends upon the person. For me, it is easier to live in peace.The idea of living my life knowing someone wants to stab me in the back doesn't sound like a comfortable life to me. But that's just me, I can't speak for anyone else.

OK. I was answering from the perspective of history. Wars and war making are far easier than peace and peaceful living.

Resume the lotus position.

FL

[Kenny]

While we can't see through the smoke to agree in some objective manner about every particular moral issue, we are still in fact seeing the smoke itself.

You don't need to have perfect moral sight to know and believe some things are morally wrong or right.
Therefore you don't need a perfect morality to see its smoke.
The smoke is objectively real even if the details are hazy due to our subjectivity.

So if we see the smoke (moral values that we identify with), then according to Aquinas's reasoning, there is a source of this smoke (moral values).

I don't want you feeling like I'm laying some kind of trap.
So to be totally transparent and show my cards, the source for me -- the fire -- is God Himself.
Christian theology sees "Goodness" a part of God's very nature, along with other attributes like "Holiness", "Immutability", "Eternality", "Love", etc.
God for me, is the fire -- the ultimate source of all the smoke I see (the innate moral values we both possess and identify with).

If you see the smoke, and claim there is no fire (which I don't see you doing by the way), then that does seem a little odd to me.

I agree! Like the old saying goes; where there is smoke there is fire. Of course the Theist will see the Fire (source of morality) as God. While I can’t speak for all atheists, I can only speak for myself; I see the source of morality (fire) as a human desire to live peacefully. I believe humans are for the most part peaceful and social creatures; and in order to live socially and in peace each has to feel they are treated fairly otherwise there will be no peace, IOW there has to be empathy for one another. I believe this is the source of morality, and morality is the source of human laws.

Ken

Thanks Ken,

I'm not sure how much further I can press matters if you really do see "the fire" as an innate "desire to live peacefully". But, let me try.

Hana raises a valid question I think: "where is the human desire to live peacefully from?"

For me, I find it hard to accept that the root of all morality stems from an innate sense to live peacefully.
This still seems like where dealing with the smoke. Perhaps smoke closer to the fire, but still smoke nonetheless.

Why do I say this?
Well, I'd put forward that there seems to be many who are quite happy to be angry.
Many do not want peace, but would prefer power, wealth and/or glory instead.
Many even who would quickly go to war and fight for their beliefs, their country or ideals.

So, this difference in values suggests to me that "a desire to live peacefully," while I too think is more morally desirable, is still a moral "gradation".
As such, my feeling is that such a response is too simple.
In other word, what you call the fire is actually still smoke, and there is some source still further that is actually the fire.

When I said there is a human desire to live peacefully; I meant within the society they are living. Those who prefer power, wealth, and glory even if it leads to war will still have peace within their society, Now as far as various societies getting alone, that is a different story.

Ken

[Kurieuo]

Understood.

I'm gathering my thoughts right now around your last main response.
It seems we've walked to the same water spot, but we're drinking from different areas.
So from my end, I'm not entirely sure where to walk this discussion to next.

But, I appreciate the discussion we've had here.

[Kurieuo]

While we can't see through the smoke to agree in some objective manner about every particular moral issue, we are still in fact seeing the smoke itself.

You don't need to have perfect moral sight to know and believe some things are morally wrong or right.
Therefore you don't need a perfect morality to see its smoke.
The smoke is objectively real even if the details are hazy due to our subjectivity.

So if we see the smoke (moral values that we identify with), then according to Aquinas's reasoning, there is a source of this smoke (moral values).

I don't want you feeling like I'm laying some kind of trap.
So to be totally transparent and show my cards, the source for me -- the fire -- is God Himself.
Christian theology sees "Goodness" a part of God's very nature, along with other attributes like "Holiness", "Immutability", "Eternality", "Love", etc.
God for me, is the fire -- the ultimate source of all the smoke I see (the innate moral values we both possess and identify with).

If you see the smoke, and claim there is no fire (which I don't see you doing by the way), then that does seem a little odd to me.

I agree! Like the old saying goes; where there is smoke there is fire. Of course the Theist will see the Fire (source of morality) as God. While I can’t speak for all atheists, I can only speak for myself; I see the source of morality (fire) as a human desire to live peacefully. I believe humans are for the most part peaceful and social creatures; and in order to live socially and in peace each has to feel they are treated fairly otherwise there will be no peace, IOW there has to be empathy for one another. I believe this is the source of morality, and morality is the source of human laws.

Ken

Thanks Ken,

I'm not sure how much further I can press matters if you really do see "the fire" as an innate "desire to live peacefully". But, let me try.

Hana raises a valid question I think: "where is the human desire to live peacefully from?"

For me, I find it hard to accept that the root of all morality stems from an innate sense to live peacefully.
This still seems like where dealing with the smoke. Perhaps smoke closer to the fire, but still smoke nonetheless.

Why do I say this?
Well, I'd put forward that there seems to be many who are quite happy to be angry.
Many do not want peace, but would prefer power, wealth and/or glory instead.
Many even who would quickly go to war and fight for their beliefs, their country or ideals.

So, this difference in values suggests to me that "a desire to live peacefully," while I too think is more morally desirable, is still a moral "gradation".
As such, my feeling is that such a response is too simple.
In other word, what you call the fire is actually still smoke, and there is some source still further that is actually the fire.

When I said there is a human desire to live peacefully; I meant within the society they are living. Those who prefer power, wealth, and glory even if it leads to war will still have peace within their society, Now as far as various societies getting alone, that is a different story.

Ken

Hi Ken,

I've reflected a bit on our discussion here.

Really, I think it is a hard push to believe that moral feelings have any imperative like I see moral values would.
It took me a while to realise this, but I see a clear distinction between the two.
Whether or not you agree, allow me to try unpack this distinction.

It seems a given, that without God one must accept what we call "morals" somehow evolved.
These morals at best are "feelings". It seems hard to see whether feelings arrived at by chance ought to be considered really as "moral values".
Of course, for practical purposes in discussion we may refer to them as "moral values", even if it is believed they are shared feelings that evolved.

However, strictly speaking, "value" actually seems to point to an existence in its own right.
The way I see it, evolution cannot provide "moral values" but it can provide "moral feelings".
The former is an "object" existing in its own right, the latter a mental state.

For example, consider numbers and colours.
Where do these exist? If no mind or light existed, then would they exist?
These are considered abstract objects. Moral values are abstract objects.
If you've never read up on "abstract objects" then I'd encourage you to do so.
It is an interesting philosophical discussion.

For this reason, I remain unconvinced that morality can be naturally explained.
Feelings perhaps. But then, why prefer a "desire for peace" as a "moral" and a "desire to experience the greatest pleasure" not?
Humans seem to desire pleasure more than peace. Hedonism. You know?
Moral values have an extra qualitative feel to them that general feelings or desires do not.

Also consider that a more compatible moral feeling if we evolved would be survival.
Self-sacrifice just doesn't seem like a good trait to evolve. Or perhaps some other moral actions we consider to be good.

That said, let me assume that you still remain unconvinced.
Why "a desire for peace" as the most foundational?
It seems to me that this itself if derived from a desire for "love" itself.
That is, our desire for peace seems to be built upon Love.

Love can encompass friendship, family, companionship, romantically, erotically...
But, the most purest form of love is perhaps one of an unconditional love. Self sacrifice.
What is commonly referred to as Agape.

In Christianity, we believe this is the type of love that God has for us, and desires for us to have for each other.
Surely, your identifying a "desire for peace" is built upon this?
To live peacefully, often requires a measure of self-sacrifice.
In any case, it seems Agape is more evidently closer to "the fire".

And you know what? The irony is on me,
Because initially I thought your words suspect.
But, you find odd support from Christian quarters for basing moral duties on one moral value.

Jesus replied when asked the question, "What is the greatest law?":

• Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

So when you stated that you see "a desire to live peacefully" as the most foundational principle...
Well, this actually isn't as foolish as I first thought (and kept silent on ).
As you realised, I was hoping that you would see the source as God. No doubt, Hana was too when she asked her question.

But thinking on it, I saw that Jesus also seems to acknowledge one can fulfill all moral commands if they just Love because they're all based upon this!
So although I still believe there is a Divine source where they came from, it's not so silly to think most of morality is based upon one principle.
You'll probably find that a welcomed acknowledgement on my part I'm sure.

I think it's an easy step from your "desire for peace" to a "desire for Love".
Again, a desire for peace seems like it would be more based upon love, rather than a desire for love being based upon peace.
And then now, well, you're on solid ground with Christ.

Obviously as an Atheist (I'm not sure I've actually ever directly asked though??),
you don't acknowledge a moral value like "Love" being rooted in God.
But rather human moral feelings being rooted in evolution.

As I touched on earlier in this post, I'd expect our main shared moral values to be quite different if an unintelligent source was the cause.
That is, a loving intelligence seems to make greater sense to me that it would desire us "to live peacefully" and "love one another".
Whereas an unintelligence I'd think would be more about self-preservation and our own happiness.
The values expected from both would appear to be in quite opposite corners.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the "Love" connection as being more primary than a desire for peace.
Also, just your thoughts on what I presented here in general.

All the best, Kurieuo

[Audie]

For human beings intellectual distinctions between feelings and values have meaning. Whether the distinctions
have value, those who will can talk of that.

I've here been told not to offer opinions on things philosophical if I am not skilled in the art such that I care to defend
anything interpreted as "philosophy". Or words taken as being to that effect.

In the post above, as elsewhere here, I see offered into evidence ideas about evolution statements presented as fact
that are just so, what, uneducated. Our "gappist" is beyond my reach, but some of you do make an effort, hobbled as betimes it
is with ideology or inertia.

Maybe K here tho can see that basing any of his reasoning on mistaken ideas about evolution and animal behaviour does nothing to advance them.

One of the ideas expressed was that self sacrifice is not an evolutionary advantage.

Sounds reasonable, and one could spin scenarios, real or imaginary, to illustrate, while missing entirely the
reality of not just its pervasive existence but the cold mechanistic , and for that matter utterly logical way that it actually works.

Salmon dont swim upstream because they "feel" like it. I dont know how a mother cat feels when defending her kitten from a pitbull, tho they seem impassioned.

Regardless, the examples of animal altruism are endless, and exist because that is what works for the species.

That the human "feeling" / value / instinct to defend the home or the group can be talked about or overridden does not
make it special or of different origin.

Now, maybe God did bestow something, but to suggest it somehow cant have evolved is to simply disregard science, or invent
something different from science; neither is a good way to support any ideas about human nature.

[Kurieuo]

For human beings intellectual distinctions between feelings and values have meaning. Whether the distinctions
have value, those who will can talk of that.

I've here been told not to offer opinions on things philosophical if I am not skilled in the art such that I care to defend
anything interpreted as "philosophy". Or words taken as being to that effect.

In the post above, as elsewhere here, I see offered into evidence ideas about evolution statements presented as fact
that are just so, what, uneducated. Our "gappist" is beyond my reach, but some of you do make an effort, hobbled as betimes it
is with ideology or inertia.

Maybe K here tho can see that basing any of his reasoning on mistaken ideas about evolution and animal behaviour does nothing to advance them.

One of the ideas expressed was that self sacrifice is not an evolutionary advantage.

Sounds reasonable, and one could spin scenarios, real or imaginary, to illustrate, while missing entirely the
reality of not just its pervasive existence but the cold mechanistic , and for that matter utterly logical way that it actually works.

Salmon dont swim upstream because they "feel" like it. I dont know how a mother cat feels when defending her kitten from a pitbull, tho they seem impassioned.

Regardless, the examples of animal altruism are endless, and exist because that is what works for the species.

That the human "feeling" / value / instinct to defend the home or the group can be talked about or overridden does not
make it special or of different origin.

Now, maybe God did bestow something, but to suggest it somehow cant have evolved is to simply disregard science, or invent
something different from science; neither is a good way to support any ideas about human nature.

Hi Audie,

You are very astute and make a valid point that I can't disagree with.

In fact, when writing the piece you're primarily challenging here (self-sacrifice), I actually considered it a weak point.
Since it seems to me that benefit can actually be seen for the survival of a species where one sacrifices themselves to save many.
Trust someone like you, with your sharp analytical mind, to have honed in on this.
Regardless, I thought it illustrative for imparting understanding, even if the example was weak. So I left it in.

That is, it still seems to me that our moral intuitions would "look" otherwise if evolved.
For example, we don't just see altruistic looking acts in nature. We also see what appears to be a lot of harshness.
Whether altruistic or not, harsh or not, what is natural/nature really doesn't care either way. It just is the way things are.

In fact, forming Freud's main argument for a human desire to believe in an illusion (i.e., religion) is that the world seems so harsh.
Darwin himself, as I understand, was driven to question God's existence and saw random natural processes as much more fitting given how cruel the natural world appeared to be.

So, why then does humanity suddenly make a moral value distinction based on certain wholesome principles like "love" or Kenny's "peace"?
An unintelligent process really shouldn't care either way. For example, the principle of the "survival of the fittest" should be a just as wholesome value.
BUT, everyone gets in an uproar over what what Nazi Germany did to the Jews when in their own eyes they were simply removing a parasite.
OR, for those of us, especially in the Asia-Pacific, who experienced the inhumane atrocities of an elitist Japanese empire during WWII.

So although the example I used is rightfully lacking as you correctly point out,
nonetheless the moral values we selectively believe in seem to not be of nature but imparted.
That is more a personal judgement based on the select values we esteem as being moral.
I can't prove it. You might not agree. Kenny may/may not agree.

To add further still, I see there is even something about humanity that is transcendent.
Such that we adapt our environment to our whim's desire, rather than necessarily adapting to our environment.
Kind of turns evolution on its head don't you think?

*Kurieuo looks forward to Audie's next critique*

[Byblos]

Evidently evolution is devolving!

[Audie]

For human beings intellectual distinctions between feelings and values have meaning. Whether the distinctions
have value, those who will can talk of that.

I've here been told not to offer opinions on things philosophical if I am not skilled in the art such that I care to defend
anything interpreted as "philosophy". Or words taken as being to that effect.

In the post above, as elsewhere here, I see offered into evidence ideas about evolution statements presented as fact
that are just so, what, uneducated. Our "gappist" is beyond my reach, but some of you do make an effort, hobbled as betimes it
is with ideology or inertia.

Maybe K here tho can see that basing any of his reasoning on mistaken ideas about evolution and animal behaviour does nothing to advance them.

One of the ideas expressed was that self sacrifice is not an evolutionary advantage.

Sounds reasonable, and one could spin scenarios, real or imaginary, to illustrate, while missing entirely the
reality of not just its pervasive existence but the cold mechanistic , and for that matter utterly logical way that it actually works.

Salmon dont swim upstream because they "feel" like it. I dont know how a mother cat feels when defending her kitten from a pitbull, tho they seem impassioned.

Regardless, the examples of animal altruism are endless, and exist because that is what works for the species.

That the human "feeling" / value / instinct to defend the home or the group can be talked about or overridden does not
make it special or of different origin.

Now, maybe God did bestow something, but to suggest it somehow cant have evolved is to simply disregard science, or invent
something different from science; neither is a good way to support any ideas about human nature.

Hi Audie,
You are very astute and make a valid point that I can't disagree with.

In fact, when writing the piece you're primarily challenging here (self-sacrifice), I actually considered it a weak point.
Since it seems to me that benefit can actually be seen for the survival of a species where one sacrifices themselves to save many.
Trust someone like you, with your sharp analytical mind, to have honed in on this.
Regardless, I thought it illustrative for imparting understanding, even if the example was weak. So I left it in.

It is not weak, its plain wrong.

That is, it still seems to me that our moral intuitions would "look" otherwise if evolved.
For example, we don't just see altruistic looking acts in nature. We also see what appears to be a lot of harshness.

If "we" is you, and you personally have not seen any such thing, you could investigate as to what others have seen, and be aware of things very well known and recorded in a wide variety of species.

And of course there is harshness. It pervades nature, and people are the grand masters.

Whether altruistic or not, harsh or not, what is natural/nature really doesn't care either way. It just is the way things are.

Of course not. "Nature" does not have the capacity to care tho many creatures act as if they care about others. What matters in evolution, is what works.

So, why then does humanity suddenly make a moral value distinction based on certain wholesome principles like "love" or Kenny's "peace"?

Why indeed, tho the wrong question. Why do you think it is "sudden"?
Perhaps Homo erectus didnt think in terms of moral value distincitons, they may not have been much for talking.

A different between Asian and Western values is that in the USA, I suppose Oz too, people are big on saying "oh I love you" but we dont do that. We show it by how we act. Deeds, not words.
IF H. erectus had not observed such rules, spoken or otherwise as "do not steal, take care of those who need care, cooperate, keep the peace, SHOW your love by your devotion", I seriously doubt that biped primate development would have lasted.

An unintelligent process really shouldn't care either way. For example, the principle of the "survival of the fittest" should be a just as wholesome value.

Survival of the fittest includes those with the qualities needed to keep the group intact and functioning. And it hasnt the least to do with "should" or "care", introducing those into a discussion about evolution is inappropriate.

BUT, everyone gets in an uproar over what what Nazi Germany did to the Jews when in their own eyes they were simply removing a parasite.
OR, for those of us, especially in the Asia-Pacific, who experienced the inhumane atrocities of an elitist Japanese empire during WWII.

Well, yes, my family was in Hong Kong for the invasion. The appalling behaviour of people does more to argue against divine origin of this special moral quality than it does to argue for it.

So although the example I used is rightfully lacking as you correctly point out,
nonetheless the moral values we selectively believe in seem to not be of nature but imparted.

People have the ability to override all kinds of things, their rational intellect, their moral instincts among them. The human mind and body are a whole long way from perfect!

To add further still, I see there is even something about humanity that is transcendent.

Obviously we are clever, and good at manipulating things. Rerun the invasion of HK
in your mind, and point out the transcendence.

Maybe we are; who is to say. Whatever the word even means, to you. Transcendent or not, the roots of human existence appear to be in our non human past. An example to the contrary has not been presented.

Such that we adapt our environment to our whim's desire, rather than necessarily adapting to our environment.

Animals and plants routinely alter their environment for their benefit.

Kind of turns evolution on its head don't you think?

No, not really. You just showed that you have some areas where you need to brush up on your science, you are basing your ideas on your misunderstandings.

Side note, countercurrents of one sort or another are apparently an inseparable part of human and animal behaviour. Moral paradoxes for one. And surely all of us have taken something we kind of thought we should not have, even if its just the last cookie.

Too much rigidity in behaviour is counter survival. That has problems too. Nothing works perfectly, but here we are.

*Kurieuo looks forward to Audie's next critique* yp**

==