2351. Comment #71060 by PaulEmecz on September 17, 2007 at 5:48 pm

newatheist

Firstly I would count myself as one of the "people in this country", (Australia in my case) so I'm not exempt from my own reference.

Yeah, you are.

I think child porn is wrong.

This is the same as

Child porn is wrong.

Now, you go on:

My knowledge that child sex is detrimental to the child fires up the parts of my brain associated with sympathy and empathy, and I express the opinion that child sex is wrong for anyone to do.

No, no, no, no, no.

Why not say "My knowledge that cigarette smoke contains tar fires up parts of my brain associated with self-preservation and protecting my children, and I express the opinion that smoking is damaging to anyone's health."

You're just calling this an opinion because, in retrospective analysis, you think it has this status. This completely lacks integrity. Child abuse is wrong. You know that, just as much as you know that smoking is bad for you. Let's not start calling this all 'opinion' as though it allows you to pretend not to know it. You KNOW that raping a child is wrong. You do. To deny this, to claim that you see it merely as an opinion, is just dishonest. What you should be asking is 'How can I know things like this?' instead of being disingenuous about it.

I'm sorry to be so direct, but come on. Do you really want to admit that claiming that you don't know that child abuse is wrong, that it's merely a matter of opinion, is not going to cause you huge conflict with your peers? Either you are very unpopular, or you keep the truth of your beliefs hidden from others, or, as I imagine is nearer the truth, you don't believe that these are just opinions at all - you just said that because you thought you had to.

Other Comments by PaulEmecz

2352. Comment #71061 by Hunthome on September 17, 2007 at 5:54 pm

Dawkins several times concedes the idea of the possibility of god but stops short because there is not any knowledge about what "kind" of god this may be. Given that at issue is not about the nature and character but simply the possibility of one. He also speaks later about the faith that he agrees with. In the end it seems as though Dawkins isn't reasonable or concluded about this subject.

Other Comments by Hunthome

2353. Comment #71066 by Goldy on September 17, 2007 at 6:01 pm

Paul, define child. Just so I know where the boundaries are. As it is, in this case, I agree - children are thus and should be encouraged to grow without threat of, well, anything nasty. However, a child in our society is not necessarily a child in other societies...

Other Comments by Goldy

2354. Comment #71068 by Goldy on September 17, 2007 at 6:12 pm

(javascript:pop_me_up2('http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2006/07/06/magazine/20060709_BRIDES_SLIDESHOW_index.html','_','width=,height=,scrollbar=yes,toolbars=no,resizable=yes,location=no');). Very sad - but indicative of societal views of children differing from ours.

Other Comments by Goldy

2355. Comment #71070 by Robert Maynard on September 17, 2007 at 6:26 pm

(Jesus, this is a long thread.. what better time to jump right in without reading the story so far?)

Paul, would you contend that people 'so made' as to be child molesters also know that it's wrong, and are willfully rebelling?
Or is your thinking at least in-this-century enough that you'd concede that what we "know" is entirely a product of our brains development, and that child molesters have real, psychological problems in that area?

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

2356. Comment #71149 by PaulEmecz on September 17, 2007 at 11:10 pm

Robert Maynard

To summarise my position, I accept only two responses to morality - one is that there is no morality, nothing we should or shouldn't do. Moral codes have simply arrived, like social conventions, in a way that might be explained by evolution, sociology, psychology or whatever. There are no 'oughts'.

The other possibility I see is that some things are right and others wrong, there are things you should and should not do - and I have said that I do not see how this could be the case without God.

Strangely enough, people have argued with my position. Out of this argument, my most recent point has been that if you do not believe that there are things you should do and others you should not, there must be 'mental gymnastics' going on. We've been brought up to believe in objective morality - our society behaves as though some things ought not to be done. It is not suggested, if you read the newspapers, that Chris Langham was merely going against convention, or acting in a way that some people believe is wrong, in their opinion. By looking at the worst sort of child porn, the vast majority of people would say he actually is wrong. Does it not require a genuine mental effort to give a response to Langham, once one has realised that morality is not objective?

Other Comments by PaulEmecz

2357. Comment #71164 by Downunder on September 18, 2007 at 1:17 am

Thank you epeeist for 2343. I use the discarded laptop (just noticed its label "IBM ThinkPad") from one of my sons. I have only been using it since last year for my letters. I know "nothing" about computers. I looked and found notepad in here and have just tried it with this post but it shows no tool bar along the top for the "bold" and "italics", so back to Word. Word's sequence of adding "strong etc" is quite a detour but it will do me to highlight just the poster's names; quote and accents have been serving me without reader's complaints sofar.

Other Comments by Downunder

2358. Comment #71171 by Veronique on September 18, 2007 at 1:33 am

Dearest Paul,

Why can't you accept that you make your moral choices based on what you just know to be advantageous to you and everyone else with whom you interact? Why does there have to be a 'being' that dictates to you what is right and what is wrong? You must realise somewhere within you that you make your own moral choices on acceptable behaviour.

You flog this poor old horse to death. Dear man, you know, maybe in an inchoate way, what is right and what is wrong. Please stop trying to box it into an external belief structure. You really do know. You live your life on that premise. Nothing to do with a god. You know!

You don't have to intellectualise this to the 'nth' degree. Life is not that hard; well maybe and maybe sometimes. But not within your living standards in 2007 in Britain? Yes? That's where you live, I think.

It has always seemed to me that a philosopher class (and I am assuming that these conversations actually are a modern day variation on the conversations that consumed ancient philosophers in both Greece and Rome, but not quite as encompassing) needs a slave class (actually so in ancient times), translated into modern day terminology as those who take away the rubbish/garbage that you generate, manage the STPs (Sewage Treatment Plants) when you push the toilet button, generate food production for your consumption (harsh and grinding work with little remuneration, especially now in a climatically changing world; been there, done that), build dams and the reticulating infrastructure that provides you with clean, uncontaminated water when you turn on a tap to wash your son or have a drink of water that will not infest you with nasty organisms.

I know you are 35, so is BAEOZ, so are many on this site whose ages I don't know. Get a grip on the physical reality in which you actually live your life. The thousands of busy little beavers who make your life tenable in Britain and sequester you and your family from poverty, disease and pestilential death need to be lauded. Without public health, you could possibly, even probably, be fucked. Without the taxes I hope you pay you wouldn't have the roads on which you are able to drive. You wouldn't have access to the courts that will hear your case (flawed on 'common' justice as it may be) against someone who is attempting to defraud you etc.

Get your priorities in order. Live your life and if you have to worship something, worship the science that has delivered, to you and yours, longevity without disease and untimely death. What a remarkable achievement our clear thinkers and basic, ordinary science professionals have given to us. Unfortunately the down side of this is that our global population is growing exponentially, attacked on both sides by decreased infant mortality and increased longevity.

Understand that maybe 5,000 or even 2,000 years ago you would never have reached 35 years of age. Your Jesus is reportedly supposed to have died when he was 33 – but that was murder. Average age 30+. You would probably have been dead. It's a great way to look at your longevity. Africa is still in the 30+ timeframe. You are privileged and you should be cognisant of that. Calm down. Live and enjoy.

Love
V

Other Comments by Veronique

2359. Comment #71179 by Goldy on September 18, 2007 at 1:58 am

Think that's been tried, V. Hard work. Morality is like a herd of cats - just hard to put into a box :-D
I'm 35 too, give or take 60 months or so... ;-)

Other Comments by Goldy

2360. Comment #71192 by Philip1978 on September 18, 2007 at 2:30 am

Paul,
I think V has got this very right indeed, I am 29 and am now slowly beginning to understand the world around me better and how I affect it. I may be still a little naive around the edges, but thats simply because I am an optimist of the highest order!


In my, mostly daft, opinion my life is hugely governed by the choices and actions I make and how they affect my environment. Sometimes all it has taken to change things are the smallest of words and I can make someone happy or sad or change a particular situation in the blink of an eye. Life is tough one to manage, especially as unexpected things tend to happen whilst you are making other plans. This is also in conjunction with everybody else I have to share the planet with, people are busy with their own actions and choices! So postulating that a God somehow has some part in this makes absolutely no sense at all to me. 6 Billion people on this planet and rising, each with their own agendas, actions, morals etc and you are telling me God has some part in this? God has a lot of work to do doesnt he? A Mind Bogglingly large universe to cope with, I dread to even think about how many weird and wonderful things there are to prod and play with. Then you have planet Earth, with its animals, weather etc and still God has to have some part in this? Lets face it, he hasn't really gone out of his way to make it easy to believe in him has he? No, its the most complex and improbable that proves his influence and that for me clinches it when science pops up and starts studying it. From what I have learned on this site we humans know roughly about 5% about how life, universe and everything works, possibly moving on to about a staggering 25% if we ever get this dark energy stuff sorted. I dont know about you but that suggests to me that God has very little to do with this universe because the more we know about it the less he is involved.

Ok, lecture over, (I'm too young for this sort of thing hehhehe!) I only urge you to take in what V posted, not only is it very insightful but because its her birthday too hehehe!

cheers,

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

2361. Comment #71208 by Veronique on September 18, 2007 at 3:31 am

2360. Comment #71192 by Philip1978

Thank you. I know that I am right to call Dianelos and Paul to account. Their waffty wankering is pure bullshit. It's a way of trying to divert reasonable discourse into dogmatic idealism.

I, for one, won't wear it.

This tedious bullshit is not what I want to talk about. God rot them.
V

Other Comments by Veronique

2362. Comment #71214 by steve99 on September 18, 2007 at 3:54 am

Does it not require a genuine mental effort to give a response to Langham, once one has realised that morality is not objective?

Gosh Paul, you must really have a struggle in life because of this need to believe in objective things. I have not been following this thread in detail, so I don't know your situation, but let's assume you have a partner, or some children.

Do you go through mental gynmastics when you tell them you love them, because love is just a feeling and there is no objective standard?

Suppose you are eating a nice meal. Do you go through mental torture, because you can't say that the meal is tasty, because there is no objective standard of tastiness?

Suppose you trip and twist your ankle... do you feel you not qualified to say 'it hurts' because you don't know of any objective standard for pain?

Our feeling of morality is a feeling. We feel pangs of conscience (or we should do if we are mentally healthy) about doing certain things. That is life, and the way things are. You don't need a God to instantiate perfect objective morality to have an inner feeling that something is wrong.....

Unless you are going to tell us that God instantiates objective pain, tastiness etc..?

Other Comments by steve99

2363. Comment #71216 by Dianelos Georgoudis on September 18, 2007 at 4:13 am

Corylus (post 2315, or #70332)

Some smarts types (aka. showoffs!) seem to be able to make text appear in different colours and fonts and embed links.

To display some text in blue start use bracket font=blue bracket and then bracket /font bracket. ("brackets" are "<" and ">"). Valid colors are red, blue, green, brown, gray, etc.

The simplest way to display a clickable link is to use Word: after typing an Internet address there it automatically becomes a clickable link; then simply cut and paste it into your edit window here. I bet this works with the free OpenOffice too.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

2364. Comment #71238 by newatheist on September 18, 2007 at 6:23 am

Hi Paul

Don't listen to those other softies. You've got me on the ropes. And I'm pretty tired so I'm probably about to walk into an uppercut. But anyway first I want to clear up a couple of minor quibbles -

[I said] – Firstly I would count myself as one of the "people in this country", (Australia in my case) so I'm not exempt from my own reference.

[You said] - Yeah, you are.

That seems pretty rude. Let me remind you of what I was actually talking about.

you merely believe that people in this country would see Langham's actions as wrong.

I see Langham's actions as wrong. Ergo, I'm the same as the "people in this country" you were referring to.

Why not say "My knowledge that cigarette smoke contains tar fires up parts of my brain associated with self-preservation and protecting my children, and I express the opinion that smoking is damaging to anyone's health."

Is this equivocation? In any case it's fundamentally flawed. You've got it all arse-about. Try -

My knowledge that cigarette smoke contains tar [which is damaging to anyone's health] fires up parts of my brain associated with self-preservation and protecting my children, and I express the opinion that smoking is damaging to anyone's health people shouldn't smoke around me or my children."

I'm fine with that.


[Anyway, back to the ring, where the upstart newatheist is suffering from some steady blows to the body…]

You're just calling this an opinion because, in retrospective analysis, you think it has this status.

Maybe. Maybe I'm trying for an honest position between knowledge and opinion, because I recognise the foibles of people who've held their moral values to be infallible in the past. Have you read the essay via Corylus's comment 2328? Poor Miss Watson! Huck was so weak!

You KNOW that raping a child is wrong. You do. To deny this, to claim that you see it merely as an opinion, is just dishonest.

I think it's more dishonest not to concede that without the knowledge that sex harms the child, I might conceivably hold another opinion* (or I might think I know better). You haven't made any such concessions, unless I missed them earlier. I think that makes you dishonest.

You, or I, might just as easily have been brought up to believe that sex at an early age bestows great developmental benefits on a child. You would say this has no bearing on the "truth" that child sex is wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that in any case you, or I, would have an alternative (albeit misinformed) opinion, and both positions are opinions expressed as knowledge based on different evidence.

Anyway, to echo Veronique et al, you need to relax. There are correct opinions and incorrect opinions. I believe (know?) my opinion is correct. I think you're getting upset because the word "opinion" holds the concession to a possibility of error. In other words the phrase "That's my opinion" should always be "That's just my opinion", and that phrase should always be followed with "but I could be wrong…"

I don't think that way.
[newatheist stumbles back to his corner]




*natural disinclinations aside, as I said earlier.

Other Comments by newatheist

2365. Comment #71317 by Lauregon on September 18, 2007 at 12:29 pm

I accept only two responses to morality - one is that there is no morality, nothing we should or shouldn't do. Moral codes have simply arrived, like social conventions, in a way that might be explained by evolution, sociology, psychology or whatever. There are no 'oughts'.

The other possibility I see is that some things are right and others wrong, there are things you should and should not do - and I have said that I do not see how this could be the case without God.

Strangely enough, people have argued with my position. Out of this argument, my most recent point has been that if you do not believe that there are things you should do and others you should not, there must be 'mental gymnastics' going on. - PaulEmecz

Paul, it's not strange at all that people have argued with your position. Nor is it strange that you accept "only two responses to morality." Your two-answer model is a bold declaration of dualist thinking which is itself a primary characteristic of fundamentalist Christian belief, borrowed evidently, from the Zoroastrian good vs evil worldview. You persist in assuming there must be mental gymnastics going on in the minds of people who see morality differently than you do, but your reasoning in this appears hopelessly circular: because you are certain there can be only "two possible responses," you assume others must engage in mental gymnastics in order to have responses other than your two. You're caught in a loop of your own presuppositions, Paul, your own embrace of dualist black/white, good/evil, either/or thinking, but in reality, life just isn't like that---no matter how much fundamentalist-inclined believers wish it to be so.

Other Comments by Lauregon

2366. Comment #71358 by PaulEmecz on September 18, 2007 at 2:12 pm

Newatheist,
While I'm not averse to being blunt, I would certainly not be rude in the manner you suggest. The reason I mentioned 'this country' was merely that it was UK Law that Langham broke. I then misunderstood when you said: "I'm not exempt from my own reference". I thought you were including yourself as a member of the (whichever) country and therefore as, in some small way, responsible for the country's morality. Forgetting which country it is, which is irrelevant, I think the distinction is important. You realise that there is no objective morality, no 'should'. You are not part of the ignorant herd who behave as if their subjective opinion is objectively true. Therefore it would be wrong to include yourself among them. What I have argued is that society acts as though the values of the society are objective values. I think this is demonstrably true. You, on the other hand, realise that this is impossible, that nothing is objectively valuable (value judgments being subjective). That is why I considered you exempt from your own reference.

You say "I think child porn is wrong." I say you know it. You respond with:

I think it's more dishonest not to concede that without the knowledge that sex harms the child, I might conceivably hold another opinion

To go back to my smoking analogy, I might hold another opinion about whether smoking damages your health if I didn't know that cigarettes contained tar. That doesn't change the way things are.

I sense in what you say a struggle which the word 'opinion' brings out. You say 'There are correct opinions and incorrect opinions.' This sheds even more light on your struggle, and possibly throws us into even more confusion. In places, you are treating opinions as though they are unverifiable. In other places, you treat them merely as unverified.

I think this is right. For example, I am firmly of the opinion that Damian Hirst is over-rated and over-paid as an artist. This is unverifiable. Nothing would count as proof of this. It can neither be correct nor incorrect. I am also of the opinion that humans have visited the moon. This may be correct, or it may be incorrect. It is fair to say the statement is unverified, due to the nature of the evidence, but not unverifiable. It is possible at least to imagine evidence that would convince us that my opinion is correct.

It is therefore misleading to suggest that, just because something is uncertain, we should say of it

"That's just my opinion", and that phrase should always be followed with "but I could be wrong…"

We need to distinguish between what is unverified (but capable of verification) and what is unverifiable.

Now that that's clear, I will muddy the waters slightly by reminding you of Karl Popper's insight into science, that scientific propositions cannot be verified, only falsified. Fine – that's a helpful perspective. However, let's choose to agree that the term 'verified' above simply means something like 'seems most probable given the evidence available'. We don't want to have to follow every sentence in science with "That's just my opinion, but I could be wrong…"

Most people would agree that opinions about the most attractive man/woman, the most desirable job etc. are purely subjective and unverifiable. Most people see morality differently. They would not be happy at all with statements like "I think sexual abuse of very young children is wrong, but that's just my opinion and I could be wrong".
So, we can have a discussion about whether moral statements are verifiable, but I have argued all along that from an atheistic position they are not. What I have most recently said is that it would cause great internal conflict, 'mental gymnastics', to hold onto the belief that moral statements are not capable of being correct.
You seem to be conceding this. When you say

There are correct opinions and incorrect opinions. I believe (know?) my opinion is correct.

you seem to still be talking about your opinion on whether child abuse is wrong. In other words, you treat 'Child abuse is wrong' as a statement that could be correct.

I really hope you don't feel bad about this. I think the implications of rejecting the notion that such a statement might be correct are dire. I can see why you want to continue to use terms like 'right' and 'wrong'. If you are honestly going to move to a position where you reject the idea that any moral statement is capable of being correct or incorrect, you will need to get used to the internal struggle, the mental gymnastics, call it what you will.

Other Comments by PaulEmecz

2367. Comment #71383 by PaulEmecz on September 18, 2007 at 3:59 pm

Lauregon

Your two-answer model is a bold declaration of dualist thinking... but in reality, life just isn't like that

Surely this is nonsense. I mean, I'm just saying that either there are things we ought to do, or there are not. If I said that either you believe in God, or you don't, am I caught in a loop of my own presuppositions?

Veronique
You say

You must realise somewhere within you that you make your own moral choices on acceptable behaviour.

This was in your, frankly, patronising appeal that ended

You are privileged and you should be cognisant of that. Calm down. Live and enjoy.

Love
V

Philip contributes an as-always polite and friendly comment, and suddenly you're saying of me (and Dianelos)

Their waffty wankering is pure bullshit.

and you sign off with 'God rot them.'

No one is forcing you to contribute here, but if you're going to get involved, please respond to the issues being raised. I'm not struggling to make moral decisions, but the status of moral statements is important. In the UK, religious groups have made a significant contribution to debates on ethics. Questions about embryonic stem cell research, therapeautic cloning and the like are coming up again, and discussions about euthanasia and assisted suicide continue to rumble on. These are important issues, and in the 21st Century, it is a real challenge to see how we should approach them.

I would much rather prefer that law makers were representative of the population, and the UK has a huge 'secular' contingent. However, who will represent those that are not part of an organised religion?

I think the claim that morality come from society is far more worthy of the title "waffty wankering".

I agree that we have to continue trying to discover why we behave as we do. But will our increased knowledge temper our behaviour?

It's a bleak picture you paint, a heartless response to an important field.

I think it is vital to ask these questions. I am deeply saddened by inconsistencies within the law, for example with regard to abortion. I think it is terrible that in the UK we treat a foetus with severe disabilities in a different way, that people abort foetuses with Downs' Syndrome long after viability. We seem to have substituted important principles for pragmatism, and no longer seem to value every life.

I agree with you that the injustices in world trade and international economics are criminal, but rejecting objective morality would seem to lead more towards a laissez-faire approach than a determined effort to ensure justice and equality of opportunity.

Jesus' teachings on ethical issues strike a chord with me. Morality, with God in the picture, makes sense to me. I am unable to get any alternative view on morality to sit comfortably and consistently.

Other Comments by PaulEmecz

2368. Comment #71387 by Goldy on September 18, 2007 at 4:17 pm

Morality, with God in the picture, makes sense to me. I am unable to get any alternative view on morality to sit comfortably and consistently.

They are the same, Paul. Only in one you have fitted God into it. But they are the same. Same same. For some, god came then morality. For others morality came, then god. For us, morality came. The end result is that same. The points you despair about are the same whether there is a god or not and the answers are generally the same too.
This is the last I shall say on this. If you don't understand after how many posts, you never will. Don't try with why anymore - focus on how instead.

Other Comments by Goldy

2369. Comment #71393 by Lauregon on September 18, 2007 at 4:51 pm

Jesus' teachings on ethical issues strike a chord with me. Morality, with God in the picture, makes sense to me. I am unable to get any alternative view on morality to sit comfortably and consistently. - PaulEmecz

But, Paul, that's your problem, not ours. You've limited your thinking to dualism and you seem unable to think beyond it.

Could Jesus' teachings on moral issues make sense to you apart from "God?" If not, why not?

Other Comments by Lauregon

2370. Comment #71411 by Veronique on September 18, 2007 at 5:48 pm

2367. Comment #71383 by PaulEmecz

I am sorry. I had no intention of appearing patronising. Exasperated yes. And what I was reminding you of are things we all have to be reminded of at times.

I think the claim that morality come from society is far more worthy of the title "waffty wankering".

Waffty wankering referred to the interminable, long and repetitive thousands of posts that you, the Wee Flea, Dianelos and others of xtian persuasions make on these threads. It was not specific to the dozens of posts you have made about morality. Please don't take my words out of context.

I paint a bleak picture indeed. It appears to me that we learn very little about ourselves and our behaviour despite our increasing knowledge. It is most certainly not heartless. It was a very heartfelt question to which I haven't the answer.

Please don't cherry pick my words and attach them to some meaning of yours that was never intended by me.

We seem to have substituted important principles for pragmatism, and no longer seem to value every life.

I would guess that as our global population increases exponentially, we will all end up being more pragmatic; we will have no choice. And I seriously doubt that throughout our history we have ever valued every life. That is just palpable nonsense as any history text shows.

We are a very punitive species and the more complicated our societies become, the more we institute punitive measures. It is not going to get much better. It's become a juggernaut.

As for the rest, as Lauregon says, it your problem not mine. If you have concerns about your country and where it is heading, get out there and do something about it, not waste time here.

And that is I am going to say about this matter.

PS. I am not being patronising, I am not cross, I am not depressed and I am not stupid.
V

Other Comments by Veronique

2371. Comment #71412 by PaulEmecz on September 18, 2007 at 5:56 pm

Lauregon

Could Jesus' teachings on moral issues make sense to you apart from "God?" If not, why not?

Many reasons. 'Love your neighbour as yourself' means you do good to others. Now, if they're going to die, and never remember what you did, what difference does it make to them, ultimately? In fact, what difference does any of it make, ultimately?

Justice is an important concept, but again this makes no sense when millions died in the Holocaust etc.

I would value Jesus' teachings even if I didn't believe in God. However, if I didn't believe in God, I would find myself in newatheist's position, trying to convince myself that what I know is right and wrong is nothing more than an opinion - either that or trying to hide from that fact and pretend it wasn't true.

Other Comments by PaulEmecz

2372. Comment #71552 by BMMcArdle on September 19, 2007 at 2:56 am

Morality has no need of a god. People will do good or bad or anything in between regardless.

Divine endorsement has been used as justification for some of the greatest atrocities ever committed. Gods are creations of ancient ignorance.

Since gods are invisible, and the universe is no different than if they did not exist, it is simpler to assume they do not exist.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

2373. Comment #71556 by steve99 on September 19, 2007 at 3:01 am

However, if I didn't believe in God, I would find myself in newatheist's position, trying to convince myself that what I know is right and wrong is nothing more than an opinion - either that or trying to hide from that fact and pretend it wasn't true.

But the interesting thing is that no matter what you believed, no matter what you were trying to convince yourself of, I am sure you would not suddenly turn evil. You would carry on trying to do the right thing....

Which is the whole point isn't it?

Other Comments by steve99

2374. Comment #71584 by Dr Benway on September 19, 2007 at 4:43 am

Points I want to get on the table for use later:

A soldier and expert marksman in a special ops unit receives orders to shoot a man leaving a particular bank between 9:00-9:30 in the morning. He's given a careful physical description of the man. The orders don't explain why this man is to be killed. Such information is "need to know only" to prevent larger military plans from falling into enemy hands in the event of capture.

The war ends. The dead man's grieving family investigates the assassination. There appears to be no credible reason for it. He was a small businessman who made and sold gloves, with no particular political connections. His death was a mistake. Or perhaps a business competitor lied to someone and got him killed. Or maybe the man was sleeping with a married woman and the husband found out and... In any event, the death was not a justifiable military action.

Is the marksman guilty of murder? I think most people would say no. Someone higher in the chain of command must take responsibility for the marksman's actions.

Morality and authority

Point #1: Anyone under the command of another becomes an extention of the commander's will and may not be functioning as an independent, morally responsible agent.

Point #2: When two parties act in concert, the one with greater access to information holds greater responsibility for the result of their actions.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

2375. Comment #71586 by epeeist on September 19, 2007 at 4:50 am

Comment #71584 by Dr Benway

Is the marksman guilty of murder? I think most people would say no. Someone higher in the chain of command must take responsibility for the marksman's actions.

Of course he is guilty. "I was only carrying out orders" was deemed to be insufficient defence at the Nuremberg trials.

The person who gave the orders is guilty too.

Other Comments by epeeist

2376. Comment #71598 by Downunder on September 19, 2007 at 5:12 am

Thank you Veronique and your young friend Kobi for your extensive reply in your post 2345. Sorry to keep you suspended. I sat down several times and wrote parts of comments on your long post but was interrupted time and again to attend to other matters. Well, you gave more then I bargained for :-). I am very tempted to reply in detail but that would be hogging this site.
I posted my 2223 because you are in Australia and you struck me as a different character. Your post confirms this! My posts on this RD site are caused by my thoughts about the God "delusion". If I were not bothered by religion, I would not be on this site and if all goes swimmingly in one's life without 'whatever' why would one bother? But having been indoctrinated in the Catholic faith from the moment that I could sit quietly beside my father in the right-hand isle in church (yes, ladies on the left and must wear hats!) it is not easy to let go. When we migrated to NZ in 1952 it was really comforting to find that Sunday mass, in Latin, was exactly the same as what we had left behind in Holland and we thought what a great thing to be a Catholic. But when our 1st child got to school-age, the church began to push us around. My questions of "why", began to arise. I had been using increasingly my own judgment and free will. At home we never dared to ask why; we did as we were told. You may say: why ask "why things are so", and you are right: it makes life easier to put mental blinkers on, let it all happen around you and just look after your own family.
Unfortunately I notice what happens in 'my' world. I sometimes prefer to NOT notice things, like your cheetahs chasing young gazelles to-the-kill or the ad nauseam showing of baby seals being dealt with by humans. I ask myself why do they show it? Some incidents so annoy me that I ring or write letters to the news media, not for publication but to stir the s..t out of them. I wished every body would bother to do that because then the vote chasing politicians would get into the act.
I believe that RD is correct with his God delusion publicity. Over the years I have gradually come to that same conclusion. I had never heard of RD until 27th May when the local TV showed the RD / McG debate. I admired RD's calm and polite attitude; looked him up on the web and got sucked in from there.
Somewhere in the middle of your long post you say that I am "crying in the wind". Rest assured, I like the power of the wind to get optimum speed when sailing. What I hate is being brainwashed without being given the opportunity to ask questions.
Kobi you did well in the challenge to contribute to Veronique's post. You made me think back to where I was as a 19 year old. That would have been in 1946, my last year at high school, very late because the schools were closed for some years of the '40-'45 war. I was "underground" during those years. All able men and boys were put in camps and forced to work on the German defence system. I stayed out of sight at home, made such things as little floats (laboriously by hand) for oil wicks to provide light (there was no power). My father had many drums of oil and swapped oil plus wicks for food or whatever useful item someone else might have access to. Whenever German soldiers were seen in the street I would crawl into a hidden cubbyhole. You may understand from this that in 1946 getting back to normal was the priority and any philosophical questions did not arise but if I had been asked "why are we here?", our religious Catholic indoctrination would have produced the prompt answer: "to obey God and thereby get to heaven" and the 10 Commandments were drummed into us. It may sound terrible, but consider the simplicity; you don't have to think, you just follow the set rules. The problem is that different religions have different rules!
Thanks for your comments. Keep your eyes and ears open and be aware of spindoctors. Good luck and keep smiling.

Other Comments by Downunder

2377. Comment #71601 by steve99 on September 19, 2007 at 5:19 am

Many reasons. 'Love your neighbour as yourself' means you do good to others. Now, if they're going to die, and never remember what you did, what difference does it make to them, ultimately? In fact, what difference does any of it make, ultimately?

Good deeds, even minor ones, have effects that spread. Show love to a neighbour and this may make them show more love to others.

Other Comments by steve99

2378. Comment #71621 by Corylus on September 19, 2007 at 11:18 am

Paul

... trying to convince myself that what I know is right and wrong is nothing more than an opinion - either that or trying to hide from that fact and pretend it wasn't true.

Oh mate I can see you having such awful problems with this. At the risk of sounding like Dianelos I reckon your problem boils down to epistemology.

Question: how is:-
a) "what I know is right and wrong" more than
b) "an opinion"??
Other than the fact that 'a' is your view and 'b' is someone else's of course ;-)

Clue: the answer lies in changing the word 'know' in 'a' to 'believe'.

BTW: have you been reading my posts recently? I only ask because my little arguments addressed to specific people seem to be getting ignored all over the shop recently. I am beginning to wonder whether I have a big 'ignore me' sign plastered across my avatar :(

P.S. I agree with you about Damien Hirst. If you want to know how I believe (not know) that my view on this is 'more than an just opinion' do let me know...

Other Comments by Corylus

2379. Comment #71638 by Lauregon on September 19, 2007 at 11:49 am

Many reasons. 'Love your neighbour as yourself' means you do good to others. Now, if they're going to die, and never remember what you did, what difference does it make to them, ultimately? In fact, what difference does any of it make, ultimately? - PaulEmecz

You seem unable to let go of the idea that there must be a divine pay-off in the end in order for humanitarian behavior to make sense. You seem unwilling to accept the results of employing concepts such as the Golden Rule as ends in themselves.

Justice is an important concept, but again this makes no sense when millions died in the Holocaust etc. - PaulEmecz

A loving God who answers the prayers of his "chosen people" makes no sense given that millions died in the holocaust.

I would value Jesus' teachings even if I didn't believe in God. - PaulEmecz

Why? How would your valuing of them be different from that of atheists who value Jesus' ethics?

However, if I didn't believe in God, I would find myself in newatheist's position, trying to convince myself that what I know is right and wrong is nothing more than an opinion - either that or trying to hide from that fact and pretend it wasn't true. - PaulEmecz

As it is, you're stuck with being unable to explain how you know with absolute certainty what "God's" morality is. It looks to me as though you're in no better position on the subject of morality than you see newatheist in.

Other Comments by Lauregon

2380. Comment #71649 by Lauregon on September 19, 2007 at 12:04 pm

By the way, Paul, Khaled Hosseini's novel, "A Thousand Splendid Suns" provides an engrossing multi-layered story of the conflicting moralities of human beings living in extreme circumstances. It served to reaffirm for me a gratitude for not living in a time or place of absolute moralities, given that human life is seldom if ever black and white.

Other Comments by Lauregon

2381. Comment #71684 by Veronique on September 19, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Thank you Downunder for your reply.

I have sent you a private message that you will find in the forum section on this site. If you haven't already done so, click on button that alerts you to the receipt of a private message by email. You will find it in your profile.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

2382. Comment #71723 by Dr Benway on September 19, 2007 at 2:39 pm

epeeist:

"I was only carrying out orders" was deemed to be insufficient defence at the Nuremberg trials.

With respect to orders "of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal" (US v Keenan). The Nuremberg defense remains viable for legal orders. The notion of "authority" itself would become meaningless were this not the case.

Had the marksman been ordered to shoot a four year old, he'd be in trouble. But this marksman believed his target was a matter of military necessity.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

2383. Comment #71767 by PaulEmecz on September 19, 2007 at 3:43 pm

Lauregon

You seem unable to let go of the idea that there must be a divine pay-off in the end in order for humanitarian behavior to make sense.

That's not it. It isn't a 'reward' - my beliefs aren't that we get rewarded for doing good deeds. I don't believe that at all. There are all sorts of reasons why people do bad things. Most paedophiles were abused themselves as children. I wouldn't want to condemn them to eternal punishment. The idea is simply that if this is it, we have a life of limited length and then die, and ultimately all people die and that's it, what difference does it make, ultimately, if we made one person happy or another sad? How would the universe be any different, ultimately, one way or the other?

So when steve99 said

Good deeds, even minor ones, have effects that spread. Show love to a neighbour and this may make them show more love to others.

he missed the point. That only makes sense if there is eternal life.

I would value Jesus' teachings even if I didn't believe in God. - PaulEmecz

Why? How would your valuing of them be different from that of atheists who value Jesus' ethics?

I would be an atheist who values Jesus' ethics. It wouldn't be different at all.

As it is, you're stuck with being unable to explain how you know with absolute certainty what "God's" morality is.

Why would I need to know with absolute certainty? I don't think we know anything about the world with absolute certainty. My belief in God is compatible with belief in objective morality, objective values. I can believe in God and believe that honesty, courage, kindness, wisdom etc. are real virtues. I don't see that an atheistic position would allow me to believe in objective values, which is where I see newatheist's difficulties stem from. This is not to say that atheists can't be or are not courageous, kind, honest people (I have never said that). It just means that they cannot consistently argue that we should value kindness, honesty, courage and wisdom.

Other Comments by PaulEmecz

2384. Comment #71773 by steve99 on September 19, 2007 at 3:53 pm

he missed the point. That only makes sense if there is eternal life.

No, I knew exactly what the point was. Goodness to others indeed makes more sense if there is 'eternal life', but that does not mean the enternal life of an individual. Doing good benefits others, and those some of those others will presumably have children who will benefit from the improved mood of the parents and so on, hopefully indefinitely in some form.

In fact, doing good makes no sense whatsoever if there was eternal life for an individual, as any individual act performed during a human lifetime is diluted to insignficance by the squintillion upon googleplex of years we will spend afterwards. In fact, such acts are quite literally of infinitesimal insignificance.

Other Comments by steve99

2385. Comment #71775 by PaulEmecz on September 19, 2007 at 3:55 pm

Dr B

Is the marksman guilty of murder? I think most people would say no.

It's an interesting case. I was briefly in the Officer Training Corps of the TA as a student. After 6 months, I decided that I wasn't happy just following orders. I needed to be able to make a decision for myself about whether a war was right. I have great difficulty with the idea of signing away our moral responsibility.

Whether it is murder depends on the law - murder is unlawful killing. The real question is whether the soldier is morally wrong. It is quite possible that there is no moral guilt surrounding this case. If it was a genuine error, and each person merely intended to do the right thing, maybe nobody has acted unlawfully or unethically.

Again, I do have to question the nature of the set-up. Are we assuming that it is morally acceptable to shoot someone in cold blood?

I'm interested to see where this is going, but I don't think I agree with some of your basic assumptions.

Other Comments by PaulEmecz

2386. Comment #71780 by BMMcArdle on September 19, 2007 at 4:10 pm

PaulEmecz 2383:

This is not to say that atheists can't be or are not courageous, kind, honest people (I have never said that). It just means that they cannot consistently argue that we should value kindness, honesty, courage and wisdom.

But they are. Why does that bother you so much?

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

2387. Comment #71799 by Lauregon on September 19, 2007 at 5:21 pm

That's not it. It isn't a 'reward' - my beliefs aren't that we get rewarded for doing good deeds. I don't believe that at all. There are all sorts of reasons why people do bad things. Most paedophiles were abused themselves as children. I wouldn't want to condemn them to eternal punishment. The idea is simply that if this is it, we have a life of limited length and then die, and ultimately all people die and that's it, what difference does it make, ultimately, if we made one person happy or another sad? How would the universe be any different, ultimately, one way or the other? - PaulEmecz

Sigh-h-h-h-h. Because while we're here, we're here, and it makes sense in the long run to make the best of life while we're here.

So when steve99 said

Good deeds, even minor ones, have effects that spread. Show love to a neighbour and this may make them show more love to others.

he missed the point. That only makes sense if there is eternal life. - PaulEmecz

Huh???? To you, obviously. Certainly not to me. Do explain why you see it as you do.

Why would I need to know with absolute certainty? I don't think we know anything about the world with absolute certainty. - PaulEmecz

It does seem that that's what you're demanding here.

My belief in God is compatible with belief in objective morality, objective values. I can believe in God and believe that honesty, courage, kindness, wisdom etc. are real virtues. I don't see that an atheistic position would allow me to believe in objective values, which is where I see newatheist's difficulties stem from. - PaulEmecz

Paul, the "difficulties" are yours, not newatheist's.

This is not to say that atheists can't be or are not courageous, kind, honest people (I have never said that). It just means that they cannot consistently argue that we should value kindness, honesty, courage and wisdom. - PaulEmecz

Why can't they? Those qualities serve the long-term well-being of advancing societies. They're pragmatic virtues. Anyone can value them. Sociopaths may not value them, but sociopaths, both atheist and professing believer sociopaths are nut-cases.

Other Comments by Lauregon

2388. Comment #71853 by Downunder on September 19, 2007 at 7:13 pm

I tried to submit this last night about 14 hrs ago but the site was inaccessible. Amazing to see how many posts have meantime been added.
Re epeeist's 2375, IMHO: "not guilty" at that lower rank level. If my memory serves me right, at Nuremberg lower ranks and soldiers were not tried; it would have gone on forever. Also, think of a sailor on a warship at night sinking "on Captain's command" a merchant ship with one well-aimed shot and the merchant turns out later to be a friendly ship. Would you say the sailor is guilty? And what about the 10,000's of allied bombers, which flew over Holland to Germany? Many of them were hit, be it by anti-aircraft fire or by German fighter planes. Were those bomber crews morally allowed to drop their bombs at random on Holland in order to try and limb back to England, or before bailing out to save themselves?
A jet-fighter pilot could be guilty if the mistake is caused by his error in observation, as has happened in Iraq.
I hold above all, the political decision makers guilty. It are they who organised brainwashing of the nation and 'indoctrination to kill' by the so-called "defense" forces. Modern practice is to call a spade a spade, let us therefore call all military: our "attack" forces, their duty being to attack an enemy. It is just another instance of how we are being spindoctored all the time!

Other Comments by Downunder

2389. Comment #71874 by Robert Maynard on September 19, 2007 at 8:20 pm

Thanks for the summary, Paul - I disagree with your analysis of evolved morality, but you're already entangled here with plenty of others on case by case arguments, so I'll just point out that you didn't answer my question.

Do you think a pedophile knows that what they are doing is wrong (without getting into how you or I know it's wrong), even as they are doing it?
Or do you accept that there is a science called psychology which consistently reports that our conception of right and wrong is explicitly formed by our brains, that individual brains form differently, and that brains are subject to various forms of functional compromise?

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

2390. Comment #71878 by Downunder on September 19, 2007 at 8:26 pm

Here is another post, which got lost when I tried to submit it early in June. It was meant to be my 1st contribution to this site but this computer-illiterate dill must have hit the wrong thingy. My eye fell on it yesterday and seeing now that there are again some comments about the RD debate, I may as well post this; just as another of IMHmO!
Anyone criticizing Alister Mc's foibles should look in a mirror. More to the point: the question is: "God, to be or not to be"? It is a futile question when 'a God' is intrinsically beyond our intelligence. Questioning a God's existence is as futile as asking my dog to do my accounts, a concept completely beyond a dog's comprehension. Religion's problem is that traditional imagination has 'painted' God as a maker and breaker. At my ripe old age I have come to a conclusion that the world is not run by any Deity but the world just IS and belongs with life=god=universe=nature=eternity=totality=time. That concept has gradually provided me with answers about the reasons for it all. Let me apply it to some examples: what is life? Life to me is an abstract "piece" of the universe, on loan to me from the universe at birth, returning to the universe at death. Natural disasters : nature moves, we may scientifically observe what happens but control is beyond us; nature existed, exists and will exist beyond mankind, which is here only for a blink of the astronomical eye. The meaning of life : instinctively "hunting and gathering" to support the body, respecting the forces of nature ranging from disasters to beauty, applying our intelligence and evolving science to fathom out how things work.
It thus seems to me that all of us should keep our proverbial feet on the ground and concentrate our efforts on making this a better world for all. We cannot control natural disasters but we can and must control man-made disasters. Any human with above-average intelligence carries the above-average responsibility to "weed out the bad apples". Arguing about whose Deity or God is the right one will not help us one iota. What will help us all is to respect the beliefs of others, foster mutual respect, live and let live, with the proviso: fanatics must be "controlled" promptly before these cause another war, sacrifice countless innocents and destroy hard-gained infrastructure.

Other Comments by Downunder

2391. Comment #71899 by Downunder on September 19, 2007 at 10:56 pm

Veronique, as a computer illiterate dill, I had great difficulty finding my way through the RD maze to the pm site where I read your pm. (and a brief note from I don't know who dated 16th Jun!) I managed to submit my reply but had to go around in circles to get the address right. If you did not receive it please let me know on this Godly site.

Other Comments by Downunder

2392. Comment #71945 by Downunder on September 20, 2007 at 1:23 am

Re Robert Maynard's 2389. Just saw yours when I submitted mine and cannot help but add my comment because I have thought a lot about such afflictions, which have come up regularly in the news for years. I don't know if you are a psychologist but you may tell me at any rate what you think, when a Judge lets-off some culprit of whatever crime because a defending psychologist has put a (what I call) "sob" story across. Where should we draw the line, which punishment fits the crime, 1st offenders, recidivists? A good example may be smokers. My youngest son was a smoker, his youngest child, now 21, a very nice girl (all my grand children are the best!) asked him, pleaded with him while she was still in primary school, to give it up. He did, many, many times, but sneaked back until, only a couple of years ago, an incidental medical check-up convinced him almost. Then followed his wife being diagnosed with breast cancer and the whole trauma of repeated surgery and chemo (she is doing fine now); that really woke him up and he has stopped smoking, full stop. Now such observations confirmed to me at close quarters the difficulty of overcoming even self-inflicted afflictions. The cure is to exert pain.
Look at the animals. Over my long years I have had cats and the pleasure of dogs. Our children had lizards, budgies, horses. We got eggs from our chooks. We have observed that they all have a system in common: peace is kept by a pecking order. If even a dear little puppy misbehaves, topdog will make it scream when necessary. Horses give nasty kicks, I felt them. Pain presents itself as a natural and obvious cure for misbehaviour. Oh yeah, I can hear the outcries already: barbaric! Makes me yell out louder: what about those stupid bloody wars where all and sundry are killed in the name of peace by both sides, wasting unlimited amounts of money? Jails are just as stupid, may serve for brief retention, but longterm are barbaric (I wouldn't lock up my dogs like that). Jails are an inefficient use of public funds and have proven to seldom correct the offenders. Let us look at a pedophile. I envisage that his problem would be controlled by a little humane surgery and if that first bit did not bring selfcontrol, nature has provided some 10 fingers. I guess that (humane surgical) removal of the 1st digit will serve the offender as a constant reminder that there are 9 to go.

Other Comments by Downunder

2393. Comment #72023 by newatheist on September 20, 2007 at 7:03 am

2366. Comment #71358 by PaulEmecz
Hi Paul -

Firstly, I want to clear up something I said in comment 2364, by adding what I meant to convey, because it seems you misunderstood.

I think you're getting upset because the word "opinion" holds the concession to a possibility of error. In other words [you, Paul, think] the phrase "That's my opinion" should always be "That's just my opinion", and that phrase should always be followed with "but I could be wrong…"

I don't think that way.

What I meant to say with this, was that as far as I'm concerned, my opinion is the truth. I have no issue with making prescriptive judgements based on that. There is no conflict, no struggle, no contortions, no problem. (As others have said, the problem is all yours.) This realisation, this result of my "retrospective analysis", barely elicits from me a quiet "well bugger me, that's an interesting thing. Hmmm…"
What I was saying is that you, Paul, downplay the importance of opinions (and value judgements, and conventions). They're what morality is built on. If we didn't value them, even to the point of being prescriptive, there'd be no point in having them.

I sense in what you say a struggle which the word 'opinion' brings out.

I sense you are wrong. :-)

Most people see morality differently. They would not be happy at all with statements like "I think sexual abuse of very young children is wrong, but that's just my opinion and I could be wrong".

As I tried to say, I wouldn't either. But I'd say instead "that's my opinion, and I've got plenty of evidence to back it up." (Note the absence of the word "just".)

Now, however, in order to be completely honest with myself, I have to recognise the inherent danger of the assumption that even the most emotive parts of my morality are unassailable. This sort of assumption would put me in very unpleasant company indeed. To be consistent, and honest, and to have integrity, I couldn't cherry pick and say some points in my morality are exempt. So I know child porn is wrong, just as Miss Watson knew it was wrong if someone stole her slave. The idea that child porn is okay is unimaginable to me; it's just as unimaginable as the idea used to be to most people that homosexuality is okay.

There are correct opinions and incorrect opinions. I believe (know?) my opinion is correct.

you seem to still be talking about your opinion on whether child abuse is wrong. In other words, you treat 'Child abuse is wrong' as a statement that could be correct.

Don't let the question mark throw you. I was just suggesting the words "believe" and "know" might be interchangeable. See comment 2374 by Corylus

I really hope you don't feel bad about this.

Don't sweat it, I feel fine.

I think the implications of rejecting the notion that such a statement might be correct are dire.

I think the implications of holding your morality as being the pinnacle of human moral achievement are dire.

Anyway, take up with Corylus. Unlike me, she's worth your time. :-)

Other Comments by newatheist

2394. Comment #72049 by Robert Maynard on September 20, 2007 at 8:07 am

Downunder,
I think it's naive to suppose that the threat of physical debilitation can reconfigure the literal structure of a pedophiles brain. However they should not be exempt from compensatory measures, ranging from registration as a sex offender to incarceration. Even the most minimal of these measures does a great deal of preventative work (which is always better than cure - particularly when we can't "cure" pedophilia with "humane surgery"). The argument that we cannot punish these people if their actions are not a result of 'free will' is a false one, because by the same measures none of our actions are the result of free will. [Good] legal systems punish people over outcomes, measured by who is harmed, by how much, and by how conscious their aggressors were of their actions.
The situation with psychological problems is one where we must respect these people as fellow human beings, despite their deep flaws, but recognise that they do not conceive of reality in a manner which is safe for others, and take steps to prevent them from harming other humans (or sometimes animals).

The only entity or office unfit to judge or punish a psychopath or a pedophile is a creative deity, as for these people to even exist as a causal possibility they necessarily existed in the deity's total foreknowledge of the outcomes of its creation, pre-creation. Not surprisingly, this is a case where the connection between creator and creation is often played down.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

2395. Comment #72148 by PaulEmecz on September 20, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Lauregon

[atheists] cannot consistently argue that we should value kindness, honesty, courage and wisdom. - PaulEmecz

Why can't they? Those qualities serve the long-term well-being of advancing societies. They're pragmatic virtues. Anyone can value them.

I didn't say that athiests can't value the listed virtues. Atheists can value kindness. They can value ruthlessness. They can value greed. They can choose to value anything. My point is that they cannot turn around and say "You should value x" or "It is right to value x".

You say

Those qualities serve the long-term well-being of advancing societies. They're pragmatic virtues.

I know you hate to be pinned down to whichever specific outcome you happen to choose at any given moment, but the point is that your argument is really:

'If you value the long-term well-being of advancing societies, then you should value the virtues'.

Oh. Why should I value the long-term well-being of advancing societies? What if I don't, and instead I value conflict among societies, believing it to speed up the process of evolution, killing off the weak majority and leading to the survival of the strong minority? What if I crave constant improvement, rather than stagnation at the current stage of our evolution? As soon as you realise that people actually can have different values, you can no longer argue that they SHOULD have your values. Your arguments about why we should be honest, kind etc. are based on one (or in fact many as you have stated them) assumptions about what is actually intrinsically or ultimately valuable.

Other Comments by PaulEmecz

2396. Comment #72154 by PaulEmecz on September 20, 2007 at 12:42 pm

Newatheist

Please read my response to Lauregon. I think you fall into this trap. Your evidence that child porn is wrong is basically evidence that shows that child porn damages children. So, why is damaging children wrong? Ultimately you need to make a value judgment that there can be no supporting evidence for. You have to choose to value something. Is harming a chimp wrong? A tree? A lake? You cannot answer that sort of question without having made some assumptions. These assumptions cannot be based on evidence.

I make assumptions too. However, my assumptions have the added value of being compatible. Do yours?

Other Comments by PaulEmecz

2397. Comment #72183 by BMMcArdle on September 20, 2007 at 1:51 pm

PaulEmecz 2391:

My point is that they cannot turn around and say "You should value x" or "It is right to value x".

Only the religious can be high and mighty.

I like to be kind, honest, etcetera, because it makes me feel good.

Why does that bother you so much?

2392:

I make assumptions too. However, my assumptions have the added value of being compatible. Do yours?

Compatible to what, your delusion?
Your assumption that there is a supernatural super-thing is greater than any assumption I will ever make.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

2398. Comment #72189 by PaulEmecz on September 20, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Robert Maynard,

do you accept that there is a science called psychology which consistently reports that our conception of right and wrong is explicitly formed by our brains, that individual brains form differently, and that brains are subject to various forms of functional compromise?

Psychology - is that the study of the soul? It isn't the most reliable branch of science. Are you really asking the right question here anyway? If we looked at how our conception of space and time were formed, what would this tell us about space and time?

For a long time many people thought that if you pushed something, it moved, and if you stopped pushing it, it stopped moving. Just because they did not realise the relationship between force and acceleration, this does not mean it was not there.

Ah. Your earlier post asked

is your thinking at least in-this-century enough that you'd concede that what we "know" is entirely a product of our brains development

I'm not sure what's happened in the last half dozen years that should have challenged my way of thinking. I'm well aware that an understanding of the brain helps us answer epistemic questions. I couldn't agree with your quote, though. What we "know" also has something, at least something, to do with the way the world is. There's a lot of scientists on this thread that would consider your comments fighting talk (although they do seem to have missed them somehow).

Other Comments by PaulEmecz

2399. Comment #72195 by PaulEmecz on September 20, 2007 at 2:06 pm

BMMcardle

I like to be kind, honest, etcetera, because it makes me feel good.

Why does that bother you so much?

It depends what the etc. consists of. The implication that you do whatever makes you feel good is worrying. I don't like the thought of a great number of people living according to that principle.

Only the religious can be high and mighty.

I do tire of the generalised digs at the 'religious'. Atheists can be high and mighty too. Some religious people are not. Why not just say "I don't like people being high and mighty".

Believing in God doesn