Greg Bahnsen - Problems for Unbelieving Worldviews (part 6)

[gvassi17]

I love how consistent Mr.Bahnsen is... just takes everything to its logical conclusion which exposes its absurdity...

[nextluther12]

Bahnsen is truly missed. He was one of the best apologist in the whole of the Christian Church.

[funhistory]

Pretty girl picks her nose at 1:54 - 1:56, then notices the camera 4 seconds later & wipes it as an introduction to the 4th problem for unbelievers of Personal Freedom & Human Dignity.

[matternicuss]

we bury our dead because we know (whether instinctively or through experience) that dead bodies harbor disease. we have rituals known as funerals because we have empathy, both for the dead and the living who knew the person. funerals are a way for the living to cope, not for the dead. and other animals do show rational and or empathetic behavior around dead things (elephants), it's just most animals are not sophisticated enough to create rituals.

[Xerxal]

"If naturalism is true..."

Dr Bahnsen's argument is that if the atoms have fallen in my brain in such a way that I'm not going to believe in naturalism, and the atoms have fallen in your brain so that you will believe it, then there is no reason to argue the point. We can't help what the chemicals in our brain are doing. His argument is that naturalism doesn't comport with a universe in which argument is possible.

[jaynkay100]

@Xerxal If consciousness is an emergent property of the arrangement the cells in our brain conform to, and if concepts, disagreements and argumentation stem from a conscious population, then "chemicals and atoms" do indeed allow for argumentation.

There is no basis for asserting there 'needs' to be anything more, other than the denial of the obvious.

[Xerxal]

@jaynkay100 If conciousness conforms to the arrangement of matter in our brains, then that falls right back into Bahnsen's argument. One cannot help the way his brain is arranged.

To say that argumentation amounts to one concious blob of matter bumping into another is really a twisting of the definition of "argumentation." An argument is a reasoned exchange.

[Xerxal]

@jaynkay100 If the only reason our ideological positions are as they are is because of our brain chemicals, then, again, there is no reason to argue with one another as though we could change the other's brain chemicals through vocal utterances.

Furthermore, it's a pretty big leap to say something like a conciousness could somehow emerge from any sort of matter. The properties of a conciousness are in no way similar to any known form of matter.

[jaynkay100]

@Xerxal As I've stated, utter denial of the obvious. You say the properties of consciousness are in no way similar to any form of matter, but consciousness is a property of the form matter takes in a functional brain. The functional brain is a form of matter, having consciousness. Furthermore 'reason' is a process of said consciousness, thus argumentation emerges as a reasoned exchange, generated by two conscious brains. You fail to recognize the necessary hierarchy of ideas.

[Xerxal]

@jaynkay100 I understand that you think your position is "obvious," but I disagree. I think conciousness is a spiritual state that is spacially facilitated by a functional brain. One's conciousness is one's soul, and I believe it will continue to exist after one's brain ceases functioning. Can I prove this? Not directly, no. But neither can you prove that a conciousness is founded solely on matter and chemicals.

[jaynkay100]

@Xerxal Can one help the way one's brain is arranged? Can one definitively convince another of one's position in an argument? Why is it that emotional appeals compel people to act more readily than logical arguments? Emotions are chemically driven, and have a broader impact on brain chemistry than logic tends to. Case and point, no matter how logical my argument, you aren't going to agree with me. Our emotions play a larger role in our decisions than reason does.

[Xerxal]

@jaynkay100 I also think my explanation makes more intuitive sense. The experience of seeing, or thinking, shares no commonality with any material entity. Sure, eyes and brains are related to seeing and thinking, but they are not like seeing and thinking.

[Xerxal]

@jaynkay100 "Why is it that emotional appeals compel people to act more readily than logical arguments?"

This isn't relevant to Bahnsen's argument. Under your materialist view, one cannot help the way his brain will respond to some emotional (or logical) stimulus, so the concept of "reason" would still be impossible. Sure, there is the illusion of reason, but of itself it can't change anything in a person.

[jaynkay100]

@Xerxal Reason creates the set of rules one must follow to arrive at a the truth of a proposition most accurately. Reason is not a "thing that changes people." Its a series of steps. A VERB. "To reason." is to follow the rules of logic. Those rules, btw, are reflections BY a mind, not OF a mind, on the nature and behavior of existence. To think logically is to conform as closely to reality as possible.

Reason is a behavior.

[Xerxal]

@jaynkay100 By "reason," I mean debate or argument. I apologize if that wasn't as contextually clear as I thought it was.

[jaynkay100]

@Xerxal Let me ask you this. How can there be consciousness outside of existence? No body, no matter, so "What is conscious?" What is aware of stuff? There is plenty to back the claim that consciousness exists within a body/brain, but what do you have to back up your claim? You said you can't prove it, thus you have no reason to believe its objectively true either. I just say "I don't know about souls." and stick to what I DO know instead.

[Xerxal]

@jaynkay100 My reason for believing in souls is because they are a part of the Christian worldview, to which I adhere. I can experience my soul simply by experiencing anything, as I can't concieve of my mind being composed of matter. I would say that God is the definitive being, and He is immaterial, so the notion of an immaterial consciousness isn't far-fetched to me.

[jaynkay100]

@Xerxal "By "reason," I mean debate or argument" You also state "Sure, there is the illusion of reason, but of itself it can't change anything in a person." To this point you must mean argument only carries the illusion of being able to change someone's mind. I agree. A good argument doesn't win hearts, I'm afraid.

[Xerxal]

@jaynkay100 " I agree. A good argument doesn't win hearts, I'm afraid."

So, armed with that knowledge, is there any reason to debate if your materialist worldview is true?

The point here, as you'll see if you study Bahnsen, is to take something the non-Christian believes to be true and valid, (such as the notion of argument) and show that it couldn't be what he believes it to be if his worldview were true.

[jaynkay100]

@Xerxal Mental stimulation and the transmission of ideas are reason enough to debate. It is entirely possible to affect one's opinions or bring to light new information. And if your soul is responsible for your awareness, then cut our your brain. If your brain is responsible for awareness, you need no soul. Lastly a being cannot BE if he has no composition, and composition requires material or substance to be composed of. I'm sorry but your worldview is incoherent.

[Xerxal]

@jaynkay100 "It is entirely possible to affect one's opinions or bring to light new information."

Right, because your materialist worldview is false. If it were true, one's opinions could not be affected by any amount of new information. You were more on course with your worldview when you said debate was just a form of mental exercise people do: that it's just a behavior that has no rationale behind it.

[Xerxal]

@jaynkay100 "if your soul is responsible for your awareness, then cut our your brain."

I said earlier that I believe the brain facilitates our awareness in this life. This is the way I believe God has set things up. He may or may not set things up differently later.

"Lastly a being cannot BE if he has no composition, and composition requires material or substance to be composed of."

I didn't say God had no composition, He just isn't composed of matter as we understand it.

[jaynkay100]

@Xerxal Bahnsen employs skepticism to break apart a non-christian worldview, however he still cannot explain how his worldview solves any of these problems. For instance if we cannot utilize reason and know the world is intelligible, then we cannot know the Bible is even a real book.

[Xerxal]

@jaynkay100 "he still cannot explain how his worldview solves any of these problems."

I beg to differ. Bahnsen spend a good deal of his career doing just that, though perhaps not to everyone's satisfaction. To take your example, I do believe that we can utilize reason and know the world through experience because I believe God created an intelligible world and made man's mind such that we can understand it.

[niggaids]

@jaynkay100 You can't even get off the ground with what "reason," is and how you know it works within a material worldview. In your worldview you can't make free decisions and your bound to say the things you do because of nature/physics. You can't help but type back a response, nature demanded it. You aren't "arguing," but rather just subject to nature. That isn't what we've seen in the past when we talk about reason and if you can you get over there not being a God, get over this.

[jaynkay100]

@niggaids Tell me how God's omniscience creates freedom in your life. Tell me how YOUR nature, doesn't govern you. Tell me how you are NOT subject to nature. How can you back this up without unsubstantive claims?

How can YOUR reason get off the ground without relying on the very concepts you claim are invalid??

You can't. Your foolish if you believe otherwise.

[Xerxal]

"Also, he isn't exactly up on the current state of evolutionary theory or linguistics; there are sophisticated, plausible hypotheses about each of the points he mentions, and work is being done on developing explanations."

Dr Bahnsen died about 16 years ago. These videos were done in the wake of his debates with Stein, Smith, and Tabash.

I don't think evolutionary theory has justified itself at its core. It requires we believe in life from nonlife, mind from matter, ought from is, (cont)

[DevoutAtheist42]

"Do you see anything in the animal that is like unto a funeral?"

As somebody already said, some of the more intelligent animals are able to recognise other individuals and grieve when they die. Lots of other primates do it. Even magpies, which are very intelligent birds, have been observed gently pecking a dead bird, flying off, and returning with some tufts of dead grass, which they left next to the body, a behaviour which doesn't have an obvious adaptive rationale.

[DevoutAtheist42]

Dr. Bahnsen states something like the following:

If naturalism is true, the naturalist has no reason to believe it.

If naturalism is true, determinism is true.

If determinism is true, human thought is predictable, governed by the laws of physics;

Therefore, naturalism leads to unreliable beliefs.

A compatibilist determinist would reject this conclusion. Evolution can take place in a deterministic world, and true-belief-tracking systems, being highly adaptive, can evolve in such a world.

[DevoutAtheist42]

Also, he isn't exactly up on the current state of evolutionary theory or linguistics; there are sophisticated, plausible hypotheses about each of the points he mentions, and work is being done on developing explanations.

Game Theory, despite the name, is a serious tool for discovering the most beneficial behaviours for a group or for an individual. In certain cases, the best behaviour for each is, guess what??? something pretty close to altruism.

[DevoutAtheist42]

People should lose a little confidence in a speaker every time he/she says anything implying that "unbelievers" or atheists secretly know God. I think Dr. Bahnsen has made more interesting points in the five preceding videos than Dinesh D'Souza in his whole career, but he really drops the ball in this one.

The atheist *does not believe* in any such being as God; is that so hard to understand? We can't deny what doesn't exist! It's a nonsensical assertion.

[Entropy56]

I have an announcement.

I am an Atheist.

I don't have a defense for my Atheism.

I am therefore living an absurd life.

I am going to Hell.

I didnt vote for Obama.

[spgdmin]

"I am an Atheist...I am going to Hell."

Are you sure?

[fiercegallantry]

As far as I know, it's not an experience per se. It seems to be innate knowledge.

I evidence this knowledge every time I cross the street, as do you.

[UnBeguiled]

OK. What I am calling instinct you are calling revelation from God.

[fiercegallantry]

Probably.

The difference is that revelation has a purpose -- that we might know -- and can thus provide a basis for knowledge.

Instinct, in an atheist universe, is undirected and has no deliberate purpose. It is not infallible, merely incorrigible. It does not povide a sound basis for knowledge.

[UnBeguiled]

"in an atheist universe"

Well, your "basis of knowledge" is letting you down. That phrase makes no sense.

[fiercegallantry]

I should have said "athiestic" universe or "materialistic" or even "undirected" unverse.

My brain often gets ahead of my fingers...

[fiercegallantry]

Because He has revealed that datum through his prophets & apostles.

[UnBeguiled]

So you use your eyes to read the bible, that teaches you God has revealed himself to all men, and that he is trustworthy, so we can trust our senses.

So you rely on your eyes to demonstrate how you can rely on your eyes? I think you are begging the question.

[fiercegallantry]

No, sense perception is not the ultimate basis of knowledge. The self-revelation of God is the ultimate basis of knowledge.

[UnBeguiled]

So you don't rely on your senses?

How do you cross the street?

Don't you see how ridiculous you are being? As a child, you used your senses before you had any notion of God. You used your senses FIRST, and then were taught about God, and then later were taught this laughable presuppositionalism.

Thanks for the conversation. Happy Hunting.

[fiercegallantry]

Incorrect.

Yes, I use my senses, but they are not the utlimate source of knowledge. The last century of philosophical debate has shown conclusively that sense percetption *cannnot* be the ultimate foundation of sense perception.

I use my sense perceptions because the Christian world-view allows me to do so. The self-revelation of God precedes sense perception.

[UnBeguiled]

"I use my sense perceptions because the Christian world-view allows me to do so. The self-revelation of God precedes sense perception."

So this revelation happened to you in early infancy? Tell me about that experience.

[fiercegallantry]

If you really understood my question, you would begin to understand Bahnsen's lecture.

Evidently, you think that you have an adequate answer to the questions that philosophers have raised, even though the philosphers themselves do not find your answer anywhere near adequate.

[UnBeguiled]

I have never claimed to solve the problem of induction. I assume that today's future will be like the past's future, just like every other animal that evolved on this planet. This assumption seems to work so far.

How do you cross the street?

[fiercegallantry]

"This assumption seems to work so far."

A viciously circular argument for induction: Induction has worked so far, so it will probably work in the future.

I cross the street by trusting in the knowledge that God has given me -- just like you. The only difference is that I acknowledge my debt to God.

[UnBeguiled]

How do you know this knowledge can be trusted?

[fiercegallantry]

God's character is trustworthy.

[UnBeguiled]

How do you know God's character is trustworthy?

[fiercegallantry]

From the impossibility of the contrary.

[UnBeguiled]

And how do you learn that?

[fiercegallantry]

All knowledge ultimately depends on the self-revelation of God.

Do you have a better explanantion?

[UnBeguiled]

I see. God personally revealed that you can trust your senses.

How do you know this 'revelation' is not really an evil demon tricking you? How do you know this 'revelation' is not a hallucination? How do you know this 'revelation' is not false information fed to your brain in a vat?

What is the simplest explanation of why animals use and trust their senses?

It is instinct. All animals from the day we are born must use and trust our senses. It is innate. Instinctive. We have no choice.

[fiercegallantry]

Yes.

God has revealed Himself to all men, incuding you. You prove that you have this knowledge of God when you cross the street.

"We have no choice."

Incorrigble is not the same as infallible.

[UnBeguiled]

"God has revealed Himself to all men, including you."

How do you know that God has revealed Himself to all men, including me?

[fiercegallantry]

Sorry. Tired & impatient with uneducated replies. Getting sloppy.

Earlier post should read:

"There is _*no*_ reason (on radical empiricist grounds) for you to believe that your sense perceptions correspond to the external world *at all,* no matter how imperfectly."

Please, no more red herrings.

[fiercegallantry]

I read quite well. Thank you for your concern.

You say that you remember crossing the street. But what was that memory based on, if not sense perception? Or do you remember someone telling you that you crossed the street?

In epistemology, philosophers call this question "the egocentric predicament." It asks how you know there is a world outside of your own mind. Sense perception turns out to be an inadequate basis for claiming "Yes."

Read up. This is not a new problem.

[UnBeguiled]

Yeah I'm aware that we cannot 'prove' an external world. So what? I don't need to prove it to get by. A person does not need absolute certainty to get by in the world.

I don't think I understand your point. Yes my memory is based on sense perception, which must be accurate enough, as I am currently living.

[fiercegallantry]

No, the problem is much worse than you make it out to be.

On radical-empiricist grounds you have no basis at all for thinking that tht you know anything about the external world. There is reason (on radical empiricist grounds) for you to believe that your sense perceptions correspond to the external world *at all,* no matter how imperfectly.

[UnBeguiled]

You are really getting silly.

My dogs are very good at functioning by relying on their senses, memory, and experience. All animals, such as me and you, must rely on our evolved senses and brains.

[fiercegallantry]

I only seem silly because you don't understand the problem.

I agree that we can use our senses to learn about the world. I am saying that *on radical empiricist grounds,* you cannot justify doing so.

From a radical empiricist perspective you know that your senses are (imperfectly) reliable because your senses tell you so. This a a vicous circle, not a legitimate argument.

When you use your senses, you are not acting like a *consistent* radical empiricist.

[UnBeguiled]

What's with the labeling? That is not helpful.

My point is I don't need to have an absolute answer to all questions. I'm comfortable with uncertainty.

We are evolved to use our senses. Using our senses is innate. It's an instinct requiring no justification. We just function that way. If an animal did not rely on its senses, it would quickly die.

I am alive.

My senses and reason and experience work. Science works.

[fiercegallantry]

So, when academic philosophers talk about "the egocentric predicament" or "the problem of induction" or "the problem of universals," they're just being silly? Really???

All knowledge claims require a justification. You have yet to provide a justification for your claim that sense perception provides a valid basis for knowledge.

BTW: Sorry, I didn't realize that using proper philosophical terminology was considered "labeling" in these here parts.

[UnBeguiled]

"All knowledge claims require a justification. You have yet to provide a justification for your claim that sense perception provides a valid basis for knowledge."

I am an animal. All animals rely on their senses.  We must. Thats how we live.

So, you don't find my answers satisfactory. I can live with that.

How do you cross a street?

[UnBeguiled]

And if you decide to answer, why don't you just send me a private message. I feel like we're bogarting this message thread.

[fiercegallantry]

Ooops. My earlier post should say "There is *no* reason (on radical empiricist) grounds for you to beleive that your sense perceptions *at all*.

...Which is why your talk about not needing certainty is a red herring...

[fiercegallantry]

Oh, your senses.

So you are relying on your senses to tell you that your senses are reliable.

Thanks for that explanation.

[UnBeguiled]

Can you read? I said I remember it. Memory is not a sense.

As you recall, I know my senses are reliable BECAUSE I AM ALIVE.

Try again.

[fiercegallantry]

Allegedly.

But how do you know you crossed the street?

[UnBeguiled]

Because I remember it.

My senses are are not always perfect and my memory sometimes fails me, but absolute certainty is not required for a person to get by.

[kamajiboy]

boring

[groundless]

He's teaching platonism for the masses.

[fiercegallantry]

No, he's not. It only seems like Platonism compared to modern empiricist wrold-views.

Elsewhere, Bahnsen critiques Platonism. Quite effectively, in fact.

[Harpakhrad11]

Bahnsen's arguments are starting to get really ridicules. I am starting to wounder who these "Unbelievers" are, if there are any.

[a5dr3]

Could you demonstrate an argument that is ridiculous and why?

[Harpakhrad11]

He states that the dignity of human life (or rather post-human life) stems from a innate understanding of mans divine nature. He then goes on to talk about the way most people feel when their dog dies, but do not feel that way when a cockroach dies. Why? Do to a personal connection to the dog, he believes we a anthropomorphizing the dog. Does anyone feel more for a man they have never known, then the dog they have known for years? I, for one, do not.

[Harpakhrad11]

The value of a beings life in the lives of others is a far more difficult equation then what he is presenting. The corpse of a man and the corpse of a dog are both objects. We endow objects with the powers we project into them.

[Harpakhrad11]

One must also turn a blind eye to every civilization that had ever held animals sacred and performed rituals at the death of the animal; if we are to take this position seriously.

[Harpakhrad11]

He also brings up courts and slaughterhouses. As if courts had always existed and all men ate meat.

I'm I misunderstanding him here?

[Harpakhrad11]

How many people say all live is of equal value?

The comparison of animals used for meat to carrots is absurd. The sentient powers of a carrot is not on the same par as that of any animal.

[dashpowers22]

This series is nothing but a survey of the idle skepticism that riddles philosophy.

[a5dr3]

No, it is a transcendental argument for why Christianity is apodictically true.

[dashpowers22]

If you are satisfied with the arguments he posits then thats your problem but don't try and convince someone who can reason past the skepticism that Christianity is beyond dispute because of it. Read a book.

[pedicabdr1ver]

i wonder what bahnsen would have had to say about the fact that man wasn't to eat meat until after the fall

[1980PintoMan]

Why? And it wasn't till after the flood.

[pedicabdr1ver]

my point is simply that this shows that god does place some value on animal life. it's why i get so frustrated every time someone makes the claim that god put animals here for us to eat. not in the garden of eden, he didn't. we were meant to be their guardians and caretakers, not their consumers.

[1980PintoMan]

ok, sure. But after the fall it was not a perfect world.

[pedicabdr1ver]

oh, i agree totally. but i still believe that we should try to live up that ideal. i believe that all life should be treated with respect, but i don't go as far as to place animal life on the same level as human life.

[1980PintoMan]

Niether does Bahnsen.

[UnBeguiled]

Neanderthals cooked their food and wore clothes. They also buried their dead with flowers. How does Bahnsen account for that?

They were non-human.

Elephants and Chimps grieve for the dead. Bahnsen is just flat wrong. We are animals. With big brains, that's all.

[a5dr3]

invariant physical laws which would in theory destroy the ability to make human(free agency)evaluations,(a precondition of meaningful grief)is very different than actually giving a "reason" But, of course, there r theistic evolutionists out there that would not challenge your process but just the coherence of your overall naturalistic epistemology.

[a5dr3]

I think Bahnsen would probably deny that there was a such thing as neanderthals, compare and contrast the differences between a chimps so called greif and a human funeral etc. and then mention that proposing a "cause" or what amount to a series of antecedent, physical, biological explanantions determined wholly by determinate

[UnBeguiled]

I'm not sure if you have anything interesting to contribute or not. Perhaps you should use standard punctuation and complete sentences. Grammar, like logic, is a tool used by by certain primates to facilitate communication.

[a5dr3]

Thanks for adding to the dialogue. Your very thoughtful and open minded. Not only do you make important, valid points in your response but you also demonstrate a lot of class. What a pleasure to hear from a mature critical thinker who doesn't just sophistically try and slur his opponent when he can't think of a valid response or worthwhile critical evaluation to the topics at hand. I'm really interested in pursuing further discussion with you.

[UnBeguiled]

"Your very thoughtful and open minded."

That's either a sentence fragment or you botched the contraction of 'you are'.

Sophistry? Your accusation of slur without warrant is itself a slur.

If the last sentence is true, send me a private message so we can dispense with the pissing contest too common in the comments section.

[1980PintoMan]

That was total nonsense.

[1980PintoMan]

Then there is no reason to treat anyone with dignity is there? Elephants and Chimps don't have funerals. How do you account for rational thought?

[UnBeguiled]

"Then there is no reason to treat anyone with dignity is there?"

I'm not sure how that follows from my comments. Please elaborate.

"Elephants and Chimps don't have funerals."

Granted, but they grieve. I understood Bahnsen's comments about human grief rituals to mean that he thought only humans grieved.  If that's what he meant, he's wrong.

"How do you account for rational thought?"

Rational thought is a trait present in some animals. Traits evolve.

[1980PintoMan]

Rational thought is not present in any animals, give me an example and I'll tear it apart for you. You have no reason to treat anyone with dignity, they are just animals. Quit borrowing from Christianity.

[UnBeguiled]

PintoMan:

When I need to cross the street, I use my eyes and ears to help predict if the way is clear before proceeding. If it's clear, I cross, if not, I wait.

That's an example of rationality: using our senses along with our past experience to make decisions.

[1980PintoMan]

That is not an example of an animal using rational thought, which is what I asked for and you said existed.

[UnBeguiled]

"That is not an example of an animal using rational thought, which is what I asked for and you said existed."

Well I gave a concrete example of what 'rationality' means to me. Rationality must mean something different to you.

Please respond via private message. There is not enough space here.

[Harpakhrad11]

To say that animals lack rational thought you have to ignore the entire field of Animal Behaviorism.

[UnBeguiled]

An animal that consistently behaves irrationally will quickly die. My dogs drink water, not dirt. Squirrels avoid car tires, and gazelles run from leopards. Even a bacteria responds rationally to it's environment.

This claim that humans are the only 'rational' animals is absurd.

[Tancred2006]

When was the last time you saw a squirrel write a modus tollens syllogism down on a blackboard and teach it to his friends? When was the last time a bacterium committed the fallacy of 'affirming the consequent?'

You're putting an ambiguity where there is none, making a term defined one way to mean something else. Animals do not behave rationally or irrationally. And if naturalism is right, neither do we, but all are just acting out randomly assigned chemical codes.

Define rationality.

[UnBeguiled]

Rationality is behavior that is justified by accurate sensible data.

[fiercegallantry]

How does an atheist know that his senses are accurate?

How does an atheist draw inferences outward from sense perception?

Etc.

[UnBeguiled]

What are you talking about? My senses get me across the street safely, that's how I know they work.

[fiercegallantry]

Really?

Really???

How do you know that you got across the street safely?

[UnBeguiled]

"How do you know that you got across the street safely?"

I am alive.

[UnBeguiled]

Rationality is behavior that is justified by accurate sensible data.

[DevoutAtheist42]

One thing evolution by natural selection clearly shows us is that there can be "free-floating reasons," behaviours on the part of organisms which have rational justifications even though the organism is not aware of them. I have to disagree with UnBeguiled; bacteria and squirrels can behave rationally without being rational creatures.

But he's right that there are other rational animals. The differences between us and, say, chimpanzees or bonobos really are in degree, not kind.

[Klaratu]

unbeguiled your absurd! look at your foolish argument! just look at it!

[UnBeguiled]

I disagree. Homo Sapiens are animals that have evolved a capacity for abstract thinking and complex language. Other animals on this planet seem not to have this capacity to the same degree.

But the way I understand rationality, all animals are rational. They behave the way they do for reasons. They are reasonable.

[kisstheclowns]

Explain or theorize how morality evolves from amorality, perhaps a gland? So if abstract universals "evolve" that would mean they are neither abstract nor universal.... interesting.

[UnBeguiled]

Morality, the way I use the word, means a sense we have that governs our behavior. For most people, it has to do with promotion and nurturing of happiness and the prevention of suffering.  This sense and its behaviors are vital for a well functioning band or small tribe.

I don't understand the gland reference. I did not say abstract universals evolve.

[kisstheclowns]

"I did not say abstract universals evolve."

language is an abstract universal entity. As is morality. Why is the functioning of a small tribe good? What if they function more efficiently by eating babies and raping women? You haven't answered my question and you have responded with question begging. Try again without filling your shovel with another load of dirt. The gland reference was used to illustrate the absurdity of your postulation.

[UnBeguiled]

If we are to have a productive conversation, we should use our language carefully and stick to one thing, rather than jump around. Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by abstract universal, but let's get to that after this first point is hashed out.

You asked that I explain how morality evolved. For more than 90% of our species existence, we lived in tribes. A tribe with members that nurtured and cared for each other would tend to thrive, and hence it's members would propagate.

[JPBuysjr]

@UnBeguiled The dog or squirrel or gazelle is not acting rationally. They are only acting upon an impulse that will help them survive. They are not thinking as if they are "choosing rationally" to run from the lion, they just do it. This is how and why humans are different. The ability to think and choose between options. Just a small example

[UnBeguiled]

@JPBuysjr

Is it your contention that no non-human animal can think and choose between options?

[JPBuysjr]

@UnBeguiled Animals only act upon an impulse that is based on desire. Im not an animal specialist by any means, but one of the fundamental differences again is the moral argument between is and animals. When a lion kills a gazelle or his own cubs, the lion is not murdering the gazelle, it is killing the gazelle. You don walk up to the lion and send it to jail for murdering a gazelle. They are not moral, or rational in the sense of choice

[bs2174]

Awsome series.

[steveohero102]

wow you've totally changed my mind i believe praise jebus praise jebus

[sojoyful]

Good stuff.

[ktorch]

Being a believer is the first mark of the lack of being able to reason. True reasoning and philosophy and the rules that establish the same are far from being bound within the realm of religious writ. How did you ever get out of 5th grade?