Me: In other words, no reason at all...
S.B.: precisely.
Me: We are random assemblages of atoms with no purpose, no meaning, and no reason. There is no such thing as virtue, right or wrong, or truth. So the statement is meaningless., as is our lives.
S.B.: not at all - but I see those things as social constructs, and have no problem with that. It's up to me to create my own purpose in life, and to find my own meaning.
to me that doesn't seem to be a problem -- and I certainly have no problems telling right from wrong, nor do I see much evidence to suggest that those who DO feel there's a higher power are especially good at being virtuous.
Me: Your statements are meaningless. Your found purpose is meaningless, because it is also a construct. There is no right and wrong, so there is no way to identify virtue.
I did not claim that believing in a higher power makes one more virtuous. In fact those people are usually the first to admit their inability to be virtuous. But at least they have an objective standard to compare to. Yours is arbitrary.
S.B.: as is yours.
S.B.: precisely.
Me: We are random assemblages of atoms with no purpose, no meaning, and no reason. There is no such thing as virtue, right or wrong, or truth. So the statement is meaningless., as is our lives.
S.B.: not at all - but I see those things as social constructs, and have no problem with that. It's up to me to create my own purpose in life, and to find my own meaning.
to me that doesn't seem to be a problem -- and I certainly have no problems telling right from wrong, nor do I see much evidence to suggest that those who DO feel there's a higher power are especially good at being virtuous.
Me: Your statements are meaningless. Your found purpose is meaningless, because it is also a construct. There is no right and wrong, so there is no way to identify virtue.
I did not claim that believing in a higher power makes one more virtuous. In fact those people are usually the first to admit their inability to be virtuous. But at least they have an objective standard to compare to. Yours is arbitrary.
S.B.: as is yours.
K.R.: Guys---just chill-- We all want our life on this earth to count.
B.D.: What reason could there possibly be to be decent to your fellow man unless there's an invisible guy in the sky threatening to punish you if you don't?
Me: What reason could there possibly be to be decent to your fellow man if there isn't an invisible guy in the sky threatening to punish you if you don't?
Me: Kristi, we are engaging in a polite debate, which Scott and I have done many times before on a variety of subjects. No one is angry here.
S.B.: Rich -- How about a social contract with your fellow human beings, handed down over tens of thousands of years of cultural traditions and reinforced through genetics (portions of our brains appear to be hard-wired to "care" about what others think of our actions -- which may explain why sociopathy is relatively uncommon).
And from a non-believer's point of view, that's really no different than the invisible guy. That's simply another form of social contract, amongst a group of similar believers (because we certainly don't see different religious groups agreeing on the finer points of what laws are God-given) with an enforcement mechanism that carries (for some, at least) more clout than mere ostracism by their peers.
If you've got faith that there is some God to give law to the universe, that's fine -- but don't presume to think that it is the only motivation to be altruistic or to concern yourself with the notions of good/bad, right or wrong.
B.W.: Hmmm. This might be the right time to give Hub's speech about life?
Me: I am presuming nothing, since I have made no defense of my own morality or reason for existence. I have been solely concerned with what, if any reason apart from objective morality, is there to act morally.
Hard wired? That assumes the premise that morality is good, a tautology.
S.B.: No it only presumes that morality confers some sort of competitive advantage in an evolutionary sense. And that's neither tautology nor especially hard to find evidence for.
S.B.: More specifically and precisely - that traits that are often linked to morality, such as empathy (do unto others), altruism (you ARE your brothers keeper), and honesty (don't lie), are traits that have provided us with some tiny advantage - not hard to imagine especially in light of how much of our evolutionary history is set in the context of small, tribal groups where how you treated others often had bearing on how likely you were to share in the group's bounty
Me: Altruism is an advantage? Sacrificing what you have for someone else puts you in a evolutionary disadvantage.
You assume virtue in various things without context or cause.
S.B.: actually, there's a very large literature examining the evolutionary basis for altruism. Again, recall that we have evolved as a social creature, and most of that evolutionary history has taken place in small, tight knit tribal settings -- plenty of time for certain traits that make it easier to survive in a group setting to leave a genetic fingerprint.
Nice review of the literature in this paper: http://ggsc-web02.ist.berkeley.edu/.../Trivers...
as to the nature vs. nurture question, and the degree to which behavioral traits might be in part genetic, I recommend reading Stephen Pinker's "The Blank Slate" -- outstanding discussion of the whole issue.
B.D.: What reason could there possibly be to be decent to your fellow man unless there's an invisible guy in the sky threatening to punish you if you don't?
Me: What reason could there possibly be to be decent to your fellow man if there isn't an invisible guy in the sky threatening to punish you if you don't?
Me: Kristi, we are engaging in a polite debate, which Scott and I have done many times before on a variety of subjects. No one is angry here.
S.B.: Rich -- How about a social contract with your fellow human beings, handed down over tens of thousands of years of cultural traditions and reinforced through genetics (portions of our brains appear to be hard-wired to "care" about what others think of our actions -- which may explain why sociopathy is relatively uncommon).
And from a non-believer's point of view, that's really no different than the invisible guy. That's simply another form of social contract, amongst a group of similar believers (because we certainly don't see different religious groups agreeing on the finer points of what laws are God-given) with an enforcement mechanism that carries (for some, at least) more clout than mere ostracism by their peers.
If you've got faith that there is some God to give law to the universe, that's fine -- but don't presume to think that it is the only motivation to be altruistic or to concern yourself with the notions of good/bad, right or wrong.
B.W.: Hmmm. This might be the right time to give Hub's speech about life?
Me: I am presuming nothing, since I have made no defense of my own morality or reason for existence. I have been solely concerned with what, if any reason apart from objective morality, is there to act morally.
Hard wired? That assumes the premise that morality is good, a tautology.
S.B.: No it only presumes that morality confers some sort of competitive advantage in an evolutionary sense. And that's neither tautology nor especially hard to find evidence for.
S.B.: More specifically and precisely - that traits that are often linked to morality, such as empathy (do unto others), altruism (you ARE your brothers keeper), and honesty (don't lie), are traits that have provided us with some tiny advantage - not hard to imagine especially in light of how much of our evolutionary history is set in the context of small, tribal groups where how you treated others often had bearing on how likely you were to share in the group's bounty
Me: Altruism is an advantage? Sacrificing what you have for someone else puts you in a evolutionary disadvantage.
You assume virtue in various things without context or cause.
S.B.: actually, there's a very large literature examining the evolutionary basis for altruism. Again, recall that we have evolved as a social creature, and most of that evolutionary history has taken place in small, tight knit tribal settings -- plenty of time for certain traits that make it easier to survive in a group setting to leave a genetic fingerprint.
Nice review of the literature in this paper: http://ggsc-web02.ist.berkeley.edu/.../Trivers...
as to the nature vs. nurture question, and the degree to which behavioral traits might be in part genetic, I recommend reading Stephen Pinker's "The Blank Slate" -- outstanding discussion of the whole issue.
C.S.: Rich, it is also important to remember that evolutionary advantage is a concepts applies to the group, not JUST individuals. Things like altruism are ultimately good for the survival of the group/tribe/species.
Me: Because evolution is all about what's good for groups.
Me: It's amazing how we are able to imagine purpose, goodness, and utility in a purposeless universe.
S.B.: Evolution often is about group survival Rich - a direct consequence of how it works
As to purpose, that's your words not mine. There is often utility but that hardly need be imagined - it's demonstrated daily.
I'd argue that goodness is defined socially - whether we imagine a higher power as part of that definition is simply detail
Me: You are attempting to describe mechanics. No purpose required.
How is different than why. There is no why, therefore there is no purpose, no reason, no order other than unguided forces. It's nothing but laughable self-delusion to attempt to invent your own purpose in a void.
Me: Because evolution is all about what's good for groups.
Me: It's amazing how we are able to imagine purpose, goodness, and utility in a purposeless universe.
S.B.: Evolution often is about group survival Rich - a direct consequence of how it works
As to purpose, that's your words not mine. There is often utility but that hardly need be imagined - it's demonstrated daily.
I'd argue that goodness is defined socially - whether we imagine a higher power as part of that definition is simply detail
Me: You are attempting to describe mechanics. No purpose required.
How is different than why. There is no why, therefore there is no purpose, no reason, no order other than unguided forces. It's nothing but laughable self-delusion to attempt to invent your own purpose in a void.
B.W.: Butting in...
I would tend to agree that a universe that has no transcendental purpose has little (if any) intrinsic value. However, a universe that has transcendental purpose may have great value. Since we can't prove (or disprove) either with physics or philosophy, we are left to choose which paradigm we assume.
In the movie, "Second Hand Lions", the character, Hub, played by Robert Diniro, attempts to tell us which paradigm we should accept, whether it's true or not: http://youtu.be/wJemDZcgIZE
S.B.: Rich, -- what's laughable to you is not to me. And vice versa. The notion that there is some unseen entity guiding all this is irrelevant to me if I can neither prove it nor disprove it -- lacking faith I see no reason to feign it "just in case"
Me: I have made no case or mention of an unseen entity. You case stands or falls on its own.
I would tend to agree that a universe that has no transcendental purpose has little (if any) intrinsic value. However, a universe that has transcendental purpose may have great value. Since we can't prove (or disprove) either with physics or philosophy, we are left to choose which paradigm we assume.
In the movie, "Second Hand Lions", the character, Hub, played by Robert Diniro, attempts to tell us which paradigm we should accept, whether it's true or not: http://youtu.be/wJemDZcgIZE
S.B.: Rich, -- what's laughable to you is not to me. And vice versa. The notion that there is some unseen entity guiding all this is irrelevant to me if I can neither prove it nor disprove it -- lacking faith I see no reason to feign it "just in case"
Me: I have made no case or mention of an unseen entity. You case stands or falls on its own.
No comments:
Post a Comment