Originally posted by no1marauderAnd you've been repeatedly told you are wrong - the lack of a God does not mean that there are no "objective morals". And Nature need not be construed as "brutal". MARAUDER
And you've been repeatedly told you are wrong - the lack of a God does not mean that there are no "objective morals". And Nature need not be construed as "brutal".
it is quite amusing to see rabid theists like yourself stumble around and pretend that you have any knowledge of other people's belief systems. It is quite obvious that your perso ...[text shortened]... es it impossible for you to look at other's beliefs with any kind of objective reasoning.
And why should being told you are wrong a certain number of times having anything to do with it?
Ok , let's say nature is not "brutal" , the very least we can say is that it doesn't give a flying xxxx about you , me or anybody's suffering or whether you live or die. In nature (according to Dawkins) you are just a means to an end to pass on your genes to the next generation for some unknown task. If you are an existentialist (are you?) then any morals you find in this universe are ones you construe for yourself. This is not to say that they aren't noble , praiseworthy and meaningful , but objective? Where do they come from if they are objective? Ammoral nature? The universe that doesn't care?
It's profoundly disturbing . I understand entirely why you might want to cling to the idea of morals actually existing outside of your brain but phenomenologically this is impossible without something else apart from you (and humanity) having a moral existence (ie God)
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzJesus predicted that there would be many who would kill in the name of God and think that they are serving him.
RABID FUNDY ALERT!!!!
Well, if he wasn't a Christian, and he didn't believe he was doing God's work (quite why God doesn't do his own work is anyone's guess) why did he write
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." ([i]Mein Kam consistent illusion, science is still the best way we have of rationalising it"
Hitler's "faith" could easily be discredited by any Christian well grounded in sound faith and scripture.
Jesus knew full well that there would be gross distortions of the truth and predicted deception , false prophets , lies etc . Hitler proclaiming his Christianity in such a vile and racially abusive way is revolting to any Christian but not surprising. Infact it's exactly what we might expect if Christianity is true. The forces of darkness and deception will do anything will do absolutely anything to discredit , distort and deceive away from the truth.
The fact that Hitler proclaimed a Christian faith says nothing other than a man can take a piece of metal and turn it into a gun or a surgeon's knife.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt doesn't because all it does is make evolutionary forces objective but "morality" is how you conceptualise these forces subjectively. In a purely evolutonary world view ,if you get romantic with your wife and make love to her , you may conceptualise this as "romance" but the reality is nature is playing a trick on you to try and get reproduction going. The human values of "romance" are a figment of human imagination in evolutionary terms .
But that makes morality objective doesn't it? If it's part of our evolutionary makeup, it's not subjective (at least some basic morality such as what you outlined).
(The below is not my view but is based on what I think are the logical next steps of a Dawkinian world view)
So while you may think that you are helping the disabled man across the road out of the "goodness of your heart" or because of an "objective morality" you may actually be just helping nature to preserve some mutated genes for later reproduction.
In short , you have the objective bit with nature but the morality bit is still subjective to humans because you have yet to prove that nature , evolution or the universe is anything other than ammoral. In the end it's just an act of faith to project those subjective values onto nature. Just like Christianity is an act of faith , but I guess you might not be as comfortable with faith as I am ??
Originally posted by knightmeisterBuy a dictionary, look up the word "objective" and then get back to me.
It doesn't because all it does is make evolutionary forces objective but "morality" is how you conceptualise these forces subjectively. In a purely evolutonary world view ,if you get romantic with your wife and make love to her , you may conceptualise this as "romance" but the reality is nature is playing a trick on you to try and get reproduction goin ...[text shortened]... an act of faith , but I guess you might not be as comfortable with faith as I am ??
Originally posted by scottishinnzI'm talking about a basic morality relating to empathy and altruism inside a social structure. ALL cultures have it. And the fact that parents might have to help instruct a child in something doesn't mean it's not part of our nature; children usually have to be taught how to talk and walk, too.
Not really, the evolutionary part of it is one, but it's also taught to us by our parents. For example, we think it's morally wrong to eat people, however, other cultures do not think it's wrong. Of course, there is an evolutionary reason for this too, but since cannibals can be converted to, for example, christianity, and their morals changed, suggests there is a subjective element to it.
Originally posted by knightmeisterDawkins has written some excellent stuff on altruism, you should read it, because your statement makes no evolutionary sense.
So while you may think that you are helping the disabled man across the road out of the "goodness of your heart" or because of an "objective morality" you may actually be just helping nature to preserve some mutated genes for later reproduction.
Why would I risk my own genes (I may get run over) to help promote those of someone else? I wouldn't, not unless there was a greater benefit to me. This benefit may be immediate, a girl might see my doing it and it may help me to "spread my genes" (and jeans!!). Or it may be more long term, the crippled man or his family may be able to help me out in the future (if they know me personally). Of course I may not actually know the cripple, it may just be a throwback to the days when we lived in small villages, and everyone did know everyone else. A psychological trick of the brain, a hardwired "helping cripples is good" response.
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe issue is more complex than you are suggesting. I cite from this book review:
Dawkins has written some excellent stuff on altruism, you should read it, because your statement makes no evolutionary sense.
Why would I risk my own genes (I may get run over) to help promote those of someone else? I wouldn't, not unless there was a greater benefit to me. This benefit may be immediate, a girl might see my doing it and it may hel ...[text shortened]... else. A psychological trick of the brain, a hardwired "helping cripples is good" response.
natural selection only favors what is “selfish” from the standpoint of the gene, and as Field points out, “what is selfish from the standpoint of the gene is altruistic from the standpoint of the acting organism” (p. 152). Hence, “organisms are thus evolved to be altruists, whose beneficence, at least in the environments of history, is eventually directed solely at relatives“ (Alexander 1979:143, emphasis added). When one assumes a population of fundamentally altruistic organisms interacting with other fundamentally altruistic organisms, the chance of an altruistic act being occasionally directed toward an unrelated individual no longer seems improbable. The only question becomes explaining the specific patterns and degrees of altruism that will end up being favored by natural selection, and this is what existing evolutionary theories address, although perhaps not adequately (see below).
http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/field.html
It seems to me fairly obvious that altruism and empathy would be favorable to the human species; those groups which displayed high levels of each would have been more likely to survive. And Man has always been a social animal dependent on other members of the group from birth; it stands to reason that altruistic behavior would be favored.
Originally posted by scottishinnzDawkins ? You take this man seriously ?
Dawkins has written some excellent stuff on altruism, you should read it, because your statement makes no evolutionary sense.
Why would I risk my own genes (I may get run over) to help promote those of someone else? I wouldn't, not unless there was a greater benefit to me. This benefit may be immediate, a girl might see my doing it and it may hel ...[text shortened]... else. A psychological trick of the brain, a hardwired "helping cripples is good" response.