The Evolution of Morality

[HitchSlap]

So we do have a choice, we then take that one step farther and decided which interpretation fits better with reality.

Yes, it's called "leap of faith" for a very good reason.

 

[EternalDragon]

Then why don't you give it a shot.

Please define "spiritual."

The definition is in plain view in any dictionary.

spir·i·tu·al (sp

r

-ch

-

l)adj.

1. Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. See Synonyms at immaterial.
2. Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
3. Of, from, or relating to God; deific.
4. Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.
5. Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural.

 

[HitchSlap]

The definition is in plain view in any dictionary.

spir·i·tu·al (sp

r

-ch

-

l)adj.

1. Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. See Synonyms at immaterial.
2. Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
3. Of, from, or relating to God; deific.
4. Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.
5. Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural.

You just opened a can of worms... what's a "soul?"
Define "God."
Do you have an example of something that is "not tangible?"

It would seem the religious are required to fill their beliefs with "woo." No wonder there are so many different interpretations and flavors of religions. No one really has a flippin' clue what any of these things really mean.

 

[bhsmte]

So we do have a choice, we then take that one step farther and decided which interpretation fits better with reality.

Correct.

Here is where the difference comes in for most believers and non-believers:

Non believers typically come to conclusions based on objective evidence acquired through the scientific method. If objective evidence is not available to reach a conclusion, non believers usually state; I don't know.

Believers on the other hand, if objective evidence is not available they state; God did it. And, even when objective evidence exists that heavily points in one direction, many believers will try very hard to discredit the evidence and instead say; God did it. Circular reasoning dominates most believers psyche, because it has to, for anything to make sense to them.

Even the most well known christian apologist William Lane Craig admits the existence of God can not be proven with objective evidence, it must be taken on faith.

 

[mzungu]

If they truly did this they are rejecting Christ and that He died for their sins. They are rejecting Christianity at its most basic of doctrine. If this is true they are not adhering to evangelical, Baptist doctrine and are actually denying Christ's death and resurrection.

I have no reason to lie. In fact most teachers were shocked and some even feigned sickness in order to miss the occasion. It seems that the headmaster and vice headmaster are really the ones to blame as they arranged for the sacrifice.

They also will not hire a non Christian teacher. My niece is almost deaf and she attends this school. A Greek woman came here and applied for the job of speech therapist. The Headmaster was overjoyed until he read her application where on the Religion box she had written Greek Orthodox Christian. The headmaster immediately told her "sorry we only hire Christians". I don't care that he did not consider the woman a Christian but to deny the school a fully qualified (in fact over qualified) teacher (there are other children with speech impediments in this school) is something that goes to show the warped mind of the Headmaster.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Wow, step away for a few days, and bam! hundreds of posts. I guess I'm on the same page as you, Once, as you stated earlier about time.

Once wrote:Um, no. That's like saying that evolution can't create sight from sightlessness, or walking from nonwalking. In those and countless other cases, the evolutionary path is clear, straightforward, and supported by evidence.

It's as if you didn't read the dozens of references given so far which spell out in detail the specifics of the steps, and the overall references showing the overall process.

I have read some not all. I've read some not listed.

Sure, a hierarchy can't arise until there is intelligence, but no one posited otherwise. From intelligence (such as an early mammal could evolve), memory can arise, hierarchy can then arise, then reciprocy, then a rudimentary moral code, then a more advanced moral code, etc. I've walked you through some of these, and provided resources for more explanation if you'd like that. Forgive me if it's sounding more and more to me like those Cardinals who refused to look through Galileo's telescop

e.

You see the problem with all these little steps you are walking me through is that anyone can come up with an explanation. There is no evolutionary path that you can walk me through to get to intelligence. There is no step by step path to get me to consciousness. So the first step is not even taken before you go on to describe the steps that lead to morality. If morality evolved then we would see it universally within our species. We would also understand that morality would be subjective and not objective. There would be no moral truth. How do you explain moral truth. How do you determine what is moral and what is not?

OK, perhaps I overstated it a bit, but not much. Notice the line after the one you highlighted - that many fundamental questions are answered, and notice that this is one researcher - others have additional pieces to the puzzle, and also notice that this article itself is from more than 5 years ago. If even 5 years ago we had "begun to shed light" on the full picture of memory, then you can see we have an even better handle on it today.

No, still the same after five years and no answers.

Our Mysterious Brain | World of Psychology

Worst of all, perhaps, is that again we appear to see a Christian taking a position of hoping we don't figure out more. That's not the type of Christianity I hope for, and certainly not the type that will survive into the future.

I agree, however that is not what I am implying.

T

he upshot is that memory is decently understood on many levels, especially on the molecular level of how it works. Questions like "exactly where in the brain is each memory stored?" or "why are no memories apparently stored in the amygdala?" are details that may well be unsolved now, but are not relevant to understanding the basic mechanism involved.

Which is usually the case. We do not however know where all memories are stored. The one you cited is if I remember correctly correlates to the memories that are pleasant. I could be wrong but I am not going to take the time right now to look that up to make sure.

However, it is not as complete and said and done as you would like lead me to believe.

You were the one that claimed we knew all we needed to know about memory, which was not true.

No. That's why I don't disagree with those who are, nor do I reject their body of knowledge without knowing the full extent of it. I think that's an important thing to remember for anyone, especially a Christian.

The body of knowledge is not what you claim it is. You say you don't disagree with what they are saying but you seem not to be aware of what they are saying. They know certain things about memory but far from knowing the evolutionary steps it took to arrive to what we have today is no way near being known.​

No. That's why I don't make assertions saying that those who are don't know anything.

No you make assertions that they don't even make.

You know, there is a huge amount of wonderous information out there waiting for you.

You know what I am finding is that you seem to make all these claims and when we look at the actual information you seem unaware of the questions that remain in all that wonderous information. Now I agree that there are wonders in this world and I believe that there are evolutionary processes that are involved. However, you seem to believe that God is out of the equation. I disagree.

A sponge has the cellular machinery which could be used to make a crude nervous system. Cnidarians take this one step further by having an unorganized placement of cells that act as crude nerves, making a nervous network. Flatworms take this one step further in having a net with a preferred axial pathway. Lancets take this one step further by beefing that up to a neural cord. Agnatha take this one step further by differentiating those nerves to serve more than one function, and form a cluster of nerves at one end. Fish take this one step further with a bigger brain (formerly a cluster) and additional differentiation. Moving along our ancestry up to us, we have a much more complex nervous system, with a half dozen different kinds of sensory neurons, motor nerves going the other way, an extremely complex brain, and so on. Plus, there are of course intermediates between all those intermediates. It's worth repeating - you know, there is a huge amount of wonderous information out there waiting for you.

You know what is really amazing. Highly conserved protein interaction motifs and co-expression in sponges of multiple proteins whose homologs interact in eumetazoan synapses indicate that a complex protein scaffold was present at the origin of animals, perhaps predating nervous systems. A relatively small number of crucial innovations to this pre-existing structure may represent the founding changes that led to a post-synaptic element.

PLOS ONE: A Post-Synaptic Scaffold at the Origin of the Animal Kingdom

The monkey has a sense of what is fair and what is not, and refuses a treat because it is unfair, even though a treat is better than no treat. Did you watch any of the additional videos like this? Do you need links?

How do you know that he "thought" it was unfair? All the links assume the same thing.

Then how are you interpreting the monkey's turning down of a treat?

They like grapes more than cucumbers and desire the grape. It isn't a matter of being fair at all. It wants the grape rather than a cucumber that it doesn't like as well. Monkeys have preferences of food and if one has something it likes better it wants it too. You can't claim that it think it is unfair the other monkey has the grape, you don't know that it thinks about fairness at all. All you can claim is that it likes grapes more than cucumbers and lets the trainer know that.

​

Um, help me out here. How again are you saying that an egg and sperm cell are intelligent?

I'm really curious about that, since you seem to have implied it before too.

They hold intelligence within them?

Thanks

Your welcome.

You are saying that at some time He poofed intelligence into existence (made it from nothing). I am pointing out that God's revelation in His creation shows that he developed it from precursors, just as he made you or I.

No I didn't. I said that purely mindless matter did not give rise to intelligence.

Are you looking at God's entire revelation, including that from His creation?

YEs, are you?

Have a good day-

You too!

 

[Oncedeceived]

To make the leap, that God did it, is the ultimate subjective claim.

Why do you claim it is the ultimate subjective claim? What makes it the "ultimate"?

See the problem is that to make any claim whatsoever one must be able to determine through subjective experience that which is true and that which is not. For you to claim that there is no supernatural evidence is made through your subjective worldview of naturalism. So you make leaps of faith within your worldview for those things that you don't have answers for. You have no answer for intelligence or consciousness, yet you will take on faith that it occurred completely from mindless matter.

You are welcome to do it if it works for you and makes you a better person. Did I ever claim to know how life started? No, I don't believe I ever did. Because I don't know, does not mean I automatically attach a super natural being to it to fill in the gap, because there is no evidence of that. There is also no evidence of where this supreme being came from and who created him. Do you know where your God came from?

It is not so much that you don't know, it is that you accept that you don't know in faith. You have faith that whatever the answer it won't be supernatural in nature. You have faith that it will be explained someway, someday in a naturalistic way. However, even if we could show how the physical makeup was created during the process of evolution, the actual essence of intelligence and consciousness will remain a mystery. The reason is that there are those things that transcends the physical. You may know how neuron's work and what the physical make up is, you will never know what makes that physical 3 lb organ a person with thoughts, dreams, memories and intelligence because that rides upon those physical elements. So it is not the gaps that God fills, it is that God is the answer to all of it. Not just the stuff that is left unknown. There are unknowns throughout all the things we do know.

God says He is eternal. I don't know where He came from. However, I think that His existence is more consistent with reality than the naturalistic worldview.

But there is tons of evidence to explain the world we live in, that do not require that God be inserted.

How do you know? See you claim that you do not need God to explain the world we live in, but you don't even know how life began. You don't know why earth is so perfect for life. You don't know why this universe seems to be designed to allow life to evolve. Yet, you claim there is nothing that requires God. That is not in evidence yet you make the statement as if it were fact.

About 100 years ago, there were all sorts of gaps to insert God, today, many of those Gaps have vanished. I would suspect, 100 years from now, the gaps will narrow even more and religious folks will have to keep adjusting their faith to account for it, just as most christians have adjusted by accepting the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

What gaps have eliminated God? What in all the discoveries that man has made have eliminated God from that gaps? There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution. However, there is little or no evidence for the evolution of mindfulness from mindlessness. There is little or no evidence for life forms intermediate to those found in the Cambrian. Yet, you find that acceptable in your worldview. Which is what everyone does. The problem comes in when you and others claim that God is not required or that Science has declared Him none existent. You don't find it strange that Science should have anything to say about the existence of God at all?

So I am not like you and I don't take anything that explains the world on faith. I come to a conclusion based on objective evidence and If none exists, I say I don't know.

I hope that you now see that you do take your worldview in faith. You look at evidence in such a way that aligns with your worldview and elements that don't have naturalistic explanation are viewed as simple lack of information.

Do you believe that all life has a universal common ancestor? Do you believe that the universal fine tuning is just the way it worked out? Do you think that intelligence arose from non-intelligent matter? If you do, what evidence do you have for that?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, it's called "leap of faith" for a very good reason.

In your humble opinion of course.

 

[bhsmte]

Why do you claim it is the ultimate subjective claim? What makes it the "ultimate"?

See the problem is that to make any claim whatsoever one must be able to determine through subjective experience that which is true and that which is not. For you to claim that there is no supernatural evidence is made through your subjective worldview of naturalism. So you make leaps of faith within your worldview for those things that you don't have answers for. You have no answer for intelligence or consciousness, yet you will take on faith that it occurred completely from mindless matter.

No, I don't claim there is supernatural because there is not evidence of such and I can think of no rational reason to manufacture a super natural force to explain things. The super natural, is the least likely explanation for anything and the most illogical.


It is not so much that you don't know, it is that you accept that you don't know in faith. You have faith that whatever the answer it won't be supernatural in nature. You have faith that it will be explained someway, someday in a naturalistic way. However, even if we could show how the physical makeup was created during the process of evolution, the actual essence of intelligence and consciousness will remain a mystery. The reason is that there are those things that transcends the physical. You may know how neuron's work and what the physical make up is, you will never know what makes that physical 3 lb organ a person with thoughts, dreams, memories and intelligence because that rides upon those physical elements. So it is not the gaps that God fills, it is that God is the answer to all of it. Not just the stuff that is left unknown. There are unknowns throughout all the things we do know.

What? I accept what I don't know on faith? What you call faith in not knowing, is called dealing with reality. I don't know the answer and I am not going to pretend that I do.

God says He is eternal. I don't know where He came from. However, I think that His existence is more consistent with reality than the naturalistic worldview.

God says he is eternal where, in the bible written by man? How could God exist forever?

How do you know? See you claim that you do not need God to explain the world we live in, but you don't even know how life began. You don't know why earth is so perfect for life. You don't know why this universe seems to be designed to allow life to evolve. Yet, you claim there is nothing that requires God. That is not in evidence yet you make the statement as if it were fact.

As I stated before, 100 years ago we had all sorts of questions about life and the universe and many of those have been answered. I see no logical reason why science won't answer a whole bunch of other questions in the next 100 years, do you? This default thinking of; God did it is quite convenient and can fill any hole. If you lived 100 years ago, you would have filled in God in all sorts of areas that science has answered.

What gaps have eliminated God? What in all the discoveries that man has made have eliminated God from that gaps? There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution. However, there is little or no evidence for the evolution of mindfulness from mindlessness. There is little or no evidence for life forms intermediate to those found in the Cambrian. Yet, you find that acceptable in your worldview. Which is what everyone does. The problem comes in when you and others claim that God is not required or that Science has declared Him none existent. You don't find it strange that Science should have anything to say about the existence of God at all?

Well, you find it acceptable to plug in God and that works for you, but it doesn't work for me. When has science declared God is none existent? Science doesn't deal with God, science deals with figuring out how the world and universe works and they have done a pretty good job at making progress. If the bible is God's work, why hasn't science had to rely on the bible to make discoveries? Fact is, religion has had to adapt to science and science has not had to adapt because of religion. That point alone, should tell you quite a bit.

I hope that you now see that you do take your worldview in faith. You look at evidence in such a way that aligns with your worldview and elements that don't have naturalistic explanation are viewed as simple lack of information.

You don't quite understand, I used to believe like you and did take my worldview on faith. I came to the conclusion, that I was fooling myself and living a lie and would rather deal in REALITY and let the evidence and logic determine my conclusions. If that leads to a God, then so be it.

Do you believe that all life has a universal common ancestor? Do you believe that the universal fine tuning is just the way it worked out? Do you think that intelligence arose from non-intelligent matter? If you do, what evidence do you have for that?

It took billions of years to get to where we are now and who knows how many failed attempts life had in those billions of years before adaption and timing allowed things to work out? There was likely many a failed attempt, before circumstances were right for life to evolve to where we are today.

So, don't tell me I take things on faith, because I have been down that path. One thing I will state, is I could be wrong and there may in fact be a God, but I see nothing right now to change my mind. Could you say, that you may be wrong and there is no God?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Correct.

Here is where the difference comes in for most believers and non-believers:

Non believers typically come to conclusions based on objective evidence acquired through the scientific method. If objective evidence is not available to reach a conclusion, non believers usually state; I don't know.

You come to naturalistic conclusions based on evidence that is acquired by scientific method. There is no absolutely objective evidence. However, the scientific method is as good as it can be.

Believers on the other hand, if objective evidence is not available they state; God did it.

Some do. However, objective evidence aqquired by scientific methods support the existence of God. Unbelievers refuse to admit that. So unbelievers only accept that objective evidence that provides support for their own presuppositional worldview.

And, even when objective evidence exists that heavily points in one direction, many believers will try very hard to discredit the evidence and instead say; God did it. Circular reasoning dominates most believers psyche, because it has to, for anything to make sense to them.

Unbelievers are not immune to circular reasoning. When you claim that naturalism is all that is needed to explain the world you are using circular reasoning. For instance if you say: I believe natural causes alone are the cause of all the natural world you do so by circular argumentation because the natural world viewed by you is only naturalistic.

Even the most well known christian apologist William Lane Craig admits the existence of God can not be proven with objective evidence, it must be taken on faith.

You will find that I do not agree with all positions taken by other creationists. However, God's existence is supported by the evidence of our intelligence and reasoning, by the intelligibility of the universe and other such evidence. I didn't claim I could prove the existence of God for non-believers, I claimed that the evidence supports His existence and is more consistent with reality.

 

[bhsmte]

You come to naturalistic conclusions based on evidence that is acquired by scientific method. There is no absolutely objective evidence. However, the scientific method is as good as it can be.



Some do. However, objective evidence aqquired by scientific methods support the existence of God. Unbelievers refuse to admit that. So unbelievers only accept that objective evidence that provides support for their own presuppositional worldview.



Unbelievers are not immune to circular reasoning. When you claim that naturalism is all that is needed to explain the world you are using circular reasoning. For instance if you say: I believe natural causes alone are the cause of all the natural world you do so by circular argumentation because the natural world viewed by you is only naturalistic.



You will find that I do not agree with all positions taken by other creationists. However, God's existence is supported by the evidence of our intelligence and reasoning, by the intelligibility of the universe and other such evidence. I didn't claim I could prove the existence of God for non-believers, I claimed that the evidence supports His existence and is more consistent with reality.

Let me make sure I understand you clearly. You are stating the evidence shows there is ZERO chance intelligent life could have formed without God?

Lastly, do you also believe there is ZERO chance you are wrong and there is no God?

 

[AV1611VET]

Some do. However, objective evidence aqquired by scientific methods support the existence of God. Unbelievers refuse to admit that. So unbelievers only accept that objective evidence that provides support for their own presuppositional worldview.

Atheists say, "No El."

Christians say, "Noel."

 

[Oncedeceived]

It took billions of years to get to where we are now and who knows how many failed attempts life had in those billions of years before adaption and timing allowed things to work out? There was likely many a failed attempt, before circumstances were right for life to evolve to where we are today.

So, don't tell me I take things on faith, because I have been down that path. One thing I will state, is I could be wrong and there may in fact be a God, but I see nothing right now to change my mind. Could you say, that you may be wrong and there is no God?

That would be a good story if it were true. However, we know that life was on the earth very early on. WE know that the universe had to be just so precise to even exist in the split seconds of its birth. It didn't have a chance to work it all out.

See, you may not know that God exists and leaves room to discover His existence and to allow for you to be wrong that He doesn't. However, when one know that God exists you have no room to change your mind. Changing one's mind comes from believing one thing that was wrong or different to something that explains something better or that which is more truthful. Knowing something is to know it, and you don't change a mind on something that is known and true. I might be wrong about some element of God or in my understanding of what something means in the Bible, but I can't unknow God. I could be wrong by being deceived by an alien being who has the ability to not only bring about new knowledge through revelation of the written word of the Bible and other sources but can affect the natural world through what appears to be supernatural and who claims to be the Christian God. Now that could be possible but if this being is able to do all the supernatural actions that God does, and claims to be God, and has the Bible to show me things that are occurring in history, why would I doubt that it is really God rather than some "super" natural alien being?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Let me make sure I understand you clearly. You are stating the evidence shows there is ZERO chance intelligent life could have formed without God?

Lastly, do you also believe there is ZERO chance you are wrong and there is no God?

There is no evidence that shows that intelligence could arise from non-intelligent processes.

I posted something that answers the second question.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Atheists say, "No El."

Christians say, "Noel."

Where do you come up with these things?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I have no reason to lie. In fact most teachers were shocked and some even feigned sickness in order to miss the occasion. It seems that the headmaster and vice headmaster are really the ones to blame as they arranged for the sacrifice.

Please understand I am not saying you are lying. I can totally understand that there are some "Christians" that could in some way rationalize the sacrifice of a lamb. They may even feel they are showing by example the death of Christ or some sort of link to Christ. That doesn't make it a correct view within the Christian worldview.

They also will not hire a non Christian teacher. My niece is almost deaf and she attends this school. A Greek woman came here and applied for the job of speech therapist. The Headmaster was overjoyed until he read her application where on the Religion box she had written Greek Orthodox Christian. The headmaster immediately told her "sorry we only hire Christians". I don't care that he did not consider the woman a Christian but to deny the school a fully qualified (in fact over qualified) teacher (there are other children with speech impediments in this school) is something that goes to show the warped mind of the Headmaster.

I would totally agree!

 

[bhsmte]

That would be a good story if it were true. However, we know that life was on the earth very early on. WE know that the universe had to be just so precise to even exist in the split seconds of its birth. It didn't have a chance to work it all out.

See, you may not know that God exists and leaves room to discover His existence and to allow for you to be wrong that He doesn't. However, when one know that God exists you have no room to change your mind. Changing one's mind comes from believing one thing that was wrong or different to something that explains something better or that which is more truthful. Knowing something is to know it, and you don't change a mind on something that is known and true. I might be wrong about some element of God or in my understanding of what something means in the Bible, but I can't unknow God. I could be wrong by being deceived by an alien being who has the ability to not only bring about new knowledge through revelation of the written word of the Bible and other sources but can affect the natural world through what appears to be supernatural and who claims to be the Christian God. Now that could be possible but if this being is able to do all the supernatural actions that God does, and claims to be God, and has the Bible to show me things that are occurring in history, why would I doubt that it is really God rather than some "super" natural alien being?

You talk a lot about the mind and how much we don't know, but don't seem to understand something that is well known; our minds can convince us that we know something we don't know, depending on how reliant we are in believing to fulfill a psychological need. Do some reading on "psychology of belief, there has been some interesting work done on that topic.

So, we can't change our minds once at one time we knew something to be true, even if we discover, we were only playing mind games with ourselves and we were indeed wrong?. People in this circumstance (according to you) should just keep believing, even though they figured out they were only fooling themselves, because you can't un know something your already knew. Changing one's mind about something they realized to be mistaken about, is quite healthy and shows a person can adapt and doesn't have blinders on.

I will ask you these questions again:

Are you stating there is ZERO chance intelligent life could have formed without God?

Are you stating there is ZERO chance you are wrong and God does not exist?

 

[bhsmte]

There is no evidence that shows that intelligence could arise from non-intelligent processes.

I posted something that answers the second question.

Dont dodge, answer the questions. They are simple and straight forward with a yes or no answer.

Are you saying there is ZERO chance intelligent life could have formed without God? Yes or no.

Are you saying there is ZERO chance you are wrong and God does not exist? Yes or no.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Dont dodge, answer the questions. They are simple and straight forward with a yes or no answer.

Are you saying there is ZERO chance intelligent life could have formed without God? Yes or no.

Are you saying there is ZERO chance you are wrong and God does not exist? Yes or no.

There is zero chance that intelligent life could have formed without God. So yes.

There is zero chance that I am wrong that God exists. So Yes. Unless, there is some alien being masquerading as God. Then I would have to say that there is a very small possibility.

 

[bhsmte]

There is zero chance that intelligent life could have formed without God. So yes.

There is zero chance that I am wrong that God exists. So Yes. Unless, there is some alien being masquerading as God. Then I would have to say that there is a very small possibility.

Thats what I thought, thanks for clarifying.