Secular Morality?

[JimL]

No Jim, there is no backwards or descending in the evolutionary process as Tass suggests. There only is change.

Forwards, backwards, descending, ascending, what are you really talking about seer? Evolution is a process of improving the biological state of affairs so to speak. Nature, evolution, doesn't speak to morality because morality is conceptual, not biological. We can't change our biological nature, but we can always change the way we think.

Even if nature did not start off in bliss, the Christian would say that we are moving toward bliss. Where all violence will one day be removed. When men will love their fellow man and God sincerely from the heart, and the lion will lay with the lamb. There is an objective moral goal.

The above goal seer, bliss, has no reality in itself, so it is not an objective goal, but it is a goal that all humans, whether religious or secular, aspire to, or hope for, religion and God are just one of the ways that we've used in our attempt to get there.

[Tassman]

No, you just handwave a conspicious part of reality away because it does not fit into your worldview. I exercise my free will almost constantly to the point where it's existence has become so self-evident to me that whenever I hear someone denying free will what they seem to be saying to me is that they are somehow denigrating themselves and making themselves less than they really are. In other words, they're insulting themselves.

Certainly you think you do do because you have the illusion of free will; that's what "illusion" means, i.e. it is "self-evident" to you.

But, if we have free will at what point during evolution from our common ancestor was it inserted, i.e. where in the evolutionary tree did it develop? Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some free-will agency that exists outside those laws… It is hard to imagine how genuine free will can operate if our behaviour is determined by physical law. So it seems that we are no more than biological machines like every other biological organism and that free will is just an illusion. (paraphrased from Hawking's 'Grand Design').

Addressed to JimL:

Even if nature did not start off in bliss, the Christian would say that we are moving toward bliss. Where all violence will one day be removed. When men will love their fellow man and God sincerely from the heart, and the lion will lay with the lamb. There is an objective moral goal.

Indeed there is a future hope of "bliss" for Christians but it is entirely devoid of substantive evidence as is the anticipated "bliss" for Muslim martyrs with their promised 72 virgins in paradise. In short, they are delusional beliefs.

[Starlight]

It is hard to imagine how genuine free will can operate if our behaviour is determined by physical law.

Physical law is not fully deterministic, as far as our current best science can determine. So...

Of course, philosophers can't agree anyway about what exactly would be required to make free will truly 'free'. Inserting elements of chance and randomness don't really generally strike people as being a great deal better than pure determinism. Most people seem to feel free so long as they can do whatever they want, and don't seem to worry overly much about the metaphysical possibility that what they 'want' is itself determined in some way.

[Tassman]

Physical law is not fully deterministic, as far as our current best science can determine. So...

Of course, philosophers can't agree anyway about what exactly would be required to make free will truly 'free'. Inserting elements of chance and randomness don't really generally strike people as being a great deal better than pure determinism. Most people seem to feel free so long as they can do whatever they want, and don't seem to worry overly much about the metaphysical possibility that what they 'want' is itself determined in some way.

Not so, Starlight! Certainly there are some prominent philosophers like Dan Dennett who support some form of limited compatibilism, but most scientists see free will as incompatible with determinism.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...out-templeton/

[seer]

Forwards, backwards, descending, ascending, what are you really talking about seer? Evolution is a process of improving the biological state of affairs so to speak. Nature, evolution, doesn't speak to morality because morality is conceptual, not biological. We can't change our biological nature, but we can always change the way we think.

Jim, I was answering Norm and his claim that we are moving up to the "next level." The next moral level in context of the discussion. There is no higher moral level speaking in an evolutionary sense. I'm glad you agree.

The above goal seer, bliss, has no reality in itself, so it is not an objective goal, but it is a goal that all humans, whether religious or secular, aspire to, or hope for, religion and God are just one of the ways that we've used in our attempt to get there.

Yes, except it will not be done without the intervention of God.

[seer]

Free will is a meaningless term. That's your invention you need for the machinations of your religion. Non-theists have no need to invent such things. Your mistake is in confusing biological evolution with human action. One can either do what naturally comes their way, or you can invent some deity to which you are dependent. This is what ISIS is doing. It has nothing to do with evolution.

NORM

Again Norm, if there is no freedom of the will then biological does in fact dictate human action. It also created the human thought process that gave us "religious" minds. It has everything to do with the biological evolutionary process because there is NOTHING ELSE.

[JonathanL]

Certainly you think you do do because you have the illusion of free will; that's what "illusion" means, i.e. it is "self-evident" to you.

But, if we have free will at what point during evolution from our common ancestor was it inserted, i.e. where in the evolutionary tree did it develop? Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some free-will agency that exists outside those laws… It is hard to imagine how genuine free will can operate if our behaviour is determined by physical law. So it seems that we are no more than biological machines like every other biological organism and that free will is just an illusion. (paraphrased from Hawking's 'Grand Design').

How a skeptic is able to arrive at the conclusion that free will is an illusion:

1. Assume that the material is all there is.

2. Try and explain all phenomena from that perspective.

3. Realize that he can't account for genuine free will (as opposed to the illusion of it) if all that exists is material.

4. Instead of doing the rational thing, and seeing the experience of free will as something that points to the fact that there are more then the material, declare that free will is just an illusion in order to safeguard the belief that there exists no other reality but the material.

[Carrikature]

How a skeptic is able to arrive at the conclusion that free will is an illusion:

1. Assume that the material is all there is.

2. Try and explain all phenomena from that perspective.

3. Realize that he can't account for genuine free will (as opposed to the illusion of it) if all that exists is material.

4. Instead of doing the rational thing, and seeing the experience of free will as something that points to the fact that there are more then the material, declare that free will is just an illusion in order to safeguard the belief that there exists no other reality but the material.

Or not. One need not assume that the material is all there is, and in fact such a statement is incoherent unless you wish us to believe that intangible forces are also somehow material (allowable, but doing so quickly moves us outside the normal definition of 'material'). One need not attempt to explain all phenomena from that perspective, either. We often come to that point because the information we have available leaves virtually no room for some other aspect of existence. A quick study of aphasias and the effects of trauma (particularly brain injuries) points us pretty quickly in the direction of a solely physical aspect of consciousness. Coupled with our advances in neuroscience, where we can quite literally activate specific chains of neurons to elicit a desired response (to the point of forcing a mouse to stop what it's doing and go drink some water), that 'virtually no room' gets even smaller. Declaring free will to be an illusion is hardly a safeguard against admitting there can't be anything other than material. It's a conclusion formed from looking at the world around us.

I find it interesting how often Christians feel the need to proclaim that non-believers must do or say certain things in order to 'safeguard their beliefs' or whatever else they wish to call it. The foundation of being a skeptic, for example, entails formulating beliefs on the information available. The conclusions themselves aren't what's important, it's how they are derived. There's precious little point attempting to preserve any particular belief over another. On the contrary, it's the believer (of any stripe) that has beliefs that need preserved. The believer is the one that builds their life around a set of beliefs. It is they that have the desire and/or need to safeguard a given belief, not the skeptic.

[JonathanL]

Or not. One need not assume that the material is all there is, and in fact such a statement is incoherent unless you wish us to believe that intangible forces are also somehow material (allowable, but doing so quickly moves us outside the normal definition of 'material'). One need not attempt to explain all phenomena from that perspective, either. We often come to that point because the information we have available leaves virtually no room for some other aspect of existence. A quick study of aphasias and the effects of trauma (particularly brain injuries) points us pretty quickly in the direction of a solely physical aspect of consciousness. Coupled with our advances in neuroscience, where we can quite literally activate specific chains of neurons to elicit a desired response (to the point of forcing a mouse to stop what it's doing and go drink some water), that 'virtually no room' gets even smaller. Declaring free will to be an illusion is hardly a safeguard against admitting there can't be anything other than material. It's a conclusion formed from looking at the world around us.

Being able to force a desired response from someone in no way discounts the experience of free will anymore than binding someone to a chair diminishes their wish that they would be free to move about. An external interference in the chain that starts with free will and ends in action can not be used to discredit free will (and this applies to your mention of aphasia and other effects of brain damage as well). And no, it's not a conclusion formed from looking at the world around us, it's a conclusion that is necessarily formed when trying to study something immaterial (the mind) as if it was something solely material, without ever allowing yourself to interpret your findings from the perspective that there could be something out there that is more than the material.

I find it interesting how often Christians feel the need to proclaim that non-believers must do or say certain things in order to 'safeguard their beliefs' or whatever else they wish to call it. The foundation of being a skeptic, for example, entails formulating beliefs on the information available. The conclusions themselves aren't what's important, it's how they are derived. There's precious little point attempting to preserve any particular belief over another. On the contrary, it's the believer (of any stripe) that has beliefs that need preserved. The believer is the one that builds their life around a set of beliefs. It is they that have the desire and/or need to safeguard a given belief, not the skeptic.

Actually, I would say that both believers and skeptics might have beliefs that need safeguarding. I just think the belief that free will is an illusion is such a belief that the skeptic is subsceptible to. And the foundation of being a skeptic might entailing formulating beliefs on the information available, but in practicality this is not always the case. The denial of free will which is eminently obvious to me is a point in case.

[Carrikature]

Being able to force a desired response from someone in no way discounts the experience of free will anymore than binding someone to a chair diminishes their wish that they would be free to move about. An external interference in the chain that starts with free will and ends in action can not be used to discredit free will (and this applies to your mention of aphasia and other effects of brain damage as well). And no, it's not a conclusion formed from looking at the world around us, it's a conclusion that is necessarily formed when trying to study something immaterial (the mind) as if it was something solely material, without ever allowing yourself to interpret your findings from the perspective that there could be something out there that is more than the material.

You've misunderstood. Forcing a desired response is not used to discount free will. Rather, forcing a desired response, and the effects of aphasias and w/e else are indicative of a physical mind without additional components. The lack of additional components leads to a dismissal of free will. What you've done yet again is assumed that the goal is (always) to discredit free will as opposed to someone finding that free will is not a good explanation for what we observe. You're wrong. I started with interpreting findings from the perspective that there could be something more than material and reached the conclusion that there was not, in actuality, something more than material. I'm hardly alone in that. The majority of non-believers started as believers in something other than the material. It's kind of silly to declare that a physicalist perspective was the starting point, let alone the goal.

What's really ironic is that you protest a supposed assumption by complaining that another assumption has been discounted.

Actually, I would say that both believers and skeptics might have beliefs that need safeguarding. I just think the belief that free will is an illusion is such a belief that the skeptic is subsceptible to. And the foundation of being a skeptic might entailing formulating beliefs on the information available, but in practicality this is not always the case. The denial of free will which is eminently obvious to me is a point in case.

That something is obvious to you, or to anyone, is completely irrelevant. That's perhaps part of the problem. Many of the things we've historically thought were obvious turned out to be anything but. "Obvious" isn't an indicator of anything, except perhaps a bias towards one's own perceptions. Simply declaring something as obvious tells me that a person either hasn't really examined it and/or can't provide actual support for the position.

[JimL]

Jim, I was answering Norm and his claim that we are moving up to the "next level." The next moral level in context of the discussion. There is no higher moral level speaking in an evolutionary sense. I'm glad you agree.

Thats because you are playing semantical games. Again morality is conceptual, its not a biological mutation, and to reach a "higher moral level" so to speak, only means that we have learned to behave in a way that comes closer and closer to your imagined blissful world. Perhaps our intelligence will continue us in that direction, or perhaps our lack of it will takes us backwards. Your solution reminds me of that song where the young lady about to crash her car throws her hands in the air and exclaims "Jesus take the wheel". If there were a Jesus, or an omnipotent God, who cared about whether we lived in a heaven like world or not, then he could have created it to be that way always and from the get go, free will and all.

Yes, except it will not be done without the intervention of God.

Jesus take the wheel!

[JonathanL]

You've misunderstood. Forcing a desired response is not used to discount free will. Rather, forcing a desired response, and the effects of aphasias and w/e else are indicative of a physical mind without additional components. The lack of additional components leads to a dismissal of free will. What you've done yet again is assumed that the goal is (always) to discredit free will as opposed to someone finding that free will is not a good explanation for what we observe. You're wrong. I started with interpreting findings from the perspective that there could be something more than material and reached the conclusion that there was not, in actuality, something more than material. I'm hardly alone in that. The majority of non-believers started as believers in something other than the material. It's kind of silly to declare that a physicalist perspective was the starting point, let alone the goal.

What's really ironic is that you protest a supposed assumption by complaining that another assumption has been discounted.

Right, I misunderstood, but it seems to me that the studies of aphasia and other behavioral changes due to brain damage do not support the notion that the material is all that exists when it comes to the mind. Being that we in principle do not even have access to a first-person perspective of the mind which is affected by the brain damage (even if we take that mind to be purely material) it follows that any assertion that goes beyond what we can observe externally (for example, that a certain kind of brain damage leads to problems with language) is going to be unwarranted, and far more than what the evidence itself permits us to say. And this is why a materialistic viewpoint (or methodological naturalism) is misguided when it comes to the study of the mind, because it necessarily leads to the kinds of interpretations you give above. Methodological naturalism might be the proper way to conduct a study of the external world, but you're going to be poorly equipped if you use it to interpret the findings of psychology and neurology.

That something is obvious to you, or to anyone, is completely irrelevant. That's perhaps part of the problem. Many of the things we've historically thought were obvious turned out to be anything but. "Obvious" isn't an indicator of anything, except perhaps a bias towards one's own perceptions. Simply declaring something as obvious tells me that a person either hasn't really examined it and/or can't provide actual support for the position.

My assertion is not that the existence of free will is as obvious as, for example, that I'm sitting in front of a computer writing a reply to your post right now, rather my assertion is even stronger than that. I'm saying that it is just as warranted for me to believe in the existence of free will as it is for me to believe that I perceive things and on precisely the same grounds. If someone tells me that the fact that I perceive is not true I have all the justification in the world to dismiss their claims out of hand, and the same applies if anyone wants to claim that me having free will is also not true. Free will is not something that you need to support with philosophy and science, rather it is something that any worldview should be able to incorporate in order to be taken seriously.

[Tassman]

How a skeptic is able to arrive at the conclusion that free will is an illusion:

What you mean is how a scientist arrives at the conclusion that free will is an illusion. Science arrives at this conclusion because, as Hawking (along with most scientists) argues: “Given the state of the universe at one time, a complete set of laws fully determines both the future and the past". AND: “since people live in the universe and interact with other objects in it, scientific determinism must hold for people as well”…”If we have free will” Hawking rhetorically asks: “where in the evolutionary tree did it develop? Do blue-green algae or bacteria have free will, or is their behaviour automatic and within the realm of scientific law?”

1. Assume that the material is all there is.

There’s no substantive evidence of anything other than the material universe, so it’s a reasonable assumption that the material is all there is.

2. Try and explain all phenomena from that perspective.

Of course, given that this is the only credible “perspective” there is. “Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science that determines our actions and not some agency that exists outside those laws" "…It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behaviour is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion”. – Hawking.

3. Realize that he can't account for genuine free will (as opposed to the illusion of it) if all that exists is material.

Well yes, because genuine free will doesn't exist, it’s merely an illusion; that’s what this is all about in case you hadn't noticed.

4. Instead of doing the rational thing, and seeing the experience of free will as something that points to the fact that there are more then the material, declare that free will is just an illusion in order to safeguard the belief that there exists no other reality but the material.

…as opposed to the absurd claim that because the illusion of freewill seems real therefore it must be real; this is surely the very definition of what “illusion” means. As molecular biologist Anthony Cashmore says: “Free will is defined as a belief that there is a component to biological behaviour that is something more than the unavoidable consequences of the genetic and environmental history of the individual and the possible stochastic laws of nature”. But there’s no good reason to believe this.

[Starlight]

Science arrives at this conclusion because, as Hawking (along with most scientists) argues: “Given the state of the universe at one time, a complete set of laws fully determines both the future and the past".

Um, so Hawking's a combination of misleading/wrong here.

If you check out the various interpretations of quantum mechanics you'll see that only about half of them are deterministic. The Copenhagen Interpretation is generally the most popular among scientists today, and it's non-deterministic.

From googling some of what Hawking has written on the subject, he seems to get a bit overly loose with his terminology. In this discussion he admits that the randomness in the wavefunction at a quantum level "would seem to make complete determinism impossible" and accepts that because of this that in the sense that determinism still exists "it is determinism on a reduced level" because of the non-deterministic elements inherent in the system. Yet having admitted to non-deterministic elements existing he still calls it determinism, which is just misleading/wrong. And then he says "Some people have tried to connect the unpredictability... with consciousness, or the intervention of supernatural beings. But it is difficult to make either case for something that is completely random." And okay, while I agree that it is potentially hard to see how randomness/non-determinism necessarily makes free-will any freer, it certainly makes the system not deterministic!

There’s no substantive evidence of anything other than the material universe, so it’s a reasonable assumption that the material is all there is.

I've always thought this type of argument sounds similar to a primitive island-dweller looking out at the horizon and seeing only ocean and saying "I can't see any evidence for any other land existing, therefore this land I'm on is probably all there is."

Scientists routinely hypothesize the existence of things beyond what we can immediately observe. eg. the 'observable universe' that astronomers can see is presumed to be only a small fraction of the total universe; the many-worlds model of quantum mechanics (Hawking's own view) hypothesizes that a number of (or infinite) alternative universes also exist, etc. There's nothing inherently unskeptical or unscientific about the idea that something beyond our physical universe might exist. Of course, making and believing arbitrary and detailed claims about that unevidenced thing - eg that there is a certain being of type X who has characteristics Y who deserves to be labelled 'God', is totally unjustified.

[seer]

Thats because you are playing semantical games. Again morality is conceptual, its not a biological mutation, and to reach a "higher moral level" so to speak, only means that we have learned to behave in a way that comes closer and closer to your imagined blissful world. Perhaps our intelligence will continue us in that direction, or perhaps our lack of it will takes us backwards.

That is the point Jim, there is no "backwards," morally, with evolution. There is only what works. And if violence and dominance works then that is what is good.