Morality again!!! Why Believe in Religion (6 of ...)

[hofisito]

well there's a question right, SHOULD God do anything??? I think for God, since He's in theory unchanging, there's nothing He SHOULD do, only what He WOULD do.

lol, well is there such thing as "a" verb?

[pokermaster54]

Post script

The order of my messages might be confusing. It actually goes from bottom to top. This is the fourth message and the first one is 3 posts below.

[hofisito]

I appreciiate your explanation, but I already completely understand your position.

I sent you a message explaning a bit more in detail about a reply

[pokermaster54]

continued

So the majority of us would like to avoid being murdered. And that is the ONLY reason we need to agree on the subjective claim that murder is wrong. And to enforce that agreement all it takes is to codify it into law. When someone breaches that agreement and the deed goes unpunished what is preventing it from happening again? Nothing. Therefore we make sure to punish those who murder.

Morality is an extremely intuitive and simple concept to grasp. It worries me that you don't get it.

[pokermaster54]

morality does not necessitate good and evil. So your basic premise is wrong hofisito. Morality is a social agreement. Nothing more. Murder is not inherently wrong. It is only wrong because humans say it is wrong. The obvious question is why do humans say murder is wrong? And the answer is even more obvious. How would you like to live in a world where it was alright for someone to murder you?

Believing in religion stops you from thinking. It's not hard to figure out morality if you just think.

[hofisito]

ok so let me ask you this...

Nazi Germany created a social construct that Jews should die.

Does that mean if you were an officer in Nazi Germany, then you SHOULD kill Jews???

Of course not! and that's where your view fails imo...

Moreso, your view would make our trials against these officers right after the War completely unsubstantiated. We have no right to "judge" and "punish" them since they were doing EXACTLY what they SHOULD be doing in your opinion...

[pokermaster54]

There is nothing inherently wrong about Nazis killing Jews. But homo sapiens have brains that are hard wired to avoid certain things. One of them is murder. The vast majority of mankind don't want to be murdered. So what is the most sensible way to decrease the likelihood of you being killed? By agreeing with your fellow beings to not kill one another.

The Holocaust was a flagrant breach of that tacit contract. When you get rid of religion morality becomes simple to understand.

[hofisito]

What you have is a valid THEORY/EXPLANATION about how morality works. BUT... just because you have an EXPLANATION for something, doesn't mean YOUR explanation for how morality works is correct.

The problem is... that your theory doesn't account for certain observations about the world (and that's why I think it's wrong).

ie... "There i nothing inherently wrong about Nazis killing Jews." idk... if I had a theory that lead me to say something like that, I'd double check my theory...

[Woootloops]

Nothing, nothing at all points to morality being objective. Everything points to it being subjective.

Objective morality vs subjective morality is like creationism vs evolution.

[hofisito]

socially constructed genocide doesn't point to it being objective???

[Woootloops]

How on Earth does that point to objectivity?

[pokermaster54]

God is necessary to explain morality. That claim implies that murder is ok as long as there is no god.

I don't believe for a second that you honestly think that meaningful morality does not exist without god. If you did then the ineluctable corollary of that is that if god was disproved(methodologically impossible but hypothetically), you would go out and murder someone. Your quote seems appropriate here.

"if I had a theory that lead me to say something like that, I'd double check my theory"

[pokermaster54]

You simply don't get it. Which is sad.

Murder is wrong. Not inherently wrong, but to human beings it is wrong. The reason should be obvious to you and I am somewhat irked and disappointed at the same time for having to repeatedly spell it out for you.

Do you like the idea of someone murdering you? Would it be presumptuous of me to answer "no" for you? The answer is universal almost without exception among happy human beings.

Next post

[Woootloops]

I think there is a problem with what you are saying from the beginning. If you asked me what you should use that pen for, I would reply "Whatever you like". It's a subjective question.

Just because the pen was made for writing does not mean you should write with it. You could do a numerous amount of things with it. How you use it, is however you decide you should use it. The "should" is your subjective preference.

Similarly, there is no objective "should" to being good or evil.

[hofisito]

so let me ask you this... is there a difference between the words "should" and "could"

cuz I really think you're mixing up the two...

Yes I COULD do anything with a pen, but not SHOULD do anything.

[Woootloops]

You could do anything with a pen, but whether or not you should do one of those things over the other is a subjective question. You determine what you should do, because what you decide you should do, is based off of the values you assign to certain things.

[hofisito]

So I asked cuz I thought you might say that (we talk alot :) ).

So next question, is there a difference between what you "should" do with a pen and what you "would" do with a pen?

[Woootloops]

There is no difference. Whatever you decide you would do, is what you think you should do, because if you didn't think you should do it, you wouldn't do it.

[Woootloops]

Now, you may say to yourself, that if you wish to be the most moral or sincere, you should do "this over "that", but ultimately, you valued something else more, and you decided that that is what you should do over all other possible actions, which is exactly why you did it.

[hofisito]

so I think you've proven my point.

Your theory defines should as would. I don't think that idea is intirely obvious (that should=would) possible yes... obviously true???? no...

There are those of us that think there is a difference between what someone would do and what they should do (ie... what someone SHOULD do is independent of their desires. Hitlery SHOULD NOT kill Jews even if he WOULD do it)

I think if you ask any Jew that came out of the holocaust, they would agree...

[Woootloops]

Your counter to everything is "well you can't objectively prove it" when you have nothing that supports your own argument.

You think that there is an objective "should", but you have no intellectual support for thinking that.

Why shouldn't Hitler kill the Jews? You can bring up numerous reasons why he shouldn't, but none of your reasons why he shouldn't will mean anything to him unless they align with his values. "Should" statements are subjective, what I've said is proof. WHY am I wrong?

[hofisito]

so I think I'm gonna make a new video on basica moral reasoning so our words actually mean the same thing when we say it. I'm thinking that we're encountering semantic problems.

Got another question for you though in the mean time.

What PROOF do you have that we make moral judgments based on our subjective values/preferences??? and not on moral intuitions of truth?

[Woootloops]

Once again, you fail to give any reason why you might be correct, and I wrong, but I'll still answer your question.

"Should' judgements are do not always encompass moral judgements. When you are deciding what you should do with the pen, morality has nothing to do with it. You decide, on the basis of your preferences and values in regard to the actions you might accomplish with the pen, that you should do one action over all of them.

[Woootloops]

That is what I would call practical proof for the subjectivity of "should" statements, which is what we were talking about.

Now you could easily make me smash my head into my monitor and say that non-moral actions are decided through "action intuition", which is just as baseless as saying there is a "moral intuition", but I pray that you will be reasonable, and in seeing how stupid it would be to say that there is an "action intuition", in turn see how stupid it is to say there is a moral one.

[hofisito]

Also... you also don't need that "big God in the sky" to have a should, but you definately need something MORE than just a mechanical view of the universe.

You can decide for yourself I guess what that "more" is.

[hofisito]

lol... Do I sense an Ad Hominum...

I think you're misunderstanding what I was saying...

I'm takling about the "nature" of evolution being random [a metaphysical property] as opposed to the "mechanism" of evolution [the scientific/physical property], which yea.. isn't random.

Evolution has two steps:

1. Variation

2. Selection

And yea... when those pair up, a non-random selection is made [but that's the mechanics of evolution]

[hofisito]

Now what IS random about evolution is the GENERATION of variation and selection.

Mutation is the biggest generator of variation and yea... the metaphysical nature of evolution as it stands says that MUTATIONS are GENERATED randomly.

That's what's pertinent to what I'm saying because of the NATURE of evolution as it stands is purposeless.

you are right, selecting for variation is NOT ranodm,

BUT, the generation of variation IS...

[hofisito]

Furthermore... since natural selection has no purpose for us, then we effectively don't have a functional morality.

What we ARE left with is what Richard Dawkins says, that morality is something that has arisen due to natural selection.

Now in that case, as I said before, morality is now something we "would" do [given evolution], but it is no longer something we "should" do [given purpose by a creator].

To an evolutionist, the should of morality is a facade...

[hofisito]

Since I believe I really SHOULD do good... [not just would do something cuz that's what evolution has selected for me to do],

I'm forced to believe that I have a purpose to do good things,

which means I'm forced to believe there's a creator that has given me this purpose.

You can have good/evil without God, but in order to believe that you SHOULD do good, you need a purpose.

[TWCGroup]

Evolution already has a God, it's called natural selection. You would know this already if you actually majored in evolution.

[TWCGroup]

"Doesn't evolution prove we we're created by random chance."

You say you majored in evolution (I'm assuming you're talking about biological evolution). yet you're very first statement connotates the exact opposite of organisms evolving via natural selection and that every species on the planet is decendant from a single common ancestor. There is no random chance in evolution.

[TWCGroup]

I'd really love to know what bullshit school you went to that gave you such a unique understanding of biological evolution. The theory of evolution holds just as much(if not more) merit than the theory of relativity and the theory of gravity.

Remain an ignoramus and worship a non-existent being if you must, but don't delude other people along the way.

[LimpLoser]

TWCGroup.

* Mutation

* Variation

* Natural Selection

Mutations are random

Variation ( in this context ) is the difference that comes from Mutation

Natural Selection ( or sifting ) is also random. Convergent Evolution shows that creatures living in similar Environments give rise to similar bodies and behaviours

In what way is Natural Selection NOT random? ive heard this before but it never makes sense.

[TWCGroup]

This notion that natural selection is both a non-random process and an undirected one at the same time can lead to confusion. The concept is essentially that this mechanism lends itself to increasing complexity because it builds in cumulative steps.

[TWCGroup]

For a step to be cumulative, it (quite obviously) must be based on the previous step. A random process does not lend itself to cumulative steps because, by definition, it is not based on anything. So in this way natural selection is non-random. But it also does not look to end in the phenotype of a tiger or a bat. It has no conscience, merely results. For this reason, it is undirected.

[TWCGroup]

But the second key ingredient in evolution is random mutation. Natural selection acts on things that are already there. Without random mutations, there isnt much there; certainly not enough to account for the great genetic variation seen within species today.

[TWCGroup]

Evolution has a strong random element, but natural selection is not a random process. It is this mechanism which gives rise to the great complexity seen in all living organisms today. It does not indicate what the result will be, but it does explain that complexity can be. It builds, in cumulative steps, toward greater adaptability.

[TWCGroup]

"Convergent Evolution shows that creatures living in similar Environments give rise to similar bodies and behaviours"

"In what way is Natural Selection NOT random?"

You just answered your own question.

[LimpLoser]

TWCGroup: undirected? thats means random doesnt it?

also, when i brought up Convergent Evolution it was done on purpose: the lynch pin or foundation stone--whatever u wanna call it--, is still randomness. As long as Mutations are the Foundation of change then Evolution is random.

the Enviroment is a Ignorant force-- like Gravity. It is randomly acting on the bodies and behaviours of living things.

or am i wrong?

[TWCGroup]

Mutation is random but natural selection only favors those mutations which are beneficial, not just any random mutation.

100 photos of the opposite sex are chosen at random(mutation). Which ones will you select? The hot ones, the normal ones or the hideous ones?(Natural selection) Of course you will not just say "I'll take anyone of them at random!"

[TWCGroup]

You're going to pick the hot ones, just as natural selection will choose the beneficial mutations. Just because they are random does not mean natural selection will take them as they are.

[hofisito]

My beef with evolutionary theory as it stands is that it provides no scientific evidence that randomness can generate "hot ones" so to speak.

The only thing they use as evidence is the evidence of commen ancestry.

this, is not, in and of itself, evidence that random mutations can generate "hot ones"

I think it is far more likely to believe that mutations are therefore NOT generated randomly, and that natural selection works on those mutations generated by a creative force.

[hofisito]

As we come to learn even better exactly how complex life is... I think it will become increasingly obvious that even the "baby steps" of variation proposed by neodarwinism are in and of themselves not rationally explained by a random generator.

[hofisito]

for example...

a simple small protein of 100 amino acids long... can make 20^100 different proteins.

That's a number greater than the estimated atoms in the universe...

When we know that enzymes work together with substrates in a "lock and key" mechanism... it baffles me to think that ppl actually believe the creative variation necessary in evolution can be explained through random generation

[hofisito]

Oh yes... btw, this "creative force" that generations functional and purposeful mutations (instead of the random ones currently thought by evolution) is what I would call an intelligent designer/creator

[LimpLoser]

TWCGroup: comparing Natural Selection to human sexual preference is problematic ( however amusing )

Natural Selection does not have a mind: does not have goals, does not want, does not care, does not have a brain to care with. But its not random? its not even real its an idea that we have transposed onto the external world. There is no force called Natural Selection, its essentially human fantasy.

[TWCGroup]

Obviously this conversation is doing nothing for you.

Believe whatever you want.

[LimpLoser]

TWCGroup: fuck off then you probably live with your Mom and sexually molest your 2 yr old cousin.

[TWCGroup]

Only after I fuck your dog in front of your grandparents while your father and mother jerk you off whilst watching.

[LimpLoser]

TWCGroup. how mature of you. i guess your just a troll