Hey, Atheists...

[stevevw]

No. Which posts are you reading? There are genes that have a tendency to have us act in a particular way. Not 'a gene'. Not even a specific group of genes. But our general genetic make up.

heere are a couple of examples from different posters on your side

I'm not sure how it could be anything else. If there is an inherited instinct for morality (as there is an inherited instinct for infants to suckle) then where else would it be recorded than in proteins and DNA, just like any other instinct.

This is equating a specific moral with a specific behaviour having a genetic basis like suckling.

This was in response to me saying morality cannot be genetically inherited.

We could say the same for, say, musical aptitude. It is not a 'physical phenomenon', but it is heritable.

Another poster suggested I google the genetic basis for justice.
Just Google 'genetic basis for justice'

I think this is a common belief that comes out of the idea that we can map the correlates of consciousness and that this will explain consciousness. So we can find the neural correlates for say the experience of the color red. Likewise we can find the specific genetic basis for morals like justice or kindness.

You said that concepts such as justice (aka fairness) are not heritable. Which means it's entirely learned behaviour. It isn't. You were wrong. We are not blank slates when we are born. And what is chalked on that slate is our dna code.

Not heritable as in evolution, biologically or genetically. They are not a phenotype and to attach them to an extended phenotype is dubious as its like equating conscious experience to a neuron. They are completely different categories.

I meant inherited as in we are born with this moral sense spiritually or whatever it is that is a part of us that transcends the material world and its processes that can only be reduced further to physical explanations.

Perhaps as God said He wrote His laws on our hearts so that even those who did not have the law know the law because they conscience accused them. That to me seems like a spiritual inheritence rather than a physical one. Just like belief in God cannot be reduced to genes or neurons.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This sounds a little ambigious. What do you mean by " Fully inverted. evolution". It sounds like you singling out a specific part from the overall process of evolution that can account for adaptive and heritable evolution.

I didn't capitalize the "e". It was a type-o.

I stand by the claim that evolution is also teleological.

Go learn what the ToE actually says. You don't get to redefine to fit your personal impression. (It's not something subjective like morality after all.) As I said before, your view of evolution was 'fully inverted', backwards, upside down, wrong, etc.

A simple factor is that creatures and especially humans can control their environment making benefical changes that direct evolution even to the point of controling what natural selection will end up using.
Because they were chosen by the creature. They made specific choices to do certain things that were different to the status quo. Living things are adaptable by nature. There is a large desgree of plasticity in phenotypes that is not genetic at least to begin with which allows creatures to adapt without the need for random mutations of blind NS.

But creatures can also change environments themselves rather than being changed to fit environments. Then they pass down that changed environment and so long as they do it will eventually be cemented genetically. The important point is at first it is not genetic but a chosen behaviour.

Whether to eat healthily or not is a chosen behaviour that will have benefits or no benefit for adaptations and survivability. The unhealthy group die out and the healthy eating group (or benefical changes) will survive. Then later this will be cemented genetically ie less disease prone or more disease prone ect.

This sounds Lamarkian and barely relevant to the topic.

Evidence shows that most of the genetic programming of the basic body plans goes way back. Who knows it may have been programmed into the first life. Abiogenesis highlights the leaps evolution makes along the way that cannot be explained by a programmed view of life.

Not even close. The first proto-cells would have simple replication of molecules, cell wall, metabolism, and certainly no "programming" for future changes or development. It has exactly zero to do with *ANYTHING* in this thread.

We could take it all the way back to the beginning and how something came from nothing.

Now your discussion of "atheist morality" includes the origin of the universe? Good grief. Stick to mammals at least.

The point is such creation or as Dawkins says such appearence of design doesn't come from Neo Darwinism and more and more cracks are appearing as a result.

Nope. Not the topic.

You can't equate morality which is by nature a abstract and transcendent idea with the instinct to suckle. Babies are born with physical indicators of mothers milk and smells all biological based that causes an infant to suckle.

Why not? All you've got is "you can't do that" and calling morality "transcendent". I looked at the definition and I don't see any reason to put morality in that category. As for instincts, before birth fetuses show suckling behavior and babies grasp to hold on to their mother's non-existent fur. Neither of those has a direct stimulus.

You cannot reduce morality down to smells, genes or neurons.

You haven't given a good reason for this.

No one is creating the god of suckle lol.

If you could ask a baby what god it worships, I'm sure it would be the god of suckle. LOL, indeed.

 

[Bradskii]

heere are a couple of examples from different posters on your side

None of which even suggested that there is a specific gene. Cut out the strawman. Please.

Not heritable as in evolution, biologically or genetically.

You can't inherit something if it's not via the evolutionary process, biological and genetically. And you've been shown a paper that says that it can be. And there are lots more out there. You were wrong.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But under atheistic subjective morality it doesn't matter. They believe that there is no innate morals because that would defeat the entire idea of subjective morality.

And here I thought I was fairly clear. We have nearly identical moral instincts and we make choices (or have them thrust upon us) of what priorities we place in the highest level. The full moral system is largely objectively derived from those choices.

 

[stevevw]

No-one has proposed that. Because it's wrong. Which means all that effort you made building that straw man has been wasted. Burn it.

Its not a strawman. You may say its wrong and thats good. But the average person who explains evolution will do so in genetic terms. verything including morality, belief in God, aluristism, empathy, is explained back to the genetic programming schema.

Even if the behaviour seems distantly related to genetics the subsequent explanations are linked back to the genetic program.

The discussions I have had with most people on this has always ended up being explained by the genetic program. We just had some claiming morals like justice and fairness ultimately have a genetic basis.

Its inherent in the paradigm. Even though some attention is given to behaviour and development its still based on the gene centric view. Creatures are incrimentally evolved through genetic changes to populations rather than individuals. The only real forces are natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow.

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary
All the extensive discussions, led over decades, seem not to have altered the preponderant stance to hold on to the classical prerequisites of gradualism, adaptationism, selectionism and gene-centrism. The predictions that follow from the MS framework continue to be based on these prerequisites and ignore all predictions derived from alternative models. Hence, the claim of continuous incorporation of new conceptual components by the MS theory is misleading.

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary - PMC

Since the last major theoretical integration in evolutionary biology—the modern synthesis (MS) of the 1940s—the biosciences have made significant advances. The rise of molecular biology and evolutionary developmental biology, the recognition of ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[stevevw]

None of which even suggested that there is a specific gene. Cut out the strawman. Please.

So did they suggest a specific group of genes. It seems to imply that morals like justice and fairness can be explained by genes.

You can't inherit something if it's not via the evolutionary process, biological and genetically. And you've been shown a paper that says that it can be. And there are lots more out there. You were wrong.

Yes but isn't inheriting something that is not by the "evolutionary process, biological and genetically" support the fact that abstracts like morality can be innate without being inherited genetically or biologically.

Like say a group decides to change a moral and this becomes the norm within a generation or two. How is this genetically inherited when the moral changed so quickly. I though biological evolution took a long time and was gradually adaptive. First a phenotype is subject to a new environment and those that gradually adapt by sucessive small beneficial adaptations will live to reproduce.

How can this be applied to abstracts like morality.

 

[Bradskii]

Its not a strawman. You may say its wrong and thats good. But the average person who explains evolution will do so in genetic terms.

I could care less. There may be people out there that know less about evolution than you do. Some even think it's teleological. Go figure. But you're not talking to them. You're talking to people in this thread. Please confine your comments to what they say.

 

[Bradskii]

So did they suggest a specific group of genes.

No. They didn't.

Yes but isn't inheriting something that is not by the "evolutionary process, biological and genetically" ...

Not possible.

Inherit: derive (a quality, characteristic, or predisposition) genetically from one's parents or ancestors.

Like say a group decides to change a moral and this becomes the norm within a generation or two. How is this genetically inherited when the moral changed so quickly. I though biological evolution took a long time and was gradually adaptive.

It does and it is. But if you want to intentionally change a moral position then it's not genetically inherited. Obviously.

 

[stevevw]

It's not about "atheistic subjective morality". It is about natural moral instincts that are common to all of us.

I thought the OP was about atheist morality and how it can be grounded.

I thought the atheistic worldview was there were no transcedent moral truths by a moral lawgiver. Rather they are grounded in human subjective ideas, feelings and preferences.

As there is no transcedent moral being the only option is to ground it in human subjective ideas which have no objective basis beyond humans. A circular arguement for moral truth.

 

[stevevw]

I could care less. There may be people out there that know less about evolution than you do. Some even think it's teleological. Go figure. But you're not talking to them. You're talking to people in this thread. Please confine your comments to what they say.

Are yousaying I cannot or no one cannot disagree with those in this thread. If I say that there are people who disagree with you that is to make the arguement that just because you claim something doesn't mean its correct.

My arguements against what you are saying are directed at what you are saying. That is I am directly disagreeing with what you are saying based on evidence. Is that not allowed.

 

[Bradskii]

Are yousaying I cannot or no one cannot disagree with those in this thread.

Yes you can. But disagree with what they say. You said that people in this thread were saying that there are specific genes for concepts such as fairness. They weren't. Because there aren't.

 

[Bradskii]

I thought the atheistic worldview was there were no transcedent moral truths by a moral lawgiver. Rather they are grounded in human subjective ideas, feelings and preferences.

That's right.

As there is no transcedent moral being the only option is to ground it in human subjective ideas which have no objective basis beyond humans.

You just said exactly the same thing twice. Once would be enough.

 

[stevevw]

I didn't capitalize the "e". It was a type-o.

I didn't think anything of it.

Go learn what the ToE actually says. You don't get to redefine to fit your personal impression. (It's not something subjective like morality after all.) As I said before, your view of evolution was 'fully inverted', backwards, upside down, wrong, etc.

Then why do some many scientists agree with what I have said. This is not my personal subjective view. There are research projects full of peer reviewed studies that have been going for years that have verified much of what is mentioned.

This sounds Lamarkian and barely relevant to the topic.

Yeah its getting too much into evolution. But then it will naturally come up because atheist arguements for morality are heavily based on evolution and naturalistic paradigms.

But yes a form of Lamarkian evolution is found in genetic plasticity and inheritence beyond genes.

Not even close. The first proto-cells would have simple replication of molecules, cell wall, metabolism, and certainly no "programming" for future changes or development. It has exactly zero to do with *ANYTHING* in this thread.

So where did the molecules and cell wall come from to create this unique metabolism. I guess from the chemicals and elements. But where did they come from. This takes us back to the beginning. So this must have been programmed into the beginning. Thats unless we live in a multiverse. But then which unreal scenario fits better.

Now your discussion of "atheist morality" includes the origin of the universe? Good grief. Stick to mammals at least.

Lol, well thats where it took us. If someone wants to claim that morality can be explained by material naturalism then ultimately its going to get back to what is reality. That is where all discussions on this topic end up.

Why not? All you've got is "you can't do that" and calling morality "transcendent". I looked at the definition and I don't see any reason to put morality in that category.

What is the definition of morality.

As for instincts, before birth fetuses show suckling behavior and babies grasp to hold on to their mother's non-existent fur. Neither of those has a direct stimulus.

These are known as the babies reflexes. Like the fight or flight relex. They are a physical reaction that is already developed into the baby. They don't have to learn it. Though some find it harder to grasp for various reasons.

They do have a direct stimulus. When a baby is near the breasts its reflex is to turn towards the breast, open their mouth and put forward their tounge in anticipation of the mothers breast milk.

Within minutes of birth new borns are particularly responsive to olfactory cues emanating from their mother's nipple/areola region. Beginning within minutes after birth, maternal breast odors elicit preferential head orientation by neonates and help guide them to the nipple.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/016363839290008T#:~:text=Human%20infants%20are%20particularly%20responsive,guide%20them%20to%20the%20nipple.

These are all biological influences that are designed to get a newborn attached to the mother for vital sustagen.

You haven't given a good reason for this.

Ah because we don't treat morality that way in real life. We don't say someone is justified in acting immorally because they did not like the smell or because a gene made them do it.

But more basically think about it. A moral is an abstract phenomena. There are no wiring or physical processes going on that can explain morals. Just like you cannot explain the color red with the physical brain such as neurons.

They are diferent categories. One is about qualitative phenomena and the other physical processes. Its like using a computer chip to explain kindness.

If you could ask a baby what god it worships, I'm sure it would be the god of suckle. LOL, indeed.

But I reckon the god of suckle has challenges nowadays as there are many gods claiming to be god. They come in the form of false prophets in baby bottles and formula. Even imposters like pacifiers which appear like gods but have no life giving milk. Beware of false suckle gods lol.

 

[stevevw]

Yes you can. But disagree with what they say. You said that people in this thread were saying that there are specific genes for concepts such as fairness. They weren't. Because there aren't.

But even your opinion that they weren't is not necessarily truth as to what I meant by specific genes. So can I question that as well. I am telling you that this was the implication I understood from what was said. Or are you saying I should not have drawn that conclusion. Isn't this itself a matter of opinion.

I had one person comparing morals like fairness to suckling which is a biological reflex which seems to me to be comparing it to a genetic basis. It implies just like there are certain genetics for suckling there are certain genetics for morals.

Then I have another poster saying amen to morals like fairness and justice being genetically based and suggesting I should look it as theres plenty of evidence. Thats after linking a paper giving the specific genetic basis for fairness and unfairness to dispute my claim that morals were based on something beyond genes.

Remembering that the discussion was about fundementally whether morality is innate because its biologically and physically innate or because of some more abstract reason such as associated with consciousness and experiences or some sense that God instilled in us. So the only explanations presented to counter the claim that its innate because of some transcedent moral sense has been genetic and biological.

If thats not implying morals have a specific genetic basis over any other non genetic factors then I don't know what is. In fact it makes morals completely determined by biology and genetics because the arguements are being used in support of genetics to dimss any non genetic factors.. Noother explanations have been given. What else am I to think.

 

[stevevw]

That's right.

You just said exactly the same thing twice. Once would be enough.

No it seems I have to keep repeating this due to contradictory claims. The discussion began by someone claiming that my mention that we are born with an innate moral sense was evidence for grounding atheist morality.

I said this contradicts the atheists idea that morals are subjective and relative because having an innate morality is not derived from subjective or relative social or cultural upbringing or indoctrination. Rather it is fixed and unchangable like anything that is innate like our sex drive.

Except this innateness cannot be explained by material processes are it reanscends material processes. Any physical explanations such as genes or neurons will be a correlate and not an explanation of the nature of morality in humans.

So claiming our innate morality is evidence of for grounding atheistic morality has no basis or any solid basis and a contradiction in terms. Its more a metphysical assumption and belief than fact.

Anyway I am going to move oin from this innate morality aspect as its just going to go in circles and I am sorry I brought it up. I keep forgeting the different paradigms. People believe what they believe.

 

[BCP1928]

Its not a strawman. You may say its wrong and thats good. But the average person who explains evolution will do so in genetic terms. verything including morality, belief in God, aluristism, empathy, is explained back to the genetic programming schema.

Even if the behaviour seems distantly related to genetics the subsequent explanations are linked back to the genetic program.

The discussions I have had with most people on this has always ended up being explained by the genetic program. We just had some claiming morals like justice and fairness ultimately have a genetic basis.

Once again, "justice" and "fairness" are not morals. They are abstract concepts we use to characterize various behaviors and affective states.

Do you have a conscience?

 

[essentialsaltes]

They are fixed in humans to be one way only

They clearly aren't

 

[stevevw]

Once again, "justice" and "fairness" are not morals. They are abstract concepts we use to characterize various behaviors and affective states.

I think concepts like justice and fairness are based on moral values though. Its about treating people the right way. To cause an injustice would be a sin again thy neighbour.

But nevertheless if "justice" and "fairness" are not morals but abstract concepts isn't that what morals are, abstract concepts. They certainly don't have any physical substance to them.

Do you have a conscience?

Yes we all have a conscience unless we are mentally incapacitated. Is not our conscious actually Gods laws in our heart and on our mind.

The bible says even though people did not have the law, before morals were written down in stone people knew Gods law because of their conscience.

 

[BCP1928]

I think concepts like justice and fairness are based on moral values though. Its about treating people the right way. To cause an injustice would be a sin again thy neighbour.

But nevertheless if "justice" and "fairness" are not morals but abstract concepts isn't that what morals are, abstract concepts. They certainly don't have any physical substance to them.

Yes we all have a conscience unless we are mentally incapacitated. Is not our conscious actually Gods laws in our heart and on our mind.

That's what you are trying to prove, though so far you haven't done very well.

The bible says even though people did not have the law, before morals were written down in stone people knew Gods law because of their conscience.

That's your explanation for the conscience. Atheists have a different and more plausible explanation.

 

[stevevw]

That's what you are trying to prove, though so far you haven't done very well.

What that God is the true source of the moral laws. Actually not really. I havn't pushed that as that would be too hard. Its a bit like proving consciousness beyond brain. Especially in a material world that demands empirical evidence.

My main aim has been to argue that morality is not materail as atheists base their morals on. Nor subjective or relative with evidence that its innate and universal.

Thats the first step before arguing that God is the moral lawgiver. I don't think thats even necessary as the OP is about what basis do atheists use toground morality. That can be argued without bringing God into it.

That's your explanation for the conscience. Atheists have a different and more plausible explanation.

What might that be. Let me guess genetics lol.