3 things that Atheists give up when they reject God

[PRmerger]

Huh? Empathy is inbuilt. We all have it.

Yes. That’s very Scriptural of you to say this.

You can’t choose it as part of some world view.

Emmm…yes you can.

And the golden rule is simply a handy rule for creating civilisations. It’s utilitarianism by another name. Again, we all obey it to a certain degree. It’s a societal norm.

Sure.

That still doesn’t address how you have an incoherent position.

It’s like you haven’t really connected the dots.

“I’m atheist, and this means…”

“which means…”

“which means…”

And then you suddenly conclude with something you get from rejection of atheism.

Except you won’t acknowledge it.

 

[Bradski]

I am arguing that there is no such thing as objective moral truth if metaphysical naturalism is true.

Yeah, I get that. And I got it the first time you said it and I got it every other time you’ve said it since in practically every post. And I agree with it now and I’ve agreed with it every time you’ve said it as well.

Because all you are saying is that if I am wrong, then you are right. Let’s face it, it’s not the most astute philosophical comment in this thread…

 

[PRmerger]

Yeah, I get that…

Except that you keep arguing for it implicitly while denying that it exists.

#incoherent

 

[IWantGod]

Huh? Empathy is inbuilt. We all have it. You can’t choose it as part of some world view…

I don’t think that’s relevant to his point at all. What is there objectively to be empathic about? Furthermore why would such a function exist in a world that is fundamentally just blind physical processes and are not teleologically order to specific ends?

 

[IWantGod]

Because all you are saying is that if I am wrong, then you are right…

 

[Bradski]

I don’t think that’s relevant to his point at all. What is there objectively to be empathic about? Furthermore why would such a function exist in a world that is fundamentally just blind physical processes and are not teleologically order to specific ends?

You’re not related to Tony by any chance?

Empathy exists because the need to understand what others are feeling is another requirement for building societies. Those that had it were able to do so. And hence pass on that attribute. Those that didn’t are mostly long gone. We still have some around. We call them psycopaths.

 

[IWantGod]

You’re not related to Tony by any chance?.

We are twins.

Empathy exists because the need to **understand **what others are feeling is another requirement for building societies…

This is precisely my point. Can you not see the inconsistency of that statement with the idea of blind natural processes; processes that are not ordered toward meaningful and teleological ends. There is no purpose in evolution; that is to say if metaphysical naturalism is true then blind physical processes are not goal driven. .

 

[PRmerger]

Huh? Empathy is inbuilt. We all have it. You can’t choose it as part of some world view. And the golden rule is simply a handy rule for creating civilisations. It’s utilitarianism by another name. Again, we all obey it to a certain degree. It’s a societal norm.

A parallel:

Protestants say “The Catholic Church is wrong!”

And they also say “The Bible is the Word of God!”

Really?

Have you thought this through, Dear Protestant?

You’ve just taken our Catholic Bible, given to you by our Catholic magisterium, and run with it, while in the same breath denying the authority of the CC.

#incoherent

And, you’re welcome, Bradski. You may use this next time you’re having a pint with a Protestant friend who’d making a dig at the CC.

 

[inocente]

You seem to be ignoring what i’m saying.

Do on to others as you would have them do on to you i suppose is a pragmatically useful idea if your goal in life is consistent with it. You wouldn’t like that to happen to you so don’t do it to others. But just because i wouldn’t like something to happen to me doesn’t mean it is objectively true that i ought not hurt other people. That alone does not mean that there is a way things ought to be.

Also when Jesus said do on to others as you would have them do on to you it meant more than a simple pragmatic gesture. It means that if you recognize the God given dignity in you then you ought to recognize the God given dignity in others and treat them accordingly.

Jesus didn’t invent the golden rule (do to others…). It’s found in many early cultures. It’s an objective reciprocity of self-interest. For instance in Tamil virtue ethics in the form “Do not do to others what you know has hurt you”.

You ignored my questions. Your morality is founded on your subjective belief in a specific religion, and your subjective faith in its specific vision of God. Take away those beliefs and your foundation goes with them. Whereas something like the golden rule is founded on human nature.

You recognize human dignity, so you can’t then claim other people have less right to their beliefs than you do to yours, or that your personal beliefs somehow make your objectivity better than theirs. The golden rule also tells you that.

This is precisely my point. Can you not see the inconsistency of that statement with the idea of blind natural processes; processes that are not ordered toward meaningful and teleological ends. There is no purpose in evolution; that is to say if metaphysical naturalism is true then blind physical processes are not goal driven. .

Yikes. You just proved beyond reasonable doubt you don’t know about evolution, as if you did you would cringe with embarrassment at that rotfl. Don’t worry, I cringed for you.

Here’s a list of resources about evolution from the Catholic University of America - trs.cua.edu/Science-for-Seminaries/biology-evolution.cfm

 

[Bradski]

This is precisely my point. Can you not see the inconsistency of that statement with the idea of blind natural processes that are not ordered toward meaningful and teleological ends. There is no purpose in evolution; that is to say if metaphysical naturalism is true then blind physical processes are not goal driven. .

Allow me ro rephrase that last comment so it’s easier for you to understand in the context it was meant.

Empathy exists because it was a facility that allowed the building of societies and those that possesed it to some degree within that society were able to pass that facility on.

It wasn’t a specific goal of evolution to create groups and tribes and societies. The only purpose for evolution is to pass on the genetic information to the next generation. Those who formed groups and tribes did that better than those who tried to survive on their own, and the evolutionary process got rid of them. So empathy became the norm.

Quite simple when you think about it.

 

[IWantGod]

Allow me ro rephrase that last comment so it’s easier for you to understand in the context it was meant.

Empathy exists because it was a facility that allowed the building of societies and those that possesed it to some degree within that society were able to pass that facility on.

What you really mean is that empathy has not gone the way of the DoDo because it has survival value.

I’m asking why empathy would exist at all in a world in which physical processes are blind and are not goal driven?

 

[Bradski]

What you really mean is that empathy has not gone the way of the DoDo because it has survival value.

I’m asking why empathy would exist at all in a world in which physical processes are blind and are not goal driven?

Let’s say that having zero empathy is the norm. There are no societies because it’s difficult to form one when you have no understanding of what other people are feeling. You are living in a world of sociopaths. But there are some people, purely based on the roll of the dice, that have a slight ability to empathise.

Nature hasn’t pondered and thought: ‘hey, we need some facility that will encourage the formation of groups so that their chances of survival increase which will enable them to pass on their genes’. It was just a slight change in genetic makeup that allowed it. Not preordained. Not designed. Just happenstance.

Now if empathy gave people less ability to form groups, then it would have died out. A useless genetic anomoly. But those with it did form groups and the tendency to empathy was passed on and became prominent.

Your question is like asking why birds have feathers and giraffes have long necks. Or why reptiles are cold blooded.

There is a story, perhaps apochryphal, that African elephants now have shorter tusksthan they did 100 years ago. And that’s because poachers take the ones with long tusks out of the gene pool.

Nature, aka evolution, didn’t suddenly decide that short tusks were better for survival. Just like it didn’t decide that empatby was the way to go. It’s just that those who didn’t have it left the pool as well.

 

[IWantGod]

Let’s say that having zero empathy is the norm. There are no societies because it’s difficult to form one when you have no understanding of what other people are feeling. You are living in a world of sociopaths. But there are some people, purely based on the roll of the dice, that have a slight ability to empathise.

Nature hasn’t pondered and thought: ‘hey, we need some facility that will encourage the formation of groups so that their chances of survival increase which will enable them to pass on their genes’. It was just a slight change in genetic makeup that allowed it. Not preordained. Not designed. Just happenstance.

Now if empathy gave people less ability to form groups, then it would have died out. A useless genetic anomoly. But those with it did form groups and the tendency to empathy was passed on and became prominent.

Your question is like asking why birds have feathers and giraffes have long necks. Or why reptiles are cold blooded.

There is a story, perhaps apochryphal, that African elephants now have shorter tusksthan they did 100 years ago. And that’s because poachers take the ones with long tusks out of the gene pool.

Nature, aka evolution, didn’t suddenly decide that short tusks were better for survival. Just like it didn’t decide that empatby was the way to go. It’s just that those who didn’t have it left the pool as well.

Okay, i get that. a random mutation occurred and now we have empathy.

I’m asking why empathy would exist at all in a world in which physical processes are blind and are not goal driven?

There is a teleological connection between the experience of empathy and the feelings of other existing human-beings. Yes, you can say well it just so happens that empathy creates a better environment for humans to thrive, which is true in a strictly physical context. But why would one group of atoms “care” about the “well being” of another group of atoms. Physically speaking, survival is meaningless considering that physical processes are blind and are not goal driven, and yet qualities emerge that are obviously order toward the goal of survival in a very meaningful sense.

Empathy presupposes the existence of other “personal beings” not just physical processes. The existence and emergence of qualities like empathy makes no sense if everything is fundamentally a blind physical process with no teleology.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Empathy presupposes the existence of other personal beings not just physical processes. The existence and emergence of qualities like empathy makes no sense if everything is fundamentally a blind physical process with no teleology.

No, it does not. Do you “care” about your own survival? Of course you do. Everyone does. Not just humans, not just animals, not even just vegetation. Even bacteria “care” about their own survival. Not, consciously, of course. The definition of “life” is the process to maintain one’s homeostasis in a changing environment.

But does it mean that there is some “non-physical” process which is part of the game? Of course not. To be “alive” is an ongoing process to keep on living. On a certain level the entities “realize” (either consciously or not) that it is mutually beneficial to form groups. To help each other, to “care” for each other. Many animals do. Not just the grazers, but the predators, too. There is no “teleology” involved. Just blind, biological process.

Just look at a Galton-board. And observe, how, blind, undirected forces of physics create beautiful, Gauss distribution patterns. Or look at the Barnsley fern generating programs. A few mathematical equations, and the result is amazingly life-like pattern. Not to mention John Conway’s game of life. Life needs no “supernatural” explanation. Life is merely “complex response to complex stimuli”.

---

Oh, and one more remark about the title of the thread. Atheists do NOT reject God. We reject the assertion that God exists, and we reject the proposed evidence for God. Only a Christian can reject God.

 

[IWantGod]

No, it does not. Do you “care” about your own survival? Of course you do. Everyone does. Not just humans, not just animals, not even just vegetation. Even bacteria “care” about their own survival. Not, consciously, of course. The definition of “life” is the process to maintain one’s homeostasis in a changing environment.

But does it mean that there is some “non-physical” process which is part of the game? Of course not. To be “alive” is an ongoing process to keep on living. On a certain level the entities “realize” (either consciously or not) that it is mutually beneficial to form groups. To help each other, to “care” for each other. Many animals do. Not just the grazers, but the predators, too.

How does this in anyway refute what i have said? If anything, it further supports my argument. Life itself, by its very nature, is a goal driven process. Organisms would not be trying to survive if that were not the case. We cannot understand “life” in any other context. Being alive is what an organism is doing; it is not just a blind physical process.

Just look at a Galton-board. And observe, how, blind, undirected forces of physics create beautiful, Gauss distribution patterns.

Complex patterns in nature is far from explaining why a blind physical process is compelled to “survive” or has empathy. It is qualitatively a different question. The scientific method alone cannot answers these question. Its not equipped to answers these questions. Science simply measures the physical reality of an organisms existence.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Okay, i get that. a random mutation occurred and now we have empathy.

I’m asking why empathy would exist at all in a world in which physical processes are blind and are not goal driven?

If you are asking whether the development of empathy is a necessary outcome for a life form, it’s not. Not all life forms show signs of it. Some organisms do things on their own only coming in proximity to mate and leave those offspring on their own once the mating is done. But there are also a gradation of the levels of influence that organisms have on each other from solitary animals up to and including the empathy that you see in humans and in some other social metazoans. But not all metazoans show a sense of empathy at the same level if it is shown at all.

 

[IWantGod]

If you are asking whether the development of empathy is a necessary outcome for a life form…

I’m not.

Next.

 

[Bradski]

How does this in anyway refute what i have said? If anything, it further supports my argument. Life itself, by its very nature, is a goal driven process. Organisms would not be trying to **survive **if that were not the case.

No…

You are still looking down tbe wrong end of the telescope! Pain is a natural facet of evolution. Now that is as basic a comment re the subject as I think I could make. It’s simply a warning sign from the body to you: ‘Something wrong here, buddy. Strange sensation in the stomache area just after you ate those green berries’.

If that sensation had not evolved, then you wouldn’t be sitting there reading this. There are a lot more ways of dying than there are living. But avoiding death is not a goal. It is a result.

Original life forms did not, and obviously could not, contemplate their own demise. They could not make a decision to avoid danger. But those which acted in an arbitrary way, dictated by the genetic roll of the dice, which resulted in their survival, passed on that genetic tendency to future generations.

So when you see single celled organisms avoiding environments that could prove fatal, you see it as a goal of evolution. When it is actually a result. It’s the result of previous generations of organisms, arbitrarily avoiding that environment, passing on that tendency.

Futher along that evolutionary line and we could have ended up with more complex organisms avoiding danger without knowing why. But pain evolved as an indication of problems already encountered. It doesn’t take too much to associate the two. Avoiding danger avoids pain.

So when an antellope sees a lion, it avoids it. Not because it thinks it needs to live long enough to have little antellopes. Not because it is the goal of evolution for life to continue (it is blind to such matters), but because it knows if it gets caught, it’s going to hurt like hell (despite what Tony would have us believe). And avoiding that is an evolved tendency.

 

[IWantGod]

No…

You are still looking down tbe wrong end of the telescope! Pain is a natural facet of evolution. Now that is as basic a comment re the subject as I think I could make. It’s simply a warning sign from the body to you: ‘Something wrong here, buddy. Strange sensation in the stomache area just after you ate those green berries’.

If that sensation had not evolved, then you wouldn’t be sitting there reading this. There are a lot more ways of dying than there are living. But avoiding death is not a goal…

It doesn’t matter what the goal is, if there is a goal then there is a goal. And it is clear from the effects that we see in nature that organism act to the end of maintaining life; it metabolizes, it reproduces etc. It may do these things blindly, but that is what it is doing. Its processes are ordered toward the fact of being alive, and you can see evidence of this in the qualities that are visible in nature. Natural selection is irrelevant when asking why things are compelled to do anything that an animal feels compelled to do.

 

[Bradski]

It doesn’t matter what the goal is, if there is a goal then there is a goal.

Quite so. But I have just explained why evolution is not goal orientated, and that the tendency to stay alive is part of the evolutionary process. Doing the forum equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing ‘lahlahla’, doesn’t change that.

If you want to dispute what I have said, then do so.