This is about as succinct a refutation there is to the concept of morality as an evolutionary tactic. Most humanists even believe that human progress and human nature are independent and typically in conflict. If one buys into natural selection, then we've evolved for reproductive purposes primarily, and adding to that the laws of the universe are indifferent to our well being. Bottom line, there is no evolutionary morality, and humanism is simply derived from the latest "evolution" of human cultural bias in all its forms. Which is ironically the same arguments TS makes against religion.Sam Lowry said:Considering evidence of what will maximize human thriving is not the same as establishing human thriving as a fundamental premise. They are completely, totally, one hundred percent different things.TexasScientist said:Most of y'all are not listening to what I've been saying. Morality should be based upon a humanistic science of morality approach, taking into consideration objective empirical evidence of harm in terms of human, well-being and flourishing, as opposed belief in a religious leaders subjective pronouncements.Sam Lowry said:Every time you say you'd rather base morality on so-called objective evidence, you are speaking subjectively. "I'd rather" is a textbook example of a subjective statement.TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:Most evolutionary psychologists would say we've outgrown the need for religion as a basis for morals. Of course that's pure conjecture on their part, but it doesn't stop them from saying it. They could just as easily say we've outgrown the idea of human well-being as a basis (which is essentially what the murderous scientistic regimes of the last century did say).TexasScientist said:It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.TexasScientist said:
If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.
Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.
Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".
And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.
In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?
The fatal flaws of utilitarianism are equally present in your argument. There's no real way to define "the well-being of others" given the reality that people have conflicting interests and different ideas of well-being. It's an illusory concept subject to exploitation by any and every ideology that happens to seize upon it.Evolutionary psychologists rely upon objective scientific evidence in forming opinions. Religion is where conjecture and subjectivity comes into play because it requires faith and belief without objective evidence. Under your scenario it would no longer be objectively based humanistic science of morality. Instead, it would be some other devised system, such as those of the state regimes you allude. Historically, people are subject to being led down immoral paths by leaders of state, by there religious leaders or both. Cultures and societies determine what is moral. Morality should be based upon a system of values predicated upon harm, well-being, and the ability to flourish of others as determined by empirical, objective scientific evidence - as opposed to a system of subjective religious beliefs,Quote:
Most evolutionary psychologists would say we've outgrown the need for religion as a basis for morals. Of course that's pure conjecture on their part, but it doesn't stop them from saying it. They could just as easily say we've outgrown the idea of human well-being as a basis (which is essentially what the murderous scientistic regimes of the last century did say).Sure there is, because it is evidence based. Well-being can certainly be defined through analysis of objective empirical evidence through application of the scientific method. Religion is the illusory concept, and it has been exploited by the conflicting interests and different ideas and ideologies of religious people.Quote:
There's no real way to define "the well-being of others" given the reality that people have conflicting interests and different ideas of well-being. It's an illusory concept subject to exploitation by any and every ideology that happens to seize upon it.
This approach anchors morality in a rational empirical consideration of reality as evidenced by the natural world, as opposed to subjective belief in the supernatural world. Consideration is given to what is best, and will maximize the thriving of individuals, all societies and cultures, and other conscious beings. Cultures or societies can use this approach in providing answers to questions of morality as foundational fundamental premises for objective, secular, philosophical discussion or moral problems.
Individuals collectively determine cultural morals from whatever they base as their source. The philosophical debate between objective and subjective morality has been longstanding and won't be resolved here, and is somewhat irrelevant to my point of where morality should be sourced. If you want to say an individual's determination for a source of morality has a subjective and even emotional component, I won't argue with you. I am saying and arguing that morals should be based upon the objective evidence of reality, and not upon subjective religious pronouncements from those claiming divine enlightenment.
Atheists Sounds Alarm on Decline of Christianity
54,063 Views |
723 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by Osodecentx
The things that banged together...who created those?TexasScientist said:Big Bang. More seriously, quantum fluctuation in a vacuum.ScottS said:
Hey atheists....if there is no God, how did all of this get here?
I guess I'm missing your point. I don't see any significance or relevance to what you just wrote.Sam Lowry said:Considering evidence of what will maximize human thriving is not the same as establishing human thriving as a fundamental premise. They are completely, totally, one hundred percent different things.TexasScientist said:Most of y'all are not listening to what I've been saying. Morality should be based upon a humanistic science of morality approach, taking into consideration objective empirical evidence of harm in terms of human, well-being and flourishing, as opposed belief in a religious leaders subjective pronouncements.Sam Lowry said:Every time you say you'd rather base morality on so-called objective evidence, you are speaking subjectively. "I'd rather" is a textbook example of a subjective statement.TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:Most evolutionary psychologists would say we've outgrown the need for religion as a basis for morals. Of course that's pure conjecture on their part, but it doesn't stop them from saying it. They could just as easily say we've outgrown the idea of human well-being as a basis (which is essentially what the murderous scientistic regimes of the last century did say).TexasScientist said:It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.TexasScientist said:
If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.
Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.
Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".
And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.
In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?
The fatal flaws of utilitarianism are equally present in your argument. There's no real way to define "the well-being of others" given the reality that people have conflicting interests and different ideas of well-being. It's an illusory concept subject to exploitation by any and every ideology that happens to seize upon it.Evolutionary psychologists rely upon objective scientific evidence in forming opinions. Religion is where conjecture and subjectivity comes into play because it requires faith and belief without objective evidence. Under your scenario it would no longer be objectively based humanistic science of morality. Instead, it would be some other devised system, such as those of the state regimes you allude. Historically, people are subject to being led down immoral paths by leaders of state, by there religious leaders or both. Cultures and societies determine what is moral. Morality should be based upon a system of values predicated upon harm, well-being, and the ability to flourish of others as determined by empirical, objective scientific evidence - as opposed to a system of subjective religious beliefs,Quote:
Most evolutionary psychologists would say we've outgrown the need for religion as a basis for morals. Of course that's pure conjecture on their part, but it doesn't stop them from saying it. They could just as easily say we've outgrown the idea of human well-being as a basis (which is essentially what the murderous scientistic regimes of the last century did say).Sure there is, because it is evidence based. Well-being can certainly be defined through analysis of objective empirical evidence through application of the scientific method. Religion is the illusory concept, and it has been exploited by the conflicting interests and different ideas and ideologies of religious people.Quote:
There's no real way to define "the well-being of others" given the reality that people have conflicting interests and different ideas of well-being. It's an illusory concept subject to exploitation by any and every ideology that happens to seize upon it.
This approach anchors morality in a rational empirical consideration of reality as evidenced by the natural world, as opposed to subjective belief in the supernatural world. Consideration is given to what is best, and will maximize the thriving of individuals, all societies and cultures, and other conscious beings. Cultures or societies can use this approach in providing answers to questions of morality as foundational fundamental premises for objective, secular, philosophical discussion or moral problems.
Individuals collectively determine cultural morals from whatever they base as their source. The philosophical debate between objective and subjective morality has been longstanding and won't be resolved here, and is somewhat irrelevant to my point of where morality should be sourced. If you want to say an individual's determination for a source of morality has a subjective and even emotional component, I won't argue with you. I am saying and arguing that morals should be based upon the objective evidence of reality, and not upon subjective religious pronouncements from those claiming divine enlightenment.
No one created anything. Spontaneous generation of a universe from what is essentially nothing through quantum fluctuations in a vacuum. Edward Tryon first propounded the idea, and Alan Guth expanded upon how it is possible. I've posted upon it at length on other threads. Stephen Hawking has also written on it, as has Lawrence Krause.ScottS said:The things that banged together...who created those?TexasScientist said:Big Bang. More seriously, quantum fluctuation in a vacuum.ScottS said:
Hey atheists....if there is no God, how did all of this get here?
TexasScientist: "No one created anything."
Eh nihilo, nihilo est.
Most real scientists know this.
Eh nihilo, nihilo est.
Most real scientists know this.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Most of what you are saying is flawed. Evolution is a function of the physical laws that govern nature. Our physical evolution includes evolution of our brain capacity and functions. We have evolved in accordance with the laws of the universe, yet those laws are indifferent to our wellbeing. Morals are an evolutionary psychology phenomenon that has come along with our increased brain capacity to think rationally, and in the abstract. Cultural morals stem in part from recognizing a survival advantage in cooperation between individuals and organizing as groups with common cultural bonds, beliefs, and structured norms of social interaction.ATL Bear said:This is about as succinct a refutation there is to the concept of morality as an evolutionary tactic. Most humanists even believe that human progress and human nature are independent and typically in conflict. If one buys into natural selection, then we've evolved for reproductive purposes primarily, and adding to that the laws of the universe are indifferent to our well being. Bottom line, there is no evolutionary morality, and humanism is simply derived from the latest "evolution" of human cultural bias in all its forms. Which is ironically the same arguments TS makes against religion.Sam Lowry said:Considering evidence of what will maximize human thriving is not the same as establishing human thriving as a fundamental premise. They are completely, totally, one hundred percent different things.TexasScientist said:Most of y'all are not listening to what I've been saying. Morality should be based upon a humanistic science of morality approach, taking into consideration objective empirical evidence of harm in terms of human, well-being and flourishing, as opposed belief in a religious leaders subjective pronouncements.Sam Lowry said:Every time you say you'd rather base morality on so-called objective evidence, you are speaking subjectively. "I'd rather" is a textbook example of a subjective statement.TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:Most evolutionary psychologists would say we've outgrown the need for religion as a basis for morals. Of course that's pure conjecture on their part, but it doesn't stop them from saying it. They could just as easily say we've outgrown the idea of human well-being as a basis (which is essentially what the murderous scientistic regimes of the last century did say).TexasScientist said:It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.TexasScientist said:
If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.
Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.
Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".
And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.
In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?
The fatal flaws of utilitarianism are equally present in your argument. There's no real way to define "the well-being of others" given the reality that people have conflicting interests and different ideas of well-being. It's an illusory concept subject to exploitation by any and every ideology that happens to seize upon it.Evolutionary psychologists rely upon objective scientific evidence in forming opinions. Religion is where conjecture and subjectivity comes into play because it requires faith and belief without objective evidence. Under your scenario it would no longer be objectively based humanistic science of morality. Instead, it would be some other devised system, such as those of the state regimes you allude. Historically, people are subject to being led down immoral paths by leaders of state, by there religious leaders or both. Cultures and societies determine what is moral. Morality should be based upon a system of values predicated upon harm, well-being, and the ability to flourish of others as determined by empirical, objective scientific evidence - as opposed to a system of subjective religious beliefs,Quote:
Most evolutionary psychologists would say we've outgrown the need for religion as a basis for morals. Of course that's pure conjecture on their part, but it doesn't stop them from saying it. They could just as easily say we've outgrown the idea of human well-being as a basis (which is essentially what the murderous scientistic regimes of the last century did say).Sure there is, because it is evidence based. Well-being can certainly be defined through analysis of objective empirical evidence through application of the scientific method. Religion is the illusory concept, and it has been exploited by the conflicting interests and different ideas and ideologies of religious people.Quote:
There's no real way to define "the well-being of others" given the reality that people have conflicting interests and different ideas of well-being. It's an illusory concept subject to exploitation by any and every ideology that happens to seize upon it.
This approach anchors morality in a rational empirical consideration of reality as evidenced by the natural world, as opposed to subjective belief in the supernatural world. Consideration is given to what is best, and will maximize the thriving of individuals, all societies and cultures, and other conscious beings. Cultures or societies can use this approach in providing answers to questions of morality as foundational fundamental premises for objective, secular, philosophical discussion or moral problems.
Individuals collectively determine cultural morals from whatever they base as their source. The philosophical debate between objective and subjective morality has been longstanding and won't be resolved here, and is somewhat irrelevant to my point of where morality should be sourced. If you want to say an individual's determination for a source of morality has a subjective and even emotional component, I won't argue with you. I am saying and arguing that morals should be based upon the objective evidence of reality, and not upon subjective religious pronouncements from those claiming divine enlightenment.
Except in this case, something from nothing. Most scientists know this is possible at the quantum level.Oldbear83 said:
TexasScientist: "No one created anything."
Eh nihilo, nihilo est.
Most real scientists know this.
Prove it. And provide three examples.TexasScientist said:Except in this case, something from nothing. Most scientists know this is possible at the quantum level.Oldbear83 said:
TexasScientist: "No one created anything."
Eh nihilo, nihilo est.
Most real scientists know this.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
That's a new age social understanding, not an evolutionary or even natural tendency. Survival as a driver is about self interest even when exercised in collaboration. We could survive as a species much better with out much of the restraint and direction we exercise through morality. It isn't even a part of evolutionary psychology, which looks primarily back in time theorizing on species behavior.TexasScientist said:Most of what you are saying is flawed. Evolution is a function of the physical laws that govern nature. Our physical evolution includes evolution of our brain capacity and functions. We have evolved in accordance with the laws of the universe, yet those laws are indifferent to our wellbeing. Morals are an evolutionary psychology phenomenon that has come along with our increased brain capacity to think rationally, and in the abstract. Cultural morals stem in part from recognizing a survival advantage in cooperation between individuals and organizing as groups with common cultural bonds, beliefs, and structured norms of social interaction.ATL Bear said:This is about as succinct a refutation there is to the concept of morality as an evolutionary tactic. Most humanists even believe that human progress and human nature are independent and typically in conflict. If one buys into natural selection, then we've evolved for reproductive purposes primarily, and adding to that the laws of the universe are indifferent to our well being. Bottom line, there is no evolutionary morality, and humanism is simply derived from the latest "evolution" of human cultural bias in all its forms. Which is ironically the same arguments TS makes against religion.Sam Lowry said:Considering evidence of what will maximize human thriving is not the same as establishing human thriving as a fundamental premise. They are completely, totally, one hundred percent different things.TexasScientist said:Most of y'all are not listening to what I've been saying. Morality should be based upon a humanistic science of morality approach, taking into consideration objective empirical evidence of harm in terms of human, well-being and flourishing, as opposed belief in a religious leaders subjective pronouncements.Sam Lowry said:Every time you say you'd rather base morality on so-called objective evidence, you are speaking subjectively. "I'd rather" is a textbook example of a subjective statement.TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:Most evolutionary psychologists would say we've outgrown the need for religion as a basis for morals. Of course that's pure conjecture on their part, but it doesn't stop them from saying it. They could just as easily say we've outgrown the idea of human well-being as a basis (which is essentially what the murderous scientistic regimes of the last century did say).TexasScientist said:It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.TexasScientist said:
If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.
Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.
Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".
And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.
In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?
The fatal flaws of utilitarianism are equally present in your argument. There's no real way to define "the well-being of others" given the reality that people have conflicting interests and different ideas of well-being. It's an illusory concept subject to exploitation by any and every ideology that happens to seize upon it.Evolutionary psychologists rely upon objective scientific evidence in forming opinions. Religion is where conjecture and subjectivity comes into play because it requires faith and belief without objective evidence. Under your scenario it would no longer be objectively based humanistic science of morality. Instead, it would be some other devised system, such as those of the state regimes you allude. Historically, people are subject to being led down immoral paths by leaders of state, by there religious leaders or both. Cultures and societies determine what is moral. Morality should be based upon a system of values predicated upon harm, well-being, and the ability to flourish of others as determined by empirical, objective scientific evidence - as opposed to a system of subjective religious beliefs,Quote:
Most evolutionary psychologists would say we've outgrown the need for religion as a basis for morals. Of course that's pure conjecture on their part, but it doesn't stop them from saying it. They could just as easily say we've outgrown the idea of human well-being as a basis (which is essentially what the murderous scientistic regimes of the last century did say).Sure there is, because it is evidence based. Well-being can certainly be defined through analysis of objective empirical evidence through application of the scientific method. Religion is the illusory concept, and it has been exploited by the conflicting interests and different ideas and ideologies of religious people.Quote:
There's no real way to define "the well-being of others" given the reality that people have conflicting interests and different ideas of well-being. It's an illusory concept subject to exploitation by any and every ideology that happens to seize upon it.
This approach anchors morality in a rational empirical consideration of reality as evidenced by the natural world, as opposed to subjective belief in the supernatural world. Consideration is given to what is best, and will maximize the thriving of individuals, all societies and cultures, and other conscious beings. Cultures or societies can use this approach in providing answers to questions of morality as foundational fundamental premises for objective, secular, philosophical discussion or moral problems.
Individuals collectively determine cultural morals from whatever they base as their source. The philosophical debate between objective and subjective morality has been longstanding and won't be resolved here, and is somewhat irrelevant to my point of where morality should be sourced. If you want to say an individual's determination for a source of morality has a subjective and even emotional component, I won't argue with you. I am saying and arguing that morals should be based upon the objective evidence of reality, and not upon subjective religious pronouncements from those claiming divine enlightenment.
What happens when the German scientists tell us that the survival as well as the flourishing of the human race would be enhanced by the removal of branches less advanced on the evolutionary scale (such as Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, etc.)? That would seem to fit perfectly within the artificial morality we are constructing here.
JXL said:
What happens when the German scientists tell us that the survival as well as the flourishing of the human race would be enhanced by the removal of branches less advanced on the evolutionary scale (such as Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, etc.)? That would seem to fit perfectly within the artificial morality we are constructing here.
It doesn't fit at all. Causing harm is pretty much the opposite of harm reduction.
quash said:JXL said:
What happens when the German scientists tell us that the survival as well as the flourishing of the human race would be enhanced by the removal of branches less advanced on the evolutionary scale (such as Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, etc.)? That would seem to fit perfectly within the artificial morality we are constructing here.
It doesn't fit at all. Causing harm is pretty much the opposite of harm reduction.
Sure it does. They tell us that they are enhancing and strengthening the human race by removing impurities. They look to no less of an authority than Charles Darwin himself, who wrote that some races of man were further along the evolutionary scale and that the civilized races would inevitably exterminate the lesser ones. Isn't benefiting the human race the whole point of this new enlightened morality?
Edward Tryon, Alan Guth, and Stephen Hawking. They all have published papers on the subject. I can give you more if you need more than three.Oldbear83 said:Prove it. And provide three examples.TexasScientist said:Except in this case, something from nothing. Most scientists know this is possible at the quantum level.Oldbear83 said:
TexasScientist: "No one created anything."
Eh nihilo, nihilo est.
Most real scientists know this.
That's not proof, and none of those men have created matter.TexasScientist said:Edward Tryon, Alan Guth, and Stephen Hawking. They all have published papers on the subject. I can give you more if you need more than three.Oldbear83 said:Prove it. And provide three examples.TexasScientist said:Except in this case, something from nothing. Most scientists know this is possible at the quantum level.Oldbear83 said:
TexasScientist: "No one created anything."
Eh nihilo, nihilo est.
Most real scientists know this.
Strike one.
Try again.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
It is absolutely an evolutionary feature. Moral behaviour is an evolved cultural trait. As the hominid populations grew, there was a survival advantage to cooperating in ever larger groups which recquired rules of interacting and cooperating. Morality evolved, as did making tools, and learning how to communicate. It has everything to do with evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology seeks to identify which human psychological traits are evolved adaptations. A large part of human behavior can be attributed to psychological adaptations which evolved to solve recurrent problems in human ancestral environments.ATL Bear said:That's a new age social understanding, not an evolutionary or even natural tendency. Survival as a driver is about self interest even when exercised in collaboration. We could survive as a species much better with out much of the restraint and direction we exercise through morality. It isn't even a part of evolutionary psychology, which looks primarily back in time theorizing on species behavior.TexasScientist said:Most of what you are saying is flawed. Evolution is a function of the physical laws that govern nature. Our physical evolution includes evolution of our brain capacity and functions. We have evolved in accordance with the laws of the universe, yet those laws are indifferent to our wellbeing. Morals are an evolutionary psychology phenomenon that has come along with our increased brain capacity to think rationally, and in the abstract. Cultural morals stem in part from recognizing a survival advantage in cooperation between individuals and organizing as groups with common cultural bonds, beliefs, and structured norms of social interaction.ATL Bear said:This is about as succinct a refutation there is to the concept of morality as an evolutionary tactic. Most humanists even believe that human progress and human nature are independent and typically in conflict. If one buys into natural selection, then we've evolved for reproductive purposes primarily, and adding to that the laws of the universe are indifferent to our well being. Bottom line, there is no evolutionary morality, and humanism is simply derived from the latest "evolution" of human cultural bias in all its forms. Which is ironically the same arguments TS makes against religion.Sam Lowry said:Considering evidence of what will maximize human thriving is not the same as establishing human thriving as a fundamental premise. They are completely, totally, one hundred percent different things.TexasScientist said:Most of y'all are not listening to what I've been saying. Morality should be based upon a humanistic science of morality approach, taking into consideration objective empirical evidence of harm in terms of human, well-being and flourishing, as opposed belief in a religious leaders subjective pronouncements.Sam Lowry said:Every time you say you'd rather base morality on so-called objective evidence, you are speaking subjectively. "I'd rather" is a textbook example of a subjective statement.TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:Most evolutionary psychologists would say we've outgrown the need for religion as a basis for morals. Of course that's pure conjecture on their part, but it doesn't stop them from saying it. They could just as easily say we've outgrown the idea of human well-being as a basis (which is essentially what the murderous scientistic regimes of the last century did say).TexasScientist said:It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.TexasScientist said:
If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.
Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.
Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".
And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.
In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?
The fatal flaws of utilitarianism are equally present in your argument. There's no real way to define "the well-being of others" given the reality that people have conflicting interests and different ideas of well-being. It's an illusory concept subject to exploitation by any and every ideology that happens to seize upon it.Evolutionary psychologists rely upon objective scientific evidence in forming opinions. Religion is where conjecture and subjectivity comes into play because it requires faith and belief without objective evidence. Under your scenario it would no longer be objectively based humanistic science of morality. Instead, it would be some other devised system, such as those of the state regimes you allude. Historically, people are subject to being led down immoral paths by leaders of state, by there religious leaders or both. Cultures and societies determine what is moral. Morality should be based upon a system of values predicated upon harm, well-being, and the ability to flourish of others as determined by empirical, objective scientific evidence - as opposed to a system of subjective religious beliefs,Quote:
Most evolutionary psychologists would say we've outgrown the need for religion as a basis for morals. Of course that's pure conjecture on their part, but it doesn't stop them from saying it. They could just as easily say we've outgrown the idea of human well-being as a basis (which is essentially what the murderous scientistic regimes of the last century did say).Sure there is, because it is evidence based. Well-being can certainly be defined through analysis of objective empirical evidence through application of the scientific method. Religion is the illusory concept, and it has been exploited by the conflicting interests and different ideas and ideologies of religious people.Quote:
There's no real way to define "the well-being of others" given the reality that people have conflicting interests and different ideas of well-being. It's an illusory concept subject to exploitation by any and every ideology that happens to seize upon it.
This approach anchors morality in a rational empirical consideration of reality as evidenced by the natural world, as opposed to subjective belief in the supernatural world. Consideration is given to what is best, and will maximize the thriving of individuals, all societies and cultures, and other conscious beings. Cultures or societies can use this approach in providing answers to questions of morality as foundational fundamental premises for objective, secular, philosophical discussion or moral problems.
Individuals collectively determine cultural morals from whatever they base as their source. The philosophical debate between objective and subjective morality has been longstanding and won't be resolved here, and is somewhat irrelevant to my point of where morality should be sourced. If you want to say an individual's determination for a source of morality has a subjective and even emotional component, I won't argue with you. I am saying and arguing that morals should be based upon the objective evidence of reality, and not upon subjective religious pronouncements from those claiming divine enlightenment.
You're taking a reductionist view. It's more about taking into consideration of harm and wellbeing, and the flourishing of individuals. What you describe with Germany is more akin to what Yahweh ordered the Jews to do to the Canaanites.JXL said:quash said:JXL said:
What happens when the German scientists tell us that the survival as well as the flourishing of the human race would be enhanced by the removal of branches less advanced on the evolutionary scale (such as Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, etc.)? That would seem to fit perfectly within the artificial morality we are constructing here.
It doesn't fit at all. Causing harm is pretty much the opposite of harm reduction.
Sure it does. They tell us that they are enhancing and strengthening the human race by removing impurities. They look to no less of an authority than Charles Darwin himself, who wrote that some races of man were further along the evolutionary scale and that the civilized races would inevitably exterminate the lesser ones. Isn't benefiting the human race the whole point of this new enlightened morality?
You asked me to name three scientists who knew it. They each have written on spontaneous generation of a universe from essentially nothing. A creator is not necessary.Oldbear83 said:That's not proof, and none of those men have created matter.TexasScientist said:Edward Tryon, Alan Guth, and Stephen Hawking. They all have published papers on the subject. I can give you more if you need more than three.Oldbear83 said:Prove it. And provide three examples.TexasScientist said:Except in this case, something from nothing. Most scientists know this is possible at the quantum level.Oldbear83 said:
TexasScientist: "No one created anything."
Eh nihilo, nihilo est.
Most real scientists know this.
Strike one.
Try again.
The point is that you haven't established human thriving as a fundamental principle. You've merely assumed it. Most species don't thrive. Why should we, necessarily?TexasScientist said:I guess I'm missing your point. I don't see any significance or relevance to what you just wrote.Sam Lowry said:Considering evidence of what will maximize human thriving is not the same as establishing human thriving as a fundamental premise. They are completely, totally, one hundred percent different things.TexasScientist said:Most of y'all are not listening to what I've been saying. Morality should be based upon a humanistic science of morality approach, taking into consideration objective empirical evidence of harm in terms of human, well-being and flourishing, as opposed belief in a religious leaders subjective pronouncements.Sam Lowry said:Every time you say you'd rather base morality on so-called objective evidence, you are speaking subjectively. "I'd rather" is a textbook example of a subjective statement.TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:Most evolutionary psychologists would say we've outgrown the need for religion as a basis for morals. Of course that's pure conjecture on their part, but it doesn't stop them from saying it. They could just as easily say we've outgrown the idea of human well-being as a basis (which is essentially what the murderous scientistic regimes of the last century did say).TexasScientist said:It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.TexasScientist said:
If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.
Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.
Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".
And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.
In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?
The fatal flaws of utilitarianism are equally present in your argument. There's no real way to define "the well-being of others" given the reality that people have conflicting interests and different ideas of well-being. It's an illusory concept subject to exploitation by any and every ideology that happens to seize upon it.Evolutionary psychologists rely upon objective scientific evidence in forming opinions. Religion is where conjecture and subjectivity comes into play because it requires faith and belief without objective evidence. Under your scenario it would no longer be objectively based humanistic science of morality. Instead, it would be some other devised system, such as those of the state regimes you allude. Historically, people are subject to being led down immoral paths by leaders of state, by there religious leaders or both. Cultures and societies determine what is moral. Morality should be based upon a system of values predicated upon harm, well-being, and the ability to flourish of others as determined by empirical, objective scientific evidence - as opposed to a system of subjective religious beliefs,Quote:
Most evolutionary psychologists would say we've outgrown the need for religion as a basis for morals. Of course that's pure conjecture on their part, but it doesn't stop them from saying it. They could just as easily say we've outgrown the idea of human well-being as a basis (which is essentially what the murderous scientistic regimes of the last century did say).Sure there is, because it is evidence based. Well-being can certainly be defined through analysis of objective empirical evidence through application of the scientific method. Religion is the illusory concept, and it has been exploited by the conflicting interests and different ideas and ideologies of religious people.Quote:
There's no real way to define "the well-being of others" given the reality that people have conflicting interests and different ideas of well-being. It's an illusory concept subject to exploitation by any and every ideology that happens to seize upon it.
This approach anchors morality in a rational empirical consideration of reality as evidenced by the natural world, as opposed to subjective belief in the supernatural world. Consideration is given to what is best, and will maximize the thriving of individuals, all societies and cultures, and other conscious beings. Cultures or societies can use this approach in providing answers to questions of morality as foundational fundamental premises for objective, secular, philosophical discussion or moral problems.
Individuals collectively determine cultural morals from whatever they base as their source. The philosophical debate between objective and subjective morality has been longstanding and won't be resolved here, and is somewhat irrelevant to my point of where morality should be sourced. If you want to say an individual's determination for a source of morality has a subjective and even emotional component, I won't argue with you. I am saying and arguing that morals should be based upon the objective evidence of reality, and not upon subjective religious pronouncements from those claiming divine enlightenment.
Hawking got it right the first time and then changed his mind. Good example of how scientists can allow emotion to inform their opinions.TexasScientist said:You asked me to name three scientists who knew it. They each have written on spontaneous generation of a universe from essentially nothing. A creator is not necessary.Oldbear83 said:That's not proof, and none of those men have created matter.TexasScientist said:Edward Tryon, Alan Guth, and Stephen Hawking. They all have published papers on the subject. I can give you more if you need more than three.Oldbear83 said:Prove it. And provide three examples.TexasScientist said:Except in this case, something from nothing. Most scientists know this is possible at the quantum level.Oldbear83 said:
TexasScientist: "No one created anything."
Eh nihilo, nihilo est.
Most real scientists know this.
Strike one.
Try again.
We won't thrive necessarily. Morals is an evolutionary trait that we have evolved in order to flourish in large groups. As Homo Sapiens grew in numbers, it became advantageous to cooperate and organize into cooperative groups. I don't see why you think I need to establish human thriving as fundamental principle of anything.Sam Lowry said:The point is that you haven't established human thriving as a fundamental principle. You've merely assumed it. Most species don't thrive. Why should we, necessarily?TexasScientist said:I guess I'm missing your point. I don't see any significance or relevance to what you just wrote.Sam Lowry said:Considering evidence of what will maximize human thriving is not the same as establishing human thriving as a fundamental premise. They are completely, totally, one hundred percent different things.TexasScientist said:Most of y'all are not listening to what I've been saying. Morality should be based upon a humanistic science of morality approach, taking into consideration objective empirical evidence of harm in terms of human, well-being and flourishing, as opposed belief in a religious leaders subjective pronouncements.Sam Lowry said:Every time you say you'd rather base morality on so-called objective evidence, you are speaking subjectively. "I'd rather" is a textbook example of a subjective statement.TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:Most evolutionary psychologists would say we've outgrown the need for religion as a basis for morals. Of course that's pure conjecture on their part, but it doesn't stop them from saying it. They could just as easily say we've outgrown the idea of human well-being as a basis (which is essentially what the murderous scientistic regimes of the last century did say).TexasScientist said:It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.TexasScientist said:
If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.
Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.
Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".
And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.
In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?
The fatal flaws of utilitarianism are equally present in your argument. There's no real way to define "the well-being of others" given the reality that people have conflicting interests and different ideas of well-being. It's an illusory concept subject to exploitation by any and every ideology that happens to seize upon it.Evolutionary psychologists rely upon objective scientific evidence in forming opinions. Religion is where conjecture and subjectivity comes into play because it requires faith and belief without objective evidence. Under your scenario it would no longer be objectively based humanistic science of morality. Instead, it would be some other devised system, such as those of the state regimes you allude. Historically, people are subject to being led down immoral paths by leaders of state, by there religious leaders or both. Cultures and societies determine what is moral. Morality should be based upon a system of values predicated upon harm, well-being, and the ability to flourish of others as determined by empirical, objective scientific evidence - as opposed to a system of subjective religious beliefs,Quote:
Most evolutionary psychologists would say we've outgrown the need for religion as a basis for morals. Of course that's pure conjecture on their part, but it doesn't stop them from saying it. They could just as easily say we've outgrown the idea of human well-being as a basis (which is essentially what the murderous scientistic regimes of the last century did say).Sure there is, because it is evidence based. Well-being can certainly be defined through analysis of objective empirical evidence through application of the scientific method. Religion is the illusory concept, and it has been exploited by the conflicting interests and different ideas and ideologies of religious people.Quote:
There's no real way to define "the well-being of others" given the reality that people have conflicting interests and different ideas of well-being. It's an illusory concept subject to exploitation by any and every ideology that happens to seize upon it.
This approach anchors morality in a rational empirical consideration of reality as evidenced by the natural world, as opposed to subjective belief in the supernatural world. Consideration is given to what is best, and will maximize the thriving of individuals, all societies and cultures, and other conscious beings. Cultures or societies can use this approach in providing answers to questions of morality as foundational fundamental premises for objective, secular, philosophical discussion or moral problems.
Individuals collectively determine cultural morals from whatever they base as their source. The philosophical debate between objective and subjective morality has been longstanding and won't be resolved here, and is somewhat irrelevant to my point of where morality should be sourced. If you want to say an individual's determination for a source of morality has a subjective and even emotional component, I won't argue with you. I am saying and arguing that morals should be based upon the objective evidence of reality, and not upon subjective religious pronouncements from those claiming divine enlightenment.
What do you think he got right the first time, and then changed his mind?Sam Lowry said:Hawking got it right the first time and then changed his mind. Good example of how scientists can allow emotion to inform their opinions.TexasScientist said:You asked me to name three scientists who knew it. They each have written on spontaneous generation of a universe from essentially nothing. A creator is not necessary.Oldbear83 said:That's not proof, and none of those men have created matter.TexasScientist said:Edward Tryon, Alan Guth, and Stephen Hawking. They all have published papers on the subject. I can give you more if you need more than three.Oldbear83 said:Prove it. And provide three examples.TexasScientist said:Except in this case, something from nothing. Most scientists know this is possible at the quantum level.Oldbear83 said:
TexasScientist: "No one created anything."
Eh nihilo, nihilo est.
Most real scientists know this.
Strike one.
Try again.
Emotional bias is an evolutionary trait. People tend to seek and embrace that which confirms their bias, while dismissing and ignoring evidence which contradicts. It's pervasive on this board. In the case of Hawking, a good scientist will change their view when confronted with objective evidence.
No, what I said was "Prove it", which you did not, and "provide three examples", which you did not.TexasScientist said:You asked me to name three scientists who knew it. They each have written on spontaneous generation of a universe from essentially nothing. A creator is not necessary.Oldbear83 said:That's not proof, and none of those men have created matter.TexasScientist said:Edward Tryon, Alan Guth, and Stephen Hawking. They all have published papers on the subject. I can give you more if you need more than three.Oldbear83 said:Prove it. And provide three examples.TexasScientist said:Except in this case, something from nothing. Most scientists know this is possible at the quantum level.Oldbear83 said:
TexasScientist: "No one created anything."
Eh nihilo, nihilo est.
Most real scientists know this.
Strike one.
Try again.
Strike two.
Theories with no proof, none of that empirical evidence you make so much of, do not count as anything more than opinion.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
TexasScientist said:You're taking a reductionist view. It's more about taking into consideration of harm and wellbeing, and the flourishing of individuals. What you describe with Germany is more akin to what Yahweh ordered the Jews to do to the Canaanites.JXL said:quash said:JXL said:
What happens when the German scientists tell us that the survival as well as the flourishing of the human race would be enhanced by the removal of branches less advanced on the evolutionary scale (such as Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, etc.)? That would seem to fit perfectly within the artificial morality we are constructing here.
It doesn't fit at all. Causing harm is pretty much the opposite of harm reduction.
Sure it does. They tell us that they are enhancing and strengthening the human race by removing impurities. They look to no less of an authority than Charles Darwin himself, who wrote that some races of man were further along the evolutionary scale and that the civilized races would inevitably exterminate the lesser ones. Isn't benefiting the human race the whole point of this new enlightened morality?
So you think the Jews in Germany were engaging in large-scale child sacrifice and posed an existential threat to the German people?
Cooperation is not a moral, so I have no idea why you continue to push this fallacy. Evolutionary psychology is a theoretical (more hypothetical actually) means to try and explain what brain functions caused certain parts of it to be exaggerated or developed over time through behavioral constants.TexasScientist said:It is absolutely an evolutionary feature. Moral behaviour is an evolved cultural trait. As the hominid populations grew, there was a survival advantage to cooperating in ever larger groups which recquired rules of interacting and cooperating. Morality evolved, as did making tools, and learning how to communicate. It has everything to do with evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology seeks to identify which human psychological traits are evolved adaptations. A large part of human behavior can be attributed to psychological adaptations which evolved to solve recurrent problems in human ancestral environments.ATL Bear said:That's a new age social understanding, not an evolutionary or even natural tendency. Survival as a driver is about self interest even when exercised in collaboration. We could survive as a species much better with out much of the restraint and direction we exercise through morality. It isn't even a part of evolutionary psychology, which looks primarily back in time theorizing on species behavior.TexasScientist said:Most of what you are saying is flawed. Evolution is a function of the physical laws that govern nature. Our physical evolution includes evolution of our brain capacity and functions. We have evolved in accordance with the laws of the universe, yet those laws are indifferent to our wellbeing. Morals are an evolutionary psychology phenomenon that has come along with our increased brain capacity to think rationally, and in the abstract. Cultural morals stem in part from recognizing a survival advantage in cooperation between individuals and organizing as groups with common cultural bonds, beliefs, and structured norms of social interaction.ATL Bear said:This is about as succinct a refutation there is to the concept of morality as an evolutionary tactic. Most humanists even believe that human progress and human nature are independent and typically in conflict. If one buys into natural selection, then we've evolved for reproductive purposes primarily, and adding to that the laws of the universe are indifferent to our well being. Bottom line, there is no evolutionary morality, and humanism is simply derived from the latest "evolution" of human cultural bias in all its forms. Which is ironically the same arguments TS makes against religion.Sam Lowry said:Considering evidence of what will maximize human thriving is not the same as establishing human thriving as a fundamental premise. They are completely, totally, one hundred percent different things.TexasScientist said:Most of y'all are not listening to what I've been saying. Morality should be based upon a humanistic science of morality approach, taking into consideration objective empirical evidence of harm in terms of human, well-being and flourishing, as opposed belief in a religious leaders subjective pronouncements.Sam Lowry said:Every time you say you'd rather base morality on so-called objective evidence, you are speaking subjectively. "I'd rather" is a textbook example of a subjective statement.TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:Most evolutionary psychologists would say we've outgrown the need for religion as a basis for morals. Of course that's pure conjecture on their part, but it doesn't stop them from saying it. They could just as easily say we've outgrown the idea of human well-being as a basis (which is essentially what the murderous scientistic regimes of the last century did say).TexasScientist said:It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.TexasScientist said:
If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.
Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.
Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".
And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.
In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?
The fatal flaws of utilitarianism are equally present in your argument. There's no real way to define "the well-being of others" given the reality that people have conflicting interests and different ideas of well-being. It's an illusory concept subject to exploitation by any and every ideology that happens to seize upon it.Evolutionary psychologists rely upon objective scientific evidence in forming opinions. Religion is where conjecture and subjectivity comes into play because it requires faith and belief without objective evidence. Under your scenario it would no longer be objectively based humanistic science of morality. Instead, it would be some other devised system, such as those of the state regimes you allude. Historically, people are subject to being led down immoral paths by leaders of state, by there religious leaders or both. Cultures and societies determine what is moral. Morality should be based upon a system of values predicated upon harm, well-being, and the ability to flourish of others as determined by empirical, objective scientific evidence - as opposed to a system of subjective religious beliefs,Quote:
Most evolutionary psychologists would say we've outgrown the need for religion as a basis for morals. Of course that's pure conjecture on their part, but it doesn't stop them from saying it. They could just as easily say we've outgrown the idea of human well-being as a basis (which is essentially what the murderous scientistic regimes of the last century did say).Sure there is, because it is evidence based. Well-being can certainly be defined through analysis of objective empirical evidence through application of the scientific method. Religion is the illusory concept, and it has been exploited by the conflicting interests and different ideas and ideologies of religious people.Quote:
There's no real way to define "the well-being of others" given the reality that people have conflicting interests and different ideas of well-being. It's an illusory concept subject to exploitation by any and every ideology that happens to seize upon it.
This approach anchors morality in a rational empirical consideration of reality as evidenced by the natural world, as opposed to subjective belief in the supernatural world. Consideration is given to what is best, and will maximize the thriving of individuals, all societies and cultures, and other conscious beings. Cultures or societies can use this approach in providing answers to questions of morality as foundational fundamental premises for objective, secular, philosophical discussion or moral problems.
Individuals collectively determine cultural morals from whatever they base as their source. The philosophical debate between objective and subjective morality has been longstanding and won't be resolved here, and is somewhat irrelevant to my point of where morality should be sourced. If you want to say an individual's determination for a source of morality has a subjective and even emotional component, I won't argue with you. I am saying and arguing that morals should be based upon the objective evidence of reality, and not upon subjective religious pronouncements from those claiming divine enlightenment.
Put simply, there is no standing to say morality is an evolutionary tactic. In most ways, evolution is counter to morality as a mechanism of natural selection and the methods of speciation.
I think you need to establish it because it's what you're claiming as the foundation of your scientific morality.TexasScientist said:We won't thrive necessarily. Morals is an evolutionary trait that we have evolved in order to flourish in large groups. As Homo Sapiens grew in numbers, it became advantageous to cooperate and organize into cooperative groups. I don't see why you think I need to establish human thriving as fundamental principle of anything.Sam Lowry said:The point is that you haven't established human thriving as a fundamental principle. You've merely assumed it. Most species don't thrive. Why should we, necessarily?TexasScientist said:I guess I'm missing your point. I don't see any significance or relevance to what you just wrote.Sam Lowry said:Considering evidence of what will maximize human thriving is not the same as establishing human thriving as a fundamental premise. They are completely, totally, one hundred percent different things.TexasScientist said:Most of y'all are not listening to what I've been saying. Morality should be based upon a humanistic science of morality approach, taking into consideration objective empirical evidence of harm in terms of human, well-being and flourishing, as opposed belief in a religious leaders subjective pronouncements.Sam Lowry said:Every time you say you'd rather base morality on so-called objective evidence, you are speaking subjectively. "I'd rather" is a textbook example of a subjective statement.TexasScientist said:Sam Lowry said:Most evolutionary psychologists would say we've outgrown the need for religion as a basis for morals. Of course that's pure conjecture on their part, but it doesn't stop them from saying it. They could just as easily say we've outgrown the idea of human well-being as a basis (which is essentially what the murderous scientistic regimes of the last century did say).TexasScientist said:It relates back to evolution and evolutionary psychology. Our behavior is related to psychological characteristics that evolved to resolve ancestral problems related to cultural behavior and the need to successfully cooperate with others. To a large degree, religion and religious morals evolved to resolve and provide solutions to the ancestral condition and need for unifying understandings.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:State of well-being is something that can be objectively measured and quantified. Objective moral determinations can be made in terms of harm, well-being, and ability to flourish as individuals and cooperative groups of individuals. As opposed to moral determinations that are subjective, such as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:Exactly what I am saying. An objective assessment of well-being is made in each case you describe, as opposed to following an arbitrary edict. Moral decisions should be based upon objective evidence of well-being, as opposed to a religious edict.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:The morality of an action is tied to its context, which can change in time. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot someone who is threatening others with a gun. But if that person later decides to surrender and drop his weapon, then it would be wrong to shoot him then. It is no longer moral to shoot him once the threat has passed and the situation is under control. But the morals didn't change, the circumstances did.TexasScientist said:
If the form of punishment is moral at a particular time, then it is moral for all time, unless morals change. If it is no longer moral to stone someone, then someone's morals changed.
Another example: suppose a certain food has a chemical that is harmless to adults, but is toxic to a fetus. It would be immoral, then, for a woman to knowingly eat this food during the time she is pregnant. But after nine months, and after the baby is delivered, it would no longer be immoral to do so. Again, morals didn't change (it's still wrong to eat it while someone is pregnant) but her status changed, therefore it no longer applies.
Please explain how your unilaterally selected supposed standard of "well-being" is different in kind from religious edict. All I see is your continuing circular construction - it's "moral" because "well-being", it's "well-being" because "moral".
And yet you are still unable to explain why your version of "well-being" is even a valid criterion for decision making that is anything other than arbitrary in the same manner as a monk or shaman claiming divine revelation.
In your God/s-free universe, why is there even such a thing as morality?
The fatal flaws of utilitarianism are equally present in your argument. There's no real way to define "the well-being of others" given the reality that people have conflicting interests and different ideas of well-being. It's an illusory concept subject to exploitation by any and every ideology that happens to seize upon it.Evolutionary psychologists rely upon objective scientific evidence in forming opinions. Religion is where conjecture and subjectivity comes into play because it requires faith and belief without objective evidence. Under your scenario it would no longer be objectively based humanistic science of morality. Instead, it would be some other devised system, such as those of the state regimes you allude. Historically, people are subject to being led down immoral paths by leaders of state, by there religious leaders or both. Cultures and societies determine what is moral. Morality should be based upon a system of values predicated upon harm, well-being, and the ability to flourish of others as determined by empirical, objective scientific evidence - as opposed to a system of subjective religious beliefs,Quote:
Most evolutionary psychologists would say we've outgrown the need for religion as a basis for morals. Of course that's pure conjecture on their part, but it doesn't stop them from saying it. They could just as easily say we've outgrown the idea of human well-being as a basis (which is essentially what the murderous scientistic regimes of the last century did say).Sure there is, because it is evidence based. Well-being can certainly be defined through analysis of objective empirical evidence through application of the scientific method. Religion is the illusory concept, and it has been exploited by the conflicting interests and different ideas and ideologies of religious people.Quote:
There's no real way to define "the well-being of others" given the reality that people have conflicting interests and different ideas of well-being. It's an illusory concept subject to exploitation by any and every ideology that happens to seize upon it.
This approach anchors morality in a rational empirical consideration of reality as evidenced by the natural world, as opposed to subjective belief in the supernatural world. Consideration is given to what is best, and will maximize the thriving of individuals, all societies and cultures, and other conscious beings. Cultures or societies can use this approach in providing answers to questions of morality as foundational fundamental premises for objective, secular, philosophical discussion or moral problems.
Individuals collectively determine cultural morals from whatever they base as their source. The philosophical debate between objective and subjective morality has been longstanding and won't be resolved here, and is somewhat irrelevant to my point of where morality should be sourced. If you want to say an individual's determination for a source of morality has a subjective and even emotional component, I won't argue with you. I am saying and arguing that morals should be based upon the objective evidence of reality, and not upon subjective religious pronouncements from those claiming divine enlightenment.
Hawking understood, at least when he wrote his first book, that there was no scientific explanation for spontaneous creation. He eventually decided that creation resulted from something called the Law of Gravity, thus attributing creative power to a concept in the minds of humans who didn't yet exist. The fallacy is obvious.TexasScientist said:What do you think he got right the first time, and then changed his mind?Sam Lowry said:Hawking got it right the first time and then changed his mind. Good example of how scientists can allow emotion to inform their opinions.TexasScientist said:You asked me to name three scientists who knew it. They each have written on spontaneous generation of a universe from essentially nothing. A creator is not necessary.Oldbear83 said:That's not proof, and none of those men have created matter.TexasScientist said:Edward Tryon, Alan Guth, and Stephen Hawking. They all have published papers on the subject. I can give you more if you need more than three.Oldbear83 said:Prove it. And provide three examples.TexasScientist said:Except in this case, something from nothing. Most scientists know this is possible at the quantum level.Oldbear83 said:
TexasScientist: "No one created anything."
Eh nihilo, nihilo est.
Most real scientists know this.
Strike one.
Try again.
Emotional bias is an evolutionary trait. People tend to seek and embrace that which confirms their bias, while dismissing and ignoring evidence which contradicts. It's pervasive on this board. In the case of Hawking, a good scientist will change their view when confronted with objective evidence.
Sam Lowry said:Hawking understood, at least when he wrote his first book, that there was no scientific explanation for spontaneous creation. He eventually decided that creation resulted from something called the Law of Gravity, thus attributing creative power to a concept in the minds of humans who didn't yet exist. The fallacy is obvious.TexasScientist said:What do you think he got right the first time, and then changed his mind?Sam Lowry said:Hawking got it right the first time and then changed his mind. Good example of how scientists can allow emotion to inform their opinions.TexasScientist said:You asked me to name three scientists who knew it. They each have written on spontaneous generation of a universe from essentially nothing. A creator is not necessary.Oldbear83 said:That's not proof, and none of those men have created matter.TexasScientist said:Edward Tryon, Alan Guth, and Stephen Hawking. They all have published papers on the subject. I can give you more if you need more than three.Oldbear83 said:Prove it. And provide three examples.TexasScientist said:Except in this case, something from nothing. Most scientists know this is possible at the quantum level.Oldbear83 said:
TexasScientist: "No one created anything."
Eh nihilo, nihilo est.
Most real scientists know this.
Strike one.
Try again.
Emotional bias is an evolutionary trait. People tend to seek and embrace that which confirms their bias, while dismissing and ignoring evidence which contradicts. It's pervasive on this board. In the case of Hawking, a good scientist will change their view when confronted with objective evidence.
I think what happened is Hawking took a big bong hit and then came up with this new theory that differed from his previous theory.
I haven't' read Hawking's first book which was published in 1988, but I am familiar with his later works, so I question what you think you read. Perhaps you can provide a reference?Sam Lowry said:Hawking understood, at least when he wrote his first book, that there was no scientific explanation for spontaneous creation. He eventually decided that creation resulted from something called the Law of Gravity, thus attributing creative power to a concept in the minds of humans who didn't yet exist. The fallacy is obvious.TexasScientist said:What do you think he got right the first time, and then changed his mind?Sam Lowry said:Hawking got it right the first time and then changed his mind. Good example of how scientists can allow emotion to inform their opinions.TexasScientist said:You asked me to name three scientists who knew it. They each have written on spontaneous generation of a universe from essentially nothing. A creator is not necessary.Oldbear83 said:That's not proof, and none of those men have created matter.TexasScientist said:Edward Tryon, Alan Guth, and Stephen Hawking. They all have published papers on the subject. I can give you more if you need more than three.Oldbear83 said:Prove it. And provide three examples.TexasScientist said:Except in this case, something from nothing. Most scientists know this is possible at the quantum level.Oldbear83 said:
TexasScientist: "No one created anything."
Eh nihilo, nihilo est.
Most real scientists know this.
Strike one.
Try again.
Emotional bias is an evolutionary trait. People tend to seek and embrace that which confirms their bias, while dismissing and ignoring evidence which contradicts. It's pervasive on this board. In the case of Hawking, a good scientist will change their view when confronted with objective evidence.
Here are some of his quotes on this subject:
"Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in."
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." The Grand Design, by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow
"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components failThere is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark." 2011 interview with The Guardian.
"Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn't. I'm an atheist." 2014 interview in El Mundo.
"Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation."
That is a fair opinion. It is nothing but opinion, however, no matter who said it.
That is a fair opinion. It is nothing but opinion, however, no matter who said it.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Oldbear83 said:
"Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation."
That is a fair opinion. It is nothing but opinion, however, no matter who said it.
Sure it is. It is opinion backed by evidence
Still just an opinion.quash said:Oldbear83 said:
"Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation."
That is a fair opinion. It is nothing but opinion, however, no matter who said it.
Sure it is. It is opinion backed by evidence
You can neither prove God exists, nor that He does not exist.
It's fine to choose however you decide, but stop pretending your opinion is anything but opinion.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" A Brief History of TimeTexasScientist said:I haven't' read Hawking's first book which was published in 1988, but I am familiar with his later works, so I question what you think you read. Perhaps you can provide a reference?Sam Lowry said:Hawking understood, at least when he wrote his first book, that there was no scientific explanation for spontaneous creation. He eventually decided that creation resulted from something called the Law of Gravity, thus attributing creative power to a concept in the minds of humans who didn't yet exist. The fallacy is obvious.TexasScientist said:What do you think he got right the first time, and then changed his mind?Sam Lowry said:Hawking got it right the first time and then changed his mind. Good example of how scientists can allow emotion to inform their opinions.TexasScientist said:You asked me to name three scientists who knew it. They each have written on spontaneous generation of a universe from essentially nothing. A creator is not necessary.Oldbear83 said:That's not proof, and none of those men have created matter.TexasScientist said:Edward Tryon, Alan Guth, and Stephen Hawking. They all have published papers on the subject. I can give you more if you need more than three.Oldbear83 said:Prove it. And provide three examples.TexasScientist said:Except in this case, something from nothing. Most scientists know this is possible at the quantum level.Oldbear83 said:
TexasScientist: "No one created anything."
Eh nihilo, nihilo est.
Most real scientists know this.
Strike one.
Try again.
Emotional bias is an evolutionary trait. People tend to seek and embrace that which confirms their bias, while dismissing and ignoring evidence which contradicts. It's pervasive on this board. In the case of Hawking, a good scientist will change their view when confronted with objective evidence.
Replace "universe" with "multiverse," and this remains true.
You can say the same about the FSM. The fact that we have plausible scientific explanations for the existence of the Universe without the need of a god is a pretty good inference there is no god. The fact that there is no objective empirical evidence indicating there is a god, is a pretty good inference there is no god.Oldbear83 said:Still just an opinion.quash said:Oldbear83 said:
"Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation."
That is a fair opinion. It is nothing but opinion, however, no matter who said it.
Sure it is. It is opinion backed by evidence
You can neither prove God exists, nor that He does not exist.
It's fine to choose however you decide, but stop pretending your opinion is anything but opinion.
So he poses these questions. Did he attempt to answer the questions he posited in the subsequent writings?Sam Lowry said:"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" A Brief History of TimeTexasScientist said:I haven't' read Hawking's first book which was published in 1988, but I am familiar with his later works, so I question what you think you read. Perhaps you can provide a reference?Sam Lowry said:Hawking understood, at least when he wrote his first book, that there was no scientific explanation for spontaneous creation. He eventually decided that creation resulted from something called the Law of Gravity, thus attributing creative power to a concept in the minds of humans who didn't yet exist. The fallacy is obvious.TexasScientist said:What do you think he got right the first time, and then changed his mind?Sam Lowry said:Hawking got it right the first time and then changed his mind. Good example of how scientists can allow emotion to inform their opinions.TexasScientist said:You asked me to name three scientists who knew it. They each have written on spontaneous generation of a universe from essentially nothing. A creator is not necessary.Oldbear83 said:That's not proof, and none of those men have created matter.TexasScientist said:Edward Tryon, Alan Guth, and Stephen Hawking. They all have published papers on the subject. I can give you more if you need more than three.Oldbear83 said:Prove it. And provide three examples.TexasScientist said:Except in this case, something from nothing. Most scientists know this is possible at the quantum level.Oldbear83 said:
TexasScientist: "No one created anything."
Eh nihilo, nihilo est.
Most real scientists know this.
Strike one.
Try again.
Emotional bias is an evolutionary trait. People tend to seek and embrace that which confirms their bias, while dismissing and ignoring evidence which contradicts. It's pervasive on this board. In the case of Hawking, a good scientist will change their view when confronted with objective evidence.
Replace "universe" with "multiverse," and this remains true.
To me, the answer is there is no why. There is only how. Why presupposes a purpose to the existence of a universe or a multiverse. I suspect Hawking would agree.
One thing's for sure - Stephen Hawking believes in God now.