The More We Evolve, the Less We Need God

[carpedm9587]

No, no it is not.

Yes - it is.

Many species are solitary with almost no community interaction, therefore little or no moral interaction would be necessary.

Are you under the impression that morality is only about human interactions, and there are no moral precepts that deal with the individual? Interesting. I think that would impact at least a couple of the "big ten" in the OT.

We could have been much more war like and murderous using our intelligence to destroy each other - we probably wouldn't flourish, or even survive as a species. So unlike other species that went extinct we won (so far) the evolutionary lottery.

Seer, a sentient mind is going to automatically categorize, including "ought" actions and "ought not" actions. Moral reasoning is an inevitable by-product of sentience. I did not say "moral code X" is an inevitable by product of sentience. Just moralizing.

[seer]

Are you under the impression that morality is only about human interactions, and there are no moral precepts that deal with the individual? Interesting. I think that would impact at least a couple of the "big ten" in the OT.

Well of course, morality is about interaction between human beings, in the case of Scripture between human beings and between human beings and God. What else would morality be?

Seer, a sentient mind is going to automatically categorize, including "ought" actions and "ought not" actions. Moral reasoning is an inevitable by-product of sentience. I did not say "moral code X" is an inevitable by product of sentience. Just moralizing.

But we are speaking of the particular moral codes and beliefs we actually hold or practice, our moral sense is rather well defined. I'm saying that is the accidental by product of various environmental pressures. But I think you are agreeing with me.

[carpedm9587]

Well of course, morality is about interaction between human beings, in the case of Scripture between human beings and between human beings and God. What else would morality be?

Morality is about separating "ought" from "ought not" behavior. Many (most?) of our moral codes are about "between" people. Then there are the moral prohibitions against such things as "spilling your seed," and "taking your own life" and other such moral principles that are actually about the individual.

But we are speaking of the particular moral codes and beliefs we actually hold or practice, our moral sense is rather well defined. I'm saying that is the accidental by product of various environmental pressures. But I think you are agreeing with me.

And my point was that moralizing is an inevitable by-product of sentience. Once we can reason and are self aware, which means being aware of our actions, it is inevitable that the sentient mind will begin to reflect on whether some actions ought not be done. That assessment will be made against what the individual most values. It is what gives rise to moralizing. No god is required.

[Tassman]

That often has to do with church government, I have been in seven different churches (denominations) in my 28 years as a Christian and if they use Scripture as their source we will agree with 90% plus when it comes to the moral commands in the New Testament.

The maintaining of slavery on scriptural grounds was the origin of the Southern Baptist Convention. Apartheid in South Africa was rigidly adhered to by the Dutch Reform Church on the basis of scripture. Discrimination against gays and gay marriage is endorsed by you on the basis of scripture...to give just three examples of far-reaching scriptural disagreements.

I think largely what most of us would agree on.

So you agree with me regarding the subjective interpretation of scripture being based upon the moral values of the day.

You don't know that.

Given that there have been thousands of gods, all with the passions, prejudices and moral characteristics of their human creators, why would your particular god be an exception?

[Tassman]

Why are they negative ones, obviously have offer a evolutionary advantage?

And again Tass, you don't care about social cohesion because you are quite happy to upset that cohesion if it is for a cause you agree with.

Yes I care about social cohesion; I do not think the demands of some groups for conformity to certain religious belief systems is the way to achieve it.

[seer]

The maintaining of slavery on scriptural grounds was the origin of the Southern Baptist Convention. Apartheid in South Africa was rigidly adhered to by the Dutch Reform Church on the basis of scripture. Discrimination against gays and gay marriage is endorsed by you on the basis of scripture...to give just three examples of far-reaching scriptural disagreements.

Right homosexuality is immoral according the scripture, and?

So you agree with me regarding the subjective interpretation of scripture being based upon the moral values of the day.

Nonsense, my understanding of scripture is not influenced by the present zeitgeist or I wouldn't argue against things like gay marriage. And most of the Christians on Tweb I think would agree.

Given that there have been thousands of gods, all with the passions, prejudices and moral characteristics of their human creators, why would your particular god be an exception?

Jesus came back from the gave to confirm His claims.

[seer]

Yes I care about social cohesion; I do not think the demands of some groups for conformity to certain religious belief systems is the way to achieve it.

Well no you don't when it comes to what you believe in, then you have no problem disturbing the peace. And what do you have to offer for social cohesion that is better than a common religion?

[seer]

Morality is about separating "ought" from "ought not" behavior. Many (most?) of our moral codes are about "between" people. Then there are the moral prohibitions against such things as "spilling your seed," and "taking your own life" and other such moral principles that are actually about the individual.

Well no, "spilling your seed" is about obedience to God, so it includes two parties. And in a godless universe, why not take your own life? Why would that be immoral? I mean if you decide that it is not immoral, then it isn't correct?

And my point was that moralizing is an inevitable by-product of sentience. Once we can reason and are self aware, which means being aware of our actions, it is inevitable that the sentient mind will begin to reflect on whether some actions ought not be done. That assessment will be made against what the individual most values. It is what gives rise to moralizing. No god is required.

That does not change my point, what we are, what we actually value or not, or the fact that we are sentient in the fist place, are all the accidental by products of various environmental pressures.

[carpedm9587]

Well no, "spilling your seed" is about obedience to God, so it includes two parties. And in a godless universe, why not take your own life? Why would that be immoral? I mean if you decide that it is not immoral, then it isn't correct?

You're stretching badly, Seer, to try to hold a point. According to your worldview, ALL moral precepts are about "obedience to god." Some of them deal with actions between two or more people. Some of them are about actions related only to the self. In my worldview, the god element is missing, so there are moral statements about interactions with others (most of them) and moral statements about self only. Moralizing, as I said, is about separating "ought" actions from "ought not" actions. We don't use the term "moral" for all such categorizations; only for those that relate to closely held valuations.

That does not change my point, what we are, what we actually value or not, or the fact that we are sentient in the fist place, are all the accidental by products of various environmental pressures.

They are outcomes of natural processes. "Accidental" has the connotation of "random." Nature (at our macro level) operates according to repeatable principles. It is a combination of pseudo-random and ordered processes. Of course, you have shown yourself to be a bit of a black/white thinker, so I suspect any amount of randomness translates to "completely random" for you.

P.S. I'm not sure what the "fist place" is, but it sounds dangerous...

[seer]

You're stretching badly, Seer, to try to hold a point. According to your worldview, ALL moral precepts are about "obedience to god." Some of them deal with actions between two or more people. Some of them are about actions related only to the self. In my worldview, the god element is missing, so there are moral statements about interactions with others (most of them) and moral statements about self only. Moralizing, as I said, is about separating "ought" actions from "ought not" actions. We don't use the term "moral" for all such categorizations; only for those that relate to closely held valuations.

I'm not stretching anything Carp, especially as it relates to your worldview. So give me a moral statement about self only.

They are outcomes of natural processes. "Accidental" has the connotation of "random." Nature (at our macro level) operates according to repeatable principles. It is a combination of pseudo-random and ordered processes. Of course, you have shown yourself to be a bit of a black/white thinker, so I suspect any amount of randomness translates to "completely random" for you.

That doesn't change anything I said. And accidental in the sense that there is no purpose or intent or goal, that we just just happened to develop the way we did, and could have developed differently with different values or not developed at all, depending on various circumstances. Like I said, we got lucky, so far...

[carpedm9587]

I'm not stretching anything Carp, especially as it relates to your worldview. So give me a moral statement about self only.

I've already given you two, but you claim they are about relationship with god, which is true of ALL moral statements in the Christian worldview, so....

That doesn't change anything I said. And accidental in the sense that there is no purpose or intent or goal, that we just just happened to develop the way we did, and could have developed differently with different values or not developed at all, depending on various circumstances. Like I said, we got lucky, so far...

You are correct that nature does not have a "purpose" or an "intent" or a "goal." Those are concepts that apply to sentient minds. Unless someone can show that nature (e.g., the entirety of the universe) is itself sentient (which I doubt), those terms do not apply. I find myself asking, "so what?"

[seer]

I've already given you two, but you claim they are about relationship with god, which is true of ALL moral statements in the Christian worldview, so....

Well no, that is because they do have to do with God and obedience. I'm asking what you would consider one and why. Don't you have an example?

You are correct that nature does not have a "purpose" or an "intent" or a "goal." Those are concepts that apply to sentient minds. Unless someone can show that nature (e.g., the entirety of the universe) is itself sentient (which I doubt), those terms do not apply. I find myself asking, "so what?"

Well you seemed to take exception with what I said, but I'm glad we agree that our moral values (as they stand) are the accidental by product of environmental pressures.

[carpedm9587]

Well no, that is because they do have to do with God and obedience. I'm asking what you would consider one and why. Don't you have an example?

Seer, ALL moral precepts in the Christian worldview have to do with obedience to god. So you are ignoring the fact that, with that claim accepted as true, some of the moral precepts are about the relationships between individuals - and some are about the individual. I have already given you two examples.

Well you seemed to take exception with what I said, but I'm glad we agree that our moral values (as they stand) are the accidental by product of environmental pressures.

I take no exception. I am used to theists using words like "accidental" and "merely" and "just" and "only" and so forth to connotative reflect their disdain for moral systems that are not "god-centered." It's par for the course. As an atheist, I don't have disdain for theisticly-centered worldviews. I do not agree with some of the precepts put forward, and I think the claimed basis for those moral frameworks doesn't exist, so I reject the claim made to their "authority." But people choose moral systems/precepts on the base of what they value. If you value your god above everything, then it is understandable (predictable) that your moral system will reflect that. That is, after all, how morality works for all of us.

I keep coming back to, "so what?"

[seer]

...and some are about the individual. I have already given you two examples.

What examples? Spilling your seed? Do you think that Biblical reference is to masturbation (it isn't)? Is masturbation immoral in your view? Suicide? Other people would not be effected by your suicide? If not why would it be immoral?

I take no exception. I am used to theists using words like "accidental" and "merely" and "just" and "only" and so forth to connotative reflect their disdain for moral systems that are not "god-centered." It's par for the course. As an atheist, I don't have disdain for theisticly-centered worldviews. I do not agree with some of the precepts put forward, and I think the claimed basis for those moral frameworks doesn't exist, so I reject the claim made to their "authority." But people choose moral systems/precepts on the base of what they value. If you value your god above everything, then it is understandable (predictable) that your moral system will reflect that. That is, after all, how morality works for all of us.

I keep coming back to, "so what?"

Hey you were the one who jumped on this. I'm just not sure what your objection to the word accidental is. It is quite appropriate and accurate; Occurring unexpectedly, unintentionally, or by chance

[carpedm9587]

[QUOTE=seer;564231]What examples? Spilling your seed? Do you think that Biblical reference is to masturbation (it isn't)? Is masturbation immoral in your view? Suicide? Other people would not be effected by your suicide? If not why would it be immoral?

Suicide CAN impact others, but does not necessarily do so (e.g., the familyless, friendless hermit killing themselves in such a way and place as to never be found). As for masturbation, I realize now that my use of "spilling seed" echoed the OT passage (Gen 38: 8-10) that is somewhat ambiguous. It could be a reference to coitus interruptus, or to the practice of "spilling seed" as a way to "empty the chamber," so to speak. The former is not masturbation (unless, of course, that's how the act is ended); the latter is. So it depends on how the passage is interpreted. Historically, the passage has been used to say masturbation is wrong. Today, the tendency is towards the coitus interruption interpretation. But there are numerous passages in the bible about not satisfying the "desires of the flesh," and how can masturbation be described as anything other than that? And there are numerous passages about greed. Like suicide, greed CAN impact other people, but it does not have to. Neither do prohibitions against gluttony. A hermit living away from any other people could still be a glutton or be greedy.

Hey you were the one who jumped on this. I'm just not sure what your objection to the word accidental is. It is quite appropriate and accurate; Occurring unexpectedly, unintentionally, or by chance

You cannot have "expectation" without sentience. You cannot have "intention" without sentience. In the atheist worldview, those two words are simply not applicable until sentience exists. There is an element of chance to evolution (the mutation part). That does not make evolution "accidental" or "pure chance." Mathematics tells us that complex systems can be modeled and do act according to definable rules. Evolution is such a system.