Religion From An Evolutionary Perspective

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307168073' post='2249814']
Yes, but what I'm struggling here with is why they deserved to pay for both a concept that they couldn't even grasp in the first place, and for actions that weren't theirs. To put it simply, what the Pharoah did was not their problem, so they shouldn't have had to pay for it. Makes no sense. What I'm saying is this should be focused on God versus the Pharaoh and not on some innocent group in the first place.

Would you kill the children of your enemy or find a justification to do so?
[/quote]

The Egyptians enslaved Israel along with Pharaoh, Pharaoh was there leader. They knew of Moses they knew he claimed to speak for God, they knew he had proven before that God keeps His promises. The Egyptians along with Pharaoh shunned God's warnings and allowed their children to die. Children are a gift from God, God took back what He gave because the Egyptians didn't respect His people or Him.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307168073' post='2249814']
Before you became a person you were a bunch of cells which contained your DNA.

There are other philosophical questions involved with this issue. I don't see it as killing a person, but removing the possibility of that future person existing. [/quote]

A bunch of human cells with human DNA, right?

[quote]In the case of stem cells, actual people trump a bunch of cells at that early stage which is early on in the pregnancy. By the time the cells start differentiating into the tissues, the philosophical question gets more complicated. From that point I'm unsure as to whether I'm against abortion, except in the case of rape (and even then, once there is a nervous system, I'm against abortion). [/quote]

Why not make "the philosophical question" as easy as possible by simply believing that at conception a new human person is created?

[quote]I'm not troubled by miscarriages (which I would interpret to be god killing embryos assuming nothing happens if not his will)...Natural abortions happen too in very early pregnancy. I don't assign a negative meaning to those because I don't believe in god. In the natural world stuff like that happens, even if it's no one's fault.

The problem with god in the picture is that then there is the conscious intent on his part, and the intent to cause an effect or action is also a strong premise that I consider when subjectively analysing whether I think something is moral or not. [/quote]

A miscarriage and a "natural abortion" are the same thing, not sure why (or how) you differentiate between the two terms. In any event, God does not "kill" a child in the womb. I find that reasoning a bit strange, do you assume that when it comes to God, He is directly responsible for every single negative or sad or troubling event? If I trip down the steps and break my leg, did God push me? If I am diagnosed with cancer in forty years, did God give it to me? Death, pain, sadness, all these things are a result of original sin that mankind brought into the world.

[quote] What if the criminal is innocent (as in did not commit the crimes?) If there's absolutly no doubt as to whether he is a criminal and if he's a real threat to other lives, then no, they would not be morally accountable for killing him, even if they performed the action of injecting a lethal dose with the intent to kill him.

I don't think I would call them moral, but they wouldn't be immoral either in that case.

I still don't think that it's okay to kill the criminal's children though if they didn't do anything to deserve the death penalty themselves. [/quote]

The purpose of my example (which I know was not a perfect one) was to demonstrate that the administrator was "reacting" to the criminal, in other words "giving" the criminal what he (the criminal) brought upon himself.

[quote] Yes, but what I'm struggling here with is why they deserved to pay for both a concept that they couldn't even grasp in the first place, and for actions that weren't theirs. To put it simply, what the Pharoah did was not their problem, so they shouldn't have had to pay for it. Makes no sense. What I'm saying is this should be focused on God versus the Pharaoh and not on some innocent group in the first place. [/quote]

I am surfing the web to see if I can find some more information to provide you with. I found a couple of references from Protestant sites. One site explained that the Egyptians, not just the Pharaoh, were well aware of what was going on with Pharaoh versus Moses. They had seen and even experienced the power of the Jewish God re: plagues. If they submitted to His authority they could have easily gone to the Jewish people and asked them for protection, or how to protect themselves. The Jewish people would have been happy to explain to them what to do to protect their children. The other site explained that the death of the first born also served as a prophecy of Christ, the "Lamb of God" who takes away the sins of the world and frees people of their sin. One person on Catholic Answers Forum said "Keep in mind that this was an age where force dominated decisions. So God used progressive amounts of force to free the Jews."

[quote]Would you kill the children of your enemy or find a justification to do so?[/quote]

No, because it is not my place to take a life unless my own life were in immediate danger.

I am just a tiny person. If you want "more" here, you will have to ask God Himself.

[Amppax]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307168865' post='2249818']

Well for one I can perform the simple math test that I did all the way back in kindergarten, which is take one apple, take another apple, put them together and count them. Is there any other interpretation of 1+1=2 that might suggest that it is just an opinion that is just as true as any other, including 1+1=3?

Though according to quantum physics, if I wait long enough another apple might materialize and join the group of two, that would change the equation, not the fact that 1+1=2.

Looks like an interesting article, good for starting to align what we mean.

[/quote]

Its funny we've brought Math into this discussion... you do realize that all math rests upon a set of axioms, statements that are assumed (believed) to be true. We've talked a lot about proving God here (at some point or another) and for the most part, I would assume (from everything that you've said) that you believe we can't prove God. I would somewhat agree with this, but I would say for us, it is obvious that God exists, that is the basic axiom that upon which our entire philosophy rests.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1307192017' post='2249849']
Its funny we've brought Math into this discussion... you do realize that all math rests upon a set of axioms, statements that are assumed (believed) to be true. We've talked a lot about proving God here (at some point or another) and for the most part, I would assume (from everything that you've said) that you believe we can't prove God. [b]I would somewhat agree with this, but I would say for us, it is obvious that God exists, that is the basic axiom that upon which our entire philosophy rests.[/b]
[/quote]

As an athiest, I find that line of thinking interesting, especially since to me, it's not obvious that god exists.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307206708' post='2249901']
As an athiest, I find that line of thinking interesting, especially since to me, it's not obvious that god exists.
[/quote]

That line of thinking is something I often ponder when meditating upon the mysteries of the Church because Her teachings are so interlaced that if one were to "fail" the whole "system" would go down. That is why, for instance, a Catholic cannot reject the teaching that contraception is immoral. If a Catholic rejects the teaching, he challenges the infallible authority of the Holy Catholic Church.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Knight of Christ' timestamp='1307169347' post='2249820']
Something that just exists inside the mind is imagery. [/quote]

I don't think that "imagery" would be the right word to describe it. Love for instance is an experience and emotional state of mind. It's real, but only within the mind.

There are also the more abstract concepts of love that are external, but they're not the same thing, such as displays of love.

In comparison to god, I don't dispute that people who say they are having a religious experience really are experiencing something, but it's my belief that the label they add to it (god) doesn't exist in the world outside their minds.


[quote]Why does 1 equal 1?[/quote]

Looks like even the best logicians have a difficult time answering that...it's way beyond my scope to give an answer.

[quote]What you mean by what? But somehow I doubt it does because you're likely wrong, since your outlook is in error.[/quote]

That there are some normative rules for moral behaviour (in order for them to be moral, some premises are a necessity) but that they don't have an objective source and are not necessarily absolute.

Like I said earlier, they're context sensitive and not an absolutist view but based on premises (of which I don't even know were freely chosen by me or intuitively hardwired) there are situations where no matter the context, they can't be made to be the lesser evil. That's my summarized outlook.

How do you reconcile an absolutist view with situations in which there must be a lesser evil?


[quote]I have no problem with opinions but if that's all there is that's a problem. Why is rape always wrong not a objective or absolute truth? Unless you think rape is sometimes ok... which I don't think you do.[/quote]

No, I don't think there is a situation where it is the lesser evil, and so never justified.


[quote]The Egyptians enslaved Israel along with Pharaoh, Pharaoh was there leader. They knew of Moses they knew he claimed to speak for God, they knew he had proven before that God keeps His promises. The Egyptians along with Pharaoh shunned God's warnings and allowed their children to die. Children are a gift from God, God took back what He gave because the Egyptians didn't respect His people or Him.[/quote]

It just makes it look like life is cheap, that's all. As if they were an expensive vase or any other thing that god suddenly decided to take back after a fall out with the Pharaoh.

Edited June 4, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1307171753' post='2249825']
A bunch of human cells with human DNA, right?[/quote]

Yes, but not a person in that time freezed frame.

[quote]Why not make "the philosophical question" as easy as possible by simply believing that at conception a new human person is created? [/quote]

Because it's much more the potential for developed human life (person) underway than an actual person. The best argument for this is that identical twins come from the same conception. In that case, the potential becomes more than one person.

[quote]A miscarriage and a "natural abortion" are the same thing, not sure why (or how) you differentiate between the two terms. In any event, God does not "kill" a child in the womb. I find that reasoning a bit strange, do you assume that when it comes to God, He is directly responsible for every single negative or sad or troubling event? If I trip down the steps and break my leg, did God push me? If I am diagnosed with cancer in forty years, did God give it to me? Death, pain, sadness, all these things are a result of original sin that mankind brought into the world.[/quote]

Sorry, I suppose they mean the same.

Actually I don't assume anything, because I don't believe in god, I was just speculating what I might think about miscarriages if I did believe in god. When you add god to the picture, you add a mind behind all natural occurrences capable of conscious intent, and the intent to cause harm (to use the term loosely) is something I consider when evaluating whether I think something is moral or not. Without god, miscarriages are just a natural occurrence, and nature is without morality, since morality is in part a product of societal order.

As an atheist, I couldn't say that miscarriages are immoral just as I couldn't say that an earthquake is.

[quote]The purpose of my example (which I know was not a perfect one) was to demonstrate that the administrator was "reacting" to the criminal, in other words "giving" the criminal what he (the criminal) brought upon himself.

I am surfing the web to see if I can find some more information to provide you with. I found a couple of references from Protestant sites. One site explained that the Egyptians, not just the Pharaoh, were well aware of what was going on with Pharaoh versus Moses. They had seen and even experienced the power of the Jewish God re: plagues. If they submitted to His authority they could have easily gone to the Jewish people and asked them for protection, or how to protect themselves. The Jewish people would have been happy to explain to them what to do to protect their children. The other site explained that the death of the first born also served as a prophecy of Christ, the "Lamb of God" who takes away the sins of the world and frees people of their sin. One person on Catholic Answers Forum said "Keep in mind that this was an age where force dominated decisions. So God used progressive amounts of force to free the Jews."[/quote]

Yes, I understand that, but in that case you didn't bring another group into the picture which would be the criminal's children to pay for he had brought upon himself.

[quote]No, because it is not my place to take a life unless my own life were in immediate danger.

I am just a tiny person. If you want "more" here, you will have to ask God Himself.
[/quote]

I came across a person some time ago who was claiming to be god online, but I'm skeptical...

God actually reminds me a bit of Machiavelli's Prince, in which he says that the ruler isn't bound by morality.

Edited June 4, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1307207383' post='2249903']
That line of thinking is something I often ponder when meditating upon the mysteries of the Church because Her teachings are so interlaced that if one were to "fail" the whole "system" would go down. That is why, for instance, a Catholic cannot reject the teaching that contraception is immoral. If a Catholic rejects the teaching, he challenges the infallible authority of the Holy Catholic Church.
[/quote]

Going by the past, the Church has been challenged a few times and as a result changes some of the arguments it seemed to be leaning strongly on.

The example of geocentrism.

In what way is the Church infallible?

Edit: Or is it just the authority that's infallible?

Edited June 4, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[HisChildForever]

I am getting ready to go out for an all day affair, so I will reply to you in full tomorrow, but for right now I would like to address something.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307208275' post='2249906']
Without god, miscarriages are just a natural occurrence, and nature is without morality, since morality is in part a product of societal order.

As an atheist, I couldn't say that miscarriages are immoral just as I couldn't say that an earthquake is. [/quote]

Why can't miscarriages be a natural occurrence [i]with[/i] God in the picture?

I understand that you do not believe in God, or rather are unsure if He exists or not, but the assumption that if God exists, He is directly responsible i.e. He specifically caused Lisa to have a miscarriage and John to get lung cancer, I can see why you have a hard time believing in Him. If I thought existence of God meant that God was out to get me and intentionally make my life a living Hell then I would ascribe to your atheism too. Thankfully the Catholic Church does not teach this. God is not up there in Heaven, rubbing His hands together and wondering what mayhap He can cause today.

[sixpence]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307148718' post='2249707']
Okay, so you view it as god is intrinsically good. Just to see where you stand on the issue, would you also say that all good things from god? Also, do you see god as having free will to change what is inherent to him?

If so, then they would be arbitrary, because then objective morality would change in accordance to god's 'moral state', you could say. Divine moral commands would still be objective according to this view but would not be eternal, and if they're not eternal then they can't be intrinsically good. I think a structure of evolving morality can fit this picture, but it will still run into the same problems that we relativists deal with when two situations come into conflict. Something is going to have to be a lesser evil.

If not, then god himself would have a moral standard which he abides to which he couldn't change because it's intrinsically good and therefore couldn't be changed into something not good.

What are your views on this?
[/quote]

Meh.. I do not think God can make Himself anything other than what He is... He cannot "change" into something else... i 'unno.. I don't think I'm smart enough to come up with anything more interesting to say lol

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1307210128' post='2249918']
I am getting ready to go out for an all day affair, so I will reply to you in full tomorrow, but for right now I would like to address something.


Why can't miscarriages be a natural occurrence [i]with[/i] God in the picture?

I understand that you do not believe in God, or rather are unsure if He exists or not, but the assumption that if God exists, He is directly responsible i.e. He specifically caused Lisa to have a miscarriage and John to get lung cancer, I can see why you have a hard time believing in Him. If I thought existence of God meant that God was out to get me and intentionally make my life a living Hell then I would ascribe to your atheism too. Thankfully the Catholic Church does not teach this. God is not up there in Heaven, rubbing His hands together and wondering what mayhap He can cause today.
[/quote]

I guess they could, I doubt I would ever see miscarriages as a supernatural occurrence. I mean it looks like that's more in line with what deism is about. There's the natural world and there's a god but god does not interfere in the natural world. There are also all the versions of god in between.

Whenever I speculate on these things I think that a deistic god would be more believable, not an interventionist god.

You don't even have to believe that god is specifically out to get you to be bothered by these things once you accept that one that intervenes exists.

What I'm saying that once you accept that there is a mind behind the creation of the universe it raises all sort of moral questions for natural mechanisms such as whether there is the intent to cause something or not. For one, how do you even know what god intended to cause and what he didn't? If he didn't cause it, then why didn't he intervene to prevent harm, being all powerful? Why [i]let[/i] bad things happen?

The most common counter arguments I've come across to solve this cognitive dissonance is that suffering is necessary to build character or get you to see things a certain way. I don't know. I just think that adding god to the picture complicates things and that's just one of the reasons why I don't believe. God doesn't provide any answers and is unnecessary for them.

(I don't ever see myself as having a "living faith" it just doesn't seem to be me. God would at most be for intellectual satisfaction)

Edited June 4, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1307211523' post='2249923']
Meh.. I do not think God can make Himself anything other than what He is... He cannot "change" into something else... i 'unno.. I don't think I'm smart enough to come up with anything more interesting to say lol
[/quote]

Okay, so in some sense god is the embodiment of his own moral system or the values that underly it?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307207575' post='2249904']
I don't think that "imagery" would be the right word to describe it. Love for instance is an experience and emotional state of mind. It's real, but only within the mind.[/quote]

Something that exists only within the mind is imagery, whether you like it or not. Look your trying to have it both ways, if God is not real, love is not real. Love without God is just imagery.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307207575' post='2249904']There are also the more abstract concepts of love that are external, but they're not the same thing, such as displays of love. [/quote]

No without God it is only attaching social constructs to physical actions.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307207575' post='2249904']In comparison to god, I don't dispute that people who say they are having a religious experience really are experiencing something, but it's my belief that the label they add to it (god) doesn't exist in the world outside their minds. [/quote]

It is good that you are wrong then. Love is in the exact same category as God, if one does not exist nether exists. You can only believe in Love if you believe in God. Because He is the only way that it can exist as an outside source.


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307207575' post='2249904']Looks like even the best logicians have a difficult time answering that...it's way beyond my scope to give an answer. [/quote]

Interesting indeed. So you cannot really prove that 1 equals 1, but still you believe it to be true. Even though it is bascilly assumed. Strange you don't give God the same benefit.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307207575' post='2249904']That there are some normative rules for moral behaviour (in order for them to be moral, some premises are a necessity) but that they don't have an objective source and are not necessarily absolute.

Like I said earlier, they're context sensitive and not an absolutist view but based on premises (of which I don't even know were freely chosen by me or intuitively hardwired) there are situations where no matter the context, they can't be made to be the lesser evil. That's my summarized outlook. [/quote]

Then all morality is subjective. Including being against rape. Which leaves it up to the individual and the society to determine . The arguement she really wanted could be used because mortality is just a subjective pov.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307207575' post='2249904']How do you reconcile an absolutist view with situations in which there must be a lesser evil? [/quote]

There are degrees of sin, there are degrees of evil. Stealing is always evil, stealing 5 dollars is evil but it is a lesser evil than stealing 5,000 dollars. There are what is known as venal sins and mortal sins, then there are degrees of those types of sins. Rape is a mortal sin, and murder is a mortal sin, but murder is graver and worse than rape.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307207575' post='2249904']No, I don't think there is a situation where it is the lesser evil, and so never justified. [/quote]

You stated there are rules for moral behavior but there not necessarily absolute. Then you state rape is never justified. Can't have it both ways. If there is not necessarily absolute rules to moraltiy, it applies to all things for or against morality. Including rape. So again you have stated that rape is never justified but also stated that that rule is not necessarily absolute. Which one is it, is rape sometimes justified or not?

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307207575' post='2249904']It just makes it look like life is cheap, that's all. As if they were an expensive vase or any other thing that god suddenly decided to take back after a fall out with the Pharaoh.
[/quote]

I'm afraid you are in no position to determine if it makes like look cheap. Life has no real purpose or meaning or value without an objective outside source creating us for a purpose. Without God, man's existence is purely by chance, not a direct intent. Two, the children because they were not of the age of reason would go back to a far better place that transcends any understand that you or I could understand in this life time. It is more like God taking a soul out of a swamp surrounded by a barren desert and bringing them to a place of eternal happiness and pleasure.

Edited June 4, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307214211' post='2249940']
Okay, so in some sense god is the embodiment of his own moral system or the values that underly it?
[/quote]

God is Truth so God defines Truth. It is a much better reality than the imagery morality system made by man that would only seem to exist, because it changes from person to person, and from society to society. Wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong, and right is right if nobody is right.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Knight of Christ' timestamp='1307226679' post='2249994']
Something that exists only within the mind is imagery, whether you like it or not. Look your trying to have it both ways, of God is not real, love is not real. Love without God is just imagery. [/quote]

You can never prove to me that you feel love and I will never know for sure if you do because I can't experience something that is fundamentally your experience. If I asked you to prove that you actually feel love, the best you could do is either try and describe what the feeling or experience of feeling love is and I can compare it to what I feel and determine if both can be categorised as the same. For you could have your brain scanned while experiencing the feeling of love and compare it to someone else (though it's more likely that there will be slight differences).

The best that I can do with the god example, since I don't have religious experiences (but do have experiences that are very similar to those that religious people describe) is see where and how the descriptions are similar between different people of different religions. There are also simulated experiences that I use to compare with those.

Some of the most valuable are what are described by people who have deconverted from a religion to atheism. What they say about the experiences they had is very interesting IMO. All of these come together to form my beliefs that god is a product of the mind and not outside it. This doesn't mean that there is no god outside the mind in the objective world, I just reject claims of personal relationships with god even though I can never really prove my position.

If you say that god=love, then you're not differentiating between the two. Also, if that were the case, people who don't believe in god would be incapable of feeling love and the burden of proving that they don't would be on you.

[quote]It is good that you are wrong then. Love is in the exact same category as God, if one does not exist nether exists. You can only believe in Love if you believe in God. Because He is the only way that it can exist as an outside source.[/quote]

What an odd thing to say...


[quote]Interesting indeed. So you cannot really prove that 1 equals 1, but still you believe it to be true. Even though it is bascilly assumed. Strange you don't give God the same benefit. [/quote]

Like i said, god (with all the elaborate explanations and personality traits) is not obvious to me. 1+1 is self evident, even if I can't prove that 1=1.

How is god as obvious as 1=1?


[quote]Then all morality is subjective. Including being against rape. Which leaves it up to the individual and the society to determine . The arguement she really wanted could be used because mortality is just a subjective pov.[/quote]

I doubt any victim would ever say that. Other people say that about other people.

[quote]There are degrees of sin, there are degrees of evil. Stealing is always evil, stealing 5 dollars is evil but it is a lesser evil than stealing 5,000 dollars. There are what is known as venal sins and mortal sins, then there are degrees of those types of sins. Rape is a mortal sin, and murder is a mortal sin, but murder is graver and worse than rape.[/quote]

Looks reasonable.

[quote]You stated there are rules for moral behavior but there not necessarily absolute. Then you state rape is never justified. Can't have it both ways. If there is not necessarily absolute rules to moraltiy, it applies to all things for or against morality. Including rape. So again you have stated that rape is never justified but also stated that that rule is not necessarily absolute. Which one is it, is rape sometimes justified or not?[/quote]

Rape is never justified. In that case you could say I would say it's an absolute rule, because there's no context where it would be a lesser evil.

[quote]I'm afraid you are in no position to determine if it makes like look cheap. [b]Life has no real purpose or meaning or value without an objective outside source creating us for a purpose.[/b] Without God, man's existence is purely by chance, not a direct intent. Two, the children because they were not of the age of reason would go back to a far better place that transcends any understand that you or I could understand in this life time. It is more like God taking a soul out of a swamp surrounded by a barren desert and bringing them to a place of eternal happiness and pleasure.[/quote]

I think people can lead a purposeful life without living on after they die. But that's just my opinion.

I'm curious...you were an atheist?

Edited June 5, 2011 by xSilverPhinx