主播大秀

This two window mentality is quitely frankly in direct contradiction to the epistemology of the situation. The religious window has been shrinking rapidly since the time of enlightenment, regardless of the adornments added to the frame in that time. Contrasting this the wealth of material knowledge is growing at a seemingly exponential rate, furnishing us with the comforts and terrors that make modern life such an interesting time to be living in. As the good book stagnates and struggles to be relevant, the good book 2.0 (aka science) grows and flourishes.

I do object to the often patronising opinions of theists that methodological naturalists are insensitive; just because we don't require a metaphysical safety blanket/comforter to exist doesn't mean insensitivity. I find those that accept our natural roots tend to be far more sensitive and rational, compared to the often belligerant, willfully ignorant and heavily indoctrinated religious types. Nature is just as wonderful and love just as lovely for the methodological naturalist, it still triggers the synapses and stimulates the neurons; It just that we accept there is an underlying biological agenda. You still enjoy the rollercoaster even though you know you are perfectly safe.

Geneboys post says it as it is. It could even be seen in agreement to the last part of what William quoted:

"the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions."

Since science claims more and more territory, its time for more and more of religion to be resigned to the historical dustbin.

"By their arrogance they bring both sceince and religion into desrepute."

When you enter into debates on the Science v Religion arrogance is what becomes the main focus not the debate.
And arrogance even enters into the arena amongst those who claim to be on the same side Dawkins V Gould /Gould v john Maynard Smith also known as the Darwin Wars and J I Packer v R C Sproul in the Evagelical and Catholics together document and John Wesley V Whitfield on Calivinism.

On and on it goes, one thing we all agree on is mankind cannot agree, Christians say this is because of sin, and scientists say natural selection is to blame.

When you have a nation like Britian who now have stabbings every week, a man having acid poured down his throat, and a mother being covered in bleach for asking teenagers to be quite, someone needs to understand why we hate each other.

Freeman Dyson should stick to physics. When it comes to metaphysics he's a fool. Science is a window. Religion is a mirror. God was created in man's image, not the other way around. That is why those who sell religion want to keep the shades closed and the curtains drawn on the only window to truth available. That is why the Catholic church was so angry at Galileo. He opened the shades just enough to let in enough light so that the image in the mirror became clearer and the ability to call it for other than what it really was diminished. It also made others aware that there was a real window available to them and they wanted more light and a chance to look outside for themselves to see what the real world was about with their own eyes, not through the inane prattlings of priests. But ignorance dies a hard death and there are those who warn that the light from the window is dangerously blinding.

When the window is fully opened and the light allowed in while we can see out, the outside world reveals itself as reality while the image in the mirror merely a contrived illusion. It becomes increasingly less and less interesting and those who sell it must work harder all the time. It also looks smaller and smaller. The farther we can see, the more insignificant and meaningless the illusion in the mirror becomes until it has no importance at all.

Geneboy said

"The religious window has been shrinking rapidly since the time of enlightenment, regardless of the adornments added to the frame in that time."
I would certainly agree that a decline in Christianity has taken place in the western world especially Britain, but if we take Islam into account and all the other religions It's hard to say if religion is declining.
Another interesting point is that most people are just apathetic having flippant views that suit their lifestyle, or no views at all.
If any word could some up the era we live in I would say that word would be apathy, and so neither science or religion wins.

Here is list of men who thought Science and religeon "did" fit together and who lived after the enlightenment.

PART I. Nobel Scientists (20-21 Century)

Albert Einstein Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish
Max Planck Nobel Laureate in Physics Protestant
Erwin Schrodinger Nobel Laureate in Physics Catholic
Werner Heisenberg Nobel Laureate in Physics Lutheran
Robert Millikan Nobel Laureate in Physics probably Congregationalist
Charles Hard Townes Nobel Laureate in Physics United Church of Christ (raised Baptist)
Arthur Schawlow Nobel Laureate in Physics Methodist
William D. Phillips Nobel Laureate in Physics Methodist
William H. Bragg Nobel Laureate in Physics Anglican
Guglielmo Marconi Nobel Laureate in Physics Catholic and Anglican
Arthur Compton Nobel Laureate in Physics Presbyterian
Arno Penzias Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish
Nevill Mott Nobel Laureate in Physics Anglican
Isidor Isaac Rabi Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish
Abdus Salam Nobel Laureate in Physics Muslim
Antony Hewish Nobel Laureate in Physics Christian (denomination?)
Joseph H. Taylor, Jr. Nobel Laureate in Physics Quaker
Alexis Carrel Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic
John Eccles Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic
Joseph Murray Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic
Ernst Chain Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Jewish
George Wald Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Jewish
Ronald Ross Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Christian (denomination?)
Derek Barton Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Christian (denomination?)
Christian Anfinsen Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Jewish
Walter Kohn Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Jewish
Richard Smalley Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Christian (denomination?)

I can't say I find argument by a list of a few dozen names very convincing. Especially when the first name I read is Albert Einstein. He wrote rather scathingly about the judeo-christian faith:



some lines from what he wrote:

"the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

"For me, the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."

If that is the sort of person the science-religion accommodationists have to hold up, then their case is hopeless indeed.

I wonder if any of them will be even more hopeless and bring up Einsteins metaphorical "God does not play dice" quote to assert he was a believer.

I have a lot of time for Dyson's thoughts.

I suppose my main reservation is that the academic disciplines of "science" and "religion" are in one real sense social constructions. (That is not saying that God is a social construction though, nor that religion as academic study need be untrue, just imperfect).

Perhaps Dyson needs to go even further, that both disciplines are our best attempts to understand reality (seeing through a glass darkly), but that both are also have "artificial" and very modern booundaries.

The ancient greeks and the europeans of the scientific revolution knew nothing of boundaries between science and religion.

The supposed dividing line (which doesnt actually exist in any exact sense among academics who study the philsophy of it) was invented by philosophers of the enlightenment, which came much later.

geneboy seems to believe that methodolical naturalism and science are the same thing. they aren't.

One examines the uniformity of natural causes and the other assumes that nothing exists outside them! Quite different.

It seems that all great men of the scientific revolution were inspired to build the foundations of modern science from the wellspring og their faith.

Kepler: "Science is thinking God's thoughts after him".

Everything I have written above stands up to historical scrutiny. But you look closely, what the other posters have majored on above is their partisan philsophical opinions.


As for Einstein PK, as we have discussed before, he also said a great many things which contradict the quotes you have given. Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the impression the quotes you have given were in the impetousness of his youth, but that he changed his mind radically in older age. Havent time to go into it.

OT


PS BTW Peter Klaver, I think I owe you an apology. Once I gloated when we debated this very subject, which I dont think was right. And that reminds me, another time I asked if your last posting came to an end for negative personal reasons, which was not on at all. I had no evidence to suggest this was the case. Heat of heavy debate etc but doesn justify it. Sorry.

The purpose of post 6 was to show science and "religion" to these men was not mutally exclusive, it was "not" an attempt to say Einstein was a practising Jew or Christian.

Einstein was brough up Jewish, and had very close links with Zionism.

"What makes me happiest is the [prospective] realization of a Jewish state in Palestine. It seems to me that "our brethren" [Stammgenossenen] really are nicer [sympathische] (at least less brutal) than these awful [scheuslichen] Europeans. Maybe it can only get better if the Chinese alone survive; they lump all Europeans together as 'bandits.'

Letter to Paul Ehrenfest
March 22, 1919
Physics Today , April 2005
Translated and annotated by Bertram Schwarzschild


Einstein also said

After being pressed on his religious views by Martin Buber, Einstein exclaimed, "What we [physicists] strive for is just to draw His lines after Him." Summarizing his religious beliefs, he once said: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."



Selah

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

When real scientists talk about religion and god saying that they believe in them, they are no longer thinking as scientists but as frightened primitives. It is entirely possible for the same person to be a rational critical thinker one minute and a superstitiious mindless dolt the next. Usually religion has been embedded deep in their psyche by adults long before they come to be scientists. It's very hard even for a critical thinker to overcome it once infected. Also we know from news reports and many postings, humans may have a built in susceptability for irrational superstitious thoughts about god, spirituality, and other ideas which have no basis in observed facts or any conclusions that can be logically drawn from them.

Theists like to point to the endorsement of scientists who behave that way to justify their own irrational ideas just as was posted above. I asked someone who was being trained to be a nun but never took her vows what the Catholic church's best argument was for the proof of good. She said "it is a feeling." I've also heard other arguments such as; what other explanation for existance could there be and there are laws, there must be a law giver. Weak arguments, all of them, but hardly unexpected. How fortunate I feel never having had those kinds of feelings and never having been indoctrinated. It's a freedom far too few people in this world have the luxury of. I never became an atheist...I was born that way and was allowed to remain in that natural state. I am completely immune to the infection of at least this one mental disorder. Dawkins is right, it is a mental disorder.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Well said William resorting to insults is hardly a debate winner

OT - "geneboy seems to believe that methodolical naturalism and science are the same thing. they aren't."

I don't believe OT, I know to within a measurable degree of testable, repeatable limits. Methodological or scientific naturalism is the underlying epistemology of all science, whether you like to admit it or not. It is the intellectual well spring from which the sciences expand, regardless of the specific field.

Men of faith may study the sciences, but their belief in the supernatural is limited entirely to speculation outside of their research. They may make throw away comments about seeing the face of "God" or finding evidence of "his" fingerprints in their work; but they don't insert "him" into their equations or publications. They may say that they are practicising theists, but their work indicates otherwise.

I really would love to know of any sciences that study the supernatural; if you could elaborate on that throw away statement that would be peachy.

Religion without science is blind.
Science without religion is FANTASTIC.

:-)

-H

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Science without religion is immoral.
Religion with science is complete.



-j

aunt jason wise up

AuntieJ, are you saying that atheist scientists are immoral?
Morality does not spring from religion or even generic belief in gods, or EVEN the alleged "existence" of gods.

Religion is an attempt to pretend that nature conforms to our prejudices. Science is the direct OPPOSITE.

As the light from the window of science clarifies what is in the mirror of religon, those defending the faith have had to invent ways to filter the light, block parts of it, demand that their adherents stand at a particular angle to preserve the illusion that was once so easy for them to sell. What will they do when that is next to impossible? What will they do when scientists can create life from inert matter in a laboratory, claim merely that god did it first? As science advances, religion retreats. The partitions between the known, the unknown but ultimatly knowable, and the unknowable have been shifting due to the encroachment of science. Eventually, those trying to sell god will be restricted to the unknowable. That is where they belong because that is the only place they are safe from being proven wrong.

Princess love you


Helio depends on the scientist:

Have we not got scientists who brought into creation biological and nuculear weapons which threatens the whole world and has caused extreme suffering.
"Morality does not spring from religion" I "believe" it comes from God.
Helio can you prove when the first immoral act was committed and why?

Marcus - you need to create something out of nothing and show that nothing can greate something without any intervention by scientists.
Giving you have a starting material, be it particals or inert matter proves you have not done anything to threaten religion.

If you could give religion a living creation fron science, something like a horse, and create this out of nothing, now that would certainly impress me.

-J

Maybe if Dyson had of lived through the troubles, dodged a few sucicide bombs or been brainwashed as a child into fundementialst religion he would have a different opionion.

AJ i wish i had not wasted my time reading your BS.

Princess

I love your comments, they shine Atheism up in a really bad light.

Bravo


PS Science made them bombs, and "False" religion is what ignited them.

Oh dear - we seem to be slipping into the old canards, Auntjason. Really, it would be good if you could try a bit harder. Atheists in general are just as moral as theists, and morality is to do with how humans treat each other. It does not come from the gods. Or at least if you think it does, you are stuck with a far bigger problem. No theistic argument for morality makes even the slightest bit of sense, and when you consider that all the parallel arguments for theism that are adduced (such as the ridiculous ontological efforts, the non-solution of the cosmological arguments, the wild over-reaching of the fine-tuning arguments) are in tatters, it seems that atheism is the best course. Love thy neighbour as thyself, and to hell with all gods.

Re religion and morality. I recall a piece of research, it must have been decades ago, by some university folk in the USA, which involved leaving a wallet in a public place and noting the faith of the honest/dishonest people who happened upon it. The atheists were the ones who scored best at handing the wallet over to lost property. I cannot remember how the religions and denominations ranked thereafter, but it was a bit of a revelation.

aj

When you come up with even one shred of evidence to suggest that such a thing as god might exist, I'll sit up and take notice. Until then, arguments based on circular reasoning such as the bible is the word of god therefore god exists, process of elimination such as there is no other possibility for existance I can think of, spiritual "feelings" that there "must" be a god and a "purpose" for existance, and warped distorted contorted theories of science cut, pasted, an jammed together such as McIntosh or Wilder-Smith and their ilk use will not get me to waste the time of day. Save that for the ignorant and naive in the congregation. Sometimes it works on them.

Helio breathe:

Two questions for you:

1 Define the word "moral" and show from science it's evoultion and beginnings.

2 Define the word "immoral" and show from science it's evoultion and state why immorality is needed as a science.

Rochcarlie:

I could give you a better source of material for dishonesty in the so called church.
Just turn on the God Channel and you will see "Christian" theives everyday.

Marcus said

"When you come up with even one shred of evidence to suggest that such a thing as god might exist, I'll sit up and take notice."

I can't and never said I could, you know as well as I do you can't prove God by science.
The presuppostion of "Religion" is that you beieve which is not acceptable to you Marcus so it presuppostions that is the problem because we all have them.

General presuppositions are necessary conditions of the whole scientific enterprise. There are, at least, four of them. The first is the existence of a natural world with a consistency which is independent of our will. The second is the orderly character of this world. The third is the contingency of the natural order. And the fourth is the human ability to know this natural contingent order. The entire scientific enterprise would be impossible without these presuppositions, which cannot be proved within science itself

-j

Auntjasons continued presence on the blog seems at odds with earlier comments on another thread:

"I WON'T POST HEAR AGAIN THIS WAS FOR A SEASON AND FOR ME THE SEASON HAS ENDED."

Funny that the first of his points about scientific presuppositions in post 28 is about consistency.:)

Re-write of post 28

Helio breathe:

Two questions for you:

1 Define the word "moral" and show from science it's evoultion and beginnings.

2 Define the word "immoral" and show from science it's evoultion and state why immorality is needed as a science.

Rochcarlie:

I could give you a better source of material for dishonesty in the so called church.
Just turn on the God Channel and you will see "Christian" thieves everyday.

Marcus said

"When you come up with even one shred of evidence to suggest that such a thing as god might exist, I'll sit up and take notice."

I can't and never said I could, you know as well as I do you can't prove God by science.
The presuppostion of "Religion" is that you "believe" which is not acceptable to you Marcus, so if presuppostions are the problem, does science not also require them.
I could give you numerous prophecies that have come to pass, but I guess that would just be thrown into the untestable dust bin.

General presuppositions are necessary conditions of the whole scientific enterprise. There are, at least, four of them. The first is the existence of a natural world with a consistency which is independent of our will. The second is the orderly character of this world. The third is the contingency of the natural order. And the fourth is the human ability to know this natural contingent order. The entire scientific enterprise would be impossible without these presuppositions, which cannot be proved within science itself.

-j

Oh, I don't mind Auntjason posting at all. I find it curious that he/she asks me to define "moral" and "immoral", when these are quite clearly labels that human observers apply to human behaviours, largely based on the effects that those behaviours have on other humans. The definition is not at issue. You might as well ask me to define "funny" or "unfunny". "Sexy" or "unsexy". Nor is the fact that there is no reason or evidence for atheists being less moral than theists (and I would as an aside observe that by and large atheists are funnier and sexier than theists, so I assume the same goes for morality too ;-).

Atheists and theists get their morality from the same source - human relationships. The rest is detail.

What IS at issue here is the ridiculous notion that moral behaviour itself (as a social heuristic of sorts) derives from some sort of "gift" given by some sort of vague undefined "being" outside the human species.

Auntjason, the question that is being asked of YOU is not to define "moral" or "immoral", but to explain how the heck ANY of this is relevant to the question of whether or not the Reason For The Universe can be reduced and boiled down to the human concept of a "god".

-H

Peter worte:

Auntjasons continued presence on the blog seems at odds with earlier comments on another thread:

"I WON'T POST HEAR AGAIN THIS WAS FOR A SEASON AND FOR ME THE SEASON HAS ENDED."

Funny that the first of his points about scientific presuppositions in post 28 is about consistency.:)

I WON'T POST HEAR meaning I won't post on the *WW blog* which I did not, and will not, so still pretty consistant even with your rather *feeble* attempt to try and twist my words.

I'm glad you don't know where I live, otherwise you would probably end up putting my information on the blog like you did with post
10.

AJ, you've previously admitted that you know little of science - that's OK - there is plenty of time to learn, and stacks of people who are willing to teach. If I were you, however, I would learn my science from SCIENTISTS, and not the gaggle of twits who set themselves up as "Philosophers of Science". There are some diamonds in that rough, to be sure, but there is a heck of a lot of rough, so be careful.

Also, like FirePrior, you REALLY are going to have to learn to give your sources credit. Someone reading your last post might think you had made that up, instead of lifting it from Artigas. But Artigas is wrong too.

The first is the existence of a natural world with a consistency which is independent of our will.

Well, this seems fairly self-evident, doesn't it? Argue the contrary, and see how far you get.

The second is the orderly character of this world.

That is not a presupposition. That is an observation. Key difference here. Of course, it is such a well-established observation, that we feel justified in feeding it in, as is, to the next phases of our investigation. But if you feel otherwise, let's see your data (or, rather, Artigas's data).

The third is the contingency of the natural order.

Well, kinda, but this is no big shakes. Black boxes contain other black boxes, connected by discoverable relationships. Where does it stop? Who knows? Is this a weakness? No. Thus far have we found any suggestion that this poses a problem for methodological naturalism in the sciences? No.

And the fourth is the human ability to know this natural contingent order.

Nope again. We see how far we can get. Thus far, the signs are pretty good. We have never run up against a fundamental stumbling block here (although the quantum relativity problem is a perplexing monkey to be sure). We don't "know" it - we *work it out* by hypothesis, testing, refinement, theory-building etc. And we keep moving forwards. It's great, isn't it?

The entire scientific enterprise would be impossible without these presuppositions, which cannot be proved within science itself.

Who cares if they can be "proved"? They *work*. They have worked very well for the last 300 years, and indeed work very well on the data that are coming in from the last 13.5 billion years. That is the point. If they stop working, we try another tack. Get back to us when that happens.

-H

aj, when you demonstrate that even one of the four presuppositions of science is false, I will abandon study of it and become an existentialist because I will realize that the study of science is pointless. In an irrational universe which is not consistant or understandable, there is no point in merely cataloguing events trying to draw rational conclusions from them to understand how nature operates and predict how it will operate in the future. Since the universe would be inconsistent under those circumstances, even the catalogue itself could change and we might not know it.

I'm not sure what connection there is between god and religion but I gave pastorphillip as the best "studied" expert we seem to have here every opportunity to demonstrate that even a handful of the most obvious, simple, superficial seeming inconsistencies of the Christian and Jewish bible were in fact consistent with each other and from my point of view he failed miserably every time. It's pathetic when they can't even get their own story straight among themselves.

Helio I certainly did not mean to Plagiarise Mariano Artigas and thought I had his name copied along with the article, apologises for that.

Question:

Define the word "moral" and show from science it's evoultion and beginnings?

Helio's Answer "Atheists and theists get their morality from the same source - human relationships. The rest is detail.

You still have not proven where morals began, you start with the presuppostion of the fact they exsist, you then observe them, and come to the conclusion we created our own morals.
So if we indeed create our "own morals" then whatever we decide to do within a relationship is fine, be it rape, murder, etc.

May be you could tell me Helio if there is any evidence that proves we got morals from ourselves, which includes evidence for the origin of morals, and the first moral creature.

Now unto your dismissal of Artigas:

Artigas said:

The entire scientific enterprise would be impossible without these presuppositions, which cannot be proved within science itself.

Helio said:

Who cares if they can be "proved"? They *work*. They have worked very well for the last 300 years, and indeed work very well on the data that are coming in from the last 13.5 billion years. That is the point. If they stop working, we try another tack. Get back to us when that happens.

Well there is a lot of people who care helio, knowing something works is hardly a grasping of the fundamentals of the universe.
So you will have to excuse me when I don't find your answers very convincing as far as believing science, disproves Diety.

Any how as for my own beliefs they are just that, I have never said I could prove the exsistance of God.

Morality is not some gift handed down from on high. Ethologists study behaviour that could rightly be regarded as a form of primitive morality in many organisms. Social animals are notorious for resolving disputes in competitive bouts rather than killings with structures based more on how the animals "represent" themselves rather than how they act. Even the humble hermit crab would rather engage in a competitive display of shell rapping rather than out and out intraspecific killing, to claim a new shell.

If "morality" is a divine gift, then why do animals appear so acutely attuned to it?

Morality, particularly personal morality, is the code by which society expects you to live. Such codes should be designed to create the kind of society that we want to live. For a society to work well there has to be some agreement as to the morality of the individuals in it.
In a society where everyone shares the same religion then this can be a highly successful basis for morality, but in our modern multi-faith world it more often than not leads to conflict. The morality in a religion is usually a codification of the morality of the founders, so for Christian morality is now 2000 years out of date, which explains why it struggles to work in our modern world. Christianity had very little to say about slavery and although some individual Christians acted with huge moral stature many did not and organised religion as a whole had nothing to say. The anti Semitism and homophobia of the church were and are highly immoral and lead directly to the Holocaust. And the misogyny of many current religions is anachronistic and also immoral.
Religious people often confuse the dogma of their faith with morality, they are not the same. Morality is far, far too important to be left of one part of our society and should not be based on the supernatural. It need to be thought through carefully, and dare I say it, scientifically, with an eye to the kind of society we want to create.

AJ, you are confused on a number of counts, and you don't seem to be trying to understand my position here. I know you cannot prove the existence of a god, and I know that I can't *disprove* the existence of a god. This has no bearing on the moral question whatsoever. Nor, indeed, do my criticisms of your quote from Artigas. Those criticisms stand - I'll just have to ask you to read them again.

"You still have not proven where morals began"

I was not aware that I was under any obligation to prove anything of the sort. At the very best, neither have you. I can tell you where morality applies - the human sphere. You are suggesting that moral behaviour is imposed from outside the system - this is a very strange thing to assert, and if you are indeed asserting that, you need to provide some evidence. On the other hand, suggesting that humans have worked out for themselves several rules and principles which allow them to cohere as social beings - that does not strike me as particularly surprising. Indeed, it strikes me as highly *probable*. That is what I am suggesting is the source of human moral behaviour, whether you're a theist or an atheist.

"you start with the presuppostion of the fact they exsist, you then observe them, and come to the conclusion we created our own morals.
So if we indeed create our "own morals" then whatever we decide to do within a relationship is fine, be it rape, murder, etc."

Er, I start with the OBSERVATION that humans are moral creatures - we apply moral labels to our actions (and these can be quite variable, as you will have observed). "Morals" are not objective entities - we have behaviours which we attach moral labels to. There is a difference. As for the second part of that, it makes no sense at all, and I have no idea why you think it is fine to rape, murder, etc, any more than it being fine to drive on the right side of the road in the UK at 200mph through red lights. You'll need to show your working there.

I should also point out that we see moral behaviour in other species too - not just homo sapiens.

-H

Helio

"I have no idea why you think it is fine to rape, murder, etc, any more than it being fine to drive on the right side of the road in the UK at 200mph through red lights. You'll need to show your working there."

I was trying to state that if we set our own morals then what "dictates" what is moral and what is not.
If for instance I have the urge to murder someone and I consider it to be morally correct then why is it wrong.

Some of society might think murder is wrong but some my think it's right, how do we decide?
Take Hitler for example he and a large part of his army believed they were right.
And so if we judge our own standards of morality who's to say hitler was wrong.

(j)

Guys, quite a good overview of moral development was done by Lawrence Kohlberg. (Apologies if you've seen it before, but if you haven't, its well worth reading as it would probably answer alot of questions about to be asked on this thread.)

May I also suggest that those who base their judgements on the Bible please take a look at the same link and pay special attention to stage one and possibly try moving on to stage two.

AJ

Man is a social creature. He must be part of a group to survive. This was certainly true of early mankind. For a group to work rules are needed, those rules are morals. So, instinctive self preservation compels man to rule about not slaying fellow members of the pack etc etc.
An individual needs society and society must have rules, morality. This morality was not introduced by gods its just natural behaviour.

AJ, you are continuing to commit the fallacy of assuming an external validation for "right" and "wrong". There is no such validator. Humans as a group make these decisions on the basis of the values we hold, and in a society we have to negotiate these, explore them, think them through, and determine how they will affect us in the long run. If you think it is OK to murder, and I don't, I don't appeal to a higher authority. It is clearly in my interest to STOP you murdering someone, because if you think that's OK, I or my friends might be next on your list. And I can get a lot of people on my side, and collectively we will halt your spree. Over the millennia, humans have evolved the mental heuristics for dealing with this sort of thing, and we call it "morality".

I note you paid no attention to my highway code analogy.

Helio

I think we will have to just disagree this is just going around in circles.
Anyhow thanks for the debate, I continue to learn from these exchanges.

J

aj you are the one going round in circles. Everyone else is pointing out that what you say does not make any sense.

PNJ has hit the nail on the head, AJ. There is really nothing coherent in what you're saying. I suggest you sit back and actually have a think about what sorts of behaviours we attach moral labels to, and see if you can identify justifications for "immoral" actions, and *why* we might wish to attach moral labels to certain decisions. At the moment you're not even off the starting blocks. One thing you should definitely do is ditch any apologetic texts you may have on the topic. Work this out for yourself, then go back and take note of where they have made their errors. That's the best way to learn. [Hint: most of these guys simply parrot nonsense they have read elsewhere; most apologists are not very bright, and those few that are tend to be verbal reasoners rather than visual, which is why they can't cut it in the sciences].

"most apologists... tend to be verbal reasoners rather than visual..."

Eye sea.

An answer to the question of "Why" has been elusive. However, I recommend the following paper R. E. Morel and George Fleck, 鈥淎 Fourth Law of Thermodynamics,鈥� Khimiya, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 305鈥�308 (2006), as a window to understanding why matter and energy self-organize into dissipative structures in nonliving as well as living systems from cells to civilizations.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.