They Are Going After The Churches:

[seer]

The genetic predisposition of ANY

That was not my point, how in your world are we morally responsible when the monkey is not?

to choose

Do you agree with Thinker that our conscious rational deliberation plays no role in the process of choosing, making decisions? Yes or no?

[The Thinker]

Of course you can't have morality without rational minds, that however does NOT LOGICALLY lead to, our tell us, that it is bad to harm sentient beings. It is a non sequitur. It does not follow that just because a being is aware that it is therefore wrong to harm said being. That may be your opinion, fine, but it is nothing more.

I didn't say that merely having rational minds leads you to the conclusion that it is bad to harm sentient beings. I already laid out the logic why it is. No sentient life = no morality. The reason why is because sentient life can respond physically and emotionally where it can either benefit or suffer at the result of actions that happen to it. That entails that the higher the level of sentiment of the creature, that is to say, the more conscious it is to respond and be aware of its environment, the more sensitive it will be to external actions that affect it. Therefore, it would logically follow that if morality depends on life, the more sensitive and consciously aware a living being is, the greater the moral concern should be with regards to actions that affect them. That is not my opinion, that is a fact, logically derived.

If you deny this then you'll have no logical basis for deriving morality at all. Even if you posit a god, this god will have no logic why it wants us to do good things and not do bad things. You will be forced to make a circular argument or claim morality is arbitrarily decided by god. You will basically have no explanation for why anything is moral. Your answer will be something like a brute fact: "It just is".

But it has nothing to do with the degree of awareness, your theory is unworkable.

I can just as easily made the man a regular person instead of a doctor. In that case who would you save?

That was not my question, this was: who should we save, the more self-aware ape or the less self-aware person?

I answered your question, this is a different one. For this question, it depends. How old is the person/ape? Does the person have a lot of family? In some cases I would save the ape, in others the kid depending on these factors.

[The Thinker]

But wait, I'm still alive. Yet I am massively wrong about a number of things (according to you) and incoherent. Flat earthers survive just fine. But do you see what you have done? You did not use a deductive argument to make your point (you can't so don't bother) you appealed to personal EXPERIENCE. So when push comes to shove, you use the subjective rather than logic to defend your position. And I would add that your argument is completely circular.

You're alive because you're not wrong on everything. That's the important factor. If you were wrong on everything, you'd be dead. You can survive just fine being wrong on some things, because some things aren't necessary for survival, like believing the earth is flat. Arriving at a priori conclusions does not require evidence, and is not dependent on the senses. Even if I was living in a computer simulation, a prior logic would still be right.

And again, you're completely ignoring the fact that on your view your thoughts can never be trusted since they must be uncaused and you cannot by definition have control over something uncaused. So on your view everything is random.

Yet some times the senses can't be trusted and it is the conscious rational mind that must override.

But you have no control over your conscious mind since on your view your thoughts must be uncaused and you cannot by definition have control over something uncaused. So on your view everything is random and cannot be rational.

You are still completely oblivious to how self refuting your view is.

[seer]

I didn't say that merely having rational minds leads you to the conclusion that it is bad to harm sentient beings. I already laid out the logic why it is. No sentient life = no morality. The reason why is because sentient life can respond physically and emotionally where it can either benefit or suffer at the result of actions that happen to it. That entails that the higher the level of sentiment of the creature, that is to say, the more conscious it is to respond and be aware of its environment, the more sensitive it will be to external actions that affect it. Therefore, it would logically follow that if morality depends on life, the more sensitive and consciously aware a living being is, the greater the moral concern should be with regards to actions that affect them. That is not my opinion, that is a fact, logically derived.

Of course Thinker this is opinion, the opinion that the more sensitive the creature the more moral concern should be afforded. That does not logically follow, if it did you should be able to present an air tight deductive syllogism to prove your point. But you can't.

If you deny this then you'll have no logical basis for deriving morality at all. Even if you posit a god, this god will have no logic why it wants us to do good things and not do bad things. You will be forced to make a circular argument or claim morality is arbitrarily decided by god. You will basically have no explanation for why anything is moral. Your answer will be something like a brute fact: "It just is".

I have been making the point that all morality is based on opinion, and argued in a circle. Which you just proved. And yes God has His reasons, He wants the best for us.

I answered your question, this is a different one. For this question, it depends. How old is the person/ape? Does the person have a lot of family? In some cases I would save the ape, in others the kid depending on these factors.

There you go, you have abandoned your criterion of greater awareness for other considerations. You have made my point, your theory is unworkable.

[seer]

You're alive because you're not wrong on everything. That's the important factor. If you were wrong on everything, you'd be dead. You can survive just fine being wrong on some things, because some things aren't necessary for survival, like believing the earth is flat. Arriving at a priori conclusions does not require evidence, and is not dependent on the senses. Even if I was living in a computer simulation, a prior logic would still be right.

But that is immaterial. I will repeat, you, the self-proclaimed king of logic, have left logical justification behind for a circular argument grounded in subjective experience.

But you have no control over your conscious mind since on your view your thoughts must be uncaused and you cannot by definition have control over something uncaused. So on your view everything is random and cannot be rational.

You are still completely oblivious to how self refuting your view is.

OK, then prove deductively that what your brain dictated that you spit out above is true. Demonstrate that because your brain caused you to believe this is true that it is actually true.

[The Thinker]

Of course Thinker this is opinion, the opinion that the more sensitive the creature the more moral concern should be afforded. That does not logically follow, if it did you should be able to present an air tight deductive syllogism to prove your point. But you can't.

The explanation I gave is air tight and logical. You simply keep asserting it is my opinion. That's not an argument.

I have been making the point that all morality is based on opinion, and argued in a circle. Which you just proved. And yes God has His reasons, He wants the best for us.

Why does he want the best for us? What factors does he use when determining what's best for us? Can you explain this without borrowing from my views?

There you go, you have abandoned your criterion of greater awareness for other considerations. You have made my point, your theory is unworkable.

Completely false, I just said that we should have more moral concern the greater the level of consciousness. Here the same thing applies, because if the person has loved ones who will be hurt, that factors into the equation of those with greater levels of consciousness.

[The Thinker]

For someone who cares about arguments, you don't seem to understand any. You mangled St. Aquinas argument from motion in a way that indicates that your primary source of knowledge about it is other New Atheist bloggers who haven't read the argument (or at most skimmed it) and argued against a strawman of it.

That's obviously a joke. I'm the only one here making actual arguments. I've written several long critiques of Thomistic metaphysics most recently showing how the traditional Catholic view based on Thomistic metaphysics is self refuting and that Aquinas has not in any way shown free will can exist on his metaphysic.

The only one you're impressing in this thread is yourself. And yes I've studied quantum field theory. I wonder if you have.

You apparently haven't enough, or else you'd know what a problem you or seer would be in.

Actually even here I disagree. I'm a thomistic dualist, so I don't see the soul as being a separate substance that occupies the body, but I consider the soul to be the substantial form of the body. The form being what actually gives a thing its properties and makes a living thing what it is. And this comprises all that the body is. However I also agree that we have what thomists call an immanent intelligence which does have a kind of causal effect. However it doesn't have to be cashed out in Newtonian terms like "forces". An intellect has the potential to move the mind in certain ways given to its understanding. There's no reason to bring forces, or path integrals into the talk at all, anymore than you need to bring the theory of relativity to a discussion about brain activity.

I know Thomistic dualism is different, but this is not what I was originally talking about - which was seer's substance dualism. This is a change of subject.

Thomistic dualism is just wordplay and nonsense. It need not be taken serious by any person thoroughly educated on the relevant subjects. If the intellect has a causal effect it has a force, regardless of whether you want to use that term or not. Otherwise you'd be saying the only forces involved are the physical ones and you'd in effect be saying that the physical ones are all we need to account for a brain capable of explaining the intellect in principle. Anything with causal influence on physical matter must be a force. Period.

[Tassman]

I never claimed total freedom.

In that case your argument is NOT for libertarian free-will, as you claim, but for compatibilism, which is a deterministic argument.

My point here is only that choices can be made through rational conscious deliberations, that these are causal. Thinker denies this.

subconscious factors...as previously outlined. Our conscious deliberations only form a part of the deterministic sequence of events.

I have been making the point that all morality is based on opinion, and argued in a circle. Which you just proved.

Nonsense! Morality, in the final analysis, is based upon our instincts of what constitutes acceptable behaviour among a social species such as us.

And yes God has His reasons, He wants the best for us.

What a load of unsubstantiated clap-trap.

[Tassman]

That was not my point, how in your world are we morally responsible when the monkey is not?

[seer]

The explanation I gave is air tight and logical. You simply keep asserting it is my opinion. That's not an argument.

Obviously your brain is misfiring again, I clear demonstrated where you jumped to opinion, that greater sensitivity should lead to greater moral concern. Why is that - apart from your opinion?

Why does he want the best for us? What factors does he use when determining what's best for us? Can you explain this without borrowing from my views?

I have no idea what you mean. What is best for us is to be saved and spend eternity in blissful repose with our Creator.

Completely false, I just said that we should have more moral concern the greater the level of consciousness. Here the same thing applies, because if the person has loved ones who will be hurt, that factors into the equation of those with greater levels of consciousness.

What if the downs child has no family or loved ones, no one who really cares for her? Believe me, having worked in the field for tens years, this happens more than you think.

[seer]

but these deliberations are also influenced by many subconscious factors...as previously outlined. Our conscious deliberations only form a part of the deterministic sequence of events.

Actually no they don't according to Thinker, they have no causal effect - no more than the steam off a steam engine (his analogy not mine).

Nonsense! Morality, in the final analysis, is based upon our instincts of what constitutes acceptable behaviour among a social species such as us.

Which is a circular as I said.

[seer]

That is stupid, chimps don't understand your deterministic arguments, if they did did they would know that it is irrational to hold someone morally responsible for doing what they can't help.

[Tassman]

Actually no they don't according to Thinker, they have no causal effect - no more than the steam off a steam engine (his analogy not mine).

Are you claiming that your decisions occur in a vacuum and have not been affected or influenced by the myriad of life-experiences which have shaped your subconscious from birth onward? Please explain where these un-caused decisions of yours come from.

[Tassman]

That is stupid, chimps don't understand your deterministic arguments, if they did did they would know that it is irrational to hold someone morally responsible for doing what they can't help.

[seer]

Are you claiming that your decisions occur in a vacuum and have not been affected or influenced by the myriad of life-experiences which have shaped your subconscious from birth onward? Please explain where these un-caused decisions of yours come from.

You are off point Tass, do you agree with Thinker that our conscious, rational, deliberations play no role in the decision making process - yes or no.