Where does morality come from?

[eleos1954]

Again; what does this have to do with anything I've said?? Nothing.

Answer is in regard to the OP

Where does morality come from?

 

[Ken-1122]

Answer is in regard to the OP

Where does morality come from?

I have no objection to your claim of where morality comes from.

 

[Kylie]

and so what ?????

How life began (out in the cosmos) is not fully observable, testable or repeatable and never will be.

Do you think that being able to reproduce the event is a requirement of science?

While critics may disagree with the conclusions of the design arguments, they cannot reasonably deny that they are based upon commonly accepted observations of the natural world. The term ‘science’ commonly connotes an activity in which theories are developed to explain observations of the natural world, the empirical, observational basis of the theory of intelligent design provides a good reason for regarding intelligent design as a scientific theory.

Why are you bolding the word "theory"? Is it because you think that when used in a scientific sense it means a guess or wild idea? Because it does not. Please read this: Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

The design inference is not based upon a lack of knowledge (as some would contend), but rather it is based upon our uniform and repeated experience. While we know of no naturalistic cause by which complex and specified biological information can arise from inorganic matter, we do know that in all other circumstances information originates from intelligence. Moreover, many scientists now see evidence of intelligent design in the ‘irreducible complexity’ of molecular machines and circuits in the cell, the pattern of appearance of the major groups of organisms in the fossil record, the fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics to support complex life, the fine tuning of our terrestrial environment, the information processing system of the cell, and even the phenomenon known as ‘homology’ (evidence previously thought to provide unequivocal support for neo-Darwinism).

No one has ever been able to demonstrate the existence of anything that was irreducibly complex. If you disagree, please feel free to provide a single example.

The ability to study our planet and all of it's "inhabitants" and process the data has come a long long way since the introduction of Darwin's Theory due to technological advances.

Nothing wrong with that ... but we do need to be mindful that this is the case .... much based on theory.

Again, you make it sound like a scientific theory is what a bunch of scientists thought up while they were out drunk at the pub. This idea of what a theory is is WRONG.

People of faith and those who support the Theories of Evolution do have a common belief ... and that is .... whatever happened to cause life on our planet began out in the cosmos .... and the cosmos is vast and not fully observable, testable and repeatable is beyond our capability. We do pursue it ... and we should. We are now scientifically (in regard to life origin) beyond the "zoo" on earth and out in the cosmos through celestial mechanics (physics and astrophysics).

The real truth (fact) is ..... we don't know how life came to be ... there are only theories ... whether that was through evolution or through a creator .... and those opposing viewpoints will always be the case.

And that is not a problem for evolution, because evolution makes no comment about how life started. Evolution is about how life changes AFTER it go started.

According to many scientists ... the observable Universe contains more than 2 trillion (1012) galaxies and, overall, as many as an estimated 1×1024 stars (more stars than all the grains of sand on planet Earth).

How much factual knowledge (not theory) about the universe do we really have? Not much. The universe is too vast and we are but a grain of sand in it. How much knowledge is there in a grain of sand ;o)

And now you are arguing for the God of the Gaps?

 

[eleos1954]

Do you think that being able to reproduce the event is a requirement of science?



Why are you bolding the word "theory"? Is it because you think that when used in a scientific sense it means a guess or wild idea? Because it does not. Please read this: Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home



No one has ever been able to demonstrate the existence of anything that was irreducibly complex. If you disagree, please feel free to provide a single example.



Again, you make it sound like a scientific theory is what a bunch of scientists thought up while they were out drunk at the pub. This idea of what a theory is is WRONG.



And that is not a problem for evolution, because evolution makes no comment about how life started. Evolution is about how life changes AFTER it go started.



And now you are arguing for the God of the Gaps?

And that is not a problem for evolution, because evolution makes no comment about how life started. Evolution is about how life changes AFTER it go started.

Sure it does .... commonly referred to the "Big Bang theory" .... attempting to explain how life changes AFTER it got started requires an answer to how did the universe come about in the first place
into a "condition" that allowed life to begin in the first place.

What I am saying is that no one knows how life began ... whether evolution or otherwise there are only theories and people choose to believe (put their faith/trust) in whatever theory they want.

Many people (scientists or otherwise) who do not believe in creation put forth theories to support that idea .... many people (scientists or otherwise) who believe in creation put forth theories to support that idea. Like I said ... nothing wrong with having theories but they are just that.

The end game IS .... we debate theories ... not facts. Nobody has all the "facts" and IMO never will while here on this earth.

Science is important and I am glad they pursue in depth many things ... but that does not mean they have all the factual answers for everything.

Not too long ago soft tissue was discovered in dinosaur bones ... and what does science put forth on that discovery? They put forth theories.

Can soft tissue be fossilized?

Theories vary on how soft tissue survived 68 million years, but Schweitzer hypothesized that densely mineralized bone somehow protected the inner structures. In other cases, however, dinosaur soft tissue fossilized along with the bones. ... Soft tissue fossilization is rare, however, due to decomposition and scavengers.

believe
accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.

accepting something as true .... does not mean in fact it IS true.

In regard to life on earth ... I see intricate design (requiring a designer) and not gazillions of happen chances that had to "evolve/take place" over billions of years.

You and others believe in evolution ... ok. Others believe in creation ... also ok. So be it.

 

[HitchSlap]

Not too long ago soft tissue was discovered in dinosaur bones ... and what does science put forth on that discovery? They put forth theories.

Can soft tissue be fossilized?

Theories vary on how soft tissue survived 68 million years, but Schweitzer hypothesized that densely mineralized bone somehow protected the inner structures. In other cases, however, dinosaur soft tissue fossilized along with the bones. ... Soft tissue fossilization is rare, however, due to decomposition and scavengers.

I think you have no idea what fossilized soft tissue means.

Carry on.

 

[Ken-1122]

.... attempting to explain how life changes AFTER it got started requires an answer to how did the universe come about in the first place
into a "condition" that allowed life to begin in the first place.

No it doesn't; just because science does not know all the answers concerning life does not mean they shouldn't be allowed to give us the answers they do know concerning life.

 

[eleos1954]

No it doesn't; just because science does not know all the answers concerning life does not mean they shouldn't be allowed to give us the answers they do know concerning life.

I have stated over and over science is important ... much much has been learned .... much much more to be learned ... it should be pursued .... never said they shouldn't be allowed to provide their answers.

just because science does not know all the answers concerning life ...

Thank you .... and that's all I've been saying.

 

[HitchSlap]

Thank you .... and that's all I've been saying.

Right, but everything we've ever learned... is from the scientific method.

 

[durangodawood]

Why do so many atheists try to prove that God doesn't exist?....

Do they?

I dont believe I've ever seen an attempt at that. And I've followed a bunch of this atheist/theist discussion.

 

[Ken-1122]

I have stated over and over science is important ... much much has been learned .... much much more to be learned ... it should be pursued .... never said they shouldn't be allowed to provide their answers.



Thank you .... and that's all I've been saying.

So you agree (as Kylie said earlier) evolution not commenting on how life started, is not a problem with evolution; agree?

 

[Kylie]

Sure it does .... commonly referred to the "Big Bang theory" .... attempting to explain how life changes AFTER it got started requires an answer to how did the universe come about in the first place
into a "condition" that allowed life to begin in the first place.

The Bib Bang has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution.

Like I said, evolution is how life that already exists changes over time to suit the environment that such life finds itself in.

What I am saying is that no one knows how life began ... whether evolution or otherwise there are only theories and people choose to believe (put their faith/trust) in whatever theory they want.

Again, evolution doesn't say anything about how life started. Evolution is about how life that already exists changes over time to suit the environment that such life finds itself in.

Many people (scientists or otherwise) who do not believe in creation put forth theories to support that idea .... many people (scientists or otherwise) who believe in creation put forth theories to support that idea. Like I said ... nothing wrong with having theories but they are just that.

A scientific theory is not just some random unsupported idea. It's a well supported explanation. Please have a read through this website. It's very short: Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

The end game IS .... we debate theories ... not facts. Nobody has all the "facts" and IMO never will while here on this earth.

In science, a theory is about as close to fact as we can get.

Remember, we are dealing with the scientific use of the word theory. It's not the everyday definition.

Science is important and I am glad they pursue in depth many things ... but that does not mean they have all the factual answers for everything.

No one says science has all the answers. But science is by far the best tool we have for learning about the world.

Not too long ago soft tissue was discovered in dinosaur bones ... and what does science put forth on that discovery? They put forth theories.

Can soft tissue be fossilized?

Theories vary on how soft tissue survived 68 million years, but Schweitzer hypothesized that densely mineralized bone somehow protected the inner structures. In other cases, however, dinosaur soft tissue fossilized along with the bones. ... Soft tissue fossilization is rare, however, due to decomposition and scavengers.

It was a little more complicated than that. I believe it was the structures that formed the soft tissue that were fossilised. It's not like they dug it up and the flesh was still on it.

believe
accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.

accepting something as true .... does not mean in fact it IS true.

In regard to life on earth ... I see intricate design (requiring a designer) and not gazillions of happen chances that had to "evolve/take place" over billions of years.

You and others believe in evolution ... ok. Others believe in creation ... also ok. So be it.

That's why I don't accept anything on just belief. I go with what the evidence shows.

 

[stevevw]

But mortality does NOT come from something outside human thus there is no such a thing as objective morals; they are all subjective.

But if morals come from the subjective views of humans then there is no way to determine right or wrong objectively. Therefore no one can say that another persons ideas of good and evil are wrong. Yet humans act like there are moral truths all the time.

 

[Kylie]

Yet humans act like there are moral truths all the time.

Doesn't mean they're right.

 

[Ken-1122]

But if morals come from the subjective views of humans then there is no way to determine right or wrong objectively.

It has to be done subjectively.

Therefore no one can say that another persons ideas of good and evil are wrong.

Yeah they can! There is nothing preventing people from debating right vs wrong; it happens all the time.

Yet humans act like there are moral truths all the time.

Moral truths that are never agreed upon. If morality were objective, solving moral problems would be as simple as solving mathematical equations.

 

[Speedwell]

But if morals come from the subjective views of humans then there is no way to determine right or wrong objectively. Therefore no one can say that another persons ideas of good and evil are wrong. Yet humans act like there are moral truths all the time.

Morals are objective in the sense that they depend on our nature, which is an objective fact. To cite an obvious example, most all cultures have a moral rule of some kind about adultery. The reason for that is that more or less permanent pair bonding is part of our nature, because our offspring require the long term nurture of both parents. That's an objective fact and so moral precepts encouraging permanence of that bonding are in that sense objective. That is the only sense in which moral precepts are objective whether they are made up by God or not, because if God created moral rules for us He would derive them from our nature.

But you are still asserting the false dichotomy that moral rules are either made by God or are the product of nothing but individual opinion. Morality is a social phenomenon, not the whim of individuals.

 

[Ken-1122]

Morals are objective in the sense that they depend on our nature, which is an objective fact. To cite an obvious example, most all cultures have a moral rule of some kind about adultery.

If morality were objective, the moral rule concerning adultery would be the same with all cultures. The fact that those rules vary from culture to culture proves subjectivity.

The reason for that is that more or less permanent pair bonding is part of our nature, because our offspring require the long term nurture of both parents. That's an objective fact and so moral precepts encouraging permanence of that bonding are in that sense objective.

Can you prove offsprings require long term nurture of both parents? Objectivity requires you provide proof.

 

[Speedwell]

If morality were objective, the moral rule concerning adultery would be the same with all cultures. The fact that those rules vary from culture to culture proves subjectivity.

That there is a common theme around which they vary reflects their objective basis in human nature.

Can you prove offsprings require long term nurture of both parents? Objectivity requires you provide proof.

Yes, but probably not to you. You appear to believe that moral precepts promoting loyalty to a parenting relationship are based in mere individual whim. In your own way you are just as much an extremist ideologue as stevevw.

 

[Ken-1122]

That there is a common theme around which they vary reflects their objective basis in human nature.

What is this common theme you speak of?

Yes, but probably not to you. You appear to believe that moral precepts promoting loyalty to a parenting relationship are based in mere individual whim. In your own way you are just as much an extremist ideologue as stevevw.

Regardless of what I believe, if this were an objective issue, you would be able to demonstrate your view as easily as you can demonstrate a math equation to me, stevevw, or anybody else you might be struggling with

 

[Speedwell]

What is this common theme you speak of?

Some form of loyalty to a permanent sexual partner.

Regardless of what I believe, if this were an objective issue, you would be able to demonstrate your view as easily as you can demonstrate a math equation to me, stevevw, or anybody else you might be struggling with

If you are not already aware that human offspring require a longer period of nurture than those of other creatures then I am not going to try to convince you of it in a chatroom. It would require too much basic instruction in human biology and sociology to be worth the trouble. You may think it would be as easy as demonstrating a math equation, but really it would be more like demonstrating a math equation to someone who had not yet learned to count.

 

[stevevw]

Objective morals could reasonably be expected to emerge from the evolution of human behavior, being those morals most conducive to promoting the successful reproduction of the species. Thus, they would be internal to humans, yet derived, in part, from an external force that was not God.

Evolution cannot account for objective morality because the basis of evolution is about changing to fit environments. So what may be objective at one stage to suit the group so they can survive may be different in the future? All evolution can do is make someone believe that something is right or wrong but it cannot make something right or wrong in the objective sense.

Plus measuring morality through evolutionary influences is reducing good and evil to material chemical reactions whereas morals are immaterial so evolution cannot account for immaterial things.