ERICOPOLY Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 We have morality (I think, anyway) Where does morality fit in with religion? I see morality as merely the manifestation of social instincts. A moral person cares for how his actions affect the good of the social unit. To me that is 100% social evolutionary advantage. The more the social unit works together... "united we stand divided we fall", that kind of stuff. We have instinctual pressures to work together within our social units, which can be church groups, sports teams, nations, etc... Most of the "top of the list" immoral acts throughout history have been crimes done by one social unit unto another. Think of the Mountain Meadows massacre, the bombing of Tokyo, etc... Social instincts drive us to work together to meet the goals of our social unit (we call this morality), but when our social unit needs to be defended from another that we are at war with we respond by protecting our social unit from percieved harm from other social units -- that's when we get to the immorality of war (Mountain Meadows, the bombing of Tokyo, etc...) Both morality and immorality in this case are just the manifestations of social instincts. The role I see that religion plays in promoting morality is merely as a venue. A concert needs a venue. Religion is a gathering of people into a social unit (the venue), and that social unit can then exercise social instincts (morality). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Liberty and rk, Maybe you guys didn't see my question, but what would make you believe in a deity? Eric, if you'd like to answer, I would appreciate that, too. Same way that I believe in atoms and radio waves; reproducible, conclusive and falsifiable evidence. So, you believe in value investing, although evidence is clearly against it? Most academics largely dismiss value investing, even saying that Buffett's streak was luck. Also, let's say you had a personal story like I discussed. Would that change anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/145162445X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347121742&sr=8-1&keywords=lawrence+krauss Haven't read the book, though, but I'm told it's great, I'm also wondering what makes you reject a deistic or pantheistic worldview in favour of theism. Could it be your biases playing up? Not to be brusque, but if you cannot fathom how complexity can arise from simplicity with the help of darwinian natural selection you just don't understand the implications of it. The irreducible complexity argument (like the human eye) is just argument from ignorance. There are loads and loads of intermittent eyes in nature and they are all useful even though they lack elements/uses of what we would usually consider an eye. Check out this fascinating animal for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuatara As far as theism, I admit this is a personal bias. I am making a bit of jump here. I feel (for whatever that's worth) that if a deity decided to create the universe that it would also intervene on occasion. No, I believe in natural selection. I never said otherwise. I clearly stated I believe in evolution. However, I've not come from a satisfying perspective of creation itself. Granted, even the diety isn't fully satisfying. Check out that biologos link above. Thanks for the above links. I'll check those out, too. I came to the realization a while ago that I had a bias against having faith. I found this televangelist who was having an affair and I quickly pointed it out. I totally skipped over when he divorce his wife and just wanted to put him in a bad light. That made me realize my own bias. Here is another good debate, for those who are interested. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 We have morality (I think, anyway) Where does morality fit in with religion? I see morality as merely the manifestation of social instincts. A moral person cares for how his actions affect the good of the social unit. To me that is 100% social evolutionary advantage. The more the social unit works together... "united we stand divided we fall", that kind of stuff. We have instinctual pressures to work together within our social units, which can be church groups, sports teams, nations, etc... Most of the "top of the list" immoral acts throughout history have been crimes done by one social unit unto another. Think of the Mountain Meadows massacre, the bombing of Tokyo, etc... Social instincts drive us to work together to meet the goals of our social unit (we call this morality), but when our social unit needs to be defended from another that we are at war with we respond by protecting our social unit from percieved harm from other social units -- that's when we get to the immorality of war (Mountain Meadows, the bombing of Tokyo, etc...) Both morality and immorality in this case are just the manifestations of social instincts. The role I see that religion plays in promoting morality is merely as a venue. A concert needs a venue. Religion is a gathering of people into a social unit (the venue), and that social unit can then exercise social instincts (morality). Do you believe in good and evil? If morality is only based on evolution/natural selection there is nothing inherently good or evil. Madoff is only an extension of his childhood/genes/environment as his Hilter as is a child molester. Am I right or do you view it differently? What would make you believe in a deity? If you are seriously interested in this, I'd recommend Mere Christianity. Not to be a cop out, but he explains it much better than I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Liberty and rk, Maybe you guys didn't see my question, but what would make you believe in a deity? Eric, if you'd like to answer, I would appreciate that, too. Same way that I believe in atoms and radio waves; reproducible, conclusive and falsifiable evidence. So, you believe in value investing, although evidence is clearly against it? Most academics largely dismiss value investing, even saying that Buffett's streak was luck. Also, let's say you had a personal story like I discussed. Would that change anything? Are you comparing investing, which is mostly a social construct based on man-made institutions, to the laws of physics? I'm sorry but I can't follow you there (and I also disagree that evidence is against value investing -- there's a difference between what most people believe and what the evidence is -- even when most people thought the earth was flat the evidence was that it was an oblate spheroid, and even if most people believe in EMT, the evidence is that markets aren't completely efficient). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Liberty and rk, Maybe you guys didn't see my question, but what would make you believe in a deity? Eric, if you'd like to answer, I would appreciate that, too. Same way that I believe in atoms and radio waves; reproducible, conclusive and falsifiable evidence. So, you believe in value investing, although evidence is clearly against it? Most academics largely dismiss value investing, even saying that Buffett's streak was luck. Also, let's say you had a personal story like I discussed. Would that change anything? Are you comparing investing, which is mostly a social construct based on man-made institutions, to the laws of physics? I'm sorry but I can't follow you there (and I also disagree that evidence is against value investing -- there's a difference between what most people believe and what the evidence is -- even when most people thought the earth was flat the evidence was that it was an oblate spheroid, and even if most people believe in EMT, the evidence is that markets aren't completely efficient). I'm comparing those who do "investors/religious folk" to those who don't practice "academics/physicist". If you are playing in the market or playing in the spiritual side, I would give some weight to the actual practitioners. I see a lot of arrogance in the atheist viewpoint quite often. Even that video that alwaysinvert just posted, the presenter has made a couple of jabs. Do not think that arrogance doesn't cloud judgement - ala subprime mortgages. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 I don't think it matters too much in the end, as it's not like religious folks can't be arrogant too. All humans can be, and saying "the sky is blue" with an arrogant tone doesn't make the sky green. What matters in the end is the correctness of the reasoning and the evidence on which it is based, and so far I don't find any religious arguments for the supernatural convincing, whether they are delivered humbly or arrogantly. That's the bottom line for me. But as we're moving away from evolutionary biology and such, I'm losing interest and I feel others probably are too, so I'll try to only post if there's something I feel could interest people more widely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 We have morality (I think, anyway) Where does morality fit in with religion? I see morality as merely the manifestation of social instincts. A moral person cares for how his actions affect the good of the social unit. To me that is 100% social evolutionary advantage. The more the social unit works together... "united we stand divided we fall", that kind of stuff. We have instinctual pressures to work together within our social units, which can be church groups, sports teams, nations, etc... Most of the "top of the list" immoral acts throughout history have been crimes done by one social unit unto another. Think of the Mountain Meadows massacre, the bombing of Tokyo, etc... Social instincts drive us to work together to meet the goals of our social unit (we call this morality), but when our social unit needs to be defended from another that we are at war with we respond by protecting our social unit from percieved harm from other social units -- that's when we get to the immorality of war (Mountain Meadows, the bombing of Tokyo, etc...) Both morality and immorality in this case are just the manifestations of social instincts. The role I see that religion plays in promoting morality is merely as a venue. A concert needs a venue. Religion is a gathering of people into a social unit (the venue), and that social unit can then exercise social instincts (morality). Do you believe in good and evil? If morality is only based on evolution/natural selection there is nothing inherently good or evil. Madoff is only an extension of his childhood/genes/environment as his Hilter as is a child molester. Am I right or do you view it differently? What would make you believe in a deity? If you are seriously interested in this, I'd recommend Mere Christianity. Not to be a cop out, but he explains it much better than I do. Good and evil are nuanced. I believe in suffering, empathy and guilt. An empathetic person that eases the suffering of others is deemed as "good". One lacking in empathy for others is "evil". The "evil" person may just be working for the good of his social unit -- see "immorality" in the context of war. Good and evil to me belong in the context of those three things (there may be more than three things at work here, but those are my "big three" from 10 seconds of thinking). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 I don't think it matters too much in the end, as it's not like religious folks can't be arrogant too. All humans can be, and saying "the sky is blue" with an arrogant tone doesn't make the sky green. What matters in the end is the correctness of the reasoning and the evidence on which it is based, and so far I don't find any religious arguments for the supernatural convincing, whether they are delivered humbly or arrogantly. That's the bottom line for me. But as we're moving away from evolutionary biology and such, I'm losing interest and I feel others probably are too, so I'll try to only post if there's something I feel could interest people more widely. I agree with you there, too. I don't like arrogance on either side. Feel free to PM your thoughts after you read Mere Christianity, too. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 We have morality (I think, anyway) Where does morality fit in with religion? I see morality as merely the manifestation of social instincts. A moral person cares for how his actions affect the good of the social unit. To me that is 100% social evolutionary advantage. The more the social unit works together... "united we stand divided we fall", that kind of stuff. We have instinctual pressures to work together within our social units, which can be church groups, sports teams, nations, etc... Most of the "top of the list" immoral acts throughout history have been crimes done by one social unit unto another. Think of the Mountain Meadows massacre, the bombing of Tokyo, etc... Social instincts drive us to work together to meet the goals of our social unit (we call this morality), but when our social unit needs to be defended from another that we are at war with we respond by protecting our social unit from percieved harm from other social units -- that's when we get to the immorality of war (Mountain Meadows, the bombing of Tokyo, etc...) Both morality and immorality in this case are just the manifestations of social instincts. The role I see that religion plays in promoting morality is merely as a venue. A concert needs a venue. Religion is a gathering of people into a social unit (the venue), and that social unit can then exercise social instincts (morality). Do you believe in good and evil? If morality is only based on evolution/natural selection there is nothing inherently good or evil. Madoff is only an extension of his childhood/genes/environment as his Hilter as is a child molester. Am I right or do you view it differently? What would make you believe in a deity? If you are seriously interested in this, I'd recommend Mere Christianity. Not to be a cop out, but he explains it much better than I do. Good and evil are nuanced. I believe in suffering, empathy and guilt. An empathetic person that eases the suffering of others is deemed as "good". One lacking in empathy for others is "evil". The "evil" person may just be working for the good of his social unit -- see "immorality" in the context of war. Good and evil to me belong in the context of those three things (there may be more than three things at work here, but those are my "big three" from 10 seconds of thinking). Fair enough. So, I would assume that, in reality, there is not much difference in good and evil between Buffett and Madoff for you then? Buffett is acting in the best use of his social instincts (himself and his shareholders) while Madoff is acting in the best use of his social instincts (himself and his family). Neither is inherently better or worse in the grand scheme of things. They are just actions and nothing more. Am I following you correctly there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 So, I would assume that, in reality, there is not much difference in good and evil between Buffett and Madoff for you then? No, for me, I am going to view them as good or evil from the context of my social unit. Similarly, Bush is a good moral man to some Christians and to others (families of civilians bombed in Pakistan) he may be viewed as a cruel evil man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 So, I would assume that, in reality, there is not much difference in good and evil between Buffett and Madoff for you then? No, for me, I am going to view them as good or evil from the context of my social unit. Similarly, Bush is a good moral man to some Christians and to others (families of civilians bombed in Pakistan) he may be viewed as a cruel evil man. But overall, in the grand scheme of things, there is no difference, right? If we remove our own biases, they are both equally good and/or/nor bad? They are relative and there is nothing absolute about them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoch01 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Liberty and rk, Maybe you guys didn't see my question, but what would make you believe in a deity? Eric, if you'd like to answer, I would appreciate that, too. Same way that I believe in atoms and radio waves; reproducible, conclusive and falsifiable evidence. You can't falsify the proposition that you are a brain in a vat, but I'm supposing you believe you are not a brain in a vat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoch01 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 So, I would assume that, in reality, there is not much difference in good and evil between Buffett and Madoff for you then? No, for me, I am going to view them as good or evil from the context of my social unit. Similarly, Bush is a good moral man to some Christians and to others (families of civilians bombed in Pakistan) he may be viewed as a cruel evil man. Yes I think this is the right way to think about it. If there is no God, morality amounts to nothing more than social instincts, personal preference, biological influence, and the like. There is nothing intrinsically right or wrong - it's all a matter of perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoch01 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 This is a good thread, and I'm commenting on it now only because Parsad recommended it in another thread. It should be noted that there is no incompatibility with Christian theism and evolution. The conflict really arises only when metaphysical naturalism is conjoined with evolution. But neither application of the scientific method nor advances in scientific discovery advance us towards or away from metaphysical naturalism - you'll have to look elsewhere for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Liberty and rk, Maybe you guys didn't see my question, but what would make you believe in a deity? Eric, if you'd like to answer, I would appreciate that, too. Same way that I believe in atoms and radio waves; reproducible, conclusive and falsifiable evidence. So, you believe in value investing, although evidence is clearly against it? Most academics largely dismiss value investing, even saying that Buffett's streak was luck. Also, let's say you had a personal story like I discussed. Would that change anything? Where is evidence clearly against value investing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysinvert Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 On the original subject of this thread: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20120821.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 I don't think it matters too much in the end, as it's not like religious folks can't be arrogant too. Just drive around some towns and look at the "Jesus Saves!" signs. Never have I seen "Jesus May or May Not Save!" on such a sign, nor do they seem to have any modesty in expressing this opinion of theirs publicly. To all the religious persons who are tired of the arrogance of the atheists: Keep your views to yourselves. Take them off of the public radio waves, take them off of cable TV, take down your billboards espousing your views, remove your bibles from hotel rooms and carry your own, don't come to my front door and ask me to listen to your viewpoints (I don't walk up to your front door and ask you to hear my atheist views), agree out of respect for the atheists to remove your "one nation under God" verbage, etc... etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Actually much acrimony and violence throughout history could have been avoided if only there were an Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not convert thy neighbor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbitisrich Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 So, I would assume that, in reality, there is not much difference in good and evil between Buffett and Madoff for you then? No, for me, I am going to view them as good or evil from the context of my social unit. Similarly, Bush is a good moral man to some Christians and to others (families of civilians bombed in Pakistan) he may be viewed as a cruel evil man. Yes I think this is the right way to think about it. If there is no God, morality amounts to nothing more than social instincts, personal preference, biological influence, and the like. There is nothing intrinsically right or wrong - it's all a matter of perspective. Even with God, the same would hold. God would simply overlay an additional punishment/reward scheme. You would still rely on social instincts, personal preference, et. al. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 I just had an interesting thought (to me). According to legend, Bruce Berkowitz hires experts to come in and try to tear up his investment ideas. I wonder if there is a religion that meets every Sunday (or whenever) that invites outside scholars to come in and try to tear up their ideas. I know a lot of people who belong to a given church simply because either that's who got to them first, or because they were born into that church. They normally don't understand the outside views of atheists or of members of other religions. They meet every Sunday and just study their own religion. Could there be more personal growth and understanding for them if there were a weekly guest who could try to tear up their ideas? They may find more enlightenment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 I don't think it matters too much in the end, as it's not like religious folks can't be arrogant too. Just drive around some towns and look at the "Jesus Saves!" signs. Never have I seen "Jesus May or May Not Save!" on such a sign, nor do they seem to have any modesty in expressing this opinion of theirs publicly. To all the religious persons who are tired of the arrogance of the atheists: Keep your views to yourselves. Take them off of the public radio waves, take them off of cable TV, take down your billboards espousing your views, remove your bibles from hotel rooms and carry your own, don't come to my front door and ask me to listen to your viewpoints (I don't walk up to your front door and ask you to hear my atheist views), agree out of respect for the atheists to remove your "one nation under God" verbage, etc... etc... http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/man-faces-five-years-for-god-does-not-exist-facebook-post/7796 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 I don't think it matters too much in the end, as it's not like religious folks can't be arrogant too. Just drive around some towns and look at the "Jesus Saves!" signs. Never have I seen "Jesus May or May Not Save!" on such a sign, nor do they seem to have any modesty in expressing this opinion of theirs publicly. To all the religious persons who are tired of the arrogance of the atheists: Keep your views to yourselves. Take them off of the public radio waves, take them off of cable TV, take down your billboards espousing your views, remove your bibles from hotel rooms and carry your own, don't come to my front door and ask me to listen to your viewpoints (I don't walk up to your front door and ask you to hear my atheist views), agree out of respect for the atheists to remove your "one nation under God" verbage, etc... etc... http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/man-faces-five-years-for-god-does-not-exist-facebook-post/7796 He shall be punished for his arrogance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoch01 Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Yes I think this is the right way to think about it. If there is no God, morality amounts to nothing more than social instincts, personal preference, biological influence, and the like. There is nothing intrinsically right or wrong - it's all a matter of perspective. Even with God, the same would hold. God would simply overlay an additional punishment/reward scheme. You would still rely on social instincts, personal preference, et. al. I'm not entirely sure what that second sentence means, but it doesn't seem like you disagreed with anything I said. Maybe you are just emphasizing the second half of the conditional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 So, I would assume that, in reality, there is not much difference in good and evil between Buffett and Madoff for you then? No, for me, I am going to view them as good or evil from the context of my social unit. Similarly, Bush is a good moral man to some Christians and to others (families of civilians bombed in Pakistan) he may be viewed as a cruel evil man. But overall, in the grand scheme of things, there is no difference, right? If we remove our own biases, they are both equally good and/or/nor bad? They are relative and there is nothing absolute about them? Eric, I'm still waiting for your response here. Honestly, I really value your opinion and I'd like to know if what I'm assuming is true for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts