If there were no God

[AlNg]

AI

AI can simulate some conscious states, but I am not sure that this proves that the machine is conscious. Would the machine be able to sit on a jury and decide whether or not meeting with a Russian ambassador and discussing political or economic issues such as the European pipeline or Hillary’s emails on the Clinton uranium deal- whether or not that constituted illegal collusion with a foreign entity?
More generally, can you tell us how you would reconcile the fact that a conscious being can control what he does with the physics principle of deterministic causality and deterministic laws of forces ?

Consciousness developed via evolution

But if evolution creates complex systems out of pre-existing properties, would that not imply panpsychism or Krishna consciousness is a part of all physical matter? But that does not seem right because I haven’t heard of lab experiments which are able to detect Krishna consciousness in inanimate objects.

 

[Theban]

If you look at life from a modern viewpoint then eugenics is immoral. But that’s because we CAN look after grandma these days and not doing so exhibits a selfishness that people might find less than ideal.

I don’t understand. I thought the ideal level of selfishness was whatever benefits your survival and the survival of your tribe. Why is killing off those who cannot contribute to either of these and use the resources that would be given to them to your own and society’s advantage less than ideal?

If you start applying evolutionary psychology in an attempt to work out why we act as we do, it’s always a good idea to think about how these actions affected us back when life was a lot more black and white.

How come we didn’t evolve to stop being affected by that kind of situations though? It seems to me that if people were so greatly affected by this that we evolved to value useless people beyond our own wealth and comfort, many tribes wouldn’t be able to go through with it and have an evolutionary disadvantage. Wouldn’t it make sense to evolve some kind of disgust for old people and the handicapped, similar to the disgust we feel for diseases and disease-carriers?

Also, if you look at the historical records for how leppers and the insane were viewed by society until fairly recently, you will find that most people weren’t bothered at all with the way they treated them, yet we frown upon their actions today.

 

[PickyPicky]

I find the “well, they’re only animals” argument deeply distasteful.

We know sentient species feel pain. We know it is a sensation they very intensely dislike. How could one design a universe in which millions of creatures must, in order to survive, hunt and kill, inflicting terrible pain, then eat, millions of other creatures.

There has to be a better answer to that than “well, they’re only animals”. There has to be a better answer … but I haven’t come across it.

 

[Bradskii]

We didn’t leave Grandma all on her ownsome if there was milk and honey and fatted calves to hand. It was a practical consideration. IF there was not enough food to go around then gran got left behind. Likewise the newborn. Or the lame. Or the sick. That’s how we survived.

But now there is milk and honey in the fridge and bits of fatted calf vacuum wrapped in the supermarket. And there even is a vast difference between how we were when all this was happening and current situations in third world countries. As small groups grew into societies and started to put down roots, we were (generally) better organised to avoid feast or famine scenarios. So we got used to looking after the old folk. And probably discovered that they were pretty useful as store holders of knowledge and handy to have around.

 

[Bradskii]

I find the “well, they’re only animals” argument deeply distasteful.

We know sentient species feel pain. We know it is a sensation they very intensely dislike. How could one design a universe in which millions of creatures must, in order to survive, hunt and kill, inflicting terrible pain, then eat, millions of other creatures.

There has to be a better answer to that than “well, they’re only animals”. There has to be a better answer … but I haven’t come across it.

Greater minds than us have pondered that problem, Picky. And one day, as they were sitting around the table scratching their collective heads as how to solve this conumdrum, someone jumped up and shouted ‘I’ve got it!’

And right at that moment was born the concept of original sin.

‘Look guys…the world is an awful place, right? So why don’t we say that it was originally a great place to live. A veritable garden of…’

‘Eden?’

‘Yeah, Eden. A garden of Eden. And there was no pain, no death. All the animals ate…I dunno…grass and leaves. And then Adam disobeyed God and there was…a fall! Yeah, a fall.’

‘And all the vegetarian animals started to each each other?’

‘Umm. Yeah. Think it’ll work?’

'Hey, it’s worth a shot. ’

 

[PickyPicky]

“But why should all the animals suffer just because Adam was one apple short of a tree?”

“Well, they’re only animals … “

Nope, that doesn’t work for me, either.

 

[Theban]

We didn’t leave Grandma all on her ownsome if there was milk and honey and fatted calves to hand.

Not true. Plenty of societies practiced eugenics all the time, and did have an evolutionary advantage over the rest. I’m not talking about ancient days either, the people in my own country practiced this up until a thousand years ago, when we were christened.

Greater minds than us have pondered that problem, Picky. And one day, as they were sitting around the table scratching their collective heads as how to solve this conumdrum, someone jumped up and shouted ‘I’ve got it!’

Your knowledge of theological history is staggering. If you want to criticize the story of Adam and Eve on a catholic forum I suggest you first learn what the Catholic Church teaches about what it means. Your trolling would be better suited on a fundamentalist site.

 

[Theban]

It is an interesting topic, maybe you should make thread about it. I’d say that nature is a symbol of the world; beautiful and full of wonders on the surface, but those who are enthralled by it’s allures will quickly find themselves lost in a nightmarish realm of horror and misery. Also they’re just animals.

 

[clarkgamble1]

While we know that consciousness is a supernatural property of the soul,

I think eventually, artificial intelligence researchers will find a way to make a computer conscious of itself. Will it then have a soul? If not, that means we could also have self awareness without a soul.

 

[PickyPicky]

We could just wait and ask it.

 

[Theban]

I don’t believe AI will ever amount to anything, personally. At the very best it could mimick being aware and conscious, but even that I doubt will be possible.

At any rate there is no way if knowing whether someone or something has a soul or is truly conscious, even humans. How can you prove that I am a living person writing this, and not just an advanced computer program?

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

“Behavior” and “evolutionary biology” are not synonyms.

If you think so, your educators have done you a disservice.

Evolutionary psychology would be more apt. Read anything by Cosmides and Tooby. This primer is very good:
Evolutionary Psychology Primer by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby

Thanks for the info.

I stand by my statement above that genetic behavior only looks sufficiently “scientific” if you’re not being very specific - particularly in people.

When a fetus has the genetic markers for Down Syndrome, they’ll be born with Down Syndrome every time.

When a fetus has the genetic markers common for homosexuality, they’re not always gay.

As a scientific matter, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark”. Which is a contributing factor explaining why your psychology classes and biology classes at university usually took place in different buildings.

 

[niceatheist]

The Spartans practiced a form of eugenics, and it was a popular enough notion in the 20th century, even before Hitler embraced it. Heck, here in Canada forced sterilization occurred into the 1970s.

There really isn’t an absolute moral code. Humans require rules. What those rules are have varied greatly. Slavery was seen as moral in many parts of the world, and the OT even provided rules on slavery, and yet now you’d be hard pressed to find anyone in the West that thinks slavery is a good idea.

 

[Theban]

There really isn’t an absolute moral code.

That is your opinion. I think the fact that previous immoral practices have been stopped as soon as it became possible, even though it could still be profitable, proves that humans are intrinsically moral beings.

Slavery was seen as moral in many parts of the world,

Slavery has not always been seen as immoral, but it has never been considered to be a morally good thing. Fact is that large societies could not function without slavery before automation became a staple of industry.

We still practice many forms of slavery today, as well, only we don’t call it that. Prisons are a form of slavery, as is the military, though this is voluntary in many cases. It could also be argued that those who are in debt and need to work it off are enslaved. I wouldn’t call any of these immoral, nor would most people I think.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

For instance the fact that very ill relatives most often die despite intense prayers for their healing, the fact that not many prayers of any type are actually answered as requested, the fact that,

Both of these are only problems if you presuppose that the person being healed or the prayers being answered are in the best interest of everybody. This is not necessarily the case, and therefore, given that you are incapable of know what is best given your limited scope of knowledge, you cannot hold it against God if He does not answer your prayers in teh manner you desire.

in history, thousands of believers have been brutally murdered by invading hordes of non-believers,

Why should being a believer offer us any worldly protection? You once again are making a presupposition, that this life, this particular survival, are the ultimate good. If God does exist as we understand Him, then this is imply not the case, and being murdered for the faith is far from the worst thing imaginable.

that thousands of innocent children die every year of starvation.

Yup, thousands die of starvation, while there is food aplenty that we are able to provide, and yet don’t. Either through the interference of local government, the lack of action from our governments, lack of action from the general populous, etc. You are blaming God for, mostly, the problems we create ourselves.

Seems to me that if there were no God all these things could easily be explained as natural occurrences due to the world we live in.**

If God does exist then they are explained as the natural occurrence of a fallen world filled with sinful people.

What you are dealing with is known as the problem of evil. It is probably the strongest argument against God’s existence; but it cannot circumvent the fact that our existence necessitates a creator. It also doesn’t address the fact that you see these things as wrong, but in order for them to be wrong there must be an objective criteria for what is write. In order for it to be wrong for a loved one to die, there must be the understanding that it is right for them to live. But then, where does this understanding come from?

 

[Bradskii]

Firstly re eugenics and examples from a thousand years ago. There is no discernable evolutionary advantage over such a miniscule amount of time.* There is definitely a societal advantage to be gained over those time periods. Think millions of years versus a handful of generations.

And re Adam and Eve: I thought it was empathy you lacked rather than a sense of humour. But maybe thay are connected in some way.

*Edit: Unless it’s something minor like a moth changing colour. But we are talking human evolution.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Vonsalza:

“Behavior” and “evolutionary biology” are not synonyms.

If you think so, your educators have done you a disservice.

Evolutionary psychology would be more apt. Read anything by Cosmides and Tooby. This primer is very good:
Evolutionary Psychology Primer by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby

Thanks for the info.

I stand by my statement above that genetic behavior only looks sufficiently “scientific” if you’re not being very specific - particularly in people.

When a fetus has the genetic markers for Down Syndrome, they’ll be born with Down Syndrome every time.

When a fetus has the genetic markers common for homosexuality, they’re not always gay.

As a scientific matter, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark”. Which is a contributing factor explaining why your psychology classes and biology classes at university usually took place in different buildings.

No arguments from me. I just find this stuff endlessly fascinating. I keep getting these ‘Aha!’ moments the more I read about it and I’m up from the table pacing about thinking - yes, that makes sense!

But I agree it’s not hard science. And there is a tendency to align new information with what you believe in the first instance. You see the fit perhaps when it’s not there. But I keep adding pieces to the jigsaw and they look like they belong. The picture just keeps getting clearer.

 

[Theban]

Firstly re eugenics and examples from a thousand years ago. There is no discernable evolutionary advantage over such a miniscule amount of time.

Yes, that’s when they stopped. So eugenics have been a part of society since forever up until a thousand years ago, in some places. Yet hardly any moral systems support it. That seems to conflict with the theory that morality is merely evolved from beneficial societal practices, no?

 

[TheOldColonel]

So, it would appear you are saying morality is subjective. At one point in evolution, it was morally neutral to abandon grandma. But over time, a new morality developed. Is that what you mean?

Only apply this same reasoning to topics such as slavery or murder and one quickly sees that error of this reasoning. Surely you are not also saying, that since morality evolves, murder or slavery were at one time morally neutral. Are you?

Surely, reason, itself, dictates that murder or slavery have always been objectively wrong unless, as I suspect, you are also going to also claim that reason, itself, is subjective and ever evolving.

 

[catholic1seeks]

As far as point 2 goes, it would be more accurate to say that pain is necessary for survival in the world that God created. He thought it was a good idea. Maybe He couldn’t think of any other way. I know I could.

The idea that there could always be a more perfect world is true. But there is no maximum perfection for finite existence (e.g., trees are good, and there could always be one more tree in a hypothetical universe with trees.)

So we start with God’s existence as an independent reality, with its own arguments and evidence. Just asserting that you could create a better world is an assertion, and it says nothing about God’s existence or his moral perfection.

But BTW, Catholic teaching regards the universe as on a state of journeying to its final perfection (in the relative sense of what God ultimately wants it to be – i.e., “New and Heaven and New Earth”).