The Other Michael

Tercel, I have a problem with this statement, as I don't think it is accurate.

Those stats may show people claiming to be one or the other belief. But that often is representative of having been brought up in a belief.

To determine if religious belief is the norm I think you'd have to take a bunch of infants and raise them up in an environment completely free of ANY religious indoctrination/information. If a majority (you said it is the norm) of those children eventually develop ON THEIR OWN a religious belief, then I think you'd have a case.

But I don't know that anyone has ever actually done a good experiment to determine if there really is a tendency for humans to innately develop a religious belief.

cheers,
Michael

Tercel

The Other Michael,

Unless you think God indoctrinated the first humans, then surely the human race as a whole provides all the evidence you could ever want for innate religious belief or otherwise?
Left to itself, the vast majority of human race has become (both historically and currently) religious.

emur

OK Toyota, where do you get your objective morality from? Obviously not from the bible as a whole, as per your previous response to me.

And being that God has NOT laid out a specific set of objective moral values in an objective way (written, spoken), where do these values come from that everyone in the world is supposed to follow?

Mel

hinduwoman

Tercel, you accuse evolution of being a convinient umbrella for every behaviour,m but that is what Christians do with God.

Stuff happens. Why? It is God's will.

hinduwoman

No they have not become relgious. They simply tried to make sense of the world. They did not know anything how the world worked and so they invented myths, based on their own theinking processes --- gods fighting, marrying, jealous god etc. That is why ever since science came onto the scene the number of atheists started growing.

It is not innate religious instinct, but innate desire to know the WHY of things.

The Other Michael

Hi Tercel,

I don't think so - religion does seem to be a pretty tenacious meme, so once it got into the population (and at a time where religion was actually formulated to try and give a reason for what was happening in the real world) it had millenia in which to become rooted in the absence of a viable alternative.

That's why I proposed starting with a group completely free of religion. And the children should be given a scientific education so that they understand how things happen in the real world, rather than having to make things up.

If religion truly is innate, it should spontaneously generate in the group. But looking out at the world full of religion and saying it is because religion is innate strikes me more like saying that maggots spontaeously generate on garbage - it appears that way, but you're missing the actual mechanism.

cheers,
Michael

Koyaanisqatsi

Tercel, your forgot (of course) the most important aspect of my approach: irrefutable logic applied properly to the argument, demonstrating to all but the inculcated mind the inherent fallacies within somebody else's position.

Don't worry. You'll get it once you awaken. It's not your fault...directly...

NumberTenOx

Ummmm, I think you can predict the objection to this thought experiment. Imagine you are a theist, is this really objective?

I've been ruminating on this quite a bit the past few days. The contradiction, that I think Tercel is pointing out, is as follows:

- There is no absolute moral authority.
- But we all (atheists) act as if morality exists.

This is apparently inconsistent. How can you assert there is right or wrong without some moral authority? Without an authentic authority, anyone can claim to be the authority, so the words "right" and "wrong" lose their meaning. They simply reflect the feelings of the speaker, perhaps completely arbitrary and perhaps completely opposed by the next philosopher in line.

And yet, we act as if morals exist. We all fairly universally condemn infanticide, for example. Why? If there is no moral authority, why do atheists act as if morals exist? We can talk about evolution and sociobiology all day, but these only explain why we might feel infanticide is wrong, not why it actually is wrong. And yet we act as if it actually is wrong, and this is inconsistent.

I actually think this is a good point. I think (and could be wrong) that this is Tercel's argument. To live life at all, to struggle forward through the muck, is to believe that life is worth living, that it has a purpose and meaning. To say otherwise is inconsistent with life itself.

If you really believe that there is no purpose to life and no absolute morality, then why keep living? Because you want to? You feel like it? Then you have, in a sense, made Pascal's Wager. You are betting that there really is some reason to wake up tomorrow; that there is some "purpose" to life. Otherwise, why keep going?

Touché. Do I believe in God yet? No. But I think that I've made some progress in understanding why Tercel does.

The simple answer for me? I am afraid of death. I do a lot to make sure that I'm still alive tomorrow. I fabricate all sorts of things to keep myself and my family safe, things like morality, our dominance over animals, our right to burn a couple of tanks of gas a week, etc. Why? For the simple reason that if I didn't someone else would be here writing this post. I'd be dust somewhere. That's the evolutionary explanation (sort-of).

But is it self-deception? Yes, I'm afraid so. Dishonest intellectually? Possibly. Mea culpa. Will we all kill ourselves when we completely understand the universe, it's origin and demise? Maybe? Can I wait and tell you when we get there?

[ June 10, 2002: Message edited by: NumberTenOx ]</p>

Typhon

OH, so you do have something to say. Of course, I could care less for your off the cuff ire.

Let's take a look at your rebuttal...

What bee flew into your metaphysical pointy hat? Let me repeat:

"introduce some basic statement and expectation pairs..."

Followed by, wow, some basic statement and expectation pairs. I didn't say a thing about your grasp or lack of, of basic reasoning. Go whine to someone who cares for your infantile behavior and quick assumption that everything is about you or written for you. This wasn't for your benefit, but a statement of my thoughts on the subject. You don't own this thread, hell, you can barely add anything coherent to it. Go imagine some insults somewhere else next time, or you will get them, like now. There was no insult originally, just you being somehow offended that I have a different idea about things than you, AND the ability to back up my claims about it.

That's because it does explain it, and explain it well. Care to show me the evidence that it does not? Want to produce some dissenting, peer-reviewed, accredited case studies? Ring me back when you can. Until then, take a seat, eat your hat, whatever, I could care less if you happen to like the facts or not as they stand.

I made a statement. I followed it up with why I felt the claim was true, and where morals come from, directly in support of my claim that objective morals do not exist, and certainly do not require a god. Again, go somewhere else if you don't care for supported arguments.

~Snip a bunch of smarmy, knee-jerk, stupid responses to things that were not specifically directed at you in the first place~

Yes. Did I stutter? What did you think, it was hanging around so it could worship some big old chubby white guy in heaven? Do a jig? Make the perfect mocha frappachino, and then poof?

Life and the universe exist. Period, end of story. They don't exist "because" or "for" or "because x wants them to." I can show that they exist, you can't show jack about them existing for a reason. So you can wipe off that indignant look until the facts happen to be on your side for a change.

Oh, let's see. That's right, everything is about you, now isn't it. I was discussing the supposed problem of existential crisis, which was being argued for, not just by you, in the thread. I was talking about how in the advent or position, which I take, that there is neither a metaphysical purpose to life, or a source of objective morals, doesn’t necesitate a crisis of any kind. I simply don't agree that its a problem, and explained why. I care even less if you don't care about it. If you don't like the direction a thread takes, go somewhere else. Skip over that part. Why everything in this thread has to be important to you, I have no idea.

Well, if you want to argue that position, you've done a fine job showing that you might just be right. Seek your ad hominems in some other universe where things are actually about you.

So is stupidity, and until recent times, the belief that the sun revolves around the earth. Your point? MY point was that history and biology both point towards religion and a belief in gods being a not altogether unexpected byproduct of naturalistic processes.

Why not look towards the physiological and psychological factors that gave rise to heliocentricism, or the theory of gravity, or modern biology? Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, and it’s been around for a long time. As religion loses its death grip on the world, we’re at last able to talk more about it, and the logic and reasoning that lead us to this position.

So you say. Please grace us with a link for both. I’d be interested in reading it.

Oh really. Care to show me a lone, predatory species with documented cooperative, altruistic, group building behavior? Or did this only happen before the Fall? You got a tiger with a moral code somewhere?

I can show you a whole lot of social species which do show characteristics which are the same as those which appear in humans, which are, gasp, similar social animals.

Pointless I suppose if you're some ignorant fundie who doesn't get that evolution is both a fact and a cornerstone of modern biology. If you're not, then quit ranting about me using fairly well known evolutionary facts about sociology, behavior, and its role in the formation of morality and culture.

We haven't dreamed up anything, not like those worshipers of some fanciful, unsupported invisible pink drunkard in the sky. Theists are awfully fond of trotting out the "goddidit" explanation for everything. Unlike evolution and other naturalistic, observable processes, there is no evidence for such a preposterous claim.

What I'd prefer is to find some jack-all who doesn't think that each and every post on a multi-user message board is all about him.

I'M arguing that objective morality doesn't exist. I don't give a damn what you happen to want me to argue about or not. I'M explaining my viewpoint on WHY you are wrong that there is no logic in a relativistic slant on naturalist morality. I'M postulating that one can answer as emur did, and still not be showing objective morality or morality that is arbitrary or based only on opinion. I'M saying that a nihilist world view in terms of there being no metaphysical (which is different from a species meaningful basis for morality) meaning or basis for morality results in either madness or being a depressed, German existentialist is not the only logical outcome. I'M presenting my views on all of this, and WHY, and I could care less if you happen to be tiffed because it wasn't what you ordered from bloody room service.

Repeat: Tercel is not in a thread of his own. Tercel is not in a thread of his own...

Observe, the above points of discussion culled from the thread, to which I made some replies (gasp!).

You are either being woefully obtuse or didn't bother to read my post before speaking.

I never said these were the same set of circumstances, judged differently by different cultures. I didn’t even imply it. I said that the act of killing, my example, could be moral or immoral based on the circumstances that surrounded the act, and the culture/group in which they take place.

A Mesoamerican priest sacrifices an enemy solider captured in battle to the sun god to ensure a good harvest; a good act as judged by the society of the priest and his culture.

A office manager sacrifices an rival sales director kidnapped at an industry conference on his CEO's desk to ensure a good second quarter.; a bad act as judged by the society of the office manager and his culture.

Should I type slowly, and use big fonts? Read please, before you post.

If you are confused, just say so. If you can't make a decent rebuttal, then move on to the next thread. Calling my assertions crap does nothing for your position, nothing beneficial anyway.

No I'm going to chalk up the fact that you think everything in this thread is strangely all about you, and that you are unable or unwilling to debate carefully or logically constructed opinions other than just hop up and down and scream "crap."

Cheers,

.T.

[ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

Typhon

Hi NumberTenOx,

Good post, love the name. However, I can’t say I agree, because I don’t.

This is fine so far, but you seem (and Tercel as well) to silently imply that all (including atheists) act as if an absolute morality exists. That is not the same thing.

Neither you nor anyone else have successfully shown this to be the case. Instead, what I see, is that morality appears to have a general basis in our evolutionary past, which in turn, has been modified by our individual needs and development as specific cultures. Morality is not static. It is not universal. It is not absolute. This is what exists in the RW, so it would seem impossible to argue that either there is an absolute moral authority OR that we all act this way, regardless.

I only agree if you put in the word “absolute” to right and wrong and moral authority. You can easily assert that there is locally, human specific, culture specific, right and wrong.

Human morality is more often grey. It is an agreement reached among members of a group, and never even followed by all the members of said society. Morality does not arise in any perfect shape, it is a lose and changing net of rules and customs, as based upon the complex cooperative that develops them. This does not require either that they are arbitrary or without purpose, as they are at base, rooted or at least influenced, by very basic evolutionary needs and the requirements of being a cooperative, highly intelligent, social species.

Whoa. Back up if you will.

IF we feel that something is wrong, that’s a damn good reason why we act as if it was wrong. If it is wrong, it is because it is based on our current, society specific morals.

Indeed, infanticide has not always been universally wrong. Nor would I say, it is even agreed upon, 100%, right now, across all cultures and groups.

To blithely discard the evidence that the reason why we think it is wrong is both a part of evolutionary responses and a constructed, socially fabricated reality, is baseless and IMO, erroneous.

No it is not. I am life. I find it worth living. I say it has no purpose beyond the salient fact that I and others of my kind, life, find it worth living. That is not inconsistent, and certainly not with “life itself.” If anything, the vast majority of life agrees with me. It neither requires nor clamors for a purpose as far as I can tell. When was the last time a salmon refused to spawn because it felt that a sense of higher purpose was missing from its life?

I am starting to wonder why I seem to be the only one on this thread who finds this outlook not only flawed, but ridiculous, no offense ox.

I absolutely do not believe in the existence or even possibility of absolute morality, nor metaphysical purpose to life. I have no problem with continued living. I am not self-deluded, nor have I not examined this line of thinking to its logical conclusion.

Yes I want to. Yes I feel like it. And I’d like you to show me why this is one bit less motivating or valid than because of any other reason. You can’t.

There is a reason to wake up tomorrow, because I both enjoy life and am designed, by my evolutionary past, to enjoy just this. If I had no inborn survival instincts, I, in the sense of my species or even as life itself, would not be here today. I will be here tomorrow, because of it. This neither lessens my enjoyment or my desire, simply because I have a large enough and complex enough brain to reason this out. Other species have no problem with it either to the best of our knowledge. This is life, and this is what life in part by definition does, live.

Who the hell gets up in the morning because they believe there is grand purpose to life, the universe, and everything? I get up because if I don’t, I’ll be late to work. If I’m late to work, I’ll get sacked. If I get sacked I’ll get thrown on the doll. If I get thrown on the doll, I’ll catch hell from the missus. If I catch hell from the missus I’ll be sleeping on the couch. If I’m sleeping on the couch, I’ll be getting shite all loving. If I’m getting shite all loving, I’m not happy. So I get up in the bloody morning, and go to work.

Furthermore, I’ve got kids to plan for, college funds to set up, a trip to Germany next summer to pay for, dinner out with my friends on Thursday, drinks with my mates on Friday, birthday presents for the family, books for my reading habit, oil paints for my painting habit, power bills for my internet habit, and an early retirement for my writing habit. I’ve got pleasures, plans, habits, urges, and reasons aplenty to get up in the morning, and not one damn jack-all among them involves whether or not some poxy higher purpose really exists in this life. I sure hope it does not, because I’ve got quite enough on my plate already, thank you.

I’m glad someone has, because I haven’t.

Agreed, more or less.

Why is it self-deception? I see no dishonesty inherent at all, but rather the reverse. That I am a product of my genes and life’s own greedy evolutionary lust for self-continuation doesn’t cheapen it or lessen it one bit. I am self-aware, evolved life. It is a wonderful, amazing thing! The pictures in the Tate are just as amazing. The flowers on a rose, just as sweet. Why would understanding this give anyone who really thought it through, anything but pleasure? I do not wish to live forever. That my genes do is, is their problem.

If people can’t look existence clearly in the eye, that’s partly because we have religion and its childish refusal to grow up and be responsible members of the finite club of organic life to blame. We pander people’s desires to have an ego that lives forever, and make up all kinds of tales rather than telling people to do the best with what they’ve got, and enjoy it, because that’s it. Is that weakness? I dunno, but it’s definitely not for me.

I choose life. I choose understanding. And I still choose life, even with the full understanding that there's most likely, or at least to the best of our knowledge, no grander scheme awaiting discovery, no wizard behind the curtain, no applause at the end of the show.

Any thoughts ox?

.T.

When was the last time morality ran to the kitchen and got you a beer?

[ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>