The Evolution of Morality

[AV1611VET]

Where do you come up with these things?

God gave me that one!

 

[HitchSlap]

Arguments from incredulity are arguments from incredulity. They do nothing to enhance our understanding of the nature of reality. Every single instance in which "god" was the default answer, it has turned out to have very natural explanations. No god/s needed.

 

[HitchSlap]

God gave me that one!

How so? Was it in text, email, phone call or some other form of communication?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Arguments from are arguments from incredulity. They do nothing to enhance our understanding of the nature of reality. Every single instance in which "god" was the default answer, it has turned out to have very natural explanations. No god/s needed.

What argument is more incredulous, that intelligence arises from intelligence or that intelligence arises from non-intelligence?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Thats what I thought, thanks for clarifying.

You are welcome.

 

[AV1611VET]

How so? Was it in text, email, phone call or some other form of communication?

Some other form of communication.

 

[Ellwood3]

I’m curious about why there is so much interest in this question.

It seems the point someone is trying to make is that morality has evolved.

Why wouldn’t anyone expect that?



But then the conclusion appears to be “and therefore that is evidence against God’s existence.”

?

It also seems another assumption is that morality is the goal.

Is the point that’s attempted here that all we need is a merely moral society, and if evolution produces morality, therefore there is no God?

It’s an argument that holds no water.


Again—why the level of interest?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I’m curious about why there is so much interest in this question.

It seems the point someone is trying to make is that morality has evolved.

Why wouldn’t anyone expect that?

Why would you expect that?

 

[Ellwood3]

Originally Posted by Ellwood3

I’m curious about why there is so much interest in this question.

It seems the point someone is trying to make is that morality has evolved.

Why wouldn’t anyone expect that?
​

Why would you expect that?



Because societies, including animal societies, require rules. Rules (in behavior that can be either taught or genetically passed from one generation to another) would therefore be expected to be selected for.

So, sure, "morality" would enhance survival (depending on what's meant by "morality").

But morality is a cheap little thing, compared to Christian faith.

Why settle for it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Originally Posted by Ellwood3

I’m curious about why there is so much interest in this question.

It seems the point someone is trying to make is that morality has evolved.

Why wouldn’t anyone expect that?
​

Why would you expect that?



Because societies, including animal societies, require rules. Rules (in behavior that can be either taught or genetically passed from one generation to another) would therefore be expected to be selected for.

So, sure, "morality" would enhance survival (depending on what's meant by "morality").

But morality is a cheap little thing, compared to Christian faith.

Why settle for it?

I think you have that backwards.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Originally Posted by Ellwood3

I’m curious about why there is so much interest in this question.

It seems the point someone is trying to make is that morality has evolved.

Why wouldn’t anyone expect that?
​

Why would you expect that?



Because societies, including animal societies, require rules. Rules (in behavior that can be either taught or genetically passed from one generation to another) would therefore be expected to be selected for.

So, sure, "morality" would enhance survival (depending on what's meant by "morality").

But morality is a cheap little thing, compared to Christian faith.

Why settle for it?

Are their rules moral?

 

[HitchSlap]

What argument is more incredulous, that intelligence arises from intelligence or that intelligence arises from non-intelligence?

So from what intelligence did your god arise from?

 

[HitchSlap]

Some other form of communication.

Such as? Please be specific.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

God claims it is the unbeliever that deludes themselves. I would like to know what our minds can do to convince us that we know something. I can see why belief might be affected by psychological need but to have the mind "convince" us that we know something we don't is not a reasonable premise. How does a mind convince us and why does it want to and why is the mind viewed here as separate from "us"?

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.

How does one discover they are only playing mind games with themselves and were wrong?

 

[Oncedeceived]

So from what intelligence did your god arise from?

So you would like to know where God came from, yet you are not asking the same question of your own worldview?

Is it more consistent to claim that a God that claims to be eternal, who claims that HE created the universe and all that is in it from His own intelligence and power compared to a worldview that claims that the universe has no naturalistic explanation, which gives rise to intelligence from non-intelligent matter?

In the Christian worldview God claims to be eternal; to have existed always. Now this might be hard to understand since we know that all things have a cause. However, we don't have a cause for something as amazingly huge as the universe. Yet, you seem to think that it is more incredulous for God to exist and explain the entire universe consistently, than to have a universe without cause and intelligence without intelligence.

 

[bhsmte]

God claims it is the unbeliever that deludes themselves. I would like to know what our minds can do to convince us that we know something. I can see why belief might be affected by psychological need but to have the mind "convince" us that we know something we don't is not a reasonable premise. How does a mind convince us and why does it want to and why is the mind viewed here as separate from "us"?

Not a reasonable premise? It is a common psychological phenomenon.

How does one discover they are only playing mind games with themselves and were wrong?

For me personally, it was a thorough scholarly and historical investigation of the NT, in which I gained knowledge I did not have previously. Putting this together with other realities, caused the light bulb to go off and recognition of being wrong.

One more point, if you also convince yourself that you could never possibly be wrong about your conclusions and would never change under any circumstances, you have already set yourself up (psychologically) to use confirmation bias and selective reasoning, because it becomes to psychologically painful to admit your were wrong and the defense mechanisms kick in.

 

[HitchSlap]

So you would like to know where God came from, yet you are not asking the same question of your own worldview?

Is it more consistent to claim that a God that claims to be eternal, who claims that HE created the universe and all that is in it from His own intelligence and power compared to a worldview that claims that the universe has no naturalistic explanation, which gives rise to intelligence from non-intelligent matter?

In the Christian worldview God claims to be eternal; to have existed always. Now this might be hard to understand since we know that all things have a cause. However, we don't have a cause for something as amazingly huge as the universe. Yet, you seem to think that it is more incredulous for God to exist and explain the entire universe consistently, than to have a universe without cause and intelligence without intelligence.

You claimed intelligence only comes from intelligence. I'm asking you then, where did your god (intelligent designer) come from? It's a simple question.

 

[Oncedeceived]

For me personally, it was a thorough scholarly and historical investigation of the NT, in which I gained knowledge I did not have previously. Putting this together with other realities, caused the light bulb to go off and recognition of being wrong.

So for you it was a scholarly and historical investigation into the NT which made you think you were wrong. ON the other hand we see someone like Lee Strobel who as an atheist researched the Bible to show his wife how ridiculous it was to believe in God and came to believe rather than to show her she was wrong.

What other realities?

One more point, if you also convince yourself that you could never possibly be wrong about your conclusions and would never change under any circumstances, you have already set yourself up (psychologically) to use confirmation bias and selective reasoning, because it becomes to psychologically painful to admit your were wrong and the defense mechanisms kick in.

You totally misunderstand the concept of knowing. It isn't a matter of convincing oneself of something. It is a matter of God revealing Himself to me in ways that my mind could not have manufactured. I didn't believe before but then I believed, I didn't know before but then I knew. It was a process that was not necessary for me to do, however, it was a process that brought me to the place that went from there might be a God to knowing that God existed and who God was. God exists bhsmte. You may not want to believe that, you may disbelieve that I know He exists, but that doesn't change the truth and that I know God.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You claimed intelligence only comes from intelligence. I'm asking you then, where did your god (intelligent designer) come from? It's a simple question.

It is a simple question. The fact that I don't know where God comes from is no different than you not knowing where life came from. However, in the Christian worldview, God is eternal and always existed. We have a credible answer for His existence. If God created the universe as He claims, and the universe exists, if the universe has characteristics that God claims it to have, if we are intelligent beings that understand the universe as God claims we can due to being created in His image we can assume that He knows what He is talking about. I mean I don't think you or I could actually create a universe filled with all that the universe contains with rules and uniform behavior with our own intelligence. However, if all this is apparent in the universe and if God did exist like I claim, we could indeed trust Him to be telling the truth about His existence being eternal.

 

[Loudmouth]

What argument is more incredulous, that intelligence arises from intelligence or that intelligence arises from non-intelligence?

The more incredulous one is where intelligences are magically poofed into being by deities.