Problems w/ Atheism

[josie_L]

I’m not sure what you mean by “moral feedback”.

Individuals who live and work in groups are dependent on the group for their well-being. Therefore, it’s in a social creature’s best interest to care about the well-being of its fellow group members, because the individual’s well-being is tied to the well-being of the group and the other individuals who make it up. Natural selection takes care of the rest.

How would they know that not killing a person was not good for the well-being of the group members, in fact, what if there are positive results in doing so? For example, I kill someone because I think he’s not doing enough for the group or I think he’s going to take away the food that I need to survive (he’s old and/or sick why should I care for him if morality is based simply on the wants and survival needs of the group). What would stop me from viewing this as a “moral” obligation? And why would the other members disagree with me if as you say conscience was nothing more than group survival?

Think of what the Spartans did to babies who were weak and therefore unfit for survival, i.e., they would be a hindrance to their society.

p.s. By moral feedback I mean they could not know that something was wrong if they did not have a conscience that preceded the action to tell them otherwise.

 

[josie_L]

I think that’s an oversimplification. There is no evidence to suggest our conscience is derived from supernatural sources. Even if there’s an indication certain character traits are biological (i.e. survival instinct, fear response, etc.) all the evidence we have suggests it’s evolutionary.

We’re not arguing that it’s derived from supernatural sources, we are simply stating that the approach taken to understand conscience through material forces fails to deliver an adequate response to the way people think and act.

 

[srferdave]

I think that’s an oversimplification. There is no evidence to suggest our conscience is derived from supernatural sources. Even if there’s an indication certain character traits are biological (i.e. survival instinct, fear response, etc.) all the evidence we have suggests it’s evolutionary.

I beg to differ. What evidence is there that suggest our conscience was developed through evolution? What makes you think that the way one sensed what is right and what is wrong is any different 10,000 years ago than the way one senses what is right and wrong today?

 

[yankee_doodle]

I beg to differ. What evidence is there that suggest our conscience was developed through evolution? What makes you think that the way one sensed what is right and what is wrong is any different 10,000 years ago than the way one senses what is right and wrong today?

Do you deny that some people are “genetically predisposed” toward certain behavior? For instance, many (if not most) mental illnesses are born from brain chemistry. Moreover, we know other species have a rudimentary sense of conscience.

Children share a sense of guilt because they fear loss of love (and abandonment) and because of social anxiety. Conscience arises from guilt (not vice versa). Therefore, the weight of evidence supports the view that our conscience is mostly learned behavior (with perhaps some genetic and biological components).

There is no credible data from the psychological community suggesting a supernatural source for the human conscience (all the evidence suggests this is not true) .

 

[yankee_doodle]

We’re not arguing that it’s derived from supernatural sources, we are simply stating that the approach taken to understand conscience through material forces fails to deliver an adequate response to the way people think and act.

in what way? It sounds like you’re saying since we don’t fully understand the human conscience (and subconscious) … therefore god (an argument from incredulity).

 

[srferdave]

Do you deny that some people are “genetically predisposed” toward certain behavior? For instance, many (if not most) mental illnesses are born from brain chemistry.

How is this evidence that our ancestors were any different than we are today. Because it could be related to brain chemistry means it is evolutionary??? I don’t buy that.

Moreover, we know other species have a rudimentary sense of conscience.

Where is the evidence for this?

Children share a sense of guilt because they fear loss of love (and abandonment) and because of social anxiety.

This is not guilt. Guilt is a feeling of remorse towards an action that one took. A child being fearful because of an action the child took does not mean the child feels remorse.

Conscience arises from guilt (not vice versa). Therefore, the weight of evidence supports the view that our conscience is mostly learned behavior (with perhaps some genetic and biological components).

Wrong. Our guilt does arise from our conscience. If I feel that something is wrong and I do it anyways I will feel guilty. You can’t say that I feel guilty, therefore, my conscience says its wrong.

 

[josie_L]

Do you deny that some people are “genetically predisposed” toward certain behavior? For instance, many (if not most) mental illnesses are born from brain chemistry. Moreover, we know other species have a rudimentary sense of conscience.

Children share a sense of guilt because they fear loss of love (and abandonment) and because of social anxiety. Conscience arises from guilt (not vice versa). It’s anxiety and the immediate expression of fear of an external authority. In other words our conscience is mostly learned behavior (with perhaps some genetic components).

There is no credible data from the psychological community suggesting a supernatural source for the human conscience (all the evidence suggests this is not true) .

Are people genetically predisposed to hate, racism, lies, stealing . . etc.? And if conscience arises from guilt where does guilt come from (don’t you first need a conscience to experience guilt)? And how can our ancestors who knew nothing of right or wrong grow a conscience from group survival/interaction? Why if animals have evolved like us are we so different compared to them?

 

[yankee_doodle]

Are people genetically predisposed to hate, racism, lies, stealing . . etc.?

Without being a genetic expert, I think you’re being too specific in your question. Some people do have a biological predisposition (genetic, prenatal, or whatever) towards certain behavior (be it compulsive, violent, etc). I suppose these defects can manifest in a variety of ways (though I’m also pretty sure biology isn’t always responsible for deviant conduct).

And if conscience arises from guilt where does guilt come from (don’t you first need a conscience to experience guilt)?

guilt is learned behavior (we even see these “secondary emotions” – long thought to require a complex cognitive process – in other mammals, like dogs).

In other words it’s a conditioned response to certain external stimuli.

And how can our ancestors who knew nothing of right or wrong grow a conscience from group survival/interaction?

the same way anyone or any group learns anything else.

Why if animals have evolved like us are we so different compared to them?

brain size!

 

[josie_L]

**the inference of theists is the evil actions of men like Stalin was informed by their atheism. **If this isn’t the implication then why would theists continually raise this same old argument in debates with atheists?

One could say the same about atheists who raise such arguments against Christians.

No one denies the church helped defeat Soviet communism, but that’s not what you were referring to in your past remarks (be honest and don’t ask me to dig up your old posts … like every other theist you were saying: 1) Staling and Pol Pot were atheists, 2) Stalin and Pol Pot were bad, therefore 3) atheism must be bad).

No, my arguments were never that simplistic, rather I stated that people like Stalin and Pol Pot were men who enforced their views without fear of everlasting retribution (they made themselves into gods). I therefore think that their atheist beliefs exacerbated an already faulty and ill-conceived philosophy (which was purposely created to be antagonistic towards traditional institutions and religious thought). Remember, communism was conceived at a time when religion was being relegated to the wayside leaving a gap that philosophers sought to fill with ideas opposed for the most part to theism.

glad to. Take the categorical imperative of Kant; and his associated philosophy on morality. Kant (as becomes evident when you study him) did not believe in the supernatural elements of any religion, but he believed in morality and explained how to define good and evil better than perhaps anyone in history (this includes the bible).

From Kant we derive ideas like universal good (and how to define it), the importance of duty, and so on. His philosophy gives us a utilitarian framework through which we can examine our own behavior and the behavior of others (whether other people, states, companies, or whatever).

There are countless things (potential wrongs) the bible didn’t foresee. It didn’t provide a sufficiently flexible framework that can be applied in every case. Sometimes rules like love your neighbor or prohibitions against theft and murder are too simplistic to guide us through complex problems.

The bible provides a good basic set of fundamental rules, but governance, economics, and so on … need a more robust moral framework to operate properly.

As a Catholic I do not believe that the Bible is the pillar and foundation of truth but rather the Church therefore I can state with assurety that all the problems for which you state the Bible does not foresee is delineated by the Church (she has almost a 2000 year head start in that regard to Kant).

p.s. I have not finished replying to your post, therefore, please be patient. God bless.

 

[srferdave]

Without being a genetic expert, I think you’re being too specific in your question. Some people do have a biological predisposition (genetic, prenatal, or whatever) towards certain behavior (be it compulsive, violent, etc). I suppose these defects can manifest in a variety of ways (though I’m also pretty sure biology isn’t always responsible for deviant conduct).

Then what is???
Answer: Our own free will.

guilt is learned behavior (we even see these “secondary emotions” – long thought to require a complex cognitive process – in other mammals, like dogs).

In other words it’s a conditioned response to certain external stimuli.

Long thought does not mean a dog has a conscience.

Do you think a dog feels guilt???

 

[yankee_doodle]

How is this evidence that our ancestors were any different than we are today. Because it could be related to brain chemistry means it is evolutionary??? I don’t buy that.

behavioral genetics is a distinct scientific field (and there is empirical evidence supporting it).

Where is the evidence for this?

there’s been tons of work done on animal emotions (Google it and you’ll find plenty)

This is not guilt. Guilt is a feeling of remorse towards an action that one took. A child being fearful because of an action the child took does not mean the child feels remorse.

guilt can also be remorse for a thought we believe to be “bad.” It’s a conditioned response.

If it were a divinely imputed state of mind … why wouldn’t the “consciousness” of a child be roughly equivalent to that of adults? The simple answer is because our conscience is something that develops as we grow (and there’s not a drop of evidence to suggest it comes from an external source).

 

[yankee_doodle]

One could say the same about atheists who raise such arguments against Christians.

they could, but saying for instance the church is bad because its leadership turned a blind eye to child sexual abuse, is different than saying religion inherently causes pedophilia among clergymen.

The latter would obviously be a false cause fallacy (like the fallacious nexus theists draw between Stalin / Pol Pot & atheism).

 

[srferdave]

behavioral genetics is a distinct scientific field (and there is empirical evidence supporting it).

You didn’t answer the question.

there’s been tons of work done on animal emotions (Google it and you’ll find plenty)

Even if there was, the fact that an animal has emotions does not mean they have a conscience.

guilt can also be remorse for a thought we believe to be “bad.” It’s a conditioned response.

If it were a divinely imputed state of mind … why wouldn’t the “consciousness” of a child be roughly equivalent to that of adults? The simple answer is because our conscience is something that develops (and there’s not a drop of evidence to suggest it comes from an external source).

We can form our conscience with knowledge. I don’t disagree with that. But the fact that our conscience was produced through evolution is ridiculous.

 

[srferdave]

they could, but saying for instance the church is bad because its leadership turned a blind eye to child sexual abuse, is different than saying religion inherently causes pedophilia among clergymen.

The latter would obviously be a false cause fallacy (like the fallacious nexus theists draw between Stalin / Pol Pot & atheism).

2 things…

You can’t say the Church as a whole is bad for the actions a small percentage of the whole.

As an atheist, you can’t say anything is “bad”, because you say that is subjective. Am I wrong?

 

[yankee_doodle]

You didn’t answer the question.

the answer to your question is our brain development is influenced by a variety of factors, genetics being one of them.

Even if there was, the fact that an animal has emotions does not mean they have a conscience.

I didn’t say consciousness I said guilt. However, the prerequisite of guilt is knowledge that doing or thinking certain things are wrong. So in a our sense consciousness is simply an awareness that certain behavior is wrongful.

We can form our conscience with knowledge. I don’t disagree with that. But the fact that our conscience was produced through evolution is ridiculous.

first, here’s what I said that elicited this line of questioning

yankee_doodle:

I think that’s an oversimplification. There is no evidence to suggest our conscience is derived from supernatural sources. Even if there’s an indication certain character traits are biological (i.e. survival instinct, fear response, etc.) all the evidence we have suggests it’s evolutionary.

I didn’t exactly assert that conscience is an evolutionary development. I was trying to ward off your implication that we’re somehow “pre-programmed” to have a conscience (a back door intelligent design argument), but maybe I read too much into your response?

srferdave:

It is not always in an individuals best interest to care about the well-being of its fellow members in a society. What then?? What is it, in us, that is telling us what is right and wrong. That, my friend, is your conscience.

Let me clarify … I believe our conscience is formed primarily by our intellectual development, although brain chemistry can play a role in influencing how we develop (and abnormalities can either be genetic or biological).

 

[yankee_doodle]

2 things…

You can’t say the Church as a whole is bad for the actions a small percentage of the whole.

here’s an analogy. If ACME Co. were caught dumping chemicals into a river that was found to have caused thousands of cancer deaths, we could logically say it wasn’t the whole company, but just a few bad apples at a local plant who caused all this harm.

However, if we find out most of its leadership either had direct knowledge of these actions, or knew this is how ACME Co. operates, then I think it would be clearly proper to view the entire organization as “bad.”

To go one step further if we discover after further investigation this wasn’t an anomaly confined to a single plant, but illegal dumping was occurring at multiple ACME Co. plants throughout the world … what would most reasonable people think about ACME Co.?

As an atheist, you can’t say anything is “bad”, because you say that is subjective. Am I wrong?

no … that’s not right. Atheism doesn’t follow the beat of a single drum on any issue (let alone the philosophy of morals).

 

[srferdave]

here’s an analogy. If GE were caught dumping chemicals into a river that was found to have caused thousands of cancer deaths, we could logically say it wasn’t the whole company, but just a few bad apples at a local plant who caused all this harm.

However, if we find out most of its leadership either had direct knowledge of these actions, or knew this is how GE operates, then I think it would be clearly proper to view the entire organization as “bad.”

I agree. But the leader of the Church did not have direct knowledge of what happened nor did it condone it.

no … that’s not right. Atheism doesn’t follow a single drum beat on any issue (let alone the philosophy of morals).

Exactly. So how can you say anything is “bad” (as if it is fact)?

 

[yankee_doodle]

I agree. But the leader of the Church did not have direct knowledge of what happened nor did it condone it.

from my understanding that’s debatable (I think the sitting Pope Benedict was aware of this scandal long before it became public). However, even assuming he wasn’t aware of it – imagine if half of CEO John Smith’s senior managers knew about the illegal dumping but Smith was oblivious to it.

Wouldn’t we think Smith was incompetent? So whether we view ACME Co. as reckless, criminal, or merely incompetent … would that matter very much in terms of our confidence in the company?

Exactly. So how can you say anything is “bad” (as if it is fact)?

learned behavior

 

[AntiTheist]

But those value judgments are meaningless if there is no objective wrong and right, that is, your statements have no more validity than mine according to your worldview.

My value judgments have meaning and validity for me because they are statements of what I personally value.

When I see a guy on the streets pushing someone, I might automatically think, “What a jerk!” I’m sure he sees the situation differently, but it’s irrelevant to the fact that I make a value judgment about his behavior.

It’s totally irrelevant that neither one of us is objectively “right” – I still feel the way I feel, and I would bet that a lot of people would agree with me.

I’m not telling you that your god is objectively a “monster” – I’m telling you that I personally find his values monstrous and that I have a hard time conceiving of a normal, healthy person who considers some of these ideas just (particularly passing on blame to the descendents of a criminal – could you imagine your reaction if some earthly dictator did that? Punished the family of a criminal?)

why do we feel compelled to follow our conscience as human beings? Where did we get conscience from?

What we call our “conscience” gets a lot of its influence from biology, from early training that gets internalized, and probably other sources that we’re not aware of yet. There’s nothing that indicates that our conscience is magic.

It’s curious that the arguments coming from the believers are now in the form of, “Oh yeah? Our god values blood and torture and sacrifice and passing guilt onto people who don’t deserve it? Well, who are you to judge him? He decides what’s good and evil!”

 

[srferdave]

It’s curious that the arguments coming from the believers are now in the form of, “Oh yeah? Our god values blood and torture and sacrifice and passing guilt onto people who don’t deserve it? Well, who are you to judge him? He decides what’s good and evil!”

Talk about pulling things out of a magic hat… Where did this come from???