The point is; is that you need to be created with prior intent for morality to be more than just some selfish group or individual survival means to be meaningful. To torture animals for mere fun is morally wrong even though this can't jeopardizes mankinds survival in some unknown way. Why have a guilty conscious for the random torture of any breathing creature if we are from mere random chance and evolution? How does such an origin of life affirm what is the truth of right and wrong?
@WILLTHEWGMAN Nr1: Because we have intelligence emphati and emotion (which can ALL be explained by evolution). Secondly, go read a science book for once. Evolution isnt random. We didnt come from random chance. life might have started like that. But we didnt evolve randomly. No, I dont need to be created to be moral. I need Emphati (which you need to survive as a social animal) Emotions (which you also need) and intelligence (which we have because of evolution).
How does a worldview in that life's origin, being from mere random chance affirm any truth of rights or wrongs in what humans are capable of doing? How can we have abilities from evolution like to murder children but call that inhumane or wrong as "truth"? How can rights and wrongs be more than mere opinions with this worldview? Just because some concept of morality may benefit your social needs does not equal an obligation to follow any moral standard as truth.
"No, I dont need to be created to be moral. I need Emphati (which you need to survive as a social animal) Emotions (which you also need) and intelligence (which we have because of evolution). "
This worldview means that we punish criminals not for their freewill to do bad things but because they are less gifted by evolution for such traits. Tell me, how your worldview in any way logically fair? Should we punish wild animals for such unsocial behavior as well?
@WILLTHEWGMAN Its easy. Do you want to live in a bad society or a good society. Anyone who isnt retarded will answer good. Then the question becomes, what do we think is good. I dont want to die, you dont want to die. Ergo: We make a law saying that killing is wrong. Yes, there is no universal moral, moral is just our man made concept. But there is intelligence and emphati, this should be enough for any normal human being with normal social skills to understand morality.
You ask me, "Do you want to live in a bad society or a good society. Anyone who isnt retarded will answer good."
Hitler would have stated he wanted to live in a good society as well, just not our concept of good, this is the whole point I am trying to make to you... What is "good" as a truth and not mere opinion in your worldview????
@WILLTHEWGMAN I already explained that. The reason why Hitlers actions are considered bad is becaues they have more bad quonsequenses then good ones. Thats how you decide weather or not something is good or bad. The outcome of it decides that. Is it going to hurt more people then it benefits, well then it will be observed as bad (at least for outside viewers). There is no objective morality, or objective truth.
You state: " considered bad is becaues they have more bad quonsequenses then good ones. .. "
So in your worldview if there is a homeless man with no family or friends living on the street in a rich neighborhood and all the rich hate the homeless man so they kill him the outcome is more good than bad, this is "good" because in "benefits more people than in will hurt". Also, you use the word "good and "bad" before you have even defined it; "bad consequences" . PS; please learn to spell
@WILLTHEWGMAN iM from norway, pleas stopp assuming things. No, why would killing him have "good benefits"" ???? are you some kind of sick person?
Also, why do you claim there are only two observers in a moral opinion? (the rich guys and the poor guy). There are others to. The people around watching it objectivly. Also, your example fails because that goes back to intelligence and Emphati again. Would the rich people like to be killed if they were poor= No. Ergo= Killing him is wrong.
If we are only biochemical machines without a soul and with no creator of intent, why do we punish criminals for their actions? Should we punish those that commit crimes merely because they were born with differing faculties from this evolutionary process than the majority? How can one have any freewill and culpability in actions in your worldview when they are mere puppets as a biochemical body that evolution dealt them in the hand of life?
@WILLTHEWGMAN Again. Do you want to live in a bad society or a good society. Anyone who answer bad or I dont care is lying. EVERYONE wants to live in a good society, because thats our natural instinct. The reason why we put people away is because they do things to others, that others and the rest of us observe as bad.
Your worldview is that there's no objective good or bad then you use good and bad a objective here...
" EVERYONE" does NOT "want to live in a good society" and what's a "good society" mean anyways? Your philosophy is rather lacking and especially in regard to your own worldview.
Again, please answer this; If we are only biochemical machines puppets without a soul is it just morally in your worldview that we punish all criminals merely because this lacking evolutionary processes...?
@WILLTHEWGMAN Are you some sort of idiot, sorry. I already stated that good and bad is based on our own interpritation of what we want (what most of us want). Combined with intelligence and Emphati this is enough to create a moral system. Good and bad are terms that humans have created. If you think that objective morality exist, then that basicly debunks itself. Because then criminals wouldnt even exist.
Again, please answer this; If we are only biochemical machines puppets without a soul is it just morally in your worldview that we punish all criminals merely because this lacking evolutionary processes. If yes or no, why? Do you think it's fair that we punish criminals for what evolution has given them or failed to give them?
How does morality being objective equal criminals not existing? You really make no sense and fail to even understand your own worldview philosophically.
@WILLTHEWGMAN Was is morally right for the allied forces to kill innocent children in order to defeat totalitarianism? If you get your morality from a god,then you have to know what god wants.Even if there is a god,how do you know what it thinks is right or wrong.Christians get a lot of mileage by asking the questions you do,but the Platonic Socrates exposed your 'divine command' theory of morality thousands of years ago.There's not a person who can't keep asking why? and how?It's not clever.
Morality is instilled in us at birth but so is rational and emotions like selfishness, greed, vanity and lust.. If one is to give credence to Christianity and it's teachings any killing of innocents or enemy is a sin. Turn the other cheek and love your enemy are clear teachings in which killing is never justified. Christian doctrine of morality is a fixed notion as in the very essence and being of God and evil is simply the absence of God as darkness is the absence of light.
There is a substantial difference between altruistic behavioral tendencies or moral feelings and actual ethical obligations and prohibitions. It is the difference between the descriptive and the normative (or prescriptive). We overcome the limitations placed on us by our biology -- as well as the conventions placed upon us by our respective societies -- all the time; there is no reason to let illusory moral feelings obstruct rationality, which is necessarily egoistic.
@ McGinn: So if not god, where did morality come from? And how can we be assured of it's value?
@ Dawkins: He says there's genetic kindness. Kindness is taught, not born (look at kids who grow up exposed to violence, and you'll know). Working in teams is not nessisarily morality, gangs work in teams too. And public service for status, scratch back, "mutual benifits" would suggests we only help someone because we seek the benifits: like a mercenary. Is it unusual to help someone out of goodwill?
@nebula88 Our hard-wired morality got started initially because there were benefits to it, but because of those benefits, genetic morality was selected for by the evolutionary process. We now posses genes that make us tend to help others even if there's no tangible benefit.
@bishop8000 WHen you say "selected", I assume you mean that it survived the process of natural selection, and contributing to "us still being here". If that's the case, I assume that the "gene" of helping others for "no tangible benifits" has contributed to our present day existence. If that's the case...
@nebula88 ...take for the example in Afghanistan 2001, "battle of Takur Ghar" where six US troops were killed trying to save one navy seal. Wouldn't it have been better for the soldiers to have left that Navy seal to die? After all, if they did, it would've been one soldier that died instead of seven (which btw, the Navy seal in the end didn't survive).
@nebula88 Your example makes three incorrect assumptions. One, that the soldiers knew the outcome before they decided what to do. Two, that they were acting independently and not based on a predefined code of conduct. And Three, that human beings are good statisticians, always calculating decisions based on numbers and ignoring any and all emotional factors.
@bishop8000 fair enough, don't agree on the last one though. So a different example. On 9/11, a guy in the north tower (his name escapes me, but I swear, saw it on a documentary 10 years ago shortly after 9/11). He has a friend that that is disabled and uses a wheelchair. The guy has every opportunity to escape and save himself, but he promised his friend he wouldn't leave him and so he waits. His friend never shows up, tower collaps while both were still inside.
@nebula88 That's exactly my point. We're NOT usually good at calculating decisions rationally, we make emotional decisions that a often worse for all involved.
@bishop8000 But wouldn't that be a weakness that Natural selection should've picked out? I guess what I was trying to get at with both these examples, is the idea of us putting ourselves in harms way to save someone else. Such as the military's "leave no man behind" motto. It's understandable to save someone, because "stronger in numbers", but if it's at an expense to your own safety, or the safety of the group? Would that not be a weakness?
@nebula88 Oh I see what you were saying.. No, natural selection selected FOR that kind of behavior. Human beings evolved under conditions where everyone in the community had nearly identical genes because they were so closely related. And because evolution happens at the level of the gene, for that perspective defending another individual with your life is actually defending the same genes.
In that situation, maybe. But real life just isn't like that. Three humans with clubs would probably scare off a lion while just or two would get eaten. More ancient human evolutionary ancestors that were smaller would require greater numbers to "defeat" the predator, but the concept is still the same: there's strength in numbers, and evolution by natural selection favored those who behaved that way. So they had more kids and left more of their genes around that made them act that way.
@bishop8000 sorry something wrong with my posting. But even so, it seems more like gambling, for the following scenarios can result. They could be successful, and everyone lives another day, it can go wrong and 5 people die instead of 1, it can make no difference because 1 hero dies for that 1 guy to be saved; so still a -1 for humans. And let's not leave out, 6 people die, for just 1 person to be saved; so still -5 for humans. 3 in 4 chance of loss. Would letting the guy die seem more safe?
@nebula88 Well QQ it seems like gambling, that's the way the universe is. If you want to believe what's comfortable, and not what's real, then stick with religion.
@bishop8000 Well, for the record, I'm not really that religious. I guess you could say I'm kinda agnostic. Not sure what I really believe in, but I am spiritual: I believe in spirits and I question how it's possible that our very existence is a result of a freak accident, so I guess I believe that it's possible.
"I question how it's possible that our very existence is a result of a freak accident"
Had circumstances been a little different, some other kind of life form would be here instead of us asking themselves the same question. Unless they were very careful, they would conclude that those circumstances were pre-planned by a designer that favored them. When things go our way, we assume someone's looking out for us. When things don't go our way we assume someone's out to get us. But it's all random.
@bishop8000 Interesting, what conditions would be favorable for that kind of behavior? Because I would've thought that it would be more benificial to the predator than the prey. A wolf grabs one human, a friend sees it and tries to help, and now the wolf now has two humans. Same can be applied to drowning guy, One guy can't swim, 3 guys try to save him, strong current, now 4 guys drowned. Wouldn't it be more favorable for the humans if their brain says "run" to prevent more deaths?
@nebula88 Cooperation more frequently means that everyone survives than it means that more people die. Two humans would probably defeat a single wolf, or at least scare it away.
@nebula88 A good swimmer will rescue himself and the drowning person, both will survive. A bad swimmer alone in the water will drown. Cooperation usually net's more surviving individuals than going it solo, and evolution figured that out.
@nebula88 You're right about all of that except that subjective morality has no value. Morality that's only legitimatized by a higher power such as a god, has no value, because it's nothing more than a "might makes right" mentality.
@bishop8000 I agree with you the idea of "might makes right" doesn't give morality it's value. But "right make might" is still in the category (lack of a better term) of subjective morality; "it's only what the big guy says". Is there an overarching form of right and wrong that, despite small disagreements, we all agree with? Is there anyone that believes that torturing the defenseless for personal pleasure can be morally right? If we all agree on an ultimate right or wrong...
@nebula88 I don't see that there is an ultimate right and wrong. There are many areas of morality that humans have evolved tendencies for, but that in no way implies that we all agree about everything, or even about anything. As far as torture, you could probably find individuals who have no problem with it, but remember that morality is based on consensus not 100% agreement. Some things are agreed upon by MOST people, some by a few, and some are completely up in the air and culturally biased.
@bishop8000 Fair enough, though I'm curious by what you mean by "no problem" with torture. "No Problem" in my book can mean doesn't think much about it, to believing that they are entitled to do so, and disagrees with those who say it's wrong.
@nebula88 I intended it to mean more like "believing that they are entitled to do so, and disagrees with those who say it's wrong." Those people are out there, even for torture. But that's generally the exception. Most people tend to agree that torture is wrong.
@bishop8000 Fair enough, so as you said earlier, "subjective morality has no value", and that you don't believe that there's a "ultimate right and wrong" which I take it as "morality is subjective", I assume this means you believe morality has no value, am I fair in my assumption? So if morality is only based on consensus, lets say everyone likes me and don't want me to be tortured, while everyone doesn't like you and could care less you get tortured. Does it make it more right to torture you?
I never said that SUBjective morality has no value, I said that OBjective morality has no value. That's what I meant to say anyway, was there a typo? Objective morality is a myth, because god is a myth. We have to decide for ourselves what's right and what's wrong. (And that's what religious people really do anyway). As far as your torture example, I think torture is wrong, so you'd be wrong. Maybe others might disagree with me but I don't think there are many people who support torture.
@bishop8000 Sorry, misread your post. So just to be clear, about what you said about "consensus", you now believe in "might makes right" am I correct? More support = right? Using a diff example, with Obama as president, membership in white extremist groups have risen. Lets say most of the country began supporting white extremists groups, does that make racism less wrong in the U.S. just because more people support it?
Might makes right is a religious trick. God is big and powerful, so what he says is right. You're still thinking in morally objective terms. There's actually no standard for absolute right and wrong. Even if everyone in the world said that torture was right, I'd say they're wrong. In practical terms of our legal system and how we get along in society though, yeah, that's defined by consensus. If everyone said that racism is good, then being anti-racist would be difficult but to me, "right".
"Why should atheists be good without a god to be afraid of?"
Simply because God created us with an innate sense of right and wrong. Wether you suppress the truth about God or not does not change this, meaning it also applies to atheists.
Furthermore, you statement that "goodness in the Christian world view comes solely from fear of God" is incorrect. Goodness comes from love alone. If a Christian complements someone, it is NOT because he fears God, it is rather because he LOVES God.
@Zupernova91 If you show your love for other humans, you show your love for God and from God. God IS love. It is only because we are beings made BY God that we are able to love.
Atheists who don't see how their so called world-view is ridiculed by the very foundation it stands on, namely the assumption that God exists, does not understand the argument. Atheism is a practice in self-deception.
@bishop8000 You're saying we evolved morality. May I ask you a question then. Do you believe there are absolute unchanging laws of morality? Or does morality change depending on what society and age of time we live in?
There's no objective source for morality because god is imaginary. Even if a god existed, that wouldn't be an objective source of morality because I'm free to disagree. Might doesn't make right. For example: the old testament is a collection of books about a god that's morally indistinguishable from Caligula. Morality changes along with culture and more slowly with the ongoing process of biological evolution.
300 Years before Moses' Laws, Hammurabi came up with several hundred laws that dealt with murder, theft, perjury, etc...These laws were secular and Moses borrowed from Hammurabi's law when writing the 10 Commandments. So there is no religious connection to our laws and morality. Morality can be better explained by Darwin than by religion or god.
If a man was born because his father raped his mother, would God be against the rape, which brought the man into existence? It's hard for Christians to answer this question.
@LacusOdii It's most often not true that mooching is beneficial in the context of practical applications. Watch or read "Nice guys finish first". One example is birds colonies where birds pick ticks off of each others neck and head where the individual can't reach. Some birds try to let their ticks be removed without reciprocating, but the birds remember and in the end the "moochers" are the worst looking individuals - ticks and bloody infections everywhere.
According to Genesis chapter 3 humans would have NO morality if they had not resisted the efforts of god to keep them ignorant. Fortunately after YHVH lied to Adam the serpent told Eve the truth and she and Adam acted upon that truth, and YHVH got pissed off and cursed all of humanity in perpetuity for it. But even so he was obliged to admit that that act of rational independence was of enormous benefit to them: "Behold, the man is become AS ONE OF US, to know good and evil" Thanks, Eve!
Indians had Morals, the fools saved the Pilgrims from starvation, in return they recieved the righteous Morals of Chirstians. Even today every Thanks giving the Chirstians still rubbing their stupidity into the Indians. Indians had more morals than the Chirstians could ever dream of, and Chirst didn't put them in there. Oh well Muslims are the next pilgrims, let us see if Muhammad morality are any moral than the Chirstians, they're righteous, I doubt it, save our souls by stealing the land
I'd like to hear Dawkins explore this subject further. More specifically, if kindness is an innate human nature, determined by genetics, why do so many refuse to exhibit it? Why do people resort to stealing, murder, rape, etc. instead?
Does a "bad" person have different genetics than a "good" person?
I think it's more like this: we all have propensities for teamwork and kindness built into us by the evolutionary process, but we also have tendencies toward violence and aggression. Both approaches served us well at different times in our evolutionary past.
I doubt seriously that bad people have different genes for "goodness" than good people. They just give in to the darker sides of the human nature we all have.
Bishop8000: It's like this guy were reading my mind were reading my mind. I have noticed this; an outside reference being used to create meaning within life being used as an argument for religious morality. I always felt this to be a sleazy way to smuggle in the existence of a deity into a discussion without proof.
When fundamentalist Christians tells you life has no meaning without god, it means THEY can find no meaning in life without god. They equate atheism with nihilism. In fact they think everything outside of christianity is pretty much nihilism.
Their pinched view of existence has blinded them to the point where they cannot acknowledge the legitimacy of anything else. This is the blinkered intolerance that characterizes fundamentalism.
He says the objective morality argument says that morality can only have a basis in God's desires or God's wishes. Not so...it can be based in the nature of God, not what god says.
Sadly, we know nothing of god's nature, or even if one exists in the first place. To the extent that people think they know god's nature, they know it from reading an ancient holy book, which is really no place to be deriving modern morals from.
I completely disagree with what you said, but rather than try to rebut it, I'll point out that the point I made still stands. The speaker in this video presents a false dilemma, "Is it good because God says so or does God say so because it's good?" There's a 3rd option, making that a false dilemma: It is good because it is God's nature. God relies on nothing; therefore there is nothing to limit his existence and perfection.
"God relies on nothing; therefore there is nothing to limit his existence and perfection. "
And also nothing to substantiate his/her existence in the first place. You could make that same argument about unicorns. There's nothing to limit their existence or perfection either.
--->This is a criticism of holy books, not of God himself. If anything, you are criticizing an IDEA of God in a certain book. But you can't reject the holy books, and also use them to argue that God has a bad nature. You can't have it both ways.
What reason do you have to believe in unicorns? I'm not just making stuff up; everything is moved and there MUST have been a first mover, logically. This is what I call God. He relies on nothing.
--->i was right, you don't understand the argument.
Do you agree that there must have been an unmoved first mover?
This unmoved first mover IS God. Nothing moved him, he is unmoved. This is not special pleading. And unmoved first mover is logically demanded by the impossibility of an infinite regress of movers.
Trust me, I've heard it, I understand it. You're trying to cheat and say that everything requires a prior mover except for god, because god is magical, and outside of time and stuff. If you're convinced by that sort of thing, then by all means: swallow ever bit of it!
The universe itself may satisfy 1 and 2, we don't yet know.
3 is a ridiculous assertion by a person LEAST qualified to speak on the matter. The high energy physicists who understand this better than anyone else at least have the courage to admit our present ignorance.
4 and 5 are meaningless given the obvious errors in 12 and 3.
Look. Your mind is the very opposite of open if the sort of argument you're making is convincing to you. So I don't see any point in continuing this conversation.
No, your mind is the opposite of open if you aren't willing to follow the argument where it leads. You simply assume oh, this is just our current knowledge, surely in the future more knowledge will disprove God. That's your own faith-based statement.
3 is not ridiculous, it's actually pretty basic, and you don't even need to talk to physicists about it, although they know it; you can talk to a mathematician.
No not at all, it's not up to us to disprove god. It's up to dogmatists like yourself to prove it. I'm just saying that the argument you're making is extremely unconvincing.
I'm not asking you to disprove God -- but you did say that 2 is flawed if it applies to god, but not if it applies to the universe. Special pleading.
You asked what moved the first mover. The question itself makes no sense. If something moved the first mover, then THAT would be the first mover. Asking what was BEFORE the first mover is like asking "why is your red car green?" If it's green it's not red and if it's moved it's not the first mover.
And you see, I'm not cheating. First you say the universe may satisfy 2, then you say that there are obvious errors in 2. Oh, so 2 only has errors if it applies to God, but not if it applies to the universe? That's special pleading. You can't have it both ways.
Wrong again jugs, all I said was that we don't yet know if the matter and energy in the universe had a beginning. Inventing a magical god and saying "ah ha! god exists outside of the universe, and therefore is immune to your skepticism" doesn't convince anyone not already a believer.
Religion generally seeks to have a comment about everything and anything. Why is it so unreasonable for "some" religious people to accep that it is entirely possible that some humans at some point in history sought to hijack what is inately a human characteristic and seek ownership of those characteristics as proof for whatever rant/belief he or she had at any particular time. It happens now, it happened yesterday, it happened 100, 200 and 500 years ago, why not 2000 years ago equally?
I wonder sometimes if religion started as a means for nations to have a set of rules for all to go by, because as you go from nation to nation the laws are confusing and change with every border. If you create a god and get enough people to fear him, then it spreads around until almost all are following the same rules. Below average intelligence is the norm, and without order would fall into chaos. Atheist don't understand this, and to wish any different is to not see reality.
"Below average intelligence is the norm" That's a misunderstanding of statistics if I've ever seen one.
But yeah, there's evidence from anthropology that religion played an important roll in getting primitive cultures to socially cohere. But there's no evidence whatsoever that belief in god leads to chaos or moral disarray. The nations that presently have the most atheists, are also the lowest in crime, and their citizens have the longest lifespans. Coincidence?
No, its not coincidence at all because most countries with the atheist populations you're talking about are also socialist countries or just small and without mass population problems.
Crime is a cultures or govt's subjective view on what is right or wrong I.E. prostitution is legal in one country but not in another.
One chimpanzee family will ambush another, kill them, and eat their children.
No matter how you package it, any claim of objective morality is nothing less than religion.
The way these statistics are gathered is by picking an arbitrary standard of what is a crime and what isn't. So for example: we count the number of per-capita murders, and then count the number of per-capita atheists.
It in no way implies or even suggests an objective claim of morality. Regardless of your stance on murder being good or bad, there's an objective correlation between propensity for murder and belief in god.
You still arent addressing the real reason the "crime" is low and the "lifespans" are high. It is government and its population load. In China religion is illegal yet you won't be adding them to the list of small and or socialist european countries you're fond of.
Luxemboug is the deemed the richest country in the world with an amazing GDP of 80k. Athiests consist of 22% of the pop. Total pop is less than 500k.
This video does indeed assert an objective claim on morality.
"This video does indeed assert an objective claim on morality." No sir it does not. Murder and theft are thought by most to be harmful for our species, but objectively there's no standard by which to place value on anything, including our survival.
You can point to anecdotal data that is contrary to the point I'm making, but the statistical data which takes every nation into account, paints a clear picture that there's an undeniable link between atheism and low crime rates.
Theres an undeniable link between crime and fewer or more mouths to feed, nothing more. I see you disreguarded my mentioning China, why am I not suprised? Are you really going to use statistics to make a blanket theory?
There is no real logical foundation for any objective moral claims. Morality is a religious ideology. This is what I love about "moral atheists." They're willing to challenge someones beliefs ad push their own on people at the same time.
You could make all kinds of claims related to that "undeniable link." One being that most people who are convinced that this is their only life or conciousness will seek an environment that will help prolong that as much as possible.
This video DOES claim objective morality and cherrypicks chimp behavior to detail a "darwinian explaination." Again, chimps will kill their neighbors and eat the babies.
It's just another religious moral code based on something you can never really prove.
I'm not disregarding china, I said that ON AVERAGE atheistic countries have lower crime rates. As for proving a moral code, there's no such thing as proof in science. I've already refuted everything else you said, and you really seem to be missing the point. Good day.
You're cherry picking to meet your own point of view. Most real free thinkers know this. Socialism creates statistics that show wonderfull long quality lives. Yes when the government makes sure you cannot fail, it looks good on paper.
Hillarious that its just as contradictory to survival of the fitest and competition as any quote you could find in any holy book at its worst. Besides that the whole term "morality" is a religious ideology that your either buying into, or pushing. Good day.
Morality/Ethics (whichever you prefer) aids survival. The individuals that cooperated tended to pass on their genes more effectively than those who did not. That's where it came from.
Besides that, as intelligent creatures we've worked out that we will do better and live longer happier lives if we maintain a culture and society that has moral rules.
I did watch the video. You can only make the assumption that our "moral code" is an instrument of our survival instinct. Then you will use that OPINION to force your beliefs on others, the same as christians.
Again, were disreguarding the fact that chimps have no problem with murdering and eating their neighbors baby raw. All kinds of animals will murder their own and it has not threatened their survival as a species.
I think the probability of you admitting that I have a point, even if you secretly know that, is almost zero. So I think we'd better leave the conversation where it is.
But BTW, it's not just an opinion if there's overwhelming evidence in support of it. Peace out.
yet the root of the problem in the masses is greed. In either people, in power or who own big buisness. If money and hell was missing out of this equation religion would be quenched. I wish the religious would realize that by giving the powers at be a leverage of there faith they would realize the dangers that it has. You are hading them the play book. When Bush said 911 was an act of evil who was that playing to? 911 should have been an example of what religion can do to healthy minds.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I would be happy to help you reexamine what Dawkins thinks to be true about the Bible and what it actually has to say. Dawkins has a childlike understanding of the history, context, laws, grammatical construction, and exegetical / hermeneutical tools that Scripture makes known. If this is your defense for 'morality', I fear you are far worse off then you originally thought.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Thanks for the video suggestion bishop8000. Here is the the problem. Dawkins and McGinn I assume are referring God of the Bible and not some other god. It is interesting that Dawkins claims to be an expert of a sort concerning the Bible and what it has to say. The task of a theologian and apologist. Which he is vastly unqualified for. He asks some goods questions, but has hundreds of blinding presuppositions, make vague unfounded errors, assumptions and other generalizations about the Bible.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No, Dawkins and McGinn don't know their Bible. Their claims are foolish. I didn't make them fools, they did a fine enough job themselves. Do you know where they messed up?
Doesn't that bother you?" Yes it does, which is exactly why cowards are almost never atheists. Atheism means facing up to some unsettling facts about our universe, and that takes courage.
"And what stops you from murdering someone if nothing is going to happen when you die?"
What's to stop a christian from murdering someone if they still go to heaven anyway when they die? (2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5)
Clearly you know nothing about the Bible I presume from you're naive statement about Christianity. Timothy was saying that the law was made for lawbreakers not for good men. THE LAW IS GOOD IF A MAN USES IT PROPERLY. Also, you must understand that God is merciful and all-knowing. He knows if you are sincere when asking for forgiveness, it's possible murderers are allowed into heaven if God knows they meant it. He cannot allow sin into heaven. Maybe you forgot about the 10 commandments.
I studied the bible at the university level for 6 years; I do know a bit about it. You're right that murder is condemned by the bible in many places, but Jesus makes it clear that heaven is not obtained by works or by leading a murder-free life, but by fostering a relationship with him. That invalidates your original point: "what stops you from murdering someone if nothing is going to happen when you die?" Nothing bad will happen to you as long as you have Jezely Weezely in your heart.
Certainly bad things will happen to you even with Jesus in your heart.
There's sin and evil in the world. And Jesus is there to help us overcome our sins and to live a happier life. He's a constant source of guidance if you allow him into your life.
Sin is a make believe concept invented by religion so the church can sell you the cure in exchange for your money. It's like a man cutting you so he can sell you a bandage.
You don't need an imaginary friend to be a good person. You and I probably share very similar values, yet I have no belief in a supreme being.
you need something that serves as a base of judgment for what is good and what is bad. A holocaust happened when moral law was thrown away. God said "Do not murder." and they murdered millions. Wouldn't survival of the fittest have dictated them to do what they did?
You're looking for a higher source of morality, independent from human beings, and the universe just hasn't furnished us with one. Even if atheism led straight to the holocaust and murder etc, which I don't for a moment believe, it wouldn't mean that god exists. It would only mean that, like it or not, we're simply living in THAT kind of universe.
Anyhow, god also instructed people to kill many many times, so your "do not murder" argument is a little hard to follow.
Because, drick5493, the Holocaust started FROM religion. Something NOT based off of logic and reasoning, but from faith. Now, compare these things-
Faith:Science
See Hitler's dilemma? He crossed religious faith with science, which really cannot be done. If you are familiar with the creationist museum, and biology, you will know why.
Adding on what I said, the humans, like the birds left in seclusion, will, quite possibly, adapt in a different way then the other birds, BUT, there is still a guideline for them to follow.
Or, like the Aztecs, they had moral structure, because they DID, but it was corrupted by their religious views. When you mention humans gaining their morals in a different way, I think of it as a species of bird left in seclusion on an island. Like the Kiwi or the tropical penguin, they've lost their ability to fly because:
1) They have no real enemies.
2) Food lies in abundance on the ground.
---
I think this is a very good theory and I will use it in my own arguments.
A heaven for believers, a fiery hell for non-believers, satan to tempt us, original sin to remind us that we were born with sin, the second coming to remind us that god will again, kill off all life and judge us as to whether we deserve being sent to either god`s heaven or god`s hell depending on if we were good or bad(sounds like santa clause).
Again, this god with all it`s baggage smells of the essence of ignorant, arrogant, delusional man.
I agree with dawkins to some extent. I think that genetics definably plays a part in morals. However, I am surprised that he left out culture from explaining morality. Just take the example of feral children and you will see that genes do NOT explain everything. Not to mention that morals vary in time and in different cultures.
But the basics of ethics are very widely distributed. Every person in every culture regardless of upbringing knows that killing your family and friends is wrong from a moral standpoint.
So how does that play in a situation in which you don't know who your parents are? If one wanted to look at a literary example one could look at Oedipus Rex. Furthermore how would you have any morality if not raised by humans?
This isn't the first time nature v. nuture has been discussed, but the assumption that morality stems from genes instead of culture really screams of naivety. Most cultures for instance abhor cannibalism, but how would one feel about the practice in a society condoning it
screams of naivety? It screams of scientific evidence.
"how would you have any morality if not raised by humans?" Because you still have human DNA.
As far as cannibalism goes, DNA based morality seems to apply only to individuals that one perceives to be within their own social group. Once a person can de-humanize another tribe, then the moral sense loses it's pull.
What scientific proof is there that shows how morality stems from DNA? You know peer reviewed journals within the scientific community, because last I checked in the whole nature v. nurture argument, nurture was coming out ahead.
For instance do you honestly think that some form of universal morality would be created from a group of feral humans? That rape, murder, and incest wouldn't occur because we have some innate sense of morality?
OK first of all, there is no such thing as proof in science. All we have is the ballance of evidence, certainty will always elude us. Great now that that's settled, I can approach your question as it should have been posed: How good is the evidence that morality stems from DNA?
The answer is very very good. While scientists have identified some things that are completely dependent on the culture you were raised in, (homosexuality, incest etc.) Most ethical issues are shared by all humans.
To be honest the only reason why you're even seeing anything close to universal morality right now is the fact that European society loved to impose on others. For instance you can look at the Aztecs, Indians, and the Asmat. All three practiced a form of ritual sacrifice, and the only reason such changes occurred was nothing more then the Spanish & English 'moral code' being transferred over.
What the Aztecs practiced was a cultural tradition reinforced by religion, when their religion was stamped out with by Spanish Christians they adopted the whole Judeo-Christian moral framework.
What I'm saying is that their are numerous examples throughout time of their being no universal morality. And if morality stemmed from genetics as you claim then there would be such a thing as universal morality, however last I checked their isn't.
A person's moral code comes from their parents moral code/environment. Simply put a society could raise a fair number of serial killers (in a willing manner). I don't know if you've ever studied up on cultural anthropology, but in case you haven't I suggest that you do so. You'd be surprised at the different taboos & mores throughout the planet. Why just pointing out the Dani practice of cutting off a finger from every female relative (regardless of age) when a male child dies...
My point was that nobody is claiming that ALL morality is universal. A great deal of it has to do with the culture one is raised in.
However, it has been compellingly shown by science that all human beings, regardless of culture share a number of basic ethical impulses. The reason is simple, because natural selection selected in favor of genes that led to cooperation and teamwork with one's tribe. Nice guys finish first.
Somehow I doubt that's genetics, instead it sounds like sane cultural mores. Honestly, who expects a society that encourages the creation of serial killers (and one that doesn't punish them) to actually survive?
I hate using the term 'evolve' when discussing morality, but the simple fact remains that the vast majority of humans disapprove of certain acts these days. Go back 500-1000 years ago and you just may find the situation to be completely different.
There are two moral questions which altruism lumps together: 1.What are values? 2.Who should be the beneficiary of values? Altruism just substitutes the second for the first, thus leaving man without moral guidance. Read "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World" by Ayn Rand.
McGinn misses a point here: some take a Godless universe to be meaningless b/c there would then be no afterlife. Add to that the consideration that, in the future, the universe will be incapable of sustaining life (the human species is expunged), one can begin to understand the "meaningless" intuition: all we have ever done/thought/felt will be lost in a sea of lifelessness, with no sustaining purpose that is capable of surviving the ravages of time.
The first guy is a complete moron. No of his arguements had anything to do with a real notion of morality, but rather what society labels 'moral' without justification. And Richard Dawkins, while hes extremely smart, hes also a lying scumbag. Hes so obsessed with degrading theism, that he's willing to fabricate arguements of moral innateness, with no evidence whatsoever.
In among your ad-hominems, the only actual point you made is that there's no evidence for Richard Dawkins' explanation for morality. That of course is not true. We see evidence of morality evolving by Darwinian means in nearly all social species. Watch the video "nice guys finish first."
I didnt make any ad hominems. I made that neither the first guy, nor dawkins in this video (or in his book) ever proved the actual existence of morality which they postulate about. What Dawkins uses philosophical notions of utilitarianism as the basis of morality, without ever explaining why the well being of societies and individuals are morally foundations.
Watch the video "My problem with atheist morality" and you'll see why such arguements (especially those involving the social contract) say absolutely nothing about whether morality actually exists. I take issue with Dawkins especially because he rejects religions and its ideas of morality as fabricated, delusions; yet he preaches utilitarian philosophy, which is has as much scientific basis as god does.
He never mentions an origin. He says theres an altruistic gene, but never explains how altruism connects to morality in any way. The other person simply says that morality is innate, without explaining how he knows this. Whats happening is, like I said, guys like Dawkins are discussing utilitarian philosophy and labeling 'morality' without justification.
Altruism IS the basis of morality. Caring about the feelings of someone else, realizing that there are other people with feelings just as important as yours. Thought that was obvious.
Being 'moral' simply means obeying codes of correct/incorrectness. Theres nothing about altruism in the definition of morality, which is why I'm asking you (and saying of Dawkins) that you must provide an explanation why altruism is the foundation of morality, or connected to it in any way. Altruism is the foundation for utilitarianism, which is an artificial philosophical stance; not a moral one.
This has been flagged as spam show
Check out my page, I posted my first video. I touch on my conversation with Eric Hovind and give an intro to myself.
jocylean 4 months ago
Dawkins is a philosophical novice.
meeene4 6 months ago
@meeene4 You're a philosophical novice.
bishop8000 6 months ago
If you need God not to go on a killing streak, they are the ones who are immoral. I dont need God to to do good things, I win.
gulbirk 1 year ago 11
@gulbirk
The point is; is that you need to be created with prior intent for morality to be more than just some selfish group or individual survival means to be meaningful. To torture animals for mere fun is morally wrong even though this can't jeopardizes mankinds survival in some unknown way. Why have a guilty conscious for the random torture of any breathing creature if we are from mere random chance and evolution? How does such an origin of life affirm what is the truth of right and wrong?
WILLTHEWGMAN 8 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN Nr1: Because we have intelligence emphati and emotion (which can ALL be explained by evolution). Secondly, go read a science book for once. Evolution isnt random. We didnt come from random chance. life might have started like that. But we didnt evolve randomly. No, I dont need to be created to be moral. I need Emphati (which you need to survive as a social animal) Emotions (which you also need) and intelligence (which we have because of evolution).
gulbirk 8 months ago
@gulbirk
I asked you;
How does a worldview in that life's origin, being from mere random chance affirm any truth of rights or wrongs in what humans are capable of doing? How can we have abilities from evolution like to murder children but call that inhumane or wrong as "truth"? How can rights and wrongs be more than mere opinions with this worldview? Just because some concept of morality may benefit your social needs does not equal an obligation to follow any moral standard as truth.
WILLTHEWGMAN 8 months ago
@gulbirk
Also: you state this:
"No, I dont need to be created to be moral. I need Emphati (which you need to survive as a social animal) Emotions (which you also need) and intelligence (which we have because of evolution). "
This worldview means that we punish criminals not for their freewill to do bad things but because they are less gifted by evolution for such traits. Tell me, how your worldview in any way logically fair? Should we punish wild animals for such unsocial behavior as well?
WILLTHEWGMAN 8 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN Its easy. Do you want to live in a bad society or a good society. Anyone who isnt retarded will answer good. Then the question becomes, what do we think is good. I dont want to die, you dont want to die. Ergo: We make a law saying that killing is wrong. Yes, there is no universal moral, moral is just our man made concept. But there is intelligence and emphati, this should be enough for any normal human being with normal social skills to understand morality.
gulbirk 8 months ago
@gulbirk
You ask me, "Do you want to live in a bad society or a good society. Anyone who isnt retarded will answer good."
Hitler would have stated he wanted to live in a good society as well, just not our concept of good, this is the whole point I am trying to make to you... What is "good" as a truth and not mere opinion in your worldview????
WILLTHEWGMAN 8 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN I already explained that. The reason why Hitlers actions are considered bad is becaues they have more bad quonsequenses then good ones. Thats how you decide weather or not something is good or bad. The outcome of it decides that. Is it going to hurt more people then it benefits, well then it will be observed as bad (at least for outside viewers). There is no objective morality, or objective truth.
gulbirk 8 months ago
@gulbirk
You state: " considered bad is becaues they have more bad quonsequenses then good ones. .. "
So in your worldview if there is a homeless man with no family or friends living on the street in a rich neighborhood and all the rich hate the homeless man so they kill him the outcome is more good than bad, this is "good" because in "benefits more people than in will hurt". Also, you use the word "good and "bad" before you have even defined it; "bad consequences" . PS; please learn to spell
WILLTHEWGMAN 8 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN iM from norway, pleas stopp assuming things. No, why would killing him have "good benefits"" ???? are you some kind of sick person?
Also, why do you claim there are only two observers in a moral opinion? (the rich guys and the poor guy). There are others to. The people around watching it objectivly. Also, your example fails because that goes back to intelligence and Emphati again. Would the rich people like to be killed if they were poor= No. Ergo= Killing him is wrong.
gulbirk 8 months ago
@gulbirk
I assumed nothing, the word was misspelled.
If we are only biochemical machines without a soul and with no creator of intent, why do we punish criminals for their actions? Should we punish those that commit crimes merely because they were born with differing faculties from this evolutionary process than the majority? How can one have any freewill and culpability in actions in your worldview when they are mere puppets as a biochemical body that evolution dealt them in the hand of life?
WILLTHEWGMAN 8 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN Again. Do you want to live in a bad society or a good society. Anyone who answer bad or I dont care is lying. EVERYONE wants to live in a good society, because thats our natural instinct. The reason why we put people away is because they do things to others, that others and the rest of us observe as bad.
gulbirk 8 months ago
@gulbirk
Your worldview is that there's no objective good or bad then you use good and bad a objective here...
" EVERYONE" does NOT "want to live in a good society" and what's a "good society" mean anyways? Your philosophy is rather lacking and especially in regard to your own worldview.
Again, please answer this; If we are only biochemical machines puppets without a soul is it just morally in your worldview that we punish all criminals merely because this lacking evolutionary processes...?
WILLTHEWGMAN 8 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN Are you some sort of idiot, sorry. I already stated that good and bad is based on our own interpritation of what we want (what most of us want). Combined with intelligence and Emphati this is enough to create a moral system. Good and bad are terms that humans have created. If you think that objective morality exist, then that basicly debunks itself. Because then criminals wouldnt even exist.
gulbirk 8 months ago
@gulbirk
Again, please answer this; If we are only biochemical machines puppets without a soul is it just morally in your worldview that we punish all criminals merely because this lacking evolutionary processes. If yes or no, why? Do you think it's fair that we punish criminals for what evolution has given them or failed to give them?
How does morality being objective equal criminals not existing? You really make no sense and fail to even understand your own worldview philosophically.
WILLTHEWGMAN 8 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN Was is morally right for the allied forces to kill innocent children in order to defeat totalitarianism? If you get your morality from a god,then you have to know what god wants.Even if there is a god,how do you know what it thinks is right or wrong.Christians get a lot of mileage by asking the questions you do,but the Platonic Socrates exposed your 'divine command' theory of morality thousands of years ago.There's not a person who can't keep asking why? and how?It's not clever.
henryporter101 7 months ago
@henryporter101
Morality is instilled in us at birth but so is rational and emotions like selfishness, greed, vanity and lust.. If one is to give credence to Christianity and it's teachings any killing of innocents or enemy is a sin. Turn the other cheek and love your enemy are clear teachings in which killing is never justified. Christian doctrine of morality is a fixed notion as in the very essence and being of God and evil is simply the absence of God as darkness is the absence of light.
WILLTHEWGMAN 7 months ago
I don't believe in any gods or spiritual stuff, but at the same time, these guys are making everything complicated.
The point of life? EXIST & LIVE! (then die when appropriate)
madjimms 1 year ago
There is a substantial difference between altruistic behavioral tendencies or moral feelings and actual ethical obligations and prohibitions. It is the difference between the descriptive and the normative (or prescriptive). We overcome the limitations placed on us by our biology -- as well as the conventions placed upon us by our respective societies -- all the time; there is no reason to let illusory moral feelings obstruct rationality, which is necessarily egoistic.
ElasticGiraffe 1 year ago
@ McGinn: So if not god, where did morality come from? And how can we be assured of it's value?
@ Dawkins: He says there's genetic kindness. Kindness is taught, not born (look at kids who grow up exposed to violence, and you'll know). Working in teams is not nessisarily morality, gangs work in teams too. And public service for status, scratch back, "mutual benifits" would suggests we only help someone because we seek the benifits: like a mercenary. Is it unusual to help someone out of goodwill?
nebula88 1 year ago
@nebula88 Our hard-wired morality got started initially because there were benefits to it, but because of those benefits, genetic morality was selected for by the evolutionary process. We now posses genes that make us tend to help others even if there's no tangible benefit.
bishop8000 1 year ago
@bishop8000 WHen you say "selected", I assume you mean that it survived the process of natural selection, and contributing to "us still being here". If that's the case, I assume that the "gene" of helping others for "no tangible benifits" has contributed to our present day existence. If that's the case...
nebula88 1 year ago
@nebula88 ...take for the example in Afghanistan 2001, "battle of Takur Ghar" where six US troops were killed trying to save one navy seal. Wouldn't it have been better for the soldiers to have left that Navy seal to die? After all, if they did, it would've been one soldier that died instead of seven (which btw, the Navy seal in the end didn't survive).
nebula88 1 year ago
@nebula88 Your example makes three incorrect assumptions. One, that the soldiers knew the outcome before they decided what to do. Two, that they were acting independently and not based on a predefined code of conduct. And Three, that human beings are good statisticians, always calculating decisions based on numbers and ignoring any and all emotional factors.
bishop8000 1 year ago
@bishop8000 fair enough, don't agree on the last one though. So a different example. On 9/11, a guy in the north tower (his name escapes me, but I swear, saw it on a documentary 10 years ago shortly after 9/11). He has a friend that that is disabled and uses a wheelchair. The guy has every opportunity to escape and save himself, but he promised his friend he wouldn't leave him and so he waits. His friend never shows up, tower collaps while both were still inside.
nebula88 1 year ago
@nebula88 That's exactly my point. We're NOT usually good at calculating decisions rationally, we make emotional decisions that a often worse for all involved.
bishop8000 1 year ago
@bishop8000 But wouldn't that be a weakness that Natural selection should've picked out? I guess what I was trying to get at with both these examples, is the idea of us putting ourselves in harms way to save someone else. Such as the military's "leave no man behind" motto. It's understandable to save someone, because "stronger in numbers", but if it's at an expense to your own safety, or the safety of the group? Would that not be a weakness?
nebula88 1 year ago
@nebula88 Oh I see what you were saying.. No, natural selection selected FOR that kind of behavior. Human beings evolved under conditions where everyone in the community had nearly identical genes because they were so closely related. And because evolution happens at the level of the gene, for that perspective defending another individual with your life is actually defending the same genes.
bishop8000 1 year ago
Comment removed
nebula88 1 year ago
In that situation, maybe. But real life just isn't like that. Three humans with clubs would probably scare off a lion while just or two would get eaten. More ancient human evolutionary ancestors that were smaller would require greater numbers to "defeat" the predator, but the concept is still the same: there's strength in numbers, and evolution by natural selection favored those who behaved that way. So they had more kids and left more of their genes around that made them act that way.
bishop8000 1 year ago
@bishop8000 sorry something wrong with my posting. But even so, it seems more like gambling, for the following scenarios can result. They could be successful, and everyone lives another day, it can go wrong and 5 people die instead of 1, it can make no difference because 1 hero dies for that 1 guy to be saved; so still a -1 for humans. And let's not leave out, 6 people die, for just 1 person to be saved; so still -5 for humans. 3 in 4 chance of loss. Would letting the guy die seem more safe?
nebula88 1 year ago
@nebula88 Well QQ it seems like gambling, that's the way the universe is. If you want to believe what's comfortable, and not what's real, then stick with religion.
bishop8000 1 year ago
@bishop8000 Well, for the record, I'm not really that religious. I guess you could say I'm kinda agnostic. Not sure what I really believe in, but I am spiritual: I believe in spirits and I question how it's possible that our very existence is a result of a freak accident, so I guess I believe that it's possible.
nebula88 1 year ago
"I question how it's possible that our very existence is a result of a freak accident"
Had circumstances been a little different, some other kind of life form would be here instead of us asking themselves the same question. Unless they were very careful, they would conclude that those circumstances were pre-planned by a designer that favored them. When things go our way, we assume someone's looking out for us. When things don't go our way we assume someone's out to get us. But it's all random.
bishop8000 1 year ago
@bishop8000 Interesting, what conditions would be favorable for that kind of behavior? Because I would've thought that it would be more benificial to the predator than the prey. A wolf grabs one human, a friend sees it and tries to help, and now the wolf now has two humans. Same can be applied to drowning guy, One guy can't swim, 3 guys try to save him, strong current, now 4 guys drowned. Wouldn't it be more favorable for the humans if their brain says "run" to prevent more deaths?
nebula88 1 year ago
@nebula88 Cooperation more frequently means that everyone survives than it means that more people die. Two humans would probably defeat a single wolf, or at least scare it away.
bishop8000 1 year ago
Comment removed
nebula88 1 year ago
@nebula88 A good swimmer will rescue himself and the drowning person, both will survive. A bad swimmer alone in the water will drown. Cooperation usually net's more surviving individuals than going it solo, and evolution figured that out.
bishop8000 1 year ago 6
@1:09 Correction, Morality wouldn't have any value, unless there is some higher power (such as a god, or an ultimate value) that makes it legitimate.
Otherwise, it's just a bunch of rules that we created ourselves, which would imply that we would also have the right to change it.
nebula88 1 year ago
@nebula88 You're right about all of that except that subjective morality has no value. Morality that's only legitimatized by a higher power such as a god, has no value, because it's nothing more than a "might makes right" mentality.
bishop8000 1 year ago
@bishop8000 I agree with you the idea of "might makes right" doesn't give morality it's value. But "right make might" is still in the category (lack of a better term) of subjective morality; "it's only what the big guy says". Is there an overarching form of right and wrong that, despite small disagreements, we all agree with? Is there anyone that believes that torturing the defenseless for personal pleasure can be morally right? If we all agree on an ultimate right or wrong...
nebula88 1 year ago
@nebula88 ...(regardless if we practice it), then if not god, where does this ultimate right or wrong come from?
nebula88 1 year ago
@nebula88 I don't see that there is an ultimate right and wrong. There are many areas of morality that humans have evolved tendencies for, but that in no way implies that we all agree about everything, or even about anything. As far as torture, you could probably find individuals who have no problem with it, but remember that morality is based on consensus not 100% agreement. Some things are agreed upon by MOST people, some by a few, and some are completely up in the air and culturally biased.
bishop8000 1 year ago
@bishop8000 Fair enough, though I'm curious by what you mean by "no problem" with torture. "No Problem" in my book can mean doesn't think much about it, to believing that they are entitled to do so, and disagrees with those who say it's wrong.
nebula88 1 year ago
@nebula88 I intended it to mean more like "believing that they are entitled to do so, and disagrees with those who say it's wrong." Those people are out there, even for torture. But that's generally the exception. Most people tend to agree that torture is wrong.
bishop8000 1 year ago
@bishop8000 Fair enough, so as you said earlier, "subjective morality has no value", and that you don't believe that there's a "ultimate right and wrong" which I take it as "morality is subjective", I assume this means you believe morality has no value, am I fair in my assumption? So if morality is only based on consensus, lets say everyone likes me and don't want me to be tortured, while everyone doesn't like you and could care less you get tortured. Does it make it more right to torture you?
nebula88 1 year ago
I never said that SUBjective morality has no value, I said that OBjective morality has no value. That's what I meant to say anyway, was there a typo? Objective morality is a myth, because god is a myth. We have to decide for ourselves what's right and what's wrong. (And that's what religious people really do anyway). As far as your torture example, I think torture is wrong, so you'd be wrong. Maybe others might disagree with me but I don't think there are many people who support torture.
bishop8000 1 year ago
Comment removed
nebula88 1 year ago
Comment removed
nebula88 1 year ago
@bishop8000 Sorry, misread your post. So just to be clear, about what you said about "consensus", you now believe in "might makes right" am I correct? More support = right? Using a diff example, with Obama as president, membership in white extremist groups have risen. Lets say most of the country began supporting white extremists groups, does that make racism less wrong in the U.S. just because more people support it?
nebula88 1 year ago
Might makes right is a religious trick. God is big and powerful, so what he says is right. You're still thinking in morally objective terms. There's actually no standard for absolute right and wrong. Even if everyone in the world said that torture was right, I'd say they're wrong. In practical terms of our legal system and how we get along in society though, yeah, that's defined by consensus. If everyone said that racism is good, then being anti-racist would be difficult but to me, "right".
bishop8000 1 year ago
"Why should atheists be good without a god to be afraid of?"
Simply because God created us with an innate sense of right and wrong. Wether you suppress the truth about God or not does not change this, meaning it also applies to atheists.
Furthermore, you statement that "goodness in the Christian world view comes solely from fear of God" is incorrect. Goodness comes from love alone. If a Christian complements someone, it is NOT because he fears God, it is rather because he LOVES God.
Zupernova91 1 year ago
@Zupernova91 If you show your love for other humans, you show your love for God and from God. God IS love. It is only because we are beings made BY God that we are able to love.
Atheists who don't see how their so called world-view is ridiculed by the very foundation it stands on, namely the assumption that God exists, does not understand the argument. Atheism is a practice in self-deception.
Zupernova91 1 year ago
@Zupernova91 We evolved morality because there was gene survival value in cooperation, no god needed.
bishop8000 1 year ago
@bishop8000 You're saying we evolved morality. May I ask you a question then. Do you believe there are absolute unchanging laws of morality? Or does morality change depending on what society and age of time we live in?
Zupernova91 1 year ago
There's no objective source for morality because god is imaginary. Even if a god existed, that wouldn't be an objective source of morality because I'm free to disagree. Might doesn't make right. For example: the old testament is a collection of books about a god that's morally indistinguishable from Caligula. Morality changes along with culture and more slowly with the ongoing process of biological evolution.
bishop8000 1 year ago
Morality has no foundation with a god.
humanistheart 1 year ago
300 Years before Moses' Laws, Hammurabi came up with several hundred laws that dealt with murder, theft, perjury, etc...These laws were secular and Moses borrowed from Hammurabi's law when writing the 10 Commandments. So there is no religious connection to our laws and morality. Morality can be better explained by Darwin than by religion or god.
toad734 1 year ago
If a man was born because his father raped his mother, would God be against the rape, which brought the man into existence? It's hard for Christians to answer this question.
Aditinggi 1 year ago
Comment removed
LacusOdii 1 year ago
@LacusOdii It's most often not true that mooching is beneficial in the context of practical applications. Watch or read "Nice guys finish first". One example is birds colonies where birds pick ticks off of each others neck and head where the individual can't reach. Some birds try to let their ticks be removed without reciprocating, but the birds remember and in the end the "moochers" are the worst looking individuals - ticks and bloody infections everywhere.
bishop8000 1 year ago
I love listening to Colin's arguments. I only wish there were more of them up here on youtube.
Rilez47 1 year ago
The Bible was written by the same people who thought the world was flat.
bookwormsrcool 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution supplies all that is needed for the development
of codes of conduct that preserve and facilitate
survival and co-operation,
which is precisely what these "laws" do.
Such sensitivities in no way support your particular god.
In fact, as Christians believe that their most heinous acts
will be magically vanished and forgotten via human sacrifice,
they actually have very little incentive to act in a moral manner.
Hmmm..
That just might explain a hell of a lot.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If your neighbours work on Saturday, kill them.
If your child throws oatmeal at you, kill him.
If your sister has premarital sex, kill her
(but don't think twice about her sex partner).
If the folks in the next town aren't Christians,
kill them all and take their baby girls home for sex slaves.
It's all there, advice for a perfect life.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
Indians had Morals, the fools saved the Pilgrims from starvation, in return they recieved the righteous Morals of Chirstians. Even today every Thanks giving the Chirstians still rubbing their stupidity into the Indians. Indians had more morals than the Chirstians could ever dream of, and Chirst didn't put them in there. Oh well Muslims are the next pilgrims, let us see if Muhammad morality are any moral than the Chirstians, they're righteous, I doubt it, save our souls by stealing the land
2Roo7ted 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution supplies all that is needed for the development
of codes of conduct that preserve and facilitate
survival and co-operation,
which is precisely what these "laws" do.
Such sensitivities in no way support any particular god.
In fact, as Christians believe that their most heinous acts
will be magically vanished and forgotten via human sacrifice,
they actually have very little incentive to act in a moral manner.
Hmmm..
That just might explain a hell of a lot.
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
I'd like to hear Dawkins explore this subject further. More specifically, if kindness is an innate human nature, determined by genetics, why do so many refuse to exhibit it? Why do people resort to stealing, murder, rape, etc. instead?
Does a "bad" person have different genetics than a "good" person?
Strontium9T 2 years ago
I think it's more like this: we all have propensities for teamwork and kindness built into us by the evolutionary process, but we also have tendencies toward violence and aggression. Both approaches served us well at different times in our evolutionary past.
I doubt seriously that bad people have different genes for "goodness" than good people. They just give in to the darker sides of the human nature we all have.
bishop8000 2 years ago
Bishop8000: It's like this guy were reading my mind were reading my mind. I have noticed this; an outside reference being used to create meaning within life being used as an argument for religious morality. I always felt this to be a sleazy way to smuggle in the existence of a deity into a discussion without proof.
sweetsweatyfeet 2 years ago
When fundamentalist Christians tells you life has no meaning without god, it means THEY can find no meaning in life without god. They equate atheism with nihilism. In fact they think everything outside of christianity is pretty much nihilism.
Their pinched view of existence has blinded them to the point where they cannot acknowledge the legitimacy of anything else. This is the blinkered intolerance that characterizes fundamentalism.
sweetsweatyfeet 2 years ago
He says the objective morality argument says that morality can only have a basis in God's desires or God's wishes. Not so...it can be based in the nature of God, not what god says.
Jugglable 2 years ago
Sadly, we know nothing of god's nature, or even if one exists in the first place. To the extent that people think they know god's nature, they know it from reading an ancient holy book, which is really no place to be deriving modern morals from.
bishop8000 2 years ago
I completely disagree with what you said, but rather than try to rebut it, I'll point out that the point I made still stands. The speaker in this video presents a false dilemma, "Is it good because God says so or does God say so because it's good?" There's a 3rd option, making that a false dilemma: It is good because it is God's nature. God relies on nothing; therefore there is nothing to limit his existence and perfection.
Jugglable 2 years ago
"It is good because it is God's nature."
You obviously have not read the holy books.
"God relies on nothing; therefore there is nothing to limit his existence and perfection. "
And also nothing to substantiate his/her existence in the first place. You could make that same argument about unicorns. There's nothing to limit their existence or perfection either.
bishop8000 2 years ago
"You obviously have not read the holy books."
--->This is a criticism of holy books, not of God himself. If anything, you are criticizing an IDEA of God in a certain book. But you can't reject the holy books, and also use them to argue that God has a bad nature. You can't have it both ways.
What reason do you have to believe in unicorns? I'm not just making stuff up; everything is moved and there MUST have been a first mover, logically. This is what I call God. He relies on nothing.
Jugglable 2 years ago
"everything is moved and there MUST have been a first mover, logically"
So what moved god?
bishop8000 2 years ago
so what moved god
--->i was right, you don't understand the argument.
Do you agree that there must have been an unmoved first mover?
This unmoved first mover IS God. Nothing moved him, he is unmoved. This is not special pleading. And unmoved first mover is logically demanded by the impossibility of an infinite regress of movers.
Jugglable 2 years ago
Trust me, I've heard it, I understand it. You're trying to cheat and say that everything requires a prior mover except for god, because god is magical, and outside of time and stuff. If you're convinced by that sort of thing, then by all means: swallow ever bit of it!
bishop8000 2 years ago
No, no, I'll say it again: Let's say for the purpose of this argument I'm defining God as the first uncaused cause.
1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. If it were ever true that something did not begin to exist, that thing would not need a cause.
3. You can't have an infinite regress of causes because of the impossibility of an actual infinite number of things.
4. There therefore must be a FIRST cause.
5. Because of 2, this first cause never began to exist and isn't "moved."
Jugglable 2 years ago
The universe itself may satisfy 1 and 2, we don't yet know.
3 is a ridiculous assertion by a person LEAST qualified to speak on the matter. The high energy physicists who understand this better than anyone else at least have the courage to admit our present ignorance.
4 and 5 are meaningless given the obvious errors in 12 and 3.
Look. Your mind is the very opposite of open if the sort of argument you're making is convincing to you. So I don't see any point in continuing this conversation.
bishop8000 2 years ago
No, your mind is the opposite of open if you aren't willing to follow the argument where it leads. You simply assume oh, this is just our current knowledge, surely in the future more knowledge will disprove God. That's your own faith-based statement.
3 is not ridiculous, it's actually pretty basic, and you don't even need to talk to physicists about it, although they know it; you can talk to a mathematician.
Jugglable 2 years ago
No not at all, it's not up to us to disprove god. It's up to dogmatists like yourself to prove it. I'm just saying that the argument you're making is extremely unconvincing.
bishop8000 2 years ago
I'm not asking you to disprove God -- but you did say that 2 is flawed if it applies to god, but not if it applies to the universe. Special pleading.
You asked what moved the first mover. The question itself makes no sense. If something moved the first mover, then THAT would be the first mover. Asking what was BEFORE the first mover is like asking "why is your red car green?" If it's green it's not red and if it's moved it's not the first mover.
Jugglable 2 years ago
And you see, I'm not cheating. First you say the universe may satisfy 2, then you say that there are obvious errors in 2. Oh, so 2 only has errors if it applies to God, but not if it applies to the universe? That's special pleading. You can't have it both ways.
Jugglable 2 years ago
Wrong again jugs, all I said was that we don't yet know if the matter and energy in the universe had a beginning. Inventing a magical god and saying "ah ha! god exists outside of the universe, and therefore is immune to your skepticism" doesn't convince anyone not already a believer.
bishop8000 2 years ago
First you said the universe may satisfy 1 and 2.
Then when it came to supernatural conclusions you said 2 is obviously flawed.
So 2 is only OK if it applies to the universe?
Jugglable 2 years ago
You know what... I'm gonna stop this right here and walk away. You're never going to change. Enjoy your delusion.
bishop8000 2 years ago
Enjoy your walk away from reason.
You weren't trying to get me to change, anyway.
Jugglable 2 years ago
are you adaptable to change now?
Corcoancaoc 1 year ago
LMAO you look like my old P.E. teacher
Eric3575 2 years ago
Religion generally seeks to have a comment about everything and anything. Why is it so unreasonable for "some" religious people to accep that it is entirely possible that some humans at some point in history sought to hijack what is inately a human characteristic and seek ownership of those characteristics as proof for whatever rant/belief he or she had at any particular time. It happens now, it happened yesterday, it happened 100, 200 and 500 years ago, why not 2000 years ago equally?
mattyabsley 2 years ago
I wonder sometimes if religion started as a means for nations to have a set of rules for all to go by, because as you go from nation to nation the laws are confusing and change with every border. If you create a god and get enough people to fear him, then it spreads around until almost all are following the same rules. Below average intelligence is the norm, and without order would fall into chaos. Atheist don't understand this, and to wish any different is to not see reality.
Usingabrain 3 years ago
"Below average intelligence is the norm" That's a misunderstanding of statistics if I've ever seen one.
But yeah, there's evidence from anthropology that religion played an important roll in getting primitive cultures to socially cohere. But there's no evidence whatsoever that belief in god leads to chaos or moral disarray. The nations that presently have the most atheists, are also the lowest in crime, and their citizens have the longest lifespans. Coincidence?
bishop8000 3 years ago
No, its not coincidence at all because most countries with the atheist populations you're talking about are also socialist countries or just small and without mass population problems.
Crime is a cultures or govt's subjective view on what is right or wrong I.E. prostitution is legal in one country but not in another.
One chimpanzee family will ambush another, kill them, and eat their children.
No matter how you package it, any claim of objective morality is nothing less than religion.
Vlaxitov 2 years ago
The way these statistics are gathered is by picking an arbitrary standard of what is a crime and what isn't. So for example: we count the number of per-capita murders, and then count the number of per-capita atheists.
It in no way implies or even suggests an objective claim of morality. Regardless of your stance on murder being good or bad, there's an objective correlation between propensity for murder and belief in god.
bishop8000 2 years ago
You still arent addressing the real reason the "crime" is low and the "lifespans" are high. It is government and its population load. In China religion is illegal yet you won't be adding them to the list of small and or socialist european countries you're fond of.
Luxemboug is the deemed the richest country in the world with an amazing GDP of 80k. Athiests consist of 22% of the pop. Total pop is less than 500k.
This video does indeed assert an objective claim on morality.
Vlaxitov 2 years ago
"This video does indeed assert an objective claim on morality." No sir it does not. Murder and theft are thought by most to be harmful for our species, but objectively there's no standard by which to place value on anything, including our survival.
You can point to anecdotal data that is contrary to the point I'm making, but the statistical data which takes every nation into account, paints a clear picture that there's an undeniable link between atheism and low crime rates.
bishop8000 2 years ago
It may not be a causal link, but they are connected.
bishop8000 2 years ago
Theres an undeniable link between crime and fewer or more mouths to feed, nothing more. I see you disreguarded my mentioning China, why am I not suprised? Are you really going to use statistics to make a blanket theory?
There is no real logical foundation for any objective moral claims. Morality is a religious ideology. This is what I love about "moral atheists." They're willing to challenge someones beliefs ad push their own on people at the same time.
Vlaxitov 2 years ago
You could make all kinds of claims related to that "undeniable link." One being that most people who are convinced that this is their only life or conciousness will seek an environment that will help prolong that as much as possible.
This video DOES claim objective morality and cherrypicks chimp behavior to detail a "darwinian explaination." Again, chimps will kill their neighbors and eat the babies.
It's just another religious moral code based on something you can never really prove.
Vlaxitov 2 years ago
I'm not disregarding china, I said that ON AVERAGE atheistic countries have lower crime rates. As for proving a moral code, there's no such thing as proof in science. I've already refuted everything else you said, and you really seem to be missing the point. Good day.
bishop8000 2 years ago
You're cherry picking to meet your own point of view. Most real free thinkers know this. Socialism creates statistics that show wonderfull long quality lives. Yes when the government makes sure you cannot fail, it looks good on paper.
Hillarious that its just as contradictory to survival of the fitest and competition as any quote you could find in any holy book at its worst. Besides that the whole term "morality" is a religious ideology that your either buying into, or pushing. Good day.
Vlaxitov 2 years ago
You must not have watched the video.
Morality/Ethics (whichever you prefer) aids survival. The individuals that cooperated tended to pass on their genes more effectively than those who did not. That's where it came from.
Besides that, as intelligent creatures we've worked out that we will do better and live longer happier lives if we maintain a culture and society that has moral rules.
bishop8000 2 years ago
I did watch the video. You can only make the assumption that our "moral code" is an instrument of our survival instinct. Then you will use that OPINION to force your beliefs on others, the same as christians.
Again, were disreguarding the fact that chimps have no problem with murdering and eating their neighbors baby raw. All kinds of animals will murder their own and it has not threatened their survival as a species.
Vlaxitov 2 years ago
I think the probability of you admitting that I have a point, even if you secretly know that, is almost zero. So I think we'd better leave the conversation where it is.
But BTW, it's not just an opinion if there's overwhelming evidence in support of it. Peace out.
bishop8000 2 years ago
yet the root of the problem in the masses is greed. In either people, in power or who own big buisness. If money and hell was missing out of this equation religion would be quenched. I wish the religious would realize that by giving the powers at be a leverage of there faith they would realize the dangers that it has. You are hading them the play book. When Bush said 911 was an act of evil who was that playing to? 911 should have been an example of what religion can do to healthy minds.
JimTL1000R 3 years ago
Below average intelligence is the norm? surely below average intelligence is exactly 50%?
thesethreekings 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I would be happy to help you reexamine what Dawkins thinks to be true about the Bible and what it actually has to say. Dawkins has a childlike understanding of the history, context, laws, grammatical construction, and exegetical / hermeneutical tools that Scripture makes known. If this is your defense for 'morality', I fear you are far worse off then you originally thought.
PreachReality 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Thanks for the video suggestion bishop8000. Here is the the problem. Dawkins and McGinn I assume are referring God of the Bible and not some other god. It is interesting that Dawkins claims to be an expert of a sort concerning the Bible and what it has to say. The task of a theologian and apologist. Which he is vastly unqualified for. He asks some goods questions, but has hundreds of blinding presuppositions, make vague unfounded errors, assumptions and other generalizations about the Bible.
PreachReality 3 years ago
If ad-hominems is all you've got then go home.
bishop8000 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hardly, it would be really informative if they actually knew what they were talking about. Selective citation is the main problem with this video.
PreachReality 3 years ago
Ad-hominems is the main problem with your posts.
bishop8000 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No, Dawkins and McGinn don't know their Bible. Their claims are foolish. I didn't make them fools, they did a fine enough job themselves. Do you know where they messed up?
PreachReality 3 years ago
Well, I don't agree that they did mess up. Where do you think they messed up?
bishop8000 3 years ago
But doesn't atheism mean that men like Hitler, Stalin, and Dahmer go completely unpunished.
In the end you all die the same death. Doesn't that bother you?
And what stops you from murdering someone if nothing is going to happen when you die?
drick5493 3 years ago
"In the end you all die the same death.
Doesn't that bother you?" Yes it does, which is exactly why cowards are almost never atheists. Atheism means facing up to some unsettling facts about our universe, and that takes courage.
"And what stops you from murdering someone if nothing is going to happen when you die?"
What's to stop a christian from murdering someone if they still go to heaven anyway when they die? (2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5)
bishop8000 3 years ago
Clearly you know nothing about the Bible I presume from you're naive statement about Christianity. Timothy was saying that the law was made for lawbreakers not for good men. THE LAW IS GOOD IF A MAN USES IT PROPERLY. Also, you must understand that God is merciful and all-knowing. He knows if you are sincere when asking for forgiveness, it's possible murderers are allowed into heaven if God knows they meant it. He cannot allow sin into heaven. Maybe you forgot about the 10 commandments.
drick5493 3 years ago
I studied the bible at the university level for 6 years; I do know a bit about it. You're right that murder is condemned by the bible in many places, but Jesus makes it clear that heaven is not obtained by works or by leading a murder-free life, but by fostering a relationship with him. That invalidates your original point: "what stops you from murdering someone if nothing is going to happen when you die?" Nothing bad will happen to you as long as you have Jezely Weezely in your heart.
bishop8000 3 years ago
Certainly bad things will happen to you even with Jesus in your heart.
There's sin and evil in the world. And Jesus is there to help us overcome our sins and to live a happier life. He's a constant source of guidance if you allow him into your life.
drick5493 3 years ago
Sin is a make believe concept invented by religion so the church can sell you the cure in exchange for your money. It's like a man cutting you so he can sell you a bandage.
You don't need an imaginary friend to be a good person. You and I probably share very similar values, yet I have no belief in a supreme being.
bishop8000 3 years ago
you need something that serves as a base of judgment for what is good and what is bad. A holocaust happened when moral law was thrown away. God said "Do not murder." and they murdered millions. Wouldn't survival of the fittest have dictated them to do what they did?
drick5493 3 years ago
You're looking for a higher source of morality, independent from human beings, and the universe just hasn't furnished us with one. Even if atheism led straight to the holocaust and murder etc, which I don't for a moment believe, it wouldn't mean that god exists. It would only mean that, like it or not, we're simply living in THAT kind of universe.
Anyhow, god also instructed people to kill many many times, so your "do not murder" argument is a little hard to follow.
bishop8000 3 years ago
Because, drick5493, the Holocaust started FROM religion. Something NOT based off of logic and reasoning, but from faith. Now, compare these things-
Faith:Science
See Hitler's dilemma? He crossed religious faith with science, which really cannot be done. If you are familiar with the creationist museum, and biology, you will know why.
KonradGabreil 3 years ago
A base of judgment? Do you need a picture? Listen to the video, COMPREHEND IT, then post. I will say two words: Altruistic Genes.
Bishop is dead on. Human ignorance + Religious Belief = Death
This has been proven numerous times in the past, from the Crusades to *gasp* the Holocaust.
KonradGabreil 3 years ago
Morality has no foundation whatsoever.
frosty666fuckXyou 3 years ago
Adding on what I said, the humans, like the birds left in seclusion, will, quite possibly, adapt in a different way then the other birds, BUT, there is still a guideline for them to follow.
KonradGabreil 3 years ago
Or, like the Aztecs, they had moral structure, because they DID, but it was corrupted by their religious views. When you mention humans gaining their morals in a different way, I think of it as a species of bird left in seclusion on an island. Like the Kiwi or the tropical penguin, they've lost their ability to fly because:
1) They have no real enemies.
2) Food lies in abundance on the ground.
---
I think this is a very good theory and I will use it in my own arguments.
KonradGabreil 3 years ago
When man finally evolved to the point where he
learned to communicate and form societies, man
learned that group leaders were required.
From this, came the first rules and morals of his society. This enabled him to survive and procreate with less fear of his enemies.
It was at this time that man`s imagination started to dream up his countless gods to enable him to cope with all the unknowns in his world.
This was, the start of religion, and the god which evolved into today's god.
maurieer 3 years ago
My door will always remain open to a possible discovery of a real creator.
I simply can`t accept the present god as a creator because it simply smells of the essence of ignorant, arrogant, delusional man.
Man created this god in man`s own image resulting in it being a male god.
This male god considers women as inferior to man which can only be a product of delusional man.
Man added baggage to this god ie; heaven, hell, satan, original sin, the second coming etc. cont........
maurieer 3 years ago
cont....
A heaven for believers, a fiery hell for non-believers, satan to tempt us, original sin to remind us that we were born with sin, the second coming to remind us that god will again, kill off all life and judge us as to whether we deserve being sent to either god`s heaven or god`s hell depending on if we were good or bad(sounds like santa clause).
Again, this god with all it`s baggage smells of the essence of ignorant, arrogant, delusional man.
maurieer 3 years ago
Too true.
bishop8000 3 years ago
I agree with dawkins to some extent. I think that genetics definably plays a part in morals. However, I am surprised that he left out culture from explaining morality. Just take the example of feral children and you will see that genes do NOT explain everything. Not to mention that morals vary in time and in different cultures.
ebrocato 4 years ago
But the basics of ethics are very widely distributed. Every person in every culture regardless of upbringing knows that killing your family and friends is wrong from a moral standpoint.
bishop8000 4 years ago
So how does that play in a situation in which you don't know who your parents are? If one wanted to look at a literary example one could look at Oedipus Rex. Furthermore how would you have any morality if not raised by humans?
This isn't the first time nature v. nuture has been discussed, but the assumption that morality stems from genes instead of culture really screams of naivety. Most cultures for instance abhor cannibalism, but how would one feel about the practice in a society condoning it
Smaug84 3 years ago
screams of naivety? It screams of scientific evidence.
"how would you have any morality if not raised by humans?" Because you still have human DNA.
As far as cannibalism goes, DNA based morality seems to apply only to individuals that one perceives to be within their own social group. Once a person can de-humanize another tribe, then the moral sense loses it's pull.
bishop8000 3 years ago
What scientific proof is there that shows how morality stems from DNA? You know peer reviewed journals within the scientific community, because last I checked in the whole nature v. nurture argument, nurture was coming out ahead.
For instance do you honestly think that some form of universal morality would be created from a group of feral humans? That rape, murder, and incest wouldn't occur because we have some innate sense of morality?
Smaug84 3 years ago
OK first of all, there is no such thing as proof in science. All we have is the ballance of evidence, certainty will always elude us. Great now that that's settled, I can approach your question as it should have been posed: How good is the evidence that morality stems from DNA?
The answer is very very good. While scientists have identified some things that are completely dependent on the culture you were raised in, (homosexuality, incest etc.) Most ethical issues are shared by all humans.
bishop8000 3 years ago
"Most ethical issues are shared by all humans."
To be honest the only reason why you're even seeing anything close to universal morality right now is the fact that European society loved to impose on others. For instance you can look at the Aztecs, Indians, and the Asmat. All three practiced a form of ritual sacrifice, and the only reason such changes occurred was nothing more then the Spanish & English 'moral code' being transferred over.
Smaug84 3 years ago
The Aztecs practiced ritual sacrifice and lots of modern day Americans are murdered every year. What does that have to do with this conversation?
bishop8000 3 years ago
:|
What the Aztecs practiced was a cultural tradition reinforced by religion, when their religion was stamped out with by Spanish Christians they adopted the whole Judeo-Christian moral framework.
What I'm saying is that their are numerous examples throughout time of their being no universal morality. And if morality stemmed from genetics as you claim then there would be such a thing as universal morality, however last I checked their isn't.
Smaug84 3 years ago
A person's moral code comes from their parents moral code/environment. Simply put a society could raise a fair number of serial killers (in a willing manner). I don't know if you've ever studied up on cultural anthropology, but in case you haven't I suggest that you do so. You'd be surprised at the different taboos & mores throughout the planet. Why just pointing out the Dani practice of cutting off a finger from every female relative (regardless of age) when a male child dies...
Smaug84 3 years ago
My point was that nobody is claiming that ALL morality is universal. A great deal of it has to do with the culture one is raised in.
However, it has been compellingly shown by science that all human beings, regardless of culture share a number of basic ethical impulses. The reason is simple, because natural selection selected in favor of genes that led to cooperation and teamwork with one's tribe. Nice guys finish first.
bishop8000 3 years ago
Somehow I doubt that's genetics, instead it sounds like sane cultural mores. Honestly, who expects a society that encourages the creation of serial killers (and one that doesn't punish them) to actually survive?
I hate using the term 'evolve' when discussing morality, but the simple fact remains that the vast majority of humans disapprove of certain acts these days. Go back 500-1000 years ago and you just may find the situation to be completely different.
Smaug84 3 years ago
"who expects a society that encourages the creation of serial killers (and one that doesn't punish them) to actually survive?"
Who expects DNA that encourages the creation of serial killers (and one that doesn't punish them) to actually survive?
bishop8000 3 years ago
There are two moral questions which altruism lumps together: 1.What are values? 2.Who should be the beneficiary of values? Altruism just substitutes the second for the first, thus leaving man without moral guidance. Read "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World" by Ayn Rand.
Signofthedollar 4 years ago
Um. No...
Moral guidance comes from the brain, and we all have one of those.
Science has demonstrated this conclusively.
bishop8000 4 years ago
McGinn misses a point here: some take a Godless universe to be meaningless b/c there would then be no afterlife. Add to that the consideration that, in the future, the universe will be incapable of sustaining life (the human species is expunged), one can begin to understand the "meaningless" intuition: all we have ever done/thought/felt will be lost in a sea of lifelessness, with no sustaining purpose that is capable of surviving the ravages of time.
Braves4321 4 years ago
The ultimate meaning behind human existence can't be conferred by the future, it has to lie in the present.
bishop8000 4 years ago
The first guy is a complete moron. No of his arguements had anything to do with a real notion of morality, but rather what society labels 'moral' without justification. And Richard Dawkins, while hes extremely smart, hes also a lying scumbag. Hes so obsessed with degrading theism, that he's willing to fabricate arguements of moral innateness, with no evidence whatsoever.
borntokill 4 years ago
In among your ad-hominems, the only actual point you made is that there's no evidence for Richard Dawkins' explanation for morality. That of course is not true. We see evidence of morality evolving by Darwinian means in nearly all social species. Watch the video "nice guys finish first."
bishop8000 4 years ago
I didnt make any ad hominems. I made that neither the first guy, nor dawkins in this video (or in his book) ever proved the actual existence of morality which they postulate about. What Dawkins uses philosophical notions of utilitarianism as the basis of morality, without ever explaining why the well being of societies and individuals are morally foundations.
borntokill 4 years ago
Watch the video "My problem with atheist morality" and you'll see why such arguements (especially those involving the social contract) say absolutely nothing about whether morality actually exists. I take issue with Dawkins especially because he rejects religions and its ideas of morality as fabricated, delusions; yet he preaches utilitarian philosophy, which is has as much scientific basis as god does.
borntokill 4 years ago
You're completely ignoring the Darwinian origin of morality, which is one of the central points that he makes.
bishop8000 4 years ago
He never mentions an origin. He says theres an altruistic gene, but never explains how altruism connects to morality in any way. The other person simply says that morality is innate, without explaining how he knows this. Whats happening is, like I said, guys like Dawkins are discussing utilitarian philosophy and labeling 'morality' without justification.
borntokill 4 years ago
Altruism IS the basis of morality. Caring about the feelings of someone else, realizing that there are other people with feelings just as important as yours. Thought that was obvious.
bishop8000 4 years ago
Being 'moral' simply means obeying codes of correct/incorrectness. Theres nothing about altruism in the definition of morality, which is why I'm asking you (and saying of Dawkins) that you must provide an explanation why altruism is the foundation of morality, or connected to it in any way. Altruism is the foundation for utilitarianism, which is an artificial philosophical stance; not a moral one.
borntokill 4 years ago