Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And the results of these finds, as far as morality goes, suggest quite heavily that morality is at least partially determined by physiology. Since physiology varies from individual to individual, morality can also vary from individual to individual, thus making moral relativism a real concept that is valuable to include in any philosophical discussions.
And the results of these finds, as far as morality goes, suggest quite heavily that morality is at least partially determined by physiology. Since physiology varies from individual to individual, morality can also vary from individual to individual, thus making moral relativism a real concept that is valuable to include in any philosophical discussions.
I just clicked on my own links and found a problem - to get the full text of the second article, do a google search for "Study Finds Brain Injury Changes Moral Judgment" and click on the first hit.
Hopefully the original request for this information was genuine.
And the results of these finds, as far as morality goes, suggest quite heavily that morality is at least partially determined by physiology. Since physiology varies from individual to individual, morality can also vary from individual to individual, thus making moral relativism a real concept that is valuable to include in any philosophical discussions.
It almost appears that some people have concluded from a study done on SIX people that everyone else in the world has, what, emotions!
Extracts from the article referred to:
"In a new study, people with this rare injury expressed increased willingness to kill or harm another person if doing so would save others' lives.... Those with ventromedial injuries were about twice as likely as the other participants to say they would...suffocate a baby whose crying would reveal to enemy soldiers where the subject and family and friends were hiding.
“A nice way to think about it,” Dr. Damasio said, “is that we have this emotional system built in, and over the years culture has worked on it to make it even better.”
The researchers emphasize that the study was small and that the moral decisions were hypothetical; the results cannot predict how people with or without brain injuries will act in real life-or-death situations.... The new study focused on six patients..."
Emotions are not always involved in decision making, people tend to use reason and intellect for that, unless of course they're the kind who "follow the heart."
The frontal lobes are affected by the consumption of alcohol. Drunks are known to make poor moral choices, choices they probably would not have made if they had been sober.
But personally I can't conclude from that study of six people that science has discovered a physical component in the brain that is responsible for moral choices. That would take a leap of faith that I'm just not interested in making...
Then you abdicate your claim that moral relativism is off-limits to any philosophical discussion.
I am not interested in reaching the same conclusions from that study of six people that you apparently have reached.
I continue to think that it would be reasonable and prudent for atheists to conclude that God just might live after all! I suppose that would switch them from atheist to agnostic, still a 'safe' enough distance from organized religion n'est ce pas?
I am not interested in reaching the same conclusions from that study of six people that you apparently have reached.
I continue to think that it would be reasonable and prudent for atheists to conclude that God just might live after all! I suppose that would switch them from atheist to agnostic, still a 'safe' enough distance from organized religion n'est ce pas?
That was not the point you posted.
That study is just one of many. Your own example of extreme schizophrenia is yet another.
What is "reasonable" or "prudent" about "maybe god exists"? It's a bit like saying, "Maybe that sky is blue," or "maybe the ocean is wet."
Agnostics are atheists too, just athiests with a reserve card.
Any reasonable atheist understands that athiesm vs agnostism is reliant directly upon the definition of god presented. The very same person can be atheistic about the Christian god, yet agnostic about a deist type god. Atheistic about Allah, but agnostic about "nature" gods.
It all depends on whether the characteristics, motivation, and abilities of the defined god fit the available evidence. Most do not and thus it is reasonable and prudent to say, "Doesn't fit the evidence? Must be false!"
I am not interested in reaching the same conclusions from that study of six people that you apparently have reached.
I continue to think that it would be reasonable and prudent for atheists to conclude that God just might live after all! I suppose that would switch them from atheist to agnostic, still a 'safe' enough distance from organized religion n'est ce pas?
Apparently you appear to think it 'reasonable and prudent' to reject the evidence of our senses, which is that morality, conscience, codes of behaviour and the like all comes from our brain, and ascribe it to something else, invisible, and on that 'leap of faith', to dismiss any research into that because the sample is too small.
Well, there may be a point in that but you then by mental alchemy link it with the apparent only alternative which is "for atheists to conclude that God just might live after all!". And you thus hope to slip Faith in the back door by passing it off as agnosticism.
Once having got us rhetorically swindled into that - and make no mistake, what you are attempting here is a blatant and obvious rhetorical swindle - well, whether the idea is that we can no longer 'deny God' or whether we are supposed to gradually be sucked into organized Christianity, I can only say that I Have Faith that there are no atheists or agnostics out there who will be fooled by this crude snake -oil performance and maybe even believers will wonder whether any religion worthy of respect ought to stoop to such sneaky sleight of mind.
Do Atheists rely on Faith? Does Consciousness continue after Death?
Regarding the atheism vs. religion controversy, in my opinion it's all a matter of Faith - with an added dash of Prudence!
It has been my observation on the boards that Christians are fond of writing such things as "God lives" and "Jesus is the Christ." To which and similar statements atheists tend to respond with something like PROVE IT! (Meaning of course, prove it by applying the scientific method and manufactured tools; which cannot be done, at least not with today's tools.) Christians respond with testimonies of spiritual experiences and beliefs derived from intangible sources and studying the books of the bible.
It is of course proven that the physical body must inevitably die. So, the big question for all thinking mortals is, does awareness/consciousness continue after death? If it does, there's a larger than life reason for our being on this planet and God probably does live. If it doesn't, you've only got at best a few years to exist, you don't know when you'll take your last breath, so why not live your life with no thought for possible eternal consequences?
As far as I know the life after death question has not yet been scientifically proven either way, though some scientists studying near death experiences, and of course those scientists who have an active faith in God believe that there is life after death.
It's likely that many people who do not believe in God (atheists) have faith in their unproven belief that consciousness is forever extinguished when the physical brain dies, or soon thereafter.
Religious folks, those who believe in God and life after death also have faith. Their faith is in their belief that life goes on, that a part of their being continues to exist with full awareness even after death, and on into the eternities.
Based on faith in their contrasting beliefs, both atheists and religious people probably weight many of their life choices towards what they believe to be true. Of course there are no doubt responsible caring considerate people who choose not to believe in God, but some atheists and probably many rebellious religious people tend to choose an "eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die" type of lifestyle.
And meanwhile, those who have hedged their bets, believing that this mortal life is a time to prepare to meet God, shape their behavior accordingly, trying their best to keep what they believe to be God's guidelines for their eternal well-being, his commandments to His children who are having their mortal experience.
In your opinion is it rationally prudent to choose a religious lifestyle even if it requires a lot of faith, just in case there really is a God and an eternity of awareness waiting?
Or is it better to have faith in one's belief that awareness ends at death, and therefore maximize pleasure and squeeze every moral and immoral experience possible out of one's years, with no thought that there might be eternal consequences for our choice of behavior?
Apparently you appear to think it 'reasonable and prudent' to reject the evidence of our senses, which is that morality, conscience, codes of behaviour and the like all comes from our brain, and ascribe it to something else, invisible, and on that 'leap of faith', to dismiss any research into that because the sample is too small.
Actually I'm quite ok with you choosing to believe that it is "reasonable and prudent" to blame your brain for having a conscience if that is what you are doing. But which of those five senses is it that is providing you with evidence that morality and conscience come from the brain?
In this life we do filter at least some of the input we get from intangible sources through our brain. If we didn't do so we might not bring them into awareness.
But hey, I sure didn't trick you into believing in God did I?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
