It should be true

I surely cannot come up with a 100% explanation of the afterlife, even though my beliefs say and spell out what happens,
Kueka, is it passion or does she have the gift of the talk circuit, like Billy Grahem, or that young guy on the tube Sunday Morning.

Religion wants you to believe that there is no secular basis for morality. This is just not true. The thinking goes something like this; Raping and killing children can only really be wrong if there is a God who says it is.


If the Bible were the only reliable blueprint for human decency that we had, it would be impossible (both practically and logically) to criticize it in moral terms. But it is extraordinarily easy to criticize the morality in the Bible. Human sacrifice, genocide, and slaveholding, are consistently celebrated. We must also stone people to death for heresy, adultery, homosexuality, working on the Sabbath, practicing sorcery, and a whole other slew of imaginery crimes. If atheists were any less moral than religious people you would think that there would be some evidence for this. "According to the United Nations' Human Development Report (2005), the most atheistic societies—countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom—are actually the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per-capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality. Conversely, the fifty nations now ranked lowest by the UN in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious". Furthermore, so called "morality" (really just questions about happiness and suffering) can be seen in animals. Mammals careing for their young is an obvious example.

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg


Religion is not required to have morals.

And wholly crap. Look at all these stories hitting the headlines about all the pedophile priests and the Pope covering it up! If it wasn't for the word religion these people would be in prison where they all belong.

Right and Wrong has evolved over thousands of years through our society. Look at the moralities that are accepted among modern people, we don't believe in slavery anymore, we believe in equality of women, we believe in being kind to animals etc. These morals have been developed through reasoning, discussion, argument, and legal theory. Morals have evolved over time similiar to darwinism.


Personally, I don't steal from people because I would not want someone to steal from me. People don't kill other people when they get mad (well usually) because there are consequences, and I'm not talking hell I'm talking prison.

Would you commit murder, rape or robbery if you knew that no God existed? I would be willing to bet you wouldn't.

So, to sum it up, I would say morality has evolved since the beginneing of time. They are dependent upon your upbringing, environment, and surrounding culture. They don't come from any one source.

Okie Boarder wrote: Do you think we kind of know? Like it is innate in our brain or soul? For example, if a primative native in some other country doesn't kill his fellow man is it because someone taught him that or he just "knows" it isn't right? You're kind of saying you believe in a "Do unto others" type philosophy if I'm hearing you correctly.

Yes, I think it's a bit of both.

Okie Boarder wrote: I'd say I agree. I think "most" of it is innate, but some is learned. The innate part of it is interesting to me. It seems humans exclusively have that natural feeling of right and wrong that animals don't seem to have. What is your theory on where exactly it comes from?

I think it goes back to happiness. You want to be treated nice/respectful cause it will make for a more well being and everyone wants to be happy. So you treat people with courtesy and respect and you hope that they do the same in return. I would also argue that there are a lot of animals that have a sense of morality between right and wrong. There have been a lot of studies on this recently and they all seem to prove that animals have morals. Please check out this article as it goes into detail about the studies they have done.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html


Here is an excerpt,

CHIMPANZEES

Known to be among the most cognitively advanced of the great apes and our closest cousin, it is perhaps not surprising that scientists should suggest they live by moral codes.

A chimpanzee known as Knuckles – from the Centre for Great Apes in Florida – is the only known captive chimpanzee to suffer from cerebral palsy, which leaves him physically and mentally handicapped.

Scientists have found that other chimpanzees in his group treat him differently and he is rarely subjected to intimidating displays of aggression from older males.

Chimpanzees also demonstrate a sense of justice and those who deviate from the code of conduct of a group are set upon by other members as punishment

eric lavine wrote: Phos, here any news regarding the Pope?

Eric, here is the latest, Catholic abuse scandal edges closer to pope

Enjoy!

Phil,

That was an interesting read.

One thing that puzzles me is that if the theories of evolution are true, and morality is a relatively innate trait, why doesn't every living thing have that sense of right and wrong?

To me, the fact that every organism doesn't seem to, supports ID, in my mind. It shows me we have a concious and something guides us.

Okie Boarder wrote: One thing that puzzles me is that if the theories of evolution are true, and morality is a relatively innate trait, why doesn't every living thing have that sense of right and wrong? To me, the fact that every organism doesn't seem to, supports ID, in my mind. It shows me we have a concious and something guides us.

There are many ideas concerning the evolution of "morals" and other behaviors that seem to truly be altruistic. At least one basic requirement (so goes the thinking) for advanced behaviors such as cooperation and punishment of those who cheat the system is the ability to recall who is and is not playing by the rules; i.e. memory. There are few species who seem to be capable of this level of cognition, and so it is perhaps not surprising that it is difficult to find helping behaviors in the natural world.

However, there are also many examples of things that at first seemed to be truly selfless, but in the end have turned out not to be. For example, prairie dogs exhibit a behavior in which they warn others of danger from predators. Unfortunately engaging in a warning call also increases your chances of getting killed. Nevertheless prairie dogs do warn others, perhaps out of the goodness of their heart? On further examination it has been shown that they are more likely to warn if their close relatives (i.e. those that share a high proportion of genetic material) are nearby. This makes evolutionary sense because you have a vested interest in increasing the fitness of your genes, which are not necessarily only found within your body.

I do not want to start an entirely new debate, but I would warn anybody against falling back on simplistic justifications for things that seemingly cannot be "explained." Many here are not able to describe how every mechanical part of your boat works together to allow you to enjoy it, but is still goes just fine. We are all very happy to drive them around content that someone else does in fact understand. However everyone seems to know how other, arguably even more complex, things work such as species interactions (Evolution), atmospheric science (global climate change), politics (Heathcare), etc... I enjoy reading all these threads and as long as we always stay humble and remember that each of us only sees a small part of the whole we will be just fine! Sometimes you gotta have a little faith in not just God, but people as well. I think CCF is a good tangible example of that for many of us.

Hi Andy,

Thanks for taking a little interest in this. I enjoy reading your thoughts on things, and I hope you will enjoy hearing a little bit from my point of view, and perhaps others will as well. This is by no means a lecture; think of it as a conversation over some beers (so even though you don't know me, picture me happy with a drink in my hand).

Let's quickly cover some evolutionary theory. The basic idea is that evolution is simply trying to get genes to persist. Body plans, behaviors, physiological process, etc (the adaptations) that cause genes to go on will be selected for, leading to organisms that retain these traits. If changes are maladaptive, they will be selected against. You can think of it like our beloved Ski Nautique. The options that people buy will be kept around or even extended (i.e. excellent ski wakes, bigger motors) and those that people don't want get tossed (think digital gauges, weird colors). Natural selection can happen at many levels of organization.

Often we think of evolution as focused on a single individual and their genes. If an individual (and in particular their genes) are successful over time more and more individuals in the overall population will share these genes and thus the trait. If you are the fastest cheetah and that means you can kill more food so more of your fast kids live on and have fast kids of their own then perhaps eventually everyone will have your "fast" genes. This would be called "individual selection."

The prairie dogs are another case, often called "kin selection."   In this case saving your relatives might help some of your genes exist. If this behavior on average causes the genes for this behavior to be passed on, then more and more prairie dogs will do it. There are other animals that do this too, like scrub jays. Social insects are another interesting case, where because sisters (pretty much all of the bees, wasps, and ants) share 75% of their genes instead of the usual 50% they have a larger than average vested interest in the success of the group. This explains at least in part how such "simple" organisms can develop complex societies. Maybe this analogy is not 100% spot on, but it might be kinda like promo boats that the company takes a hit on financially but they get a lot of exposure and in the end sell more boats for Correct Craft (or is it "Nautiques" these days? )

So this is all very interesting, but does it have anything to do with the function of human societies? I think the answer is yes and no. If you buy evolution, then we are certainly influenced by it. On the other hand, I think it is pretty clear that people are more than just the blood, guts, and genetic material that make us up. As far as evolution and God go, I don't find them particularly antagonistic and in fact see a world with evolution as an awe inspiring and greatly humbling thing. If other CCFers tire of this conversation, but you are still interested I'd be happy to email/talk more about this and I could even dig up some reads that you might find thought provoking.

Best!

Jamin

Hansel, this leads me to the big question, its about spreading our genes, do you think its in our (mens)DNA to spread our genes to as many donors as we can, or is it simply a physcilogical thing, we could use Tiger woods as an example...does he need re-hab or is it his genes driving him to do it, and what are your thoughts personally on spreading your DNA?

eric lavine wrote: interestingly enough, On TV the other day, I watched an African american kid load his duffle bag full of video's, he was stealing them, and the chase began, the caucasion cop started chasing him. needless to say he didnt catch him cause the African American was twice as fast. Im not trying to be funny here, but, why are the AA's fast sprinters but no good for distance, and another thing...AA's do not like water, and i try to trace that back on why...but i think i do have the sprinting thing figured out

To make it more interesting Eric is to consider that some of the world's best distance runners are Africans: Kenyans, Nigerians, and other Africa countries have produced outstanding runners from 1500 meters and up. But those same countries typically don't produce very many elite sprinters.

Chuck

Yea, I don't know about water. Genetics? Environment and Culture: Proximity to lakes, pools, etc. Kids would rather play basketball?

Gotta give it to you Eric, you find a way to peek around the corners and look at issues.

Chuck

The Lake wrote: Gotta give it to you Eric, you find a way to peek around the corners and look at issues. Chuck

Never dull around here with eric at his computer.

Very interesting reading. 8 pages of this and we can still be civil with other. What a cool site.

john

I can vouge for when i had the boys clipped, I dont know if its mental or physical, but a sense left, no more shooting ranges...just one target lol.
really though i was trying to be funny on that one, but i did notice a difference and the professionals said you wouldnt even notice.....definitely a conspiracy to keep down the population....i really feel like a nuetered dog...it does affect you mentally

eric lavine wrote: I can vouge for when i had the boys clipped, I dont know if its mental or physical, but a sense left, no more shooting ranges...just one target lol. really though i was trying to be funny on that one, but i did notice a difference and the professionals said you wouldnt even notice.....definitely a conspiracy to keep down the population....i really feel like a nuetered dog...it does affect you mentally

Eric, You are nuts (no pun intended) on this one. Do you sit when you pee now too!