Not too long ago, I published a post entitled Morality Does Not Come from Holy Books. It Comes from Us. The post drew lots of interesting comments, some of which I think adequately challenged, not my argument itself, but a big troublesome consequence it leads to that I failed to adequately address: moral relativism.
I am not a fan of post-modernism’s relativism. Morality can be and indeed is objective. Just because there are moral issues that are complex, does not mean there is no objective difference between right and wrong.
How do we achieve such objectivity if morality does not come from holy books? Well, for a start, religion’s esoteric aspects and mysticism have a lot to teach us about human psychological well-being. On top of that, we have the insights offered by perenial philosohpy. Both have a great deal to teach us.
But today though, we have Sam Harris discussing his approach to this issue in a brilliant TED Talk that probably made many politically-correct liberals in the audience cringe uncomfortably, thanks to their postmodernist leanings.
Be sure to watch it.
While Sam makes one hell of a compelling argument, I do disdain his portrayal of burka-wearing women and the Taliban’s nuttiness in a way that attempts to make them seem representative of Muslims. There was also no effort on his part to clarify that the practice of honor killings is mostly cultural, and has no basis in virtually all Islamic interpretations, even the most traditionalist.
Dear Sam, I know you hate religion, but applying some nuance and taking into account differences in interpretation and how the faithful practice their faiths, will make more in your audience more receptive to your ideas.
Other than that, awesome stimulating talk. Thumbs up.
Related:
- Defining Open-Mindedness: A Story About a 14 Year Old Kid and the Torture of the Grave
- 7 Categories of Faith, Explained
- The Ultimate Proof of How Patriarchal Muslim Societies Oppress Women
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 72 comments… read them below or add one }
Science is based on the axiom that we should construct the most accurate description and explanation of the world we live in that we can. This axiom is itself arbitrary, and I think many religious folk would dispute it; for example, they might say that we only need to know about God and not His creation.
From the axiom of science it follows that there should be careful measurement and observation, free discussion, peer review of published papers, etc. These could all be seen as moral imperatives, and could be summed up as “be honest”.
I can’t see that science has any direct key to right and wrong outside science, any more than art or music have. However, it may tell us useful things about our natural behvior as social mammals, and how it compares with other social mammals.
I think all moral questions ultimately have to be decided from some arbitrary axiom, just as all mathematics derives from arbitrary axioms.
Don,
I can’t see that science has any direct key to right and wrong outside science, any more than art or music have.
I agree with you about that. This is one matter that science is silent on, and will likely always be silent on.
However, it may tell us useful things about our natural behvior as social mammals, and how it compares with other social mammals.
I doubt it. Unlike other social animals, human beings are self-aware. Even if science did find a way to study instinctive behaviors in social animals and to separate them from learned behaviors, that wouldn’t really tell us much about human behavior. Study of the development of primitive man might be more fruitful but there are a couple problems with that. We haven’t found any evidence of atheism in primitive man. In fact, we’ve found abundant evidence that the earliest human beings were aware of their spiritual existence and did worship deities, usually in the form of nature spirits.
Drima,
How do we achieve such objectivity if morality does not come from holy books? Well, for a start, religion’s esoteric aspects and mysticism have a lot to teach us about human psychological well-being.
I think you are on to something there
“Even if science did find a way to study instinctive behaviors in social animals and to separate them from learned behaviors, that wouldn’t really tell us much about human behavior.”
On the contrary, I think it tells us a great deal, by setting our behavior in context.
I am not convinced that valid knowledge can enter the mind through mystical or esoteric methods. I see no information channel there.
I think we gain knowledge from direct personal experience (including what we are told by others), and from DNA, which stores the accumulated data our ancestors built up about the environment and how to deal with it.
That includes our basic logical processes, which are inherited, and (if we are to believe Chomsky) the basic language mechanism needed for speech and reasoning.
Me: “Even if science did find a way to study instinctive behaviors in social animals and to separate them from learned behaviors, that wouldn’t really tell us much about human behavior.”
Don: On the contrary, I think it tells us a great deal, by setting our behavior in context.
In context with what? Humans are the only animals (as far as science knows!) that are capable of reason. (lesser)Animals are inherently irrational and have very simplistic motivating factors compared to people, and therefore there is no such thing as “morality” for them. How could we possibly learn anything about morality by studying them?
I am not convinced that valid knowledge can enter the mind through mystical or esoteric methods. I see no information channel there.
Is that a straw man you expect me to take up? I made no statement on that matter. I’m not even sure what you are talking about lol.
I think we gain knowledge from direct personal experience (including what we are told by others)…
Obviously.
… and from DNA, which stores the accumulated data our ancestors built up about the environment and how to deal with it.
Not so obvious. In fact, I’d like to see some scientific evidence that DNA contains “knowledge” of that type. You are talking about genetic memories, right? Well, you’re the big advocate of scientific explanations for everything, so you gotta show me that! Don’t expect me to take it on faith :p
That includes our basic logical processes, which are inherited…
Again, show me.
The only traits I’m willing to accepts that are non-physical which are transmitted genetically are personality traits. The way one brain responds to certain set of circumstances versus the way another brain responds to the same set of circumstances. And I didn’t even used to believe that - I thought all behavior was learned - until I got two German shepherd puppies and raised them the exact same way and ended up with one that was a big teddy-bear and another that was so unstable and aggressive that I to worry whenever somebody even came to the door.
But I can explain personality traits as being part of the evolutionary process as far as survival of the fittest. I can do no such thing with genetic memories. So, yeah. I need some proof.
… and (if we are to believe Chomsky) the basic language mechanism needed for speech and reasoning.
Did Chomsky really state something so obvious? And Don, what are you about mixing things that are beyond question in with things that are pure speculation?
Don,
I can’t see that science has any direct key to right and wrong outside science, any more than art or music have.
I also agree with this. Science can be used to make a moral system more effective but you still need something to give the reason why certain things are considered “good” in the first place.
Drima,
Morality can be and indeed is objective. Just because there are moral issues that are complex, does not mean there is no objective difference between right and wrong
I am of the view that morality is relative but that there are morally relative truth’s that can apply to 99% or more of humanity. The vast majority of humans are very similar at our core. We can feel the same emotions and are driven by the same instinctual behaviors.
It is not our logic but these instinctive emotional reactions that determine what basic concepts we feel to be “good” or “bad”. I think that this is enough for us to find agreement on many basic concepts like that suffering is bad and happiness is good. From that you can use logic to create a system that attempts to enhance happiness and prevents suffering.
Don,
“I am not convinced that valid knowledge can enter the mind through mystical or esoteric methods.”
Well, it depends on what you mean by mystical. I’m not talking about any magic woo woo here. Mystical insights can be gained through spiritual practice such as deep meditation and prayer. If you’ve spent a good amount of time engaged in these practices you’ll know they reveal a lot about the nature of ourselves and identities. They reveal moral truths.
A simple quick example is realizing there’s a difference between “I am angry” Vs “I feel angry.” In the first, you identify anger as a part of who you are, and in the second you merely feel anger but don’t identify with it. Realizing this distinction even on a subtle level and then *living* this truth can lead to someone’s transformation into a better person, who is more loving and compassionate towards the rest.
Craig,
Okay, so it looks like we agree that religion’s esoteric aspects do provide some great insights. Now my question is, as a Christian, do you believe that salvation can only be gained through Jesus. What happens to people who don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus as the son of God? Do they go to Hell?
Zoxuf,
“I am of the view that morality is relative but that there are morally relative truth’s that can apply to 99% or more of humanity”
But that’s not relative. It’s objective. Sam addresses this concern quite well when he draws the analogy with food and nutrition.
“Don: On the contrary, I think it tells us a great deal, by setting our behavior in context.
In context with what? Humans are the only animals (as far as science knows!) that are capable of reason. (lesser)Animals are inherently irrational ”
Animal behavior must be rational, or the animals would not survive. Our reasoning mechanisms are a more sophisticated version of the behavior controls of all animals - controls which can be imitated in simple robots with logically written programs.
As an example of information coming in through our DNA, new-born children know about breasts, and recognise the shape of a smile. Children of crawling age know not to go over the edge of a sudden drop.
“Mystical insights … reveal a lot about the nature of ourselves and identities.”
Yes, that I agree with. I do not think they can reveal facts about the external world.
Drima,
Now my question is, as a Christian…
lol. I always get myself in trouble with my fellow Christians when I try to answer these. I’ll explain my own understanding, anyway. Briefly.
… do you believe that salvation can only be gained through Jesus.
That belief amongst Christians comes from “John 14:6″ which says:
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
And what does that mean, exactly? Most Christians believe it means Jesus is the Judge on Judgment Day. The gatekeeper for God, so to speak. That’s supported by what is written in the Book of Revelations. I don’t think that is what is meant. Most Christians also believe that this verse means that only Christians - and specifically Christians who have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior - can get to Heaven. I don’t think that is what it means, either. I choose to interpret it literally:
I am the way
Follow his example.
the truth
Follow his teachings.
and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Your soul will be lost if you’re a malicious asshat, instead of the good, kind and loving person Jesus taught people to be.
That’s what it says in my opinion, and that’s what it means in my opinion. No more and no less. I don’t see any exclusion in there for good, kind and loving people who don’t happen to be Christian.
What happens to people who don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus as the son of God?
Nothing. That’s not a requirement, even for Christians. There was a great deal of debate about the divinity of Jesus amongst Christians for the first several hundred years after his death, so obviously it’s not a no-brainer, right?
Do they go to Hell?
I don’t believe in a literal heaven and hell. I think those are both symbolic. And, no, I don’t pretend to know what happens to people after they die. I think life is a test, and some people pass and others fail. No clue what happens to people in the two categories! I realize the Quran has a lot of vivid descriptions in it, but not so in the Bible. The Bible just says those who are saved reside with God, and those who are damned are outside the gate (not residing with God). So, it’s kind of full circle. Those who are saved return to the figurative Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve resided with God before they were cast out.
Hmmm… that wasn’t anywhere near as brief as I’d planned
Don,
Animal behavior must be rational…
We must be using a different definition of “rational” because my definition includes things like analyzing data and making well reasoned decisions based on your conclusions. Only people do that.
… or the animals would not survive.
Single-celled organisms survive, and they don’t think at all
Our reasoning mechanisms are a more sophisticated version of the behavior controls of all animals…
Again, you make assertions without evidence! And you have yet to document the other two items I challenged you on! Are you a proponent of scientific methods, or not? :p
- controls which can be imitated in simple robots with logically written programs.
This is actually something I know a little about and we’ve yet to be able to come up with an AI that’s as smart as a hamster. Or an ant, for that matter. If you think you’ve seen something that demonstrates robots behaving intelligently, what you saw was an illusion that is easily dispelled.
As an example of information coming in through our DNA, new-born children know about breasts, and recognise the shape of a smile. Children of crawling age know not to go over the edge of a sudden drop.
You said “knowledge” was stored in DNA. That implies something that has been learned. The things you mention here are instinctive. I feel like we are arguing in circles, because I thought we were talking about something more than basic animal instincts in this discussion.
Drima,
But that’s not relative. It’s objective.
It may be relative to nearly all of humankind but it is still relative none the less. Would any moral system we come up with make sense to an intelligent alien race with a completely different set of instincts and emotions?
I do however agree with you that there are right and wrong way’s to handle complex moral issues given our common human condition.
“What happens to people who don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus as the son of God? Do they go to Hell? ”
Why bother to ask such questions at all? Who can give you the absolutely right answer? Has it been proven beyond doubt that there is hell? We can as well believe in the 72 virgins. Oh, wait… that would be ridiculous, wouldn’t it?
I think it’s hard to refute Sam Harris’s arguments on the factual level. Many will try and fail.
Drima, Harris did not talk about Islam in general. He used examples of extremes (burkas versus western porn) and of honor killings as a an example of perverted love. It seems to me, that you are being too ticklish.
“A simple quick example is realizing there’s a difference between “I am angry” Vs “I feel angry.” ”
Isn’t that kind of self-awareness something that comes to most mature adults anyway, without special exercises? After all, where would we get our laughs if not by observing our own follies?
“In the first, you identify anger as a part of who you are, and in the second you merely feel anger but don’t identify with it. Realizing this distinction even on a subtle level and then *living* this truth can lead to someone’s transformation into a better person, who is more loving and compassionate towards the rest.”
I think you are begging the question here. How do you know that a loving person is “better” than an angry person? The holy books generally encourage anger toward believers in other religions, or those who disobey the rules of the religion. For example, the story of Jesus overturning the tables of the money-changers in the Temple illustrates righteous anger. The Jewish Bible is full of anger and violence, encouraged by God.
The whole moral question is “How do I know what is the right or wrong thing to do?”
My current opinion is that we are social mammals on this particular planet, and the best thing is to behave according to the nature of social mammals. jWe have legs, and the sensible thing to do is use them for walking; we have social instincts (such as loving one another), and the sensible thing to do is live by them. These instincts incorporate factual knowledge as to which behavior works well, which has been established by trial and error over millions of years.
We also have a logical reasoning engine that can manipulate symbols of the external world to assemble more elaborate models of the external world than other animals have in their brains. (This engine covers not only verbal language, but musical, mathematical and other structures.)
That doesn’t mean that other animals, or robots, are not logical. They analyse data from sense organs just as we do, and respond in the most logical manner possible to them; otherwise, they would not survive.
The software for a robot must be logical, or the robot would not function. Likewise the nervous system of a multicellular animal.
Simple constructs such as “If…then…else” are everywhere in nature. But we can operate logically on symbols as well as on immediate sensory data.
“If you think you’ve seen something that demonstrates robots behaving intelligently, what you saw was an illusion that is easily dispelled.”
I don’t say the robot or animal is acting “intelligently”; I say it is acting logically. An illogical robot would be as useless as a mad hamster.
“Single-celled organisms survive, and they don’t think at all”
They analyse data, for example detecting chemical gradients, and respond logically to the result of the analysis. They don’t do symbolic reasoning (and nor do the individual cells of our bodies), but to replicate their behavior you would need a stored logical program.
Life is autocatalysis with software.
“Would any moral system we come up with make sense to an intelligent alien race with a completely different set of instincts and emotions?”
Or to another mammal such as a cat?
There is a very good book called “Memoirs of a Space Woman” by Naomi Mitchison, in which she uses a Sci-Fi frame to explore the question of morality.
But this is really the subject of most serious science fiction.
Drima,
When science arose, it was a revolution against philosophy, a method to understand the world based on quantative and qualtative observations. Now the problem with this amazing method is the fact that it relies solely on information collected by the five senses. While science uses this information to study phenomena that we can’t observe by our five senses, there stil exists a missing link. For scientists, this missing link is the rationale they use to link phenomena to observations : if there is smoke, then there must be a fire somewhere. Now the question is: does the whole entire world follow that set of unchangable rules that scientific reasoning is built upon? I think subjectivity comes to play here, in answering this particular question. What I mean to say is that values and ethics are a phenomena that science has no way of obsering and measuring directly, science can only assess and measure the results and outcomes of such phenomena. For me this creates a problem because I don’t believe that ethics, morals and values follow the same rules as the physical world we experience with our senses and why should they ? As much as I love science, I think that in attempting to explain ethics and morals its just stepping outside its territory.
Don,
I don’t say the robot or animal is acting “intelligently”; I say it is acting logically.
To say something is acting “logically” implies that it is thinking about what it is doing. That requires intelligence. We don’t claim a machine behaves logically just because it successfully performs the tasks it was designed to perform.
Me: “Single-celled organisms survive, and they don’t think at all”
Don: They analyse data…
A single celled organism doesn’t even have a brain, Don. How can it perform analysis?
This discussion is getting a little too bizarre for me. I feel like we are on the way towards ascribing ethical behavior to an ice-cube. I’m as baffled by your comments here as I was when you implies that living organisms could be created (or could just miraculously come into existence) from a random collection of organic chemical compounds, but never bothered to explain exactly how that process works. What kind of science is it we are talking about here, anyway?
Drima…
Since I was about 18 years old…I have “hoped you are right”. I have known many who have seeked out the wiseman…guys that have gone in for Kabbalah, Sufism, a few into mystical Christianity, and oh course hordes that turned to Hinduism and Buddhism esp. the HuJews and BuJews. This certainly has included me.
For me…it has been an overwhelming disappointment…though I still see it as the only real hope for a “seeking” individual while still on this earth.
If mysticism means having a direct experience with God, some kind of knowable revelation…not some of the vague, flowery shit a bunch of “mystics” (and LSD abusers, peyote users etc.) refer to, then I am pretty much still waiting. Fasts, meditation, prayer, diets, mind and body exercise…whatever..
Still waiting…still hoping and still believing it is possible…but still waiting.
Craig…
I have to completely disagree with your theory. In nature…animals are social to an extent, but they also murder their spouses, kill and eat their children and have sex with their relatives
Much like humans
I think morals and ethics actually take us beyond many of our natural social instincts. No…I do not believe in the basic depravity of man…we have good and bad in us…But nature is no behavioral model for me…
I believe…and I said BELIEVE that there does exist a moral standard or expectation or “hope” that emanates from God.
Now do I trust the Holy books and all our mullahs and rabbis etc. to be telling us what that is…actually…no I don’t.
Thus…I am a mystic…a very bad mystic…but a mystic.
Still waiting…still hoping and still believing it is possible…but still waiting.
Howie, it sounds like you are waiting to have a spiritual “experience”. That’s what it’s called when people wake up one morning and realize they “see the light”, and their questions have been answered. Some people have those (and they aren’t always related to religion or even spiritual matters). But they are very rare. They are in themselves a somewhat “miraculous” event that cannot be recreated in others. What most people set their sites on when they want to feel they understand their place in the universe is a spiritual “awakening”. That’s an evolutionary process that can be recreated in others. That’s the methodology used by the early Christians and probably the early adopters of just about every religion, before the religions became doctrinal and formulaic. I’m not trying to preach at you here. I’m just saying that setting the stage for a sudden revelation to happen and then waiting for it to come is probably not what the “wiseman” you reference would recommend
Howie,
I have to completely disagree with your theory. In nature…animals are social to an extent, but they also murder their spouses, kill and eat their children and have sex with their relatives
Not sure how you are disagreeing with me there. Did you see me dispute that? I think I siad animals are incapable of morality because they don’t reason. They can’t differentiate between right and wrong simply because they can’t/don’t think about such matters.
Much like humans
Some humans. I doubt more than 1 in 100 human males would have sex with his own mother if given the opportunity. I’m pretty sure that 100% of dogs would go that route - and furthermore it would never even occur to them that there was some reason why they shouldn’t.
I think morals and ethics actually take us beyond many of our natural social instincts.
That’s totally in-line with what I’m saying. It’s Don that you are disagreeing with. He’s arguing that lower animals and humans are the same, except for varying degrees of complexity. I’m arguing that lower animals and humans are fundamentally different.
Craig..
I can make it simple…
I wrote Craig instead of Don…
I am SUCH an animal!
Craig…
You are inferring, I think, that there are sets of prescribed “exercises” that lead to a spiritual awakening…and that’s the rub for me…
My experience has been that what much of that leads to in a form of brainwashing, self-deluding, group hypnosis, and all kinds of other PSYCHOLOGICAL experiences…NOT religious experiences.
But I hear you and we are not all that far off…But if you find “the” wiseman out there in your journeys…please give me his fax or email…
On the other hand…if you really do find him…he will already be aware of me and can contact me through mental telepathy or appear to me while I am in the shower or driving through traffic one evening.
I am waiting
Craig…
I did have one mystical experience I should share…
I was eating a sandwich in Californian and my aunt in New York got full.
Howie,
You are inferring, I think, that there are sets of prescribed “exercises” that lead to a spiritual awakening…
No, not really. This process usually involved some mentoring where somebody leads the way, but not always.
My experience has been that what much of that leads to in a form of brainwashing, self-deluding, group hypnosis, and all kinds of other PSYCHOLOGICAL experiences…
And sometimes that’s exactly what it is. But that’s a false spiritual awakening. Unfortunately, it’s hard - especially for an outsider - to see the difference. My ex-wife was heavily involved in “Lifespring” which was kind of a self-help offshoot of the Church of Scientology. Main difference as far as I could see was that it had the religious component removed. She talked me into going to one of the recruiting sessions and it really gave me the creeps. I tried pretty hard to convince her she was being indoctrinated, without success. I eventually decided that it made her happy so no real harm was being done. And I became tolerant of her involvement with Lifespring. But that’s about as far as i could go, because it seemed evident to me that this was a program meticulously designed to exploit people’s emotional vulnerabilities.
I think the only way to tell the difference is in the intent behind such programs, and in their practices. If any form of dissent from the group-think is punished, that’s a red flag because that’s not compatible with an actual spiritual awakening, The idea is to achieve understanding, not compliance. Another red flag would be profit-motive. If an organization charges exorbitant fees for people to participate in and benefit from their programs, that’s exploitative.
NOT religious experiences. (versus psychological)
Both deal with people’s spiritual well-being, so I don’t view them as mutually exclusive. I personally don’t think it’s possible for people to be spiritually healthy if they don’t have some sort of belief in a higher power, because I think humans are just wired that way. But I don’t see any conflict between psychology and religion.
But I hear you and we are not all that far off…But if you find “the” wiseman out there in your journeys…please give me his fax or email…
Even if I did, mine wouldn’t work for you! We all need to find our own truth
Although explanations in science will eventually reach one point of inevitability, that is the path leading to God, but to the fact of the matter is, science as a tool to answer moral questions is simply not practical. The closest science has begun to explain morality is in the field of social sciences, law of course, being the primary scientific moral compass here.
The problem with law on the other hand is that, it changes with time and very much hinges on the collective conscience of the masses, and therefore it is evolutionary. Evolutionary in this sense means the benchmark for morality keeps changing.
Rauff…
“Evolutionary in this sense means the benchmark for morality keeps changing.”
That is a social perspective…not a religious one.
If there is a God…morality is an absolute…a constant. I sure agree with you on the law thing…law is a law until enough people or a very powerful person says it is not that law…then it is not the law anymore.
I also agree that science is not going to reveal morality and no…I don’t believe that science is going to show us who God is.
Since the platform of discussion is based on a scientific approach towards morality, it is only right that our perspective here must be on neutral grounds, therefore I agree that it is on a social view.
Science, per se, will not advertently reveal who God is. But through scientific inquiries in relating to existance itself, big bang, the ever expanding universe, etc etc, like I said, will reach a point of inevitability, of infinitesimal proportions beyond scientific reasoning and boundaries. Our understanding of physics as we now know, just breaks down. Then that is when the inference to be made is dogmatic but simply must be accepted, that is for every creation, there must be a creator. And the ultimate creator of all, is God.
Rauff…
I’m pretty much down wit dat.
Also, I might like to add that I quite disagree that morality is objective. Well, it can be, but not in the context of the world we live in today. There is a notion in law of an ideal judge of sorts and he is being called Judge Hercules. He, at all instances, decides on righteousness to all judgments. So in the eyes of Hercules, morality can be objective. And Hercules, I presume, is God.
Governmental executive decisions for example, are more often than not, based on the majority. And we all know, the majority might not always be right. These decisions are decided on various factors and policies, economic, legal, societal implications and whatnot. So in the grander scheme of things, decisions are made to reach a middle grounds type of scenario, in other words, for the greater good. And that is impossible to be objective morally, or otherwise.
This researcher is doing interesting work on the neurophysiology of moral judgements. You can download PDFs of some of her publications.
I do not think that identifying the part of the brain involved “explains away” morality, any more than saying a painter uses his right hand to hold a brush explains away art. Every mental event is located somewhere in the brain.
But it is interesting to know which part, and particularly interesting that this part develops very late. One might say that we learn morality as we mature.
Don,
“One might say that we learn morality as we mature.”
As we tumble and fall and make mistakes, then we learn to do the right thing.
“If there is a God morality is an absolute a constant.”
Not at all. God could have one set of rules for humans, a completely different set for Martians, another for weasels and another for mallard ducks.
But my view is that the concept “God” is worn out through being used for too many different things.
“I think the only way to tell the difference is in the intent behind such programs, and in their practices. If any form of dissent from the group-think is punished, that’s a red flag because that’s not compatible with an actual spiritual awakening, The idea is to achieve understanding, not compliance. Another red flag would be profit-motive. If an organization charges exorbitant fees for people to participate in and benefit from their programs, that’s exploitative.”
That certainly cuts out all the major religions. Intolerance and the gathering of money by priests are essential features of all of them.
Rauff,
Science, per se, will not advertently reveal who God is. But through scientific inquiries in relating to existance itself, big bang, the ever expanding universe, etc etc, like I said, will reach a point of inevitability, of infinitesimal proportions beyond scientific reasoning and boundaries. Our understanding of physics as we now know, just breaks down. Then that is when the inference to be made is dogmatic but simply must be accepted, that is for every creation, there must be a creator. And the ultimate creator of all, is God.
But what makes you think that the universe was “created”? Or that whatever force that may have been responsible was a sentient being you could call God? In my view it is better for us to just admit our ignorance rather than to attempt to personify the unknown.
Don,
This researcher is doing interesting work on the neurophysiology of moral judgements.
I do not think that identifying the part of the brain involved “explains away” morality…
That’s not exactly what I had in mind when I was asking for proof
The more studies I’ve read about the function of the human brain, the more I’ve come to understand that scientists don’t understand the functioning of the human brain at all. I’m not convinced that looking at colorful scans which show which parts of the brain are most active at what times tells us anything worth knowing. Freud and Jung are still pretty hard to refute, and they accomplished most of their work by analyzing human behavior, without access to modern scientific methods.
Zoxuf,
There is a basic principle in physics that ‘Energy cannot be destroyed nor created, only trasformed from one state or the other”. To make more sense of this law, imagine this, whatever you see around you is just energy. Raw, energy, at it’s purest form. This energy through billions of years, decided at a point of time to cooperate together (evolution more aptly put) and BAMM. There you go, you and me here, conversing over the internet.
Another view of this is that everything we see around us, heck, even the though of us viewing these things are composed of mere electrons, protons or quantas of energy.
So brother, if science, with the technological knowledge through billions of years accumulated, the insight, the breakthrough, have arrived us here, you and me discussing about the existence of God, whilst at the same instant, you cannot deny that this platform we’re discussing itself was created by some human creator, then what of this vastness of the universe? Of billions of stars and galaxies and planets (or beings of we have no knowledge yet?) It’s just simple ludicrousness to believe that humans could invent internet but the universe in all its majestic creation, vastness, beauty and beyond what can be described here, was created out of pure chance? Of nothingness you are saying to me? Then that I must say to you my friend, with no offence and malice intended, but that is pure simple ignorant and stupidity at it’s lowest form.
Rauff,
It’s just simple ludicrousness to believe that humans could invent internet but the universe in all its majestic creation, vastness, beauty and beyond what can be described here, was created out of pure chance?
Not quite “pure” chance. A symphony of yet to be explained fundamental forces is responsible for the known universe evolving into what it is now. The interaction of these forces is what created the order from chaos in the universe that many (myself included) find to be beautiful. Why should we automatically ascribe these forces to God? Is that not as foolish as ancient man believing that thunder meant the God’s were angry?
I have never been satisfied with God as an answer to the unexplained. In the end it answers nothing and merely substitutes one unexplainable thing with another.
Of nothingness you are saying to me?
I never claimed it was created from nothingness.
You are still assuming that the universe was “created” and not acknowledging the possibility that it has always existed in some form or another. Or that some other explanation that lies outside the realm of human comprehension is at work.
Then that I must say to you my friend, with no offence and malice intended, but that is pure simple ignorant and stupidity at it’s lowest form.
I embrace my ignorance about the fundamental nature of reality. I would much rather know that I do not know than to think I know and be wrong.
Rauff
I still remember Philosophy 101 with Dr. Bloomfield…
“Will sands swirling in the desert create a watch?”
Yeah…there is a creator…now what HE is all about…good luck.
And I do believe, ultimately, morality is absolute and objective…but not in any sense that we can figure.
In practice…it blurs, bends, mutates and has a lot to context.
Howie,
Couldn’t agree with you more
Zoxuf,
In every breathing organism, there is such an intricate design as to how these protons, electrons and neurons, lowest forms of energy quarks, that decided in a few billion years to cooperate together and become human. That’s evolution for you brother, not that I entirely subscribe to Darwinism but the truth of the matter is, everything we see around us is composed of these energy quarks. From the the vastness of galaxies we have yet discover, to the minutest of a single -celled organism.
Well I do agree with you that these symphony of unknown and yet to be explained forces are responsible for such an intricate a design. And to every symphony of orchestra (or otherwise) we have a composer, composing the melodies into a beautiful piece. And in our context here, the ultimate composer is God Almighty, arranging, if you will, these symphonies of unknown and yet to be explained forces
Peace
“Freud and Jung are still pretty hard to refute, and they accomplished most of their work by analyzing human behavior, without access to modern scientific methods.”
Those two were not scientists but speculators. They are much nearer to the Greek philosophers than to modern scientists.
That is not to say that their ideas and metaphors are completely valueless, but I would place them with Dostoevsky or Proust rather than with recent neuroscientists.
You can only refute a theory if it makes predictions which can be falsified or confirmed, by observation or measurement.
“Animal behavior must be rational?
We must be using a different definition of “rational” because my definition includes things like analyzing data and making well reasoned decisions based on your conclusions. Only people do that.”
All animals analyse the data which comes in through their sense organs, and calculate the best possible response for survival. The calculations incorporate inherited information stored in the DNA.
You think that a logically correct calculation requires a stream of words or similar symbols. These are necessary only for responses involving long-term planning.
Think what happens when you play table tennis. You have to work out and predict the path of the ball, and calculate the adjustments to muscles needed to hit it. If the logic is wrong, or inaccurate, you miss it. But no words are involved.
“In every breathing organism, there is such an intricate design as to how these protons, electrons and neurons, lowest forms of energy quarks, that decided in a few billion years to cooperate together and become human. ”
The dodgy words here are “design” and “decide”, both of which imply a plan. Beware teleology.
“I think morals and ethics actually take us beyond many of our natural social instincts.”
I think a moral question, such as “Is assisted suicide right or wrong?”, arises when there is a conflict between different instincts. Often there is no way to resolve vthe conflict.
“The more studies I’ve read about the function of the human brain, the more I’ve come to understand that scientists don’t understand the functioning of the human brain at all.”
I think they understand it a little. There is a long way to go.
But, for example, the work on the visual system tells us a lot about how drawings, paintings or animations work.
Have you read any of Zeki’s work?
“The dodgy words here are “design” and “decide”, both of which imply a plan. Beware teleology.”
For all intent and purposes and theology aside, whether decided or designed, it does not really matter, any way you see it. For it is a irrefutable fact that everything is composed of these atomic elements. Be it in the stars or the computer you’re typing on, or in you and me.
So the fact is, whether a person is religiously inclined or otherwise, all things are created as such. They pull and combine with each other, forming molecules, organisms, systems and galaxies. Erratic, random, chaos or chance are words that do not fit into the order of things. Well, in this realm of existance at least. Higher order maths by mad scientists has proven this as such. Almost synchronized in accordance to a plan of some sort, if it was not, then universe will collapse upon itself
So I do not exactly see any light in your point in predisposing that statement as containing, if any at all, elements of dodgy-ness.
Don,
Those two were not scientists but speculators. They are much nearer to the Greek philosophers than to modern scientists.
And yet, they did a much better job of explaining human behavior than modern science has yet done, despite the fact that a vast amount time and energy has been put into the endeavor for the last 50 years. More than 50 years if we count lobotomies and shock therapy as “modern science”
Seems like that should tell us something, no?
That is not to say that their ideas and metaphors are completely valueless, but I would place them with Dostoevsky or Proust rather than with recent neuroscientists.
Really? And you believe modern neuroscience offers insights into human behavior? I wasn’t aware that was even part of that field of study. Isn’t that the realm of psychiatry and psychobiology?
You can only refute a theory if it makes predictions which can be falsified or confirmed, by observation or measurement.
And you don’t believe human behavior can be observed or measured?
All animals analyse the data which comes in through their sense organs, and calculate the best possible response for survival.
You seem to be referring to a mechanical process as an analytical one, as you earlier referred to a mechanical process as a logical one. You may be able to prove to your own satisfaction that you are semantically correct, but I prefer to remain in the realm where thought processes are just that - thought processes.
Think what happens when you play table tennis. You have to work out and predict the path of the ball, and calculate the adjustments to muscles needed to hit it. If the logic is wrong, or inaccurate, you miss it. But no words are involved.
That’s reflex. If you were consciously trying to calculate the flight path of the ball and trying to instruct the muscles in your arm and hand to move the paddle in just the right manner to alter the ball’s flight path in the desired way, you’d still be standing there like an idiot as the ball flew past you. Right?
Just as if you tried to manually control your body and mind so that you could run across the room, you’d fall on your face taking the first step. In fact, animals don’t even have that level of control over their own bodies do they? I used to be able to control my own heart rate, but the shock of the Navy doctor’s when I demonstrated that ability for them was pretty clear evidence that’s not at all normal.
I think they understand it a little. There is a long way to go.
I think it’s worse than that. I think we need a do-over. We need to purge a lot of really bad science that’s been put forward the last 40 or 50 years, and begin again from there.
Have you read any of Zeki’s work?
Possibly, but if so it was a long time ago and I don’t recall. I used to be into this stuff when I was a teenager. Before I became such a cynic
Rauff,
When I say fundamental forces I am referring to things like electromagnetism, gravitation, and the strong and weak nuclear force.
Well I do agree with you that these symphony of unknown and yet to be explained forces are responsible for such an intricate a design.
There is a certain degree of “order” but not necessarily design.
And to every symphony of orchestra (or otherwise) we have a composer, composing the melodies into a beautiful piece. And in our context here, the ultimate composer is God Almighty
What makes you so sure there is not a natural explanation for these forces? Why would an ordered universe existing on its own be any more unlikely than a perfect being such as God existing on its own?
So the fact is, whether a person is religiously inclined or otherwise, all things are created as such. They pull and combine with each other, forming molecules, organisms, systems and galaxies. Erratic, random, chaos or chance are words that do not fit into the order of things. Well, in this realm of existance at least. Higher order maths by mad scientists has proven this as such. Almost synchronized in accordance to a plan of some sort, if it was not, then universe will collapse upon itself
If the forces were different the current galaxies, systems, molecules, and organisms (ourselves included) would not exist. The universe appears ideal for us but remember that we are by necessity adapted to this universe and not the other way around. Almost every living thing that has ever existed died out for failing to adapt. We are the rare exception (at least so far). But what makes this arrangement so special? What of all the potentially amazing things that do not exist because the forces behave such as they are and not in some different way?
Zox…
You make a strong argument and ultimately…at least at this point in man’s journey…you believe in an intelligent design or, I guess, a random accident that somehow got itself into quite a complex order of things…
You can discuss beliefs…and it is fascinating and this stuff discussed here is about as important and stuff gets, because what you believe typically has a whole lot to do with how you behave. But yes…you can debate beliefs…but I guess you throw your hat into the ring that seems most true to you.
My interpretation of what I see and understand has led me to a belief in a God that designed this show…no other answer makes any sense to me…
Anyhow…very smart people here…I am quite impressed…most folks primarily are focused on how to better use the remote.
Howie,
There is an empirical law in physics, they call it the principle of conservation of energy. Energy cannot be destroyed nor created, only transformed into one state to the other. Hence, the net total energy in the universe is always at balance, it just gets through a cycle of transformation. So in my view, that does not only look ideal, but it is the epitome of perfection, of but an intelligent design.
So if this fundamental principle is true, I make a deduction that for every creation, there must be a Creator. The Creator creates and destroys. And it is all in balance. But then again, let every man be unto himself
Oppss, sorry Howie, that was for Zoxuf
Howie,
You make a strong argument and ultimately…at least at this point in man’s journey…you believe in an intelligent design or, I guess, a random accident that somehow got itself into quite a complex order of things…
I prefer to withhold belief in either scenario until there is enough information.
Rauff,
So in my view, that does not only look ideal, but it is the epitome of perfection, of but an intelligent design.
What about God’s perfection? By your logic would that not also require a designer?
Zoxuff,
“What about God’s perfection? By your logic would that not also require a designer?”
Good question my friend, you’re getting there somewhat. Well, that is when, like I said, you reach the point of inevitability, of infinitesimal possibilities. All the combined knowledge of the human race as we know it, just breaks down and would not be able to explain it any more. Mathematically, philosophically, or any other perspective you might have. It just ends there.
We have not yet even understood a fraction of how the universe was created, what more of God’s gist. If man has reached a point to even understand on par with that, then he may be a God himself. God is the pinnacle of all existance. So like I said, all is left there. Finito. Period. The end
Rauff…
You and I are saying the same thing…just differently…
Ultimately, short of a mystical enlightenment, we don’t know and won’t know…not even if science progresses for another billion years…That onion will just keep unpeeling and in 100 years they will be laughing at much of today’s knowledge…
So…Kierkegaard was led to his “leap of faith”…yes? That is what it ultiamtely comes down to…or ; belief or disbelief… and both have strong arguments.
What is funny…once you have decided come to faith..the next problem IS belief…
For me…that is where it really trips up because beyond VERY general, very macro concepts…not that much I believe.
When it comes to religion…we basically have around 3 somewhere short books (forget the commentaries and all that) that some believe are divinely revealed and perfect…if you don’t accept that…or have some problems with that…then belief gets real tough if you have “faith” in God. And, of course…there is the endless battle of interpretation of the few “holy” books we have on had…or has nobody noticed that religions tend to break down into about a gazillion; denominations, cults, sects, etc.
For a person that really thinks about this stuff…it can give you a headache…in fact…I have had quite a migraine for decades now and it is not getting any better.
Howie, you aren’t the only one who has problems with organized religion. I spent many years as an agnostic because I couldn’t relate what I was hearing in Church to my own concept of God. I don’t have first-hand experience with the way things are done in Islam and Judaism but I doubt they handle things any better.
Howie,
Definitely, you and I are on the same wavelength. There are many ways to skin a cat
But personally, I have a peculiar way of looking at how religions work. Religions for me, are a story. Stories of faith. If we believe God is almighty, why isn’t then it is possible to bestow some of His supernatural powers to His Prophets? Of course this is a simplified explanation of what religions are, but you get my point. It’s just laying our pure faith and belief in them.
Another complexity with religions, apart from being a story of faith, is that man himself has been its torchbearer for thousands of years. For that reason, it is naive to think that religion is pure and exalted and never tainted. Somewhere along that timeline, certain quarters must have misappropriated and bent it for their own selfish reasons, whether they realised it or not. Heck, even now we can see that the Vatican is now under fire because of the widespread allegations of pedophiles. Studies have shown that up to 30% of those in these institutions are predisposed of having sexual perversions, whereas in the general society, it’s only at a mere 5%. So there you go.
And the Books as you said, are thousands years old and were sent upon the human race so as to arrest the matters of the day, in accordance to the mental capabilities of those time. Now here we are, constantly bombarded by new and novel situations and are faced to balance between religious doctrines and shifting human values. These values can either stem from social pressures or new scientific discoveries. Take for example, there was a time when those who believed that the world was round were condemned as heretics. So religions are themselves are forced to evolve to arrest these issues.
But having to believe in God doesn’t necessarily mean we must choose and subscribe to any of the 3 religions. Or for that matter, make a comparison between them. After all, there are of the same Abrahimiac lineage, aren’t they? And it is crystal clear all of the 3 Books as you said, teach goodness it all its sense, there of course being pros and cons and a few fundamental differences here and there. My way of looking at it then, is to pick whatever goodness from all them. Of course I am speaking for myself here
And must I stress here that men of God and the Books themselves are diversely different entities. I make myself clear of this fundamental difference. Remember, those who can’t do, preach. Like I am now
” If you were consciously trying to calculate the flight path of the ball and trying to instruct the muscles in your arm and hand to move the paddle in just the right manner to alter the ball’s flight path in the desired way, you’d still be standing there like an idiot as the ball flew past you. Right?”
Certainly. You don’t have to generate words in your brain to be logical. The calculations required for effective movement must be logically correct, but they go on in the cerebellum and related areas, and are not conscious.
But if these calculations from your sensory inputs were wrong, you would be unable to survive unaided.
+++++++++++++++
Going back to the initial question, science cannot decide moral questions; but it can, by demonstrating honesty and integrity, set a moral example.
“And you believe modern neuroscience offers insights into human behavior?”
Yes, definitely. It tells us a lot about what happens in the visual arts.
Work on neurotransmitters has thrown a lot of light on mental illness.
“To say something is acting “logically” implies that it is thinking about what it is doing.”
No, it doesn’t. It implies only that its actions follow logical rules.
“That requires intelligence. We don’t claim a machine behaves logically just because it successfully performs the tasks it was designed to perform.”
Yes, we do. What would be the use of an illogical machine?
In the case of man-made machines, the logic is built into the machine by the engineer(s). In the case of an organism, by natural selection. For example, if a flying organism did not follow the logical laws of aerodynamics, it would drop out of the sky.
You guys need to get a life. or a wife. or both. If none of the aforementioned is possible then spend more time wacking off online and less time being wacky.
love, peace, and babies.
Kammo, let’s get jiggy, if you’re a chick that is! Nevermind the wifey. Or any suggestions for porno sites? I’m already feeling horny now. Dammit.
By the way, what fuck brings you here? Looking out for studs? Well you came to the right place baby. If you’re a chick that is.
Love, peace, and babies (lets make em’! again, if you’re a chick that is)
I’m a chick, but I’m taken. Hard Luck.
Oh come on, don’t go playing hard to get now baby. We all know you aint satisfied with your limp boyfriend there. That’s why you’re looking out for studs here that can show you a helluva great time. Don’t be shy!
Again, if you’re really a chick that is. Otherwise, go fuck yourself. Jesus!
Don,
Certainly. You don’t have to generate words in your brain to be logical. The calculations required for effective movement must be logically correct, but they go on in the cerebellum and related areas, and are not conscious.
I thought your argument was that the information required to perform such tasks was stored in DNA. Now these tasks are performed by the sub-conscious mind. Guess what? I actually agree with you on the latter submission. And now we are onto something, since most theories - including scientific ones - place the human spirit (or soul, if you prefer) in the domain of the sub-conscious mind, as well. And I suppose that would also include morality, which is the topic of this discussion. If you’d rather discuss the sub-conscious mind than DNA and single-celled organisms, I’m all in favor because I think it’s much more relevant
Going back to the initial question, science cannot decide moral questions; but it can, by demonstrating honesty and integrity, set a moral example.
Demonstrations of honest and integrity are always moral examples, regardless of source. It doesn’t seem to me that has anything to do with the initial question?
Work on neurotransmitters has thrown a lot of light on mental illness.
I disagree. I don’t think mankind has made any progress at all when it comes to understanding mental illness in recent decades. In fact, I’d argue the exact opposite. We seem to be relying increasingly on medicating the symptoms of mental illness, rather than attempting to get at the cause. And we continue down that path even though most courses of drug treatments have been shown to be either ineffective or downright counter-productive. Don, how insane is it that most anti-depressants are required to be dispensed with a warning that they increase the risk of suicide? We’ve been talking a lot about logic in this thread: is that logical? Isn’t that like dispensing heart medication that increases the risk of heart attack? But the fact is there’s just too much money involved for these drugs to be pulled off the market. Anti-depressants are “too big to fail”
No, it doesn’t. It implies only that its actions follow logical rules.
A $2 calculator follows logical rules. What’s that got to do with this discussion?
Yes, we do. What would be the use of an illogical machine?
What’s the use of bringing inanimate objects into a discussion about morality? In the case of a machine that has been programmed, the logical thought processes belong to the human being who wrote the code, not to the hardware. You initially started this branch of the discussion by mentioning artificial intelligence in robots. In such a theoretical case, the logical thought processes only belong to the robot when it starts thinking for itself, rather than just executing the instructions that a human being programmed into it. That has never happened, and is still only a theoretical possibility. Seeing as how in your example the logic reverts back to the person who programmed the robot, what was your point in bringing it up?
In the case of man-made machines, the logic is built into the machine by the engineer(s). In the case of an organism, by natural selection.
Ah, this was your point? Well, in the former case of the robot: that robot has a creator. If your argument is that the two cases are similar, then who is the creator of the living organism? “Natural selection” doesn’t cut it, because that’s an evolutionary process that does not include initial creation. If the living organism didn’t exist in the first place, it couldn’t evolve into a more complex form.
Don’t cop out on me now, Don
Rauff,
Good question my friend, you’re getting there somewhat.
I still do not understand why you believe it is necessary for the universe to have been “created” while not requiring a similar explanation for God’s existence.
Well, that is when, like I said, you reach the point of inevitability, of infinitesimal possibilities. All the combined knowledge of the human race as we know it, just breaks down and would not be able to explain it any more. Mathematically, philosophically, or any other perspective you might have. It just ends there.
If our knowledge breaks down by that point then why not just save a step and say the universe is beyond current human explanation? Would it not be wiser to apply Occam’s razor and save ourselves the extra assumption of an unexplainable intelligent creator?
Zoxuf,
Well my friend, I’ve been in countless small talks like these and it’s just pointless, counterproductive, kinda like a circular argument that brings us to the same point where we all started. Now I’ve pretty much ran out of ammo, exhausted all my argumentative skills (and the little bit of knowledge that I have)
All I can say is though, let every person unto himself.
Anyway, here’s a chap who makes a living out of not believing in such a God. You must watch his latest vid. His arguments are pretty compelling and might all the more reinforce your disbelief too.
http://www.patcondell.net/
Meanwhile, maybe I go looking for a wife like that biatch Kammo said, whoever she (or he) is, stomping into a conversation like that. Ironic she even reads all our crap. Peace out and God bless bro
Rauff,
Well my friend, I’ve been in countless small talks like these and it’s just pointless, counterproductive, kinda like a circular argument that brings us to the same point where we all started.
I do not think it was pointless but I wish I was able to better understand your reasoning.
His arguments are pretty compelling and might all the more reinforce your disbelief too.
What fun is that? I find that I learn more when my beliefs are challenged.
Peace out and God bless bro
Peace and if there is a God may he bless you as well.
Question.
How did we all get here? Big chemical fart in the sky aka the big bang, and the poof, through complete random meaningless chance, we appeared on the planet?
Nothing “guiding” this whole process of unfolding increasing complexity? None at all?
Drima,
Big chemical fart in the sky aka the big bang, and the poof, through complete random meaningless chance, we appeared on the planet?
There is strong evidence that the known universe expanded (and is still expanding) from an incredibly dense point. Why it started expanding or where this point came form is unknown.
Nothing “guiding” this whole process of unfolding increasing complexity? None at all?
It is guided by the interaction of fundamental forces. Beyond that a conscious force may or may not be responsible but I do not see a belief in either scenario justified at this point.
Science cannot “explain” morality.
Problem: Neither can religion.
Consider, the proposition that Religion teaches, provides, or inspires Morality.
This leads to a question: What makes an act Immoral? Religion answers: Because God says it is.
But here is a problem: If X = Immoral only BECAUSE God says so, then it is clear, Morality is nothing but a series of arbitrary choices by a superior power. Anything would be moral, no matter how cruel and horrible, if God says so.
But, if X = Immoral for any reason OTHER than God saying so, then there exists some higher truth beyond the will of God, because in such case X would be immoral even if God was nonexistent.
Ergo, if Morality is Religion based, either Morality is nothing but a series of arbitrary choices, or God is not an omniscient, omnipotent being.
Leave a Comment