Evidence for God from Science

touchingcloth wrote:Gman - my question to jlay was not so much if consciousness was in the DNA, but rather if he thinks that the objective moral code itself is (in the way in which certain aspects of the phenomenon of consciousness are hard-coded, e.g. turning external stimuli into mental models, being "aware" of oneself, etc.).

I would think that a child picks up certain spiritual attributes from their parents. As an example parents with mechanical or mathematical minds will most likely produce a child with a mechanical or mathematical mind. But we just don't know enough.

Morally? Morals are learned and changed throughout one's life. I don't think that is necessarily genetic.

As an example just look at our language and see how it as evolved. If you say that someone is "bad" today that doesn't necessarily mean that they are a bad person anymore. Now it could mean that they are good, with a strong demeanor. It's all relative...

Here's another question.. If we are evolving morally then why do we still have all these wars? It's almost 2010 and we still are fighting wars? Or what about the bloody sport of bare-knuckle boxing? Still practiced today. Violent video games? Murder, stealing.. Etc...

I am glad we dicussed that, but I fail to see how it has any bearing on the discussion at hand.

Science has not discovered a 'conscience' gene. We do know that the conscience is something that works with learned behavior. That it isn't specifically learned behavior itself.

I don't think morals are genetic either.

The human mind has the abiblity to learn math. Yes, we must be taught, but the basic hardwiring is there to grasp these concepts.

The human mind has the ability to understand morals and ethics. But we must be taught the basics. For all that we do know, we still actually understand little about the human brain. For example, just how a basic thought comes into the mind.

jlay wrote:Science has not discovered a 'conscience' gene. We do know that the conscience is something that works with learned behavior. That it isn't specifically learned behavior itself.

Correct... Someone may have better or more neurotransmitters than another, but behavior is basically learned. In fact you could have all the brains in the world and still be a murderer.

jlay wrote:I am glad we dicussed that, but I fail to see how it has any bearing on the discussion at hand.

Yes, but according to evolutionists, human mental life, our consciousness, our intelligence, our purposes, can be explained entirely in the forces involved in chemistry. Certain scientists have claimed the mind or consciousness is “only” chemistry. They say mental processes are fully explained in terms through the evolutionary chemistry of the brain. So, if we have no designer, then basically when we were just mere chemicals (at one time) and started to evolve, then the GR evolved with us. So my question is if our view of GR is evolving then why are we still killing ourselves today? Nothing seems have changed at all. And if you wanted to talk about WWI and WWII nothing has even rivaled such destruction. Where is this so called utopia? It's built within us right? The great and powerful GR... Bah humbug.

And this talk about whites being morally superior to other races is a crock of baloney also. In my life I've seen just as many whites perform just as many injustices as any other race (corporate criminals). They just happen to be craftier about it.. No one is exempt here.

Which brings up another problem. If we are just chemical processes, that being someone is more evolved than another, then someone is, presumably morally superior to another then too. Where is the equality there?

Gman, what does GR stand for?

touchingcloth wrote:Gman, what does GR stand for?

Hi TC... It means the Golden Rule.

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:Gman, what does GR stand for?

Hi TC... It means the Golden Rule.

Thanks for the clarification, all I could get my brain to land on was "general relativity" so I thought I must have had it wrong!

A couple of points:
Why would an evolved morality lead to an increased following of the golden rule? That hints at the fallacy that evolution is progress (as measured by some subjective standard), rather than change.

This leads to my second point, that even if an evolved morality did result in a perfect understanding of the golden rule, if you think that would result in an end to wars, murder, theft, etc. then you're missing at least one part of the puzzle - are you familiar with the prisoner's dilemma?

touchingcloth wrote:B W -As you're defending an objective morality, any chance you could explain a couple of things?

How does that objective morality get stamped in to people's minds? After all your brain functions evolved from a single cell, so is that objective morality somehow written in to your DNA?

How is it that different cultures, both now and in the past, have different moral codes?

Simple — through the process of discovery:

An objective moral standard exist despite ones own relativity. Through personal relativity one discovers 'moral absolutes' that cross cultural and social boundaries.

This is where relativist gets confused: the confusion over behavior verse value. In other words, behavior is what determines morals in the relativist world. What people do is always changing; however, the 'what we Ought to do' does not.

Here is the basic life boat scenario: 5 people are in a life raft — and only food and water enough for four people — who do you throw overboard? The answer is: everyone should be thrown overboard because life has no relative value. If life has value, then you would ration the food and water until rescue or toss someone overboard.

You see the value for life exist despite ones behavior of throwing another overboard or rationing. The real value is life; how you live it and behave is another matter. You can be the good decent progressive who determines who gets thrown overboard because the needs of the many outweigh the few or a conservatives who wants people to work together to achieve the best possible good for all because both discovered that Life has value.

Which side is right in their respective value of life? One that kills another so they have the recourses - Or one that helps all to remain live? Who values life more? Whose values are self centered and who is not? Who values life more?

Our behavior helps us discover and uncover Moral Absolutes. We all violate our own moral relativistic codes and rarely do what we ought to do, and instead we try this approach: my genes made me throw them overboard — not my fault.

What have you discovered about yourself and the use of moral relativism?

That is how absolute Moral Standard works - It lets us explore and in the process of discovery uncovers our excuses for breaking Moral Law.

Here is another one — all cultures have varied forms of greeting another with respect. Some use handshakes, others bow, others use a motion with eyes and head, some touch ones shoulder, other kiss on check. It does not matter how the behavior is relative to each culture — the absolute value of Respect is solidified as existent in all cultures despite ones relativism of behavior of showing it.

Lastly to answer your question more directly: since Moral Law exist as does the Moral Law Giver and that we were originally designed to be a reflection of the Moral Law Giver - That is why people everywhere in all ages are always involved in the process of uncovering that there is an objective moral law as it either accuses or excuses them.

It proves that the Moral Law Giver is absolutely just in allowing this discovery and for that, people mock and unjustly accuse God of doing wrong. (Saying things like: its my genes — the DNA made me do it — can't help it - need to throw this person overboard — since people have different morals therefore no morals exist that can accuse me — I am excused: No God, no way to know truth as all is relative so that I am the only I am as such I excuse myself from any wrongs as there are no wrongs or rights just blue sky…

Who values life more????
-
-
-

BW - I think you may have misunderstood me if you're taking my position to be that any wrong done is purely a result of "DNA making me do it".

Do you agree that there are some moral absolutes we should expect to find regardless of whether there is an objective morality?

touchingcloth wrote:Do you agree that there are some moral absolutes we should expect to find regardless of whether there is an objective morality?

This statement is one big jumble of contradictions. You may want to rephrase.

touchingcloth wrote:BW - I think you may have misunderstood me if you're taking my position to be that any wrong done is purely a result of "DNA making me do it".

Do you agree that there are some moral absolutes we should expect to find regardless of whether there is an objective morality?

I think you may have misunderstood as well — again my answer:

How do you expect to find moral absolutes without any objective moral standards to gauge them as being absolute? That is an impossibility. For example, the value of showing Respect, despite how ones behavior demonstrates showing respect, proves that there is an absolute Value of Respect that already exists.

You can sum this up in the golden rule if you like. It does not matter how one uncovers the value of respect — Respect exist because the Moral Law Giver exist as he demonstrates respect toward us in allowing us the art of discovery, granting us intelligence, giving us life, etc.

Question — do we show respect for the Moral Law Giver in return? If none shown, then why would he like for us to live in eternity with him? Do you enjoy being disrespected?

Absolute Moral Law is uncovered and discovered by how we behave, how we live...

“…since Moral Law exist as does the Moral Law Giver and that we were originally designed to be a reflection of the Moral Law Giver - That is why people everywhere in all ages are always involved in the process of uncovering that there is an objective moral law as it either accuses or excuses them.”

You see - what do you expect to find? Are you not in the process of discovery of uncovering what already exist?
-
-
-

Byblos wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:Do you agree that there are some moral absolutes we should expect to find regardless of whether there is an objective morality?

This statement is one big jumble of contradictions. You may want to rephrase.

Do you agree that there are some moral absolutes that are necessary both in a universe/world/society that has objective morality, and one that doesn't?

EDIT - I think I've noticed what may be causing our confusion...I was using "moral absolutes" to in the sense that you used in an earlier post ("morals that are absolute throughout all of humanity") rather than the other sense ("absolutely moral, as guaged by an objective standard"). Hope that clears things up a bit?