Exactly. I can't speak for all of 'em, but the general trend I've noticed is that it is about refinement of discrimination. And this may simply be an effect of saturation. If atheists didn't have to put up with religion on such a regular basis, perhaps those resources and mental processes would be put toward better things. Maybe. The thing is that nobody is perfect. Nobody is omniscient. The paradox arises in the idea that in order to not devote the resources to a religious identity, one must essentially devote resources to a religious identity. Atheism is only a specific belief in artificial contrast. The idea that the atheist owes the religious proposition some kind of fair consideration when the religious proposition has no obligation to support itself is absolute crap. To me, the argument about whether we actually exist is approximately the equivalent of whether God exists. At some point, we just get on with life in one way or another; even if this body and life are an illusion, this is the illusion I must endure. The only part of that I can reasonably answer is that it seems to be made of electrical current. The rest, the boundaries and the nature? I'm not prepared to answer that and come anywhere close to being correct.
Just a shot at it: I concur. Well actually I'd say there is a difference in the "distance" of the "leap of faith" involved. Assumption of self is a leap of faith of zero distance, as whatever ponders the validity of the assumption validates itself in doing so. Whereas the concern of "god" is external to "self". A dynamic, cohesive abstract. It's the culmination of perspective given initial conditions. It's ego. It's survival (an abstract) incarnate. Self is a solipsitic persistance. It's formed from a physical entity that has an abstract potential which is realized over time. Perception.
No, It was just some guy I met in my travels. He was a collage student in Montana, US, when I was on a peace walk back in 1980.
I sometimes try to imagine what it was for these monkey-ish creatures culturally transforming into modern day human. What was it like recognizing the concepts of "self" and "someone"? Confronting death was as difficult then as it is today and maybe because of our mirror neurons we needed a new idea to deal with it, this "afterlife" and that is located in the "supernatural" Most people on the planet still beleif in these ideas
What is self? Good question maybe start a thread about "self"? So it is electrical, but not only electrical because the "self" seems to be contained in the structure of the neural network. A jolt of lighting doens't remove the "self". The brain is fluid so the self is in constant flux - I'd put the boundary of "self" at the CNS.
None of which would qualify as behaviour based upon a particular morality. Morality is a normative structure of rules whose support is to be found in the particular metaphysical system from which it is derived. There is no such thing as a scientific morality. Not only can, but must. Without the explicit codification of behaviour, there is no correlate morality. Not at all. One can have an objective without creating attendant moral imperatives. I would deny any a priori status to anything. The point is, it is the believers who grant the a priori status to certain elements of their structure. I disagree. Valuation necessitates a moral structure, but preference does not. I can choose vanilla ice cream over chocolate without any moral sanction or factor whatsoever. I think the major stumbling block you an I are having has to do with the definition of morality moreso than anything. For myself, morality necessarily implies a theological element. Whereas an ethical system does not....
You are assuming the morality is supported by the metaphysical system, rather than the other way around - observation suggests morality comes first, metaphysics second, and the relationship eventually established is one of mutual support. You seem to assume that the practice of science puts no curbs or conditions on either morals or metaphysics. Observation suggests otherwise. In general, you seem to think morality is a fairly late development in human culture, and something that humans can live without and have lived without - even in fairly large groups and over many hundreds of years. That is an unusual view of morality. I presume you agree then that morality is something of which no animal possesses even the rudiments? But they could have ethics, apparently:
My observations certainly don't support yours. Mankind in its 'natural ' state is amoral. It is only from parental and societal indoctrination that morality is gained. And this morality is always historically derived from a metaphysical system. I've never seen a moral newborn. Again, not my observations. Restrictions on scientific behaviour of any sort are either particular to the content of what is being examined, or are an integral part of the Scientific Method [SM] itself. I have never experienced nor witnessed any moral elements being made relevant to any scientific exploration. Late? Perhaps. Artificially derived as a result of societal influence? Indeed. I wouldn't say my view of morality is unusual so much as realistic. And yes, I would agree that animals are incapable of a moral system. Possibly, entirely contingent upon their particular organizational structure.
Would you please rephrase the question? ** ** ** My understanding of "agnostic" is: "I don't know if god exists, it's not knowable if a god exists. And it isn't a factor for me, ie, not important, or relevent to my life." [(and if you could prove there is a god, I still wouldn't carePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) [comment in paraentheses is tongue in cheek]] Why this rabid attachment to a word that means: "I believe god does not exist". And to be so "Holier (more scientific, therefore right) Than Thou" about it to boot.:bugeye:
Not everything is a belief but If you mean everything is and ideology then that would be true...but there are many things that are definable and things that have enough confussion to warrant belief but I find it depends much on the individual.
There is no "natural state of mankind" in that sense - human babies can't survive on their own. Unless they are brought up by animals, in which case, per you, they might have an ethical system, but not a moral system. Would you say that a human baby brought up by animals would be a human in its "natural state"? - Also: I don't think that the term "moral" could even be applied in such a case. Newborns are physically unable to perform things by which we could recognize whether they have a moral system or not.
I don't believe you have ever observed "mankind in its natural state" without morals. All people have moralities, regardless of the presence of a "metaphysical system". As far as the baby - they can't talk either, until after their parental and societal indoctrination. Would you say that mankind in its natural state has no language ? We have plenty of records of scientific investigation both influencing and being influenced by prevalent morality - that goes back to Galileo at least, if not further. You seem to be taking as "morality" what most people take as "ethics", and vice versa.
Wes, Nature exists within time and space. What if there is a force beyond that? (Actually, I can't be entirely sure about that first bit. Maybe time and space exist within nature? Perhaps it depends whether time and space are dependent upon human cognition in some way or are independent of it? In fact maybe they're the same thing? Blah...blah...blah... Either way the question still stands)
Sure, if you want to be pedantic about it. But our faith is a reasoned faith. The definition of a scientific theory is, after all, a prediction of the way the universe will work derived by reasoning from observations of the way it has worked. The scientific method yields theories that are "true beyond a reasonable doubt"--the standard of the American legal system. Theism is an unreasonable faith. It is a theory of how the universe works that is derived from nothing except instinctive beliefs that are programmed into our midbrain by our DNA. Religion yields theories that people believe to be true only because they feel true. To compare faith in science with faith in unobservable supernatural beings because we happen to use the same word is an insult to science. I have faith that my wife will be loyal and true because she has been loyal and true for thirty years despite many forces that would have caused a less loyal and true spouse to give up on me. To compare that faith to someone else's faith in a fairytale is an insult to my wife, and I don't take kindly to superstitous people who insult my wife. Faith??? How about a matter of empricial observation??? What can faith possibly have to do with it? This discussion is getting pretty close to navel-gazing. Wait, no it isn't. If you can gaze at your navel, that's conclusive evidence that you exist. "Atheism" comes from the Greek "without gods." That is an accurate description of the way we live. We don't walk around dreaming of a supernatural universe in which gods and angels and demons exist but we can't see them. We focus on reality and take care of business. "Agnostic" comes from the Greek "without knowledge." To say we walk around in a dilemma of "not knowing" whether gods exist would be to say that we think about it at all. That is not an accurate description of the way we live. Gods and the supernatural take up less space in my consciousness than clog dancing and cockfighting.
Ah, but it is you here who are applying the " in that sense" factor. Morality is a conception; it is not endemic to the human physiology. Insofar as it would not thereby become indoctrinated in an ideological system. Exactly my point. Morality is an appellation we apply to behaviours. The behaviour itself has no moral 'content'.
True enough, with respect to my 'observations'. However, how would you then account for the development of a moral system? I would. Of course we do. Humans are human afterall. The point is that morality is not supposed to be a factor, and that the entire SM methodology is designed to minimize that factor. I'm not denying that humans behave morally, just that morality is not natural to us. Indeed. Which is their misunderstanding. As opposed to a moral system, an ethical system openly recognizes not only that it is an artifice, but also that its support is nothing more than conventional accord.
And you are ascribing that possibility to animals, while arguing that the less consciously artificial system can only exist through derivation from a theological metaphysics. I think you are terminally confused, here, beginning with your notion of a "natural" human as a perpetual infant. Would you say that animals exhibiting what most people call moral behaviors - sharing food with infants not their own, sacrificing themselves in predator encounters fro the good of the pack, etc - were exhibiting ethics, instead ?
?? You seem to have misunderstood me. An ethical system could indeed be within reason for animals that organize themselves in relevant sociological systems. Then you should read up more on developmental psychology. In the absence of both an organized educational system and a rigid system of logic, we are all infants. It is solely through the support and continuation of a system that promotes mental investigation that we enjoy a 'mature' mentality. I'll refrain from reporting you here for the inane ad hominem... Indeed. Any behaviour that supports the continued survival of the species in question, that does pay such dividends will, if promoted by a supportive sociological system, become an 'ethic'.
Information is all assumption based. This is recognized by knowing that information speed is c (lightspeed), and the information can become dual where you are recieving information from an assumed self.
