Answers needed

[Iroscato]

Think of it as an incidental evolutionary pressure, and when applied and its effects become apparent, there is a natural trend away from indulging in it. Much as killing someone's child will result in you having the shit murdered out of you by the parent, thereby removing you from the gene pool. Natural mechanisms that, when played out, result in a pattern forming.
I'm not a biologist so I can't really explain it better than that, but I think the gist of the point is solid enough.

Even more interesting :-). Do you think it matters that kudo usually came as a result of mortuary cannibalism (they weren't actually murdering anyone)? This reminds me of the discussion my anthropology class had last semester of the morality of mortuary cannibalism. Stimulating stuff! Lol the discussion not the cannibalism!

It is interesting, but my point wasn't that it's immoral per se, murder has nothing to do with it. Kuru may be one of the main reasons why cannibalism is, to quote Willy Wonka, frowned upon in most cultures. The observation that such practice caused the disease then leads to it becoming taboo. Morality itself probably didn't play a major part in the development of that idea, but came after the fact. There are many such examples found in society and nature, but due to it being 2:40AM here, I am rapidly forgetting how to brain.

[Louis Chérubin]

Even more interesting :-). Do you think it matters that kudo usually came as a result of mortuary cannibalism (they weren't actually murdering anyone)? This reminds me of the discussion my anthropology class had last semester of the morality of mortuary cannibalism. Stimulating stuff! Lol the discussion not the cannibalism!

It is interesting, but my point wasn't that it's immoral per se, murder has nothing to do with it. Kuru may be one of the main reasons why cannibalism is, to quote Willy Wonka, frowned upon in most cultures. The observation that such practice caused the disease then leads to it becoming taboo. Morality itself probably didn't play a major part in the development of that idea, but came after the fact. There are many such examples found in society and nature, but due to it being 2:40AM here, I am rapidly forgetting how to brain.

"How to brain" 

Go to bed.

[Pyrrho]

Even more interesting :-). Do you think it matters that kudo usually came as a result of mortuary cannibalism (they weren't actually murdering anyone)? This reminds me of the discussion my anthropology class had last semester of the morality of mortuary cannibalism. Stimulating stuff! Lol the discussion not the cannibalism!

It is interesting, but my point wasn't that it's immoral per se, murder has nothing to do with it. Kuru may be one of the main reasons why cannibalism is, to quote Willy Wonka, frowned upon in most cultures. The observation that such practice caused the disease then leads to it becoming taboo. Morality itself probably didn't play a major part in the development of that idea, but came after the fact. There are many such examples found in society and nature, but due to it being 2:40AM here, I am rapidly forgetting how to brain.

That only deters sissy cowards.  Real men are not afraid of such things, and eat what they want to eat.  Next you will be telling us how vegetarians live longer than omnivores, and vegans live even longer.  As if you would live forever if you don't eat people!  Fucking cowards.

[emjay]

Think of it as an incidental evolutionary pressure, and when applied and its effects become apparent, there is a natural trend away from indulging in it. Much as killing someone's child will result in you having the shit murdered out of you by the parent, thereby removing you from the gene pool. Natural mechanisms that, when played out, result in a pattern forming.
I'm not a biologist so I can't really explain it better than that, but I think the gist of the point is solid enough.

Even more interesting :-). Do you think it matters that kudo usually came as a result of mortuary cannibalism (they weren't actually murdering anyone)? This reminds me of the discussion my anthropology class had last semester of the morality of mortuary cannibalism. Stimulating stuff! Lol the discussion not the cannibalism!

---

6. No, I don't think there's necessarily a connection between the mental and the biological but the coincidence is enough for me. Plus, what Iroscato said. Also, I don't claim to be an expert in logic or to make all my decisions based on logic. That's just an emotional boost to my existing theory.
7. I'm sorry, that's over my head, and it's late. Can you give me an example of what you mean?

Here's what I posted before.

"I recently heard a researcher state that naturalism leads him to understand that consciousness is simply a product of chemical reactions. This is the obvious conclusion of naturalism. If you believe this, how do you know that your logic is true? How can you be so dogmatic about the conclusions you draw? Isn't there a good chance they are false? We have a strong conception of free will, but, according to naturalism, that is simply an illusion. Couldn't our minds be playing other similar tricks?"

This is what spurred my thoughts:

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/cogsci-2011/interview-with-judea-pearl

That sounds a lot like what CS Lewis was talking about in the opening chapters of his book 'Miracles'. I didn't get far with that book because I couldn't understand his argument and since it was to be the premise of everything that followed there didn't seem much point in carrying on.

Yes, I believe in the Clockwork Universe, hence my avatar, and believe that that includes all mental processes. How do I know my logic is true? I assure you I never do And yes I do believe that free will is an illusion in some sense just as everything else we perceive is an illusion: there is no colour in the world out there, it only becomes colour in your mind. What sort of tricks of the mind do you mean?

ETA: Anyway, I'm in the same time zone as Iroscato so it's 3:15am so I'll say good night to you both Thanks for the chat.

[Chas]

Hi everyone!

I'm not sure whether this is the right place to post this, but I'd really appreciate some answers to some/all of the following questions. I'm interested in how an average atheist thinks about these topics. It would be great if you could give some explanation for your answers. I'm coming from a protestant worldview.

1. Does God exist?

Probably not.  There is no evidence for any gods.

2. Where did the universe come from?

We don't know, but we're working on it.

3. Does my life have a purpose?

It has whatever purpose you give it.

4. Why do people suffer?

Shit happens.

5. Is there life after death?

There is no evidence of it - there is not even evidence of a mechanism for it.

6. Can I distinguish right from wrong?

Unless you're a psychopath.  Or very religious.

7. Can people know truth?

Some.

[Louis Chérubin]

...
4. People suffer because of sin (which came because God created man with a free will, the best possible creation)
...

First of all, much of what is wrong with the world has nothing to do with humans having free will.  Think of all of the diseases, earthquakes, etc.  So free will does not explain away evil.

Second, it is not entirely clear that we have free will, nor is it entirely clear that having free will is a good thing.  I will set this aside for the moment, but it needs to be established for it to be reasonable to believe your story.  (That would involve explaining what, exactly, "free will" is.)

Third, is there free will in heaven?  If so, does that mean that evil will exist in heaven?  If so, how is heaven different from life now?  And if there is free will in heaven, without evil, then having free will does not explain the existence of evil here and now.  And if there is no free will in heaven, then it must be better to not have free will, since heaven is better than here.  Isn't it?

Fourth, imagine that you and I are having a picnic together in a large park.  We are conversing agreeably, having some wine and good food.  In the distance, we observe a group of people attacking another person, raping and beating the person.  You say, "hey, we should do something" like call the police on your cell phone, go get help, go and directly help the person, whatever.  I say, "no, we can't do that!  We can't interfere with their free will!"  Now, if that really happened, what would you say of me?  Would you regard me as moral or immoral?  Well, I would be doing what God does.  So are you saying it is right to not help others?  Furthermore, we can see that this does not work anyway as an excuse, because us interfering would not affect whether they have free will or not.  We would only be affecting the outcome, not their ability to make choices.  Likewise, God interfering with outcomes would not affect anyone's free will at all.  They could still will to rape and beat and kill, without succeeding.  So this "free will" excuse really excuses nothing whatsoever.

I guess I left out some important info in favour of succinctness. These points corresponds to your above paragraphs.

1. If you read Genesis you'll find that man's sin brought a curse on nature (supposedly). Therefore, his free choice to sin brought the natural evil. Also (this is going to sound wacky), man, in a state of rebellion against God (free will), technically deserves nothing but hell. Thus, anything before death, even the horrors of nature, is better than what he deserves (that's what's called grace).

2. Free will is the power to act apart from natural constraints. According to naturalism, it is simply an illusion. However, any practical naturalist epistemology requires the assumption that man can reason. If you make the assumption that one part of man's consciousness is trustworthy (which is against pure naturalistic logic), it seems logical to me to make the assumption that free will also is. This seems most consistent to me personally.

3. Free will in heaven? Free will isn't the cause of sin, it simply allows it. The Bible says that heaven will in the future be composed only of followers of God. Those who have chosen to continue their rebellion against God will be elsewhere. . . .

4. I never said that God doesn't interfere with the outcomes of free will. My favourite book (take a guess) gives some examples of this. However, God has perfect right (being the creator and offended party) to judge man however he wills, including by using other men. The punishment of the ancient Israelites through contemporary Middle Eastern powers is a perfect example. I am not in the place of God, though, so I'm sorry to say I would have to interrupt our picnic. 

I hope this helps clarify my worldview.

[Cephus]

7. I mean objective reality. (Please don't read into that too much.) This question comes from the fact that our thoughts may be driven by purely chemical processes and therefore may perhaps be unverifiable.

We clearly know a lot about objective reality so yes, if that is what you want to call "truth", we know tons of truth.  We do not know all, that's why we continue to use science.  I'm not sure where this question is headed or why it's even a question.

[robvalue]

Louis: I apologise for any upset. But from my point of view, I asked for a definition. So I assumed you were giving me a definition. Do you have an actual definition?

If you were changing the question to, "Do you believe in something which has evidence for it as long as you believe in it"... that is a very strange question. Please feel free to update either the definition or the question I can't properly answer a question if I don't know what I'm being asked. Surely you can appreciate that? I mean, do you believe in ggljgldjdkfhfkjfffff?

I suppose what you are saying is that if there was evidence, that evidence would manifest itself through nature. Is that right? That is more reasonable, although it's also a tautology since there is currently no other way we could get evidence. So we're left with "a supernatural force". Do I believe in a supernatural force? I have no opinion. I have no idea at all if anything exists beyond what we consider nature or not. Science, and myself, can by definition never know anything about it.

You don't have to address my concerns if they are outside the scope of your questions. In which case, I'll just stick with my previous answers I'm afraid I must bring in fallacies when they are being made, in order to further conversation. If that's not to your liking, then feel free to ignore my responses.

[Louis Chérubin]

Louis: I apologise for any upset. But from my point of view, I asked for a definition. So I assumed you were giving me a definition. Do you have an actual definition?

If you were changing the question to, "Do you believe in something which has evidence for it as long as you believe in it"... that is a very strange question. Please feel free to update either the definition or the question I can't properly answer a question if I don't know what I'm being asked. Surely you can appreciate that? I mean, do you believe in ggljgldjdkfhfkjfffff?

I suppose what you are saying is that if there was evidence, that evidence would manifest itself through nature. Is that right? That is more reasonable, although it's also a tautology since there is currently no other way we could get evidence. So we're left with "a supernatural force". Do I believe in a supernatural force? I have no opinion. I have no idea at all if anything exists beyond what we consider nature or not. Science, and myself, can by definition never know anything about it.

You don't have to address my concerns if they are outside the scope of your questions. In which case, I'll just stick with my previous answers I'm afraid I must bring in fallacies when they are being made, in order to further conversation. If that's not to your liking, then feel free to ignore my responses.

No upset taken. :-) I can see how I caused confusion. May I just use the simple dictionary def? A supernatural being. Science deals with the natural world, so I don't expect it to produce observations from super-nature. However, I feel that science can discover limitations of naturalistic explanations. I prefer not to narrow my epistemological palate to empiricism alone, especially when it doesn't provide satisfactory answers to certain questions. BTW, my mini manifesto is soon to come. 

Oh, and to clarify the question, I guess I then meant, "Is there a supernatural being(s)?"

Oh again, you could rephrase the description as, "A supernatural being of the kind that would be implied by natural (empirical) evidence if such evidence existed" (see above). This is a relic of my real-world context (don't ask). 

But who said tautologies were bad? A truth said twice must be doubly true. Right? :-D

---

Many posters have asked what I consider to be evidence of a god. Since so many have been kind enough to share their beliefs, here’s a brief summary of what I’ve mentioned throughout the thread. I have enough scientific acumen to realize that none of this is proof. But what has the course of human thought been through the ages except a search for most reasonable answers? I also want to remind you that whatever you consider to be evidence for a naturalistic explanation of the cosmos can be reasonably (in my estimation) explained with a theistic narrative of origins.

1. Human thought: When I believe that my thoughts are valid, I implicitly recognize supernatural reality. The problem is, I can’t not believe in the validity of my thoughts. Even if I say, “My thoughts are not valid,” I am trusting that my lack of trust in my thoughts is valid. (!?) If I say, “My thoughts are the result of chemical interactions,” I’m essentially saying, “My thoughts are not valid,” since what basis do I have to think that chemical reactions would produce rational thought?
   
2. Origin of morality: Many people jump to aversion towards murder and attempt to explain it’s natural origin (hence the lively discussions I’ve enjoyed here). Why not start with altruism? This behaviour is not sufficiently explained by either social conditioning or natural selection.
   
3. Everything else. This includes the mathematical improbability of evolution, lack of reasonable fossil evidence of evolution, evidence for a young earth. This is the fuel for a forum fire! So I won’t talk about it--please reciprocate the favour. 
   

I’m not trying to convince anyone. I just wanted to honestly and concisely let you know who I am.

[robvalue]

Fair enough, thanks

My opinion is that a conclusion of a supernatural causation can never currently be valid. For more information on why I think this, please check out my website here.

Again, I'm not saying supernatural explanations are wrong, I'm saying they cannot be reached without using logical fallacies. And any supernatural causation can not be differentiated from any other. In general science does not dismiss the possibility, so I'm not sure what more you want from it