Questions on Christianity (Again...)

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@aigonz

2> The history of mankind being in small groups is hardly a reason why we would empathise with a child in Ethiopia, if not for some objective mechansim. We consider the rape of a 3 year old in Ethiopia as wrong. This is totally unrelated to any supposed biological response.

No, it’s that you and yours have a “raping three-year-olds is BAD” knee-jerk reaction get built up, generation after generation after generation, when folks lived in small groups; it didn’t matter that it would hypothetically apply to three-year-olds half a world away so long as you pretty much only ever saw kin. Nowadays, you’ve still got that same knee-jerk reaction.

*3> Lust does have a scientific basis.

And so, too, does a hankering for reciprocity and cooperation and even benevolence: such traits can all be quite useful to the family members you help out, and can likewise be of use to a whole community of family-helping folks who are likewise equipped with a hankering for reciprocity and cooperation and even benevolence – which means they can help you and yours right back. I’ll help incapacitate the guy who lusts after your three-year-old, and you’ll help incapacitate the guy who lusts after mine, and years later we each have grandchildren instead of both of us having none, and in the meanwhile we’re trading goods and services with each other, and in the long run society flourishes.

[aigonz]

[quote=“The_Other_Waldo_Pepper, post:459, topic:551952”]

@aigonz

1>

I think you’re missing my point. I’m saying that someone who brutally rapes my three-year-old offspring can thereby hurt my odds of passing on genes – which is true regardless of whether the rapist in question brutalizes my son or my daughter; either can pass on my genes so long as he or she gets shielded from such problems.

1> Biologically, if they brutalise your son, there is no necessary threat to him producing offspring.

2> What if they brutalise the daughter of someone in Ethiopia? Do you still feel this action to be morally wrong?

[aigonz]

[quote=“The_Other_Waldo_Pepper, post:459, topic:551952”]

@aigonz

1>
Benevolence to whom? Sacrificing yourself to save two sibs and a cousin makes ***perfect *** evolutionary sense.

How so if I don’t even know these people? And if it costs me dearly to engage?

[aigonz]

[quote=“The_Other_Waldo_Pepper, post:459, topic:551952”]

@aigonz

1>

As has been pointed out, find me someone who runs around defying the specifics of that “objective morality” – say, by raping three-year-olds – and those of us who act according to that morality will probably band together to lock him up or cut him apart.

Precisely! Even when we know nothing of the people involved. So how can this be a purely biological response?

[aigonz]

[quote=“The_Other_Waldo_Pepper, post:461, topic:551952”]

@aigonz

*3> Lust does have a scientific basis.

And so, too, does a hankering for reciprocity and cooperation and even benevolence: such traits can all be quite useful to the family members you help out, and can likewise be of use to a whole community of family-helping folks who are likewise equipped with a hankering for reciprocity and cooperation and even benevolence – which means they can help you and yours right back. I’ll help incapacitate the guy who lusts after your three-year-old, and you’ll help incapacitate the guy who lusts after mine, and years later we each have grandchildren instead of both of us having none, and in the meanwhile we’re trading goods and services with each other, and in the long run society flourishes.

None of this explains the same affinities to total strangers. Even more so given your ‘tribal’ notion of evolution, where competing tribes would by necessity deisre ill will towards another tribe.

The notion that evolutionary impulses alone accoount for benevolence or objectove morality is full of self contradiction.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@aigonz

Now…my point is that if we concur on the former (an objective moral code), then it is logical to affirm the latter (an intelligent agent). Moral objectivity is not possible without an external agent.

Sure it’s possible. You already told me God can recognize the objective moral code without needing an external agent; you then added that you and I can, in fact, recognize the objective moral code – which you claim is because we got created with the right aspects of intelligence.

But that last claim there is irrelevant. What’s doing all the work is your claim that we do recognize the objective moral code; you don’t need to go a step or three further once you’ve granted that we recognize it. You’re already saying that atheists and Christians and folks who revered pagan deities and so on can agree on the same moral code with or without sharing a belief in a particular external agent.

The history of mankind is characterised with subjective morality and situational ethics. Indeed mankind fights against a tide of restraint over most practices. What was abhorred yesterday is acceptabel today and celebrated tomorrow.

…among religious types and among atheists. Funny how that works.

[Lobohan]

@aigonz

1> There is ample evidence for an intelligent agent in the creation of the universe. Design is an excellent start, as many scientists agree.

That isn’t true in the least. Not one bit of evidence has ever been presented for the existence of God. Much less the specific God of the Abrahamic religions.

2> The history of mankind being in small groups is hardly a reason why we would empathise with a child in Ethiopia, if not for some objective mechansim. We consider the rape of a 3 year old in Ethiopia as wrong. This is totally unrelated to any supposed biological response.

You aren’t listening. Your ancestors evolved in small tribal groups. Every one they knew was family. That is when those emotional triggers were installed. Now you, a modern man, live in a city of ten million. Your body doesn’t know that the people around you aren’t family. Your body still has the tribal triggers. And good for it, because life would suck without it.

3> Lust does have a scientific basis. It relates to the need to breed, and man has been given that by his creator.

Not really, we evolved and invented Gods as stories to explain reality and assuage the fear of death.

But again, you move the goal posts.

No, I didn’t.

Lust is not a moral issue. It is biological. Try supporting your case with like for like. You’ll find you can’t.

Protection of children is biological too. As I explained. You ignored it because you’re franticly defending your religious beliefs.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@aigonz

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Benevolence to whom? Sacrificing yourself to save two sibs and a cousin makes perfect evolutionary sense.

How so if I don’t even know these people? And if it costs me dearly to engage?

Do you understand what “two sibs and a cousin” means?

Look, imagine someone who’ll maybe have a kid, or maybe three. And now imagine he’s got a brother (who shares half his genes) and a sister (ditto), each of whom is equally likely to have a kid or three. Sacrificing yourself to save both of them means you break even with regard to passing on your genes to the next generation; factoring in a cousin or whatever means you actually come out ahead.

Now, in days when you lived with a tribe of family members – well, look, it didn’t matter whether you had a highly specialized “willingness to risk your life to save family members” or a more general “willingness to risk your life to save innocents in danger”; it worked out the same, and so the latter trait could flourish as easily as the former. Conditions are different now, so it’s maybe no longer as efficient to have that willingness – but it’s still just one factor among many, and it often enough lets you make yourself useful to folks who are big on reciprocity, and et cetera, and so it can stick around in people who have kids who have kids.

1> Biologically, if they brutalise your son, there is no necessary threat to him producing offspring.

Same thing as above: a deep-seated objection to Folks Who Rape Three-Year-Old Girls is roughly as useful as a deep-seated objection to Folks Who Rape Three-Year-Olds. There’s no real upside to having a highly specialized objection; erring on the safe side is often a good strategy. (Not to mention that letting folks brutally rape my son ain’t too smart a long-run strategy either.)

None of this explains the same affinities to total strangers. Even more so given your ‘tribal’ notion of evolution, where competing tribes would by necessity deisre ill will towards another tribe.

Er, no. Reciprocity is a fine strategy; nonaggression, backed up by a willingness to fight back, coupled with a willingness to engage in mutually beneficial trade, is a pretty solid approach. And if we postulate a whole bunch of tribes, each of whom is strong enough to fight off another tribe but none of whom can fight off an alliance of three or more – well, which tribes will endure? The ones who go it alone, or the ones who are open to alliances?

[aigonz]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

@aigonz

Now…my point is that if we concur on the former (an objective moral code), then it is logical to affirm the latter (an intelligent agent). Moral objectivity is not possible without an external agent.

Sure it’s possible. You already told me God can recognize the objective moral code without needing an external agent; you then added that you and I can, in fact, recognize the objective moral code – which you claim is because we got created with the right aspects of intelligence.

But that last claim there is irrelevant. What’s doing all the work is your claim that we do recognize the objective moral code; you don’t need to go a step or three further once you’ve granted that we recognize it. You’re already saying that atheists and Christians and folks who revered pagan deities and so on can agree on the same moral code with or without sharing a belief in a particular external agent.

The reason you need to go from step one to three is to understand how and why we recognise it. If you are content with simply recognising the objective moral law without speculating on it’s origin is not why we’re having this discussion, surely?

[aigonz]

@Lobohan

@aigonz

1> There is ample evidence for an intelligent agent in the creation of the universe. Design is an excellent start, as many scientists agree.

That isn’t true in the least. Not one bit of evidence has ever been presented for the existence of God. Much less the specific God of the Abrahamic religions.

You aren’t listening. Your ancestors evolved in small tribal groups. Every one they knew was family. That is when those emotional triggers were installed. Now you, a modern man, live in a city of ten million. Your body doesn’t know that the people around you aren’t family. Your body still has the tribal triggers. And good for it, because life would suck without it.

Not really, we evolved and invented Gods as stories to explain reality and assuage the fear of death.

No, I didn’t.

Lust is not a moral issue. It is biological. Try supporting your case with like for like. You’ll find you can’t.

Protection of children is biological too. As I explained. You ignored it because you’re franticly defending your religious beliefs.

1> Once again you move the goal posts. In the context of origins we aren’t discussing the merits of an Abrahamic God or any other. This is about whether all the complexity of physical reality is best explained by an intelligent agent or a succession of immesaureable random occurrences that defy any quantifiable odds.

2> “Your body doesn’t know that the people around you aren’t family.” This assumes that each impulse is purely biological, which is not in evidence. Let’s recap. In your view the abhorrence towards the rape of a 3 year old has developed at a tribal level. You then make an enormus leapp of faith to suggest this is transplanted to a larger societal then community then national then global level. This is abject speculation at best. And eaily refuted. The tribal instinct is for preservation, of self and tribe. That counters against affinity with memebers of another tribe.

3> Protection of children that you have no knowledege of is not biological (see point 2>).

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@aigonz

The reason you need to go from step one to three is to understand how and why we recognise it. If you are content with simply recognising the objective moral law without speculating on it’s origin is not why we’re having this discussion, surely?

I am, in fact, content with simply recognizing an objective moral law – and the reason I’m having this discussion is because I’d like to emphasize that simply recognizing an objective moral law is enough: if both a Christian and an atheist recognize the same objective moral law, then I don’t see how it makes a difference that one goes on to postulate a God and the other doesn’t; what’s relevant, IMHO, is whether both men likewise do unto others by dint of both following the same moral code.

[aigonz]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

@aigonz

How so if I don’t even know these people? And if it costs me dearly to engage?

Do you understand what “two sibs and a cousin” means?

Look, imagine someone who’ll maybe have a kid, or maybe three. And now imagine he’s got a brother (who shares half his genes) and a sister (ditto), each of whom is equally likely to have a kid or three. Sacrificing yourself to save both of them means you break even with regard to passing on your genes to the next generation; factoring in a cousin or whatever means you actually come out ahead.

Now, in days when you lived with a tribe of family members – well, look, it didn’t matter whether you had a highly specialized “willingness to risk your life to save family members” or a more general “willingness to risk your life to save innocents in danger”; it worked out the same, and so the latter trait could flourish as easily as the former. Conditions are different now, so it’s maybe no longer as efficient to have that willingness – but it’s still just one factor among many, and it often enough lets you make yourself useful to folks who are big on reciprocity, and et cetera, and so it can stick around in people who have kids who have kids.

Same thing as above: a deep-seated objection to Folks Who Rape Three-Year-Old Girls is roughly as useful as a deep-seated objection to Folks Who Rape Three-Year-Olds. There’s no real upside to having a highly specialized objection; erring on the safe side is often a good strategy. (Not to mention that letting folks brutally rape my son ain’t too smart a long-run strategy either.)

None of this explains the same affinities to total strangers. Even more so given your ‘tribal’ notion of evolution, where competing tribes would by necessity deisre ill will towards another tribe.

Er, no. Reciprocity is a fine strategy; nonaggression, backed up by a willingness to fight back, coupled with a willingness to engage in mutually beneficial trade, is a pretty solid approach. And if we postulate a whole bunch of tribes, each of whom is strong enough to fight off another tribe but none of whom can fight off an alliance of three or more – well, which tribes will endure? The ones who go it alone, or the ones who are open to alliances?

I doubt very much you could have posted anything further from the point.

1> Re your former point. You continue to argue from relationship. Please answer the point as to benevolence shown towards total strangers.

2> Re your latter point. You confuse tribal action with individual action. And your point still does not go to moral judgements.

[aigonz]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

@aigonz

The reason you need to go from step one to three is to understand how and why we recognise it. If you are content with simply recognising the objective moral law without speculating on it’s origin is not why we’re having this discussion, surely?

I am, in fact, content with simply recognizing an objective moral law – and the reason I’m having this discussion is because I’d like to emphasize that simply recognizing an objective moral law is enough: if both a Christian and an atheist recognize the same objective moral law, then I don’t see how it makes a difference that one goes on to postulate a God and the other doesn’t; what’s relevant, IMHO, is whether both men likewise do unto others by dint of both following the same moral code.

Assuming you are an atheist, you are one of very few who recognise an bjective moral law. And the reason is simple. For most atheists, recognition of an objective moral law equates with recognition of a ‘giver’ of that OML, outside of man.

Your claim is that an objective moral law can be developed without the need of an external agent. My contention is simply that history contradicts that.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@aigonz

2> “Your body doesn’t know that the people around you aren’t family.” This assumes that each impulse is purely biological, which is not in evidence. Let’s recap. In your view the abhorrence towards the rape of a 3 year old has developed at a tribal level. You then make an enormus leapp of faith to suggest this is transplanted to a larger societal then community then national then global level. This is abject speculation at best. And eaily refuted. The tribal instinct is for preservation, of self and tribe. That counters against affinity with memebers of another tribe.

3> Protection of children that you have no knowledege of is not biological (see point 2>).

No less a fan of biological evolution than Stephen Jay Gould was quick to modify the above with a parallel set-up in societal memes: it’s not merely about genetic traits, it’s about the values a society esteems and enshrines. Those that promote doing right by innocents and honoring one’s promises and making altruistic donations and refraining from theft and rape and murder and so on – well, a society like that endures to keep on inculcating the next generation likewise; it encourages brave war heroes who’ll risk their lives for the good of the nation, as well as decent people who are generally sensible but moved by compassion and benevolence, along with folks who can be impartial when applying their society’s laws against rape and murder and so on.

So you’ve got a society that says “all men are created equal”, and preaches that we should “do unto others as you’d have them do unto you”, and talks in general terms about the importance of helping those in need, and pins medals on the chests of men who risk their lives saving people who aren’t blood relatives, and…

…well, look, you keep that up long enough, and what traits get encouraged among people who have the Be A Social Animal Who Defers Somewhat To Authority predisposition, or something?

[scorpio5169]

The Bible as written, leaves each reader with questions. In order to decide the answer to these questions, certain steps must be taken. First step: Read the Bible in it’s entirety. So many people want to base their beliefs without taking the first step. Secondly is a choice: Either have a belief based on what you believe, or let someone else tell you what to believe. Either way the choice is up to you. I’d rather be wrong believing in God than be wrong not believing. Just a thought… :smack:

[Lobohan]

@aigonz

1> Once again you move the goal posts.

Just because you read the term, “Moving the Goalposts” doesn’t mean you have to try to work it in everywhere you get a chance. I did no such thing.

In the context of origins we aren’t discussing the merits of an Abrahamic God or any other. This is about whether all the complexity of physical reality is best explained by an intelligent agent or a succession of immesaureable random occurrences that defy any quantifiable odds.

We don’t have the information to make that sort of assessment. Saying that it’s evidence for a God is beyond silly. Not knowing where you car is isn’t evidence that aliens took it. If you thought about it for a second you’d realize why complexity doesn’t beg a designer. Because God, if he exists, is undoubtedly more complex the universe. Who designed him?

I actually know the answer to that. Ignorant, stinking, frightened bronze-age men designed God.

2> “Your body doesn’t know that the people around you aren’t family.” This assumes that each impulse is purely biological, which is not in evidence.

Sure it is. There is zero evidence for a soul, so where else would it be? People with brain injuries have changes to what they perceive as morality. So that’s plenty of evidence that it’s physical.

Let’s recap. In your view the abhorrence towards the rape of a 3 year old has developed at a tribal level. You then make an enormus leapp of faith to suggest this is transplanted to a larger societal then community then national then global level.

No, it isn’t. It’s physical, evolved into us. We take it with us wherever we go.

This is abject speculation at best. And eaily refuted.

It doesn’t seem that easy, since you have utterly and embarrassingly failed to do so.

God is the real speculation here. You believe it with no evidence and believe that he instills morality against the obvious evidence that it is evolutionarily advantageous.

The tribal instinct is for preservation, of self and tribe. That counters against affinity with memebers of another tribe.

Humans primarily lived in familial groups in times past. And we’ve always had the ability to turn off our morality when faced with enemies.

3> Protection of children that you have no knowledege of is not biological (see point 2>).

It is. And your ignorant protestations have no bearing on that fact. As I said earlier, your lust is a biological urge. It works even on photos of women, which is weird, because photos didn’t exist when we were evolving as tribal nomads. But the switch in your head, the one that lusts after healthy, youthful women is still triggered by a pic of Natalie Portman wearing a thong and pasties.

It is a conditional coding that is used for something it wasn’t intended for. Just like protecting the tribe’s children is a coding that applies to other children the world over. You see a pic of Amidala and you get excited and want to fuck her. You see a pic of a starving child and you get defensive and want to save her.

The protection of children is obviously evolutionarily advantageous. So we still carry the wiring.

It’s funny that you’re so invested in your ideology that you can’t see this.

[Trepa_Mayfield]

aigonz, somewhere in this thread you claimed that murder was objectively morally bad.
And yet war is generally considered to be morally acceptable by those involved in it. How do you reconcile that?

[aigonz]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

@aigonz

2> “Your body doesn’t know that the people around you aren’t family.” This assumes that each impulse is purely biological, which is not in evidence. Let’s recap. In your view the abhorrence towards the rape of a 3 year old has developed at a tribal level. You then make an enormus leapp of faith to suggest this is transplanted to a larger societal then community then national then global level. This is abject speculation at best. And eaily refuted. The tribal instinct is for preservation, of self and tribe. That counters against affinity with memebers of another tribe.

3> Protection of children that you have no knowledege of is not biological (see point 2>).

No less a fan of biological evolution than Stephen Jay Gould was quick to modify the above with a parallel set-up in societal memes: it’s not merely about genetic traits, it’s about the values a society esteems and enshrines. Those that promote doing right by innocents and honoring one’s promises and making altruistic donations and refraining from theft and rape and murder and so on – well, a society like that endures to keep on inculcating the next generation likewise; it encourages brave war heroes who’ll risk their lives for the good of the nation, as well as decent people who are generally sensible but moved by compassion and benevolence, along with folks who can be impartial when applying their society’s laws against rape and murder and so on.

So you’ve got a society that says “all men are created equal”, and preaches that we should “do unto others as you’d have them do unto you”, and talks in general terms about the importance of helping those in need, and pins medals on the chests of men who risk their lives saving people who aren’t blood relatives, and…

…well, look, you keep that up long enough, and what traits get encouraged among people who have the Be A Social Animal Who Defers Somewhat To Authority predisposition, or something?

In true scientific fashion, I look forward to receiving notification of a peer reviewed study that establishes emmpirically, in a defined society, Goulds opnion piece.

[aigonz]

@pedescribe

aigonz, somewhere in this thread you claimed that murder was objectively morally bad.
And yet war is generally considered to be morally acceptable by those involved in it. How do you reconcile that?

It has long been accepted (at least I have been arguing on this assumption) that murder, in the context of moral philosophy, refers to a premeditated action by one individual against another without provocation or cause. I can expand thatd efinition if you wish, however the intention is to have oout this debate without getting involved in the moral justification for war, for self defence, etc etc.

[aigonz]

@Lobohan

@aigonz

1> Once again you move the goal posts.

Just because you read the term, “Moving the Goalposts” doesn’t mean you have to try to work it in everywhere you get a chance. I did no such thing.

We don’t have the information to make that sort of assessment. Saying that it’s evidence for a God is beyond silly. Not knowing where you car is isn’t evidence that aliens took it. If you thought about it for a second you’d realize why complexity doesn’t beg a designer. Because God, if he exists, is undoubtedly more complex the universe. Who designed him?

I actually know the answer to that. Ignorant, stinking, frightened bronze-age men designed God.

Sure it is. There is zero evidence for a soul, so where else would it be? People with brain injuries have changes to what they perceive as morality. So that’s plenty of evidence that it’s physical.

No, it isn’t. It’s physical, evolved into us. We take it with us wherever we go.

It doesn’t seem that easy, since you have utterly and embarrassingly failed to do so.

God is the real speculation here. You believe it with no evidence and believe that he instills morality against the obvious evidence that it is evolutionarily advantageous.

Humans primarily lived in familial groups in times past. And we’ve always had the ability to turn off our morality when faced with enemies.

3> Protection of children that you have no knowledege of is not biological (see point 2>).

It is. And your ignorant protestations have no bearing on that fact. As I said earlier, your lust is a biological urge. It works even on photos of women, which is weird, because photos didn’t exist when we were evolving as tribal nomads. But the switch in your head, the one that lusts after healthy, youthful women is still triggered by a pic of Natalie Portman wearing a thong and pasties.

It is a conditional coding that is used for something it wasn’t intended for. Just like protecting the tribe’s children is a coding that applies to other children the world over. You see a pic of Amidala and you get excited and want to fuck her. You see a pic of a starving child and you get defensive and want to save her.

The protection of children is obviously evolutionarily advantageous. So we still carry the wiring.

It’s funny that you’re so invested in your ideology that you can’t see this.

Why the appeal to the issue of lust? I have said from the beginning this is a biological response, the very reason why it is irrelevant to the issue of morality.

But as you seem content to avoid addressing the problems in your ideology, I will restate:

1. The intricacy of evident design in the universe is better explained by an intelligent agent than random chance, that has to deal not only with enormous improbability, but also overcoming the vast number of constants demanded.

2. Present your evidence that benevolence can be explained by purely naturalistic means. In summary, this argument is stuck on the problem of stranger benevolence, and of the contradiction of tribal development.