@josephw saidI think this answers your question:
Question being, what is the cause of the conscious awareness of morality?
It's something made possible and supported by our cerebral capacities, required by our nature as social creatures, essential for survival, and it has evolved as we have evolved and as communities and societies have evolved. Another possibility is that such consciousness and conscience were put there ~ maybe way back at the beginning ~ by a creator being, but we can only speculate about that.
@fmf saidOk. So, setting aside the speculative, if the awareness of the moral component of our nature was not caused by a creator, then by default we can assume that our consciousness of morality was "accumulate[d] like the mass of ice under the water, where the laws that are passed with different degrees of consensus form the bit of the iceberg protruding visibly above the waves."
I think this answers your question:
It's something made possible and supported by our cerebral capacities, required by our nature as social creatures, essential for survival, and it has evolved as we have evolved and as communities and societies have evolved. Another possibility is that such consciousness and conscience were put there ~ maybe way back at the beginning ~ by a creator being, but we can only speculate about that.
I can see that as a distinct probability. Probably one of many theories.
Would you say that it is theoretical that consciousness exists in man based on probability because the odds that a creator caused it are too high?
Is there then not a component of faith involved in trusting science to provide factual evidence?
Our 'moral compass' is a learned thing, by teaching or experience; if as a child we are caught taking something without permission we are likely to get our knuckles rapped, or be told off. This experience then becomes hard - wired as our brains develop into the part of our frontal lobes which controls other more primitive, instinctive parts of our brain. (Which is just as well, really, a friend of mine once likened us without this frontal lobe control to a room full of cats and dogs) We are all of us instinctive animals, who have learned to control our instincts. For example, all of the heterosexual males amongst us understand that we will encounter women of whom we are desirous of carnal knowledge, our 'common sense' (a learned thing) telling us that we shouldn't touch it with a bargepole. Similarly we may covet our neighbour's oxen (if our neighbour happens to have oxen) but we don't steal them, because we've learned best not to. From a moral perspective, to want to do something that we should not is not a 'sin', (we can't help our instincts) the sin only kicks in if we do it.
My own personal take on the OP is that as an atheist I view all religions as being equally valid, and don't hate any of them, indeed I find them enriching and inspiring, as long as they mind their own business.
@josephw saidThe way theists use the word "faith" in conversations like this makes it inapplicable to my perspective on the origin of morality and/or its implications.
Is there then not a component of faith involved in trusting science to provide factual evidence?
Your theist "faith" [according to your beliefs] gives you immortality, so you are making a massive aspirational leap based on your speculation about supernatural things.
Meanwhile, my speculation about supernatural things translates into my agnosticism and my assumption that death is the end, so I am making no massive aspirational leap and not settling for a religious package of answers and promises.
You can refer to this stance as "faith" in this context if you want to, but I think it dilutes the meaning of the word.
@josephw said[1] I don't think that "it is theoretical that consciousness exists in man".
Would you say that it is theoretical that consciousness exists in man based on probability because the odds that a creator caused it are too high?
Is there then not a component of faith involved in trusting science to provide factual evidence?
[2] I don't think calculations about "probability" and "odds" have any bearing on the fact that "consciousness exists in man".
- Joined
- 06 May 15
- Moves
- 27444
@fmf saidI've met clever rationalizers like you, and I despise them.
I think this answers your question:
It's something made possible and supported by our cerebral capacities, required by our nature as social creatures, essential for survival, and it has evolved as we have evolved and as communities and societies have evolved. Another possibility is that such consciousness and conscience were put there ~ maybe way back at the beginning ~ by a creator being, but we can only speculate about that.
@executioner-brand saidIs that why everyone living there goes to law school?
ignorance of law is a crime under nz law.