Secular Morality?

[seer]

I said ask your Calvinist friends given their belief in Pre-destination, (there are many around here) whether or not they make choices. They do of course. We all make decisions, even monkeys. Decision-making is it itself a part of the determined universe. ‘Determinism’ indicates that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs. If you deny this and insist that we have free agency, you must show how this can be the case in a determined universe and when it occured. “God-did-it” is not an acceptable answer. I’m waiting.

You are waiting for what? Remember Tass, I am a Christian, I'm not limited to a materialistic view of the human person.

I repeat that rational people will choose what to believe based upon substantive, multiply tested evidence. This process is not “blind when it comes to facts, evidence or right conclusions” to quote your nonsense, it is a consequence of having evolved computational, reasoning brains. The alternative is to choose what to believe based upon religious mythology.

Nonsense Tass, the process that created your brain is blind to facts, evidence or right conclusions. The evolutionary process knows or cares nothing of these things. So the non-rational, non-computational, forces of nature magically created computational, rational brains? So again prove that the system programmed you correctly to understand the evidence and come to the right conclusions on this subject.

[Truthseeker]

Science takes as a given the concept of uniformity in nature, i.e. that the laws and constants of nature are steady and reliable. Thus, For example, that the speed of light is constant and does not change over time. It has been continually measured and verified over many decades just as all the constants and laws so far discovered in nature have been.

The alternative is to view nature as capricious and unpredictable and prone to unexplained miracles to the extent that science could not assume the principle of uniformity, or any other basic law or constant of nature. Therefore it would not be in a position to build up the corpus of testable knowledge that it has been so demonstrably successful in doing.

Is quantum mechanics indeed that kind of science? To be sure, quantum mechanics does want to find constant laws, but the picture that qm is unveiling seems to be that nature is to some extent "capricious and unpredictable." For example, in the double slit experiments, we can't predict which slit the next photon will--you know-- "choose" to travel through.

[Tassman]

You are waiting for what? Remember Tass, I am a Christian, I'm not limited to a materialistic view of the human person.

You are if you want to present a rational, evidenced-based, verifiable argument. Otherwise you can opt for any old delusional nonsense.

Nonsense Tass, the process that created your brain is blind to facts, evidence or right conclusions. The evolutionary process knows or cares nothing of these things.

So the non-rational, non-computational, forces of nature magically created computational, rational brains? So again prove that the system programmed you correctly to understand the evidence and come to the right conclusions on this subject.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

This is not in doubt seer.

[Tassman]

Is quantum mechanics indeed that kind of science? To be sure, quantum mechanics does want to find constant laws, but the picture that qm is unveiling seems to be that nature is to some extent "capricious and unpredictable." For example, in the double slit experiments, we can't predict which slit the next photon will--you know-- "choose" to travel through.

The Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle makes it seem so but probabilities can still be calculated - to the extent that modern technology relies heavily on quantum mechanics e.g. lasers, PET scanning and numerous devices and gadgets that actually contain quantum mechanical technology in the form of microelectronics.

[seer]

You are if you want to present a rational, evidenced-based, verifiable argument. Otherwise you can opt for any old delusional nonsense.

It seems to me Tass that I asked you a while back to prove that you were conscious without using an irrational circular argument. And you could not - you take it by faith. Of course you could be delusional.


Of course it is in doubt Tass. So again prove that the system programmed you correctly to understand the evidence and come to the right conclusions on this subject.

[Truthseeker]

Life has consistently evolved from simple organisms to more complex organisms.

“All existing species originated gradually by biological, reproductive processes on a geological timescale. Modern organisms are the genetic descendants of one ancient, original species (broadly defined as a communal population of organisms exchanging genetic material). Genetical "gradualness", a much misunderstood term, is a mode of biological change that is dependent on population phenomena…”

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

1)Wow! Assuming, argendo, that the evidence does support the notion of simplicity becoming ever more complex, is that a moral imperative--or maybe better, does that imply a moral imperative? If so, what is it? "Thou shalt kill off the dinosaurs, except the birds." [kidding]

2) I didn't see any reasoning that justifies the notion of, from simplicity to complexity, apart from inference from the data.

[Tassman]

It seems to me Tass that I asked you a while back to prove that you were conscious without using an irrational circular argument. And you could not - you take it by faith. Of course you could be delusional.

You said that, as a Christian, you were not limited to a materialistic view of the human person. However the only alternative is a non-material

Of course it is in doubt Tass. So again prove that the system programmed you correctly to understand the evidence and come to the right conclusions on this subject.

It is NOT in doubt by those in the best position to know seer, namely the vast majority of scientists worldwide supported by a mass of fossil and other archaeological evidence. Only those with a religious agenda based upon ancient creation myths oppose it and that alone indicates confirmation bias.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/conten...eat-sheet.html

1)Wow! Assuming, argendo, that the evidence does support the notion of simplicity becoming ever more complex, is that a moral imperative--or maybe better, does that imply a moral imperative? If so, what is it? "Thou shalt kill off the dinosaurs, except the birds." [kidding]

2) I didn't see any reasoning that justifies the notion of, from simplicity to complexity, apart from inference from the data.

[seer]

You said that, as a Christian, you were not limited to a materialistic view of the human person. However the only alternative is a non-material view of the human person and there is no substantive evidence of this.

Conversely ALL the considerable evidence which is available points to “the human person”, and every other life form, as being an intrinsic part of the material world. One does not need to “take it by faith”; it’s the only viable option.

Listen Homer you asked me to present a rational argument for my beliefs. I have been asking you for a while to present a rational i.e. non-circular argument for your conscious state. You have offered none - you do in fact take that it by faith. If not do it here and now - make your argument that does not beg the question.

It is NOT in doubt by those in the best position to know seer, namely the vast majority of scientists worldwide supported by a mass of fossil and other archaeological evidence. Only those with a religious agenda based upon ancient creation myths oppose it and that alone indicates confirmation bias.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/conten...eat-sheet.html

So now you are going to use an argumentum ad populum? Or argument from authority? Talk about irrational.

[shunyadragon]

Ah, but there is a reason (maybe you would think it's a bad reason, heh). Scientists are supposed to take nothing for granted. Be skeptical. In this case, they are supposed to think that, well, it does look like all the research that has been shown does indicate that consciousness is naturally caused . . . BUT maybe there is still a chance that conclusion is wrong, somehow. Let's keep looking for any counter evidence.

Scientists indeed take nothing for granted. The chances that science coming up with another 'cause' for consciousness is highly unlikely regardless. First, there is increasing evidence that a natural explanation through evolution is an adequate explanation. We can clearly see the evolution of behavior such as morality and the conscious nature of the mind in simply forms in higher mammals and follow this in the evolution of humans.Second, science is limited to natural explanations of hypothesis that may be objectively tested and verified by scientific methods. Religious explanations for the source of our consciousness would remain anecdotal.

The Baha'i view would be God's Creation of life and humanity evolved through natural means, evolution. What we determine through science is the manner God Created.

[Truthseeker]

The basis of evolution is that the complex, higher life forms were derived from the simpler, lower forms, i.e. generally speaking. Sometimes they modify to better adapt to a specific ecological niche without necessarily becoming more complex. The evidence for all this is overwhelming. The fossil record is full of evidence that speciation has occurred repeatedly and molecular genetics provides corroborating evidence that evolution has in fact occurred. This is not in doubt.

How about citing some of the scientific literature? Complexity is measured and then a correlation of that and time is made. Please, no more ipse dixit statements.

Well, I thought you were arguing for secular morality. To be sure, it would not be a big deal if you wrote, no, there is no moral . . . thing there.

[Tassman]

Listen Homer you asked me to present a rational argument for my beliefs. I have been asking you for a while to present a rational i.e. non-circular argument for your conscious state. You have offered none - you do in fact take that it by faith. If not do it here and now - make your argument that does not beg the question.

So now you are going to use an argumentum ad populum? Or argument from authority? Talk about irrational.

[Tassman]

How about citing some of the scientific literature? Complexity is measured and then a correlation of that and time is made. Please, no more ipse dixit statements.

http://www.science20.com/adaptive_co...icellular_ones

In short, the basis of evolution is that the complex, higher life forms were derived from the simpler, lower forms, i.e. generally speaking. The evidence is abundant. I suggest you do your own internet search if in doubt.

Well, I thought you were arguing for secular morality. To be sure, it would not be a big deal if you wrote, no, there is no moral . . . thing there.

[Truthseeker]

Whoa! Did someone show a way to measure consciousness with my not knowing?

[Truthseeker]

http://www.science20.com/adaptive_co...icellular_ones

In short, the basis of evolution is that the complex, higher life forms were derived from the simpler, lower forms, i.e. generally speaking. The evidence is abundant.

I'm sorry I didn't write clearly. Yes, evidence. Yes, abundant evidence. What evidence there is to support the negative seems rather lacking. Yes, the inference is clear that there is progression from simplicity to complexity, except that we still do have virii or bacterium. These organisms may constitute by mass a huge part of life. By numbers, nearly all of it, IIRC. What I was asking for is a fundamental theory that explains the inference. Why is there this progression or why there must be this progression?

[Tassman]

I'm sorry I didn't write clearly. Yes, evidence. Yes, abundant evidence. What evidence there is to support the negative seems rather lacking. Yes, the inference is clear that there is progression from simplicity to complexity, except that we still do have virii or bacterium. These organisms may constitute by mass a huge part of life. By numbers, nearly all of it, IIRC. What I was asking for is a fundamental theory that explains the inference. Why is there this progression or why there must be this progression?

Whoa! Did someone show a way to measure consciousness with my not knowing?

At the most basic level testing the level of consciousness of a given individual would include observing muscle reflexes and whether or not the individual is aware of their surroundings. Fairly obvious stuff I would have thought!