Evidence for God from Science

danieltwotwenty wrote:Hi Pro, how do you think altruism fits into all this, why do we feel compelled to help people we don't know for no personal gain?

Actually that's another debate: it depends on how you define personal gain. Helping someone makes you feel good. So basically you do it because you want to feel good. That is considered a personal gain at psychological level.

BryanH wrote:

danieltwotwenty wrote:Hi Pro, how do you think altruism fits into all this, why do we feel compelled to help people we don't know for no personal gain?

Actually that's another debate: it depends on how you define personal gain. Helping someone makes you feel good. So basically you do it because you want to feel good. That is considered a personal gain at psychological level.

Not sure how you can feel good when you're dead.

BryanH wrote:

danieltwotwenty wrote:Hi Pro, how do you think altruism fits into all this, why do we feel compelled to help people we don't know for no personal gain?

Actually that's another debate: it depends on how you define personal gain. Helping someone makes you feel good. So basically you do it because you want to feel good. That is considered a personal gain at psychological level.

Not sure about that, I've helped people enough times in which not only did it NOT feel good, there was no way it was gonna feel good, LOL !
Did the right thing because it was simply the right thing, regardless of how I "felt" about it.

Proinsias wrote:

Spock wrote:Thanks for the encouraging words Proinsias. It would be very helpful if you could articulate your reservations concerning the moral theory I am proposing. I am guessing it is because you are not sure if moral statements can be objective. Do you believe any statements can be objectively true?

I do think objective truth, especially in the case of morality, is a thorny issue, as this thread is demonstrating nicely.

The concept of objectivity has confused a lot of people. The simplest and most common definition is "independent of the opinions, beliefs, and desires of the observer." But there are other aspects of objectivity not fully captured by this definition. That's why I use the definition given by Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick in his article Invariance and Objectivity:

Robert Nozick wrote: 1) First, an objective fact is accessible from different angles. It can be repeated by the same sense (sight, touch, etc.) at different times, it can be repeated by different senses of one observer, and by different observers. Different laboratories can replicate the phenomenon.

2) The second mark of an objective truth, related to the first, is that there is or can be intersubjective agreement about it.

3) The third feature concerns independence. If p is an objective truth, then it holds independently of people's beliefs, desires, hopes, and observations or measurements that p.

4) An objective fact is invariant under various transformations. It is this invariance that constitutes something as an objective truth and it underlies and explains the first three features.

Nozick unified and grounded our concept of objectivity by explaining all its features in terms of a single concept - invariance under transformation. This commonsensical definition is the very root of why we believe there is an "objective world" independent of ourselves. We pick up an object, rotate it, look at it under different light, tap on it. We show it to others and ask what they see. Some properties remain invariant no matter how we or others investigate it; we call those properties objective facts.

I give a full explanation of this in my article The Logic of Love: A Natural Theory of Morality.

Proinsias wrote: The logic of love is also a rather odd concept, a little like formulating a theory of humour, if the theory helps you to be funny or loving go for it, if it doesn't ditch it.

The purpose of a scientific theory is to explain and predict phenomena. My theory of morality is an objective scientific explanation of our moral intuitions which we perceive just like the equation 1 + 2 = 3. I call it the "logic of love" because it is based on love of Self and Other modulated through the symmetric logic of the Golden Rule.

Proinsias wrote: There seems to be general agreement that love is central to all of the views expressed here, some feel the need to ground love in the concept of God & you're happy to stall at love - each to his own.

Any god concept is transcendental and therefor fundamentally unknowable to us. We have no direct access to any god so we cannot base anything upon that concept. Love is based on the unity of self. If a self does not love itself, it quickly disintegrates. My moral theory is well-grounded in evolution. The precursor to human self-conscious love is the instinct of self-preservation which every organism must have. It is the primary trait that natural selection selects.

Proinsias wrote:

Next, we look at moral phenomenology and ask ourselves "What is the actual process I go through to determine if something is moral or not?" The answer is obvious. Every child knows it. We know something is right or wrong if we ask ourselves "Would I like that done to me?". So we have motivation for assuming a symmetry must be at the heart of our moral intuitions, and we have a big clue that the Golden Rule is somehow fundamental to them, and we know that we apply the Golden Rule to access our moral intuitions. The rest is gravy.

It is not immediately obvious to me
It's all sounding a little like gravy.
Perhaps you are correct and it is at the root of every moral decision I make, but I don't see it. It could equally be grounded in selfishness and I believe that has much heavier bearing than the Golden Rule on moral decisions. How will I feel if I do xyz? how will it impact my quality of life? could this lead to situations I'd rather avoid?

Selfishness is self-hatred. It is the opposite of self-love. Psychologist Erich From explained this in his book The Art of Loving where also he isolated and articulated both axioms of my theory of morality:

The Art of Loving wrote: These questions arise: Does psychological observation support the thesis that there is a basic contradiction and a state of alternation between love for oneself and love for others? Is love for oneself the same phenomenon as selfishness, or are they opposites? Furthermore, is the selfishness of modern man really a concern for himself as an individual. with all his intellectual, emotional, and sensual potentialities? Has “he” not become an appendage of his socioeconomic role? Is his selfishness identical with self-love or is it not caused by the very lack of it?

Before we start the discussion of the psychological aspect of selfishness and self-love, the logical fallacy in the notion that love for others and love for oneself are mutually exclusive should be stressed. If it is a virtue to love my neighbor as a human being, it must be a virtue---and not a vice---to love myself since I am a human being too. There is no concept of man in which I myself am not included. A doctrine which proclaims such an exclusion proves itself to be intrinsically contradictory. The idea expressed in the Biblical “Love thy neighbor as thyself!” implies that respect for one’s own integrity and uniqueness, love for and understanding of one’s own self, can not be separated from respect for and love and understanding of another individual. The love for my own self is inseparably connected with the love for any other self.

We have come now to the basic psychological premises on which the conclusions of our argument are built. Generally, these premises are as follows: not only others, but we ourselves are the “object” of our feelings and attitudes; the attitudes toward others and toward ourselves, far from being contradictory, are basically conjunctive. With regard to the problem under discussion this means: Love of others and love of ourselves are not alternatives. On the contrary, an attitude of love toward themselves will be found in all those who are capable of loving others. Love, in principle, is indivisible as far as the connection between “objects” and one’s own self is concerned. Genuine love is an expression of productiveness and implies care, respect, responsibility, and knowledge. It is not an “affect” in the sense of being affected by somebody, but an active striving for the growth and happiness of the loved person, rooted in one’s own capacity to love.

From this it follows that my own self, in principle, must be as much an object of my love as another person. The affirmation of one’s own life, happiness, growth, freedom, is rooted in one’s capacity to love, i.e., in care, respect, responsibility, and knowledge. If an individual is able to love productively, he loves himself too; if he can love only others, he can not love at all.

Fromm hammered this point home on page 63 where he quoted Meister Eckhart as stating that absolute symmetry between Self and Other is required for true love, which is unity:

The Art of Loving wrote: These ideas of self-love cannot be summarized better than by quoting Meister Eckhart on this topic “If you love yourself, you love everybody else as you do yourself. As long as you love another person less than you love yourself, you will not really succeed in loving yourself, but if you love all alike, including yourself, you will love them as one person and that person is both God and man. Thus he is a great and righteous person who, loving himself, loves all others equally”

If you use your big evolved brain to answer questions like "How will I feel if I do xyz? how will it impact my quality of life? could this lead to situations I'd rather avoid?" you will find that the symmetric logic of the Golden Rule will serve you best. We cannot separate ourselves from all humanity without destroying our humanity. Self-love is a necessary aspect of love for others.

Proinsias wrote: Is the child in learning moral behaviour employing the golden rule? I think in general they are looking to avoid the sort of situation where a parent or educator may sit them down and ask them questions like 'how would you feel if that was you', to which the only reply which isn't likely to prolong the situation is "I wouldn't like it" or something along those lines. My wife is a teacher, generally teaches kids about 5-7 and specialises in behaviour difficulties, I asked about her use of the golden rule, she often asks the children how would they feel if that was them, when I asked if she thought the kids genuinely take the time to put themselves in another's shoes before coming to the realization that they would in fact not like it, she laughed. The stubborn ones may argue but eventually most learn that saying "I wouldn't like it" is the quickest exit from an uncomfortable situation. I talked to my 8 year old daughter, her insight was that it's mainly boys that get asked the question by the teacher and the answer they provide is the one which will "make the teacher shut up".

The "behavior difficulties" of the kids your wife teaches would well explain why they don't respond well to questions that require self-reflection. But such cases are irrelevant to my point, which is that kids most definitely understand the Golden Rule. Immaturity may prevent them from being able to see it.

Proinsias wrote: Something like 1+1=2 seems on the face of it far more objective. I can imagine two apples or two cups of tea or two people rather easily whilst allowing for differences between the two apples. I can envisage one person in a room and another entering with a result of two people being in the room. Imagining how another may perceive or be affected by my actions in a given situation is more problematic. I don't think we learn so much from imagining what another would feel and more from practical experience. If I don't enjoy being around an upset wife I will review the situation, see if I can find the root of the upset, attempt to rectify the situation and prevent it from recurring - is this due to me placing myself in my wife's shoes and imagining how I'd feel or is it me doing whatever I can to maintain the happy marriage I desire.

If you can't or won't put yourself in the shoes of another, your understanding of morality will be diminished if not missing entirely.

Proinsias wrote: It also seems to be pretty useless in solving both day to day moral dilemma's, should I offer to help that person cross the road? to the issues that routinely crop up here on: abortion, homosexuality or the validity of violence as a means to resolving a situation. The issues that the golden rule deals with plainly and succinctly "Would person B like to be beaten to death" are on the level that it appears to me most lifeforms must be using the golden rule as the basis for their behaviour when dealing with those they relate to in a genetic manner. In comparison 1+1=2 can be pretty solidly relied upon as a basis for solving numerical problems one may encounter throughout the day.

Far from being "useless" it is the key that opens all doors. Moral issues are quickly clarified. For example, there is nothing about gay love that contradicts the axioms of my moral theory. Gay love is therefore perfectly moral in and of itself. The only reason others might disagree is because they have inherited false morality under the guise of social customs and religious commandments which - unlike my moral theory - are not invariant, objective, or absolute.

Proinsias wrote: I'm always mystified by these conversations. Everyone seems to agree that love is good and that "brutal pedophiliac rape & murder" is bad. This is never enough for many people though. To an extent it's like arguing why most people think The Beatles were good or why Bach was great.

Yes, moral theory has been plagued by a lack of clarity and coherence. The primary problem is the conflation of morality with rules. This confusion is then propagated by Christian apologists who desire to prove God by appealing to our supposed "intuition" that there are "moral duties" dictated by a legislative agent. It's all confusion. True, objective morality is based on self love and the Golden Rule.

Proinsias wrote: Short version. Selfishness, yay. Golden rule, boo.

As noted above, selfishness is self-hatred. There's nothing to laud there.

Spock wrote:... selfishness is self-hatred.

And yet you have no basis whatsoever to pick self-love over selfishness, it's an arbitrary choice. One can just as similarly formulate a moral theory based on self preservation (instead of self love) and survival of the fittest (instead of the golden rule).

So, 39 pages later we have the answer to morality without God:
Self Love and the "golden rule".
In short, the answer to morality without God is to place OURSELVES in the place of God.

PaulSacramento wrote:So, 39 pages later we have the answer to morality without God:
Self Love and the "golden rule".
In short, the answer to morality without God is to place OURSELVES in the place of God.

Well, yes. For those who do not believe in God what else is there other than the self?

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:So, 39 pages later we have the answer to morality without God:
Self Love and the "golden rule".
In short, the answer to morality without God is to place OURSELVES in the place of God.

Well, yes. For those who do not believe in God what else is there other than the self?

And is their ANYTHING more subjective than the "self"?

From Page 1:

However, from what I've seen, the more sensible of the "moral" Atheists who have actually given thought to the matter typically acknowledge that there is no objective standard of morality in their worldview, but they say that the relative is just as valid as the absolute in their view. In their worldview, since there is no God and people are the highest form of life, there is nothing wrong with saying "I act by this set of morals because I want to, not because I believe they are inherently and objectively moral. I WANT to help mankind, therefore I try to fight sexism and racism". Which I admit, I think is somewhat noble of them, even if I as a Christian don't hold that view of morality. Just because you don't believe in objective morality doesn't mean you will go off the deep end and actively try to do the opposite of what is considered moral.

And it all could have ended there, LOL !

PaulSacramento wrote:From Page 1:

However, from what I've seen, the more sensible of the "moral" Atheists who have actually given thought to the matter typically acknowledge that there is no objective standard of morality in their worldview, but they say that the relative is just as valid as the absolute in their view. In their worldview, since there is no God and people are the highest form of life, there is nothing wrong with saying "I act by this set of morals because I want to, not because I believe they are inherently and objectively moral. I WANT to help mankind, therefore I try to fight sexism and racism". Which I admit, I think is somewhat noble of them, even if I as a Christian don't hold that view of morality. Just because you don't believe in objective morality doesn't mean you will go off the deep end and actively try to do the opposite of what is considered moral.

And it all could have ended there, LOL !

Preach it brother!

I'm confused!

With all this blather, absolute morality without God still hasn't been proven?

Some of the most productive discussions I have had with atheists and/or skeptics are those in which all parties are honest about their biases.
And neither party is trying to convert/DE-convert the other and simply trying to understand the others position.
That and the clear understanding that disagreeing with a POV doesn't make that POV wrong.
Ego have to get left at the door, which is hard to do when there is another agenda lurking in the shadows, the agenda of conversion/DE-conversion.
Since I don't believe in converting anyone when I discuss religion (Christianity in particular), I simply state my opinion and my views.
Those atheists or skeptics that understand that there is NO way they are gonna "DE-convert" me, simply state their views and understandings and we have a nice. meaningful and non-antagonistic discussion.

Byblos wrote:

Spock wrote:... selfishness is self-hatred.

And yet you have no basis whatsoever to pick self-love over selfishness, it's an arbitrary choice. One can just as similarly formulate a moral theory based on self preservation (instead of self love) and survival of the fittest (instead of the golden rule).

I have every reason in the world to choose self-love over self-hatred (selfishness).

My moral theory naturally coheres with self-preservation which is the primary feature natural selection would select for. It coheres with evolution, as must any valid theory must because of the consilience of science.

RickD wrote:I'm confused!

With all this blather, absolute morality without God still hasn't been proven?

Well, to be honest, absolute morality WITH God has yet to be prove also !
LOL!
All we really have is notions of morality and why we think the way we do.
To prove absolute morality with God, we must prove the existence OF God.

RickD wrote:I'm confused!

With all this blather, absolute morality without God still hasn't been proven?

What are you talking about? It has been proven, and no one yet has refuted a word I wrote in the proof.