Because protecting children is based in biology. I’ve shown it a half dozen times. You deny it because you’ve vested up the idea that it somehow threatens your faith. If you faith was worth anything it should be able to reconcile with reality.
Complexity of the universe isn’t a call for a creator. As I said, who created your creator? It is a simple question that you run away from.
Humans that have head injuries experience changes in morality. This is evidence that morality is present in the brain. Show me evidence for a supernatural basis of morality?
Show me some evidence of a soul? You can’t, because there isn’t any. It is something you are asserting.
The bible says “Thou shalt not kill”. Not “Thou shalt not kill in a premeditated manner without provocation or cause”. If we have an objective morality system, why would it be different than God’s?
For a full understanding on how morality evolved, read the excellent work Primates and Philosophers and Good Natured, both by Frans de Waal, a top primatologist who’s written a lot on the subject.
From the amazon pages:
Basically, there is a lot of strong evidence that we evolved from social creatures that also exhibited forms of morality.
1> You haven’t ‘shown’ anything. You have ‘claimed’ much, but supported very little.
2> Complexity begs the question. Is an intelligent agent more likely than a random series of obscure chances that are, for the most part unable to be repeated or observed? The answer is yes.
3> Of course morality is presnt in the brain,…this is simply another red herring you present for lack of argumentation.
To be blunt, this is nonsense, but fairly typical of this sort of presumtptive scholarship.
An example is the leap from claims about animal social systems to that of ‘strong evidence that we evolved from social creatures’. There is no such evidence.
And is it such a revelation that animals are social creaturs and exhibit empathy? Of course not. But answer this. Will a member of a pride of lions show empathy towards a wounded lion form a competing pride? Perhaps having considered this, someone will answer my question about benevolence towards strangers.
When did I state anything about quantum mechanics? Not being a scientist I go only by what science has proven.
One needs to “KNOW” something before it can be stated as fact. Scientists work on different levels all over the world, and independent on another. Faith is just that Faith, you seem to speak as if what you have faith in is fact; too many people have different translations of what the word God is.I believe that is why there is so much descention in the various religions. The main thing is, religion is based on the belief’s of someone else, either their writings, teachings, or one’s own mind; the belief is not in God, but the persons idea of God, and many contradict the other.
I do not pretend to know anything I can’t prove. What I believe is a different story.
And you know this is put there by a creater? Prove that is true and not just belief.
Of course you believe that and I see nothing wrong in you believing it but it is not fact, unless you can prove it. Until then it can be viewed as just your belief.
You’ve said, repeatedly – and after being corrected, even – that:
“There is no purely naturalistic explanation for this seeming prohibition.”
“This is not an evolutionary response, because it serves no evolutionary purpose.”
“There has not even been a sensible attempt to explain benevolence. It is a counter-evolutionary response, pure and simple.”
“Benevolence cannot be adequately explained by purely evolutionary repsonses, because there is no place in a purely naturalistic development for unrewarded assistance of ones fellow man.”
“We consider the rape of a 3 year old in Ethiopia as wrong. This is totally unrelated to any supposed biological response.”
“None of this explains the same affinities to total strangers.”
“The notion that evolutionary impulses alone accoount for benevolence or objectove morality is full of self contradiction.”
I’m merely telling you there’s no contradiction. I’m merely telling you a purely naturalistic explanation could serve an evolutionary purpose. You say it’s a counter-evolutionary response, pure and simple; I’m telling you it’s not. You say it’s unrelated to any supposed biological response, and has no place in a purely naturalistic development; I’m telling you to stop doing that, because you’re utterly mistaken.
Now, if you’d like to move on from denying it’s even possible to discussing evidence that it’s actual – look, that’s fine, we can do that. But I first want to make sure you’re reversing all those prior comments; that’s a huge step.
That said, I’m not especially interested in moving on to that next step; it’s not what concerns me either way. I primarily care about the moral code that both atheists and Christians are perfectly capable of recognizing and living by: I want to stop Christians who don’t live up to it (say, those who’d rape a three-year-old), and I want to stop atheists who don’t live up to it (ditto), and it’s a matter of profound indifference to me whether the ability to recognize such a code stems from evolution or an outside agent or whatever; living up to the code is what’s important, IMHO. But if you (a) care, and (b) can grant that it could of course stem from evolutionary processes, then, yeah, we could look at the evidence.
And we often don’t show empathy toward wounded people from a competing group either. Of course, we also cooperate plenty more than lions, and so we accomplish more – but we’re also capable of genocide, which lions don’t quite get worked up enough to manage. As always, it’s tricky work to derive an “ought” from an “is”; what’s moral isn’t always what we do.
I mean, take religious types who put homosexuals to death, or stone blasphemers, or enslave people from a competing tribe! Monstrous! Horrifying! My sympathies are with their victims. My moral code is outraged. Some people crash planes into office buildings. Others practice female genital mutilation. Religious types can be worse than lions. What can we extrapolate from that?
Well – me, I don’t try to extrapolate much of anything; I was already on board once my sympathies and my moral code lined up. I don’t much care whether their evil stems from evolution or religion; I just want to stop it.
The only thing with that is that the Bible is contradictory, from one writer to another. One discribes a loving kind God, the other a monster. At least how the actions of this God is expressed in their writings: killing a lot of innocent people so that one tribe can prosper,even though all humans are said according to religious teachings that God is a good father. What good father does some of the terrible things to some of His children and then protects the favorite ones? This same being chooses a murderer and a Adulterer,and murderer as one to lead His people.
Okay, first, you’re incorrect. Kill means kill, and no amount of weaseling will change that.
But second, you’re missing the point. People don’t all have the same abhorrence toward killing you claim they do. Some people abhor war, others do not. Some people abhor infanticide, others do not. Some people abhor honor killings, others do not. Some people abhor abortion, others do not. Some people abhor the death penalty, others do not. Some people abhor euthanasia, others are not.
If there was one objective morality about killing, why would there be so much disagreement about the morality of killing, eh?
I am curious about #2. This seems to be a purely emotional argument. What empirical evidence is there of Intelligent Design? Specifically: show me proof that something was designed. Keep in mind that I’m not asking you to tell me that ID is more likely, or neater, or simpler. I’m also not terribly interested in hearing emotional arguments, or arguments that demand a theist’s perspective.
This is where this type of discussion goes down the drain. You believe because you want to believe. Evidence, proof, etc, is only ever a way of keeping score for you; if any evidence ever contradicts your belief you’ll always shift to “a wizard did it” explanations.
My apologies, I was erhaps spekaing of the ‘royal’ you…as in I lost traxck of who had claimed what.
As to faith…I know of no ‘ideology’, including athiesm, that does not rely on faith to some extent. Man seeks for answers to the great philosophical questions of life, origins, meaning, morality and destiny. There are no satisfactory answers to these from purely naturalistic sources. My position is that an intelligent agent, outside of mankind, is the explanation that best fits the facts.
There are religious organisations , conferences, websites, articles etc etc, run, written and operated by theists. But we do not tend to lay those things at the foot of theism, or polytheism; those are simply the answer to the question “Do you believe in gods?” with “yes, one” or “yes, more than one”, just as atheism give the answer “no”. We lay those things at the foot of the particular brand of idealogy that permeates those events. When the Pope holds a mass, we tend to call it a Catholic event, not a theistic event; although it would be accurate to call it such, theism in that case is still merely the base answer. It doesn’t explain why there is a mass, why there is a Pope, why he uses the words he uses. In the same way, it’s not really correct to call organisations or events or books atheistic, because even though that’s correct it, too, is simply an answer to the base question; being an atheist alone doesn’t explain why there are those events, why atheists say what they say, why the content of those books is not simply “God does not exist”.
It isn’t reasonable to say that atheism compares to Christianity, or whatever particular religion, in this way. Atheism compares to theism. It is secular humanism, or utilitarianism, or even some forms of Buddhism, that are comparable in the sense you’re drawing; they provide the explanations and rationales that people are living by or trying to convince other people of.
No, this is argumentation, based to some degree on opinion, which is informed by facts. If there was no room for opinion, these threads ould be fairly barren.
This goes back to the key phrase entirety. To my knowledge, God is never described as a loving, kind, God. His son Jesus however, is described as the one who is the mediator between a wicked people and a righteous God. As far as being the Heavenly Father, the Bible says that He is the perfect father and love requires chastisement. On a further note, which innocent people did God kill? Finally God has shown that he will use anyone for his purpose that is willing.
1> You can tell me what you like, but you have provided no argument to refute my points you quote above. All are valid.
2> You again return to the claim that atheists and christians can both recognise the moral code. Of course they are. If not, it would not be objective, surely? My question has consistently been not whether it is recognised but how and where it came from. I have made the claim that an objectove moral code can not have come from mankind. The only rebuttal I have seen is a very long bow of opinion about evolutionary theory. I have demonstrated the problems with this both as to the development of this from tribe to nation, and as to the extension of this from family to stranger. You claim evolution has the answers. Well I ask again, provide the 2 key scientific requireemnts, observation and repetition.
3> You final comments about ‘religious types’ is just irrational raving. We can all agree to the inappropriateness of certain behaviour. The question the atheist must adddress is why?