Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Loudmouth]

Please read this article and share with me your thoughts:

winteryknight.com/2015/08/12/can-evolution-empathy-and-well-being-account-for-the-existence-of-moral-facts/

Being a discussion and debate forum, I was hoping that you would address my post.

 

[Loudmouth]

How many of your claims and beliefs are backed up by robust testable evidence presented in falsifiable hypotheses?

We can show that humans exist in a testable and falsifiable manner, and that would be our source for empathy.

 

[anonymous person]

This source doesn't seem to be an authority, on human behavior and or psychology.

It does seem to be biased towards religious claims though.

One does not have to be religious to affirm that objective moral values and duties are more plausibly grounded in a transcendent moral law giver as opposed to some sort of mundane ground. There are atheists that would make the claim and in fact have.

You do know that right?

 

[bhsmte]

One does not have to be religious to affirm that objective moral values and duties are more plausibly grounded in a transcendent moral law giver as opposed to some sort of mundane ground. There are atheists that would make the claim and in fact have.

You do know that right?

Who do atheists claim this moral law giver is?

 

[anonymous person]

Being a discussion and debate forum, I was hoping that you would address my post.

I have. I asked you to read the article.

 

[Loudmouth]

One does not have to be religious to affirm that objective moral values and duties are more plausibly grounded in a transcendent moral law giver as opposed to some sort of mundane ground. There are atheists that would make the claim and in fact have.

You do know that right?

How do you know that the laws given by this transcendental law giver are moral? Just because the deity says so? Just because other humans say so?

 

[Loudmouth]

I have. I asked you to read the article.

That isn't a discussion.

 

[bhsmte]

I have. I asked you to read the article.

Discussion and debate, it typically between two people.

You should summarize any reference to outside materials, in your own words.

 

[anonymous person]

We can show that humans exist in a testable and falsifiable manner, and that would be our source for empathy.

Of course humans exist and can be empathetic. That does nothing to show that empathy is a grounds for objective moral values and duties.

You either affirm or deny the existence of objective moral value and duty. If you deny it then fine.

If you affirm they exist, then you have to affirm they are grounded in something. Telling me you have a feeling about certain acts is not providing a grounds for objective moral values and duties.

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course humans exist and can be empathetic. That does nothing to show that empathy is a grounds for objective moral values and duties.

It does show that we have a source of morality that we can actually demonstrate to exist. That puts us a step up on theists.

You either affirm or deny the existence of objective moral value and duty. If you deny it then fine.

Objective morality doesn't require a deity.

If you affirm they exist, then you have to affirm they are grounded in something.

Empathy and reason, as I stated earlier. Those form the basis for morality.

 

[Davian]

How many of your claims and beliefs are backed up by robust testable evidence presented in falsifiable hypotheses?

I am not aware of any claims I am currently making, or any that are outside the boundaries of mainstream science, and based on experience my beliefs are tentative and falsifiable, and have changed many times based on new information.

What has this to do with apologetics, as you use the word?

 

[anonymous person]

That isn't a discussion.

You could tell me you thoughts on the article. It explains my view very accurately.

 

[anonymous person]

Who do atheists claim this moral law giver is?

God

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

anonymous person said: ↑
One does not have to be religious to affirm that objective moral values and duties are more plausibly grounded in a transcendent moral law giver as opposed to some sort of mundane ground. There are atheists that would make the claim and in fact have.

You do know that right?

How do you know that the laws given by this transcendental law giver are moral? Just because the deity says so? Just because other humans say so?

anonymous person said: ↑
One does not have to be religious to affirm that objective moral values and duties are more plausibly grounded in a transcendent moral law giver as opposed to some sort of mundane ground. There are atheists that would make the claim and in fact have.

You do know that right?

Who do atheists claim this moral law giver is?

Ummm, this one?


........................................

......................

CHRISTIAN LAWGIVER:

Isa 33:22
(For the LORD is our Judge,
The LORD is our Lawgiver,
The LORD is our King;
He will save us);

Jas 4:12
There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy.
Who are you to judge another?




.

 

[anonymous person]

I am not aware of any claims I am currently making, or any that are outside the boundaries of mainstream science, and based on experience my beliefs are tentative and falsifiable, and have changed many times based on new information.

What has this to do with apologetics, as you use the word?

Your belief that belief is not a conscious choice is not falsifiable.

 

[Loudmouth]

You could tell me you thoughts on the article. It explains my view very accurately.

Why don't you discuss the article? That's normally what people do in these discussions when they reference something.

 

[Loudmouth]

God

Then they wouldn't be atheists.

 

[KCfromNC]

Some people knock eyewitness testimony when it comes to God stuff but are quick to rely on it when in a court of law, such testimony benefits them in some way.

Yep. For example, some Christians reject the religious eyewitness testimony of billions of Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists.

Are you claiming those Christians are unjustified in doing so?

 

[KCfromNC]

Please read this article and share with me your thoughts:

winteryknight.com/2015/08/12/can-evolution-empathy-and-well-being-account-for-the-existence-of-moral-facts/

Please find my response in these sources. Please read them and share with me your thoughts.

• Alexander, R., 1987, The Biology of Moral Systems, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
• Appiah, K.A., 2008, Experiments in Ethics, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Axelrod, R., 1984, The Evolution of Cooperation, New York: Basic Books.
• –––, 2006, “Biology to Ethics: An Evolutionist's View of Human Nature,” in Boniolo, G. and De Anna, G., Evolutionary Ethics and Contemporary Biology, pp. 141–58.
• Bedke, M., 2009, “Intuitive Non-Naturalism Meets Cosmic Coincidence,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 90: 188–209.
• Berker, S., 2009, “The Normative Insignificance of Neuroscience,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 37: 293–329.
• –––, 2014, “Does Evolutionary Psychology Show that Normativity is Mind-Dependent?” in J. D'Arms and D. Jacobson (eds.), Moral Psychology and Human Agency: Essays on the New Science of Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Boniolo, G. and De Anna, G., 2006, Evolutionary Ethics and Contemporary Biology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Buller, D., 2005, Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Buss, D.M., 2005, The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, Hoboken: Wiley.
• Casebeer, W., 2003, Natural Ethical Facts: Evolution, Connectionism, and Moral Cognition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Clarke-Doane, J., 2012, “Morality and Mathematics: The Evolutionary Challenge,” Ethics, 122: 313–40.
• –––, 2014, “Moral Epistemology: The Mathematics Analogy,” Noûs, 48(2): 238–255.
• Copp, D., 2008, “Darwinian Skepticism about Moral Realism,” Philosophical Issues 18: 186–206.
• Cosmides, L. and Tooby, J., 2008, “Can a General Deontic Logic Capture the Facts of Human Moral Reasoning?” in W. Sinnott-Armstrong (ed.), Moral Psychology, Vol. 1.
• Darwin, C., 1859, The Origin of Species, London: John Murray.
• –––, 1871, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, London: John Murray.
• Dawkins, R., 1982, The Extended Phenotype, New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 1989, The Selfish Gene, 2nd edition, expanded, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2006, The God Delusion, New York: Houghton Mifflin.
• de Waal, F., 1996, Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2006, Primates and Philosophers, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Diamond, J., 1992, The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal, New York: Harper Collins.
• Enoch, D., 2011, Taking Morality Seriously: A Defense of Robust Realism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• FitzPatrick, W.J., 2000, Teleology and the Norms of Nature, New York: Garland.
• –––, 2007, Review of Boniolo, G. and De Anna, G., eds., Evolutionary Ethics and Contemporary Biology, in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews: 2007.04.02. [Available online].
• –––, 2012, Review of Philip Kitcher, The Ethical Project, Ethics, 123(1): 167–74.
• –––, 2014a, “Debunking Evolutionary Debunking of Ethical Realism,” Philosophical Studies, doi: 10.1007/s11098-014-0295-y.
• –––, 2014b, “Why There is No Darwinian Dilemma for Ethical Realism,” in M. Bergmann and P. Kain (eds.), Challenges to Moral and Religious Belief: Disagreement and Evolution, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Fodor, J., 1998, “The Trouble with Psychological Darwinism,” London Review of Books, 20(2): 11–13.
• –––, 2000, The Mind Doesn't Work That Way: The Scope and Limits of Computational Psychology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Foot, P., 2001, Natural Goodness, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Gibbard, A., 1990, Wise Choices, Apt Feelings, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Glover, J., 2000, Humanity: A Moral History of the 20th Century, New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Gould, S.J., 1997a, “Darwinian Fundamentalism,” New York Review of Books, 44(10): 34–7.
• –––, 1997b, “Evolutionary Psychology: An Exchange,” New York Review of Books, 44(15): 55–8.
• Gould, S.J. and Lewontin, R.C., 1979, “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme,” Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences, 205: 581–98.
• Greene, J.D., 2003, “From Neural ‘Is’ to Moral ‘Ought’: What are the Moral Implications of Neuroscientific Moral Psychology?”, Nature Neuroscience Reviews, 4: 847–50.
• –––, 2008, “The Secret Joke of Kant's Soul,” in W. Sinnott-Armstrong (ed.), Moral Psychology, Volume 3, pp. 35–80.
• Griffiths, P. and J. Wilkins, forthcoming, “When Do Evolutionary Explanations of Belief Debunk Belief?” in P. Sloan (ed.), Darwin in the 21st Century: Nature, Humanity and God, Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press.
• Haidt, J., 2001, “The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment,” Psychological Review, 108(4): 814–34.
• –––, 2003, “The Emotional Dog Learns New Tricks: A Reply to Pizarro and Bloom (2003),” Psychological Review, 110(1): 197–98.
• Hamilton, W.D., 1964, “The Genetical Evolution of Social Behavior,” I and II, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7: 1–52.
• Holldobler, B and Wilson, E.O., 2008, The Superorganism: The Beauty, Elegance, and Strangeness of Insect Societies, New York: Norton and Company.
• Joyce, R., 2006, The Evolution of Morality, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• –––, 2013, “Irrealism and the Genealogy of Morals,” Ratio, 26(4): 351–72.
• –––, Forthcoming, “Evolution, Truth-Tracking, and Moral Skepticism,” in B. Reichardt (ed.), Problems of Goodness, Bonn: Bernstein Verlag.
• Kamm, F., 1998, “Moral Intuitions, Cognitive Psychology, and the Harming-versus-Not-Aiding Distinction,” Ethics, 108 (April): 463–488.
• –––, 2007, Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Katz, L.D., (ed.), 2000, Evolutionary Origins of Morality: Cross Disciplinary Perspectives, Exeter: Imprint Academic.
• Kitcher, P., 1985, Vaulting Ambition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• –––, 1993, “The Evolution of Human Altruism,” Journal of Philosophy, 90(10): 497–516.
• –––, 1994, “Four Ways of ‘Biologizing’ Ethics,” in E. Sober (ed.), Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Ethics, pp. 439–50.
• –––, 2006a, “Biology and Ethics,” in Copp, D. ed., The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 163–85.
• –––, 2006b, “Between Fragile Altruism and Morality: Evolution and the Emergence of Normative Guidance,” in G. Boniolo and G. De Anna (eds.), Evolutionary Ethics and Contemporary Biology, pp. 159–77.
• –––, 2006c, “Ethics and Evolution: How to Get Here from There,” in F. de Waal, Primates and Philosophers, pp. 120–39.
• –––, 2011, The Ethical Project, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Knobe, J. and Leiter, B., 2007, “The Case for Nietzschean Moral Psychology,” in Nietzsche and Morality, B. Leiter & N. Sinhababu (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Korsgaard, C., 2006, “Morality and the Distinctiveness of Human Action,” in de Waal, Primates and Philosophers, pp. 98–119.
• Leiter, B., 2007, “Nietzsche's Theory of the Will,” Philosopher's Imprint, 7(7): 1–15.
• Locke, D., 2014, “Darwinian Normative Skepticism,” in M. Bergmann and P. Kain (eds.), Challenges to Moral and Religious Belief: Disagreement and Evolution, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lott, M., 2012, “Have Elephant Seals Refuted Aristotle? Nature, Function and Moral Goodness,” Journal of Moral Philosophy, 9: 1–23.
• Machery, E. and R. Mallon, 2010, “Evolution of Morality,” in J. Doris (ed.), The Moral Psychology Handbook, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Maynard Smith, J., 1982, Evolution and the Theory of Games, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• McDowell, J., 1995, “Two Sorts of Naturalism,” in Hursthouse, R., Lawrence, G., and Quinn, W., eds., Virtues and Reasons, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 149–80.
• Mele, A., 2008, “Free Will: Action Theory Meets Neuroscience,” in Lumer, C., ed., Intentionality, Deliberation and Autonomy: The Action-Theoretic Basis of Practical Philosophy, Burlington: Ashgate.
• Mikhail, J., 2011, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Nagel, T., 1979, “Ethics Without Biology”, in Mortal Questions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 142–46.
• –––, 1997, The Last Word, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Nichols, Shaun, 2004, Sentimental Rules: On the Natural Foundations of Moral Judgment, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Pinker, S., 1997a, “Evolutionary Psychology: An Exchange,” New York Review of Books 44(15): 55–8.
• –––, 1997b, How the Mind Works, New York: Norton.
• –––, 2008, “The Moral Instinct,” The New York Times Magazine, January 13: 32–58.
• Pizarro, D. and Bloom, P., 2003, “The Intelligence of the Moral Intuitions: Comments on Haidt (2001),” Psychological Review, 110(1): 193–96.
• Prinz, J., 2008, “Is Morality Innate?”, in Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Moral Psychology, 1: 367-406.
• Rachels, J., 1990, Created From Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Rosati, C., 1995, “Naturalism, Normativity, and the Open Question Argument,” Noûs, 29(1): 46–70.
• Rosenberg, A., 2006, “Will Genomics Do More for Metaphysics than Locke?”, in G. Boniolo and G. De Anna (eds.), Evolutionary Ethics and Contemporary Biology, pp. 178–98.
• Rottschaefer, W., 1998, The Biology and Psychology of Moral Agency, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ruse, M., 1988, “Evolutionary Ethics: Healthy Prospect or Last Infirmity?”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy (Supplement), 14: 27–73.
• –––, 2006, “Is Darwinian Metaethics Possible (And If It Is, Is It Well Taken)?”, in G. Boniolo and G. De Anna (eds.), Evolutionary Ethics and Contemporary Biology, pp. 13–26.
• Schafer, K., 2010, “Evolution and Normative Skepticism,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 88: 471–88.
• Shafer-Landau, R., 2012, “Evolutionary Debunking, Moral Realism and Moral Knowledge,” Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 7(1): 1–37.
• Singer, P., 2005, “Ethics and Intuitions,” Journal of Ethics, 9: 331–52.
• Sinnott-Armstrong, W., 2005, “Moral Intuitionism Meets Empirical Psychology,” in Horgan, T., and Timmons, M., eds., Metaethics After Moore, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 339–66.
• –––, (ed.), 2008, Moral Psychology, Vol. 1: The Evolution of Morality: Adaptations and Innateness, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• –––, (ed.), 2008a, Moral Psychology, Vol. 2: The Cognitive Science of Morality: Intuition and Diversity, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• –––, (ed.), 2008b, Moral Psychology, Vol. 3: The Neuroscience of Morality: Emotion, Brain Disorders, and Development, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Sober, E., (ed.), 1994, Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Ethics, 2nd ed., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Sober, E. and Wilson, D.S., 1998, Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Sommers, T., and Rosenberg, A., 2003, “Darwin's Nihilistic Idea: Evolution and the Meaninglessness of Life,” Biology and Philosophy, 18: 653–68.
• Spencer, H., 1879, The Data of Ethics, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell & Company.
• Street, S., 2006, “A Darwinian Dilemma for Realist Theories of Value,” Philosophical Studies, 127: 109–66.
• –––, 2008, “Reply to Copp: Naturalism, Normativity, and the Varieties of Realism Worth Worrying About,” Philosophical Issues, 18: 207–28.
• Thompson, M., “The Representation of Life,” in Hursthouse, R., Lawrence, G., and Quinn, W., eds., Virtues and Reasons, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 247–96.
• –––, 2008, Life and Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Thomson, J., 1985, “The Trolley Problem,” The Yale Law Journal, 94: 1395–1415.
• Tooby, J. and Cosmides, L, 2005, “Conceptual Foundations of Evolutionary Psychology,” in Buss, D. (ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, pp. 5–67.
• Trivers, R., 1971, “The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism,” Quarterly Review of Biology, 46: 35–57.
• Wheatley, T. and Haidt, J., 2005, “Hypnotically Induced Disgust Makes Moral Judgments More Severe,” Psychological Science, 16: 780–84.
• Wielenberg, E., 2010, “On the Evolutionary Debunking of Morality,” Ethics, 120: 441–64.
• Wilson, E.O., 1975, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 1978, On Human Nature, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 1998, “The Biological Basis of Morality,” The Atlantic Monthly (April): 53–70.
• Wilson, E.O. and Ruse, M., 1986, “Moral Philosophy as Applied Science,” Philosophy, 61: 173–92.
• Wilson, J.Q., 1993, The Moral Sense, New York: The Free Press.
• Wrangham, R., 1987, “The Evolution of Social Structure,” in B. Smuts, et al. (eds.), Primate Societies, Chicago: Chicago University Press, pp. 282–96.
• Wright, R., 1994, The Moral Animal: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology, New York: Pantheon.

From http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-biology/. I can find dozens of more lists of references, if this is how the "discussion" is going to proceed.

• 
  
  

 

[KCfromNC]

Your belief that belief is not a conscious choice is not falsifiable.

Sure it is. We simply need to observe people consciously choosing to believe things they know are not true like they pick which color shirt to wear each day. We don't, of course - but remember falsifiable just means it could in theory be refuted by some future observations, not that it actually is.