Brain, Mind & Neuroscience

[levinas12]

Logic, mathematics, theoretical science, yes, even metaphysics - all of these “exercises” of rationality are not merely “biological survival strategies”.

We have a higher calling - we are the ones “to whom” beings show themselves as they are in themselves.

We are driven, not by our genes, but by the enticements of “disclosure”.

To put it more simply, the world is not our oyster if that means that our sole purpose is to consume it.

 

[Touchstone]

Logic, mathematics, theoretical science, yes, even metaphysics - all of these “exercises” of rationality are not merely “biological survival strategies”.

We have a higher calling - we are the ones “to whom” beings show themselves as they are in themselves.

We are driven, not by our genes, but by the enticements of “disclosure”.

To put it more simply, the world is not our oyster if that means that our sole purpose is to consume it.

But this is just the kind of observation we would expect from humans with a stance of intentionality, and a necessary insulation from the direct sense of “being conscious” as distinct from the experience of consciousness, on materialism.

I love the occasional detour into Heidegger and all that, but I’m always struck by the advancement of distinctions like “not of our genes” pit against “enticements of ‘disclosure’”, which I understand to be a distinction without a difference. The “enticements of ‘disclosure’” are the mechanism by which our genes drive us, no?

That is, if we understand, on naturalism, we’d expect our minds to have these intuitions about disclosure and/or an abstract “I”, so why doesn’t naturalism get the nod, here, just by virtue of its economy?

-TS

 

[tonyrey]

*Fear of the consequences is not a moral principle but **selfish ***

Yes! Selfishness is concern for yourself whereas unselfishness is concern for others which doesn’t necessarily exclude oneself. If you believe good is rewarded and evil is punished - for which there is abundant evidence even in this life - it is not selfishness but wisdom (unlike the folly of believing we can do exactly what we like and get away with it with impunity. Ironically the sceptics are punishing themselves. Believe in nothing and you will certainly get nothing…)

Those who promote the doctrine that persons are mere animals

have not only hoodwinked, fleeced and abused people by making them believe this life is nasty, brutish, short and terminated by death but driven them to despair, suicide and even the murder of their own families - not to mention genocide.
Oh, please - as if religious belief has not promoted despair, murder and genocide!

That is distorted religious belief contrary to the teaching of Jesus. The fact remains that those who promote the doctrine that persons are mere animals have driven many to despair, commit suicide and even murder their own families - not to mention the perpetration of genocide

The belief that a god has already determined our destiny, from a time before we were even thought of, let alone born, is a far more nihilistic doctrine than any form of unbelief…

Orthodox Christianity** rejects** Predestination. Unbelief leads to precisely nothing: total extinction…

I hardly need enumerate the genocidal adventures of “God’s chosen people” in the Old Testament; and even Jesus advocated enmity towards one’s own family if they do not share one’s passion for the “truth” he peddled.

The falsehoods and distortions of the truth that you peddle about Christianity are evident to all who read your posts. The arbitrary selection of episodes from the Old Testament is akin to the latest “enlightened revelation” granted to a hair-brained firebrand who founds a new sect…

The aggressive hatred of religion manifested in posts on this forum by the disciples of Dawkins and Harris amply demonstrates the intolerance of those who would be the first to oppress and persecute believers if they were in a position of power and capable of doing so - like their predecessors such as Hitler and Stalin…

(Unlike myself and many former religious believers, who still have to second-guess ourselves to make sure we are not being unduly offensive…)

It is blatantly obvious that your rabid animosity guarantees that you fail to succeed. It is clearly revealed in your abject and depraved insult to the greatest moral teacher in the history of mankind - in flagrant violation of the conduct rules of this forum:

…even Jesus advocated enmity towards one’s own family if they do not share one’s passion for the “truth” he peddled.

I advise you to apologise and retract that statement if you wish to continue posting on this forum…

And your aggressive hatred for anything that is not recognisable as religious faith is far more apparent, only you don’t realise it because - in company with pretty much every person in Western society - you have never been schooled to unquestioning respect for atheism.

Your false generalisation about “pretty much every person in Western society” is a ludicrous misrepresentation falsified by everyday events in secular societies like the UK where the boot is decidedly on the other foot and the slightest reference to God or prayer elicits a raised eyebrow and a deprecatory smile…

You also fail to recognise that Christianity is not a form of weakness which condones
gross distortion of the truth. Nor do genuine philosophers indulge in the vicious sarcasm to which you are so patently addicted. They discuss philosophical issues objectively, dispassionately and impersonally…

 

[tonyrey]

But this is just the kind of observation we would expect from humans with a stance of intentionality, and a necessary insulation from the direct sense of “being conscious” as distinct from the experience of consciousness, on materialism.

I love the occasional detour into Heidegger and all that, but I’m always struck by the advancement of distinctions like “not of our genes” pit against “enticements of ‘disclosure’”, which I understand to be a distinction without a difference. The “enticements of ‘disclosure’” are the mechanism by which our genes drive us, no?

If we are driven by our genes we are compelled to believe we are driven by our genes because - according to one of the high priests of materialism - our genes are selfish!

That is, if we understand, on naturalism, we’d expect our minds to have these intuitions about disclosure and/or an abstract “I”, so why doesn’t naturalism get the nod, here, just by virtue of its economy?

It doesn’t get the nod because it is simplistic, infertile, inadequate, incoherent, unintelligible and not even economical. One person is decidedly a more parsimonious explanation than a collection of atoms numbering approximately 1016…

 

[Sair]

If we are driven by our genes we are compelled to believe we are driven by our genes because - according to one of the high priests of materialism - our genes are selfish!

If you’ve actually read any of Dawkins’ work, you’d realise that he - along with most other naturalists - doesn’t take the biological dictates of nature as a moral instruction manual. He has stated, quite unequivocally, in a number of his works now, that this is the case.

It doesn’t get the nod because it is simplistic, infertile, inadequate, incoherent, unintelligible and not even economical. One person is decidedly a more parsimonious explanation than a collection of atoms numbering approximately 1016…

I think theism will always trump naturalism for being simplistic, sterile, incoherent and unintelligible; as for naturalistic explanations, they’re not always the most economical explanation, but nature doesn’t always behave with perfect economy; and they’re not always adequate, because we don’t know everything there is to know about nature. Seriously, though - are you really unable to appreciate the complexity and intricacy of human biology such that you think “one person” is a simple explanation for anything?

 

[tonyrey]

If we are driven by our genes we are compelled to believe we are driven by our genes because - according to one of the high priests of materialism - our genes are selfish!

That biological dictates of nature are not a moral instruction manual? If so what has happened to his selfish gene hypothesis which purports to explain human behaviour?

It doesn’t get the nod because it is simplistic, infertile, inadequate, incoherent, unintelligible and not even economical. One person is decidedly a more parsimonious explanation than a collection of atoms numbering approximately 1016…

I think theism will always trump naturalism for being simplistic, sterile, incoherent and unintelligible…

To think is not enough unless its conclusions are supported by reasons presented to others.

… as for naturalistic explanations, they’re not always the most economical explanation, but nature doesn’t always behave with perfect economy; and they’re not always adequate, because we don’t know everything there is to know about nature.

Implying - without justification - that knowledge of everything there is to know about nature would explain all personal activity.

Seriously, though - are you really unable to appreciate the complexity and intricacy of human biology such that you think “one person” is a simple explanation for anything?

Are you really unable to appreciate the fact that the complexity and intricacy of human biology do not absolve a person of responsibility for his/her thoughts or actions? When you are with persons or thinking about them do you usually think in terms of complex, intricate biological organisms?

 

[Sair]

If that is the motivation behind one’s actions as a Christian, then one has very weak faith. The desire to do what is morally right becomes an act of love, not an obligation. You want to do it simply because you love the person you’re doing it for (God, in this case.) If you truly love God then, by extension, you will love his creation. To draw a comparison, does one stay faithful to his spouse simply for fear that she will divorce him? Does he do thoughtful things for her in the sole hope of getting more sex? If so, does he really love her?

This highlights the problem inherent in interpreting secular morality from a theistic perspective. The desire to do what is right, for an unbeliever, is still an act of love, essentially - it just isn’t love for a deity. It may be love for a specific person, or it may be love in general, motivated by empathy, for beings that are like ourselves in any morally relevant sense. If I give money or other material help to a person begging on the street, it’s not because I expect any return from that person. I might feel happy as a result, but that is entirely because I have acted towards this person in a way I would want someone to act towards me, were I in a similar situation. It’s quite possible to love the “creation” without superimposing love for a third party over and above this.

You guys love distorting Christian teaching. Straw man after straw man! For starters, the idea that God has already determined our destiny has never been taught by the Catholic Church and is actually a condemned heresy.

Yet it does follow, in a logical sense, from belief in an omniscient deity - if god knows what we will do at any given moment and knows our ultimate destiny, then our future is fixed, whether we are aware of it or not - that is the implication of knowledge, as opposed to mere prediction. People have tried to explain how this is compatible with libertarian free will, but if something already exists to be known, then it must be already fixed as a fact.

The arguments about genocide are old hat and have been amply refuted.

If you mean by being shown through archeological investigation to be made-up stories, then I concur. But the stories in the Bible of genocidal activity on the part of the ancient Hebrews always carry the stamp of divine approval.

Your last charge is a gross distortion of the context of Jesus’ words. He was not advocating enmity; he was warning his disciples that following Him would be a cause of trouble for them, potentially turning their own families against them. It would behoove you, like so many others here, to have a firm understanding of what you’re railing against rather than blindly throwing punches. The Dawkins School of Theological Tae Kwon Do is not highly accredited.

Dawkins’ argument against theism in general is that if you can’t demonstrate the existence of any gods, then any amount of theological aggregate built upon the premise that God exists cannot get off the ground. Be that as it may, the entire point of theism - and the point of several pronouncements attributed in the gospels to Jesus - is that one must love this undemonstrable being over and above the real, flesh-and-blood people that make up one’s family and one’s circle of friends. Of course this is going to cause trouble!

 

[Sair]

That biological dictates of nature are not a moral instruction manual? If so what has happened to his selfish gene hypothesis which purports to explain human behaviour?

Shorter version: “No, I haven’t read any of Dawkins’ work.”

To think is not enough unless its conclusions are supported by reasons presented to others.

Which they have been, extensively, in previous posts.

Implying - without justification - that knowledge of everything there is to know about nature would explain all personal activity.

No - just being open to the possibility that this is the case. When we know everything there is to know about nature, if we still haven’t explained personal activity, we’ll look beyond nature. This is far more useful than concluding that there is no natural explanation for personal behaviour - as supernaturalists almost invariably do.

Are you really unable to appreciate the fact that the complexity and intricacy of human biology do not absolve a person of responsibility for his/her thoughts or actions? When you are with persons or thinking about them do you usually think in terms of complex, intricate biological organisms?

I’ve never implied that any natural explanation absolves a person from responsibility for their actions. It’s not as if any entity other than the person can have such responsibility, regardless of what “persons” may be. The mistake in supposing that it’s “only” biology, or “only” chemistry or “only” whatever natural phenomenon one cares to name that causes a person’s behaviour is that this fails to recognise - as I said, and which you did not answer - the complexity of what is required for “persons” to exist in the first place. Your question as to whether I think of persons in terms of their biochemical complexity is akin to asking whether, when I read a book, I am thinking in terms of the trees that were cut down to make the paper on which it is printed, or about the chemical composition of the ink; to asking whether, when I listen to a Beethoven symphony, I am thinking about the wood and metal used to make the instruments, or the hours of practise the musicians put in to master the score. I might think about these things in moments where I feel inclined to analyse the complexity of the processes involved in producing books or music - but if I do, it only enhances my appreciation of the end product.

 

[tonyrey]

If we are driven by our genes we are compelled to believe we are driven by our genes because - according to one of the high priests of materialism - our genes are selfish!

In other words he has admitted his selfish gene is false and presumably admitted naturalism has a fatal flaw: it doesn’t allow for our ability to transcend physical causes - such as our genetic makeup.

It doesn’t get the nod because it is simplistic, infertile, inadequate, incoherent, unintelligible and not even economical. One person is decidedly a more parsimonious explanation than a collection of atoms numbering approximately 1016…

I think theism will always trump naturalism for being simplistic, sterile, incoherent and unintelligible…

You** think** - without giving a single reason for your belief whereas:

1. **One **Supreme Being is by far the most economical explanation rather an immense multitude of atomic particles - not to mention the laws of nature.
2. Naturalism is sterile because it derives **everything **from **purposeless **processes, hereby excluding research into the purpose of life and spiritual development.
3. Naturalism is** inadequate** because it fails to do justice to the fact that every sane reason thinks and acts as if life is not a valueless accident.
4. Naturalism is** incoherent **because it contradicts itself by claiming to be a rational explanation caused by irrational events.
5. Naturalism is** unintelligible **because persons are not merely collections of particles floating around aimlessly for no reason whatsoever.

…as for naturalistic explanations, they’re not always the most economical explanation, but nature doesn’t always behave with perfect economy; and they’re not always adequate, because we don’t know everything there is to know about nature.

The argument from ignorance collapses because it fails to recognise the principle of the best available explanation.

Seriously, though - are you really unable to appreciate the complexity and intricacy of human biology such that you think “one person” is a simple explanation for anything?

Are you really unable to appreciate the superior insight and power of the human mind to such an extent that you are convinced that a person’s thoughts, choices and decisions are not an explanation for anything? Try telling that to a judge and jury if you or some one else is faced with a criminal charge…

 

[prodigalson2011]

I think you are confusing neuronal plasticity with the biology that enables neuronal plasticity. The human brain begins as human phenotype, wired for the very moral absolutes you locate in your superstitions. If we imagine a “Clockwork Orange” scenario where a young child is environmentally impacted in ways that suppress his empathic responses, well, too late! The point is there IS an empathic response to supress (or develop further).

There is no reason, on theism, to think that empathy cannot be hardwired into the brain. However, empathy is not the source of moral absolutes. Our moral obligations oftentimes extend beyond common human empathy. In fact, if the “moral absolutes” of Christianity were so hardwired into our brains, one should rightly wonder why so few people agree with them!

I suggest this is just a rote reflex from you. Look I was taught the same thing in my philosophy classes: you can’t derive an “ought” from an “is”. It’s a casual way of making the point that brute facts in general are not value-laden, so long as they are “brute”. But that general observation holds in only a general, and superficial sense. As soon as you start to include the facts of human biology, and consider morality as a human endeavor, not the abstractions of some disembodied mind, then the “can’t get an ought from an is” shibboleth becomes vacuous, and worse, just plain wrong. There’s no other source of derivation for a human that “is”.

Consider: can you derive an “ought” from an “is not”? Any ought must come from an “is”, transcendentally, else our oughts necessarily must be predicated on things that DO NOT EXIST.

I think your understanding of the ought-is distinction is a bit incomplete. The distinction is that “ought” is prescriptive (i.e. it MUST abide) whereas “is” statements are merely descriptive (that’s how we’re wired, as you say.) The difference is that “oughts” are held up as behaviors, attitudes, etc. that SHOULD be practiced because it is the right thing to do, regardless of one’s personal preferences or agenda. “Is” statements such as yours are strictly descriptive. They cannot provide a reason to avoid contrary behaviors without resorting to subjective valuations. Even if your argument is that such behaviors are necessary for the survival of the species, there are a lot of people who could care less whether the species survives or not. The aspect of “will” is what elevates human morality above simple biology.

Further, on a strictly biological basis, the instinct towards individual survival and well being will most often trump the drive towards the greater good. Here we find another great divide between traditional morality and attempted materialistic substitutes.

This is just the price of casual and loose application of the idea behind the “ought/is” divide as it has been posed more formally, traditionally.

In general, though, it’s worth noting that philosophy, even much modern philosophy is notorious unaware and/or uninterested in integrating humans as biological realities into one’s thinking about morality. Your posts are a stark example of this,by the way.

It is because to do so is absurd. I’m assuming you mean the consideration of mankind’s “well being” being the basis of morality. On materialism, everything is moving towards annihilation anyway, so the whole concept of “well being” becomes incoherent. Every individual is going to die. Sooner or later, this entire planet will die. Eventually, the universe will suffer heat death. Modern philosophy most often probably doesn’t address it because it’s not a new idea. It’s as old as mankind, and so is its refutation. As a Christian, “Ecclesiastes” springs immediately to mind.

Science can ONLY make value judgments. “True” as empiricists judge it, is a thoroughly prejudicial term. Ask any Thomist if you doubt this. Science begins with totally unjustified and unjustifiable value judgments about the world – the metaphyiscal valuing of sense experience as arbiter of “truth”, as a reflection of extra-mental reality.

Those presuppositions are not themselves science. Besides this, you are misappropriating the concept of “value” here. There is a difference between utilitarian value and spiritual value. To provide a perfect example of the difference between the two, I invite you to compare the moral values of people like Peter Singer and Steven Pinker to the values of a Christian. Here are two materialist “ethicists” whose ideas about ethics are decidedly utilitarian and correspondingly repugnant.

Also, I would add that the valuing of sense experience as an arbiter of truth is itself not metaphysical in the same way as we commonly use the term. It is its pan-experiential consistency that provides the basis for its acceptance.

If you aren’t making value judgements, you aren’t and cannot be doing science. Science is horribly, gloriously bigoted toward its own epistemology, pre-scientific value judgements which underwrite EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIFIC PROPOSITION.

Science cannot provide any support for statements such as, “Human life has value”, “Abortion is wrong”, or “The severely disabled should be treated with compassion.” I invite you to try!

Yes, so no problem. If humans exist as facts (are part of “is”), and morals (the “ought”) are grounded in the facts of human existence (biology/psychology), then morality is as much a scientific phenomena as RNA transcription or gravity.

If that’s all it is, then it’s no longer morality. That’s my point. Even if you’re right, what you’re talking about is not morals, but reflexive adaptive behaviors. On what basis does one parse through human instincts and decide which ones are moral? By judging their relative contribution to the overall well being of humanity? We then return to the utilitarianism and social Darwinism of folks like Peter Singer. From a materialistic perspective, his views are quite justifiable.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Weak in what sense? It seems to me you have real (“is”) human beings with a real (“is”) psychological disposition that gives to various inclinations and dispostions on morals and ethics (“oughts”). There’s no magic. There’s no superstition. What’s weak about that?

Weak in the sense that it provides no compelling reason for someone inclined to the contrary to adhere to its declarations. Again, it is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Theistic morality assigns each individual with an intrinsic, transcendent value that makes us more valuable than anything else in the universe. This is why theistic morality is so much more rigorous than its materialistic counterparts. On materialism, a human being is no more significant than the dirt they stand on.

On the other hand, if one has some intuition that morals obtain from an “isn’t”, an imagined supernatural deity, how strong would that be?

Talk about a loaded question!

As it turns out, actually, still pretty strong, because the reality of human biology is a safety net, the facts of human biology provide a “box” that governs and limits human morality, so even wild superstitions can and do fall back on basic human impulses, and are “humanized” by their underlying biology. But the superstitious part itself is “oughts” from an “isn’t”.

Your “oughts” either derive from an “is”, or else they derive from an “isn’t”. Which is it?

A false dichotomy. Some of my “oughts” can be found through reason alone. Others are acquired by revelation. Again, a comparison of Christian morality to its atheist counterparts provides an ample illustration of the higher (higher meaning farther ranging and more demanding) order of the Christian worldview.

Why not? As above, I’m not hung on the terms, and happy to call it “moral relativism” if that’s more effective, but here we have real, objective, universal grounding for values, located in humans. How could that be more absolute?

I cannot think of a charitable way to point out the inherent absurdity of calling “moral relativism” absolute and objective, so there it is.

Though it is an objective description of the behaviors that preserve society and the species, it provides no objective reason that the species or society should be preserved. So while it can say we “ought” to do things if we want to survive, it cannot say that we “ought” to survive in the first place. We are just a product of the universe, and the universe is indifferent. Here’s an exercise in materialistic morality: Try talking a man down from a ledge with talk about biological imperatives!

Yes, and this is far more congenial to my understanding of human morality’s grounding than yours. This is part of human nature. It’s also part of “chimpanzee nature”, despite all the substantial differences human morality has from chimpanzee morality. This is biology at work, your physical nature grounding and informing your priorities and choices.

I think it’s quite the opposite. Morality often flies in the face of human nature. This entire statement seems particularly incongruous to me, but it is also rather vague.

A “cheater”, someone who has learned or chosen to gain the system, still proves the case. He or she relies on the efficacy and ubiquity of the very thing you doubt in order to operate as they do: social trust and collaboration. In order for cheaters to profit, there must be social trust, empathy and reciprocal understandings that can be violated for gain. If there was not such a context for cheating, the base substrate of social interactions we derive from our biology as gregarious creatures, the cheaters, the anti-social exploiters wouldn’t have anything to cheat.

I doubt the existence of social trust and collaboration? :whacky: Your entire argument seems to be based on a complete misconstruction of my perspectives. I don’t deny the existence of these things. I merely believe they are a substrate of a higher order.

Nature is a game of numbers and statistics and probabilities. If everyone cheated or avoid acting altruistically or eschewed social trust, society would collapse and survival of the species would be jeopardized (or at least the tribe!). Societies profit from establishing so much gains in efficiency from highly trusting and empathic social arrangements that opportunities abound on the margins for the cheaters.

This is simply common sense. It still has nothing to do with the existence of a higher order/purpose to our existence and, thus, a greater degree of moral obligation than mere biological/societal maintenance requires.

 

[tonyrey]

Weak in the sense that it provides no compelling reason for someone inclined to the contrary to adhere to its declarations. Again, it is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Theistic morality assigns each individual with an intrinsic, transcendent value that makes us more valuable than anything else in the universe. This is why theistic morality is so much more rigorous than its materialistic counterparts. On materialism, a human being is no more significant than the dirt they stand on.

Talk about a loaded question!

A false dichotomy. Some of my “oughts” can be found through reason alone. Others are acquired by revelation. Again, a comparison of Christian morality to its atheist counterparts provides an ample illustration of the higher (higher meaning farther ranging and more demanding) order of the Christian worldview.
I cannot think of a charitable way to point out the inherent absurdity of calling “moral relativism” absolute and objective, so there it is.

Though it is an objective description of the behaviors that preserve society and the species, it provides no objective reason that the species or society should be preserved. So while it can say we “ought” to do things if we want to survive, it cannot say that we “ought” to survive in the first place. We are just a product of the universe, and the universe is indifferent. Here’s an exercise in materialistic morality: Try talking a man down from a ledge with talk about biological imperatives!

I think it’s quite the opposite. Morality often flies in the face of human nature. This entire statement seems particularly incongruous to me, but it is also rather vague.

I doubt the existence of social trust and collaboration? :whacky: Your entire argument seems to be based on a complete misconstruction of my perspectives. I don’t deny the existence of these things. I merely believe they are a substrate of a higher order.

This is simply common sense. It still has nothing to do with the existence of a higher order/purpose to our existence and, thus, a greater degree of moral obligation than mere biological/societal maintenance requires.

This post and your previous one have been unjustly neglected - because they are convincing!

 

[Viviphilia]

Theistic morality assigns each individual with an intrinsic, transcendent value that makes us more valuable than anything else in the universe. This is why theistic morality is so much more rigorous than its materialistic counterparts.

The reason why theistic morality is not rigorous is because it requires a belief in a deity. While that certainly does work for a lot of people, there are also a lot of people who find the idea of a deity to be difficult to believe.

Though it is an objective description of the behaviors that preserve society and the species, it provides no objective reason that the species or society should be preserved.

The foundational premise of Humanism is the tautology that “Human existence is morally good.” If there were no Human existence, there would be no morality, therefore Human existence is required for moral goodness. If Human existence were a moral evil, then we should eliminate ourselves, which is a contradiction. Obviously, the Human species and our civilization should be preserved because they are moral goods. We should do the things which are conducive to continuation of Human existence.

 

[tonyrey]

The reason why theistic morality is not rigorous is because it requires a belief in a deity. While that certainly does work for a lot of people, there are also a lot of people who find the idea of a deity to be difficult to believe.

The foundational premise of Humanism is the tautology that “Human existence is morally good.” If there were no Human existence, there would be no morality, therefore Human existence is required for moral goodness. If Human existence were a moral evil, then we should eliminate ourselves, which is a contradiction. Obviously, the Human species and our civilization should be preserved because they are moral goods. We should do the things which are conducive to continuation of Human existence.

The fatal flaw in Humanism is that it arbitrarily selects one species (one’s own of course) to be the sole basis of morality. Man is exalted as the measure of all things. If any ethical view is anthropomorphic we need look no further…

Theism - Humanism - Nationalism - Tribalism - Nepotism - Egoism - Nihilism

There are only two logical positions on this slippery slope : the first and the last.

Take your pick!

 

[prodigalson2011]

The reason why theistic morality is not rigorous is because it requires a belief in a deity. While that certainly does work for a lot of people, there are also a lot of people who find the idea of a deity to be difficult to believe.

I’m not sure what you mean by “rigorous”, but most moral codes prescribed by religion are notoriously demanding. In fact, it is these very moral systems that causes many to reject religion, most commonly the restraints it imposes on human sexual behavior. It’s funny how often even the most acclaimed anti-religious voices in our society illustrate the point. Sam Harris, Dawkins, etc. have all voiced their distaste for the sexual prohibitions of Judeo-Christian morality. In essence, they are, on this point at least, like a child who now “hates” his mother because she wouldn’t give him cookies when he wanted them.

But, anyway, to get back to the point at hand, it seems that you are saying that the existence of God, and thus the basis of that morality, has not been “rigorously” demonstrated (an argument which I would challenge, mind you.) This is not what I’m talking about.

The foundational premise of Humanism is the tautology that “Human existence is morally good.” If there were no Human existence, there would be no morality, therefore Human existence is required for moral goodness. If Human existence were a moral evil, then we should eliminate ourselves, which is a contradiction. Obviously, the Human species and our civilization should be preserved because they are moral goods. We should do the things which are conducive to continuation of Human existence.

Founding your philosophy on a logical fallacy is never a good idea. This begs so many questions I don’t know where to begin. I guess the first would be how do you judge the value of existent morality vs. human suffering? Etc., etc., etc. I have a friend (an agnostic) who makes a rather compelling case that the most moral thing a person could do would be to wipe us out and thus end the violence and suffering that both we and nature inflict upon us. The argument can quite simply be reduced to the following sentiment: If there is no God or ultimate justice in the universe, the suffering of a single human being outweighs all the good in the world. The balance is immediately shifted in favor of evil. Morality, on materialism, is just a psychological defense mechanism to help people sleep at night and look at themselves in the mirror in the morning. The truly honest and compassionate response to such an unjust world is to get rid of it. I respect that argument because it is honest about the consequences of its premises.

 

[prodigalson2011]

The fatal flaw in Humanism is that it arbitrarily selects one species (one’s own of course) to be the sole basis of morality. Man is exalted as the measure of all things. If any ethical view is anthropomorphic we need look no further…

Theism - Humanism - Nationalism - Tribalism - Nepotism - Egoism - Nihilism

There are only two logical positions on this slippery slope : the first and the last.

Take your pick!

So true. Speaking from my own experiences of both myself and many friends and associates, I have found it to be true that materialism DOES necessarily lead to nihilism. It just also typically leads to denial.

 

[tonyrey]

So true. Speaking from my own experiences of both myself and many friends and associates, I have found it to be true that materialism DOES necessarily lead to nihilism. It just also typically leads to denial.

Then we come to the denial that it is denial! The mind is derived from matter (the brain to be precise) and somehow or other it becomes capable of understanding that it is derived from matter. To my **mind **it’s a circular argument without any rational basis whatsoever… but that’s easily explained by the fact that my mind is like everyone else’s: it’s just an atomic merry-go-round on which we whirl faster and faster until we’re so dizzy we actually imagine we can understand things…

The trouble is that not only do we succeed in getting nowhere at great speed we’re very likely to fall off and come to grief at any moment… but what more can we expect in a crazy world that has just popped up for no reason or purpose?

It’s all very neat and tidy from the **strictly **neuroscientific point of view. That’s all that matters! (You understand, of course, that matter is all that matters.

 

[Sair]

Are you really unable to appreciate the superior insight and power of the human mind to such an extent that you are convinced that a person’s thoughts, choices and decisions are not an explanation for anything? Try telling that to a judge and jury if you or some one else is faced with a criminal charge…

You stated, in the post to which I responded, that God, as a person, was simpler than any alternative explanation for any given natural phenomenon. Here you are implicitly denying that personhood is simple.

Human thoughts, choices and decisions do provide part of the explanation for any outcomes over which they exercise influence. But they are, in their turn, pheonmena that require explanation - just like the “simple” personhood of your god requires explanation, although you and many other believers deny this is the case.

 

[inocente]

Then we come to the denial that it is denial! The mind is derived from matter (the brain to be precise) and somehow or other it becomes capable of understanding that it is derived from matter. To my **mind **it’s a circular argument without any rational basis whatsoever… but that’s easily explained by the fact that my mind is like everyone else’s: it’s just an atomic merry-go-round on which we whirl faster and faster until we’re so dizzy we actually imagine we can understand things…

The trouble is that not only do we succeed in getting nowhere at great speed we’re very likely to fall off and come to grief at any moment… but what more can we expect in a crazy world that has just popped up for no reason or purpose?

It’s all very neat and tidy from the **strictly **neuroscientific point of view. That’s all that matters! (You understand, of course, that matter is all that matters.

Things must be bad if you’re reduced to mockery. Look around, only a minority of people think the mind is a disembodied animist spirit, and the number is dwindling daily, down to the size of the flat earth society. You’re on a sinking ship buddy.

:newidea: You could try understanding what’s being said instead of inventing straw men. Just an idea.

 

[tonyrey]

Look around, only a minority of people think the mind is a disembodied animist spirit, and the number is dwindling daily, down to the size of the flat earth society.

Non sequitur.

1. Belief in “a disembodied animist spirit” is not the **sole **alternative to materialism.
2. Christians believe God made man in His image and likeness.
3. "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” John 4:24
4. Therefore man has a **spiritual **as well as a physical nature.
5. Those who believe neuroscience can explain all man’s activity are not Christians.