Brain, Mind & Neuroscience

[Viviphilia]

It makes perfect sense scientifically.

Materialism holds that matter, or physicality, is all that “is.”

The law of entropy requires that all matter, energy (which interconverts with matter via E = mc[sup]2[/sup]) and therefore physicality, runs down toward final heat death.

Therefore, matter and physicality can lead only to nothingness.

ICXC NIKA

The fate of the universe is far from settled. And even if heat death were a certain outcome, it’s absurd to equate that with nihilism. The fate of the unvierse has no bearing whatsoever on our daily lives or our ethics or anything else except being an interesting bit of trivia.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Yet this approach is problematic in itself.

Firstly, I would agree that the major perceived problem with any naturalistic conception of morality is that there just doesn’t seem to be a big enough stick to make people comply with the “rules” - certainly not when we live in a society that, at present at least, privileges the rights and interests of the individual over most other concerns. The carrot of individual reward, over the more pedestrian parsnip of general social harmony and the quiet personal rewards of altruism, is just too big and glamorous in its contemporary capitalist presentation. That has, certainly in my experience, been the core objection to a denial of “objective” morality imposed by a higher being.

Self-interest is the obvious choice for most who inhabit a world with no purpose. It is no coincidence that these interests become more prevalent as society becomes more secularized. It is important to note that most secularists were raised in a Christian environment and thus have had Christian values instilled in them. As we are seeing, the further detached from the source each generation becomes, the more those values erode.

Consider the results of this “moral survey”:

Moral Values of Theists vs. Atheists

Value Theists Atheists
Honesty 94% 89%
Kindness 88 75
Family life 88 65
Being loved 86 70
Friendship 85 74
Courtesy 81 71
Concern for others 82 63
Forgiveness 84 52
Politeness 77 65
Friendliness 79 66
Patience 72 39
Generosity 67 37

But the fact that some people evidently require external reasons to behave morally is not a reason to suppose it’s actually true that there exists a supernatural law-giver, one who will reward and punish as individual human behaviour dictates.

Nowhere did I make this argument. It seems to be a favorite canard of materialists.

Furthermore, I hardly need to elaborate upon the consequences of considering humans to be metaphysically special. It’s not just other species that have historically borne - and are currently bearing - the burden of human arrogance and our presently obsessive individualism; if the response to the carbon tax that has just come into effect in Australia is any indication, humans in general are not only prepared to disregard the interests of other sentient beings, but also of future generations of humans who will have to live with the consequences of our present behaviours. Perhaps what we really need is a swift injection of humility…

An expected outcome of a worldview that says this world and all the life within it is only temporary. Considering humans metaphysically special does not, on a Christian worldview, entail the “consequences” you suggest. We are called to be stewards of the Earth and all the life thereupon. It is, instead, man’s desire to play God, deeming him absent, that leads to the abuses of which you speak.

 

[prodigalson2011]

On closer examination, the problem most public atheists really have with religiously-imposed sexual restriction is firstly that it tends to represent the human body as debased, fallen, unworthy, or any other derogatory adjective you might fancy. The prohibition of certain sexual activities is all too often imposed by the inculcation of the idea that the body and its attendant instincts are something of which we ought to be ashamed, rather than things we should respect and celebrate. That may not be the theory, but it certainly has been the practice in the experience of many who have grown up in religious families.

A completely fabricated argument. The Catholic Church has never taught any of these things. Instead it teaches that the body and its sexuality are good, beautiful and sacred and that it must thus be treated accordingly. Man-made aberrations from this teaching have no bearing on the truth and consistency of the Church’s position.

Regardless, consider the alternative: sexual “liberation” has brought nothing but a dramatic increase in STDs, abortions, out-of-wedlock births, family instability and a general confusion and dissatisfaction in male/female relationships most clearly illustrated by the decay of marriage and the prevalence of divorce. I daresay a little bit of shame is more healthy than AIDs, dead babies and children without parents or stable families.

In addition, it’s almost ridiculously easy to connect any supposed religiously-derived sexual restrictions with man-made social restrictions, especially upon female sexuality. The perceived imperative of male paternal certainty has historically been the prime consideration in this regard. And that doesn’t even touch upon the failure of the restrictions in question to recognise different individual needs, even when it comes to something as fundamental to an individual personality as hetero- or homosexual inclination.

Christian teaching regarding sexuality places equal burden upon both genders. Again, you give the lie to your argument by placing secular thought on religion’s pedestal. You are proving my point instead of your own. The debate about “sexual identity” in terms of orientation is one I don’t have time to get into at the moment, save to say that the entire idea is an altogether modern one. Inclinations and desires are not a good basis for self-identity.

To borrow your analogy, the resentment of the child who was denied cookies would be all too understandable if the reasons given for the denial were that some people ate too many cookies and got fat, and therefore ought to be ashamed of themselves; while others were gluten intolerant or allergic to chocolate, or just didn’t particularly like cookies, or didn’t like the right kinds of cookies - therefore everyone must be denied access to cookies unless granted permission by the authorities, because, goodness knows, no-one is able to take a sensible, moderate approach to eating them…

The reason most likely to be given a child is that food such as cookies are to be enjoyed at a particular time and in a particular amount, such as one or two after dinner. To borrow someone’s else’s analogy, sex is like fire: in the proper place and context it can be very good: in a fireplace or a woodburner, etc. Giving one license to set a fire wherever he wishes is a recipe for disaster.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Actually, the genuinely compassionate response is to try to increase the total levels of happiness and well-being in the world. The options are not just theism or suicide. Though it has to be said, these are, in principle, easier than the ideal, just because they don’t demand that we work at improving life for ourselves and others while we last.

And what is happiness? Good health? It’s temporary and subject to deterioration at any moment. Adequate food and shelter? These things only preserve the body, not the mind or the soul. It’s been said a million times, but the fact that the most secular countries experience the highest rates of suicide speaks for itself. Material well-being for all, while it should and indeed must be worked towards, is not enough. A man does not live by bread alone. We are not mere animals who can be lulled to sleep with enough food and petting.

Theism, at least Judeo-Christian theism, demands that we work at improving life for ourselves and others while we last. This is the overarching theme of the Bible. I don’t know where you come up with this stuff. The Catholic Church is the single largest charitable organization in the world, and religious people tend to volunteer and give more to charity than those who are not.

 

[tonyrey]

A completely fabricated argument. The Catholic Church has never taught any of these things. Instead it teaches that the body and its sexuality are good, beautiful and sacred and that it must thus be treated accordingly. Man-made aberrations from this teaching have no bearing on the truth and consistency of the Church’s position.

Regardless, consider the alternative: sexual “liberation” has brought nothing but a dramatic increase in STDs, abortions, out-of-wedlock births, family instability and a general confusion and dissatisfaction in male/female relationships most clearly illustrated by the decay of marriage and the prevalence of divorce. I daresay a little bit of shame is more healthy than AIDs, dead babies and children without parents or stable families.

Christian teaching regarding sexuality places equal burden upon both genders. Again, you give the lie to your argument by placing secular thought on religion’s pedestal. You are proving my point instead of your own. The debate about “sexual identity” in terms of orientation is one I don’t have time to get into at the moment, save to say that the entire idea is an altogether modern one. Inclinations and desires are not a good basis for self-identity.

The reason most likely to be given a child is that food such as cookies are to be enjoyed at a particular time and in a particular amount, such as one or two after dinner. To borrow someone’s else’s analogy, sex is like fire: in the proper place and context it can be very good: in a fireplace or a woodburner, etc. Giving one license to set a fire wherever he wishes is a recipe for disaster.

Concise and conclusive!

 

[levinas12]

Actually, the genuinely compassionate response is to try to increase the total levels of happiness and well-being in the world.

Ah, but what is happiness or well-being for a human being?

Not just food, shelter and clothing. And not just a TV set or a cell-phone or even an antibiotic.

Even if all of our animal needs were taken care of, we would still be unsatisfied.

Nietzsche was quite right. Humans are a strange breed.

 

[tonyrey]

Ah, but what is happiness or well-being for a human being?

Not just food, shelter and clothing. And not just a TV set or a cell-phone or even an antibiotic.

Even if all of our animal needs were taken care of, we would still be unsatisfied.

Nietzsche was quite right. Humans are a strange breed.

So strange that some of them are convinced they are subatomic particles merrily participating in a purposeless pantomime!

 

[davidchatman]

I had many tough situation during my neuroscience graduation. The most difficult part was dissertation in neuroscience. Somehow I had managed to pass the course which is still a mysterious thing for me and my friends. Normally this subject is difficult to handle with. You need some luck factor.