The Evolution of Morality

[Davian]

I find the idea that you equate the sacred Hebrew texts of Israel's written history with fairies, leprechauns and santa clause, quite offensive and disrespectful.

I find your objections to be baseless.

How many posts have I made, directed to you, asking to to substantiate your statements here? And how many have you ignored?

Religion is a subset of superstition. If you are uncomfortable with that, then perhaps you are in the wrong forum.

 

[Golden Yak]

How did the brain evolve and how did intelligence arise from mindless natural processes? If physical traits, those that would aid an organism to survive, how did a brain as an unplanned and unguided outcome develop as the "thinking" and processing organ it is?

Not unguided - natural selection can provide guidance to development. It doesn't need to be conscious to do this.

Having a nervous system that reacts to stimuli is a useful survival tool - you can avoid predators and find prey. It need only be very simple at first - like the most primitive form of eyes are just clusters of cells that are more sensitive to light than others.

For logic to be a product of man, this type of recognition would not be "observed" which is what man made logic would require.

I don't follow.

So if not a naturalistic origin what would be the origins? If not from evolution then from what would it arise and if evolution how does it arise when intelligence and logic must be present first.

Evolution of behavior would still produce it - there simply needs to be some life around to interact and evolve. It doesn't matter if that life is created supernaturally or not, so long as no pre-made supernatural morality is inserted into it. I submit that behavior, intelligence, and eventually concepts of morality would still evolve.

Exactly, because your own worldview rests in the naturalistic realm.

As opposed to what? I can't accept this supernatural realm exists until I have good reason to think that it does. Why would I?

Actually it isn't. There are many, many elements in our universe that are not satisfactorily explained by ToE or explained by science. The evolution of intelligence...of the brain for that matter. Why do we accept that a mindless unguided process provided the means for our intelligence? Why do we accept that the fine tuning needed to allow life on our planet just happens to be that way? Why the earth has the perfect amount of water to provide the needs of the planet. The list goes on and on. You claim that it is exactly as it would need to be in the absence of such a being when in fact, I claim it couldn't be without Him.

Those all make my point for me - what does God care what a 'perfect amount of water to provide the needs of the planet' is? He could make the planet 'work' regardless of how much water it has. He could make life 'work' miraculously regardless of what state the planet or the universe is in. Yet the world turns with no evident miraculous requirements for its turning.

The rock is one element. The fine tuning is a wide swath of elements that are so precise that accidental has been ruled out by scientists themselves. That is why they are trying to find a unified theory to explain it all. One element just one like your example of the fine tuning is that if the weight of one grain of sand either heavier or lighter would have made our universe impossible to exist. The weight of one grain of sand! That is precise.

Not sure what you mean here by the 'weight of one grain of sand.'

Are you saying that if mass didn't work as we understand it, you believe God could not have created anything?

Right.

And that goes both ways of course - a feeling is not fact, whatever you feel is the source of it may be, however strongly you feel that it comes from something other than yourself.

That is a mathematical reality, an objective reality. You are claiming that morality is not.

As I said, I think there are certain truths about how people interact.

What we see is that evolved morality is not objective in your view, yet you see that there is an objective right and wrong.

See above. I'm under no obligation to accept that someone who thinks 2 + 2 = 5 might have a point.

Can a person know the heart and mind of another? By heart I mean intent. Do we know the objective truth of evil and good? If we have evolved morality we can't.

We can discover truths about how people interact, and come to objective conclusions about the best way to do so.

Have you had any reason to question whether or not you are wrong?

Oh, I don't need a reason to do that. I do it all the time, just because it can be interesting to think about. If you're asking whether or not I've ever had some kind of experience that made me consider the existence of deities, then no, I haven't. I've heard a few stories about other people having them, but they're never that impressive or convincing.

You would still need to provide a way morality could arise from evolution prior to intelligence and logic, how that arose by a mindless unguided process and why one thing would be more moral than another.

I thought I was clear, I think morality is a construct of human ideas - it wouldn't exist prior to us becoming intelligent enough to develop it. Behavior and interactions that provide the basis for it wouldn't exist before life was around to behave and interact.

Which if He did, He would not be allowing you the choice. He won't do that without you asking for it. If you really wanted to know, and you know how sincerely you could ask, He then would be allowed to show you.

I don't buy that - the idea that we can consciously choose what to believe in. If I could, I'd believe a lot of things that weren't real, just because they made me happy, and I'd simply ignore any evidence that I was wrong. If I choose to wholly believe something that isn't true, how could I ever tell I was wrong? I'd be utterly convinced of something that wasn't true.

I'm either going to be convinced of something's existence or remain unconvinced - I can't just choose different, and wouldn't even if I could.

But if you are like most naturalists, you don't want to know because then you would be like me wouldn't you. Going against the grain, being ridiculed for ignorance and being mocked. So it is easier to just claim that if evidence for His existence just happens to fall in your lap you would certainly accept it, while feeling secure that won't happen because you wouldn't want it to.

Wow.

That's pretty funny and not just a little condescending, too - that I hold my conclusions not because I've reached them through study and careful consideration, but because I'm scared of getting my feelings bruised by all the big stinky atheists out there and their hurtful remarks. While I'm sure being called a moron on the internet is no picnic, I got past reacting to that level of invective long ago.

But enough about that - since you brought it up, let's shed our illusions about which side gets the worst of this, shall we?

The worst thing the average atheist can say to you is, yes, that you're stupid. You're fooling yourself. Your cherished beliefs are wrong. You're not using your brain.

That's nothing compared to the sentiment leveled against atheists by theists, which they must believe - we're vile, worthless, unspeakably awful creatures. Guilty of the worst possible crime imaginable just by existing. I'm worse than a serial-killer, worse than a rapist or a child-molester - their crime could be forgiven at death, but mine won't. There's nothing I can do to make up for it, nothing I can do in life that truly matters in the face of it - none of the happiness and contentment I bring my family and loved ones and people matter, nor any of my achievements or the good will I strive to spread - it's all worthless filth... in the eyes of the only Person who's opinion ever matters. I'm just so rotten and awful and so damned evil when compared to this Guy that I deserve the worst thing that could ever be done to anyone ever - eternal imprisonment in a place where I'll never stop screaming.

I cannot imagine the circumstances wherein I would come to believe the above about you, or anyone.

As a Christian, you must believe it about me, and everyone.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

I find the idea that you equate the sacred Hebrew texts of Israel's written history with fairies, leprechauns and santa clause, quite offensive and disrespectful.

I find your "sacred" Hebrew texts to be offensive and disrespectful, but what can you do?

 

[biggles53]

I find the idea that you equate the sacred Hebrew texts of Israel's written history with fairies, leprechauns and santa clause, quite offensive and disrespectful.

Nice straw....

The 'equating' between those beliefs is the manner by which people claim to come to their understanding.....ie, through faith, which by definition is the acceptance of a concept without evidence....

By that measure, the belief in gods, fairies and leprechauns is EXACTLY THE SAME....!

 

[EternalDragon]

Nice straw....

The 'equating' between those beliefs is the manner by which people claim to come to their understanding.....ie, through faith, which by definition is the acceptance of a concept without evidence....

By that measure, the belief in gods, fairies and leprechauns is EXACTLY THE SAME....!

I think we've discussed the eyewitness evidence already. So there is evidence.

 

[Davian]

I think we've discussed the eyewitness evidence already. So there is evidence.

Stories that mention evidence is not evidence.

 

[Davian]

...

An all-knowing deity would certainly know how to convince me, however.

Which if He did, He would not be allowing you the choice. He won't do that without you asking for it.

Personally, I am not asking for proof or to be "convinced". For starters, I just want to see some evidence, something testable, that could show that these religious claims I hear about (gods/spirits/supernatural/afterlife) are not simply imaginary constructs institutionalized.

If you really wanted to know, and you know how sincerely you could ask, He then would be allowed to show you.

That could simply end up as an exercise in self-deception, not an exploration of reality.

But if you are like most naturalists,

How do you know how most naturalists think?

you don't want to know because then you would be like me wouldn't you.

I want to know as many true things as possible, and as few untrue things as possible. I am not here to simply reinforce existing presuppositions.

Going against the grain, being ridiculed for ignorance and being mocked.

You have made some not-insubstantial knowledge claims, and when pressed to substantiate those claims you trot of arguments that amount to seeing bunnies in clouds, arguments from popularity, arguments from ignorance, and false dichotomies.

So it is easier to just claim that if evidence for His existence just happens to fall in your lap you would certainly accept it, while feeling secure that won't happen because you wouldn't want it to.

Telling "naturalists" how they think now? Let me add straw-man arguments to that above list.

If there is evidence for the supernatural, or for deities of the personal type, it appears to be very elusive.

Tell me again how you cannot be wrong.

 

[biggles53]

I think we've discussed the eyewitness evidence already. So there is evidence.

No...you have NO eyewitnesses....

Mohammed claiming to have flown to heaven and back on a horse is eyewitness testimony....so the Muslims actually have more than you do...

But guess what.....I'm not buying what they're selling either....!

 

[Oncedeceived]

Gee...don't do anything radical like going and finding the information yourself....!!

Evolution of Nervous Systems - 9780123708786|ScienceDirect.com

The origin and evolution of the nervous - PubMed Mobile

http://www.ijdb.ehu.es/web/descarga/paper/14756331

More than enough to get started...

Now...would you like me to read it for you as well...!?

I find it quite humorous that you and others always claim that I haven't the required information prior to asking a question. I don't ask questions to acquire information, I ask question to determine whether or not the person I am conversing with knows the required information.

The first link you give me is an article that I would have to pay for, the second shows just what I am trying to show that the nervous system is already evolved and in place with no explanation of how it arose. The third is the same as the second.

Now maybe you should go back and do some reading and stop trying to make it look like I am the one without the knowledge.

Previous and current research

We are intrigued by one of the great remaining mysteries in animal evolution: how did our central nervous system (CNS) come into being? What did it first look like and how did it function? We are especially interested in the CNS of an extinct animal, known as Urbilateria, which lived some 600 million years ago in the ocean – the last common ancestor of humans, flies and most other ‘higher’ animals that live today. Emphasis mine.

Arendt Group - Evolution of the nervous system in bilateria - EMBL

For interesting reading...

With all of the potential ways that the intricate workings of brains could mutate from selective pressures, the pair did not expect to see much diversity in such a seemingly benign place. After all, so long as the synapse works and it sends a signal, it doesn’t really matter how it gets it done.
But when they looked at neuromuscular junction 4 (NMJ4) where a single motor neuron contacts a specific muscle in the fly body wall to drive its activity, the structure differed wildly, even between several very close subspecies.
The synapse resembles miniature trees decked out with tiny bulbs that are the nerve terminals, called synaptic boutons. Within a species – like those bred in laboratories for experiments – the structures all appeared similar. But once they branched out and examined 21 other species from around the world, there was a surprising amount of diversity. Even stranger, those species more closely related were no more likely to have a similar NMJ4 structure than more distant relatives.
“The results were absolutely flabbergasting — variation far beyond anything we ever anticipated,” Ganetzky says.


A Simple Nervous System Reveals A Complex Mystery | Big Ten Science


"The oldest known nematodes are from about 400 million years ago, but I believe they probably date back to around 1 billion years," Poinar said. "That would mean they were one of the very oldest of all life forms, coming along before almost all other animals and just after bacteria, protozoa and fungi.

Nematodes are usually very small, and the smallest are microscopic. But they are functional animals, with nervous and digestive systems, muscles, good mobility, and they are capable of rapid reproduction and learned behavior.

Research outlines mysterious evolution of nematodes -- one of Earth’s first animals

Now do you need me to read that for you too?????

 

[biggles53]

I find it quite humorous that you and others always claim that I haven't the required information prior to asking a question. I don't ask questions to acquire information, I ask question to determine whether or not the person I am conversing with knows the required information.

Ah...so yours isn't a search for knowledge, as I had foolishly hoped....it's just a search for 'gotcha' opportunities.....how sad.....how pathetic....

The first link you give me is an article that I would have to pay for,

Which is just what I did......not prepared to spend a few bucks to enhance your knowledge....? Oh, that's right...you've already got all the answers, I forgot...!

By the way....how are we going with the KNOWLEDGE about all those people who not only believe in, but also claim "experience" with, fairies and leprechauns...?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ah...so yours isn't a search for knowledge, as I had foolishly hoped....it's just a search for 'gotcha' opportunities.....how sad.....how pathetic....




Which is just what I did......not prepared to spend a few bucks to enhance your knowledge....? Oh, that's right...you've already got all the answers, I forgot...!

By the way....how are we going with the KNOWLEDGE about all those people who not only believe in, but also claim "experience" with, fairies and leprechauns...?

You are so transparent. I wonder if you realize that?

 

[biggles53]

You are so transparent. I wonder if you realize that?

What I realise is that, like a few others here, you are running at breakneck speed AWAY from the questions that have been raised......where are your answers about the questions of morality raised here...? Where are your answers about the faulty epistemology that bases itself on faith...? Why do you avoid these and prefer to personally attack instead...?

I wonder.....

 

[biggles53]

You would still need to provide a way morality could arise from evolution prior to intelligence and logic, how that arose by a mindless unguided process and why one thing would be more moral than another.

Why...?

Trust me, it's not. I am very concerned about believing things that are not true though, so I'm cautious about accepting superstition or personal testimony that I cannot verify or experience for myself. An all-knowing deity would certainly know how to convince me, however.

Which if He did, He would not be allowing you the choice. He won't do that without you asking for it. If you really wanted to know, and you know how sincerely you could ask, He then would be allowed to show you. But if you are like most naturalists, you don't want to know because then you would be like me wouldn't you. Going against the grain, being ridiculed for ignorance and being mocked. So it is easier to just claim that if evidence for His existence just happens to fall in your lap you would certainly accept it, while feeling secure that won't happen because you wouldn't want it to.

What rot......how would the knowledge that a god definitely existed violate one's free will.....?

 

[Ginger123]

What rot......how would the knowledge that a god definitely existed violate one's free will.....?

It doesn't seem to bother Satan, he obviously still has free will and he's not afraid of God.

Everything I see, read and hear about Christianity tells me it's a load of poppycock.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ah...so yours isn't a search for knowledge, as I had foolishly hoped....it's just a search for 'gotcha' opportunities.....how sad.....how pathetic....

What is pathetic is that someone that studies for years is continually told that they are not knowledgeable and lazy, when in fact it is the person who is claiming these things that doesn't know. The only reason it is a "gotcha' opportunity is that you claimed something that you had no idea about and then were shown that to be false. IF YOU lack knowledge don't blame others for bringing that forward after you make a claim.

Which is just what I did......not prepared to spend a few bucks to enhance your knowledge....? Oh, that's right...you've already got all the answers, I forgot...!

I didn't need to. I had studied this long before and had read the current available information. I might miss things since I've not gone back to school to get my PhD but I try my hardest to get the latest materials to stay informed with new discoveries.

By the way....how are we going with the KNOWLEDGE about all those people who not only believe in, but also claim "experience" with, fairies and leprechauns...?

To begin with, you didn't provide any such knowledge of those who say they "experience" fairies and leprechauns. I'd also like you to note that I said I was surprised to find people who were silent about whether or not their were such things.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why...?

Because this is a two way debate, you can't just make claims without backing them up. I find this to be a little troublesome to some of you. You seem to be under the mistaken understanding that you are free from having to provide support to your claims. If I ask for sources you guys claim I am trying to get you to provide me with the information. Sources are necessary in a debate. IF you make a claim it is standard for you to provide the source of your information or at least something that supports it. I would think that this was something you all would understand.

What rot......how would the knowledge that a god definitely existed violate one's free will.....?

Let me try to make this clearer. God does indeed know what would make you believe in His existence but if He were to do that, HE is using His knowledge of you to "force" you to believe. He wouldn't do that. HE doesn't want to force belief. HE has went to great pains to allow you to think what you want to.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It doesn't seem to bother Satan, he obviously still has free will and he's not afraid of God.

Everything I see, read and hear about Christianity tells me it's a load of poppycock.

what makes you think that he isn't afraid of God?

 

[Oncedeceived]

What I realise is that, like a few others here, you are running at breakneck speed AWAY from the questions that have been raised......where are your answers about the questions of morality raised here...? Where are your answers about the faulty epistemology that bases itself on faith...? Why do you avoid these and prefer to personally attack instead...?

I wonder.....

What questions have you asked me that I haven't answered biggles?

Where have I attacked you? Please provide the posts where I personally attacked you.

 

[Ginger123]

It doesn't seem to bother Satan, he obviously still has free will and he's not afraid of God.

Everything I see, read and hear about Christianity tells me it's a load of poppycock.

what makes you think that he isn't afraid of God?

Because according to Christians he can do what ever he wants without God being able or willing to stop him,
either God can not stop him or God wants him to do as he wants, which do you think it is?
Does God care but can't stop Satan or could God stop Satan but he doesn't want to? which is it?
and please no 'God works in mysterious ways' because that's just a cop out.

But back to what we were saying, Satan knows God and still has free will,
how do you explain that?

Here comes another question or no answer at all.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not unguided - natural selection can provide guidance to development. It doesn't need to be conscious to do this.

I disagree. Natural selection can only act by allowing for something that already is present to be successful. Success is not guided. It happens in the result of some change in the genes but that is not a guided process. If for instance a plant needs less water to survive and the environment gets less rain this plant will survive better than those that need more water. Nothing guided there, just a chance happenstance that allowed for the survival of the plant. Natural selection doesn't guide, it allows for change, but doesn't have a reason behind the changes or how that will allow for that change.

Having a nervous system that reacts to stimuli is a useful survival tool - you can avoid predators and find prey. It need only be very simple at first - like the most primitive form of eyes are just clusters of cells that are more sensitive to light than others.

The simplest nervous system has to already be pretty remarkable in itself. We find a living form that could be as old as 1 billion years old and at least 400 million that already has a functioning nervous system and digestive system. In a very simple life form. So we know that this system was so far back that if it was to evolve piecemeal it had to be a pretty quick time frame in very simple life forms.

I don't follow.

IF it were a man made construct, the non-existent aspect of the issue would not arise from observation as we can not observe something that does not exist.

Evolution of behavior would still produce it - there simply needs to be some life around to interact and evolve. It doesn't matter if that life is created supernaturally or not, so long as no pre-made supernatural morality is inserted into it. I submit that behavior, intelligence, and eventually concepts of morality would still evolve.

Lets take it down to the bare minimum, if behaviors are mainly based on survival; which means food, shelter and adaptations for staying away from predators, how can that determine moral issues? You have claimed that even the less intelligent animals show morality in some ways, so this had to arise earlier. It had to arise in simpler life forms that in some way benefited from something that brought about the behavior in the beginning. Myself, I find this hard to relate to. Why are plants not intelligent? The earliest plants were under similar environmental pressures and needs for survival.

As opposed to what? I can't accept this supernatural realm exists until I have good reason to think that it does. Why would I?

Yes, that is true. However, you are looking at the universe with a natural mindset and those things that might allow you to view it differently or possibly point to God are not seen as possible areas of the supernatural. I understand your stance, I don't expect you to do anything other than what you do. It is immensely hard if not impossible to change a worldview if nothing substantial happens to change it.

Those all make my point for me - what does God care what a 'perfect amount of water to provide the needs of the planet' is? He could make the planet 'work' regardless of how much water it has. He could make life 'work' miraculously regardless of what state the planet or the universe is in. Yet the world turns with no evident miraculous requirements for its turning.

Case in point, you think in a naturalistic mindset. You don't find it remarkable that the amount of water on earth is fine tuned. You don't find it remarkable that the universe is fine tuned. You just take it for granted that it is that way because it is that way. The miraculous requirements are there and yet you claim that there is no God that provided it. You just take the miraculous result and claim He didn't have anything to do with it.

Not sure what you mean here by the 'weight of one grain of sand.'

The fact that the weight of the expanding universe had to be so precise that if there was the weight of one grain of sand more or less the universe would not have collapsed.

Are you saying that if mass didn't work as we understand it, you believe God could not have created anything?

No, I am saying that He was so precise in His creation that it shows His intelligence in the creation of it.

And that goes both ways of course - a feeling is not fact, whatever you feel is the source of it may be, however strongly you feel that it comes from something other than yourself.

Agreed. It has to be more than that.

As I said, I think there are certain truths about how people interact.

Ok, and if there are certain truths, how if they are not objective do we explain that?

See above. I'm under no obligation to accept that someone who thinks 2 + 2 = 5 might have a point.

2 + 2 can be observed.

We can discover truths about how people interact, and come to objective conclusions about the best way to do so.

People can not come to objective conclusions, that is an impossibility. We as humans look at the world through our own subjective outlook. To be objective means it must be the same regardless of time, it must be the same in the past and future; it must be something that is discovered rather than be something invented to be objective. It must be true regardless of whether someone believes it to be or not. It must be true universally to be true at all.

Oh, I don't need a reason to do that. I do it all the time, just because it can be interesting to think about. If you're asking whether or not I've ever had some kind of experience that made me consider the existence of deities, then no, I haven't. I've heard a few stories about other people having them, but they're never that impressive or convincing.

OK. So I will take that as you have never actually sincerely asked God to reveal Himself, is that a correct assumption?

I thought I was clear, I think morality is a construct of human ideas - it wouldn't exist prior to us becoming intelligent enough to develop it. Behavior and interactions that provide the basis for it wouldn't exist before life was around to behave and interact.

I think I responded above to this.

I don't buy that - the idea that we can consciously choose what to believe in. If I could, I'd believe a lot of things that weren't real, just because they made me happy, and I'd simply ignore any evidence that I was wrong. If I choose to wholly believe something that isn't true, how could I ever tell I was wrong? I'd be utterly convinced of something that wasn't true.

What you seem to not understand is that we are all that way. No one wants to believe in something that isn't true. People know what is real and what is not, or if not no one does.

I'm either going to be convinced of something's existence or remain unconvinced - I can't just choose different, and wouldn't even if I could.

And shouldn't.

Wow.

That's pretty funny and not just a little condescending, too - that I hold my conclusions not because I've reached them through study and careful consideration, but because I'm scared of getting my feelings bruised by all the big stinky atheists out there and their hurtful remarks. While I'm sure being called a moron on the internet is no picnic, I got past reacting to that level of invective long ago.

I most certainly did not mean to be condescending. So I am wrong that you wouldn't have a problem with people thinking you were stupid?

But enough about that - since you brought it up, let's shed our illusions about which side gets the worst of this, shall we?

The worst thing the average atheist can say to you is, yes, that you're stupid. You're fooling yourself. Your cherished beliefs are wrong. You're not using your brain.

Well, saying someone has mental issues I think is pretty harsh.

That's nothing compared to the sentiment leveled against atheists by theists, which they must believe - we're vile, worthless, unspeakably awful creatures. Guilty of the worst possible crime imaginable just by existing. I'm worse than a serial-killer, worse than a rapist or a child-molester - their crime could be forgiven at death, but mine won't. There's nothing I can do to make up for it, nothing I can do in life that truly matters in the face of it - none of the happiness and contentment I bring my family and loved ones and people matter, nor any of my achievements or the good will I strive to spread - it's all worthless filth... in the eyes of the only Person who's opinion ever matters. I'm just so rotten and awful and so damned evil when compared to this Guy that I deserve the worst thing that could ever be done to anyone ever - eternal imprisonment in a place where I'll never stop screaming.

I must have missed those threads. I've not seen that on here in the threads that I have been in.

I cannot imagine the circumstances wherein I would come to believe the above about you, or anyone.

I do not consider you any of that. I find you to be kind and intelligent. I find that you debate without making personal attacks. (That is why I want to assure you I was not being condescending to you at all.) I think that all people whether atheist or Theist can be moral or immoral. It is about who you are. If Christians would call you filth or as bad as a serial killer, I would say that they are not following the teachings of Christ.

As a Christian, you must believe it about me, and everyone.

That is simply not true. I must believe that you are not spiritually alive. You do not have the spirit of Christ within you. I must believe that you are the same as we all were prior to becoming Christians maybe better than some or worse than some but equally lacking in the spirit.