Christian Overconfidence

[Oscar_Kipling]

Like how would our rape debate be any different if I were the rapist and you insisted that God was going to judge me for it? I'd just keep saying I don't believe in God so that threat is meaningless to me.

The difference is that the moral imperative is situated externally to the human mind. The warning is of some greater wrongdoing against a higher being and not just the violation of a person according to shared moral values, which may or may not change over time. To claim that the threat is 'meaningless to [you]' is not to claim that the threat itself is meaningless or is of an invented moral character vis-a-vis social contract, i.e. social construction.

Much like Pascal's wager that RK mentioned earlier, the rape may be engaged in and lead to no consequences beyond this life, or it may be engaged in and lead to eternal consequences. On the other hand, to acknowledge that moral imperatives are purely human inventions is to affirm that they may be violated so long as one is willing to violate a given social order, which constitutes a rejection of the social contract. But then why should that contract be morally binding - and not just socially binding - as if the individual has violated some greater order?

And so that age-old complaint isn't "atheists can't be moral without God" (as an example). It's that the moral framework developed thereupon can't be binding in the same way. I know all about rejecting social conventions, and while people generally don't like it, it's just a convention at the end of the day. It's nonsense to say something like, "you're immoral if you don't live this kind of life" because that affirmation is nothing more than majority agreement in disguise. Immoral by X standard, maybe, but not by Y standard, and I like Y. Should I accept X over Y because many people are telling me I should? I think they should leave me alone and let me live my life.

I agree that what I believe we have as far as a moral framework is not binding in the sense that God's would be...I feel like i've been very open about that, its a conversation and a struggle, unspecific and what is generally accepted today as moral can change tomorrow.
I think the world changes and for better or worse our moral framework changes alot with it, and vice versa. If There are Objective morals from God then they do have the advantage of being   static while  accounting for all circumstances over all times with perfect clarity. Its a case of what I believe we actually have to work with as opposed to a thing that is conceivably better but we don't have.

The thing is, people, live as if their moral values were sourced from outside of themselves. Someone can't think paedophilia is a reprehensible evil, but change their mind and think pederasty is laudable (all the Greeks are doing it, after all). Do you suppose that's wholly explicable by social contract, or is there some sense in which moral values are legitimately outside of ourselves? Why moral development at all, or is what we consider to be moral development something else in disguise?

Our morals do in an equally real sense come from outside of ourselves as much as from inside. That is to say we didn't pick the properties of human beings that influence our moral development and the history of humanity's moral writings and structures and struggles and ideas, these are outside of any one person... an individual digests these things but they come from outside of themselves strictly speaking. I don't think that we should completely ignore the externalities any more than we should the interior aspects. So I cannot agree that everyone acts like that or that taking it into consideration is anything less than taking in the full picture.

Why can't a person change their views on pedophilia ( though i'm not entirely sure that pedophilia isn't strongly influenced by biology in some individuals). Is the directionality of this important to your point because I think the reverse can happen too? If so why?

Why at all? Well, I think some of it evolved biologically because it provided survival benefit, again i'm looking at my favorite human morality tool of empathy. But at the scale of human society in the cerebral sense I think moral codes develop  similarly to provide some benefit, to maximize something seen as beneficial or minimize something seen as deleterious.  I think that it is in disguise when we credit a supernatural being or force with it, I think that It is disguised when we ignore that it may be a process more than a destination, I think it is disguised when we don't see it as an interaction of biological sociological and technological history, Its disguised when we are actually doing what i've been trying to describe but calling it anything else. When we are doing morality I believe this is what we are doing and all we've ever been doing.


Let me axe you, do you believe that morality for a Christian is a struggle too, that its developmental and not instantaneous? That there can be ephanies and influences and growth that leads one to greater moral clarity? or do you instantly receive every correct moral judgement but you just struggle to actually follow the correct path that is clearly laid out? Or a mix?

[Fenris]

Can we agree that the bible is for the most part a good moral code to follow?

Unfortunately I cannot,

Ok, let me ask another question then. Those good values that exist in western civ, where did they come from? Don't kill, don't steal, love your neighbor, love the stranger, do unto others, and so on.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Can we agree that the bible is for the most part a good moral code to follow?

Unfortunately I cannot,

Ok, let me ask another question then. Those good values that exist in western civ, where did they come from? Don't kill, don't steal, love your neighbor, love the stranger, do unto others, and so on.

The ones you listed I think are all in the bible, which makes sense because the bible Is hugely influential in the West. It's also true that every one of those also predate the Bible as well. Additionally none of them are unique to Western civ (at least in the same sense that they are morals of western civ at all).To me that indicates that they don't come from the bible at all but predate it, you'd probably agree. It also means that the bible doesn't have to be a substantial influence on a society for the ones you listed to be adopted by a society. The bible is influential, no doubt about it, but as i've said before western civ just as any other civ draws its morality from a panoply of things over great timescales. It was not birthed fully formed and gifted to anyone, it grew, it developed, it was fought for and over...it was hard earned. 

[RabbiKnife]

In reply to Oscar, because I'm not smart enough to do the "reply" thing always when i want only part of the quote!

"Let me axe you, do you believe that morality for a Christian is a struggle too, that its developmental and not instantaneous? That there can be ephanies and influences and growth that leads one to greater moral clarity? or do you instantly receive every correct moral judgement but you just struggle to actually follow the correct path that is clearly laid out? Or a mix?"

For myself, I think morality for a Christian is always a struggle, that it is both instantaneous and developmental.  In Christian parlance that would be both "instant sanctification" and "progressive sanctification."  Declared righteous in fact, but developing in practical outworking of righteous acts.

I believe that Scripture would teach that we all have an innate or inherent knowledge of morality, else the conscience would be meaningless.  At the same time, as Christians spend time in prayer, in relationship with other believers, in studying the text of Scripture, in communing with God (all those metaphysical, "feely", non-scientifically testable aspects of faith), we all make moral and ethical determinations of what we believe God wants each of us to do.  A perfect example is Paul's talk of holy days or food restrictions in Romans.  Paul essentially says that food restrictions are amoral, but if a person believes a certain food should not be eaten in order to honor their understanding of God, then if they violate their conscience, then for them it is a sin.

I have many friends that believe that consuming alcohol is a sin.  They truly, truly are convinced in their hearts that drinking alcohol is a violation and affront to God.  If they have a beer, they have sinned.  Period.  I, on the other hand, do not share that belief.  If I drink a beer, I have not sinned, but I have committed a gross epicurean faux pas, because I despise the taste and smell of beer.  IN my teens and early 20's, however, I shared the first stance, but changed my opinion on the issue over time with a clear conscience.

The struggle for morality is difficult for the Christian.  It isn't about rule keeping, but about honoring a being/person that you love with all your heart.

There is no rule that says I have to keep my socks and shoes picked up off the floor, but I know that having a sparkling clean house gives great meaning and comfort to my wife.  I pick up by shoes and socks and put them where they are supposed to be our of honor and respect, which gives the act that is otherwise amoral a characteristic that is moral.

But my morality code is not based on society or what a majority or what even a minority of a culture might say; my morality code is based on my understanding of the high standard that God calls me to, sacrificial, self-denying, sometimes less than satisfying.

[Fenris]

The ones you listed I think are all in the bible, which makes sense because the bible Is hugely influential in the West. It's also true that every one of those also predate the Bible as well.

But that isn't what I asked. What I asked is, do those values enter western civ via the bible?

[Athanasius]

Our morals do in an equally real sense come from outside of ourselves as much as from inside. That is to say we didn't pick the properties of human beings that influence our moral development and the history of humanity's moral writings and structures and struggles and ideas, these are outside of any one person... an individual digests these things but they come from outside of themselves strictly speaking. I don't think that we should completely ignore the externalities any more than we should the interior aspects. So I cannot agree that everyone acts like that or that taking it into consideration is anything less than taking in the full picture.

Outside of humanity as a whole, not merely the single individual looking down and seeing Plato. We're looking at a metanarrative, but with the suggestion that it's still fully human-centric in origin.

Why can't a person change their views on pedophilia ( though i'm not entirely sure that pedophilia isn't strongly influenced by biology in some individuals). Is the directionality of this important to your point because I think the reverse can happen too? If so why?

That's what I'm asking. Do you think a person who thinks paedophilia is ghastly change their mind and come to praise it? But clearly, there were/are cultures where such behaviour is/was tolerated, so what's going on there? Why moral outrage on one hand, and toleration - if not acceptance - on the other?

Why at all? Well, I think some of it evolved biologically because it provided survival benefit, again i'm looking at my favorite human morality tool of empathy. But at the scale of human society in the cerebral sense I think moral codes develop  similarly to provide some benefit, to maximize something seen as beneficial or minimize something seen as deleterious.  I think that it is in disguise when we credit a supernatural being or force with it, I think that It is disguised when we ignore that it may be a process more than a destination, I think it is disguised when we don't see it as an interaction of biological sociological and technological history, Its disguised when we are actually doing what i've been trying to describe but calling it anything else. When we are doing morality I believe this is what we are doing and all we've ever been doing.

"Survival benefit" is "God of the gaps" in evolutionary speak, but how does the former interact with what we know of ancient humanity and its moral values? As you know, the typical theistic argument is that morality points to the existence of the divine. Obviously moral codes can be beneficial (ahem, but not always). But why a code at all? Are we calling morality what is actually the majority pushing back against the powerful minority that would oppress them?

But even as I make reference to moral development lets not forget that our society has merely shipped its moral quandaries overseas. We're in love with the idea that we didn't do a thing, we only paid money, so we've been absolved.

Let me axe you, do you believe that morality for a Christian is a struggle too, that its developmental and not instantaneous? That there can be ephanies and influences and growth that leads one to greater moral clarity? or do you instantly receive every correct moral judgement but you just struggle to actually follow the correct path that is clearly laid out? Or a mix?

I think the answer is pretty obvious through a cursory reading of the bible: there's a clear development of moral values across time. But a Christian's discovery of moral values is a subtly different thing from the invention of moral values. Or maybe those two things are the same, and the difference is between what one recognises as the source of investigation.

[Oscar_Kipling]

In reply to Oscar, because I'm not smart enough to do the "reply" thing always when i want only part of the quote!

Honestly I understand it but still don't do it sometimes either because its a pain in the butt, but you doing this actually made it easier for me. So I don't mind if you spend your intellect on the discussion at hand instead of the formatting, its win win.

For myself, I think morality for a Christian is always a struggle, that it is both instantaneous and developmental.  In Christian parlance that would be both "instant sanctification" and "progressive sanctification."  Declared righteous in fact, but developing in practical outworking of righteous acts.

instantaneous and developmental, paradoxical but you know what, I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

I believe that Scripture would teach that we all have an innate or inherent knowledge of morality, else the conscience would be meaningless.  At the same time, as Christians spend time in prayer, in relationship with other believers, in studying the text of Scripture, in communing with God (all those metaphysical, "feely", non-scientifically testable aspects of faith), we all make moral and ethical determinations of what we believe God wants each of us to do.  A perfect example is Paul's talk of holy days or food restrictions in Romans.  Paul essentially says that food restrictions are amoral, but if a person believes a certain food should not be eaten in order to honor their understanding of God, then if they violate their conscience, then for them it is a sin.

I think we all (and by all I mean that it is common to human design) have the capacity for moral reasoning and empathy. What you've described seems to be essentially what I believe we all do except that you think God is doing stuff in there too.

This whole sin for you, but not for me business makes some sense to me in the sense that doing a thing that you believe is wrong is to intentionally attempt to do something wrong..... buuuut It also feels like a bit of slight of hand. Like of course objective morality can be both static, eternal and apply to every situation ever if it can also be subjective, that is subject to the subject's beliefs about the objective evilness of the thing. Fact is, someone is right about the objective evilness of some arbitrary thing and someone is wrong about it, Exporting it out to what they do about said arbitrary thing does nothing to address the objective moral nature of the arbitrary thing. It Feels like you want to display this beautiful cake  and you also want to eat the entire cake and you solve this conundrum by eating the back half of the cake and placing it up against a wall for display, its a clever solution, but it doesn't exactly do what you set out to do.

I have many friends that believe that consuming alcohol is a sin.  They truly, truly are convinced in their hearts that drinking alcohol is a violation and affront to God.  If they have a beer, they have sinned.  Period.  I, on the other hand, do not share that belief.  If I drink a beer, I have not sinned, but I have committed a gross epicurean faux pas, because I despise the taste and smell of beer.  IN my teens and early 20's, however, I shared the first stance, but changed my opinion on the issue over time with a clear conscience.

I have friends too and that's a fact like Agnus, Agatha, Germain and Jack lol. I there is nothing inherently evil about alcohol unless you think there is something inherently evil about alcohol then what about Slavery? Is it cool if I bring some orphan into bondage to work my fields for the rest of their lives if I treat them nice and believe that ownership of another human isn't inherently evil? Is slavery like beer? is murder like slavery? is murder like beer? Why or why not?

....but actually like if you believed that drinking a beer quickly was okay but "smashing" one is a sin it would become a sin even though the only fundamental difference between the two is the words you use to describe the same action...like doesn't that seem a bit off to you? You can just create sins out of thin air by just kinda having idiosyncratic superstitions or by being extremely uncritical of what people tell you are sins...like when does it end?

The struggle for morality is difficult for the Christian.  It isn't about rule keeping, but about honoring a being/person that you love with all your heart.

I think the struggle for morality is probably difficult for everyone, that's why it's not called the fun summer day at the beach for morality lol. If what you have to do in your moral struggle, and what I have to do only differ in what we believe we are doing, but they effectively look the same, then adding God in there is a bit like claiming to have added fairy dust. It's even worse in that we are both bound to make mistakes and have misapprehensions in this struggle, except that if you are wrong about the evilness of a thing then it actually becomes evil for you in a very literal sense...like you can be severed from God for all eternity if you believed mismatched socks were evil, but one morning you are feeling very sick and just throw on the mismatched socks because you don't have the energy to search, then you drop dead because you were actually deathly ill. perfect justice.

There is no rule that says I have to keep my socks and shoes picked up off the floor, but I know that having a sparkling clean house gives great meaning and comfort to my wife.  I pick up by shoes and socks and put them where they are supposed to be our of honor and respect, which gives the act that is otherwise amoral a characteristic that is moral.

totally get this, don't think God has to get anyone there, just like actually caring about your wife is justification enough.

But my morality code is not based on society or what a majority or what even a minority of a culture might say; my morality code is based on my understanding of the high standard that God calls me to, sacrificial, self-denying, sometimes less than satisfying.

I disagree, I think it is...I would bet there is something that you believe is sinful that has been influenced by society and or some majority/minority, and even if not you are absolutely susceptible to it. What even is struggling for morality through "being in relationship with other believers" if it's not influencing and being influenced by each other at least to some degree? See, the mere fact that it is permissible that you could believe something that the majority falsely insists is a sin, means that your moral code can be based on the majority opinion in a very real way because anything that you believe is a sin becomes an actual sin despite. You can believe any claim from any source and it becomes something that actually affects your salvation regardless of whether or not what you believe is objectively morally true. I like you and I think you believe what you say, but I don't believe for a second that this has never happened to you much less that it couldn't....I mean I wouldn't be surprised if your early views on alcohol weren't influenced by your community.

[Oscar_Kipling]

The ones you listed I think are all in the bible, which makes sense because the bible Is hugely influential in the West. It's also true that every one of those also predate the Bible as well.

But that isn't what I asked. What I asked is, do those values enter western civ via the bible?

and I'm saying yes the bible played a part, but a bunch of other stuff did too...like the entirety of western values aren't summed up by the ones you listed, so even if I conceded that every one of your list has a direct genetic lineage to the Bible that cannot be said of all "good" western values much less the "good" values around the world.

[Athanasius]

and I'm saying yes the bible played a part, but a bunch of other stuff did too...like the entirety of western values aren't summed up by the ones you listed, so even if I conceded that every one of your list has a direct genetic lineage to the Bible that cannot be said of all "good" western values much less the "good" values around the world.

Fenris isn't suggesting that Western values are wholly derived from the Bible. As he's argued elsewhere - although I'm not sure why it would need to be an argument - such values derive from Greco/Roman/Christian/etc. Biblically speaking, the idea that not all "good" (?) values are found in the Bible is consistent with the teaching of the Bible.

Morality is a funny subject. The values are always changing, but they're so foundational to our experience of the world that they're otherwise transparent.

[Fenris]

and I'm saying yes the bible played a part, but a bunch of other stuff did too...

Western Civ is the combination of two sets of ideas.

There's the way we think, and the way we feel.

The way we think: The ideals of democracy, free speech, abstract science and the harnessing of the laws of nature for mankind's benefit. These all come to us from the Greeks. They reach us primarily via the Romans.

But then there's the way we feel. Our values and ethics and morals. The infinite value of a human life. The idea of equality before the law. Do unto others. Those are all Jewish in origin. They reach us primarily via Christianity.

Those are the two sources of basically everything that underpins our society. And it's difficult to imagine such ideas as "progress" and "human rights" if our society was not based on these origins. One does not have to be religious or indeed even believe in God to acknowledge these facts.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Outside of humanity as a whole, not merely the single individual looking down and seeing Plato. We're looking at a metanarrative, but with the suggestion that it's still fully human-centric in origin.

yeah, I mean, yeah

That's what I'm asking. Do you think a person who thinks paedophilia is ghastly change their mind and come to praise it? But clearly, there were/are cultures where such behaviour is/was tolerated, so what's going on there? Why moral outrage on one hand, and toleration - if not acceptance - on the other?

I don't know of any cases but I don't see why not. I do not know that I can tell you why pedarcy specifically is wildly popular in some times and places and repudiated in others. I can say that it was possible and while i'm not especially familiar with why they said it was a good thing but I guess that was convincing, so some folks made it happen. In other places perhaps the anti-arguements were more convincing. In my view there are so many possible interactions that there were definitely reasons but they may not be available or scrutable to us...now i'm forced to look up the Greek rationale and pray that it isn't an indisputable argument for why I am morally obligated to do it too.


Edit:
that wiki on greek pedracy was pretty interesting actually. They seem to have felt it was a perfectly acceptable way for a rich influential old creep to fulfill his proclivities and A good way for a Young man just getting started to make powerful connections and learn how he too can become a rich powerful old creep lol. I was thinking 7 year olds but it's more like pubescents 14-16 which was marrying age for the Greeks, so. there was also a lot of etiquette around it too, which seemed to offer a lot of autonomy and choice to the boys and his parents or at least father. I'm not saying its great but the boys were not stuck for life or at all really, it was a waaaay better deal than greek girls, they had no choice which old creep they married, were obviously expected to have sex and pop out children and they were stuck with that old windbag for life probably. So the age range fits more with ancient and current sensibilities around the world as to what acceptable marrying age is than my American ones, but I do recognize that becoming fertile is biology signaling its readiness even if the person may benefit in many ways from doing some other stuff for a few years first. Overall its not difficult to understand why the people that benefited from it were down for it and why the people who weren't wealthy and powerful may not have cared for it but had no wealth, power or education to create and pass out a bunch of pamphlets about why it was gross lol. come to think of it, a 16 year old marrying a rich 50 year old is perfectly legal in many places here though maybe frowned upon, but the practice and motives practically still exists so they did it for the same reasons that we still do it.

"Survival benefit" is "God of the gaps" in evolutionary speak, but how does the former interact with what we know of ancient humanity and its moral values? As you know, the typical theistic argument is that morality points to the existence of the divine. Obviously moral codes can be beneficial (ahem, but not always). But why a code at all? Are we calling morality what is actually the majority pushing back against the powerful minority that would oppress them?

I think that's a bit unfair to me and the scientists who spend their studying evolution particularly evolution regarding social behaviors and ethics and morality. It's always a tradeoff when typing a post, but you would just ask more about what I believe is well evidenced and what is simply a strong feeling that its probably natural selection because we have evidence that it does things like this but if I'm honest IDK. But to the scientist in that field, I think many would be orders of magnitude more precise about what they claim to be well evidenced, what is hypothesized and what is bald speculation. There is stuff I don't Know, There is stuff science doesn't know and those Gaps aren't where evolution lives, it lives in the stuff we do feel is well evidenced enough to say we know. It makes no more sense to say than that gravity is astrophysics of the gaps.

Okay, as an example, I think that empathy probably evolved via natural selection before humans but also within humans and is key to our moral development but isn't the only factor. I think that empathy evolved in smaller groups than we deal with today and it's limits are showing badly. I think empathy in ancient humanity plays exactly the same role as it does in modern humans, It allows us to step into another's shoes and frequently it promotes pro social behaviors by having us feel how it might feel to have done to us what we are thinking of doing to someone else...sometimes whether we want to or not. I have read that psychopathy could be thought of not so much a lack of empathy as not experiencing automatic empathy, like they can flick it on if it seems like it might be useful to the situation or leave it off if it doesn't. Anyway So ancient humans lived and cooperated in relatively small groups and these groups were not unending indiscriminate murder fests because i'm here typing this. They probably weren't indiscriminate stealing fests either because why would you stay where you nor anyone else knows moment to moment if the people in your group are just going to take all the berries you picked and leave you berryless. Empathy can influence a degree of social stability, and ancient peoples certainly had that...most social animals do. Empathy just like the startle response empathy is trainable too, Humans are pretty good at it too, as far as I know we have the greatest ability to abstract or imagine things abstracted from our current circumstances. Using that to essentially crosstrain with empathy is very powerful and you can start thinking about not just how your little group might feel but also how others might, and what might motivate them or control them or bring them together to build a big mound of dirt or whatever it is you are trying to do. Ancient peoples certainly appear to have done that. obviously this wasn't the only factor, and this is getting too long, so you get what i'm saying right?

Why codes at all? Initially I said because benefit, but really I think first it is because we had the tools to be able to think and reason about ourselves and each other and the world and make long term plans and to abstract those ideas. We had the ability to think about how we could make our lives and the lives of our communities better.
We had the tools to see the value in groups, and think about how it could be better and imagine what more could be done. We could see the things that people did that had bad outcomes and remember those things and consider whether or not they were just unlucky or if what they did was the problem, we can even vividly imagine what might happen if we chose to do a thing. I could see beings with those abilities collecting what they have learned and sharing the do's and don'ts they have discovered amongst each other. I can imagine them arguing about why this is actually a do but you say its a don't, some would be more convincing than others. Some would be easier to test than others. some would be more repeatable than others. I imagine you could put together a pretty healthy list if you had an interest in things that might be beneficial. I bet if you had a list sharpened by time and testing, great successes and debate over generations you might be pretty confident in it...you might even say this is the greatest list of all time and everyone should follow its wisdom. I typed out all of that but really if morality isn't deeply interrelated with benefits in reality then I think it's superstition disguised as morality. When looking at it that way then "why a code" is as obvious as "why a spear"..we can discuss the fact that not every spear is better than throwing a rock or that populations have surely greatly damaged or destroyed themselves with a spear based arms race, but they clearly have their benefits so of course we did.

But even as I make reference to moral development lets not forget that our society has merely shipped its moral quandaries overseas. We're in love with the idea that we didn't do a thing, we only paid money, so we've been absolved.

I can't imagine how I've left you with the impression that i'm so enamored with our society. I need not go overseas, I can step out of my door and see the evidence of our moral imperfection and if we treat "ourselves" like this then there is never a place for the idea that we treat "them" any better to find purchase. I know what you mean and everything but there are plenty who are in revolt and yes plenty who just buy the revolt themed t-shirt and post it on insta.

I think the answer is pretty obvious through a cursory reading of the bible: there's a clear development of moral values across time. But a Christian's discovery of moral values is a subtly different thing from the invention of moral values. Or maybe those two things are the same, and the difference is between what one recognises as the source of investigation.

Subtly different, how?

[Oscar_Kipling]

Fenris isn't suggesting that Western values are wholly derived from the Bible. As he's argued elsewhere - although I'm not sure why it would need to be an argument - such values derive from Greco/Roman/Christian/etc. Biblically speaking, the idea that not all "good" (?) values are found in the Bible is consistent with the teaching of the Bible.

good, me neither but I thought he was about to.

Morality is a funny subject. The values are always changing, but they're so foundational to our experience of the world that they're otherwise transparent.

Yep

[Oscar_Kipling]

and I'm saying yes the bible played a part, but a bunch of other stuff did too...

Western Civ is the combination of two sets of ideas.

There's the way we think, and the way we feel.

The way we think: The ideals of democracy, free speech, abstract science and the harnessing of the laws of nature for mankind's benefit. These all come to us from the Greeks. They reach us primarily via the Romans.

But then there's the way we feel. Our values and ethics and morals. The infinite value of a human life. The idea of equality before the law. Do unto others. Those are all Jewish in origin. They reach us primarily via Christianity.

Those are the two sources of basically everything that underpins our society. And it's difficult to imagine such ideas as "progress" and "human rights" if our society was not based on these origins. One does not have to be religious or indeed even believe in God to acknowledge these facts.

Like, i don't agree exactly, but I also want to see where this is going so for the sake of argument, agreed.

[Athanasius]

I think that's a bit unfair to me and the scientists who spend their studying evolution particularly evolution regarding social behaviors and ethics and morality.

Maybe, maybe not. Deferring to survivability is fine I suppose, but it's presupposition brought forward. There is at some point the problem of the development of morality as a survival mechanism (let's say), and iterations on moral values. So we might say that it's advantageous not to kill those immediately around you, and let's call that 'murder'. But hey, those competing genes one-click east? Kill the men, impregnate the women, indoctrinate and enslave the children. But wait, that's not wrong either? Ah, because genes are driving the survival of the species. Well, how do we know this? Because evolutionary adaptations favour survivability. But now we've run ourselves in a circle. What evolution doesn't account for is mind, and what the survivability argument doesn't account for are all those species with no morality per se but which are around all the same.

The same for something like consciousness. The presupposition is the answer, and so, when "God did it" gets brought up and tossed out, so too should "survivability". I think we'd also have to acknowledge that morality might turn out to be failed evolutionary experiment in a million years' time, but then that undermines the whole process does it not?

It's always a tradeoff when typing a post, but you would just ask more about what I believe is well evidenced and what is simply a strong feeling that its probably natural selection because we have evidence that it does things like this but if I'm honest IDK. But to the scientist in that field, I think many would be orders of magnitude more precise about what they claim to be well evidenced, what is hypothesized and what is bald speculation. There is stuff I don't Know, There is stuff science doesn't know and those Gaps aren't where evolution lives, it lives in the stuff we do feel is well evidenced enough to say we know. It makes no more sense to say than that gravity is astrophysics of the gaps.

That's not what I've said.

Okay, as an example, I think that empathy probably evolved via natural selection before humans but also within humans and is key to our moral development but isn't the only factor. I think that empathy evolved in smaller groups than we deal with today and it's limits are showing badly. I think empathy in ancient humanity plays exactly the same role as it does in modern humans, It allows us to step into another's shoes and frequently it promotes pro social behaviors by having us feel how it might feel to have done to us what we are thinking of doing to someone else...sometimes whether we want to or not. I have read that psychopathy could be thought of not so much a lack of empathy as not experiencing automatic empathy, like they can flick it on if it seems like it might be useful to the situation or leave it off if it doesn't.

Anyway So ancient humans lived and cooperated in relatively small groups and these groups were not unending indiscriminate murder fests because i'm here typing this. They probably weren't indiscriminate stealing fests either because why would you stay where you nor anyone else knows moment to moment if the people in your group are just going to take all the berries you picked and leave you berryless. Empathy can influence a degree of social stability, and ancient peoples certainly had that...most social animals do. Empathy just like the startle response empathy is trainable too, Humans are pretty good at it too, as far as I know we have the greatest ability to abstract or imagine things abstracted from our current circumstances. Using that to essentially crosstrain with empathy is very powerful and you can start thinking about not just how your little group might feel but also how others might, and what might motivate them or control them or bring them together to build a big mound of dirt or whatever it is you are trying to do. Ancient peoples certainly appear to have done that. obviously this wasn't the only factor, and this is getting too long, so you get what i'm saying right?

I get what you're saying, yes, and to that, I would say (1) what's empathy? I'm bad at it myself, and (2) empathy isn't a requirement for cooperation or compulsion in tribal settings where the strong man at the top tells everyone else what to do. This also doesn't extend beyond particular groups until the mind is brought in, which usurps the evolutionary process. By that, you mean 'empathy', but I suppose here it's worth asking where evolution stops and Oscar begins? Are you empathetic because it's purely advantageous? But then what do we mean by empathy? If it's purely advantageous, then how programmatically driven are we, biologically? Speaking of bias, how much of these evolutionary processes are so foundational to the human condition that they're unquestionably adopted as true? But even then, what about the wildly varying moral values across space and time?

I guess this is where natural selection gets to be the unintelligent designer.

Why codes at all? Initially I said because benefit, but really I think first it is because we had the tools to be able to think and reason about ourselves and each other and the world and make long term plans and to abstract those ideas. We had the ability to think about how we could make our lives and the lives of our communities better.

Have you ever read Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism?

... I typed out all of that but really if morality isn't deeply interrelated with benefits in reality then I think it's superstition disguised as morality. When looking at it that way then "why a code" is as obvious as "why a spear"..we can discuss the fact that not every spear is better than throwing a rock or that populations have surely greatly damaged or destroyed themselves with a spear based arms race, but they clearly have their benefits so of course we did.

It can't be superstition if it's an evolutionary strategy. I'd find merit in your suggestion, which I think is partially true, but not wholly true, because people don't like wearing masks, getting vaccines, and seem obsessed with trying Communism just one more time. But then, we've quickly moved from evolutionary strategy to thought.

I can't imagine how I've left you with the impression that i'm so enamored with our society. I need not go overseas, I can step out of my door and see the evidence of our moral imperfection and if we treat "ourselves" like this then there is never a place for the idea that we treat "them" any better to find purchase. I know what you mean and everything but there are plenty who are in revolt and yes plenty who just buy the revolt themed t-shirt and post it on insta.

Oscar, my existence is resistance, please support me.

I don't think you're enamoured with our society. I think our society is highly hypocritical. Everyone. I think all societies are, but since I live in this one I'll call it out.

Subtly different, how?

One's a discovery and one's an invention. Someone invents the idea that the sky is a sphere with pretty little lights on it. Someone discovers that those lights are stars like our own. Of course, morality is trickier than astronomy.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Maybe, maybe not. Deferring to survivability is fine I suppose, but it's presupposition brought forward. There is at some point the problem of the development of morality as a survival mechanism (let's say), and iterations on moral values. So we might say that it's advantageous not to kill those immediately around you, and let's call that 'murder'. But hey, those competing genes one-click east? Kill the men, impregnate the women, indoctrinate and enslave the children. But wait, that's not wrong either? Ah, because genes are driving the survival of the species. Well, how do we know this? Because evolutionary adaptations favour survivability. But now we've run ourselves in a circle. What evolution doesn't account for is mind, and what the survivability argument doesn't account for are all those species with no morality per se but which are around all the same.

The same for something like consciousness. The presupposition is the answer, and so, when "God did it" gets brought up and tossed out, so too should "survivability". I think we'd also have to acknowledge that morality might turn out to be failed evolutionary experiment in a million years' time, but then that undermines the whole process does it not?

Myself nor Evolution as a scientific theory claims that survivability explains all of morality and its development because for example we created writing which strictly speaking the biological tools that we used to create writing were not evolved for writing, moreover the things that we invented on the way to writing were not biological at all, like tally scratches on sticks or bones or whatever. Evolution may be pretty good at explaining what we have biologically and how it got there and can be informative to human behavior, but what it is possible for us to do is beyond what evolution purports to describe, that is why the study of Humans isn't just evolution or just biology or just sociology or just history no single one even pretends that any of them alone explains even morality let alone Humanity. I don't know what evolutionary biologists you've been talking to that would make the kind of argument you've described as any more than a fun thing to think about, but yeah I agree that argument sucks but neither me or Evolution are making it.

That's not what I've said.
.

My mistake, sorry.

I get what you're saying, yes, and to that, I would say (1) what's empathy? I'm bad at it myself, and (2) empathy isn't a requirement for cooperation or compulsion in tribal settings where the strong man at the top tells everyone else what to do. This also doesn't extend beyond particular groups until the mind is brought in, which usurps the evolutionary process. By that, you mean 'empathy', but I suppose here it's worth asking where evolution stops and Oscar begins? Are you empathetic because it's purely advantageous? But then what do we mean by empathy? If it's purely advantageous, then how programmatically driven are we, biologically? Speaking of bias, how much of these evolutionary processes are so foundational to the human condition that they're unquestionably adopted as true? But even then, what about the wildly varying moral values across space and time?

I guess this is where natural selection gets to be the unintelligent designer.

Well, for anything that you can call a human trait there are going to be some people born without it. Your lack of empathy is no more an indictment than if I was talking about vision or fingers. Empathy isn't a requirement for cooperation it is useful in cooperation and can reinforce it, I never meant that it was a must for any instance of cooperation, individual ants and bees don't have it or most of what we have and they are cooperative as all get out. I'm not sure what particular groups you are referring to when you say "{Empathy} doesn't usually extend beyond particular groups until the mind is brought in"...but luckily we are equipped with both and I believe moral development certainly used both along with plenty else. Is there some reason that empathy couldn't have had the influences that I described within only these particular groups though? Evolution surely had done everything it was going to do to me by the time I was Born. Empathy was selected for in my ancestors because they were successful enough to get a descendant all the way to now. I inherited empathy, a kind of empathy, I mean you can and likely do use reason and imagination to put yourself in another's shoes, but perhaps you've never experienced an automatic empathetic response. You might also have had uncommon troubles determining the emotional state of others too? Anyway I have it because I inherited it, I've trained it because I wanted to make some changes in my life. Its mine now, I can do whatever I want with it despite how or why it got here. Humans are exactly 32.68% biologically driven lol nah, Obviously there is a spectrum of what biological drives have what and how much of an effect on who. I don't know what kind of margins you are looking for and I don't know that I can provide them but if you wanna specify further i'm game to try. "how much of these evolutionary processes are so foundational to the human condition that they're unquestionably adopted as true?" is a darn interesting question that I do not know the answer to, but i'll speculate cuz its a really cool question. I mean the idea that no human has or ever will question something is a pretty big ask, friggin Philosophers exist so lol. But perhaps its so transparent to us that it never could occur to us to question it, but what does a belief like that even look like, is it a belief at all in any meaningful sense or just a reflex. I mean maybe that feeling that i'm inside of my body somewhere, but nah its not unquestioned and not a belief. Yeah i'm leaning toward probably none.

Have you ever read Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism?

Yes, you introduced me to it back on the old forum. Can't say that I read it again recently, so if you think its solid then hit me with the bullet points.

It can't be superstition if it's an evolutionary strategy. I'd find merit in your suggestion, which I think is partially true, but not wholly true, because people don't like wearing masks, getting vaccines, and seem obsessed with trying Communism just one more time. But then, we've quickly moved from evolutionary strategy to thought.

First of all why can't it be? Second I never even meant to imply that superstition can be simply described as an evolutionary strategy any more that morality can. Empathy I believe was evolved, what humans created with each other and over human history in part utilizing empathy is not an evolutionary strategy. it would be no more reasonable than if I talked about how some aspect of organic chemistry like 3-methylindole may have influenced moral development and you took that to mean that i'm saying morality is just chemical reactions... Its not even just evolution and thought, I believe that it is a system of things and interactions between them over time that describes moral development not any one or two of those things... think obsessed detective board with red strings connecting everything to everything else not wild west wanted poster.

Oscar, my existence is resistance, please support me.

I don't think you're enamoured with our society. I think our society is highly hypocritical. Everyone. I think all societies are, but since I live in this one I'll call it out.

and a hearty #metoo to you. Hey, when in rome, point out the hypocrisy of the romans.

One's a discovery and one's an invention. Someone invents the idea that the sky is a sphere with pretty little lights on it. Someone discovers that those lights are stars like our own. Of course, morality is trickier than astronomy.

Well, some inventions are also atomic clocks made possible only through a long lineage of both discoveries about reality and invention. Not only does it comport with reality unlike the sky sphere it also addresses problems that didn't even exist 5,000 years ago. I think morality is more like an atomic clock than either of those alone.

Fyi I see that I missed some of your questions in the pervious post and i went back and edited them in.