Posted on 05/04/2014 12:34:25 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Legendary conservative columnist George Will says he is an atheist. […]
“I’m an amiable, low voltage atheist,” Will explained. “I deeply respect religions and religious people. The great religions reflect something constant and noble in the human character, defensible and admirable yearnings.”
“I am just not persuaded. That’s all,” he added. …
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
I refer you to dictionaries.
So tell me what these belief systems say about consciousness that is concrete.
And "electrochemical activity in your brain" explains no more about consciousness than pretty colors on an MRI screen.
Consciousness is the fundamental aspect of existence.
Homo sapiens function in a way that makes us form tribes, communities, cultures, societies, and civilizations. The ones that act morally survive, and the ones that don't die out, even if it takes hundreds of thousands of years for those fates to be dealt. On the civilizational level, a long term example would be the Roman Empire and a short term example would be the Empire of Japan.
So yes, there is an instinctive and possibly evolutionary reason for why morality is innate.
I never said it was exclusively innate, and that a world with maximum suffering being undesirable is a supposition.
It doesn't even look like you have an argument to make. I've never seen someone get so excited over the dictionary definition of an item of discussion. I'm providing real world reasons for arguing in a moral way.
Not sure what you're about. Maybe you're a misanthrope?
hundreds of thousands = hundreds OR thousands
Not sure what you're asking. I doubt if any answer provided by anyone, devout Christian, agnostic, atheist, or other religion would satisfy, based on your usage of the word concrete.
And "electrochemical activity in your brain" explains no more about consciousness than pretty colors on an MRI screen.
To the philosopher of science, that's what consciousness is. That our experience of consciousness "seems" different is no issue, what it is is just that. Electrochemical activity.
Consciousness is the fundamental aspect of existence.
And thereby, atheists and religionists are equally challenged to define what consciousness is. Which is why I originally asked you the question as to why this is is any more of an issue for the devout as it is the atheist.
So do you believe that your consciousness is the highest form of consciousness in the universe?
“The ones that act morally survive, and the ones that don’t die out...”
I don’t think there is evidence to support this.
You obviously don’t understand how the examples you cite don’t support you and illustrate a severe lack of understanding of evolutionary theory.
I’m just responding to pronouncements you made; asking questions. You should welcome them and not be defensive.
You and I, of course, both share the same views on morality. That we should not harm others and cause suffering and work for what is best for humanity from at the individual level to a large scale level regarding all of mankind.
This has not been a universal view of human cultures by any stretch of the imagination and where such morality is common, it is based on traditional religious views that do encompass the transcendent or supernatural, which provides an authority for holding to this morality.
You are saying there is a basis for this morality being universal without the need for a transcendent authority. But I don’t think such an argument can be supported.
So I’m curious how you argue for morality.
I also find it interesting how religious based traditional morality is the same as what you espouse. But you don’t seem to know or acknowledge that your pronouncements on morality are simply the traditional Judeo-Christian ethics that have underpinned Western civilization.
“And “electrochemical activity in your brain” explains no more about consciousness than pretty colors on an MRI screen.”
Actually, electrochemical activity in the brain explains a lot about consciousness. And the pretty colors can also inform about consciousness.
EPU, I’m not sure you really know what ever it is you are trying to say.
Wow. The subject was essentially; "From where do atheists get their morality." You asked what if the other person ignores that morality. I gave you a tongue-in-cheek answer since it was off-subject and you insult all the non-believers on this thread. Thanks, brother Freeper.
Sorry.
But, I must stand by my observation.
I expect a higher level of intellectual rigor from those who wear the mantle of rationality and adherence to science etc...
But it is so often not forthcoming.
My observation is not only from this thread. I’ve noticed self proclaimed proselytizing atheists often are rather weak when in comes to reasoned argument or understanding of science.
I think they do trend to being slightly more intelligent than average and having some knowledge on scientific or technical areas.
But that actually becomes a stumbling block to them in that they think they know more than they do and are smarter than they are.
I think it is common among those with narrow dogmatic beliefs.
You seem to be saying that because some part of the brain lights up when somebody thinks of a cat that you know what’s going on.
Q: What if not stealing from someone else has zero effect on them not stealing from you?
A: 7.62X39
Hi.
I feel bad insulting people, so I reviewed the thread.
What does 76.2X39 mean?
Perhaps I am too dumb to understand?
I think the examples are just fine. They are recent and cursory, but provide an overview of how slavery, death, persecution, and torture can bring down large scale civilizations. These examples do not apply to evolution, as they've happened too recently for it to be a factor from a biological standpoint. But they're perfectly reasonable to infer when examining how much smaller, earlier civilizations might have functioned without moral parameters.
I'm not the least bit defensive as to providing a non-supernatural basis for morality. All I'm missing is something to argue against (on your part). Saying that non-supernatural reasons for morality don't exist or could only be supported by a "know nothing" like me is the sign of defensiveness. Calling me stupid is not an argument.
You are saying there is a basis for this morality being universal without the need for a transcendent authority.
Yes, I'm saying that. Perhaps as a retort, you could tell me two things.
*Where does the transcendent authority communicate these objective morals?
And..
*Why do we need a cosmic mediator to tell us things we already know, and that seem to be universal?
In other words, if God has real world reasons for telling us not to do things (don't murder because it causes suffering), then why do we need a Creator, and isn't more likely that we've figured these things out for ourselves and inscribed them on a creator.
In other words, do you find the non-supernatural reasons not to murder someone enough, or do you need the cosmic boss to say "Don't do that" to close the deal.
So I’m curious how you argue for morality.
I gave you a solid breakdown of that in post #212. Feel free to critique.
But you don’t seem to know or acknowledge that your pronouncements on morality are simply the traditional Judeo-Christian ethics that have underpinned Western civilization.
You are correct. They are similar in the sense that they mirror how Judeo-Christian ethics have evolved. They've evolved as one would expect if the holy texts were actually the work of man.
I have an objective basis to argue against the extermination of the Canaanites (women and children), I have an objective basis to argue against slavery (which the Bible does not), and I have an objective basis to argue against vicarious redemption.
In other words, why are non-supernatural ethics and morality not enough for you, and from where do you get your morality?
The guy is such a stiff.
And yet you expect no level of intellectual rigor from the religionists.
Just say "morality comes from God", and that's all that's needed (even though you can't expound on how this system of morality is documented).
I will admit that it is quite a bit more difficult to build a coherent system of morality without appealing to the supernatural, but then again anything worth doing requires actually doing a little bit of work.
So because of a perception of “no level of intellectual level from the ‘religionists’” (is that an epithet?), that excuses the lack of “intellectual rigor from those who wear the mantle of rationality and adherence to science”. Since when does a race to debasement by both “sides” of an argument (so presumed) achieve, or rather signify, anything?
“You seem to be saying that because some part of the brain lights up when somebody thinks of a cat that you know what’s going on.”
“What’s going on” is such a broad, non-defined, open-ended phrase. Use of such phrases is what i mean by saying I don’t think you really know what you are trying to say.
The answer to your question, though, is yes. It is known what is going on is that there are consistent patterns of biochemical activity in specific neuroanatomical regions in response to given stimuli, eg thinking of a cat.
That just literally factual.
It certainly doesn’t solve the mystery of consciousness. But it provides observational data.
I think you’re thinking people claim it solves consciousness or proves something philosophical or metaphysical or theological. It doesn’t.
And, I do think there are all sorts of blowhards who do make outlandish statements regarding neurophysiological observations, attributing to them conclusions that aren’t merited or even relevant.
I think this latter group of charlatans in the consciousness business are to whom you are mostly reacting.
My only point is that there is so much we don’t know. An atheist says he knows.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.