Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Monday, July 27 2009 @ 04:17 PM CDT

The atheist is a strong believer - atheism is a beleif

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Monday, July 27 2009 @ 04:26 PM CDT

Quote by: Dadai.2 Quote by: Calchas Quote by: alley-oop Quote by: pablatone If there is no God, then there is no reason to get upset about the suffering in the world, it's just the way things are, get over it. So the only thing an atheist can to say to the mother of a dying child is "sorry, that's just your bad luck." The atheist is not exempt from giving an answer to the problem of evil. The answers Jesus gives to the core questions in life make more sense than anything Dawkins has proposed. And He offers hope, something a materialist cannot do. I cannot understand why you'd think I cannot have compassion, even though I live without worshiping a god? Come on, you think I'm not effected by the sorrow of the mother whose child is dying? These thing you speak of, compassion, suffering; believing in God and Jesus have nothing to do with having or not having empathy for the pain of this world. I think you are ignorant, or, you enjoy making provocative statements. Either way, your comments dehumanize people like myself, alluding we are 'less than' or incapable of basic humanity. You act in an evil way. I don't this is what Jesus taught. You use biblical reference to set yourself above others. This in itself is a root cause of much atrocity throughout history. I have no respect for your statement. Buck up friend! Historically, Buddhism has demonstrated a hell of a lot more compassion than Christianity has, and there is no personal god in that faith. Indeed, the only world religion that has been more bloody than Christianity is Islam. Of course, the purely secular faiths of Marxism and Maoism have---in the relatively short time they have existed---shed far more innocent blood than all the world's religions past and present combined (with the POSSIBLE exception of the Mayans). But that's another issue for another thread... As a former Christian, I'm embarrassed but not at all surprised by pablatone's remarks. A compassionate person will be compassionate no matter what kind of belief system is adhered to, and the uncaring and/or predatory person will remain such irrespective of the belief system. History bears this out in spades! As I see it, the problem is and has ever been FUNDAMENTALISM, whether sacred or secular. I have come to believe it is the only true idolatry. I think I might call my next album project "Planet of Fanatics!" Ha ha... Be well ALL! Mike... I think you (and alley-oop) are understanding pabltone incorrectly and missing his point. What pablo is doing, it seems to me, is positing (as a point of debate) that IF there is no God then there is only matter, therefore no ultimate right and wrong, good and evil. So philosophically if there is no God, then there is no logical basis for anyone to "get upset about the suffering in the world." And for the one who declares there is no God then his only logical option is to "get over it" because this is the random chance material world that has developed and that he is a product of. It simply IS. Not right nor wrong, good or bad. Again, pablo's examples of the atheist's thinking are just that. Examples of how one, who holds there is no God, logically would be constrained to respond when faced with suffering. Suffering just IS. There is no ultimate basis to judge something as a tragedy if there is not an immaterial reality or norm by which to judge. If there is compassion in an all material world, it is ultimately the result of chemical/biological processes in the person. Those reactions have no intrinsic meaning if matter is all that exists... Pablo's point, I think, is that of course everyone is capable of compassion, love, and good deeds... atheist, and believer in what ever religion you want to pick. I think pablo might say (and I do say) that it is because there is a God, the Creator, that whether acknowledging him or not, nonetheless all of mankind is graced with these very human characteristics of compassion, love, and a desire to do good. I certainly don't think pablo was indicting "non-believers" as incapable of caring, compassion, etc. Far from it. Now that I have chimed in with my thoughts on pablo's thoughts, maybe he will verify or adjust my understanding. D

Of course from an atheist perspective one could argue that as God is a construct, a solution to the problem of having a basis for compassion, love and altruism. The challenge is doing away with the intermediary and giving in to our evolved need to express such feelings...

KK

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Monday, July 27 2009 @ 04:47 PM CDT

Quote by: Dadai.2 Pablo's point, I think, is that of course everyone is capable of compassion, love, and good deeds... atheist, and believer in what ever religion you want to pick. I think pablo might say (and I do say) that it is because there is a God, the Creator, that whether acknowledging him or not, nonetheless all of mankind is graced with these very human characteristics of compassion, love, and a desire to do good.

There's a very interesting field of study called evolutionary biology that, where overlapping with cognitive science, examines all manner of heritable behavioral traits in species.

From the standpoint of evolutionary biology, behavioral impulses like compassion and cooperation can and do arise from a common genetic heritage driven by environmental selectors. In short, those among our progenitors who were predisposed by random mutation to practice cooperation were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Natural selection therefore reinforced the cognitive mechanics that lead to the practice, recognition, and reward of cooperative behavior. As a result, we have inherited the biological capacity for compassion.

As further evidence of compassion as a biology-rooted trait, consider the extensive research concerning brain trauma victims. There are documented cases of recipients of particular brain injuries who thereafter display anti-social and even sociopathic behavior, suggesting that the physical capability for compassion can be interrupted.

I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that the concept of "good and evil" does not require a spiritual raison de etre.

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Monday, July 27 2009 @ 06:21 PM CDT

Quote by: Dadai.2 Quote by: Calchas Quote by: alley-oop Quote by: pablatone If there is no God, then there is no reason to get upset about the suffering in the world, it's just the way things are, get over it. So the only thing an atheist can to say to the mother of a dying child is "sorry, that's just your bad luck." The atheist is not exempt from giving an answer to the problem of evil. The answers Jesus gives to the core questions in life make more sense than anything Dawkins has proposed. And He offers hope, something a materialist cannot do. I cannot understand why you'd think I cannot have compassion, even though I live without worshiping a god? Come on, you think I'm not effected by the sorrow of the mother whose child is dying? These thing you speak of, compassion, suffering; believing in God and Jesus have nothing to do with having or not having empathy for the pain of this world. I think you are ignorant, or, you enjoy making provocative statements. Either way, your comments dehumanize people like myself, alluding we are 'less than' or incapable of basic humanity. You act in an evil way. I don't this is what Jesus taught. You use biblical reference to set yourself above others. This in itself is a root cause of much atrocity throughout history. I have no respect for your statement. Buck up friend! Historically, Buddhism has demonstrated a hell of a lot more compassion than Christianity has, and there is no personal god in that faith. Indeed, the only world religion that has been more bloody than Christianity is Islam. Of course, the purely secular faiths of Marxism and Maoism have---in the relatively short time they have existed---shed far more innocent blood than all the world's religions past and present combined (with the POSSIBLE exception of the Mayans). But that's another issue for another thread... As a former Christian, I'm embarrassed but not at all surprised by pablatone's remarks. A compassionate person will be compassionate no matter what kind of belief system is adhered to, and the uncaring and/or predatory person will remain such irrespective of the belief system. History bears this out in spades! As I see it, the problem is and has ever been FUNDAMENTALISM, whether sacred or secular. I have come to believe it is the only true idolatry. I think I might call my next album project "Planet of Fanatics!" Ha ha... Be well ALL! Mike... I think you (and alley-oop) are understanding pabltone incorrectly and missing his point. What pablo is doing, it seems to me, is positing (as a point of debate) that IF there is no God then there is only matter, therefore no ultimate right and wrong, good and evil. So philosophically if there is no God, then there is no logical basis for anyone to "get upset about the suffering in the world." And for the one who declares there is no God then his only logical option is to "get over it" because this is the random chance material world that has developed and that he is a product of. It simply IS. Not right nor wrong, good or bad. Again, pablo's examples of the atheist's thinking are just that. Examples of how one, who holds there is no God, logically would be constrained to respond when faced with suffering. Suffering just IS. There is no ultimate basis to judge something as a tragedy if there is not an immaterial reality or norm by which to judge. If there is compassion in an all material world, it is ultimately the result of chemical/biological processes in the person. Those reactions have no intrinsic meaning if matter is all that exists... Pablo's point, I think, is that of course everyone is capable of compassion, love, and good deeds... atheist, and believer in what ever religion you want to pick. I think pablo might say (and I do say) that it is because there is a God, the Creator, that whether acknowledging him or not, nonetheless all of mankind is graced with these very human characteristics of compassion, love, and a desire to do good. I certainly don't think pablo was indicting "non-believers" as incapable of caring, compassion, etc. Far from it. Now that I have chimed in with my thoughts on pablo's thoughts, maybe he will verify or adjust my understanding. D

Well said Dadai, Thank you. Again, I am by no means saying that an atheist cannot have compassion, or empathy. ( See my previous post )

I think that in this regard we all reflect the heart of our Maker, whether we believe Him to exist or not.

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Monday, July 27 2009 @ 06:45 PM CDT

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Monday, July 27 2009 @ 11:30 PM CDT

Quote by: chikoppi Quote by: Dadai.2 Pablo's point, I think, is that of course everyone is capable of compassion, love, and good deeds... atheist, and believer in what ever religion you want to pick. I think pablo might say (and I do say) that it is because there is a God, the Creator, that whether acknowledging him or not, nonetheless all of mankind is graced with these very human characteristics of compassion, love, and a desire to do good. There's a very interesting field of study called evolutionary biology that, where overlapping with cognitive science, examines all manner of heritable behavioral traits in species. From the standpoint of evolutionary biology, behavioral impulses like compassion and cooperation can and do arise from a common genetic heritage driven by environmental selectors. In short, those among our progenitors who were predisposed by random mutation to practice cooperation were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Natural selection therefore reinforced the cognitive mechanics that lead to the practice, recognition, and reward of cooperative behavior. As a result, we have inherited the biological capacity for compassion. As further evidence of compassion as a biology-rooted trait, consider the extensive research concerning brain trauma victims. There are documented cases of recipients of particular brain injuries who thereafter display anti-social and even sociopathic behavior, suggesting that the physical capability for compassion can be interrupted. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that the concept of "good and evil" does not require a spiritual raison de etre.

No fight... good discussion. Taking your examples one can explain how compassion or cooperation came about through a purely genetic/biological process. So a set of behaviors named "compassion" and "cooperation" worked for the further development of the human species. But what that posited theory doesn't explain is the "moral value" we place on those two characteristics.

Another way of putting it is this. And I borrow this line of thinking from C.S. Lewis. In our world today, and in fact throughout history, there are societies that have the practice of one man marrying one woman... or one man marrying many women... But in no society would it be considered RIGHT or JUST for a man to take some other man's wife. A moral objection rises up that says, "no that is wrong to do that." Biology may be able to put forth a theory of how things developed, but this moral aspect of man seems to exist apart from that process. It judges the process from a plane outside it. And when wrongs in this natural world take place (stealing from another) the one offended and those witnessing it all appeal to the same moral standard... a fixed concept that certain things are right and certain things are wrong. Even the thief will defend himself referring to the standard. Everyone wants to be seen as in right and not in wrong. And if you say that these moral aspects are merely the result of biology... then that, it would seem, robs from them any true meaning of right and wrong the next time one of us stands up and rails against some heinous act. One may say the heinous act impacts society negatively, breaks down civil order... but to say it is WRONG is a statement that appeals to a universal standard outside of the events as a moral judgment.

Lewis does a much better job of it...
cheers,
D

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Tuesday, July 28 2009 @ 12:29 AM CDT

Quote by: Dadai.2 No fight... good discussion. Taking your examples one can explain how compassion or cooperation came about through a purely genetic/biological process. So a set of behaviors named "compassion" and "cooperation" worked for the further development of the human species. But what that posited theory doesn't explain is the "moral value" we place on those two characteristics.

Well, not to belabor a point, but describing the genetic origin of the "moral value" placed on cooperation is exactly the intent of the theory.

Consider that the brain is not a "blank slate." It has particular capabilities and is predisposed to particular means of processing information and regulating behavioral responses, centered chiefly on survival and reproduction. As an example, the human brain has the capacity and predisposition for language. This is a biological trait. A species without this trait (or a human who suffers a particular brain injury) is simply not capable of the cognitive acrobatics required to process language. In other words, humans use language because we have a biologic predisposition for this mode of thought.

It is through a similar biologic mechanism (claims the evolutionary biologist) that we are generally predisposed to view behavioral traits such as cooperation, kindness, altruism, and charity as having what you call "moral value." Our predisposition toward those traits (both in ourselves and as observed in others) is hardwired in the way our brains process stimuli because our ancestors who practiced such behaviors had a higher survival rate than those who did not.

Actually, if anyone is at all curious about theories of how the evolution of the brain shapes or modern society I'll recommend the book I'm currently reading, Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior, by Geoffrey Miller. Its fun and illuminating, but I'll include this review from Amazon (below) rather wax on in my own words:

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Tuesday, July 28 2009 @ 09:58 AM CDT

Quote by: Dadai.2 Mike... I think you (and alley-oop) are understanding pabltone incorrectly and missing his point. What pablo is doing, it seems to me, is positing (as a point of debate) that IF there is no God then there is only matter, therefore no ultimate right and wrong, good and evil. So philosophically if there is no God, then there is no logical basis for anyone to "get upset about the suffering in the world." And for the one who declares there is no God then his only logical option is to "get over it" because this is the random chance material world that has developed and that he is a product of. It simply IS. Not right nor wrong, good or bad. Again, pablo's examples of the atheist's thinking are just that. Examples of how one, who holds there is no God, logically would be constrained to respond when faced with suffering. Suffering just IS. There is no ultimate basis to judge something as a tragedy if there is not an immaterial reality or norm by which to judge. If there is compassion in an all material world, it is ultimately the result of chemical/biological processes in the person. Those reactions have no intrinsic meaning if matter is all that exists... Pablo's point, I think, is that of course everyone is capable of compassion, love, and good deeds... atheist, and believer in what ever religion you want to pick. I think pablo might say (and I do say) that it is because there is a God, the Creator, that whether acknowledging him or not, nonetheless all of mankind is graced with these very human characteristics of compassion, love, and a desire to do good. I certainly don't think pablo was indicting "non-believers" as incapable of caring, compassion, etc. Far from it. Now that I have chimed in with my thoughts on pablo's thoughts, maybe he will verify or adjust my understanding. D

From the mind of the faulting logician...

No god = no ethics = non sequitur

That is just ludicrous to me. If there is no god there is only matter and no ultimate right and wrong... what? Rattle that head again? Where's the marbles (no offense intended)? I just want to illustrate how totally silly and non sequitur that appears to me.

From my position as an interested bystander and occasional trouble maker, you totally lost me on that one. Right and wrong may or may not be human concoctions, they may or may not be evolutionarily devised/developed. They certainly do seem to originate from some "plane" of perspective that is separate from the incidence of our life, but to posit that only through the presence of a supreme being shall right or wrong exist is just unnecessary. I presume you are speaking about idealism here... so to take the standard example consider...

The "idea" of a chair may exist in some way that is outside of our reality. Every real representation of a chair is some imperfect approximation. In fact, we can have several different representations of such an ideal in our world, which are quite different but are still a "chair". Consider a rocking chair of wood, a rock on a hillside, a padded recliner, a baby car seat, a barstool... all of these are actual representations of the ideal. None are technically more "chair" than the others, none are the complete chair. The idea of a chair is simply ethereal and unattainable in a state of perfection. A thing upon which to sit. This is a chair. Don't like the rock on a hillside? How about if I roll it down a hill with 6 others and put them around a stone "table"? Now is it a chair? Your mind tells you it is! Maybe I need to change the environment for some of your minds but I think most would eventually agree their mind tells them it is a chair. Consider Fred and Wilma sitting in their living room... on a rock. I hope you are there now.

Would you say that the "idea" of a chair is purely a human concoction? Would you say that it requires a god or supreme being to be called into existence? I would say no. Surely the ideal is something somewhat out of reach, but yet real in the sense that concepts on our minds seem to have some meaning.

Likewise, the "idea" of ethical or moral right and wrong may not be static or fixed in the physical world. Their existence neither requires nor precludes the presence of a god. The representations we have in this world are necessarily imperfect and indeed tend to fluctuate somewhat. But the ideas themselves are real and do have a "meaning" and value which is as undeniable as the "meaning" or "value" of the ideal of a chair. As I mentioned, this situation doesn't preclude the existence of a supreme being (or beings). But the logical (and human) questions arise of "why". Some say "because the supreme being says so". That is fine. That is like "trust in father". There is nothing wrong with that. Trust or faith saves many kids from getting burned by the stove. Some don't listen, do they? Some others say "but... why?". I think that is a fair question. At same point the 4 year old doesn't just trust father. The child comes to understand that there is HEAT behind that stove. One day, the child is the father (or mother) and teaches the same lesson. The HEAT was always there. I never fault those who feel they are ready to understand the HEAT. They may be wrong, but it is their choice to ask the hard questions. And they can either defy the faith in their quest, or embrace it as they quest. Both options are available. in the end, I feel that behind any GOD is more than "because I say so". There are reasons for everything, even when we don't understand them yet. These reasons, these IDEALS do exist outside our plane of perspective, outside our definition of god, and outside of our understanding at times.

The paragraphs you have just read has been my counterpoint. You are thus informed. Thank you.

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Tuesday, July 28 2009 @ 10:08 AM CDT

Morality is in the eyes of the beholder.

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Tuesday, July 28 2009 @ 10:55 AM CDT

A worthwhile book to read that, I think, sheds light on this tension between the material as ultimate reality and an immaterial Creator as ultimate reality is by the philosopher & theologian Francis Shaeffer, "Escape From Reason". The question that I am addressing is one of presuppositions, i.e. from what philosophical ground someone is viewing the world. Everyone thinks and argues from a philosophical presuppostional ground (whether they are aware of it or not). Two individuals holding opposing sets of presuppositions will naturally exclaim to each other, "That doesn't make sense!" By definition one's presupposition cannot be definitively proven. So one must examine the path of implications of each in order to test its consistency. That is merely what I was trying to do, albeit with limitation. An excerpt from "Escape From Reason":

"The early scientists believed in the uniformity of natural causes. What they did not believe in was the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system. That little phrase makes all the difference in the world. It makes the difference between natural science and a science that is rooted in 'naturalistic philosophy'. It makes all the difference between what I would call modern science and what I would call modern modern science. It is important to notice that this is not a failing of science as science, but rather that the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system has become the dominant philosophy among scientists."
(Francis A. Schaeffer, Escape From Reason, Ch. 3)

I'm not going to try and respond to some of the points proffered, as I think we end up talking past one another. But this is a topic (ultimate truth or reality) that has engaged better minds than ours over the centuries and certainly worthwhile to pursue.

Thanks for indulging my thoughts.

D