The God Delusion

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
They can, really. A peaceful man who lost his temper would fit the description. It's too bad you've got a fundamentalist mind-set, although I'm sincerely grateful you're into science and not religion!

A man yes, but can they fit God? If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why would he get angry?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You make out as though the unconditional altruist is programmed to act without any judgement at all, handing out possessions willy-nilly to passing strangers. That's a bit silly, don't you think?

What would account for a flash of unconditional altruism in a selfish person?

How does unconditional altruism differ from kindness?

Kindness is reciprocal, IMO. People tend to be kind to people they know, or are making a relationship with (potential future reciprocation).

Conditional altruism is a balance, a judgement, cost:benefit. The benefit may only be potential future benefit, and that has to be factored into the calculation. An unconditional altruist would only have one side of that equation working cost, without any benefit. If the cost represents reproductive potential (for example money or whatever) then any unconditional altruist should only ever seek to minimise what they give away. But then they wouldn't be altruists any more!

The question you have to ask yourself is this; if someone is really an unconditional altruist - someone who is nice to everyone, and expects (and receives) nothing in return, why isn't he just out there giving things away? If there is no expected benefit, and the person is still an unconditional altruist, they cannot have an appreciation of cost!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
A man yes, but can they fit God? If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why would he get angry?

You obviously haven't cottoned onto the fact that Dawkins' Divine Strawman doesn't match up with what all theists believe--unsurprisingly, since you have no interest in religion except to destroy it!

I'm looking forward to the forthcoming film, Dawkins goes to Damascus. 🙂

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Kindness is reciprocal, IMO. People tend to be kind to people they know, or are making a relationship with (potential future reciprocation).

Your mere opinion is worth little!

Why would a bodhisattva (by which I mean an enlightened Buddhist who helps others) take the trouble to spread the love, as it were, rather than simply enjoy that special bliss?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Your mere opinion is worth little!

Why would a bodhisattva (by which I mean an enlightened Buddhist who helps others) take the trouble to spread the love, as it were, rather than simply enjoy that special bliss?

Makes them feel good. Damn seretonin junkies!

btw I added more.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Makes them feel good. Damn seretonin junkies!

btw I added more.

So does the behaviour of a bodhisattva not uh transcend the rationale of conditional altruism? What's up with that?

(I suspect you've unintentionally shifted the goalposts from the existence of unconditional altruism in itself to the behaviour of unconditional altruists--I maintain that acts of unconditional altruism are not conditional on the actor being in a perpetual state of unconditional altruism 🙂 )

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
So does the behaviour of a bodhisattva not uh transcend the rationale of conditional altruism? What's up with that?

(I suspect you've unintentionally shifted the goalposts from the existence of unconditional altruism in itself to the behaviour of unconditional altruists--I maintain that acts of unconditional altruism are not conditional on the actor being in a perpetual state of unconditional altruism 🙂 )

You don't think doing nice things builds esteem?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You don't think doing nice things builds esteem?

I'm sure it does all kinds of things. Care to elaborate? I sense a point coming up.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I don't see why it has to be an all-or-nothing proposition. I certainly don't believe that behavior is
solely determined at a genetic level, either. I think the 'desire' to be helpful is instinctual, and by
that I mean influenced by genetics. Given that genes which lead to behaviors or morphologies
which optimize survival will be selected for, and thos ...[text shortened]... idual such
that it would be most likely to procreate and pass on its genes.

Nemesio

I don't disagree with any of this if you are saying that altruistic behavior in the species AS A WHOLE yields a greater probability to the individual to procreate and pass on its genes. I merely dispute that the individual human cannot act in a truly altruistic manner as SS claims.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't disagree with any of this if you are saying that altruistic behavior in the species AS A WHOLE yields a greater probability to the individual to procreate and pass on its genes. I merely dispute that the individual human cannot act in a truly altruistic manner as SS claims.

Yay!

I fully agree that the act of saving the drowning anonymous child is
altruistic.

I also believe that the impetus to be altruistic is instinctual first, and
conscious second.

I also believe that species-wide instinctual altruism yields a greater
probability of an individual's survival.

I also believe that this altruism arose gradually and in direct corrolation
with increased group size and, consequently, with the decreasing level
of kinship within the group. That is, its origins precede homo sapiens
as a species, but reached its highest point (so far) with them.

If we're on the same page, then hooray!

Nemesio

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You don't think doing nice things builds esteem?

I'm sure there's an objective and scientific definition for the word 'nice,' but I am stumped to produce it!

Originally posted by LemonJello
First, I think I was largely mis-reading your words and missing your point. 😞 Your words were:

[b]For an atheist, I think this position cannot logically be sustained -- starting off with an amoral, non-personal first cause (big bang), then followed through by amoral natural processes causing life (abiogenesis & evolution) the atheist has no epistemol ...[text shortened]... theistic but otherwise ostensibly identical world either.

[/b][/b]Sorry for the long delay in replying LJ; and as always, I appreciate your candour.

Part of my misunderstanding occurred because the word logically has no business being in there. I don't think you intend to say that the conjunction of atheism and some other descriptive theories related to origins is logically inconsistent with moral realism.

Yes. As atheism makes no inherent moral claim, it should be compatible with any moral system that makes no direct assertion of a divine being. Using such a loose definition of atheism, one could even consider Buddhism to be atheistic at its core -- and Buddhism, however, does seem to posit an absolute framework for morals -- namely in its eightfold path.

My beef is really with the “western” strand of atheism and its oft-associated philosophical baggage of Naturalism, Positivism, and Materialism. With this atheistic hybrid that posits an impersonal, amoral first cause (or even an uncaused universe) and humans as the product of chance, time and accident, there is in my opinion no reason to even suspect the existence of absolute morals. Man is an “empty bubble floating on a sea of nothingness”. So neither in its inception nor sometime in its history has there been any normative input into the system as it were. Hence, I don’t see any way for the atheist to avoid “Moore’s naturalistic fallacy”/ “Hume’s Guillotine”.

The “common sense solution” for me would have been to accept Nietzsche’s “illusion of morality” and embrace a relativist view such as perspectivism.

(As an aside: you also have Plantinga’s “evolutionary argument against naturalism” that you alluded to in another thread which serves to amplify the acute epistemic problem in necessarily perceiving moral truths within a naturalistic framework.)

So, basically, my point is not that atheism and moral realism are “logically” mutually exclusive, but rather that they are metaphysically phobic if not completely irreconcilable.

For two, if you don't see any good support for moral realism in an atheistic world, then I don't see why you would see any good support for moral realism in a theistic world either. In short, I don't understand why you or anybody else thinks God has anything to do with objective morality. Your emphasis is on objectivity, but actually as a metaethical theory, divine command is not necessarily realist. If, for example, we say that what makes something right is that a particular observer, God, approves of it; and that what makes an action of ours right is that it conforms to the will of this same observer; then that is decidedly not a realist stance. That is an anti-realist, subjectivist stance (and I also happen to think that it is nothing more than an arbitrary account of morality). How exactly do you make 'divine command' a realist account without making God fundamentally irrelevant?

This is a good point: the Euthyphro Dilemma. I suggest to you that this is a false dilemma with the age-old contention that God by His very nature is righteous, i.e. “good” (and therefore normative). It evades the first horn in that “goodness” is not arbitrary -- as God cannot go against his nature. The second horn is somewhat evaded in that goodness is not entirely independent from God, as he does not need to look outside of himself for a standard of goodness -- the standard is in his own character/nature.

Furthermore, I have a concept I’ve been toying with, but am not sure that I’ll formulate it correctly:

In the theistic view, Hume’s Guillotine is avoided as God is by definition a necessary (and the ultimate) being while humankind is contingent; hence, what would seem as a purely descriptive premise, e.g. God created man, would also have normative connotations -- as God’s self-expression stems from his normative (and necessary) nature.

I digress – so while the atheist would move fallaciously from premises about matter, motion and time to conclusions of obligation and duty, the theist is not held by such concerns.

Originally posted by Halitose
Man is an “empty bubble floating on a sea of nothingness”.

Even if that is the case, it appears that reciprocral and unconditional altruism ("good behaviour" ) are successful strategies employed by animals and human beings alike. (The oft-cited example of Nazi Germany illustrates the consequences of abandoning altruism completely.) Faced with that bare fact, what next?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Even if that is the case, it appears that reciprocral and unconditional altruism ("good behaviour" ) are successful strategies employed by animals and human beings alike. (The oft-cited example of Nazi Germany illustrates the consequences of abandoning altruism completely.) Faced with that bare fact, what next?

I guess "evolutionary morality" is still somewhat shy of successfully inferring moral duty from "survival usefulness"...

Originally posted by Halitose
I guess "evolutionary morality" is still somewhat shy of successfully inferring moral duty from "survival usefulness"...

I wouldn't know. I haven't done the reading. However my pittance of Kant does appear to tie in directly with this observable fact. That is, evolution supports deontology, it seems.