K

luvluv:

First, I never said that self-preservation was a sound basis for morality. I only said that organisms that behaved in a manner that would be called moral stood a better chance of survival.

Second, I believe there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest that behavior that we label morality resulted from evolution. Thus, I think it is rational to believe that what we call morality resulted from natural selection.

I don't believe in God because there is no evidence to suggest that God exists. There is certainly no evidence to suggest that the god of one religion is any more likely than the gods of others.

I would hold that belief in God is irrational for the reasons stated above. The belief can be explained rationally by determinism, but the belief itself is irrational.

My goal isn't to help them resolve their conflict. I can't stress enough that I don't believe in absolute "right" and "wrong".

Again, I never claimed that self-preservation always holds. I only claimed that organisms that acted in a way which could be called moral would have had an edge in survival and SUCCESSFUL REPRODUCTION. Successful reproduction means raising offspring to a point at which they can take care of themselves - this takes a very long time with human offspring.

Hopefully for the last time, I never claimed that self-preservation was the foundation of morality. Also hopefully for the last time, I don't believe anything is truly morally right or wrong.

Self sacrifice can certainly have an evolutionary advantage. Remember that preservation of the gene is much more important than preservation of the individual when it comes to evolution. Groups made up of individuals who were willing to die to save the clan had a higher liklihood of preserving the genetic material of the group.

It is only relatively recently (on an evolutionary scale) that our clans have grown to the point where the strangers we save with acts of altruism aren't extremely close genetic relatives.

Jagged

Luvluv, I'm reading over more of your posts and really trying to make sense of what your point is here. Here is what I am coming up with, you let me know if it's a correct interpretation.

Theists, because they have God to tell them which morals are and are not correct, have a "rational justification" for their beliefs.

Atheists, because they have no god to tell them which morals are and are not correct, do not have a "rational justification" for their beliefs. In fact, if they are moral people, they are in some sense "hypocrites" because they cannot point to a "prime mover" i.e. a god who has given them these directives.

???

luvluv

K:

I wasn't really asking where it came from, but whether it referred to anything true. You say that you have no rational basis for your morality, and that you don't believe in right or wrong. Is it fair to say that translates into saying that you don't consider any act to be either wrong or right, even rape? If so, then you would not be being inconsistent in saying that you do not believe in morals and you do not believe in God. So this argument would not apply to you (I said this didn't apply to all atheists).

If you do not believe that any action is wrong, including rape, murder, child abuse, etc, then you would be being consistent.

Well, there is evidene that God exists. You might not consider it compelling, but that wouldn't change the fact. Millions of people claim he exists. That's evidence for his existence. You might say this evidence for any one God is offset by the beliefs of people in other gods. The fact that SOME beliefs must be wrong in no way logically necessitates that they must all be wrong. And the fact that all of them might be wrong would not in anyway mean that there was not a God. I didn't ask you about a particular God. So, to begin with, there is evidence that God exists, and it constitutes precisely the same evidence for you that your morality (or lack thereof) is true... other people attest to the fact.

But again, you are being consistent in not believing in God and in also not believing that any act is wrong.

I'd stop you there. There isn't any evidence that any self-sacrificial behavior to non genetic relatives is genetic at all. It's premature to credit this to evolution. THere are several billion people in the world, particularly in Asia and Africa, who would dispute your notion that one has any obligation whatsoever to someone who is not family. Many cultures still consider a stranger to be something akin to an animal. It is more due to sociology and religion that men now consider martyrdom for non-relatives a virtue.

Valmorian

</strong>

No, it's not. This is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum.

Look here for an explanation:
<a href="http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/pop.htm" target="_blank">http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/pop.htm</a>


</strong>

THIS much is true, but the number of people who hold a belief is not evidence of its truth.

Jagged

Is it just me or do we need to have a list of logical fallacies posted on this forum at all times?

Carlos

I'm no luvluv but I'll tell you how I interpreted it:

Right. In fact,

The key words are internally consistent.

I don't think it's as direct as that. If I understood correctly, luvluv believes that to be consistent atheists cannot believe in morals. It goes like this: atheists do not believe in god because he cannot be proven to exist/there is no rational justification for god. Thus, if we cannot prove that morals exist using reason alone, we cannot admit belief in morality - if we did, we would be hypocrites (using one standard for god, a second one for morals). Earlier, you (JLP) said that "My morals are not something external to myself which I need to place belief in"; I agree with this view. Atheists must face decisions just like everybody else. The choices we make - whether they be right or wrong - are not the issue at hand; the point is that we make these choices and taken as a whole they define our moral system. Hence, "belief" in morals is not comparable to "belief" (or "disbelief") in god as I argued earlier. Our morals are not based on reason while disbelief in god is (for the atheist).

If we accept luvluv's premise that these beliefs are equivalent, though, we are left with two unpleasant choices: either atheists are inconsistent hypocrites, or we let "values" (things other than reason) be allowed, along with reason, as justification or proof. In the latter case this permits atheists to be consistent by claiming some sort of proof for morals, but it also allows the theist to claim proof of god (based on "values"). In other words, if the atheist claims morals exist (without using reason), why can't the theist claim that god exists (without using reason)?

[ Edited for clarity. ]

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: cau ]</p>

Jagged

cau: thanks very much for the explanation

i would like to ask luvluv why she thinks that theists around the world disagree, often vehemently, with regard to moral standards.

and the question after that one: since people kill each other over differences in religious morality, is theistic morality really a good model to adhere to.

perhaps if we looked only to personal judgement and not to divine directives the world would be a more peaceful place.

Jagged

Man
a lawsuit which is undertaken because of injustice does no harm if it is won. in fact it sets to rights harm that was previously done. You are making an assumption when you suggest that hurting people deliberately could result in net gain for you at the end of the race. do you think that dishonest anything-to-win lawyers who make loads of money stepping on the weak get away unscathed? i happen to know one personally and he is extremely restless and dissatisfied with the quality of his relationships. he can't figure out why this is, but it's his own shit coming back to haunt him. you don't swindle granny out of her retirement money by day and go home to an honest & satisfying relationship at night. your whole life will be poisoned by your dishonesty. you can't "cheat" life. if you respect life, life rewards you.
My self-interested, non-theistic thoughts on why I will not kill people:
1. I would go to jail for a long time
2. I might even be put to death
3. I like people, and I know I could not live with myself if I intentionally destroyed one of them.
4. I hate violence.
5. It would destroy my social life once word got out.
6. I would have to live the rest of my life feeling guilty.
Would you believe the above two statements were made by the same person?

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: Jagged Little Pill ]</p>

K

luvluv:

I don't believe that any action is wrong in an absolute sense. I do find actions (eg. rape and child abuse) absolutely reprehensible. I believe this is because of my genetic tendency toward "moral" behavior. I also believe that there is a genetic drive to punish perpetrators of such actions which serves several pragmatic purposes.

The same thing has been used as evidence of astrology, the existence of vampires, and a flat earth. It would be difficult to call the fact that many people believe something evidence.

This is all true. However, since there are so many differing beliefs in the supernatural and no empirical evidence to support any of them, it would seem much more likely that the belief in the supernatural is more a condition of the human mind than that one of the myriad supernatural claims is true.

I'm not sure what you're driving at here, but I don't think it applies to me since I don't believe that morality is true or false.

Thank you for recognizing this. Many theists can not see that it is a consistent position and I appreciate your saying so.


I would say that empathy is the genetic component and that culture and environment influence the degree to which that empathy is extended toward others. I believe the genetics are there to allow us to build strong social groups. The size of the social groups we feel connected to can be as small as an immediate family or as large as the entire human population.

Ms. Siv

Absolutely.
Our innate morality (or ESS, to use the right evolutionary term) did evolve for very practical reasons. ESS were the strategies that optimised the default objective of gene propogation in the given environment.

Thats why morality is not absolute .... because it depends on the objectives and environment.

- Sivakami.