When two worldviews collide.

[Confused-by-christianity]

We already know what people in this thread think.

I don't know what a lot of people think, or why. Not really. But someone said that if you ever understood your sibling, you'd truely love them.
(I think the statement assumes - With god as our father then all are my sibling),
and so I try to understand as much as i can about people.
What they think, why, their worldview, their motivations and values - all that sort of thing.
I think the most important thing is their values and motivations.
Their reasoning or conclusion isn't that important to me.

One reason I don't know what people think is that the posts here can be hard to read.
Some rules would help:
Less is more. If you can cut out a word - then cut it. Don't ramble or repeat yourself.
Don't use jargon. Don't use big words to dress up your post. Don't try be clever - just say what you mean.
Don't use passion to make your point - let your argument speak for itself.

And one i've recently made up:
Don't cut/paste bible verses, especially without explaining what you think they mean. I found myself filtering out bible cut/pastes like advertisments on a website. My mind just blocks them haha

 

[Bradskii]

One reason I don't know what people think is that the posts here can be hard to read.
Some rules would help:
Less is more. If you can cut out a word - then cut it. Don't ramble or repeat yourself.

The length of some of these Q and A posts drives me nuts. I'm using Paidiske's posts as a precis of most of them. She cuts out the dross and I can just read what is effectively a summary.

And one i've recently made up:
Don't cut/paste bible verses, especially without explaining what you think they mean. I found myself filtering out bible cut/pastes like advertisments on a website. My mind just blocks them haha

Me too. I don't mind a quick quote to reference a bible passage that might help explain a biblical point of view. But otherwise they are left unread.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

The length of some of these Q and A posts drives me nuts.

Pure saturation !!!

I'm using Paidiske's posts as a precis of most of them. She cuts out the dross and I can just read what is effectively a summary.

Me too. I don't mind a quick quote to reference a bible passage that might help explain a biblical point of view. But otherwise they are left unread.

You need to say:
In the following verse, Paul is writing to someone. He says the following ...
"Cut/paste your bible verse here"

There are about 5 different views of this passage.
1.
2.
3. *
4.
5.

I have asterisk number 3 to indicate that i hold this view.
Here are my reasons for holding that view.

 

[stevevw]

The research you've provided simply doesn't stack up to the claims you're making for it.

The claim I made was that we are born with a moral sense and at the very least have this moral sense very early and is not the result of social constructions and adult influence. The findings based on the science of observation from a number of studies conclude this. THis is not Gish Gallop but merely showing that the same findings were repreated by a number of studies and research showing a consistence in the findings which makes for good science.

“certain moral foundations are not acquired through learning. They do not come from the mother’s knee … ”
https://fs.blog/the-origins-of-good-and-evil/
a sense of right and wrong is not entirely learned, but rather indicative of an evolved predisposition towards moral goodness.
Are babies born with a sense of right and wrong?
At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness.
The Moral Life of Babies
Psychologists showed that babies respond by crying when they hear tape recordings of other babies crying out of distress. However, they do not show a similar response when they hear recordings of themselves, older children, or even chimpanzees crying! This type of “contagious crying” is an early sign of our empathy for our own species and peers of a similar age. So, we are, without a doubt, inherently empathetic creatures

Do Babies Have A Sense Of Morality?

Studies in Developmental Psychology show that babies have a basic sense of morality. Even infants who haven’t started talking, are able to distinguish good actions from bad and this judgment affects how they treat others.

www.scienceabc.com

Morality involves complex cognitive functions which have not developed yet in infants. For example, see here: The neuroscience of morality and social decision-making.

"Decades of research across multiple disciplines, including behavioral economics, developmental psychology, and social neuroscience, indicate that moral reasoning arises from complex social decision-making and involves both unconscious and deliberate processes which rely on several partially distinct dimensions, including intention understanding, harm aversion, reward and value coding, executive functioning, and rule learning."

You keep missing the point. There would be no moral reasoning if there was no innate moral sense. We would have no reason to reason. It is this innate moral sense that is at the foundation for baby and adult morality. In fact as the research shows with babies they have this moral sense without any reasoning or cognition. It just comes to them. This is the same basis for adults in what we may call moral intuition, gut feeling or instinct.

Moral reasoning about complex matters comes on top of this moral sense. That same moral reasoning could justify immoral acts if they are in contradiction to our innate moral sense. So it is the moral sense that is the essence of morality and not the cognition of it.

It's an influencing factor. It's not "the basis" for morality, which is much more complex.

If there was no moral sense basis there would be no complex moral situations. The mnoral sense is what gives morality its life, its essence, the sense that something is wrong and needs further investigation and rationalization. But quite often this moral sense or intuition if you like is pretty spot on when we rationalise things. So its like a default Red Flag in us to react and respond to moral situations and allow us to act before even rationalising things. Sure we may be wrong sometimes by our gut feeling but even then its usually about something that matter.

This is worth a read: Friends or foes: Is empathy necessary for moral behavior?.

Again, see the sources I've just linked for you. This paragraph is worth highlighting:

"In reality, empathy is not always a direct avenue to moral behavior. Indeed, at times empathy can interfere with moral decision-making by introducing partiality, for instance by favoring kin and in-group members. But empathy also provides the emotional fire and a push toward seeing a victims’ suffering end, irrespective of its group membership and social hierarchies. Empathy can prevent rationalization of moral violations. Studies in social psychology have indeed clearly shown that morality and empathy are two independent motives, each with its own unique goal. In resource-allocation situations in which these two motives conflict, empathy can become a source of immoral behavior."

Yes I agree empathy itself in the hands of adult rationalisations can mean more than one thing and even lead to the opposite by favoring the in group and not the outgroup. But as I keep saying this empathy that babies have its not one of rationalisation. They haven't had time or the experiences of rationalising immoral acts into moral ones. It just comes naturally as a default sense.

But this sense is tied with justice, kindness and alturism as well. Its not so much what we rationalise as adults but seems a more pure and innocent form of moral sense underpinning morality that we base our rationalisations on.

I notice that you didn't answer my question about, if we're all born with an innate sense of God, how you explain atheists.

I was waiting on your response to what I said first as I diden't want to bother with evdience as you seem to just dismiss it out of hand. But anyway here is the evdience.

Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke
Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought processes that it cannot be expunged. Your fundamental beliefs are decided by much deeper levels of consciousness, and some may well be more or less set in stone.

Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke

Metaphysical thought processes are more deeply wired than hitherto suspected

www.science20.com

Developmental psychologists have provided evidence that children are naturally tuned to believe in gods of one sort or another.
That belief comes so naturally to children may sound like an attack on religious belief (belief in gods is just leftover childishness) or a promotion of religious belief (God has implanted a seed for belief in children). What both sides should agree upon is the scientific evidence: certainly cultural inputs help fill in the details but children's minds are not a level playing field. They are tilted in the direction of belief.

Justin L Barrett: Do children believe because they're told to by adults? The evidence suggests otherwise

Justin L Barrett: Do children believe because they're told to by adults? The evidence suggests otherwise

www.theguardian.com

Oh nonsense. The day toddlers at playgroup don't need parents to mediate toy-sharing disputes (for example) because of their innate sense of justice and empathy, is the day pigs will fly.

Babies independently judge what we adults call good and bad behaviour in tests showing spontaneous interaction which suggests its coming from them, inside them, something that matters to babies and motivates them to react to unkind and unjust acts on other people. Are babies capable of complex moral cognition, No. But this has little to do with moral sense that comes as a gut or instinctive reaction or response.

 

[Paidiske]

The claim I made was that we are born with a moral sense and at the very least have this moral sense very early and is not the result of social constructions and adult influence. The findings based on the science of observation from a number of studies conclude this.

No, they don't. You are drawing a false equivalence between some evidence of traits like empathy, and a "moral sense," but these things are not the same.

You keep missing the point. There would be no moral reasoning if there was no innate moral sense.

No. I am not missing the point. I am pointing out the flaw in your argument; the traits that we demonstrate early in life do not amount to a "moral sense." Of course babies will react to potential threats to their safety (like unkindness obvious enough to register) but that's not any sort of meaningful moral sense.

But as I keep saying this empathy that babies have its not one of rationalisation.

Exactly. And so it is not morality, because morality is a rational function.

I was waiting on your response to what I said first as I diden't want to bother with evdience as you seem to just dismiss it out of hand. But anyway here is the evdience.

Kind of contradicted by the existence of actual atheists. Unless you think they're all deluded or lying, too?

 

[stevevw]

I think you have lost the plot...

Why when I just showed you the actual quote I copied from the article I linked before you even intervened which proves that it was in my link. Even the link you referred to as mine had the quote attached to it here This disapproval of political correctness is a majority view across all age groups, according to the nationally-representative Australia Talks National Survey.

It clearly talks about political correctness. How can my link not mentione PC, cancel culture and identity politics when it states that in the quote your using.

We all agree that the above quote was in the post you responded to right. So was the above quote in your article or not. Because it was in mine and I showed you the section it came from and thats because it comes from the article I was actually using. If its not then you have the wrong article.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

No, they don't. You are drawing a false equivalence between some evidence of traits like empathy, and a "moral sense," but these things are not the same.

Can you explain what a moral sense is ?
and how it is different from an inborn trait?
(if you haven't already)

 

[Paidiske]

Can you explain what a moral sense is ?
and how it is different from an inborn trait?
(if you haven't already)

I posted this link previously, but you might find it a helpful read: The neuroscience of morality and social decision-making

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

I posted this link previously, but you might find it a helpful read: The neuroscience of morality and social decision-making

well i mean for the layman

In a sentence or small paragraph.

 

[Paidiske]

Ok, umm... I don't know how much background knowledge you have. So I'm sorry if I'm pitching this at the wrong level.

But in fairly basic terms, there are things our brain can do, and does do, as inborn traits; things like knowing how to breathe, and how to suck, and responding to the touch of caregivers, and so on. (Steve would want, in all fairness, for me to add in here things like neural "mirroring" which allows for empathy). These are things we're all pretty much born with.

And there are capabilities which our brain develops over time; things like picking up language, abstract reasoning, even recognising the self as separate from its environment or caregivers, all of that. And the ability to know right from wrong - the ability even to understand the concept of "right" or "wrong" - and to act accordingly, are in this latter category. It's something that comes with relatively advanced brain development, a lot of teaching and nurture, and so on.

Is that a helpful start?

 

[stevevw]

No, they don't. You are drawing a false equivalence between some evidence of traits like empathy, and a "moral sense," but these things are not the same.
No. I am not missing the point. I am pointing out the flaw in your argument; the traits that we demonstrate early in life do not amount to a "moral sense." Of course babies will react to potential threats to their safety (like unkindness obvious enough to register) but that's not any sort of meaningful moral sense.

Exactly. And so it is not morality, because morality is a rational function.

Kind of contradicted by the existence of actual atheists. Unless you think they're all deluded or lying, too?

I keep repeating myself or rather the studies. They also found a sense of justice, fairness, kindness and empath is probably the driving force for wanting these nobel Rights for others as they have this sense that denying them is wrong. Its not done out of fear but a sense of justice as there are judgements made about the behaviour being right or wrong based on the good and bad behaviour in tests. As the researchers pointed out

What’s exciting here is that these preferences are based on how one individual treated another This is preference of a very special sort; babies were responding to behaviours that adults would describe as nice or mean.
The Moral Life of Babies (Published 2010)

Not only preferring and responding but making judgements about the behaviour.

Indeed, if you watch the older babies during the experiments, they don’t act like impassive judges — they tend to smile and clap during good events and frown, shake their heads and look sad during the naughty events.
Children are born believers in God, academic claims

In other words babies and toddlers were making moral judgements like adults about kind and unkind behaviour and it was coming from them as non passive spontaeous enegagement.

They even can decern the difference between when bad behaviour is about being unkind and cruel and when its used to punish unking and cruel acts. Thats a pretty sophisticated understanding for babies and toddlers.

What was more interesting was what happened when they watched the bad guy being rewarded or punished. Here they chose the punisher. Despite their overall preference for good actors over bad, then, babies are drawn to bad actors when those actors are punishing bad behaviour.
The Moral Life of Babies (Published 2010)

 

[stevevw]

Ok, umm... I don't know how much background knowledge you have. So I'm sorry if I'm pitching this at the wrong level.

But in fairly basic terms, there are things our brain can do, and does do, as inborn traits; things like knowing how to breathe, and how to suck, and responding to the touch of caregivers, and so on. (Steve would want, in all fairness, for me to add in here things like neural "mirroring" which allows for empathy). These are things we're all pretty much born with.

And there are capabilities which our brain develops over time; things like picking up language, abstract reasoning, even recognising the self as separate from its environment or caregivers, all of that. And the ability to know right from wrong - the ability even to understand the concept of "right" or "wrong" - and to act accordingly, are in this latter category. It's something that comes with relatively advanced brain development, a lot of teaching and nurture, and so on.

Is that a helpful start?

What you keep missing is that these innate moral sense has nothing to do with cognition as far as rationalising moral situations. Think of it like this. If someone had a natural inclination and talent for say music. That basic natural inclination to perhaps understand pitch without being taught is the basic sense that more complex music is built on. But if a person doesn't have this inbuilt inclination then they will find it harder to grasp and will have to learn through conditioning, repeating and practicing until it sinks in.

Even then they still don't have that natural ability like the person who does. Well think of that moral sense like the naturally gifted muscian. It didn't take learning music and knowing all the complex music in the world won't help. It is just there but it appears all humans are like the natural musician when it comes to our moral sense.

Fundementally morality doesn't come down to our ability to rationalise complex situations because morality is not at its most basic a mechanism or an equation. Its a moral sense, intuition, gut feeling. Ande its not just feelings because we make moral judgements as well. But we make them as a reaction or response well before we can rationalise complex situation.

 

[Paidiske]

I keep repeating myself or rather the studies.

Yes, you keep repeating them, but that doesn't make the claims any more sound than they were the first time.

Its not done out of fear but a sense of justice as there are judgements made about the behaviour being right or wrong based on the good and bad behaviour in tests.

No; an emotional reaction is not the same as a judgement about right or wrong. That's a level of cognitive development that infants don't have. Even the thing you keep linking to about the moral life of babies says as much.

In other words babies and toddlers were making moral judgements like adults about kind and unkind behaviour and it was coming from them as non passive spontaeous enegagement.

No, they weren't. They do not have the capacity for moral judgement "like adults." And you also cannot demonstrate that it was not influenced by the people around them (see my point to the other poster about neural mirroring).

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Is that a helpful start?

Basically - I'm hearing that you're born with morality "in potential". You subsequently may realise (make real) your potential.

The discussion is about whether the morality is real at birth or in potential at birth, ready for realisation.

????

 

[Paidiske]

What you keep missing is that these innate moral sense has nothing to do with cognition as far as rationalising moral situations.

That's why it's not a moral sense. Because a moral sense does have to do with cognition and rationality.

Think of it like this. If someone had a natural inclination and talent for say music. That basic natural inclination to perhaps understand pitch without being taught is the basic sense that more complex music is built on. But if a person doesn't have this inbuilt inclination then they will find it harder to grasp and will have to learn through conditioning, repeating and practicing until it sinks in.

But having a natural ear for pitch doesn't mean that person can just sit at a piano and play. That has to be taught and nurtured. So does moral reasoning.

Well think of that moral sense like the naturally gifted muscian. .. It is just there but it appears all humans are like the natural musician when it comes to our moral sense.

No. There might be some personality traits which lend themselves to developing a strong moral sense, but that's not the same as it being innate.

 

[Paidiske]

Basically - I'm hearing that you're born with morality "in potential". You subsequently may realise (make real) your potential.

The discussion is about whether the morality is real at birth or in potential at birth, ready for realisation.

Something like that. And part of the reason for that is that earlier in the thread, @stevevw was trying to make a distinction between "human made" ideas and what is "natural" in our moral reasoning (which is what gave rise to this particular strand of the discussion).

 

[stevevw]

Yes, you keep repeating them, but that doesn't make the claims any more sound than they were the first time.

Why. I have two bits of information to go on this matter. One from you who keeps refuting without any arguement or support and one that has been determined by experts in the field based on observational science. Not just one but repeatede studies all showing the same findeings. That meets the criteria for science at least. So who should I believe. Its like saying the repeated science behind physics is wrong without providing any counter evdience.

No; an emotional reaction is not the same as a judgement about right or wrong. That's a level of cognitive development that infants don't have. Even the thing you keep linking to about the moral life of babies says as much.

So you think the babies and toddlers were not making any judgements about the behaviour rather than just emotionally reacting. Emotional reactions can produce any behaviour as its based on feelings. The same tests could have provoked a negative emotion against the good guys and a positive one for the bad guys. The judgement is best seen when the babies could determine the difference between bad actions in punishing the bad guy and bad actions by the bad guy. That is pretty sophisticated judement.

No, they weren't. They do not have the capacity for moral judgement "like adults." And you also cannot demonstrate that it was not influenced by the people around them (see my point to the other poster about neural mirroring).

Do you really think researchers at this level would be so dumb as to not factor out these obvious things before publishing and as the tests have been repeated by several independent and different scientists do you think they all just neglected to factor them out failing to get past peer review. Come on Paidiske your creeping into the rediculous to avoid the facts.

 

[stevevw]

Something like that. And part of the reason for that is that earlier in the thread, @stevevw was trying to make a distinction between "human made" ideas and what is "natural" in our moral reasoning (which is what gave rise to this particular strand of the discussion).

wrong person sorry

 

[stevevw]

Basically - I'm hearing that you're born with morality "in potential". You subsequently may realise (make real) your potential.

The discussion is about whether the morality is real at birth or in potential at birth, ready for realisation.

????

Thats actually a good way to put it I think. That is your moral sense is the foundation and it is from this we can potentially understand more complex morality. Without this bais we cannot understand more complex morality at all because it would not matter to us.

 

[Paidiske]

Why. I have two bits of information to go on this matter.

And even your own sources don't demonstrate what you want to claim.

One from you who keeps refuting without any arguement or support

I'll just pause to note the many points and links I've provided...

and one that has been determined by experts in the field based on observational science.

Your own link on the moral life of babies says things like (emphasis mine):

"Morality, then, is a synthesis of the biological and the cultural, of the unlearned, the discovered and the invented."
"The aspect of morality that we truly marvel at — its generality and universality — is the product of culture, not of biology."
"If this higher morality or higher altruism were found in babies, the case for divine creation would get just a bit stronger. But it is not present in babies."

That's from the link you supplied to make your case! But it doesn't say what you want to claim it's saying.

So you think the babies and toddlers were not making any judgements about the behaviour rather than just emotionally reacting.

Basically, yes. I do not think babies, in particular, are able to make judgements about behaviour. That belongs to a later stage of development.

Emotional reactions can produce any behaviour as its based on feelings.

A point some of your sources have made. That our primitive emotions, although they might feed into moral reasoning, do not always result in moral decisions.

Do you think research at this level would be so dumb to not factor out these things before publishing and as the tests have been repeated by several independent and edifferent scientists do you think they all just neglected to factor out the most obvious objection to the reseach failing to get past peer review. Come on Paidiske you creeping into the rediculous to avoid the facts.

It's a simple fact that these infants have all been affected by interaction with their caregivers. They haven't been raised by robots. There is no human way possible to factor that out.