tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post1865573783594191578..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: My Imaginary FriendMatt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-83424333620508705432010-03-02T03:51:55.425-08:002010-03-02T03:51:55.425-08:00J,
"Why can't self interest result in al...J,<br /><br />"Why can't self interest result in altruism?"<br /><br />I am having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say. I believed that you rejected different motivation states for humans, which I cannot fathom since I know you can recognize self interested behavior from altruistic behavior. And both can be argued as benificial for survival<br /><br />I know that naturalism has a hard time showing that altruistic behavior is more favored for being fit than self interested behavior It is contentious issue and often authors of such papers will admit this. But I have never heard any naturalist argue that self interested behavior results in altruistic behavior...<br /><br />I believe everything has a supernatural origin that being God. I dont need to give you a reason for believing in God because it is my foundational belief - or faith<br /><br />CSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-33538597292686919422010-03-01T18:32:06.389-08:002010-03-01T18:32:06.389-08:00OK CS,
My bigger point being that altruistic beh...OK CS, <br /><br />My bigger point being that altruistic behavior can be reproductively beneficial in social organisms, so why wouldn't I expect it to evolve?<br /><br />What would make you suggest that it MUST have a supernatural origin?Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03513589609857845105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-78271235693567242992010-03-01T18:25:04.962-08:002010-03-01T18:25:04.962-08:00"I don't know what to say if you think se..."I don't know what to say if you think self interested behavior is altrustic"<br /><br />I didn't say "self interested behavior is altrusistic."<br /><br />What I asked was, "If being social results in my reproductive success, and being altruistic results in my social success, how could you tell what my motivation was?"<br /><br />And you haven't answered. How could you tell?Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03513589609857845105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-33546674592275372762010-02-27T05:22:05.704-08:002010-02-27T05:22:05.704-08:00J,
I don't know what to say if you think self...J,<br /><br />I don't know what to say if you think self interested behavior is altrustic. The two motivation states are defined as opposites. The debate about whether humans are capable of altruistic behavior is found in circles of social psychology. But many believe it is self refuting to claim every instance of human motivation is self interested. probably because you need another term to define what is not self interested... <br /><br />It would be easier if you just considered how animals are moral and the implications that are abound rather then reject differing forms of motivation.<br /><br />CSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-17039680202501678052010-02-13T17:28:05.872-08:002010-02-13T17:28:05.872-08:00Anonymous,
You seem to have asked a question and ...Anonymous,<br /><br />You seem to have asked a question and then assumed an answer and moved on to make an argument without ever providing an answer to that question.<br /><br />You wrote, "The problem with this is that we need to consider motivation when considering moral behavior. Are animals self interested or altruistic? Are humans?"<br /><br />You never answered that question. So let me ask you, "Why can't self interest result in altruism?"<br /><br />If being social results in my reproductive success, and being altruistic results in my social success, how could you tell what my motivation was?<br /><br />I can say with metaphysical certitude that reproductive success must exist for me to exist. What reason would you have to suggest that a god is behind it?Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03513589609857845105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-2107847316636639572010-02-13T16:34:10.340-08:002010-02-13T16:34:10.340-08:00"Animal research that has discovered remarkab..."Animal research that has discovered remarkable proto-moral behavior in animals from rats to monkeys shows that that’s mistaken too, although I expect that once this research becomes too widely known to reject or ignore, believers will start claiming that the animals got their morals from God too."<br /><br />The problem with this is that we need to consider motivation when considering moral behavior. Are animals self interested or altruistic? Are humans? It is a difficult matter to settle whether humans are capable of being truly altruistic but the state of the mind of an animal may even be more troublesome. This research seems pretentious and carries a lot of assumptions about animal behavior to consider. I mean to assume humans are moral you also must also assume they have free will, a rational actor etc. These same assumptions need to apply to animals to show they are moral actors.<br /><br /><br />I am not sure I understand the main reason why people who don’t believe in God cannot be moral because God made humans with moral capacity whether they acknowledge him or not. This moral capacity is instantiated through the free will of human beings. I think maybe Matt your article alludes to the self righteous religious folk who do not represent true religious expression. Such people are obviously missing the heavenly virtue of humbleness in their character makeup and seem to be false students of piety.<br /><br />CSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-31247004651837496242010-02-12T18:11:48.657-08:002010-02-12T18:11:48.657-08:00Yeah Matt,
I would definitely tend to agree with ...Yeah Matt,<br /><br />I would definitely tend to agree with you that it is a tough series of questions (trying to discern any adaptive characteristic about an organ as complex as the brain is going to be tough). But I think what the authors do, and do very well, is take one element of the hypothesis of the adaptive purpose of religion and cast serious empirical doubt on it. That being that religion has an advantage of getting diverse groups to cooperate and thereby improves survival fitness of the individuals practicing it.<br /><br />But you know I'm pretty convinced that the "nature/nurture" debate is based on a false premise. Nurture is just a segment of nature.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-290689529862268602010-02-11T18:04:37.349-08:002010-02-11T18:04:37.349-08:00Thanks M Tully. Looks like an interesting study. ...Thanks M Tully. Looks like an interesting study. I have my doubts about being able to draw many hard conclusions about the exact evolutionary functions that religion may (or may not) have served. These hypotheses are typically very hard to test, and very short on hard data. It's even hard to know how the evidence would differ for us when looking at humans between religiousness having some evolutionary origin and its having a historical/social/culture origin. <br /><br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-26697042064260139262010-02-11T16:09:36.369-08:002010-02-11T16:09:36.369-08:00Another interesting read on the topic.
http://www...Another interesting read on the topic.<br /><br />http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/abstract/S1364-6613%2809%2900289-7<br /><br />The full article can be read by clicking the PDF link on the right hand side.<br /><br />The more empirical evidence accumulates, the fewer places magic has left to hide.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-71162027496623424652010-02-10T17:04:18.952-08:002010-02-10T17:04:18.952-08:00Oh, and David N, just so you know...
"When w...Oh, and David N, just so you know...<br /><br />"When we reflect upon the many values, both ethical and political, which have grown from the separation of church and state into distinct social bodies…"<br /><br />Cicero, On the Commonwealth. Written about a good 1400 years before Luther was born.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-51005316371338053472010-02-10T16:29:33.152-08:002010-02-10T16:29:33.152-08:00Matt,
"If we were realistic and conceived of...Matt,<br /><br />"If we were realistic and conceived of moral problems as falling squarely on our shoulders to solve with the resources we have, we would give them the sort of in depth consideration they deserve and we’d work harder to figure out what makes some things right and some of wrong. "<br /><br />To turn a phrase, Amen. That is a truly powerful statement.<br /><br />Although I think you should have capitalized and italicized "OUR."M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-34226528993693908912010-02-10T16:10:14.933-08:002010-02-10T16:10:14.933-08:00Rich,
If we're going to discuss semantics (wh...Rich,<br /><br />If we're going to discuss semantics (which by the way, I do think is important despite my own frequent failure to take it into account), why "non-supernaturalists?" It seems to almost shift the burden of proof away from those making a positive supernatural claim.<br /><br />Can't we just leave at "naturalists?" After all, there is quite the consensus that the natural world does in fact exist.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-66261670717457334062010-02-10T14:33:34.210-08:002010-02-10T14:33:34.210-08:00Hey David,
When you wrote, "without God ther...Hey David,<br /><br />When you wrote, "without God there can be no objective foundation upon which to ground moral propositions," I think you missed the key point to the studies that were cited.<br /><br />With each person seeing their own morality always reflected in their own conception of a deity (even when they must change their conception of a deity to match changes in their morality), the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is:<br /><br />"WITH god there can be no objective foundation upon which to ground moral propositions."<br /><br />I personally don't think there is "an objective moral standard." But then again, objective to me means the same results for all observers or no observer at all (morality without conscious observers is pretty much moot). But, should moral philosophers discover such a standard, based on the evidence to date, it would definitely have to be independent of any deity.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-78557398468510509742010-02-10T08:24:38.865-08:002010-02-10T08:24:38.865-08:00Tristan D. Vick: "But what about all the peac...Tristan D. Vick: "<i>But what about all the peaceful Buddhists who lives without God for thousands of years before your religion was even an idea in the head of an illiterate goat herding bronze aged patriarch?"</i>"<br /><br />I take your point, but your timeline is questionable. Most reputable scholars place Siddhartha Guatama, aka the Buddha, at around 560 - 400 BCE.Reginald Selkirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-11360751089248012962010-02-10T08:17:26.576-08:002010-02-10T08:17:26.576-08:00"Animal research that has discovered remarkab..."<i>Animal research that has discovered remarkable proto-moral behavior in animals from rats to monkeys shows that that’s mistaken too, although I expect that once this research becomes too widely known to reject or ignore, believers will start claiming that the animals got their morals from God too.</i>"<br /><br />With interesting implications for the important question of whether animals go to Heaven.Reginald Selkirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-9170588852637089372010-02-09T20:51:33.388-08:002010-02-09T20:51:33.388-08:00Thanks for the input, David N. Eric Sotnak is rig...Thanks for the input, David N. Eric Sotnak is right. This slogan gets repeated again and again but we rarely get to hear exactly how it is that the existence of God is the only possible explanation for human moral sensibilities. <br /><br />Put it another way: If God is the only objective foundation of morality, how come not a single one of the greatest moral philosophers in human history: Plato, Epicurus, Aristotle, Hume, Rousseau, Kant, Mill, Bentham, Hobbes, Rawls, Singer, Epictetus, Nietzsche, Socrates, Sidgwick, Anscombe, and Ross EVER NOTICED IT? <br /><br />You're 2,500 years behind on your moral theory--read the Euthyphro.Matt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-83794230425928912682010-02-09T19:33:42.534-08:002010-02-09T19:33:42.534-08:00David N wrote:
"without God there can be no o...David N wrote:<br />"without God there can be no objective foundation upon which to ground moral propositions"<br /><br />Do you think you could explain exactly HOW God provides objective foundations for moral propositions?Eric Sotnakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162425851889399481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-46895900957488657602010-02-09T14:24:11.890-08:002010-02-09T14:24:11.890-08:00Matt,
I notice that you didn't include the on...Matt,<br /><br />I notice that you didn't include the only sensible and defensible Christian position in your first paragraph, namely that without God there can be no objective foundation upon which to ground moral propositions, and thus that without God a person cannot meaningfully call anything "right" or "wrong."<br /><br />Obviously non-Christians can be very moral people. The Apostle Paul makes that very argument in Romans 1 and 2, when he teaches quite clearly that all men have God's law written on their hearts. This is the basis for cooperation between Christians and non-Christians in the public, civil arena. <br /><br />And yes, many Christians falsely believe that the Bible explicitly teaches on every subject, from foreign policy to healthcare, and that only explicitly Christian morality belongs in the public square. I would argue that they are both wrong and unbiblical here. If you're interested, look up Martin Luther's doctrine of the Two Kingdoms (which is the basis for the separation of church and state).David N.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00774829757737151477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-69014284413397700432010-02-07T19:59:28.241-08:002010-02-07T19:59:28.241-08:00Thanks anonymous. This is an interesting point. T...Thanks anonymous. This is an interesting point. The problem with it though is that we've got lots of empirical evidence that people change their minds quite readily and because of outside influences about moral matters, but they fail to notice that they changed their minds. They typically insist that they believed the same thing all along.Matt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-91309429916614812242010-02-07T12:48:19.907-08:002010-02-07T12:48:19.907-08:00Oops, sloppy editing. SorryOops, sloppy editing. SorryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-62502203896985425322010-02-07T12:47:22.091-08:002010-02-07T12:47:22.091-08:00I don't think this evidence really carries the...I don't think this evidence really carries the weight you give it. Christians believe axiomatically that God is good and approves all good things. Therefore the syllogism:<br /><i>X is good<br />God approves all good things<br />Therefore that God approves X<br /></i>is valid for them. If they change their mind about X being good, hey must logically also change their mind about God approving XAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-5438843262221624452010-02-07T06:46:47.063-08:002010-02-07T06:46:47.063-08:00I hate the term "believer" used in the c...I hate the term "believer" used in the coded sense. All people over 6 are believers, ie, they believe in things. non-supernaturalists should not promote this coded usage. Whenever possible use more clear terms, like "Christian believers", etc..<br /><br />The war of words is important, and those like yourself that do such great work in the field, might keep in mind. <br /><br />Cheers! <br /><a href="http://RichGriese.net" rel="nofollow">RichGriese.NET</a>Rich Griesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16947798364523082547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-37601323145704107292010-02-07T04:03:24.393-08:002010-02-07T04:03:24.393-08:00"No, doing the right thing because you think ..."No, doing the right thing because you think you’re being watched or threatened with punishment isn’t being moral; that’s utterly selfish."<br /><br />That's true, of course. Unfortunately, too often people just won't do right unless they're under at least some mild form of duress. I think it's a pie-in-the-sky philosophy that suggests people can be taught to always behave out of the goodness of their hearts. Religion tries to fix the problem by asserting an all-seeing Voyeur who will smack you if you get out of line. That doesn't always work, either, because it's too obvious that the good too often suffer and the bad too often thrive. Still, I'll admit that as an atheist I don't have a good solution. It seems to me that we atheists can come up with elegant ethical theories--that are probably right or close to right, by the way--but that don't always go much beyond theory. It's one thing to say, "This is how we humans seem to work." It's quite another to get us humans to actually behave ourselves.mikespeirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05397674737999065117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-64458191138762760982010-02-07T01:09:26.018-08:002010-02-07T01:09:26.018-08:00It almost seems as if those who claim you can'...It almost seems as if those who claim you can't be moral without God, or religion, have never considered the time when their religion wasn't around.<br /><br />When Christians say this to me, I ask them to imagine a world without Christianity. I ask them to explain what sort of world that would be like. <br /><br />They inevitably paint a picture of paganism and Satan worship, a world of obscene cruelty and sin (giving me serious reservations about their moral character in the first place), and then after listening to their imaginative Dante's Infero of horrors in a world without religion, I hit them with this question... "Really? But what about all the peaceful Buddhists who lives without God for thousands of years before your religion was even an idea in the head of an illiterate goat herding bronze aged patriarch?"<br /><br />They never look amused after such a question. So I like to follow it up with, "And what about the advanced civilizations of China, of philosophers, tea brewers, inventors, dancers, and rich culture when the Jews were off in the desert committing genocide?"<br /><br />They get angry at about this time, not because I'm challenging their blinkered position, but because they know I'm right.<br /><br />Then they either ask to know more, or else, angrily storm off to pout about it, and some just deny it flat out. As if China and Buddhism never existed in the first place. In fact, I find it rather insulting that anyone could suggest it when the obvious truth contradicts their assumption before the assumption is ever made! Talk about ignorance... but I guess the adage is right, ignorance is bliss.Tristan Vickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05348780254008374268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-15265644359959564992010-02-07T01:06:07.937-08:002010-02-07T01:06:07.937-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Tristan Vickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05348780254008374268noreply@blogger.com