301. Comment #110066 by ADH on January 10, 2008 at 12:36 pm

"I am interested on how we should react"

If morality is like sexual urges or hunger how can it be relevant to use the word SHOULD? How can we determine which "moral urges" are appropriate or acceptable and which are not? You cannot dictate to people what sexual urges or hunger cravings they should have (except maybe on moral grounds, but then we are back where we started).

Other Comments by ADH

302. Comment #110067 by al-rawandi on January 10, 2008 at 12:38 pm

ADH,

Morality (group ethos) is something that is a product of our evolution. Pack animals have standards of behavior (alpha wolf etc...)

In primates aggressiveness is linked to the size of the canine teeth (So says anthropologist Tim White). Baboons have very large canine teeth while humans have much shorter ones. Do to lower tendencies to aggression humans were able to associate with one another better and cooperate. This contributed to favorable natural selection and reproduction of helpful traits.

It is true in societies as well. Ones able to cooperate excel beyond those who do not. Morality has been intellectually refined once people realized humans have evolved to display "moral" behavior.

In evolutionary thought I believe it is called "reciprocal altruism". A logical approach to society reveals moral behavior is best (Immanuel Kant, The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals)

Other Comments by al-rawandi

303. Comment #110071 by Annatar on January 10, 2008 at 12:48 pm

ADH: you refer to an "external yardstick." Apparently you think that this is the kind of thing that we need for real morality. I refer you to Prof. Dawkin's excellent "smelly people" argument -- what is your external yardstick for smelliness? How can you claim that your judgments about the relative levels of bad BO are true? If you're only relying on your brain and your olfactory senses, then how can you be sure that your judgments are sound? What if I claim that homeless people smell lovely? How can you contradict me if your sense of smell is merely physical? Mustn't there be some external, infinite standard of smelliness that we can refer to?

Other Comments by Annatar

304. Comment #110072 by ADH on January 10, 2008 at 12:50 pm

"Pack animals have standards of behavior (alpha wolf etc...)"

Indeed, and I am not deying that humans do too. But what happens (or should happen) when the "herd instinct" runs into conflict with the "self-centred" instinct? Or what happens when we find ourselves having to decide between a "herd instinct" and an inclination to help the individual or group that does not belong to our "herd"? Is there another instinct at work? Surely that which we invoke to enable us to decide cannot itself be instinctual? Is there not, as I believe, an independent arbiter the frame of reference for which lies necessarily beyond our neurological or cultrural categories? Kant's paradigm "every other human being is an end in themselves" is helpful. But this paradigm cannot be grounded in materialism.

Other Comments by ADH

305. Comment #110074 by walk on January 10, 2008 at 12:53 pm

ADH (301),

if morality is a product of the nervous system then there is no external yardstick whereby my or your moral behaviour can be measured.

This is so obvious I'm amazed you made this statement. Society is the external yardstick.

How is anyone then to decide what constitutes acceptable behaviour and what sort of behaviour is unacceptable?

Again, society. Break the law - - go to jail. Treat people cruelly - - get ostracized. Rational humans don't need a divine dictator standing over them with a switch.

What definitive source do YOU suggest we get our morals from?

Other Comments by walk

306. Comment #110075 by Annatar on January 10, 2008 at 12:54 pm

I have a question for Steve, al-rwandi, and anyone else who's devoted time to arguing with ADH: does he made reasonable concessions when he loses arguments, or is he just stubborn?

Other Comments by Annatar

307. Comment #110077 by Steve Zara on January 10, 2008 at 12:56 pm

If morality is like sexual urges or hunger how can it be relevant to use the word SHOULD? How can we determine which "moral urges" are appropriate or acceptable and which are not? You cannot dictate to people what sexual urges or hunger cravings they should have (except maybe on moral grounds, but then we are back where we started).

I agree entirely. This is what we have to discuss as societies. But religion should not be involved. Even if the matter of its truth could be put aside, it has failed to live up to its promise to deliver guidelines as to what we "should" do. All it has done is to echo common standards and people's prejudices. And by backing that with the illusion of God, it entrenches prejudice in a damaging way.

Trying to persuade people that women should not be oppressed is one thing, but trying to persuade them when they believe it is God's will is another.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

308. Comment #110078 by Steve Zara on January 10, 2008 at 12:56 pm

does he made reasonable concessions when he loses arguments, or is he just stubborn?

He has made concessions.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

309. Comment #110079 by Goldy on January 10, 2008 at 12:59 pm

But what happens (or should happen) when the "herd instinct" runs into conflict with the "self-centred" instinct?

I think that's where religion comes into the equation. You know it's wrong but if the gods tell you to do it, must be right, eh?
Edit - have to agree with Walk re your yardstick comment. Where do you live? Alone? No one questions your behaviour sometimes? Ever wonder why a good person is good in Europe, China India or Africa? Not all follow your god, yet the general "goodness" of the person is similarly noted in all these places.

Other Comments by Goldy

310. Comment #110080 by Steve Zara on January 10, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Or what happens when we find ourselves having to decide between a "herd instinct" and an inclination to help the individual or group that does not belong to our "herd"?

We talk to each other.

Is there another instinct at work? Surely that which we invoke to enable us to decide cannot itself be instinctual?

Why does that matter?

Is there not, as I believe, an independent arbiter the frame of reference for which lies necessarily beyond our neurological or cultrural categories?

There seems no evidence for an independent arbiter, as there is no evidence at all that guidelines that are supposed to have come from such arbiters are anything more than we have already come up with by ourselves.

Kant's paradigm "every other human being is an end in themselves" is helpful. But this paradigm cannot be grounded in materialism.

This is the question I am seriously interested in: How does switching to any other paradigm help?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

311. Comment #110084 by MPhil on January 10, 2008 at 1:08 pm

First, I'd like to say that the (otherwise sucessful) "smelliness" argument does not apply here, since morality is inherently different in that the nature of prescriptiveness has to be accounted for. The smelliness-argument applies to the general argument that gradualistic ascriptions of properties seemingly require the knowledge of absolutes (something akin to the old universals-problem). Prescriptiveness is something so odd, so entirely different from anything we know that it is re-he-he-eeeaaly hard to account for. (I don't think 'inherent metaphysical prescriptiveness' exists). But traditionally, morality is conceived of as having absolute prescriptiveness as its central feature. The smelliness-argument really doesn't apply, as the "external yardstick" is not about an absolute in reference to which we judge grades of having a natural quality, but about the yardstick being something "inherently prescriptive".

ADH, I think you assume that any ethical theory in materialism must necessarily commit the naturalistic fallacy. That is not true. Atheists can choose not to talk about any "absolute" moral "oughts" at all. We can simply state that IF we as a family/society/species want to survive (on this planet), THEN we have to do this and that. These are things we can find out through prudence. And the more knowledge we have of our surroundings (through science), the more informed and thus sucessfully applicable our moral guidelines will be. No need for any nonnatural properties, and thus no naturalistic fallacy.

(again from my post from Craig's website:)The fact that (most? all?) theists think that morality is unfulfilling and useless without metaphysically objective moral values doesn't imply that such things exist (and even if they did, we would have no epistemological access to them).
But successfully applicable and justifiable moral theories do not necessarily require metaphysically objective moral values at all.

Intentionality, communication of concepts and a tendency to cooperate (which is given - as not having the latter wouldn't be evolutionary stable at all) - that's all that is needed, and none of these is definitly impossible to account for within materialism. Yes, a strict materialist cannot be a Kantian, but he can be a utilitarianist, a contractualist or a consequeantialist of any flavour, really.

While an ethical theory from within naturalism indeed cannot employ the traditional concepts of "one morally ought to behave this way" - meaning "there is an absolute metaphysical standard which by its nature it is the right thing to do to conform to", the words "ought", "must" and their negatives can be employed from within the framework outlined above - coherently. No problem, really.

Other Comments by MPhil

312. Comment #110086 by Goldy on January 10, 2008 at 1:18 pm

I have a question for Steve, al-rwandi, and anyone else who's devoted time to arguing with ADH: does he made reasonable concessions when he loses arguments, or is he just stubborn?

Annatar, he may concede somewhat at times, but then think how often we concede. It isn't just a simple "It is/It isn't" argument - we are getting to really deep seated core values here. If you really believe, it must be outstandingly hard to see our point and vice versa, as you'll agree.
ADH may annoy me at times, but I'd rather him as he is, not as some bendy willow type that sways in the breeze.

Other Comments by Goldy

313. Comment #110087 by ADH on January 10, 2008 at 1:19 pm

A question for all of you. Is "society" or "consensus" an adequate yardstick? consensus in Hitler's Germany was very much in favour of what Hitler was doing. I will never forget the impression that the novel "Remains of the Day" made on me. The butler Stevens was forced to realise that in his days as butler to the pro-nazi English aristocrat Lord Darlington he was backing the wrong horse. He accepted the dismissal of two Jewish servant girls on the basis of "consensus" and his submission to authority. It was only when the pendulum of "consensus" swung in the opposite direction that he realised that he had been wrong, and had been dehumanised by his choice.

"Consensus" (arising out of talking to each other) does not necessarily result in "moral" behaviour. "Talking to each other" can be conspiratorial and treacherous. It often serves to reinforce rather than force us to re-evaluate our prejudices. Unless, that is, there is a standard external to the group itself that the group are prepared to agree on. Needless to say, of course, this external standard is not always taken seriously by the group.

Other Comments by ADH

314. Comment #110088 by al-rawandi on January 10, 2008 at 1:20 pm

ADH,

I enjoy our talks, you have quite a following here.

But what happens (or should happen) when the "herd instinct" runs into conflict with the "self-centred" instinct? Or what happens when we find ourselves having to decide between a "herd instinct" and an inclination to help the individual or group that does not belong to our "herd"? Is there another instinct at work?

When the two collide there is an evolutionary conflict. Which will win out? The Tragedy of the Commons is a good example suggesting altruism will win out of rampant greed, otherwise it leads to failure. Any empire that grew opulent eventually failed.

As for people from other herds? Well people have evolved brains that allow reasoning. The number one way proto-humans and humans decided who was friendly was on sight. Thus we have a tendency for racial classification. However I view the human race as being one herd, so I don't decide based on that. However I am more inclined to help a family member, then a person in Europe, because I share close familial ties and I see the effect of my assistance.

So there may not be "another instinct" at work. It may be the same instinct merely evolved. So I would even be so bold as to say people who have a cross cultural affinity for people, and compassion are more evolved. We no longer live in isolated tribes. We have a global tribe, we survive or perish together.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

315. Comment #110090 by al-rawandi on January 10, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Annatar,

I have been proven wrong a couple of times here (not by ADH, but by Quill in fact on Ron Paul and by Fanusi Khiyal). Holding opinions that you know to be false doesn't work for a rationalist, anyone entrenched in dogma will manipulate the evidence to continue living in the intellectual safety of dogma. And every shade of grey in between.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

316. Comment #110091 by Goldy on January 10, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Is "society" or "consensus" an adequate yardstick?

It is all we can have and generally it works. You bring in Nazism, I note - OK, I'll bring in Taleban or mediaeval Christendom (take your pick - both followed God). It doesn't matter what you follow - both man and God have been used as an excuse for moral behaviour and both have been found very wanting at times. To me this suggests that morality isn't from an external being or source but from us.

Other Comments by Goldy

317. Comment #110093 by MPhil on January 10, 2008 at 1:26 pm

ADH,
you keep making the same point about the requirement for metaphysically objective moral values (the "external yardstick") - but you seem to ignore my argument pertaining to the fact that values in a coherent and applicable ethical theory need not be of that kind, - and that your perception that morality needs such entities is not an argument for their existence. Why? Of course, you may simply have not had the time to evaluate my arguments, which I would naturally understand... Still, I wonder.

Other Comments by MPhil

318. Comment #110094 by walk on January 10, 2008 at 1:26 pm

ADH,

Just curious, if you didn't have your divine parental figure giving you (almost undecipherable) rules to live by, and threatening you with the ultimate punishment, would you act morally? From everything you've said, I would expect the answer is NO.

Other Comments by walk

319. Comment #110097 by ADH on January 10, 2008 at 1:35 pm

MPhil, thank you for your thoughtful comments. I need some time to think them through. I will respond to you once I have got my head round what you are saying. As your post stands, I cannot see how even the strictest materialist does not at times invoke a standard (either to make her own choices or to judge another's) which could only be described as transcendent and objective: external to both natural inclination (instict) and cultural inclination (society).

As you must know, utilitarianism (to name one alternative non-theistic paradigm is fraught with philosophical problems. How can an individual facing a choice always know how many people will be affected by their choice? How can they know what the long term impact of that choice will be? They might sometimes be able to estimate this. But more often than not they will not. Utilitarianism may be a useful rule of thumb in certain circumstances, but it is hardly a serious contender as a moral paradigm. It needs to be undergirded (or overarched) by something else.

Other Comments by ADH

320. Comment #110098 by al-rawandi on January 10, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Walk,


Sigmund Freud wrote in his "Future of an Illusion" that if the only reason that your neighbor has to keep from slitting your throat is fear of a divine being who will punish him eternally, imagine what will happen when he finds out there is no god.

If you don't behave like an asshole because you fear god, you're basically a cowardly asshole.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

321. Comment #110102 by al-rawandi on January 10, 2008 at 1:39 pm

ADH,


It is simple. Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative. There is a solid "yard stick".

Other Comments by al-rawandi

322. Comment #110104 by Steve Zara on January 10, 2008 at 1:42 pm

As your post stands, I cannot see how even the strictest materialist does not at times invoke a standard (either to make her own choices or to judge another's) which could only be described as transcendent and objective: external to both natural inclination (instict) and cultural inclination (society).

This is the argument from incredulity. I don't invoke such standards. This does not mean I don't feel strongly about certain moral issues.

Sorry to keep asking, but I am deeply interested in the following question: What form would an objective standard take? How would the existence or otherwise of a supernatural realm be involved?

This may seem a very naive question, as I am not knowledgable about such areas of philosophy or theology.

I just can't see how a switch to a non-material but non-abstract realm helps.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

323. Comment #110105 by ADH on January 10, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Walk, you have got Christian morality completely wrong. The stick and carrot approach was that of the Pharisees, for example. I admit that it has been "adopted", quite wrongly, by many individual Christian churches. But Paul himself often weighed in against legalism. "Love" (agape) is the watchword of the Christian faith. That is not to say that as long as we love each other everything will be hunky dory. But if we took seriously Jesus' twofold injunction: "Love God with your whole being and your neighbour as yourself" we would be doing well. Remember that the Old Testament laws were not (apart from those that Jesus was summing up with this injunction) moral laws but ceremonial ones. I realise that the interpretation of the OT laws (Leviticus) for example is problematic. Suffice it it to say that the law that God intended as "normative" for all mankind is encapsulted in these words uttered by Jesus. That is where we fail, and that is where we can be healed.

Other Comments by ADH

324. Comment #110108 by Goldy on January 10, 2008 at 1:49 pm

How can an individual facing a choice always know how many people will be affected by their choice? How can they know what the long term impact of that choice will be? They might sometimes be able to estimate this. But more often than not they will not

How can religious people do the same? Invoking a god doesn't help any - it just salves the conscience. Certainly Bush and Blair lost no sleep over Iraq because they felt God was on their side. Had they been athiest, on the other hand....

Other Comments by Goldy

325. Comment #110109 by walk on January 10, 2008 at 1:50 pm

ADH,

I asked for a definitive source. Christians differ so radically from one another, how do you know which are right? I love my fellow man, but don't need a 2000 year old book to tell me that.

BTW, I don't need to be healed - - I'm not "sick".

Other Comments by walk

326. Comment #110110 by Steve Zara on January 10, 2008 at 1:52 pm

But Paul himself often weighed in against legalism.

I would rather we stuck to more abstract discussions, and not bring Paul in. Many of his views are not acceptable in polite society in many countries. At least those I wish to live in.

Suffice it it to say that the law that God intended as "normative" for all mankind is encapsulted in these words uttered by Jesus.

It has already been shown that this is not a law for mankind; it is present throughout nature, so if we could keep phrases like "law that God intended for all mankind" out of discussions, that would help. (At least until we have agreed that God exists :)

Other Comments by Steve Zara

327. Comment #110111 by al-rawandi on January 10, 2008 at 1:52 pm

"Love" (agape) is the watchword of the Christian faith.

Unless it is love between two men. Then they must be killed, or at least denied their rights. Another exception is if one of the men is in fact a 9 year old altar boy. Once he grows facial hair, that's it, he needs to be found other employment.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

328. Comment #110114 by walk on January 10, 2008 at 1:54 pm

ADH, also, you didn't answer the question would you be moral without god?

Other Comments by walk

329. Comment #110115 by ADH on January 10, 2008 at 2:00 pm

Goldy, Christians sometimes get it wrong (I can't speak for other religions), even with the best will in the world. Had Blair and Bush been atheists are you sure they would not have chosen to do the same? Christopher Hitchens would have then had another reason to approve of their decision! And if he had had the power to take it, you can bet your life he would have! He is on record as saying, after all, that he is sorry hell does not exist because it is likely that Jerry Falwell would have ended up there if it did! How many others would Hitchens consign to the fiery pit if he had half a chance! I'm afraid you are labouring under a delusion: namely the delusion that atheism inclines people to be better than they would otherwise be. History proves you wrong on that score again and again. OK I promise I won't mention Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung! :-)

Other Comments by ADH

330. Comment #110117 by AllanW on January 10, 2008 at 2:02 pm

ADH; most of us like your posts here. We may not agree with them and might frequently rip the crap out of them but we do appreciate your reasonable tone and manner.

But if you mention that people need to be saved or healed one more time I for one will react very badly. It's insulting, patronising and deliberately inflammatory. You may not have meant it that way and be unconscious of it's effects. If so then consider this a consciousness-raising post, please.

Other Comments by AllanW

331. Comment #110118 by ADH on January 10, 2008 at 2:06 pm

"It has already been shown that this is not a law for mankind; it is present throughout nature"


I'm sorry Steve but no one has shown anything of the kind. This is your unproven assumption. The case for moral perception on the part of (other) animals has not been made. The "herd instinct", in whatever form, has not been shown to be equivalent to morality.

Other Comments by ADH

332. Comment #110127 by Steve Zara on January 10, 2008 at 2:19 pm

I'm sorry Steve but no one has shown anything of the kind. This is your unproven assumption. The case for moral perception on the part of (other) animals has not been made. The "herd instinct", in whatever form, has not been shown to be equivalent to morality.

It is certainly proven. This has been discussed before. Golden Rule behaviour has been shown in Great Apes, Cetaceans, Elephants. They show far more than herd instinct. There is plenty of hard science to show this if you are interested.

Where science and religion conflict, religion has to give way. Other animals certainly show morality.

But if you mention that people need to be saved or healed one more time I for one will react very badly. It's insulting, patronising and deliberately inflammatory. You may not have meant it that way and be unconscious of it's effects. If so then consider this a consciousness-raising post, please.

I agree.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

333. Comment #110128 by Goldy on January 10, 2008 at 2:24 pm

ADH - you sort of misread my post. You reply started off OK but then

I'm afraid you are labouring under a delusion: namely the delusion that atheism inclines people to be better than they would otherwise be. History proves you wrong on that score again and again.

Athiesm doesn't incline people to do anything of the sort. Neither, as you conceded, does religion, as history proves again and again, etc, etc...
Genes, on the other hand, and maybe upbringing (see nature vs nurture on Google) DOES have quite a bit to do with it. Athiesm or religion is merely an excuse. At least athiests don't have an excuse that involves the supernatural :-) Doing bad is doing bad, even if one claims it is God's will.
As you can see, no delusion at all - in fact, a look through some past posts will show I also call athiests evil shits.

Other Comments by Goldy

334. Comment #110129 by MPhil on January 10, 2008 at 2:25 pm

ADH,

Yes, of course I am very well aware that both rule-utilitarianism and action-utilitariansim are troubled (the former far more than the latter though). But these problems - as you correctly note - are strictly methodological in nature, and can theoretically be rectified by limiting the requirements. Basically, a utilitarianist might say that it is sufficient to judge the consequences to one's best abilities within the timeframe allowed to make the decision and to strive to improve one's ability to take into account relevant consequences and judge their importance by - yet to clarfiy - heuristic procedures.
It does not however follow that utilitarianism "needs to be undergirded (or overarched) by something else" - assuming that you mean by this that it, too needs a background of absolute moral values. This criticism fails because it is not the logical consequence, nor a stricly possible consequence of the methodological/pragmatic failings of utilitarianism, but simply states that the basis is insufficient. It is insufficient only if you want something different from morality than what utilitarianism says can be provided - but simply stating that there "has to be more to morality" is of course a fiat.

And - as I guess you are aware - there is no ethical theory that is unproblematic... the theistic certainly aren't either. So it's a matter of degree - and IMO theistic ethical theories have far more problems than others (partly because of the rather huge and questionable premises, logically speaking).

Still, I'm no utilitarianist - because the metaethical arguments Mill provides for it fail on account of fallaciously equivocation on "the only thing desirable" ("the only thing de facto possible to be desired" versus "the only thing worthy to be desired"... Still, it is not impossible that a coherent metaethical justification of utilitarianism will be provided (maybe it has and I simply haven't heard of it). And one can still - of course - come to the conclusion that utilitarianism is the best pragmatic position all things considered (I don't, but that's not the point)
The real point was of course the one I made above pertaining to metaphysically objective values being consistent with atheism (though not materialism/physicalism/naturalism), and not absolutely necessary for justified and coherent ethical theories.

And, pertaining to your "it has not been shown that herd-instict is equivalent to morality"... I'm afraid that this statement again implicitly takes it for granted that something inherently(!) prescriptive exists (metaphysical values) exists... And that is an assumption the necessity of which has to be shown by showing that there are observable phenomena and/or entities which could not otherwise be explained properly.

@al-rawandi:
Well, Kant's ethical theory requires values to be metphysically objective entities, and not just physically reducible phenomena - and is thereby inconsistent with materialism. The categorical imperative (in each of its formulas) is not just pragmatic, but is justified and explained only within the framework of absolute (metaphysically objective) values...
so, unless you come up with a different justification and explanation of the categorical imperative consistent with materialism (which I hold to be true).... that not a road we can take I'm afraid.

@Steve Zara:

I think on the "herd instict equivalent to morality" thing, you and ADH are talking about different things. You seem to be talking about descriptive explanations of observable behaviour and the formation of hypotheses pertaining to describe this behaviour with the use of 'rules' to which it accords (the golden rule|And I think you happen to be entirely correct in what you say)
ADH seems to be talking about morality in the sense of ethical theories providing a justification for behaviour and moral judgement.

I propose to use the term "morality" for what you are talking about and "ethics" for what ADH and I (among others) have been talking about.

You asked:
"What form would an objective standard take? How would the existence or otherwise of a supernatural realm be involved?"
That would be metaphysical entities with an inherently prescriptive nature - something akin to the platonic "form of the good". Quite strange entities, which I don't think exist.
If you're interested, the book by Mackie which I mentioned is about just these things, and how we have no justification for assuming that they exist.
Still, the existence of any metaphysical entities at all can definitely not be denied off-hand...
I do not think they exist, but the problem of universals for example is really a hard nut to crack - people have been on it for a loooooong time. It's possibly the only real reason I know to doubt materialism (not abandon it, because the non-materialistic answers to that problem aren't very good either and IMO worse than the ones compatible with materialism)

Other Comments by MPhil

335. Comment #110130 by ADH on January 10, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Steve we are not going to reach any agreement on that one. As regards our need for healing (I include myself by the way), I am convinced that that is the case. Sorry if that offends, but that's the way I see it.

Other Comments by ADH

336. Comment #110134 by Goldy on January 10, 2008 at 2:31 pm

But Paul himself often weighed in against legalism

Paul said a lot of things, ADH

2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a woman will not be covered, then let her be shorn! But since it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For indeed a man ought not to cover his head, being the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 For this reason the woman should have authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 In any case, woman is not independent of man, nor man of woman, in the Lord; 12 for as woman is [created] from man, so man is now [born] through woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

If someone told you that - and remember, this is the creator of Christianity - what would you think?
I don't put too much on Paul's words....
Edited for clarity - stupid blockquotes....

Other Comments by Goldy

337. Comment #110135 by Steve Zara on January 10, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Steve we are not going to reach any agreement on that one.

Why not? Aren't you prepared to examine the evidence for yourself?

If not, I am afraid that is not a good advertisment for religion.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

338. Comment #110136 by Vinelectric on January 10, 2008 at 2:34 pm

ADH

namely the delusion that atheism inclines people to be better

Absolutely not true. Atheism is being advocated as a natural conclusion to rationality. It has no direct bearing on morality and you won't find many (if any) on this forum who would claim otherwise.

On the other hand it could be argued that non-theism frees one from any obligation to a deity and thus any good deed is done for the pure sake of it. As someone wrote here before "without god, we have none but each other". That, to me, not just makes the conceopt of a god superfluous it actually makes it immoral, in a way, to give in charity under the banner of religion.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

339. Comment #110139 by Goldy on January 10, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Oh, yeah, and let's not forget this beauty from Paul

Let the women keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a disgrace for a woman to speak in church.

Other Comments by Goldy

340. Comment #110140 by walk on January 10, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Okay, ADH, I'll bite. Exactly WHAT affliction do you feel you need to be healed of?

And you still haven't answered if you would be moral without god?

Other Comments by walk

341. Comment #110142 by epeeist on January 10, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Comment #110127 by Steve Zara

It is certainly proven. This has been discussed before. Golden Rule behaviour has been shown in Great Apes, Cetaceans, Elephants. They show far more than herd instinct. There is plenty of hard science to show this if you are interested.

And if that isn't good enough then I posted a list of quotations, some from theist sources and some not, of where the Golden Rule was in place before Jesus was supposedly born.

Other Comments by epeeist

342. Comment #110143 by Goldy on January 10, 2008 at 2:37 pm

As regards our need for healing (I include myself by the way), I am convinced that that is the case. Sorry if that offends, but that's the way I see it.

How are you ill? And why do you assume we're afflicted with your ailment?

Other Comments by Goldy

343. Comment #110145 by epeeist on January 10, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Comment #110117 by AllanW

But if you mention that people need to be saved or healed one more time I for one will react very badly.

FX: Pulls up chair, opens popcorn. Waits for Steve to arrive too.

Other Comments by epeeist

344. Comment #110146 by ADH on January 10, 2008 at 2:42 pm

"the necessity of which has to be shown by showing that there are observable phenomena and/or entities which could not otherwise be explained properly."

Observable? Why? Observable in what sense? There is no reason to suppose that these entities (or this Entity) must be observable by the standard scientiic criteria. That is only required if you are a materialist, in which case all entities must form part of the observable universe. But theists are not required to produce this kind of evidence, because we believe that God is external to the universe and therefore not subject to empirical investigation. If we did not believe that we would not be theists. At the most we would be pantheists.

Other Comments by ADH

345. Comment #110147 by Steve Zara on January 10, 2008 at 2:42 pm

I think on the "herd instict equivalent to morality" thing, you and ADH are talking about different things. You seem to be talking about descriptive explanations of observable behaviour and the formation of hypotheses pertaining to describe this behaviour with the use of 'rules' to which it accords (the golden rule|And I think you happen to be entirely correct in what you say)
ADH seems to be talking about morality in the sense of ethical theories providing a justification for behaviour and moral judgement.

I was trying, clumsily, to discuss both. I believe that some animals (such as chimpanzees) may even have their own very, very simple forms of ethics, as they have sufficient "theories of mind" to put themselves in the place of others.

You asked:
"What form would an objective standard take? How would the existence or otherwise of a supernatural realm be involved?"
That would be metaphysical entities with an inherently prescriptive nature - something akin to the platonic "form of the good". Quite strange entities, which I don't think exist.

Yes, I am familiar with that idea. I am trying to understand how religions come to the conclusion that such entities require or are related to the existence of a supernatural realm.

You will have to forgive my clumsy use of language. I am deeply interested in the ideas, but not familiar with the correct terms.

If you're interested, the book by Mackie which I mentioned is about just these things, and how we have no justification for assuming that they exist.

Thanks, I am very interested.

Still, the existence of any metaphysical entities at all can definitely not be denied off-hand...
I do not think they exist, but the problem of universals for example is really a hard nut to crack - people have been on it for a loooooong time. It's possibly the only real reason I know to doubt materialism (not abandon it, because the non-materialistic answers to that problem aren't very good either and IMO worse than the ones compatible with materialism)

Agreed.

Myself, I still can't see how the (hypothetical) existence of a platonic form leads in any way to solution to ethical problem. It still does not seem to address the "is/ought" question.

It does not even address the question of "morality", unless one can come up with some strange mechanism for evolutionary pressure on neural structures in brains so that they conformed in some bizarre way to this platonic form of goodness. This is giving me a headache.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

346. Comment #110148 by al-rawandi on January 10, 2008 at 2:42 pm

MPhil,


First. Would you kindly describe the Golden rule as you see it.

Kant was speaking of metaphysical objective entities yes. Although I am not sure what that might mean in this context. I would agree it is incompatible with absolute materialism. However ADH was speaking of God and a moral yardstick, does God therefore fall within your 'materialism'? It doesn't fall within my immature view of materialism, although I am not a materialist due to my lack of understanding of its concepts beyond the basics. Do you also ascribe to determinism then?

As I was referring to The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, I would allow myself a maxim that I would will all people to adopt as a maxim. So I can take that to any number of logical conclusions.

I could steal, and benefit myself. But would I will it that all people could steal to benefit themselves. This really only serves to understand what is permissible and not what is prescribed, for instance charity. I feel I may be using it in a very narrow sense. However it remains a valid yardstick if we are allowing yardsticks at all.

I also said I prefer to look at morality as reciprocal altruism. Steve is probably more knowledgeable on the topic. Again my background, I confess, is in religious studies and theology. The pariah field here at RD.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

347. Comment #110149 by walk on January 10, 2008 at 2:44 pm

ADH (327),

Walk, you have got Christian morality completely wrong. The stick and carrot approach was that of the Pharisees, for example. I admit that it has been "adopted", quite wrongly, by many individual Christian churches.

Okay, so you don't subscribe to the "carrot, stick" thing. So as a believing Christian, do you believe you'll go to heaven if you kill someone for no reason?

Other Comments by walk

348. Comment #110151 by ADH on January 10, 2008 at 2:46 pm

"Why not? Aren't you prepared to examine the evidence for yourself?"

Because you are saying "there is no God and no transcendent Being outside of ourselves to whom we are subject·and I say that there is. How are we going to reach any agreement? On whose terms? As for evidence, we have different views as to what constitutes evidence.

Other Comments by ADH

349. Comment #110152 by Vinelectric on January 10, 2008 at 2:47 pm

epeeist

I posted a list of quotations, some from theist sources and some not, of where the Golden Rule was in place before Jesus was supposedly born.

Would you oblige us with the link? I can sift through your posts but that would take ages! I think that would be very helpful in more than one way.

Oh crap! I remember, my friends will say that: You see this shows you that God's message to mankind through history has been consistent all along!

You know, in Islam, we had this thing about numerous but (?) unidentified sub-prophets that god sends as 'wise men' to keep social order in check! Anyway please send us the link.

Vince

Other Comments by Vinelectric

350. Comment #110153 by Goldy on January 10, 2008 at 2:47 pm

But theists are not required to produce this kind of evidence, because we believe that God is external to the universe and therefore not subject to empirical investigation.

So, if I read this right, you're saying "I don't have to prove anything because it just is."
Well, fuck me, that puts everything in the light, eh? No wonder we athiests are "wrong" - we have to prove everything while you just say "it is".
Great argument...

Other Comments by Goldy