Evidence for God from Science

Wayne, if you want to discuss worldview, that's fine, I was addressing why you think that you can hold to the GR as *the* basis for morality according to the evolutionary model...(ie the atheist worldview)

As to why ours is better, well, we *do* hold that we morality is something different than just a current solution, more than a social system.

We can say to gangs that what they do is inherently bad and evil.

We can say that the mafia boss can't kill non family...

now you may say that you can, but really all you can say is that currently our system says it's not what is right...not what is really right (ie not objectively true, merely subjective choice to believe in this gr)

all you can really say is that you *prefer* the golden rule because that is how we evolved...and thankfully for us and for your thinking, that system survived...

Proinsias wrote:It is my understanding that the golden rule is based upon two ideas. One being roughly "do unto others as you would have then do unto you" and the other being roughly "Do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you". Please correct me if I am wrong.

Both statements have subjectivity at their heart. I may be missing the point entirely but I'm struggling to see how the golden rule can be objective whilst at the same time being what I want and what I don't want.

Examples:

• Do you want to be treated with respect? Yes? Then treat others with respect.
• Do you want to dealt with honestly? Yes? Then deal with others honestly.
• Do you want your property stolen? No? Then don't steal or condone stealing other's property.
• Do you want to be enslaved? No? Then don't enslave or condone enslaving others.
• Do you want to discriminated against because of your race, gender, national origin, etc? No? Then don't discriminate or condone discrimination against others.
• Do you want to be told whom you can or cannot marry? No? Then don't tell others whom they can or cannot marry.
• etc.

It seems pretty simple, and quite objective.

Wayne,

I am not arguing for the reasonableness of the GR. the GR is great. I am not even arguing whether it is objective or not.

I am arguing that, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT MORALITY EVOLVED, then you can have no more justification in believing in the GR than the mafia boss believing in "family-first". His believing that he can kill and kill justly those that threaten his way of living is no more wrong that your system is right. The fact that you believe the GR, according to your worldview, is simply because that is the SOCIAL SYSTEM THAT SUCCESSFULLY EVOLVED WITH HUMANS...but it does not make it right. It is merely what works for now. Now mind you, this is assuming that morality evolved. If so, than how can YOU argue that the GR works any better than the gang members defending their territory?

For example. You try to defend the GR to the gang members about the GR and they simply respond "why?" It works for you, they say, it doesn't work for us. It is kill or be killed. And why not? Surely lots of animals have this type of social system, where the group or family or pride comes first and too bad for the rival .

Why does this offend your sensibilities? It's the system that works for them. The gang that works together will be the one that defends its territories and members. Seems like it works for them.

zoegirl wrote:Wayne,

I am not arguing for the reasonableness of the GR. the GR is great. I am not even arguing whether it is objective or not.

I am arguing that, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT MORALITY EVOLVED, then you can have no more justification in believing in the GR than the mafia boss believing in "family-first". His believing that he can kill and kill justly those that threaten his way of living is no more wrong that your system is right. The fact that you believe the GR, according to your worldview, is simply because that is the SOCIAL SYSTEM THAT SUCCESSFULLY EVOLVED WITH HUMANS...but it does not make it right. It is merely what works for now. Now mind you, this is assuming that morality evolved. If so, than how can YOU argue that the GR works any better than the gang members defending their territory?

I said no such thing.

For example. You try to defend the GR to the gang members about the GR and they simply respond "why?" It works for you, they say, it doesn't work for us. It is kill or be killed. And why not? Surely lots of animals have this type of social system, where the group or family or pride comes first and too bad for the rival .

Why does this offend your sensibilities? It's the system that works for them. The gang that works together will be the one that defends its territories and members. Seems like it works for them.

It doesn't offend my sensibilities. It's simply a fairly primitive morality. Most of our society, including law enforcement, has adopted a more modern, evolved morality.

Now how is your worldview any better, or even different?

Not to mention there is nothing that is ultimately meaningful in the atheist view of the world. We know all biological life eventually ends and all we have left is a dead expanding universe. Ultimately no right or wrong. Ultimately no accountability. In the end, Manson or Jack the Ripper and Mother Theresa or Ghandi end exactly the same and all that anyone has ever loved, knew, felt, thought, etc... is lost and forgotten forever.

^ They actually teach formative adolescents this nonsense here in LA and then wonder why almost half drop out of school and act like animals.

I really don't see that what I want is objective, what I want is subjective - even if we both agree on it.

To be honest sometimes I need my views to be treated with disrespect, no matter how respectful I try to be some of my views have been and will be unpleasant - I hope they will be treated with disrespect and that I can remedy them. I wish to deal with others honestly but that statement is far simpler than it sounds in my experience. As for property stolen property much of my current property could be considered stolen and much of my previous property I could consider stolen , doesn't really bother me - how does one define theft, I've had someone come into my house and steal gold jewelry and I don't really grudge it. I don't want to be enslaved or anyone else to be enslaved but what do you mean by being enslaved - the bank owns my house and I work for the bank, maybe one day I will pay the debt off and maybe I won't. I don't want people to discriminate against me but I can't really demand that of others when I know full well I'll treat a good looking girl differently than an ugly guy no matter how hard I try. As for marriage as long as one is of consensual age then it's fine with me.

To me it's not very simple and objective. It's all very complicated, based on circumstance and what one feels.

Again I must say that the golden rule is based on how one feels about something, it's grounded in terms of you. Not on anything objective. If you don't want something to happen to you or if you do want something to happen to you then that's what counts. Other opinions do not matter in the golden rule, it's all about what you think.

As there has been a few posts since I should maybe say that my post was was attempting to answer these points brought up by Wayne.

waynepii wrote: Examples:

• Do you want to be treated with respect? Yes? Then treat others with respect.
• Do you want to dealt with honestly? Yes? Then deal with others honestly.
• Do you want your property stolen? No? Then don't steal or condone stealing other's property.
• Do you want to be enslaved? No? Then don't enslave or condone enslaving others.
• Do you want to discriminated against because of your race, gender, national origin, etc? No? Then don't discriminate or condone discrimination against others.
• Do you want to be told whom you can or cannot marry? No? Then don't tell others whom they can or cannot marry.
• etc.

It seems pretty simple, and quite objective.

Proinsias wrote:Again I must say that the golden rule is based on how one feels about something, it's grounded in terms of you. Not on anything objective. If you don't want something to happen to you or if you do want something to happen to you then that's what counts. Other opinions do not matter in the golden rule, it's all about what you think.

That, at least, is an internally consistent position. Thank you.

waynepii wrote:

zoegirl wrote:Wayne,

I am not arguing for the reasonableness of the GR. the GR is great. I am not even arguing whether it is objective or not.

I am arguing that, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT MORALITY EVOLVED, then you can have no more justification in believing in the GR than the mafia boss believing in "family-first". His believing that he can kill and kill justly those that threaten his way of living is no more wrong that your system is right. The fact that you believe the GR, according to your worldview, is simply because that is the SOCIAL SYSTEM THAT SUCCESSFULLY EVOLVED WITH HUMANS...but it does not make it right. It is merely what works for now. Now mind you, this is assuming that morality evolved. If so, than how can YOU argue that the GR works any better than the gang members defending their territory?

I said no such thing.

What have I claimed that you said that you haven't said? Do you not believe that morality evolved?

For example. You try to defend the GR to the gang members about the GR and they simply respond "why?" It works for you, they say, it doesn't work for us. It is kill or be killed. And why not? Surely lots of animals have this type of social system, where the group or family or pride comes first and too bad for the rival .

Why does this offend your sensibilities? It's the system that works for them. The gang that works together will be the one that defends its territories and members. Seems like it works for them.

It doesn't offend my sensibilities. It's simply a fairly primitive morality. Most of our society, including law enforcement, has adopted a more modern, evolved morality.

Now how is your worldview any better, or even different?

One what basis do you judge their morality?!?!? Why do you get to say that their morality is more primitive? It works....we are just animals, after all, if some of us have a social system that is more "selfish" towards their families, then how can you, as someone who believes in no God and therefore that all morality is the result of evolution, say that yours is better or more evolved. (after all, isn't one of the misconceptions of evolution that we are superior to other animals?)


Our worldview *is* different because we *can* say that gang members shouldn't behave that way. We *can* say that there is a way to behave.

You may *like* your morality (and it is right that you should feel that morality) but according to the atheistic philosophy you have no position on judging yours to be any better than another set of morals. Yours has just won in the social arena.

zoegirl wrote:

waynepii wrote:

zoegirl wrote:Wayne,

I am not arguing for the reasonableness of the GR. the GR is great. I am not even arguing whether it is objective or not.

I am arguing that, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT MORALITY EVOLVED, then you can have no more justification in believing in the GR than the mafia boss believing in "family-first". His believing that he can kill and kill justly those that threaten his way of living is no more wrong that your system is right. The fact that you believe the GR, according to your worldview, is simply because that is the SOCIAL SYSTEM THAT SUCCESSFULLY EVOLVED WITH HUMANS...but it does not make it right. It is merely what works for now. Now mind you, this is assuming that morality evolved. If so, than how can YOU argue that the GR works any better than the gang members defending their territory?

I said no such thing.

What have I claimed that you said that you haven't said? Do you not believe that morality evolved?

Sorry, my bad. I meant to remove the first part of the quote, like so ...

If so, than how can YOU argue that the GR works any better than the gang members defending their territory?

I never said GR works any better than any more primitive morality. Only that its results are more "equal" or "just", that is to say - civilized.

For example. You try to defend the GR to the gang members about the GR and they simply respond "why?" It works for you, they say, it doesn't work for us. It is kill or be killed. And why not? Surely lots of animals have this type of social system, where the group or family or pride comes first and too bad for the rival .

Why does this offend your sensibilities? It's the system that works for them. The gang that works together will be the one that defends its territories and members. Seems like it works for them.

It doesn't offend my sensibilities. It's simply a fairly primitive morality. Most of our society, including law enforcement, has adopted a more modern, evolved morality.

Now how is your worldview any better, or even different?

One what basis do you judge their morality?!?!? Why do you get to say that their morality is more primitive? It works....we are just animals, after all, if some of us have a social system that is more "selfish" towards their families, then how can you, as someone who believes in no God and therefore that all morality is the result of evolution, say that yours is better or more evolved. (after all, isn't one of the misconceptions of evolution that we are superior to other animals?)

I would say that a morality that treats all people with respect and justice, and affords all a reasonable chance of success is "superior" and "more evolved" than one that favors one group at the expense of others.

Our worldview *is* different because we *can* say that gang members shouldn't behave that way. We *can* say that there is a way to behave.

Why? Based on what? The question I keep asking is "how you know what the objective morality says on any given issue" and so far no-one has given me an answer? So I ask you the same question?

You may *like* your morality (and it is right that you should feel that morality) but according to the atheistic philosophy you have no position on judging yours to be any better than another set of morals. Yours has just won in the social arena.

I'm a human being, and as such I have a vested interest in my society and all other societies which interact with my society. I have just as much right to judge society as anyone else.

I just got done watching Criminal Minds (spoiler alert). Three sociopaths go on a killing spree. They invade a home where 2 couples were having dinner; bash one man's face with a crowbar then make his wife kiss him goodbye before killing him in front of her. The wife is pleading with them to stop, asking why in God's name would they be doing this? One of them calmly looks at her and replies 'why not?' before killing her and the other couple. At the end FBI agent Morgan asks one of the perps what could there possibly be wrong in his life to take it out on society in such a heinous way. This time his reply was because 'it was fun boss'. Of course this is a TV show but I think it does illustrate the point. People like that do exist and the golden rule is meaningless to them; their morality yardstick is actually a metal crowbar. Who are we to tell them otherwise?

Such, ladies and gentlemen, is the fate of a godless society.

On what basis to you have to judge? why is your system of morality any more "right" than theirs? if theirs "works", why is yours right...?

Not at all. People will forever think that they can be "good" when even their definition of the word is flawed in its entirety. How do you define it?
Is a good person someone who gives money to charity? How much do you have to give to be good? How much evil can you do before it outweighs the money you sent?
Just an example.
This is most prevalent in America, when people try to make their own little values without God. Eventually we end up where we are now, one of the filthiest nations in the world that doesn't admit it, but rather says that being your own person and making up your own rules for life is "different."

Byblos wrote:I just got done watching Criminal Minds (spoiler alert). Three sociopaths go on a killing spree. They invade a home where 2 couples were having dinner; bash one man's face with a crowbar then make his wife kiss him goodbye before killing him in front of her. The wife is pleading with them to stop, asking why in God's name would they be doing this? One of them calmly looks at her and replies 'why not?' before killing her and the other couple. At the end FBI agent Morgan asks one of the perps what could there possibly be wrong in his life to take it out on society in such a heinous way. This time his reply was because 'it was fun boss'. Of course this is a TV show but I think it does illustrate the point. People like that do exist and the golden rule is meaningless to them; their morality yardstick is actually a metal crowbar. Who are we to tell them otherwise?

Such, ladies and gentlemen, is the fate of a godless society.

This immediately came to mind when I read your post, Byblos.

• The cruelty of atheism is hard to believe when man has no faith in the reward of good or the punishment of evil. There is no reason to be human. There is no restraint from the depths of evil which is in man. The communist torturers often said, "There is no God, no Hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish." I have heard one torturer even say, "I thank God, in whom I don't believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart." He expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflicted on prisoners. (Richard Wurmbrand, Tortured for Christ. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1967: 34)
  
  "If God does not exist, all things are permissible." ~ Ivan Karamazov (Dostoyevsky)

And this is the world in which they want us to live. But not with our eyes open! They would, instead, rather us live in this world and yet fantasize that right and wrong do have intrinsic meaning. The cognitive dissonance is breathtaking at times, is it not? I have said it before, and I will say it yet again - here is only one of the many places that the atheist proves himself a thief, denying God's existence but living on benefits only available in a theistic worldview. But who can blame them, when the house they build for themselves has no foundation and is completely bare within?

Do you want to be treated with respect? Yes? Then treat others with respect.
Do you want to dealt with honestly? Yes? Then deal with others honestly.
Do you want your property stolen? No? Then don't steal or condone stealing other's property.
Do you want to be enslaved? No? Then don't enslave or condone enslaving others.
Do you want to discriminated against because of your race, gender, national origin, etc? No? Then don't discriminate or condone discrimination against others.
Do you want to be told whom you can or cannot marry? No? Then don't tell others whom they can or cannot marry.
etc.

YOU WANT = Subjective

Do want your neighbors 50" bigscreen?

The good thing about these things Wayne list, is they are all true. Objectively true. Wayne just doesn't know who to thank for the reality of these truths.