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.
The wheres where people study the physiology of the brain and it's functions and then report them for review by other people. You know, the scientific process.
Before we proceed, please clarify what you meant to convey with your comment that I bolded above, thanks.
You noted that schizophrenia alters people's behavior to such a point where one brain may not be aware of what the other is doing.
That is an example of brain pathology altering behavior.
Ergo, behavior, and the codes that regulate behavior, have a physical component. If moral codes are *not* physical, then even severe schizophrenics will still be able to apply the same behavior control across both brains, despite their inability to communicate.
This is demonstrably untrue. Therefore moral codes have a physical component. Since physiology is unique from person to person, behavioral control such as "morality" are also unique from person to person. Ergo, moral relativism is not something you can dismiss from a philosophical debate.
You noted that schizophrenia alters people's behavior to such a point where one brain may not be aware of what the other is doing.
That is an example of brain pathology altering behavior.
Ergo, behavior, and the codes that regulate behavior, have a physical component. If moral codes are *not* physical, then even severe schizophrenics will still be able to apply the same behavior control across both brains, despite their inability to communicate.
This is demonstrably untrue. Therefore moral codes have a physical component. Since physiology is unique from person to person, behavioral control such as "morality" are also unique from person to person. Ergo, moral relativism is not something you can dismiss from a philosophical debate.
Ok, thanks for explaining. Actually I did not mention schizophrenia, I referred to the potential results of lobotomy, severing the corpus calosum, which was once experimented with as a treatment for psychosis.
Of course moral "codes" have a physical component. Codes are manmade agreements, as is consensus reality. Groups of people agree that the universe is to be perceived in certain ways and if not perception is 'abnormal'. That reality differs from culture to culture, age to age, even society to society.
But quite frankly I am tiring of this thread, so unless others just can't wait to jump in I'm ok with letting it sink into the shadows.
Ok, thanks for explaining. Actually I did not mention schizophrenia, I referred to the potential results of lobotomy, severing the corpus calosum, which was once experimented with as a treatment for psychosis.
You are aware that severe schizophrenia *is* a damaged or severed corpus callosum.
Quote:
Of course moral "codes" have a physical component. Codes are manmade agreements, as is consensus reality. Groups of people agree that the universe is to be perceived in certain ways and if not perception is 'abnormal'. That reality differs from culture to culture, age to age, even society to society.
And you know, of course, that this entire time I was not talking about law, but about the internal behavioral filter, "moral code" or "conscience" (your word) that you claimed in post 189 are supernatural in nature and endemic to all humans.
If conscience is supernatural in nature, then it exists beyond the affects of nature. Since your own example disproves this, a conscience must not be supernatural. Therefore, morality (conscience) does not come from god, and is relative to each individual.
I am not interested in reaching the same conclusions from that study of six people that you apparently have reached.
If you're not interested in looking at the data an instead prefer just to believe what you've always believed, why bother us with requests for scientific investigation into brain function? That strikes me as a bit dishonest.
And I'd also point out that not wanting to follow the evidence doesn't make it go away.
Quote:
I continue to think that it would be reasonable and prudent for atheists to conclude that God just might live after all!
Many atheists think this already. It doesn't make them any closer to being a believer, though. Lots of things are logically possible - flying cars, dogs that talk, gods, the tooth fairy - but that doesn't mean there's any point in believing in them until there's a reason to.
Quote:
I suppose that would switch them from atheist to agnostic, still a 'safe' enough distance from organized religion n'est ce pas?
Agnosticism is a different idea entirely - it is about knowledge while atheism is about belief.
Actually it's less misunderstanding me and more like spitting on the face of science.
I was thinking that this thread had about served its purpose but I continue to be intrigued by the reaction at least one writer in this thread had when I mentioned the "Big Bang" theory. That writer apparently thought I was insulting someone or something. (See post 171.)
Then this morning I chanced upon a book review in Time Magazine regarding the "Big Bang" theory and thought I'd post a few extracts for all they may be worth.
(Please keep in mind that I too value Science and the scientific method of discovery. But I don't make Science and scientists my 'god' as some people sometimes give the appearance of doing, even to the point where they feel personally insulted if someone observes correctly that scientists, being human beings, are just as likely to be wrong as right about anything.)
Extracts from a recent book review in Time Magazine:
"Scientists will often portray the Big Bang as if it were known fact, but it isn't. It's a theory within a very speculative field of science, cosmology, which is about as speculative as it gets. I'm not saying the Big Bang theory isn't true, but it's a work in progress.
There is no sensible answer for the Big Bang unless you move over into the religious side and say, "Well, it began because God began it." That's why quite a lot of scientists are nervous about the Big Bang. They quite prefer having something that doesn't require somebody sort of poking a finger in and saying, "Now it's starting."
Q. I was disturbed to read that many scientists refuse to question the Big Bang theory because they'd built their careers on it.
A. The fact is science is like any other social network. It's a lot easier to go along with the crowd. Every now and then there's a revolution in science, a paradigm shift, like when Einstein came along, but it's so easy to lock people into a particular way of thinking, of trying to build on the ideas that are in vogue. In the end, there is almost a fashion in science — ideas that are in, ideas that are out...."
It's interesting that the subject here keeps changing as the evidence piles up against the super-natualist presupposition that you can't explain [pick one or more from : the universe, consciousness, morality, the diversity of life] without pretending that there's an unobserved magical spirit world that the non-religious are ignoring. I guess that approach is easier than trying to dismiss peer-reviewed scientific studies that provide natural explanations for these processes, which is basically an admission that god keeps getting pushed into smaller and smaller gaps the more we discover about the real world.
There's no point in discussing the various independent lines of evidence that convinced the majority of scientists that the Big Bang happened or the subsequent discoveries that drove the paradigm shift the author is looking for 3 decades later, since they'll just be dismissed with "I'm not interested in reaching those conclusions" again.
I was thinking that this thread had about served its purpose but I continue to be intrigued by the reaction at least one writer in this thread had when I mentioned the "Big Bang" theory. That writer apparently thought I was insulting someone or something. (See post 171.)
No, just spreading misinformation on a theory. 6 day creationism has been discredited and there is no conclusive answer on how the universe got started and the theory of the bing bang just explains what happened after it did.
It seems that the main argument for a faith based approach is that you can believe in whatever you like and assert you are right since nothing can be shown to be impossible in metaphysics.
No, just spreading misinformation on a theory. 6 day creationism has been discredited and there is no conclusive answer on how the universe got started and the theory of the bing bang just explains what happened after it did. It seems that the main argument for a faith based approach is that you can believe in whatever you like and assert you are right since nothing can be shown to be impossible in metaphysics.
It is of course just your opinion that "6 day creationism has been discredited" if you are speaking universally and not just among atheists and agnostics. But it's true that religionists would argue about how long a "day" ancient books were referring too, accuracy of translation, etc.
The "theory of the bing (sic) bang" is just that a theory, it is not proof of anything. But it could help explain to the intellect what remains unexplainable without allowing God into the equation.
We're all having an earthly experience and learning together. I continue to maintain that there is a valid and valuable place in our society for both Science and Religion.
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.
