Post by Enigmatic on Aug 30, 2010 17:41:26 GMT -5
I've got about minute to type this up, so I won't address all your points.
Who says there is morality? Maybe it's evolutionary? Sure, it sucks if it is, but I'd rather rely on logic than what I perceive to be a better world.
I don't accept your basic assumption here- that there is an absolute morality that is true for all peoples at all times. I think that our morality comes from 2 sources:
a) Our biology, and in particular our biologically-based capacity for empathizing with others.
b) Society. Humans are inherently social beings, and there are commonalities that apply to all human social groups. Thus killing in-group members is universely condemned- necessarily so, since groups that did not condemn it are unlikely to persist. At the same time, however, there are enormous differences in morality across cultures and between different historical epochs.
a) Our biology, and in particular our biologically-based capacity for empathizing with others.
b) Society. Humans are inherently social beings, and there are commonalities that apply to all human social groups. Thus killing in-group members is universely condemned- necessarily so, since groups that did not condemn it are unlikely to persist. At the same time, however, there are enormous differences in morality across cultures and between different historical epochs.
Which is why I labeled that particular point the most debatable. I can't precisely explain morality. Not really. I've said in other threads that I don't understand morality as a product of evolution. At least on a larger scale, within the group it makes sense. That doesn't mean it isn't, of course. I do believe that some things are wrong. Not wrong on a societal level, but wrong on a fundamental unalterable level. Accepting that, I cannot accept that morality as we know it is a product of society or evolution. Perhaps it's wishful thinking on my part to believe that there is a definite moral law, but that is my position.
I'd actually steal your point about biology. I believe that God created us and that He created us with a "moral compass." We are built with a capacity to empathize with our fellow man. As I said, we have an endemic sense of right and wrong.
Morality does not require God- it can be explained naturalistically. However, as I've already argued, morality does make the Christian God extremely problematic, given his murderous and vindictive actions in the OT.
I'm not going there again. I think that horse is well and truly dead and beaten.
But what then is the cause of the supreme being? The normal theist answer is that there isn't one- God is uncaused. Well then, you might as well say that the universe is uncaused. Bringing in a supreme being is superfluous- it explains nothing.
It seems to me to be somewhat intellectually arrogant to assume that the universe has a cause that we can know about. We are finite beings, and its very plausible that there are inescapable limits to our knowledge. The ultimate origins of the universe may be something that we can never fully understand, although I'm sure that the cosmologists will continue to give it their best shot.
It seems to me to be somewhat intellectually arrogant to assume that the universe has a cause that we can know about. We are finite beings, and its very plausible that there are inescapable limits to our knowledge. The ultimate origins of the universe may be something that we can never fully understand, although I'm sure that the cosmologists will continue to give it their best shot.
I guess it would be pretty predictable of me to say that God is uncaused. I'm not sure how God being uncaused means the universe is uncaused though.
You're right about one thing, we can never fully understand the ultimate origins of the universe. That doesn't mean we can't know certain things about it.
Ah yes, the anthropic principal. The problem is that we don't know how many different universes there are. There may be an infinity of 'em for all we know. Of course the one that we live in necessarily has laws that allow us to exist- but there may also be a vastly huge number of universes where life is impossible. It really doesn't prove anything, I'm afraid.
I really don't see that as a problem. One universe, a hundred, a thousand, a million, I don't think it matters. God is over and beyond the universe. Should it exist, God is over and beyond the multiverse. If God created this universe, He could have created a thousand billion others. In any case, the context of this discussion and everything else, is this universe.
As Guy so aptly observed this thread is "Evidence for a God." It's not "Proof of a God." I'm fully aware of the fact I'm not proving anything. I'm simply laying out some evidence.
a) DNA is a chemical- it is not a code, and certainly not a language. It acquires meaning within a particular context- that of the living organism, and even then is open to multiple 'readings' (a given piece of DNA can be transcribed in more than one way).
b) Information does not somehow exist independently and exclusively in the genome. In actuality, it makes sense to talk about biological information, but I would argue that information is ubiquitous in biology. All biological processes involve the transfer and manipulation of information; all biological processes are to some degree computational.
c) If we are to seek the source of biological information, then we need to look at the organization of biological systems rather than at their particular specific components (such as DNA). Living things are characterized by a sort of causal closure, in which systemic variables form a meshwork of interdependent causation. It is from this organization structure, which is often called 'self-organizing', that imo meaning and intentionality derive.
d) Minds are just as much biological as digestive systems; thinking is as biological as respiration or excretion. I would argue for a kind of life-mind continuity here. All biological systems are to some degree computational and intentional. Our higher-level thinking, planning etc is pre-figured in the operation of simpler living systems.
There is no need for a supreme cook. Organisms are their own cooks- they manufacture themselves.
b) Information does not somehow exist independently and exclusively in the genome. In actuality, it makes sense to talk about biological information, but I would argue that information is ubiquitous in biology. All biological processes involve the transfer and manipulation of information; all biological processes are to some degree computational.
c) If we are to seek the source of biological information, then we need to look at the organization of biological systems rather than at their particular specific components (such as DNA). Living things are characterized by a sort of causal closure, in which systemic variables form a meshwork of interdependent causation. It is from this organization structure, which is often called 'self-organizing', that imo meaning and intentionality derive.
d) Minds are just as much biological as digestive systems; thinking is as biological as respiration or excretion. I would argue for a kind of life-mind continuity here. All biological systems are to some degree computational and intentional. Our higher-level thinking, planning etc is pre-figured in the operation of simpler living systems.
There is no need for a supreme cook. Organisms are their own cooks- they manufacture themselves.
I'm by no means a scientist and perhaps it's just the inherent differences in our worldviews, but I see nothing in those four points which disputes my claims. Maybe I'm missing something in your argument.
Oh, the reference a the end of my post is now working. Check it out, it's a nice talk.