God, Morals, and Atheists (page 15)

bohm

"By the same token, would any Atheist like to explain why their worldview is better than the Theist's worldview?"

First we got to define what is meant by atheistic worldview. I have a feeling im not going to agree.

UnDisfellowshipped

Bohm,

You said that it was the atheistic worldview which "

has sure cured a hell of a lot more illnesses than the former thestic explanation."

Bohm, Do you have any references showing that they were atheist scientists who discovered the cures to all those illnesses? Were the original modern scientists atheists? Did they subscribe to an atheist worldview?

UnDisfellowshipped

Bohm, here is what I am talking about when I say "atheistic worldview" or "naturalistic worldview":

Definition of "Naturalism" from Wikipedia.com:

"In its broadest and strongest sense, naturalism is the metaphysical position that "nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature." This is generally referred to as metaphysical or ontological naturalism."

Definition of "Naturalism" from Merriam-Webster.com:

"a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance ; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena."

Definition of "Naturalism" from Princeton's website:

"the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations."

Definition of "Naturalism" from Wiktionary.com:

"The doctrine that denies a supernatural agency in the miracles and revelations recorded in the Bible, and in spiritual influences; Any system of philosophy which refers the phenomena of nature as a blind force or forces acting necessarily."

And, here is how Victor Reppert described the Materialistic Naturalist Worldview in his book called "C.S. Lewis' Dangerous Idea":

1:) The physical level is to be understood mechanistically, such that purposive explanations must be further explained in terms of non-purposive substratum.

2:) The physical order is causally closed. No nonphysical causes operate on the physical level. The physical level is a comprehensive system of events that is not affected by anything that is not itself physical.

UnDisfellowshipped

Bohm said:

"The societies/tribes which did not have moral laws hard coded into them from birth would either die out, or be out-competed by those who had. Thats why you and I have morals hard-coded into them."

My Reply:

But what scientific evidence do you have that shows that morals evolved naturally, and what does science show about HOW morals would have evolved naturally?

Specifically, what about self-sacrificing morals, such as willingly sacrificing your own life to save a stranger's life?

Or stepping in and putting your life on the line to protect a woman you don't know from being raped?

Does science explain how those morals ever developed or evolved naturally?

How would self-sacrificing morals help that tribe SURVIVE?

If everyone developed self-sacrificing morals, then wouldn't MORE of that tribe die out faster?

bohm

Ah, perfectly fine by me.

Well, in that case i will notice that the bible instruct us to do certain things when a person is sick, eg. pray or kill and animal and spatter its blood around. Other religions totally attribute illness to "Deamons" or "evil spirits".

In my oppinion, science has created better solutions than those, and has shown that illnesses are not caused by supernatural things.

UnDisfellowshipped

Bohm said:

"which is why the bible never tell us slavery is wrong, or that women and men are equal"

Actually, the Apostle Paul did teach that slavery is wrong and that men and women are ONE in Christ.

UnDisfellowshipped

Bohm said:

"bah, simply not true. So your telling me im a bad atheist because i think rape is 100% wrong? As i allready explained, Evolution WOULD give us morals, because morals has enourmeous UTILLITY."

My Reply:

If you truly believe that only nature and natural laws, processes etc. exist, then there is NO outside authority behind any moral thoughts you may have.

Anyone can do anything they desire and there will be no ultimate Judge or Law-Giver to face.

bohm

Yes, its quite easy to explain those things from an evolutionary standpoint.

First off, we must notice that humans are not the only animal to show altruistic behaviour which is not entirely rational. For example, it has been observed that an elephant has helped a deer escape an enclosure by opening the gate, and many, many animals coorporate and protect their group. Now let me ask you: Do you believe coorporation gives a destinct advantage to a group of humans over those who does not coorporate?

Secondly, about the apparent paradoxes like humans trying to save whales or strangers, you are making a fundamental mistake about the development of the human mind. Namely, you assume our mind is optimized (by evolution) to think rationally. Its not. thats not what evolution predicts - evolution select the genes which has the best utillity in terms of survival, and that sometimes lead to behaviour which make little sence, such as saving rape victims we dont know.

If you study game theory you will notice there is a very well-known strategy which is optimal in many games, namely the "tit-for-tat"-strategy. What it basically consist of is that you should be nice to strangers, if they are nice to you then you should be even more nice to them. If they are not so nice, you should be less nice.

bohm

If you truly believe that only nature and natural laws, processes etc. exist, then there is NO outside authority behind any moral thoughts you may have.

Anyone can do anything they desire and there will be no ultimate Judge or Law-Giver to face.

Oh dear. You think i think i can do anything because i dont believe in God? Thats nonsense!

Fundamentally, this boil down to both IF we want to survive, and IF we want to survive well. Those things are hard-coded into us. IF we deside to survive, coorporation is a very good strategy. If we deside to go down the path of coorporation, morals, law, rights follow, and i think that objectively, protecting eg. individuals rights is the best way to go.

There are other ways to coorporate - you can have the american constitution or you can have north korea, and i think objectively the american constitution is what happends if we apply reason to the coarse framework for coorporation evolution has hard-coded into us, and is objectively a better way to build a society than one where individuals rights are not recognized to the same extent.

bohm

Look, take the real numbers. God OR science is completely silent on the existence of the real numbers. Its possible to argue that the natural and rational numbers exist per the bible, but the real numbers are never mentioned. Neither are the real numbers particular physical - we have never seen a real number, and they do lead to odd stuff such at the banach-tarski paradox.

But we all use them! They have utillity -- thats why we just deside to pretend they are there, even though they are completely abstract. You can sit down all day and argue back and forth if the real numbers are really there, but the easiest way to build a space shuttle is just to use them and get on with your calculations!

The same way with morals - you cant really proove it exist, and the more you think of it from that angle, the more it seem like you could just do without. But it has even greater utillity to have morals than the real numbers, so its a completely worthless idea to try to do away with them.

God, Morals, and Atheists

Share this