Secular Morality?

[seer]

OK, so we don't need a devil to tempt us to do bad things any more than we need a god to tell us to do good things.

So far as I've noticed, nobody here has suggested that whatever is natural is necessarily good. What we're arguing is that we don't need any supernatural explanations for anything we do.

Except Doug there no good or evil in a godless universe - just opinion.

[Tassman]

The point is Tass that it is all quite natural and what ISIS is doing is good for their survival, and in the end that is all that matters.

everything

OK, so Natural Selection was not a major part in creating the ISIS fighters to do what they do?

1. We don't have free will

2. We have no choice in what we believe to be true or false.

3. The non-rational forces of nature (that care nothing for truth) programmed us.

4. Therefore we believe mostly true things.

Do you see how irrational this position is Tass? It doesn't follow.

What an absurd parody.

Neither we nor our fellow primates have actual free-will but we (and the other primates) have the illusion of it and we act and make decisions on this basis. If you think that humans alone throughout the entire animal kingdom have free-will then you must say at what point during the evolutionary process humans acquired it whilst ALL the other animals, including some primates whose DNA is virtually identical to ours, were bypassed.

Sure, I will tell you when you tell me when consciousness was instilled. And I'm glad you brought up Harris - who says there there is no evolutionary reason for consciousness and that we have no idea why or how it came about.

[Tassman]

Addressed to Doug Shaver:

Except Doug there no good or evil in a godless universe - just opinion.

Of course there is. We live in a "godless universe" and clearly we have notions of good and evil. I.e. there is behaviour which is acceptable and that which is unacceptable i.e. right and wrong. And this is grounded in our evolved instinct to maintain the cohesive society essential for the species survival. And I remind you that there are considerable variations of "opinion" among "the faithful" as to what God deems "good or evil" according to scripture.

No, just no. The experience of free will is categorically different from sensory experience. You might use the information you get from sensory experience to make freely willed decisions, but the sense of free will that humans have is itself not a sensory experience. The human will, whether free or determined, is something different from sensory experiences.

Only if you believe in dualism: i.e. that the mind/soul is non-material and distinct from the material body. But there is no substantive evidence supporting this notion, quite the reverse, our physical brain, following the known laws of science, determines our actions and not some agency (or non-material entity like a 'soul') that exists outside those laws. Your whole argument is based upon personal 'feelings', which are a notoriously unreliable guide.

[JonathanL]

Only if you believe in dualism: i.e. that the mind/soul is non-material and distinct from the material body. But there is no substantive evidence supporting this notion, quite the reverse, our physical brain, following the known laws of science, determines our actions and not some agency (or non-material entity like a 'soul') that exists outside those laws.

As I said before, free will itself is such evidence. And no, my statement that free will is categorically different from sensory experience is not dependent on the truth of dualism. You don't 'see', ' hear', 'taste', 'feel', or 'smell' that you have free will, rather, it's a more immediate experience than that. There, free will cannot possibly be an illusion of the senses. The choices presented to us via the senses might be an illusion, but the ability to choose between these choices, real or illusory*, is not in itself a sensory illusion.

Your whole argument is based upon personal 'feelings', which are a notoriously unreliable guide.

My observation that when faced with two or more choices I am free to choose between those choices is not a mere 'feeling'. I don't merely have a 'feeling' that I can choose, I actually do choose, several times throughout the day in fact, between various options.

ETA:
*real or illusory refers back to choices, not the ability to choose, just fyi.

[seer]

everything

Well I'm glad we agree it's all natural. No big deal.

What an absurd parody.

No Tass, what is absurd is your belief that the non-rational forces that care nothing for truth somehow cobbled together rational beings that can recognize truth.


It is not a selective reading Tass. Harris is clear, there is no evolutionary reason for consciousness. And free will like consciousness are self evident facts. So again Tass, I will tell you when free will was instilled when you tell me when consciousness was instilled.

[Tassman]

As I said before, free will itself is such evidence. And no, my statement that free will is categorically different from sensory experience is not dependent on the truth of dualism. You don't 'see', ' hear', 'taste', 'feel', or 'smell' that you have free will, rather, it's a more immediate experience than that. There, free will cannot possibly be an illusion of the senses. The choices presented to us via the senses might be an illusion, but the ability to choose between these choices, real or illusory*, is not in itself a sensory illusion.



My observation that when faced with two or more choices I am free to choose between those choices is not a mere 'feeling'. I don't merely have a 'feeling' that I can choose, I actually do choose, several times throughout the day in fact, between various options.

ETA:
*real or illusory refers back to choices, not the ability to choose, just fyi.

[Starlight]

As I said before, free will itself is such evidence. And no, my statement that free will is categorically different from sensory experience is not dependent on the truth of dualism. You don't 'see', ' hear', 'taste', 'feel', or 'smell' that you have free will, rather, it's a more immediate experience than that. There, free will cannot possibly be an illusion of the senses. The choices presented to us via the senses might be an illusion, but the ability to choose between these choices, real or illusory*, is not in itself a sensory illusion.

My observation that when faced with two or more choices I am free to choose between those choices is not a mere 'feeling'. I don't merely have a 'feeling' that I can choose, I actually do choose, several times throughout the day in fact, between various options.

No one disagrees that we indeed choose between various options. That is what you experience yourself doing and that is what you are doing.

The question lies in how, exactly, you make those choices. And how we make our choices is based on various likes/dislikes/preferences and occasionally just saying "I don't really mind" and picking a choice semi-randomly. The fact that we experience the freedom to make choices and in fact do make choices, says nothing about how it is that we decide what choices to make and implies nothing about what is or isn't going on behind-the-scenes in terms of neurobiology etc. We experience freedom to choose, and we have freedom to choose. The exact nature of the extremely complex processes going on in our minds/brains that result in us making particular choices are somewhat irrelevant to the question of whether we are making a choice.

I do actually largely agree with you about consciousness though. I am a dualist / idealist / non-materialist when it comes to the issue of consciousness/qualia. Something very funky is going on with the nature of consciousness itself, which current science is in no way close to explaining.

[Tassman]

Well I'm glad we agree it's all natural. No big deal.

Well of course. There is no substantive evidence of anything that is not natural.

No Tass, what is absurd is your belief that the non-rational forces that care nothing for truth somehow cobbled together rational beings that can recognize truth.

It is not a selective reading Tass. Harris is clear, there is no evolutionary reason for consciousness.

There is no evolutionary reason for any existence in the final analysis. But we do exist and we do

And free will like consciousness are self evident facts. So again Tass, I will tell you when free will was instilled when you tell me when consciousness was instilled.

not

[seer]

Well of course. There is no substantive evidence of anything that is not natural.

And that is why I said no big deal, just animals doing what animals do.


You are joking right? Your position is more irrational than I thought, if you have no idea what truth is. See Tass, the bottom line is that if there is no freedom then we are programmed by the laws of nature to think and believe as we do - and those laws care nothing for truth or facts - yet they somehow magically created creatures that care and understand both. It is as irrational as claiming that a working calculator was engineered by something or someone that knew nothing about mathematics.

There is no evolutionary reason for any existence in the final analysis. But we do exist and we do

Well of course Harris is an atheist - he would have to take that position. And since we don't have a clue as to why or how consciousness came into the picture, you are free to assume that it was a completely natural occurrence, but that is not proof. Just blind faith. And remember Homer, you are the one who first brought Harris into this discussion.

not

.

Perhaps the freedom of will evolved slowly over time. Growing with greater intelligence, greater self-awareness, more complicated languages. The fact is Tass, you only know that you are self-aware through your subjective experience, just as I know that I have freedom of choice through subjective experience. Even you believe that we have the illusion of free will.

And, given that a complete set of laws fully determines both the future and the past and that scientific determinism governs physical processes, why would we make an exception for human behaviour just because religious mythology tells us that we have free will.

No other creature has the degree of self-awareness that we do. And the fact is, you/we do not understand the laws of nature or our own minds well enough to make these categorical claims. And FYI Tass, there are religions that teach that we don't have free will. Islam, and certain forms Calvinism for instance.

[Tassman]

And that is why I said no big deal, just animals doing what animals do.

social animals such as us do is act on the evolved instincts to maintain social harmony in the interests of survival of the species. It's instinctive.

You are joking right? Your position is more irrational than I thought, if you have no idea what truth is. See Tass, the bottom line is that if there is no freedom then we are programmed by the laws of nature to think and believe as we do - and those laws care nothing for truth or facts - yet they somehow magically created creatures that care and understand both.

YOU

It is as irrational as claiming that a working calculator was engineered by something or someone that knew nothing about mathematics.

Ah the old watch found on the beach chestnut. It must have had a "designer" right? I suggest you read up on the voluminous literature about incrementalism via mutation and natural selection.

Well of course Harris is an atheist - he would have to take that position. And since we don't have a clue as to why or how consciousness came into the picture, you are free to assume that it was a completely natural occurrence, but that is not proof. Just blind faith. And remember Homer, you are the one who first brought Harris into this discussion.

Perhaps the freedom of will evolved slowly over time. Growing with greater intelligence, greater self-awareness, more complicated languages. The fact is Tass, you only know that you are self-aware through your subjective experience, just as I know that I have freedom of choice through subjective experience. Even you believe that we have the illusion of free will.

feel

No other creature has the degree of self-awareness that we do. And the fact is, you/we do not understand the laws of nature or our own minds well enough to make these categorical claims.

More to the point we do not understand the laws of nature or our own minds well enough to claim that we are the one-and-only exception in nature regarding free-will. What arrogance!

And FYI Tass, there are religions that teach that we don't have free will. Islam, and certain forms Calvinism for instance.

[seer]

I’m asking what YOU mean by the “truth” that nature supposedly cares nothing about. What "truth" is this? Are you suggesting that it’s something beyond or separate from the natural universe? Evidence please.


Ah the old watch found on the beach chestnut. It must have had a "designer" right? I suggest you read up on the voluminous literature about incrementalism via mutation and natural selection.

What does incrementalism have to do with discovering truth or recognizing truism or facts? Could a force of nature or person create a functioning working calculator that had no understanding of math? Even doing it incrementally? Of course not, the concept is preposterous.

...so you don’t know that you have free-will you just feel that you do and you, despite being unqualified in any of the cognitive sciences, have come up with possible reasons why this might be the case. In fact what you’ve done is start with the conclusion you want, namely that we have free-will, then sought ways to justify your conclusion. This is the very antithesis of scientific methodology! And you cannot get around the fact that "the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and are therefore completely determined”. - Hawking.

You are joking? Prove that you are conscious without starting with the conclusion that you are conscious, without using first, what you claim to explain - consciousness.

More to the point we do not understand the laws of nature or our own minds well enough to claim that we are the one-and-only exception in nature regarding free-will. What arrogance!

We can't even account for the most basic and important feature of the human mind - consciousness - and you claim that we know the mind well enough to make these broad claims - hardly.

[Tassman]

What does incrementalism have to do with discovering truth or recognizing truism or facts? Could a force of nature or person create a functioning working calculator that had no understanding of math? Even doing it incrementally? Of course not, the concept is preposterous.

The fact is that Natural selection HASWhat "truth" is this?

You are joking? Prove that you are conscious without starting with the conclusion that you are conscious, without using first, what you claim to explain - consciousness.

We can't even account for the most basic and important feature of the human mind - consciousness - and you claim that we know the mind well enough to make these broad claims - hardly.

[seer]

The fact is that Natural selection HAS over time and in incremental stages resulted in consciousness. To deny this or to say that it couldn’t have happened via natural means is just an argument from incredulity - presumably with the unstated assumption “therefore God”. This is what’s preposterous. It is devoid of any substantive evidence whatsoever; it's merely make-believe.

Now, for the third time, what did you mean by the “truth” that nature cares nothing about. What "truth" is this? Are you suggesting that it’s something beyond or separate from the natural universe? Please explain.

Of course I assume God Tass. You assume nature. I assume that a rational, conscious Being created rational, conscious beings. You assume that non-rational, non-conscious forces created their opposite - rational, conscious beings. I assume that it would take an engineer with a understanding of math to create a working calculator. If I follow your logic the random forces of nature could cobble together a working calculator incrementally. Yes your position does stretch credulity.

Consciousness is the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings. This quality is shared by very many species to a greater or lesser degree and has evidently been the case for many millennia. There is no reason at all to think this quality didn’t arise via natural means as has every one of our attributes as sentient beings. Conversely, naturalism and free will are logically compatible

No Tass, you accuse me of poor reasoning. You said: In fact what you’ve done is start with the conclusion you want, namely that we have free-will, then sought ways to justify your conclusion. This is the very antithesis of scientific methodology!

If my reasoning is not justified then neither is yours. To prove consciousness you must first assume or rely on consciousness, your consciousness. If I start with the conclusion I want, so do you - it is a double standard.

You are claiming that free-will is limited to the human animal to the exclusion of all other animals whilst ignoring the inconvenient truth that ALL creatures are subject to the undeniable fact that (as Hawking states) “the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and are therefore completely determined”. And yet, despite this, you feel entitled to claim with no good evidence that the human animal is the one-and-only exception to the rule in nature regarding free-will. Why?

Like I said, we don't know nearly enough about the mind to come to such a conclusion, nor do we understand the quantum world (which underlies everything) to conclude that we understand the laws of physics well enough. And finally, again, as a Christian I'm not limited to your narrow view of the universe or human beings.

[Carrikature]

And this is all legitimate, when it comes to studying the material/physical world, it's matter and "laws" that govern the behaviour of this matter.

It doesn't stop there, though. Even if a spirit/soul/mind exists as a separate entity from the physical form, it must interact with it to effect physical motion.

And here is where you demonstrate why the assumptions of methodological naturalism is inadequate when it comes to study of the mind.

Let's assume for a moment that the mind really exists as a separate entity apart from the brain (but not necessarily independent of it). Given that we lack a first-person perspective of other peoples minds (which is just another way of saying that we do not have direct access to someone else's experiences) it follows that we cannot know the contents of another persons minds without them communicating this knowledge to us in some way. For example, the only way we know that someone hears a sound is if he, for example, acknowledges it verbally, or reacts to it in someway. The same way goes for other sensory experiences, like touch, smell, hearing, pain, pleasure and so on. Based on this we would be justified to conclude for example, that when someone flinches right after a loud explosion it is probably because they heard the sound of the explosion, and became startled. What we are not justified in concluding however, is that if the same person did not react in anyway to the explosion, it meant that he did not hear it. The explanation could just as well be that he's become so accustomed to the sound of explosions that he does not react to them anymore, while still being perfectly aware of them.

And now to why I think your account of what neuroscience is able to tell us of the mind is simply wrong. Given the fact (and it is a fact) that we do not have direct access to what someone else is experiencing except through communication (which I'm using here in a broader sense than intentional/deliberate communication, someone reacting to something and us experiencing that reaction would be considered communication) it follows that your assertion that "we can tell by observed behaviors if there's not something unknown" is manifestly false. It just isn't true, and is nothing more than an unjustified assumption of methodological naturalism. To make the jump from observed behaviour to discounting a (hypothetical) facet of the mind is simply not warranted.

For example, let's posit that there exists a man who has been involved in a car accident and his brain has been damaged to the point where he is no longer able to communicate, feed, clothe or clean himself. He has basically reverted to a state of infancy. What a neuroscientist would be warranted in concluding here is that brain damage can lead to behavioural changes or disabilities. What he is not warranted in concluding however, is that the man's mind has reverted to the state of an infant. It could be that this is the case, but it could just as well be the case that the man is perfectly aware of everything that's going on around him and that if he had the ability he would very much prefer to take care of himself instead of letting a nurse do it for him. The neuroscientist however, who holds to methodological naturalism must operate as if behaviour tells us everything we need to know about the relationship between the mind and the brain , cannot take into account possibilities that behavioural changes does not necessarily reflect changes in the conscious mind , and is therefore inclined to interpret the changes in the man's behaviour to mean that the man has reverted to a state of infancy, even though that interpretation is no more likely than the latter explanation that he has simply lost the ability to clearly communicate what he really is experiencing/is aware of.

Your error here is ignoring that we continue to have access to this line of communication. We can pair information received through communication with measurements taken. We can build and expand our databases and use them to draw correlations. We can use these correlations to identify factors, and isolate them for individual testing. We can use this testing to expand our databases even further. We can, and we do. From there, your example is 'easily' addressed. We can use our previously gained information and compare it to that which we currently observe. We don't need the brain-damaged man to tell us what he's thinking. We can draw an exact parallel between his brain activity and that of an infant. We can, and we do.

No, you really haven't. It seems to me that what you've done is present a framework that cannot even in principle answer the question if free will exists or not.

Free will as presented relies on a non-physical aspect to our function. The framework I present offers zero evidence of such an aspect. If there were no need for a causal link to this non-physical aspect, you might be right. I have yet to see a valid argument that claims no such link is necessary.

But let me ask you a question. What sort of justification can you give for the fact that you are experiencing/perceiving right now, that does not simply refer back to the fact that you really are perceiving something? I.e I'm asking you to justify your belief that you have perceptions, not whether or not those perceptions are true, or if they accurately portray the external world. Or if you want to take the extreme skeptic position and argue that the self is an illusion, how would you justify the position that there exists experiences/perceptions? And I want you to do this without referring back to these experiences themselves. I.e no circular reasoning allowed.

I refer you to Descartes' Meditation II:

8. But what, then, am I? A thinking thing, it has been said. But what is a thinking thing? It is a thing that doubts, understands, [conceives], affirms, denies, wills, refuses; that imagines also, and perceives. [L][F]

9. Assuredly it is not little, if all these properties belong to my nature. But why should they not belong to it? Am I not that very being who now doubts of almost everything; who, for all that, understands and conceives certain things; who affirms one alone as true, and denies the others; who desires to know more of them, and does not wish to be deceived; who imagines many things, sometimes even despite his will; and is likewise percipient of many, as if through the medium of the senses. Is there nothing of all this as true as that I am, even although I should be always dreaming, and although he who gave me being employed all his ingenuity to deceive me? Is there also any one of these attributes that can be properly distinguished from my thought, or that can be said to be separate from myself? For it is of itself so evident that it is I who doubt, I who understand, and I who desire, that it is here unnecessary to add anything by way of rendering it more clear. And I am as certainly the same being who imagines; for although it may be (as I before supposed) that nothing I imagine is true, still the power of imagination does not cease really to exist in me and to form part of my thought. In fine, I am the same being who perceives, that is, who apprehends certain objects as by the organs of sense, since, in truth, I see light, hear a noise, and feel heat. But it will be said that these presentations are false, and that I am dreaming. Let it be so. At all events it is certain that I seem to see light, hear a noise, and feel heat; this cannot be false, and this is what in me is properly called perceiving (sentire), which is nothing else than thinking.

[Tassman]

Of course I assume God Tass. You assume nature. I assume that a rational, conscious Being created rational, conscious beings. You assume that non-rational, non-conscious forces created their opposite - rational, conscious beings. I assume that it would take an engineer with a understanding of math to create a working calculator. If I follow your logic the random forces of nature could cobble together a working calculator incrementally. Yes your position does stretch credulity.

No Tass, you accuse me of poor reasoning. You said:

If my reasoning is not justified then neither is yours. To prove consciousness you must first assume or rely on consciousness, your consciousness. If I start with the conclusion I want, so do you - it is a double standard.

Like I said, we don't know nearly enough about the mind to come to such a conclusion, nor do we understand the quantum world (which underlies everything) to conclude that we understand the laws of physics well enough. And finally, again, as a Christian I'm not limited to your narrow view of the universe or human beings.