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.
This OP presents interesting implications. If science CAN answer moral questions (I believe it can) . . . then they are real and discoverable aspects of our reality . . . NOT arbitrary proclamations of the cosmic accidents in power (relative). Discovery of them would provide evidence for God (or a created purpose to human life and NOT cosmic accident) Asserting morality for accidental life with no raison d'etre is simply absurd. Whatever they do or do not do is accidental in origin and effect and has no non-arbitrary preferential status whatsoever.
Evolution, which selected our morality is not accidental, and does not require a god.
An interesting lecture by Sam Harris. It should be titled “Introduction To Postmodernism” because it’s current title does imply that science can answer or determine morality. In other words Mr. Harris is implying that people determine what is moral or of value based on experience and data, he’s attempting to show that morality is determined by man rather than our Creator to support his Darwinian worldview.
The problem is that Mr. Harris simply presents a hypothesis but he fails to give sufficient rationale or data to move beyond the hypothesis stage to theory. Consequently he does not present a strong case in favor of science answering or determining morality. Rather he suggests, through some broad illustrations, that people question morality and that data and experience (science) simply helps us understand moral values.
In the lecture Mr. Harris himself admits that, “science is not guaranteed to answer every conceivable moral question.” At least he acknowledges that science only informs it does not define or construct any particulars. Science, correctly applied, is simply a method to better understand our world it does not construct or manipulate in and of itself.
In my view Mr. Harris’ lecture is classed in the same category as his writings; another failed attempt to refute some of the strongest evidence of an intelligent designer – God, through the miss use of “science”. Today this is known as junk science.
I think you start off getting the point and then you veer off because you don't think morals can be based on experience and data? If there's one thing we do know, isn't it that the definitions of what is right and what is wrong has changed, as we as a race has evolved and gained knowledge?
What Mr.Harris does in this video is explain (as best he can with the limited time available to him) how morals don't need to be rooted in religion to form a basis for us to live by.
Now, I'm willing to see that for some, religion forms a good basis for them to live their life as best they think they can, I don't question that. What specifically is counting against a non believer from forming a basis of values and morals on rational thought, and living life as best as they think they can based on that?
Put simply, why is it that my moral values are worthless, though coming from thought and reason, whereas yours hold true power because they're written in a book, allegedly taught us by a God?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
My self-esteem is too high to accept that I am part of a cosmic accident and that there is no purpose for our existence beyond survival and taking care of our needs. Since I believe our creation is purposive . . . there is a basis for morality. That which is constructive to our purpose is moral (Good) . . and that which is destructive of our purpose is immoral (Evil). Our task is to discover what comprises those two states . . . whether by science or any other means.
IF we are part of a cosmic accident . . . then morality is moot and depends entirely on the dominant "accidents" to impose on us ("He who has the gold, or the strongest military, or . . . whatever).You are free to disagree.
I'm not entirely sure if I understand what self-esteem has to do with it...
Personally I don't like the terms good and evil, and I don't believe in it. I do believe in right and wrong, but the two (good and evil vs. right and wrong) are not the same thing.
You say:
Quote:
IF we are part of a cosmic accident . . . then morality is moot and depends entirely on the dominant "accidents" to impose on us ("He who has the gold, or the strongest military, or . . . whatever).You are free to disagree.
I don't know what you mean by that, and this is what I would want you to explain further.
Why is morality moot, why does it have to depend on who has the gold or the strongest military?
I'm fully aware I'm free to disagree, up through life I don't think anyones ever seen any indication that I'm not aware of that. But it's hard to disagree with something without understanding or at the very least, hearing the reasoning for it, however different from mine it might be.
If all we ever were to do was to agree to disagree, without talking about why we disagree, we could just as well stop all communication whatsoever.
So, I know I can disagree, most likely I will, but why is it we disagree?
IF we are part of a cosmic accident . . . then morality is moot and depends entirely on the dominant "accidents" to impose on us ("He who has the gold, or the strongest military, or . . . whatever).You are free to disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheViking85
I don't know what you mean by that, and this is what I would want you to explain further.
Why is morality moot, why does it have to depend on who has the gold or the strongest military?
I'm fully aware I'm free to disagree, up through life I don't think anyones ever seen any indication that I'm not aware of that. But it's hard to disagree with something without understanding or at the very least, hearing the reasoning for it, however different from mine it might be.
If all we ever were to do was to agree to disagree, without talking about why we disagree, we could just as well stop all communication whatsoever.
So, I know I can disagree, most likely I will, but why is it we disagree?
Not sure whether Mystic will pick this up. "whatever).You are free to disagree."
Translation from Theist into English: 'I cannot back this claim up so I'll just leave it with the implication that my opinion is just as valid as yours'.
To take the first point
"IF we are part of a cosmic accident . . . then morality is moot and depends entirely on the dominant "accidents" to impose on us ("He who has the gold, or the strongest military,..."
This is the common and very (and probably deliberately) short - sighted theist argument for God. Without God there is no morality. Without a god imposing order, we are all at each other's throats. This is actually the case. Evolution has made us and the rest of the animal (and vegetable) kingdom dog eat dog.
This is one of the arguments that we are all naturally evolved and NOT the product of a cosmic intelligence.
That said, we have developed a brain that can think a bit further and we can be taught to consider others and their rights and feelings. Not because it is natural. Not because a god will punish us if we don't but because we have decided that it's best if everyone gets a square deal.
God given morality, of course, does not do that. It merely shifts the gold and military to those who worship a particular god and adds the invisible threat of hellfire to the real ones of gold and guns.
Non -theist morality is better in concept (if not always in execution) as it does not begin with the given resumption of a god - given right to force others to do what your particular moral code states.
The idea of God - given morality is flawed and founders. It is evidence for naturalism not for god. It is evidence that a non - god morality is better than a god - fearing one.
It is flexible, not rigid and the 'Gold and guns' argument is a strawman. Our mystic mate is very good at those. The 'no morality without God' argument is a dead horse that the theists keep flogging.
My self-esteem is too high to accept that I am part of a cosmic accident
Insightful view into the reasons for your religious faith, but doesn't point to the truth of the idea.
Quote:
IF we are part of a cosmic accident . . . then morality is moot and depends entirely on the dominant "accidents" to impose on us ("He who has the gold, or the strongest military, or . . . whatever).You are free to disagree.
And if we are not an accident, then morality is moot and depends entirely on the what dominant non-accident imposes on us. I don't see much of a difference here, except that in the non-creator case we have evidence that the people generating morality really do exist.
"IF we are part of a cosmic accident . . . then morality is moot and depends entirely on the dominant "accidents" to impose on us ("He who has the gold, or the strongest military,..."
This is the common and very (and probably deliberately) short - sighted theist argument for God. Without God there is no morality. Without a god imposing order, we are all at each other's throats. This is actually the case. Evolution has made us and the rest of the animal (and vegetable) kingdom dog eat dog.
This is one of the arguments that we are all naturally evolved and NOT the product of a cosmic intelligence.
That said, we have developed a brain that can think a bit further and we can be taught to consider others and their rights and feelings. Not because it is natural. Not because a god will punish us if we don't but because we have decided that it's best if everyone gets a square deal.
God given morality, of course, does not do that. It merely shifts the gold and military to those who worship a particular god and adds the invisible threat of hellfire to the real ones of gold and guns.
The angst and irritation over the tyranny of Moderator cut: deleted...the.... religious and their Moderator cut: deleted application of morality as commands of God interpreted by men and imposed on all is ubiquitous. It infects all discussions of morality . . . even those purportedly exploring the philosophical underpinnings of the notion of morality itself. Moderator cut: same as above The theist philosophical position on morality is unassailable . . stripped of all the man-made religious obscenities done in its name by religions of all stripes. It specifies NO specific moral code . . . just the LEGITIMACY of a code itself . . . and maintains that it can be discovered ONLY because it is a legitimate element of our PURPOSIVE reality. Duck, wiggle, and hide all you wish . . . there is no way to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear . . . and no way to attribute morality to purposeless, meaningless, and accidental life! Accidents are accidents and ALL distinctions are meaningless and arbitrary.
Quote:
Non -theist morality is better in concept (if not always in execution) as it does not begin with the given resumption of a god - given right to force others to do what your particular moral code states.
The idea of God - given morality is flawed and founders. It is evidence for naturalism not for god. It is evidence that a non - god morality is better than a god - fearing one.
It is flexible, not rigid and the 'Gold and guns' argument is a strawman. Our mystic mate is very good at those. The 'no morality without God' argument is a dead horse that the theists keep flogging.
The ONLY better aspect of your oxymoronic "non-theist morality" is its flexibility and recognition that we are only human and must constantly evolve, refine and perfect our understanding of the morality that is built in to the purpose and value of human life itself. Commands of God, eternal punishments, and assorted man-made barbarities designed to coerce adherence to a man-interpreted morality have no place in this discussion. Take that up with the religionists of various stripes individually. This PHILOSOPHICAL discussion is about the very concept of morality itself and why it is meaningless if we are truly a cosmic accident and not an integral part of the reason the universe exists. All else is subjective and arbitrary. If you have a non-subjective basis for asserting an accident-based morality . . . I would be astounded to see it. This is why I said any scientific discovery of morality would imply the existence of a purpose and basis for it in reality . . . and would of necessity refute the cosmic accident hypothesis.
You write some pretty long answers with some pretty big words in them MysticPhD, but I don't see much substance.
You talk about a philosophical discussion about the concept of morality, yet you provide no further insight into WHY and HOW it is that you've formed the conclusion that ALL morality based on what you call cosmic accidents must be moot.
Moderator cut: deleted ...why don't you try and tell me WHY morality can only be based in religion, and HOW you formed that opinion, WHAT you base it on.
....Frankly, just take my last post and answer that one.
An interesting lecture by Sam Harris. It should be titled “Introduction To Postmodernism” because it’s current title does imply that science can answer or determine morality. In other words Mr. Harris is implying that people determine what is moral or of value based on experience and data, he’s attempting to show that morality is determined by man rather than our Creator to support his Darwinian worldview.
The problem is that Mr. Harris simply presents a hypothesis but he fails to give sufficient rationale or data to move beyond the hypothesis stage to theory. Consequently he does not present a strong case in favor of science answering or determining morality. Rather he suggests, through some broad illustrations, that people question morality and that data and experience (science) simply helps us understand moral values.
In the lecture Mr. Harris himself admits that, “science is not guaranteed to answer every conceivable moral question.” At least he acknowledges that science only informs it does not define or construct any particulars. Science, correctly applied, is simply a method to better understand our world it does not construct or manipulate in and of itself.
In my view Mr. Harris’ lecture is classed in the same category as his writings; another failed attempt to refute some of the strongest evidence of an intelligent designer – God, through the miss use of “science”. Today this is known as junk science.
God? Not necessarily. I believe science can answer questions also. Example: We did not have to come up with the moral point about let us say murder by believing in God.
Our nature lead us to protect our lives, survival. Through the ages we came up with rules as we formed groups to live together that murder goes against nature and the survival of the group also. What to do. We created a rule, law, commandment, etc. prohibiting murder. The idea of murdering someone goes against our own survival. It simply evolved that way. Moral evolution simply happened that way. As we evolved we developed other "moral" standards as a result of us evolving and circumstances demaning other human behavior requirements.
It is not different than we may require to obey a simple red light because it may bring order and avoid deaths, survival. The moral thing to do is to obey that law.
Moral as simply evolved through the ages. That is a field on its own, moral evolution that studies how morals evolved through the ages. The evidence shows that there was a time in our past where there was no religion. Eventually, history shows religion evolved as a result of moral being developed already and humans trying to find an answer to many unkowns in life. Lack of understanding of things in life and around us led our ancestors to create a God that had all the answers. With this I am not implying there is no god. I do not know but looking at archeology, history, etc. we see how many of these issues like morality evolved throught the ages. In that sense science has given us many answers about life itself.
You write some pretty long answers with some pretty big words in them MysticPhD, but I don't see much substance.
You talk about a philosophical discussion about the concept of morality, yet you provide no further insight into WHY and HOW it is that you've formed the conclusion that ALL morality based on what you call cosmic accidents must be moot.
Moderator cut: Orphaned... why don't you try and tell me WHY morality can only be based in religion, and HOW you formed that opinion, WHAT you base it on.
....Frankly, just take my last post and answer that one.
Moderator cut: deleted There is no substance to your objections. If you cannot see that an "accident" by definition has no purpose and therefore no basis whatsoever to prefer one action over another since NONE of it has any reason to even exist . . . then nothing I say will penetrate. ANY distinctions made are by definition arbitrary and irrelevant. There is no basis to judge my actions versus yours or anyone else's. We are the only determinants of what we consider right or wrong. The most powerful of us can decide for the weaker, period.
Moderator cut: Orphaned There is no substance to your objections. If you cannot see that an "accident" by definition has no purpose and therefore no basis whatsoever to prefer one action over another since NONE of it has any reason to even exist . . . then nothing I say will penetrate. ANY distinctions made are by definition arbitrary and irrelevant. There is no basis to judge my actions versus yours or anyone else's. We are the only determinants of what we consider right or wrong. The most powerful of us can decide for the weaker, period.
Moderator cut: Orphaned reference (conversation)
Moderator cut: Orphaned I'm still very much interested in how you reached your conclusions, and what thought process and basis it's founded on. If you want to engage in a conversation about that, and any questions you may have, I'd be delighted to do so. And as acceptable as my comprehension of the English language might be, I do sometimes get a little lost in your language, you might have better success if you "dumb it down", if you want to call it that.
Moderator cut: That 'sizing' comment most definately had to go....Attack the ideas, not one another...
Moderator cut: Orphaned I'm still very much interested in how you reached your conclusions, and what thought process and basis it's founded on. If you want to engage in a conversation about that, and any questions you may have, I'd be delighted to do so. And as acceptable as my comprehension of the English language might be, I do sometimes get a little lost in your language, you might have better success if you "dumb it down", if you want to call it that.
Moderator cut: Very "orphaned"
[mod] Mass deletions [mod] ...if you have some Moderator cut: Mass deletions method by which there can be meaningful distinctions made between the actions of meaningless accidents . . . I'm all ears (er.. eyes)! Your video did not accomplish that. So good luck.
Last edited by june 7th; 04-07-2010 at 05:39 PM..
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.
But it's hard to disagree with something without understanding or at the very least, hearing the reasoning for it, however different from mine it might be.
