Science can answer moral questions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-12-2013, 08:53 PM (This post was last modified: 06-12-2013 09:31 PM by Youkay.)
RE: Science can answer moral questions
PleaseJesus and Childye, thank you for opening the discussion.

I disagree with you.

(06-12-2013 02:50 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  If we use Sam's rubric, and take all the high points and call them low and vice versa, we have created Islamic morality!

Obviously, you haven't understood how the landscape is generated. Let me explain again:
The definition of worst is the highest imaginable misery for everybody. That there is the lowest point in the moral landscape. Everything, that improves the well-being of conscious life forms is an improvement, a better, and occupies a higher point on the moral landscape. That is how the moral landscape is mapped.

Therefore, you can not simply invert a low point to a high point and bad to good. That would be deliberate, not reasonable.

(06-12-2013 02:50 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You see, Mr. Harris has not explained how science came up with high and low and ascribed those values to the points on the diagram.

See explanation above. Now please note that the moral landscape is merely a representation and not a model set in stone. In each case, be it a simple case or a difficult case, we have to reason which is the more moral thing to do. Later, if you will, you can evaluate the outcome of the decision and determine its position on the moral landscape.

(06-12-2013 04:51 PM)childeye Wrote:  This is true, he never does answer the essential question.

Which essential question are you referring to?

(06-12-2013 04:51 PM)childeye Wrote:  Nor does he make any distinction between what are the differences between a carnal and spiritual view of morality so as to deal with the subsequent semantics.

Health comprises both physiological and mental health. And he is referring to mental health, specifically. Your statement is false.

(06-12-2013 04:51 PM)childeye Wrote:  He also seems to be conflating God with religion which of course is already a flawed foundation for any sound logical reasoning.

1) Sam doesn't even use the word "god" often.
2) Where is the mistake in conflating "god" and "religion"? If it is so obvious, please elaborate.

(06-12-2013 04:51 PM)childeye Wrote:  Moreover, this topic delves more into the metaphysical issue of identity, which science claims not to cross over into.

1) Why do you suggest identity is a metaphysical issue? Because I think it isn't.
2) This topic is about objective, not subjective morality.



It would be great if you could respond to my post the same way I did to yours: by quoting and addressing directly. Thanks.

Fun "paradox": The higher the selection pressure, the slower evolution takes place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Youkay's post
06-12-2013, 09:31 PM
RE: Science can answer moral questions
(06-12-2013 08:53 PM)Youkay Wrote:  PleaseJesus and Childye, thank you for opening the argument.

I disagree with you.

Obviously, you haven't understood how the landscape is generated. Let me explain again:
The definition of worst is the highest imaginable misery for everybody. That there is the lowest point in the moral landscape. Everything, that improves the well-being of conscious life forms is an improvement, a better, and occupies a higher point on the moral landscape. That is how the moral landscape is mapped.

Therefore, you can not simply invert a low point to a high point and bad to good. That would be deliberate, not reasonable.
The problem for mankind is that not everyone always agrees on what is moral and immoral and more importantly, the source of morality. People will argue and go to war over what leads to the worst misery. Some people would have a democracy, some a Monarchy. Some favor capitalism and some socialism. The fact is that mankind has the disability of finding something wrong when all is well.


Quote:Which essential question are you referring to?
How to destroy vanity, the circumstantial effect of evaluating one's position or state of being by comparison to others including questioning the Godhead. As I said above. We have a disability to find something wrong. We tend to think things can always be better.

Quote:
(06-12-2013 04:51 PM)childeye Wrote:  Nor does he make any distinction between what are the differences between a carnal and spiritual view of morality so as to deal with the subsequent semantics.

Health comprises both physiological and mental health. And he is referring to mental health, specifically. Your statement is false.
Respectively, mental health is no different than spiritual health. Carnal reasoning serves a different agenda than spiritual reasoning. Sometimes someone's carnal pain comes from someone's carnal pleasure, If success is defined by money, then this reasoning is motivated differently from a reasoning where success is defined by self sacrifice.

Quote:1) Sam doesn't even use the word "god" often.
2) Where is the mistake in conflating "god" and "religion"? If it is so obvious, please elaborate.
I will elaborate by saying that in Christianity, religion crucified God in the name of god. They are not one in the same.


Quote:1) Why do you suggest identity is a metaphysical issue? Because I think it isn't.
2) This topic is about objective, not subjective morality.
To be clear, science studies the physical substance of matter. It does well to understand what we are rather than who we are. To science Love would be one of many chemical compositions occurring in the brain.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 09:54 PM (This post was last modified: 06-12-2013 10:19 PM by Youkay.)
RE: Science can answer moral questions
Thanks for your sincerity.

(06-12-2013 09:31 PM)childeye Wrote:  The problem for mankind is that not everyone always agrees on what is moral and immoral and more importantly, the source of morality. People will argue and go to war over what leads to the worst misery.

Yes, obviously people will have a discussion over objective morality. That is the whole point. But a scientific approach never ignites so much devotion as to go to war over it. On the other hand, religious beliefs do, as has been demonstrated over the past millennium.

(06-12-2013 09:31 PM)childeye Wrote:  The fact is that mankind has the disability of finding something wrong when all is well.

I think mankind is perfectly able to find something wrong in all situations. This is called complaining. People ALWAYS complain Big Grin

(06-12-2013 09:31 PM)childeye Wrote:  How to destroy vanity, the circumstantial effect of evaluating one's position or state of being by comparison to others including questioning the Godhead.

That's actually a very good and substantiated question. But I think the answer is easy: by being objective. And rational thinking is all about objectivity.

(06-12-2013 09:31 PM)childeye Wrote:  Respectively, mental health is no different than spiritual health.

That's what I meant.

(06-12-2013 09:31 PM)childeye Wrote:  Carnal reasoning serves a different agenda than spiritual reasoning. Sometimes someone's carnal pain comes from someone's carnal pleasure, If success is defined by money, then this reasoning is motivated differently from a reasoning where success is defined by self sacrifice.

There is no such thing as carnal reasoning. You can only reason with your brain. Therefore, reasoning can only be mental/spiritual. All you can have are carnal impulses/instincts/needs/affections... choose a word.

(06-12-2013 09:31 PM)childeye Wrote:  I will elaborate by saying that in Christianity, religion crucified God in the name of god. They are not one in the same.

1) How is that not conflating god and religion?
2) Previously, you said religion can not be conflated with god. That was a very general statement. And now you are specifically referring to Christianity. Please elaborate on your previous statement in general terms.

(06-12-2013 09:31 PM)childeye Wrote:  To be clear, science studies the physical substance of matter. It does well to understand what we are rather than who we are. To science Love would be one of many chemical compositions occurring in the brain.

1) Cut it short and say science studies nature.
2) Emotions and psychology are based on chemistry, genetics and environmental influences. A lot of studies have been/are being performed on this subject, and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is not so. I appreciate that our knowledge in this matter is controversial and far from being complete. However, the general statement (emotions and psychology are based on chemistry, genetics and environmental influences) is absolutely true.

I don't mean to offend you with this following statement, so please don't be:
If your knowledge in the subject chemistry and genetics is limited in a way that you can not appraise the aforementioned general statement, you are not in a position to argue about it.

So yes, love is an enormously complex chemical reaction.

Fun "paradox": The higher the selection pressure, the slower evolution takes place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 11:22 PM (This post was last modified: 06-12-2013 11:52 PM by childeye.)
RE: Science can answer moral questions
Quote:='Youkay' pid='436679' dateline='1386388485

Yes, obviously people will have a discussion over objective morality. That is the whole point. But a scientific approach never ignites so much devotion as to go to war over it. On the other hand, religious beliefs do, as has been demonstrated over the past millennium.
Scientists do go to war in the sense that they argue whether there is a God or not. They also invent weapons, pollute nature and mutate genes in our food supply etc... Scientists are no different than anyone else morally and even dangerous with their lack of wisdom. Regarding religions, I believe any differences we may have are more about terminology rather than substance.

(06-12-2013 09:31 PM)childeye Wrote:  The fact is that mankind has the disability of finding something wrong when all is well.

Quote:I think mankind is perfectly able to find something wrong in all situations. This is called complaining. People ALWAYS complain Big Grin
I reiterate my point about terminology. Please note I say disability where you have said perfectly able. In scripture this is how we became corrupted, by trying to fix what was not broken. Hence lack of faith is a disability when all things are built upon faith.

(06-12-2013 09:31 PM)childeye Wrote:  Carnal reasoning serves a different agenda than spiritual reasoning. Sometimes someone's carnal pain comes from someone's carnal pleasure, If success is defined by money, then this reasoning is motivated differently from a reasoning where success is defined by self sacrifice.

Quote:There is no such thing as carnal reasoning. You can only reason with your brain. Therefore, reasoning can only be mental/spiritual. All you can have are carnal impulses/instincts/needs/affections... choose a word.

Again, I think we are misunderstanding one another. Mental and spiritual health are equivalent only because what we believe to be true creates the emotional response accordingly. Our spirituality are those emotions that comprise the make-up of our character.. Mental health could also mean the brain is functioning properly. However if one was convinced by a lie, it would be functioning properly yet be spiritually unhealthy.

Reasoning is a mechanical exercise that is limited by ignorance. Carnal reasoning is that reasoning that serves the base carnal hardwiring of pain and pleasure. One does not reason that this hurts or that feels good, it simply acknowledges that there is pain or pleasure. Pleasure = good, pain =bad. Spiritual reasoning is higher since through empathy one must acknowledge that how we treat others can hurt them or make them feel good. Hence empathy is the objective morality. God is Love.


Quote:1) How is that not conflating god and religion?
2) Previously, you said religion can not be conflated with god. That was a very general statement. And now you are specifically referring to Christianity. Please elaborate on your previous statement in general terms.
Ahh, some semantics to deal with here. When I say God can't be conflated with religion, I am referring to empathy. I try to use the capitol G to distinguish from a false god which is conflating God with religion. To be clear, religion in my view is man made, God is not.

(06-12-2013 09:31 PM)childeye Wrote:  To be clear, science studies the physical substance of matter. It does well to understand what we are rather than who we are. To science Love would be one of many chemical compositions occurring in the brain.

Quote:1) Cut it short and say science studies nature.
But then I must deal with the nuances of defining nature which invites sophistry.
Quote:2) Emotions and psychology are based on chemistry, genetics and environmental influences.
You are correct that emotions are chemical in the substance of matter, but that does not make heroin happiness . Also how we feel has much to do with how we eat, work and our health etc.... But the chemical responses that are emotions dealing with empathy and security have much to do with trust and what we believe to be true about others. If I believe there is a God as in an ultimate justice that will occur, this changes how I react in my reasoning rather than if I feel I must dispense justice because there is no God. It would make no sense to return good for evil if I believed people would just take advantage of my passiveness. It might even be considered a weakness of character and be counted as weakness.

Quote: A lot of studies have been/are being performed on this subject, and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is not so. I appreciate that our knowledge in this matter is controversial and far from being complete. However, the general statement (emotions and psychology are based on chemistry, genetics and environmental influences) is absolutely true.
I see nothing wrong with this statement since it encompasses everything including religion and politics and the universe and God.
Quote:I don't mean to offend you with this following statement, so please don't be:
If your knowledge in the subject chemistry and genetics is limited in a way that you can not appraise the aforementioned general statement, you are not in a position to argue about it.

So yes, love is an enormously complex chemical reaction.
Love requires more than one person and interlinks people to see others as themselves. It is clear to me at least in the purest sense that Love transcends life since people gladly die for it. If happiness could be chemically produced would it be moral to give everyone happiness? Would it be immoral to deny them happiness?
Is there something significant to be learned from a broken heart, by sorrow or grief? Is a sad person mentally healthy if sad for the right reasons? It doesn't matter to me how things work but rather the ultimate purpose they exist serve. I believe we experience Love in all of it's nuances for a reason and a purpose other than just to survive. I believe there is a meaning to life that is eternal and does not end with the death of the body. The person is more than just corporeal matter and pixels. Otherwise wisdom is a chemical.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 11:49 PM
RE: Science can answer moral questions
double post
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 12:30 AM (This post was last modified: 07-12-2013 12:37 AM by Youkay.)
RE: Science can answer moral questions
(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  Scientists do go to war in the sense that they argue whether there is a God or not.

Your definition of war is very inconsistent. First you define war as the source of greatest misery. And now you define it as a heated discussion. Consistency is your friend, embrace it.

(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  They also invent weapons.

On public demand. I am against weapons and research in that field. But when you have huge funding of military research, you will inevitably have people applying for it. The problem is that governments put so much money into this research.

(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  Scientists are no different than anyone else morally.

A veeeeery general statement with absolutely no substance.

(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  Indeed science may or may not realize we are all searching for God if we are his creation.

If eventually science finds convincing evidence that there is a creator, an initiator or whatever, there will be no difficulty in accepting it. That is the whole point about science. Your argument has absolutely no contribution.

(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  As regarding religions, I believe any differences we may have are more about terminology rather than substance.

If you had a more detailed look at religions, you would immediately see the falsehood in your statement. I have read the bible and the Qur'an and they disagree in essential points.

(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  I reiterate my point about terminology. Please note I say disability where you have said perfectly able. In scripture this is how we became corrupted, by trying to fix what was not broken. Hence lack of faith is a disability when all things are built upon faith.

There must have been a confusion with the word disability. For me, disability is the opposite of ability, meaning not being able to do something. For you, does it mean the ability to do something which is reprehensible?

(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  Again, I think we are misunderstanding one another. Mental and spiritual health are equivalent only because what we believe to be true creates the emotional response accordingly. Our spirituality are those emotions that comprise the make-up of our character.. Mental health could also mean the brain is functioning properly. However if one was convinced by a lie, it would be functioning properly yet be spiritually unhealthy.

Our definitions of spirituality do not coincide. Therefore, I have no choice but to disagree. Also, I dislike using the word spirituality in the context of this discussion because it is not well defined. See here. To use vague words for the basis of an argument is flawed. Therefore, it would be in your interest to not use the word spirituality, if you want to maintain creditability.


(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  Reasoning is a mechanical exercise that is limited by ignorance. Carnal reasoning is that reasoning that serves the base carnal hardwiring of pain and pleasure. One does not reason that this hurts or that feels good, it simply acknowledges that there is pain or pleasure. Pleasure = good, pain =bad. Spiritual reasoning is higher since through empathy one must acknowledge that how we treat others can hurt them or make them feel good. Hence empathy is the objective morality. God is Love.

1) I think I made it clear that reasoning is a mental property, not a carnal one. To talk about carnal reasoning is absurd.
2) Saying that reasoning is mechanical is absurd, as well.
3) You have effectively argued that carnal sensations have nothing to do with reasoning yourself.
4) You don't mean carnal but somatic.
5) Your point doesn't come across.

(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  Ahh, some semantics to deal with here. When I say God can't be conflated with religion, I am referring to empathy. I try to use the capitol G to distinguish from a false god which is conflating God with religion. To be clear, religion in my view is man made, God is not.

We are drifting away from the topic of this thread. But give me a quick answer to this: How do you know that Poseidon, Zeus, Mars or any Indian god for that matter is a false god? Where did you get that knowledge from?


(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  But then I must deal with the nuances of defining nature which invites sophistry.

No. Nature is everything perceivable/measurable around us.

(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  You are correct that emotions are chemical in the substance of matter, but that does not make heroin happiness.

I have never claimed such an absurdity.

(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  Also how we feel has much to do with how we eat, work and our health etc....

As I said: environmental influences

(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  But the chemical responses that are emotions dealing with empathy and security have much to do with trust and what we believe to be true about others.

1) Why do you wish to narrow our focus on empathy and security?
2) Trust, belief of truth, knowledge... everything falls withing the category "environmental influences"

(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  If I believe there is a God as in an ultimate justice that will occur, this changes how I react in my reasoning rather than if I feel I must dispense justice because there is no God.

1) Belief in the knowledge of truth changes the reasoning of people. This is obvious.
2) This changes how I react in my reasoning rather than if I feel I must dispense justice because there is no God
What? If I have to read a sentence over and over again without it making any more sense, than you should aim to formulate your sentences better.

(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  It would make no sense to return good for evil if I believed people would just take advantage of my passiveness. It might even be considered a weakness of character and be counted as weakness.

Again, what? Please reformulate.

(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  If happiness could be chemically produced would it be moral to give everyone happiness? Would it be immoral to deny them happiness?

1) Happiness is a very complex chemical reaction inside the brain. It can not be synthesized chemically and then administered like a drug. You showcase a major lack of understanding here.
2) If I know how to make people happy and it is in my capability, it is moral to do so. To give someone the illusion of happiness by administering a drug is not moral (but may depend on the situation, obviously).

(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  It doesn't matter to me how things work but rather the ultimate purpose they exist serve.

Are you saying you are not interested in any "how" question? That would be very unsettling.

(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  I believe we experience Love in all of it's nuances for a reason and a purpose other than just to survive. I believe there is a meaning to life that is eternal and does not end with the death of the body.

Your belief is obviously based on ignorance and this is why: To share your belief, I don't need any knowledge of this world or whatever other dimension there is. I merely need to take your word for it without any questioning.

Fun "paradox": The higher the selection pressure, the slower evolution takes place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Youkay's post
07-12-2013, 12:55 AM
RE: Science can answer moral questions
(06-12-2013 08:53 PM)Youkay Wrote:  ...
2) This topic is about objective, not subjective morality.
...

I dunno if you noticed this thread on the same subject?

You might like to join in.

Aside from some Taq vs, Chippy spats, it's a largely adult conversation (with no theists... so far).

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...14?page=18

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 01:00 AM
RE: Science can answer moral questions
I noticed it too late. Also it is very crowded already and difficult to immerse in. Much prefer to stay here and discuss the Sam Harris talks only Smile

Fun "paradox": The higher the selection pressure, the slower evolution takes place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 08:29 PM
RE: Science can answer moral questions
(07-12-2013 12:30 AM)Youkay Wrote:  Your definition of war is very inconsistent. First you define war as the source of greatest misery. And now you define it as a heated discussion. Consistency is your friend, embrace it.
The term war is relative in degrees yet always begins with disagreement. I believe that is consistent.

(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  They also invent weapons.

Quote:On public demand. I am against weapons and research in that field. But when you have huge funding of military research, you will inevitably have people applying for it. The problem is that governments put so much money into this research.
To take money to invent weapons and then blame the public is not moral.

(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  Scientists are no different than anyone else morally.

Quote:A veeeeery general statement with absolutely no substance.
It is general but I gave substance above. You yourself find such research into greater weapons immoral.
(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  Indeed science may or may not realize we are all searching for God if we are his creation.

Quote:If eventually science finds convincing evidence that there is a creator, an initiator or whatever, there will be no difficulty in accepting it. That is the whole point about science. Your argument has absolutely no contribution.
I am not arguing. Just stating what is self evident.
(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  As regarding religions, I believe any differences we may have are more about terminology rather than substance.

Quote:If you had a more detailed look at religions, you would immediately see the falsehood in your statement. I have read the bible and the Qur'an and they disagree in essential points.
So how is it we disagree? I too see differences. It matters not to me since I feel that religions are man made. I am a Christian. Many and even most people will say Christianity is a religion. For me the fundamental difference between Christ and religion is that to believe in the Christ is to believe God sent him as foretold. This image of God would therefore not be man made. Nor would he desire religiosity but simply to walk in His Spirit in true appreciation of Who He is.
(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  I reiterate my point about terminology. Please note I say disability where you have said perfectly able. In scripture this is how we became corrupted, by trying to fix what was not broken. Hence lack of faith is a disability when all things are built upon faith.

Quote:There must have been a confusion with the word disability. For me, disability is the opposite of ability, meaning not being able to do something. For you, does it mean the ability to do something which is reprehensible?

Remember I said Harris does not discuss the essential question. That is the question of vanity. If you recall you remarked that people will always complain. Hence with this in mind and so as to clarify my use of the word disability, I would say that if someone has it great with many comforts and yet complains, that person has a disability not an ability. In contrast if someone is thankful for the simplest of comforts he has an ability not a disability.
(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  Again, I think we are misunderstanding one another. Mental and spiritual health are equivalent only because what we believe to be true creates the emotional response accordingly. Our spirituality are those emotions that comprise the make-up of our character.. Mental health could also mean the brain is functioning properly. However if one was convinced by a lie, it would be functioning properly yet be spiritually unhealthy.
Quote:[quote]Our definitions of spirituality do not coincide. Therefore, I have no choice but to disagree. Also, I dislike using the word spirituality in the context of this discussion because it is not well defined. See here. To use vague words for the basis of an argument is flawed. Therefore, it would be in your interest to not use the word spirituality, if you want to maintain creditability.
My credibility should not be the issue here nor should yours. It's not personal. Just because I know something someone else does not know, does not make it my prerogative to lord it over them. Nor therefore am I offended that someone knows something I don't know. I therefore would not care what words we use so long as the meaning and intent is well communicated. After all words are simply feeble tools to convey thoughts. I therefore went through the exercise of explaining what I mean and it is on record. I said those emotions that comprise the make up of our character. I sincerely don't see how that would give pause so as to question my credibility. As I said, it is on record so I have clearly stated what I mean by spirituality without any guile or pretense.

At any rate, I hope my point was made that if one was reasoning upon a lie, his mental health or proper brain function would not be an issue, yet his emotions would be unhealthy. Case in point. If my wife looked at another man and I believed she was checking him out in the romantic sense but she was not, Then there would be jealousy and division all based on believing a lie.


(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  Reasoning is a mechanical exercise that is limited by ignorance. Carnal reasoning is that reasoning that serves the base carnal hardwiring of pain and pleasure. One does not reason that this hurts or that feels good, it simply acknowledges that there is pain or pleasure. Pleasure = good, pain =bad. Spiritual reasoning is higher since through empathy one must acknowledge that how we treat others can hurt them or make them feel good. Hence empathy is the objective morality. God is Love.

Quote:1) I think I made it clear that reasoning is a mental property, not a carnal one. To talk about carnal reasoning is absurd.
I'm not disagreeing with you. You miscomprehend. I am explaining what I mean by carnal reasoning. It is not absurd to explain someone's meaning. I did not say reasoning is carnal, I said that some reasoning serves carnal interests and others do not.
Quote:2) Saying that reasoning is mechanical is absurd, as well.

Again you miscomprehend. I am simply saying that reasoning is a line of thought that is not unlike connecting the dots. Notice I said that lack of knowledge limits one's reasoning. Subsequently the more dots one has to connect, the better they are able to reason.
Quote:3) You have effectively argued that carnal sensations have nothing to do with reasoning yourself.
No I have argued that the carnal mind reasons differently than the spiritual mind serving different agendas and I gave an example. I will repeat. Fact: we have hardwired pain receptors. Fact: We therefore count pain as bad. Fact: we reason or decide directions that would avoid pain. Example of what I am talking about when saying carnal reasoning: The stove is hot. I will not touch the stove. Reason? because it will be painful.

Example of spiritual reasoning: Regardless of the pain, I will run into the fire to try and save the dog because I can't stand the thought of him\her burning to death.

Quote:4) You don't mean carnal but somatic.
Yes, somatic is a good term since it is related to the body or the physical as opposed to the soul, spirit, psyche. etc... It therefore isn't absurd.
Quote:5) Your point doesn't come across.
If you understand what somatic means then you should understand what I mean. I'm simply saying that to serve our own self interests based on our pain\pleasure is a carna\somatic minded reasoning, as opposed to a spiritual minded reasoning that seeks the interests of others in lieu of one's self.

Quote:We are drifting away from the topic of this thread. But give me a quick answer to this: How do you know that Poseidon, Zeus, Mars or any Indian god for that matter is a false god? Where did you get that knowledge from?
If they don't reside in my heart as Love, then none of these names represent God. Now back on topic. Again Harris does not account for vanity, hence all terms depicting what is moral and immoral are a matter of perspective. The objective view cannot be ascertained without the word of God which is Love (not the bible).


(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  But then I must deal with the nuances of defining nature which invites sophistry.

Quote:No. Nature is everything perceivable/measurable around us.
I realize that is how it is taken, but the term nature also includes moral tendencies such as "It was in his nature to tell lies". That is no different than saying it was his personality or his spiritual composition when in fact he could simply have been mistaken in his facts. This indeed is inviting sophistry.

Quote:
(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  You are correct that emotions are chemical in the substance of matter, but that does not make heroin happiness.

I have never claimed such an absurdity.
I am merely making a point. Of course it is absurd. Suppose we traced the neuro chemical that makes someone feel trust, does that make trust a chemical? No it doesn't. Nor does that chemical make someone trustworthy.



(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  But the chemical responses that are emotions dealing with empathy and security have much to do with trust and what we believe to be true about others.

Quote:1) Why do you wish to narrow our focus on empathy and security?
Because morality has much to do with what we believe about others intentions that create our emotions. After all, a moral person politically offers security and an immoral person does not.
Quote:2) Trust, belief of truth, knowledge... everything falls withing the category "environmental influences"
I'm not arguing that point. It's easy to say something happens because of environmental influences. it simply means something happens because of something else. The question why becomes obscured in the generalization. The search for God is a search for meaning not mechanics.

(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  If I believe there is a God as in an ultimate justice that will occur, this changes how I react in my reasoning rather than if I feel I must dispense justice because there is no God.

Quote:1) Belief in the knowledge of truth changes the reasoning of people. This is obvious.
Yes it is.
Quote:2) This changes how I react in my reasoning rather than if I feel I must dispense justice because there is no God
What? If I have to read a sentence over and over again without it making any more sense, than you should aim to formulate your sentences better.
If it is obvious that belief in the the Truth changes the reasoning of people, then ignorance of the Truth or belief in a lie also affects the reasoning. Therefore there are two different conclusions based on what you believe to be true. Either there is a God or there is not, but only one is true. If there is a God what is the character of his person?

(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  It would make no sense to return good for evil if I believed people would just take advantage of my passiveness. It might even be considered a weakness of character and be counted as weakness.

Quote:Again, what? Please reformulate.
What is the reasoning behind someone who returns good for evil as opposed to one who returns evil for evil?

(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  If happiness could be chemically produced would it be moral to give everyone happiness? Would it be immoral to deny them happiness?

Quote:1) Happiness is a very complex chemical reaction inside the brain. It can not be synthesized chemically and then administered like a drug. You showcase a major lack of understanding here.
I don't think I do. I started my statement with the word "if". It is therefore a hypothetical.
Quote:2) If I know how to make people happy and it is in my capability, it is moral to do so. To give someone the illusion of happiness by administering a drug is not moral (but may depend on the situation, obviously).
This was well said.
(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  It doesn't matter to me how things work but rather the ultimate purpose they exist to serve.
Quote:Are you saying you are not interested in any "how" question? That would be very unsettling.
No, I am establishing the priorities. Say I want to get from point A to point B in a car. My primary interest is not how a cars transmission works or why when I step on the brake it stops. My primary interest is where I am going.

(06-12-2013 11:22 PM)childeye Wrote:  I believe we experience Love in all of it's nuances for a reason and a purpose other than just to survive. I believe there is a meaning to life that is eternal and does not end with the death of the body.

Quote:Your belief is obviously based on ignorance and this is why: To share your belief, I don't need any knowledge of this world or whatever other dimension there is. I merely need to take your word for it without any questioning.
On the contrary, my belief is that God is Love. That simply means the greatest purpose in Life achievable is to serve the interests of Love with all purity and faith, whether through science or any other means. Most everyone shares in this belief and I never talked to any of them. Why is this? Because that is the moral Truth that speaks in everyone's heart who knows Love...
1 John 4:8

New International Version (NIV)


8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 08:31 PM
RE: Science can answer moral questions
childeye is just trollin

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: