Evidence for God from Science

But if it, instead, increases them, then the emotion is doing the opposite of what it was designed to.

I'm confused. You're talking about atheism, and you used the word, "designed"?

RickD wrote:

But if it, instead, increases them, then the emotion is doing the opposite of what it was designed to.

I'm confused. You're talking about atheism, and you used the word, "designed"?

Ever heard of a metaphor? God doesn't design anything, either; designers do. God wishes things into existence.

Noah1201 wrote:But consider... if the individual can recognize that the action that would [lead] to negative emotion is not actually morally wrong (since morality doesn't exist in atheism), and therefore neglecting to violate it is no more inherently significant than procrastinating the act of peeing, then one might argue that it's not rational.

I'm not sure what you mean. In order to clarify your question, by analogy, do you mean,

But consider...if the individual can recognize that the negative emotions (guit, horror, fear...) that he would experience after murdering are not actually valid since morality doesn't exist in atheism, and therefore, refusing to murder when it would be in the individual's self-interest is no more significant than not peeing when you have to go. Then, one might argue that acting according to your culturally-given morality is not rational.

...is this what you mean?

Noah1201 wrote:God wishes things into existence.

Actually, God speaks things into existence.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote: ...is this what you mean?

Yes. But murder is an extreme example because of the high possibility of being caught. We can, however, stick with murder, if we can say, hypothetically, the individual can be one hundred percent certain they will never be caught somehow. Let's imagine a scenario similar to movie The Box, if you saw it.

Summary: Why feel guilt if you know you haven't done anything wrong?

Noah1201 wrote:Summary: Why feel guilt if you know you haven't done anything wrong?

The guilt probably comes from accepted notions about what is right and wrong. Most people give credence to some form of morality because they've been brought up to think that this is the way they are supposed to conduct themselves. Since you are free to create your own morality as an atheist, it is always easier to accept the morality of the culture around you. There is nothing ''irrational'' about accepting the dominant morality; why do you assume there is? Actually, I see it as the most rational choice!

FL

Well, I'm not the only who thinks like that. Here's William Lane Craig talking.

Given the finality of death, it really does not matter how you live. So what do you say to someone who concludes that we may as well just live as we please, out of pure self-interest? This presents a pretty grim picture for an atheistic ethicist like Kai Nielsen of the University of Calgary. He writes,

We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons should not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me . . . . Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.9

Somebody might say that it is in our best self-interest to adopt a moral life-style. But clearly, that is not always true: we all know situations in which self-interest runs smack in the face of morality. Moreover, if one is sufficiently powerful, like a Ferdinand Marcos or a Papa Doc Duvalier or even a Donald Trump, then one can pretty much ignore the dictates of conscience and safely live in self-indulgence. Historian Stewart C. Easton sums it up well when he writes, “There is no objective reason why man should be moral, unless morality ‘pays off’ in his social life or makes him ‘feel good.’ There is no objective reason why man should do anything save for the pleasure it affords him.”10

Acts of self-sacrifice become particularly inept on a naturalistic world view. Why should you sacrifice your self-interest and especially your life for the sake of someone else? There can be no good reason for adopting such a self-negating course of action on the naturalistic world view. Considered from the socio-biological point of view, such altruistic behavior is merely the result of evolutionary conditioning which helps to perpetuate the species. A mother rushing into a burning house to rescue her children or a soldier throwing his body over a hand grenade to save his comrades does nothing more significant or praiseworthy, morally speaking, than a fighter ant which sacrifices itself for the sake of the ant hill. Common sense dictates that we should resist, if we can, the socio-biological pressures to such self-destructive activity and choose instead to act in our best self-interest. The philosopher of religion John Hick invites us to imagine an ant suddenly endowed with the insights of socio-biology and the freedom to make personal decisions.





It makes sense to follow the dominant morality insofar as it benefits you. When it doesn't, I don't see why you should. Yes; people feel guilt because they were conditioned to think certain things are wrong, but this guilt can and should be suppressed given the awareness that morality is just a human invention. Even you, yourself, say that you ignored the dominant morality in favor of your own advancement and elevation when you were an atheist.

Again, though, I repeat: I'm not sure I am right. I am still exploring these issues.

I'll give you some of my perspective as a philosophical enthusiast and an atheist.

There is lots of evidence that 'morality' is an evolved trait that includes such features as empathy and fairness (I can provide some examples upon request). Higher level morality seems dependent upon higher level thinking, however, thus humans exhibit the most moral behavior due to their high intelligence. Morality also clearly rests on the foundation of knowledge - you are much less blameworthy for doing wrong if you don't know it's wrong, and potential for knowledge rests on intellect (this is slightly debatable). There's a lot more foundation behind this, but if you have any questions, feel free to ask. Essentially, morality evolved as a feature that takes care of a society or species - goodness can generally be defined as what is best for the group/species/society. I see differing moral views as competing - thus, they are subject to selection on a higher level similar to natural selection. Morality, as it will apply to to groups in a society, must be reducible from the species or life as a whole (all relevant moral agents) to an individual. Thus, simple platitudes such as 'might makes right' are easily defeated by trying to reduce the morality to the group that is 'mighty'. If you try and reduce it to an individual, the individual will always be wrong since a group will always overpower an individual (and other various problems). Recent game theory research also lends credence to the idea that behaving morally is the 'rational' strategy in a society (link). Thus, morality might be the naturally selected behavior that evolved from naturally selected values. This would give very objective grounding to morality. But..

What obligation do we have to act morally? That obligation only applies so long as he hold our evolved values and instincts. What if we question or doubt these values? What if we question the value of life? I think the objective prescription fails, ultimately, because in an atheist world-view, inherent value and meaning doesn't exist (at least, most atheist world views are nihilistic). That doesn't mean you can't be moral, it just means that being moral is a choice. A subjective choice which makes morality subjective (although I think this is equally applicable to Christianity, they'll argue against me - even if morality reduces to rationality, you have no objective obligation to be rational without committing an is-ought fallacy). This isn't really a problem.. immoral individuals will be selected against in a society because it's in a society's rational best interest to do so (thus, immoral people will be imprisoned or controlled in some way). But, it does create a sort of 'empty' feeling in recognition of this nihilistic view. I'm not sure there is any ethical philosophy that can escape this problem, though. So far, I have not been convinced. You should just enjoy the fact that most people, for the most part, choose to be moral (although it helps that it's extremely innate to behave in such a way). Problems arise when 'immoral' strategies gain temporary dominance over other moral strategies. These strategies are unstable and ultimately will be selected against, but can gain temporary advantage.

Beanybag wrote:I'll give you some of my perspective as a philosophical enthusiast and an atheist.

Your whole post - not just the sentence I quoted, above - is conditioned by your culture. If you were a Somali warlord, your vision of morality would be quite different!

Beanybag wrote:What obligation do we have to act morally? That obligation only applies so long as [we] hold our evolved values and instincts. What if we question or doubt these values? What if we question the value of life? I think the objective prescription fails, ultimately, because in an atheist world-view, inherent value and meaning doesn't exist (at least, most atheist world views are nihilistic). That doesn't mean you can't be moral, it just means that being moral is a choice. A subjective choice which makes morality subjective.

Tell us why your ''evolved values and instincts'' are so different from the ''evolved values and instincts'' of those of other cultures.

Beanybag wrote:...immoral individuals will be selected against in a society because it's in a society's rational best interest to do so (thus, immoral people will be imprisoned or controlled in some way).

Beanybag wrote:You should just enjoy the fact that most people, for the most part, choose to be moral (although it helps that it's extremely innate to behave in such a way). Problems arise when 'immoral' strategies gain temporary dominance over other moral strategies. These strategies are unstable and ultimately will be selected against, but can gain temporary advantage.

What a load of crap! Do you think the world stops at your country's borders? There are more places in the world where the above is false than where it is true.

Wake up Beanybag! Move out of Shangri-la and come into the real world.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Your whole post - not just the sentence I quoted, above - is conditioned by your culture. If you were a Somali warlord, your vision of morality would be quite different!

Assertion without evidence.

Tell us why your ''evolved values and instincts'' are so different from the ''evolved values and instincts'' of those of other cultures.

Because they are biologically innate. They fuel our moral intuition and most basic instincts. They're more than just learned because they are present in other species. It means there's a reason we have morality - it's in a group's best interest for its constituents to be moral.

What a load of crap! Do you think the world stops at your country's borders? There are more places in the world where the above is false than where it is true.

Certain ideas can hijack culture like a parasite. Rational thinking can lead to moral strategies. So long as the evolutionary values are presupposed. Even if this is mostly contrived and hard to back up with numbers, it provides an objective basis for morality with an inherent prescriptive power (even if it lacks objective authority). I've still never seen how theism can ever attempt to be objectively prescriptive.

Beanybag wrote:Assertion without evidence.

You answered without thinking. Tell us why a Somali warlord's ethics are so different from yours since you both have the same evolved & innate morality.

Beanybag wrote:

Tell us why your ''evolved values and instincts'' are so different from the ''evolved values and instincts'' of those of other cultures.

Because they are biologically innate. They fuel our moral intuition and most basic instincts. They're more than just learned because they are present in other species. It means there's a reason we have morality - it's in a group's best interest for its constituents to be moral.

You are just answering pre-digested gobbledegook. Use your evolved mind and tell us why a Somali warlord's morality is so different from yours; and while you're at it, tell us why yours is better (or worse)? If morality is innate/evolved/instictive, why do differing cultures use different morality?

Beanybag wrote:Certain ideas can hijack culture like a parasite. Rational thinking can lead to moral strategies. So long as the evolutionary values are presupposed. Even if this is mostly contrived and hard to back up with numbers, it provides an objective basis for morality with an inherent prescriptive power (even if it lacks objective authority). I've still never seen how theism can ever attempt to be objectively prescriptive.

Is the above your answer? It sounds like you've pulled it from a book but it does make sense. Tell us, is morality innate in humans or is morality the product of ''rational thinking'' that ''can hijack a culture like a parasite''? Why don't you write it out in plain Engish using your own words...

FL

A somali warlord's strategy is unstable and will be rationally selected against.

Beanybag wrote:A somali warlord's strategy is unstable and will be rationally selected against.

Why would you assume rationality is the dominant factor? It may very well be the case that instability is more dominant and becomes the norm, in which case rationality is selected against. That, after all, is the natural order of things, more entropy.

There is lots of evidence that 'morality' is an evolved trait that includes such features as empathy and fairness (I can provide some examples upon request).

I think you'd have a hard time showing that as you've stated it. You might show how 'morality' is advantageous, but show us how it is selected for. Show us the genetic mechanisms that account for adhering to these abstract moral concepts. I'm certain you can make philosophcal speculations like any of us, but that is not evidence which can be operationally tested. Don't you think it's about time that people understand this?

Byblos wrote:

Beanybag wrote:A somali warlord's strategy is unstable and will be rationally selected against.

Why would you assume rationality is the dominant factor? It may very well be the case that instability is more dominant and becomes the norm, in which case rationality is selected against. That, after all, is the natural order of things, more entropy.

Instability can't become dominant, it has a specific meaning in game theory - it would become a weak strategy after only a short time. Entropy doesn't really have anything to do with this, and entropy on Earth is generally not an issue so long as we have the Sun.

jlay wrote:

There is lots of evidence that 'morality' is an evolved trait that includes such features as empathy and fairness (I can provide some examples upon request).

I think you'd have a hard time showing that as you've stated it. You might show how 'morality' is advantageous, but show us how it is selected for. Show us the genetic mechanisms that account for adhering to these abstract moral concepts. I'm certain you can make philosophcal speculations like any of us, but that is not evidence which can be operationally tested. Don't you think it's about time that people understand this?

Yes, I understand it's speculation. But it has a lot of supporting evidence. It's a likely hypothesis which would put morality into the realm of science and math.

I have never met a moral atheist, Christian, Hindu, Buddist, Muslum, Taoist etc.... Everyone lies, cheats, steals, rapes, murders, etc..... so why if it is an advantage to morally do the right thing within society and we are wired to be moral, why do we continue to do it. The warlord is an excellent example, because they have always been here and will still be here in the future, history tells us that we are not progressing, we are in a constant cycle of amorals.