Hmm. That's not exactly in keeping with the spirit of scientific discovery, is it?
We can suggest answers, but we don't state that they are true until we have evidence.
It seems to me that you're basically saying that any question that doesn't lend itself to a naturalistic explanation isn't worth asking.
Not at all. Questions are worth asking. The problem is when people say they have definitely found answers using highly questionable methods (such as divine revelation).
But the fact that questions about meaning, purpose, etc. cannot be answered by science in any definitive way does not suggest to me they aren't worth asking, only that the answers to them, if answers can be found, will not be provided by science. These kinds of questions are hugely important to a vast majority of people and it has been so since the dawn of civilization.
Perhaps that is true, but it seems to me a bizarre idea that religion is a better method of answering them. I don't think that "I have a feeling" is a way to answer such things.
There are surely better ways, such as philosophy.
I'm curious. What do you envision as a good test for God's existence? Would would a "paternity test" for the Universe look like?
Coming up with a testable explanation for how it got going, such as to show that a timeless quantum fluctuation could give rise to everything.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
A reply to More Faith
Steve, not too much to add. Just this:
"the correct response to that is to leave the questions unanswered."
Hmm. That's not exactly in keeping with the spirit of scientific discovery, is it? Granted, there are some questions -- "What is the meaning of life?", for example -- that are philosophical in nature, and as such, seem ill-suited for testing by the scientific method. However, I don't see what one gains by simply stating we should "leave the question unanswered." It seems to me that you're basically saying that any question that doesn't lend itself to a naturalistic explanation isn't worth asking.
But the fact that questions about meaning, purpose, etc. cannot be answered by science in any definitive way does not suggest to me they aren't worth asking, only that the answers to them, if answers can be found, will not be provided by science. These kinds of questions are hugely important to a vast majority of people and it has been so since the dawn of civilization.
You are certainly within your rights to say that the only important questions are the ones that science can answer, but it would be naive to think you could ever persuade the majority of people on this point. People want answers to these questions and they aren't going to (and can't, I suspect) stop asking them simply because a scientist says they're unimportant.
By the way, this is an interesting idea to consider when pondering the question of God's existence, as well as your statement about "test[ing] the God idea - to run the 'paternity test' for the Universe."
I'm curious. What do you envision as a good test for God's existence? Would would a "paternity test" for the Universe look like?
I'm not sure I have the answer, or even that there is an answer. Very interesting question, though.
"the correct response to that is to leave the questions unanswered."
Hmm. That's not exactly in keeping with the spirit of scientific discovery, is it? Granted, there are some questions -- "What is the meaning of life?", for example -- that are philosophical in nature, and as such, seem ill-suited for testing by the scientific method. However, I don't see what one gains by simply stating we should "leave the question unanswered." It seems to me that you're basically saying that any question that doesn't lend itself to a naturalistic explanation isn't worth asking.
But the fact that questions about meaning, purpose, etc. cannot be answered by science in any definitive way does not suggest to me they aren't worth asking, only that the answers to them, if answers can be found, will not be provided by science. These kinds of questions are hugely important to a vast majority of people and it has been so since the dawn of civilization.
You are certainly within your rights to say that the only important questions are the ones that science can answer, but it would be naive to think you could ever persuade the majority of people on this point. People want answers to these questions and they aren't going to (and can't, I suspect) stop asking them simply because a scientist says they're unimportant.
By the way, this is an interesting idea to consider when pondering the question of God's existence, as well as your statement about "test[ing] the God idea - to run the 'paternity test' for the Universe."
I'm curious. What do you envision as a good test for God's existence? Would would a "paternity test" for the Universe look like?
I'm not sure I have the answer, or even that there is an answer. Very interesting question, though.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
More Faith...
I'm not attempting to prove Einstein was religious, or monotheistic, or even deistic. All I'm saying is that I think he believed there were questions, important questions, that science does not answer.
I suspect so.
But I do think you are correct. Most Christians believe they have proof.
Yes, that is just what I thought. My view is that the ones who really have the most "faith" are the theologians, who have thought about the question of the existence of God in great detail, and perhaps all realise, as the theologian Denys Turner puts it - "in the end it all comes down to faith".
I think they look at the world around them, and feel that no matter how much knowledge man possesses, there will always be questions they believe cannot be answered.
Of course (I would say), the correct response to that is to leave the questions unanswered.
(As a side issue, I can't help but wonder what my wife's reaction would be if I demanded my children be subjected to a paternity test. Or what my parents' reaction would be if I ask them to prove they were actually related to me. Good questions to consider, perhaps, when we get around to discussing "blind faith.")
That is a very good point! It does, however, act as a kind of shield for religious belief. If this matter was of great importance, it could be tested. I believe that when people say (for example) "God hates fags", then it is appropriate to test the God idea - to run the "paternity test" for the Universe!
I suspect so.
But I do think you are correct. Most Christians believe they have proof.
Yes, that is just what I thought. My view is that the ones who really have the most "faith" are the theologians, who have thought about the question of the existence of God in great detail, and perhaps all realise, as the theologian Denys Turner puts it - "in the end it all comes down to faith".
I think they look at the world around them, and feel that no matter how much knowledge man possesses, there will always be questions they believe cannot be answered.
Of course (I would say), the correct response to that is to leave the questions unanswered.
(As a side issue, I can't help but wonder what my wife's reaction would be if I demanded my children be subjected to a paternity test. Or what my parents' reaction would be if I ask them to prove they were actually related to me. Good questions to consider, perhaps, when we get around to discussing "blind faith.")
That is a very good point! It does, however, act as a kind of shield for religious belief. If this matter was of great importance, it could be tested. I believe that when people say (for example) "God hates fags", then it is appropriate to test the God idea - to run the "paternity test" for the Universe!
Monday, March 24, 2008
Einstein First, then Faith
Well, I think I differ on Einstein, though nothing I would be dogmatic about. I said that Einstein believed there were important questions that science did not answer. Here are some quotes (just googled) that seem to support my view:
"All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. Possibly we shall know a little more than we do now. but the real nature of things, that we shall never know, never."
"To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness."
I'm not attempting to prove Einstein was religious, or monotheistic, or even deistic. All I'm saying is that I think he believed there were questions, important questions, that science does not answer.
Anyway, on to your question about faith.
I think faith actually does play a big part in the everyday life of the typical Christian, although I don't think it's primarily exercised in relation to the question of God's existence.
Frankly, I don't think most Christians walk around pondering God's existence. To the extent they think about it at all, I suspect they're not obsessed with finding what you'd call "empirical" proof. But I do think you are correct. Most Christians believe they have proof. That proof, they believe, is revealed in Nature and the natural order of things. The Bible specifically addresses this in Romans 1:20-25:
"[S]ince the creation of the world God's invisible attributes — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles."
Now, I understand you don't believe the Bible and I've generally tried to avoid using it in our discussions. I quote it here simply to point out what, I think, most Christians believe, even if they're not familiar with this particular quotation. I think they look at the world around them, and feel that no matter how much knowledge man possesses, there will always be questions they believe cannot be answered.
What's more, I think the way in which people live their everyday lives is pervaded by a certain kind of faith or assumption. Let me give you one example.
I have five children. Now, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that my wife is the mother of our five children, since I was present for the delivery.
But wait. Can I really say that? How do I know they didn't switch the babies in the nursery room when I wasn't looking? Now that I really think about it, I don't really have any good evidence.
Or what of this questions: how can I be certain I'm really the father of those five children? After all, if one believes the latest polls on adultery, about 50% of married people in the U.S. run around on their spouse. And yet, inexplicably perhaps, I firmly believe they are my children. I don't have have any real "proof," and yet I live my life in a way that simply accepts it as a fact. True, I could get a DNA test that would give me the kind of evidential proof a legal court might accept, but I would then have to accept that the individual in charge of doing the test wasn't having an affair with my wife, or that she hasn't paid them in order to hide her affair with someone else.
And hey, how do I know those folks I call "Mom and Dad" are really my biological parents? I'd be hard-pressed to justify this belief, since I have no real proof of this. But despite a lack of evidence, I somehow don't feel compelled to demand they submit themselves to a paternity/maternity test to prove it to me. I just accept it as truth. Strange as it may sound, I've lived my entire life without ever once wondering whether those people who claim to be my parents are actually biologically related to me. I just accept it as truth, though I have nothing you would call "real" proof. Being able to do this, I think, is very helpful to the getting on with one's life.
So yea, I think Christians believe they have faith about God's existence. But I don't think they really spend much time thinking about it that way.
(As a side issue, I can't help but wonder what my wife's reaction would be if I demanded my children be subjected to a paternity test. Or what my parents' reaction would be if I ask them to prove they were actually related to me. Good questions to consider, perhaps, when we get around to discussing "blind faith.")
"All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. Possibly we shall know a little more than we do now. but the real nature of things, that we shall never know, never."
"To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness."
I'm not attempting to prove Einstein was religious, or monotheistic, or even deistic. All I'm saying is that I think he believed there were questions, important questions, that science does not answer.
Anyway, on to your question about faith.
I think faith actually does play a big part in the everyday life of the typical Christian, although I don't think it's primarily exercised in relation to the question of God's existence.
Frankly, I don't think most Christians walk around pondering God's existence. To the extent they think about it at all, I suspect they're not obsessed with finding what you'd call "empirical" proof. But I do think you are correct. Most Christians believe they have proof. That proof, they believe, is revealed in Nature and the natural order of things. The Bible specifically addresses this in Romans 1:20-25:
"[S]ince the creation of the world God's invisible attributes — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles."
Now, I understand you don't believe the Bible and I've generally tried to avoid using it in our discussions. I quote it here simply to point out what, I think, most Christians believe, even if they're not familiar with this particular quotation. I think they look at the world around them, and feel that no matter how much knowledge man possesses, there will always be questions they believe cannot be answered.
What's more, I think the way in which people live their everyday lives is pervaded by a certain kind of faith or assumption. Let me give you one example.
I have five children. Now, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that my wife is the mother of our five children, since I was present for the delivery.
But wait. Can I really say that? How do I know they didn't switch the babies in the nursery room when I wasn't looking? Now that I really think about it, I don't really have any good evidence.
Or what of this questions: how can I be certain I'm really the father of those five children? After all, if one believes the latest polls on adultery, about 50% of married people in the U.S. run around on their spouse. And yet, inexplicably perhaps, I firmly believe they are my children. I don't have have any real "proof," and yet I live my life in a way that simply accepts it as a fact. True, I could get a DNA test that would give me the kind of evidential proof a legal court might accept, but I would then have to accept that the individual in charge of doing the test wasn't having an affair with my wife, or that she hasn't paid them in order to hide her affair with someone else.
And hey, how do I know those folks I call "Mom and Dad" are really my biological parents? I'd be hard-pressed to justify this belief, since I have no real proof of this. But despite a lack of evidence, I somehow don't feel compelled to demand they submit themselves to a paternity/maternity test to prove it to me. I just accept it as truth. Strange as it may sound, I've lived my entire life without ever once wondering whether those people who claim to be my parents are actually biologically related to me. I just accept it as truth, though I have nothing you would call "real" proof. Being able to do this, I think, is very helpful to the getting on with one's life.
So yea, I think Christians believe they have faith about God's existence. But I don't think they really spend much time thinking about it that way.
(As a side issue, I can't help but wonder what my wife's reaction would be if I demanded my children be subjected to a paternity test. Or what my parents' reaction would be if I ask them to prove they were actually related to me. Good questions to consider, perhaps, when we get around to discussing "blind faith.")
Friday, March 21, 2008
Faith?
They can either say things like purpose and meaning exist only in our minds, which is your position as I understand it.
Yes, it is.
As you point out, people as brilliant as Einstein apparently believed these were important questions that science didn't answer.
Ah, no. That was not what I was pointing out. Einstein did not believe science could not answer certain questions. He believed that science was the best method for understanding the nature of the deist "god".
Okay, let's move on. What is your "far bigger question?"
Right. I have this theory. I don't believe that faith has the role in the lives of believers that many think it has. I think that most believers think that they have evidence for what they believe, so that God is real to them, and does not require the so-called "leap of faith", abandoning reason. I would love to hear your opinion on this.
Yes, it is.
As you point out, people as brilliant as Einstein apparently believed these were important questions that science didn't answer.
Ah, no. That was not what I was pointing out. Einstein did not believe science could not answer certain questions. He believed that science was the best method for understanding the nature of the deist "god".
Okay, let's move on. What is your "far bigger question?"
Right. I have this theory. I don't believe that faith has the role in the lives of believers that many think it has. I think that most believers think that they have evidence for what they believe, so that God is real to them, and does not require the so-called "leap of faith", abandoning reason. I would love to hear your opinion on this.
Conclusion to Deism, And a Far Bigger Question
Good point.
I think the idea of God being some sort of cosmic force or essence is rooted in the fact that people have important questions for which they feel science fails to give satisfactory answers, at least at the moment -- questions about purpose, meaning, how the universe started, etc. As I see it, those who feel compelled to answer these kinds of questions have two options. They can either say things like purpose and meaning exist only in our minds, which is your position as I understand it. The only other option, in my opinion, is to attribute them to some supernatural being, a creator. As you point out, people as brilliant as Einstein apparently believed these were important questions that science didn't answer.
I agree with you as far as deism being a sort of a "half-way house" between Christianity and atheism. A Christian who rejects the notion that Jesus was the Son of God is effectively dismissing the claims of the Gospels and would, I suspect, soon come to view the entire Bible as wholly unreliable. They might still have nagging questions, however, about how the universe started, the meaning of life, etc., at which point I think deism would begin to look like a reasonable position.
Okay, let's move on. What is your "far bigger question?"
I think the idea of God being some sort of cosmic force or essence is rooted in the fact that people have important questions for which they feel science fails to give satisfactory answers, at least at the moment -- questions about purpose, meaning, how the universe started, etc. As I see it, those who feel compelled to answer these kinds of questions have two options. They can either say things like purpose and meaning exist only in our minds, which is your position as I understand it. The only other option, in my opinion, is to attribute them to some supernatural being, a creator. As you point out, people as brilliant as Einstein apparently believed these were important questions that science didn't answer.
I agree with you as far as deism being a sort of a "half-way house" between Christianity and atheism. A Christian who rejects the notion that Jesus was the Son of God is effectively dismissing the claims of the Gospels and would, I suspect, soon come to view the entire Bible as wholly unreliable. They might still have nagging questions, however, about how the universe started, the meaning of life, etc., at which point I think deism would begin to look like a reasonable position.
Okay, let's move on. What is your "far bigger question?"
My opinion
No - I was just curious, as unlike many in my position I am not supportive of the idea of deism. You see, I even disagree with both Richard Dawkins and Albert Einstein about this! I feel one either believes in a God or one doesn't, and deism seems to me to be some vague half-way house that has no credibility. If God is simply considered some kind of "essence of existence", it seems to me He just as well might not exist, as this really isn't a "God".
However, I did wonder if you could see some Christians moving towards deism, perhaps after accepting the simple humanity of Jesus. A deist God could be thought of as instantiating Natural Law (if you believed in that).
If you have any more thoughts, I would be interested. Otherwise, I have just thought of a far bigger question.
However, I did wonder if you could see some Christians moving towards deism, perhaps after accepting the simple humanity of Jesus. A deist God could be thought of as instantiating Natural Law (if you believed in that).
If you have any more thoughts, I would be interested. Otherwise, I have just thought of a far bigger question.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
My opinion of deism
What is my opinion of deism? Good question. I would not pretend to be any kind of expert on deism. I would assume, however, as is true with any other philosophy or worldview, one would find many different flavors of deism.
I suppose I tend to think of deism of sort of a "cousin" of theism. As I understand it, deism generally give preeminence to reason as a way of understanding the world, but also accepts that the existence of God, and attributes to Him what some call the "fine-tuning" of the laws of the Universe. I think many who subscribe to deism would also profess a belief in some form of Natural Law as a way of explaining morality.
Functionally, however, I suspect a deist's view of the world might not look too terribly different than that of an atheist. He believes God created the world, but does not (and has not -- an important point, I think) involve himself in the affairs of mankind.
I do think deism has some good points. However, I tend to view deism as something of a reactionary philosophy in that it seems to have been developed specifically as an opposing view to Christianity (and secondarily Judaism), rather than being based on its own merits apart from Christianity. As a result, they hold a certain quasi-monotheistic view of a creator with the proximate powers of the God of the Old Testament, but jettison what they see as the trappings of religion (e.g. scripture, miracles, etc.) Thomas Jefferson is one well-known example of someone who holds this view. His Jefferson's Bible (literally a "cut-and-paste" version of the New Testament Gospels denuded of any miracles or supernatural events) paints a picture of Christ as a great moral philosopher, a good man, if you will, but nothing much more.
I'll close by saying once again that I don't profess to be any kind of expert on deism. My comments here reflect my thoughts of deism as I understand it.
Maybe deism is to Christianity what atheism is to deism. That's one way to look at it.
Or did you have a more specific question about deism?
I suppose I tend to think of deism of sort of a "cousin" of theism. As I understand it, deism generally give preeminence to reason as a way of understanding the world, but also accepts that the existence of God, and attributes to Him what some call the "fine-tuning" of the laws of the Universe. I think many who subscribe to deism would also profess a belief in some form of Natural Law as a way of explaining morality.
Functionally, however, I suspect a deist's view of the world might not look too terribly different than that of an atheist. He believes God created the world, but does not (and has not -- an important point, I think) involve himself in the affairs of mankind.
I do think deism has some good points. However, I tend to view deism as something of a reactionary philosophy in that it seems to have been developed specifically as an opposing view to Christianity (and secondarily Judaism), rather than being based on its own merits apart from Christianity. As a result, they hold a certain quasi-monotheistic view of a creator with the proximate powers of the God of the Old Testament, but jettison what they see as the trappings of religion (e.g. scripture, miracles, etc.) Thomas Jefferson is one well-known example of someone who holds this view. His Jefferson's Bible (literally a "cut-and-paste" version of the New Testament Gospels denuded of any miracles or supernatural events) paints a picture of Christ as a great moral philosopher, a good man, if you will, but nothing much more.
I'll close by saying once again that I don't profess to be any kind of expert on deism. My comments here reflect my thoughts of deism as I understand it.
Maybe deism is to Christianity what atheism is to deism. That's one way to look at it.
Or did you have a more specific question about deism?
A question
You were fine! Robust debate is good!
Anyway, I think I have a question (actually, I have loads of them, but I don't want to ask the same old boring ones you must have heard so often):
What is your opinion of "deism"?
Anyway, I think I have a question (actually, I have loads of them, but I don't want to ask the same old boring ones you must have heard so often):
What is your opinion of "deism"?
I hope I didn't come across as mean-spirited...
Well, I sure hope I didn't come across as mean-spirited or anything like that. I hope I have expressed myself in a way that is honorable, even if you and I are at odds on some of these fundamental questions.
I don't know if it's possible, but I think it would be beneficial for others to see that Christians and Atheists really can talk to one another about these things without taking cheap shots and ripping into one another. A lot of the debates I've watched, and much of what I've read, tend to degenerate into just that very thing.
I hope you you weren't made to feel I was putting you were "on the spot" as it were. I really am interested in what you think. And I understand atheists don't necessarily march in lock-step, and that your views aren't necessarily representative of other atheists. But they are important.
If you have any questions of me, I will be more than happy to try to answer them. If you don't, I hope you'll be open to further discussion. But I understand if you can't (or won't). I know some of these kinds of questions can take a lot of time to work through and think through. In either case, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and patience.
I don't know if it's possible, but I think it would be beneficial for others to see that Christians and Atheists really can talk to one another about these things without taking cheap shots and ripping into one another. A lot of the debates I've watched, and much of what I've read, tend to degenerate into just that very thing.
I hope you you weren't made to feel I was putting you were "on the spot" as it were. I really am interested in what you think. And I understand atheists don't necessarily march in lock-step, and that your views aren't necessarily representative of other atheists. But they are important.
If you have any questions of me, I will be more than happy to try to answer them. If you don't, I hope you'll be open to further discussion. But I understand if you can't (or won't). I know some of these kinds of questions can take a lot of time to work through and think through. In either case, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and patience.
Where next?
It is hard to know where to start. I was happy to sit under the spotlight, as it where, and be interrogated as to how an atheist like me might think about things. I had not planned any questions in return!
I think you're right
Yes, I agree with you. I think we've reached an impasse on the issue of morality. Hopefully, we've generated at least a little more light than heat.
I'm sure there are many more issues we could discuss here, though I don't have anything specific on my mind right now. Do you have any questions for me?
I'm sure there are many more issues we could discuss here, though I don't have anything specific on my mind right now. Do you have any questions for me?
An impasse?
No. You have already acknowledged there are scientists who can, and do, believe in evolution, but reject the notion of evolved morality. Why do you persist in making claims that are in direct contradiction to your previous statements?
I am prepared to accept that there are such scientists. I am not prepared to accept that they are right.
Is the power of flight "natural?" I'm sure you will agree with me that, yes, it is. But can you fly? I find your definition for what is "natural" (that it must "apply everywhere") to be quite peculiar. Certainly, it is at great variance with the way in which most biologists would apply the term.
I am a biologist. Flight has evolved in many different families of animals. Just like certain moral frameworks.
I'm sure you're much more knowledgeable about anthropology than I. However, you may want to reconsider your placement of Ramapithecus in the family tree of homo sapiens. At the very least, there seems to be a lack of consensus among scientists where Ramapithecus is concerned:
It was a deliberate choice, as Ramapithecus is a great ape ancestor, and we see clear evidence of moral behaviour similar to ours in the great apes.
I feel we are at an impasse. Even if one does not assume that morality is not something that has been subject to evolution (which I find a rather bizarre viewpoint, considering the evidence obtained from studying animal behaviour), there is still no basis to claim it is objective and universal.
I am prepared to accept that there are such scientists. I am not prepared to accept that they are right.
Is the power of flight "natural?" I'm sure you will agree with me that, yes, it is. But can you fly? I find your definition for what is "natural" (that it must "apply everywhere") to be quite peculiar. Certainly, it is at great variance with the way in which most biologists would apply the term.
I am a biologist. Flight has evolved in many different families of animals. Just like certain moral frameworks.
I'm sure you're much more knowledgeable about anthropology than I. However, you may want to reconsider your placement of Ramapithecus in the family tree of homo sapiens. At the very least, there seems to be a lack of consensus among scientists where Ramapithecus is concerned:
It was a deliberate choice, as Ramapithecus is a great ape ancestor, and we see clear evidence of moral behaviour similar to ours in the great apes.
I feel we are at an impasse. Even if one does not assume that morality is not something that has been subject to evolution (which I find a rather bizarre viewpoint, considering the evidence obtained from studying animal behaviour), there is still no basis to claim it is objective and universal.
Moral evolution, a response
"I don't see how you escape from the evolution issue."
I am not, as you put it, trying to "escape from the evolution issue." In making this statement, you are attempting to foist upon me a position that I do not hold. I have not reached a conclusion about evolution, one way or the other.
However, in pressing this point, you continue to imply that anyone who believes in evolution must agree with you on the idea of evolved morality. This, as you yourself have acknowledged in previous discussions, is simply untrue. And yet you continue to make this assertion.
"If there was a break in evolution in which God suddenly put in the "morality", then this is a denial of evolution."
No. You have already acknowledged there are scientists who can, and do, believe in evolution, but reject the notion of evolved morality. Why do you persist in making claims that are in direct contradiction to your previous statements?
"There is a similar denial problem with Natural Law as a source of objective morality. It is either Natural (so applies everywhere) or it doesn't."
Is the power of flight "natural?" I'm sure you will agree with me that, yes, it is. But can you fly? I find your definition for what is "natural" (that it must "apply everywhere") to be quite peculiar. Certainly, it is at great variance with the way in which most biologists would apply the term.
"Perhaps you could give a time at which we were gifted with morality? Was it after the neanderthals? Was Homo erectus moral?"
Good questions. Honestly, Steve, I don't know. Of course, you could ask the same question of our capacity to reason, to use logic, etc. At what point in time did humans possess these abilities? Who knows? I would humbly suggest that currently, the best we can do is speculate. However, we can be sure of this much. We can say without fear of contradiction that we are indeed in possession of these faculties now. That you and I can discuss the question proves as much.
"Maybe God gave morality to Ramapithecus?"
I'm sure you're much more knowledgeable about anthropology than I. However, you may want to reconsider your placement of Ramapithecus in the family tree of homo sapiens. At the very least, there seems to be a lack of consensus among scientists where Ramapithecus is concerned:
"Ramapithecus is no longer regarded as a likely ancestor of humans." -- Wikipedia
"Although it was generally an apelike creature, Ramapithecus was considered a possible human ancestor on the basis of the reconstructed jaw and dental characteristics of fragmentary fossils. A complete jaw discovered in 1976 was clearly nonhominid, however, and Ramapithecus is now regarded by many as a member of Sivapithecus, a genus considered to be an ancestor of the orangutan." -- Encyclopedia.Com
I am not, as you put it, trying to "escape from the evolution issue." In making this statement, you are attempting to foist upon me a position that I do not hold. I have not reached a conclusion about evolution, one way or the other.
However, in pressing this point, you continue to imply that anyone who believes in evolution must agree with you on the idea of evolved morality. This, as you yourself have acknowledged in previous discussions, is simply untrue. And yet you continue to make this assertion.
"If there was a break in evolution in which God suddenly put in the "morality", then this is a denial of evolution."
No. You have already acknowledged there are scientists who can, and do, believe in evolution, but reject the notion of evolved morality. Why do you persist in making claims that are in direct contradiction to your previous statements?
"There is a similar denial problem with Natural Law as a source of objective morality. It is either Natural (so applies everywhere) or it doesn't."
Is the power of flight "natural?" I'm sure you will agree with me that, yes, it is. But can you fly? I find your definition for what is "natural" (that it must "apply everywhere") to be quite peculiar. Certainly, it is at great variance with the way in which most biologists would apply the term.
"Perhaps you could give a time at which we were gifted with morality? Was it after the neanderthals? Was Homo erectus moral?"
Good questions. Honestly, Steve, I don't know. Of course, you could ask the same question of our capacity to reason, to use logic, etc. At what point in time did humans possess these abilities? Who knows? I would humbly suggest that currently, the best we can do is speculate. However, we can be sure of this much. We can say without fear of contradiction that we are indeed in possession of these faculties now. That you and I can discuss the question proves as much.
"Maybe God gave morality to Ramapithecus?"
I'm sure you're much more knowledgeable about anthropology than I. However, you may want to reconsider your placement of Ramapithecus in the family tree of homo sapiens. At the very least, there seems to be a lack of consensus among scientists where Ramapithecus is concerned:
"Ramapithecus is no longer regarded as a likely ancestor of humans." -- Wikipedia
"Although it was generally an apelike creature, Ramapithecus was considered a possible human ancestor on the basis of the reconstructed jaw and dental characteristics of fragmentary fossils. A complete jaw discovered in 1976 was clearly nonhominid, however, and Ramapithecus is now regarded by many as a member of Sivapithecus, a genus considered to be an ancestor of the orangutan." -- Encyclopedia.Com
Moral evolution
I don't see how you escape from the evolution issue. Either we fully evolved or we didn't. If there was a break in evolution in which God suddenly put in the "morality", then this is a denial of evolution. Perhaps you could give a time at which we were gifted with morality? Was it after the neanderthals? Was Homo erectus moral? Maybe God gave morality to Ramapithecus?
There is a similar denial problem with Natural Law as a source of objective morality. It is either Natural (so applies everywhere) or it doesn't. Some parts of the universe aren't protected from gravity, so why should they be protected from some universal moral law?
There are major implications if one asserts some universal principle like objective morality.
There is a similar denial problem with Natural Law as a source of objective morality. It is either Natural (so applies everywhere) or it doesn't. Some parts of the universe aren't protected from gravity, so why should they be protected from some universal moral law?
There are major implications if one asserts some universal principle like objective morality.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Maggot Morality
A couple of things, Steve.
"If you don't believe animals have some form or morality, then you are implying that evolution didn't happen..."
A person does not and cannot "imply" anything simply by believing. You might infer I hold certain beliefs based on something I did or did not say. And certain beliefs/concepts may imply other beliefs/concepts (e.g. "Speech implies a speaker" or even "Your lack of belief in morality in animals implies you don't believe in evolution"), but a person doesn't imply anything just by "believing."
I made no such implication, and to the extent you made an inference to that effect, it would be incorrect. I have not reached a conclusion about evolution, one way or the other. Currently, I am considering the evidence.
But with all due respect, Steve, your statement is just wrong on its face. As you well know, and in fact, have acknowledged in our discussions here, there are many reputable scientists who believe firmly in evolution, yet totally reject the notion of "evolved morality." It is simply impertinent for you to suggest belief in evolution requires one to share your view of "evolved morality."
Finally, you state: "If there is some independent objective standard based on some kind of Natural Law, then that Law has to apply to all of Nature! How else can we know it is there?"
It "has to apply to all of Nature?" Please tell me you don't seriously mean this. Honestly, I find this to be astonishing. Are you actually suggesting that in order for you to allow for the possibility of objective morality, I would have to prove that all life forms -- maggots, amoebas, beetles, apes, fish, trees, shellfish ("all of nature") -- possess some sense of morality?
Not only do I not believe this, the absence of a moral sense in "all of nature" tends toward supporting the very point I am trying to make. That is, that it is through Natural Law that man possesses a sense of morality. For you to be willing to consider this proposition, however, you are asking me to present evidence that would disprove the very point I seek to establish.
In your view, whatever differences there are between the morality of man and animals proves that morality evolved. Paradoxically, you also view the fact that certain animals seem to demonstrate behaviors that are similar to human notions of morality as proof of evolved morality. Where man's sense of morality differs from that of animals, you count as proof of evolved morality. Where man's sense of morality is similar to that of animals, you also count as proof of evolved morality.
It seems like this "evolved morality" you're describing is a very convenient idea indeed. Apparently, there is no evidence one can offer that it cannot consume.
"If you don't believe animals have some form or morality, then you are implying that evolution didn't happen..."
A person does not and cannot "imply" anything simply by believing. You might infer I hold certain beliefs based on something I did or did not say. And certain beliefs/concepts may imply other beliefs/concepts (e.g. "Speech implies a speaker" or even "Your lack of belief in morality in animals implies you don't believe in evolution"), but a person doesn't imply anything just by "believing."
I made no such implication, and to the extent you made an inference to that effect, it would be incorrect. I have not reached a conclusion about evolution, one way or the other. Currently, I am considering the evidence.
But with all due respect, Steve, your statement is just wrong on its face. As you well know, and in fact, have acknowledged in our discussions here, there are many reputable scientists who believe firmly in evolution, yet totally reject the notion of "evolved morality." It is simply impertinent for you to suggest belief in evolution requires one to share your view of "evolved morality."
Finally, you state: "If there is some independent objective standard based on some kind of Natural Law, then that Law has to apply to all of Nature! How else can we know it is there?"
It "has to apply to all of Nature?" Please tell me you don't seriously mean this. Honestly, I find this to be astonishing. Are you actually suggesting that in order for you to allow for the possibility of objective morality, I would have to prove that all life forms -- maggots, amoebas, beetles, apes, fish, trees, shellfish ("all of nature") -- possess some sense of morality?
Not only do I not believe this, the absence of a moral sense in "all of nature" tends toward supporting the very point I am trying to make. That is, that it is through Natural Law that man possesses a sense of morality. For you to be willing to consider this proposition, however, you are asking me to present evidence that would disprove the very point I seek to establish.
In your view, whatever differences there are between the morality of man and animals proves that morality evolved. Paradoxically, you also view the fact that certain animals seem to demonstrate behaviors that are similar to human notions of morality as proof of evolved morality. Where man's sense of morality differs from that of animals, you count as proof of evolved morality. Where man's sense of morality is similar to that of animals, you also count as proof of evolved morality.
It seems like this "evolved morality" you're describing is a very convenient idea indeed. Apparently, there is no evidence one can offer that it cannot consume.
Objectivity and Natural Law
But you seem to be saying that in order for you to accept the concept of objective morality, it would require me to demonstrate that animals show a special kind of morality as well. In other words, I have to prove animals have morality in order to prove humans have it.
If you don't believe animals have some form or morality, then you are implying that evolution didn't happen, in my view. The problem with humans is that they are very self-aware, and can just make stuff up. They can adjust the criteria by which they apply standards of morality, as happens when cultures give up slavery for example - the slaves become classified as "one of us" and so subject to moral considerations.
If you are going to stick to humans, then you aren't really being objective. If there is some independent objective standard based on some kind of Natural Law, then that Law has to apply to all of Nature! How else can we know it is there?
If you don't believe animals have some form or morality, then you are implying that evolution didn't happen, in my view. The problem with humans is that they are very self-aware, and can just make stuff up. They can adjust the criteria by which they apply standards of morality, as happens when cultures give up slavery for example - the slaves become classified as "one of us" and so subject to moral considerations.
If you are going to stick to humans, then you aren't really being objective. If there is some independent objective standard based on some kind of Natural Law, then that Law has to apply to all of Nature! How else can we know it is there?
No, not animal "morality"
Uh...I'm not saying animals necessarily have morality, at least not in the sense that man has it. But you seem to be saying that in order for you to accept the concept of objective morality, it would require me to demonstrate that animals show a special kind of morality as well. In other words, I have to prove animals have morality in order to prove humans have it.
That is, I would have to prove something that I don't even believe in order to prove something I did believe.
Surely, I must be missing your point.
That is, I would have to prove something that I don't even believe in order to prove something I did believe.
Surely, I must be missing your point.
Wolves and Sheep
If I point to something I believe demonstrates that morality is basically common to mankind, no matter what it is, you'll say it was "evolved." Yet you point out that male lions, when they take over a pride, kill the offspring of the previous male in charge, and that this too, somehow, proves morality (albeit lion "morality") evolved. "Evolutiondidit," you might say? :-)
Yes, I would. Lions evolved to be lions! Their social situation is different from our, and their "morality" is different. We evolved as roaming bands of apes with males and females having a considerable degree of equality. We see similar morality in species that have the same social organisation.
Could you give me a good example of a type of morality would look like that wasn't "evolved" morality, but indicated that there was such a thing as "objective morality?"
Yes. If there was some general "be nice to each other" behaviour between species, that was beyond what would be reasonable for survival. If wolves went vegetarian to stop eating sheep, for example. Because we are pretty sure that wolves don't rationalise behaviour much if at all, this would be pretty convincing.
Yes, I would. Lions evolved to be lions! Their social situation is different from our, and their "morality" is different. We evolved as roaming bands of apes with males and females having a considerable degree of equality. We see similar morality in species that have the same social organisation.
Could you give me a good example of a type of morality would look like that wasn't "evolved" morality, but indicated that there was such a thing as "objective morality?"
Yes. If there was some general "be nice to each other" behaviour between species, that was beyond what would be reasonable for survival. If wolves went vegetarian to stop eating sheep, for example. Because we are pretty sure that wolves don't rationalise behaviour much if at all, this would be pretty convincing.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Are we at a standstill on this issue?
Well, Steve, it's seems like we're kind of spinning our wheels here.
If I point to something I believe demonstrates that morality is basically common to mankind, no matter what it is, you'll say it was "evolved." Yet you point out that male lions, when they take over a pride, kill the offspring of the previous male in charge, and that this too, somehow, proves morality (albeit lion "morality") evolved. "Evolutiondidit," you might say? :-)
Could you give me a good example of a type of morality would look like that wasn't "evolved" morality, but indicated that there was such a thing as "objective morality?"
If I point to something I believe demonstrates that morality is basically common to mankind, no matter what it is, you'll say it was "evolved." Yet you point out that male lions, when they take over a pride, kill the offspring of the previous male in charge, and that this too, somehow, proves morality (albeit lion "morality") evolved. "Evolutiondidit," you might say? :-)
Could you give me a good example of a type of morality would look like that wasn't "evolved" morality, but indicated that there was such a thing as "objective morality?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)