Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why materialist neuroscience must necessarily remain a pseudo-discipline

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

At MercatorNet today:

all that fMRI ((brain imaging) really does is show which brain areas have high oxygen levels when a person is thinking something. It simply cannot tell us what people are thinking, because many brain centres are active and those that are active may be activated for many reasons. Each brain is unique so data from studies must be averaged. But thoughts are not averaged; they belong to the individual.

Then, when you are done with that you run smack dab into the hard problem of qualia.

Qualia? As Mario Beauregard and I (Denyse O’Leary) wrote in The Spiritual Brain,

There are good reasons for thinking that the evidence for materialism will actually never arrive. For example, there is the problem of qualia. Qualia (singular, quale) are how things appear to us individually—the experiential aspects of our mental lives that can be accessed through introspection. Every person is unique, so complete understanding of another person’s consciousness is not likely possible in principle, as we saw in Chapter Four. Rather, when we communicate, we rely on general agreement on an overlapping range of meaning. For example, historian Amy Butler Greenfield has written a three-hundred-page book about one primary color, A Perfect Red.

As “the color of desire,” red is a quale if ever there was one. Reviewer Diane Ackerman notes:

Anger us, and we see red. An unfaithful woman is branded with a scarlet letter. In red-light districts, people buy carnal pleasures. We like to celebrate red-letter days and roll out the red carpet, while trying to avoid red tape, red herrings and going into the red. Indeed, fashion houses rise and fall on the subtleties of shades of red. Yet, however “red” affects us individually, we agree communally to use the word for a range of meanings and connotations, not merely a range in the color spectrum. (pp. 104–5)

Sometimes, the signals can be completely opposite and we still converge on a common meaning! In the United States, red connotes “conservative” in politics; in Canada, it connotes “liberal.”

Scan that, genius. Your first task will be to sort out the people who are exclusively Canadian in culture from those who are exclusively American in culture, and good luck with it. You picked it up; you own it.

Materialist neuroscience has a hard time with qualia because they are not easily reducible to a simple, nonconscious explanation. In The Astonishing Hypothesis, Francis Crick grumbles:

It is certainly possible that there may be aspects of consciousness, such as qualia, that science will not be able to explain. We have learned to live with such limitations in the past (e.g., limitations of quantum mechanics) and we may have to live with them again.

Crick was a real scientist, honest enough to admit that. Don’t expect quacks, cranks, and hustlers to notice, or want to. They take refuge in pseudo-disciplines, claiming that, as a book review in The Scientist put it,

“‘Brains are hot,’ Sally Satel and Scott O. Lilienfeld acknowledge in Brainwashed, their ‘exposé of mindless neuroscience’ (mostly practiced not by neuroscientists, they stress, but by ‘neuropundits,’ among others). The ‘mediagenic’ technology of fMRI imaging has made the brain, aglow with metabolic hotspots, into a rainbow emblem of the faith that science will soon empower us to explain, control, expose, exploit, or excuse every wayward human behavior from buying to lying, from craving to crime.”

This is not so much an unsolved problem as an unsolvable one, at least in the terms in which the materialist wants it solved.

Comments
Hi LT, I said don't get hung up on it... I didn't say it wasn't truthful :-) Clearly, an atheist cannot predicate any appeal to atheistic morality by appealing to the fact that morality is etched on our souls. No God = No soul. I take your final point, but remember we are only discussing what the rational theist or atheist would do. And the discussion is almost completely over as far as I'm concerned. So, this is also not the time or place to discuss the Moral Law. Another time, on another thread. See you then!Chris Doyle
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
As Chris is not going to repeat himself any more - maybe someone can point me to a place where Chris addresses these two objections: * theists disagree deeply about what God’s will is * his vision of theist morality is essentially self-regarding as it comes down to what is best for me in the long runMark Frank
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
If you have to resort to recycling refuted arguments, Mark (refuted on this very thread no less) then you've clearly got nothing else interesting to say on this subject. You'll just have to read my (oh no!) long posts if you want answers to your questions, Mark. I ain't gonna repeat myself any more. Bye-s-bye!Chris Doyle
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
his is all this discussion is about, it is frankly indisputable that, rationally-speaking, atheistic morality is a total failure and theistic morality is a total success. Indeed, theistic morality is so successful that atheists like Lizzie still practice it!
I don't know how to address this technique of just announcing that you are obviously right. We have all accepted that a rational atheist will behave morally if he/she cares about others. Lizzie and I and others on this discussion believe that pretty much everyone does care about others. You may disagree but that is an empirical matter and far from indisputable. As I have pointed out a rational theist will only behave morally if he/she wants to do God's will. You argue that there are no such theists. Again this is not a logical matter. It is a matter of doing a survey of theists - again far from indisputable. Meanwhile you haven't begun to address the problem that theists disagree deeply about what God's will is or that your vision of theist morality is essentially self-regarding- what is best for me in the long run.Mark Frank
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
Chris, (1) No problem. But then why use such language in the first place? (2) Well, you have capitalized "Moral Law," so there must be some specific laws that make up the Moral Law. What are these laws? (3) Perhaps, but don't you agree all people have access and use to moral philosophies that do not refer to gods and are not predicated on the existence of divine moral law-givers? (4) Perhaps, but one is no more only an atheist than you are only a theist, or son, or sibling, or [insert nationality here], or modern, or whatever. Do you believe that any of the other social groups and subgroups one belongs to will have (explicit or implicit) ethical codes that influence real moral decisions and behaviors? I do.LarTanner
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
Hi LT, I just lost a message I typed to you directly in the comment box. Probably to do with the 485 comments that are already on here! Anyway, the gist of it was: 1. Don't get hung up on a literal interpretation of "etched in our souls" 2. Yes, it is about a moral pre-disposition that all human beings have, as well as an instinctive understanding of the Moral Law. 3. No, it is not an explanation of morality that is accessible or even useful to atheists. 4. The answer to both of your questions is no because there will be many occasions when it is irrational for an atheist to moral, rational for an atheist to be immoral and also rational for an atheist to free-ride. The previous message was politer and less blunt, but, hey: the universe meant there could be no other outcome ;-)Chris Doyle
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
The point that you keep missing, Mark, is that we are only discussing what the rational theist would do. So, as I've laid out - and as you have not really disputed - if the theistic worldview is true, the rational theist would always be moral: especially if we take into account "total well-being". Contrast this with the rational atheist. If he doesn't value a given person's welfare more than his own then it is bye-bye morality. This is all this discussion is about, it is frankly indisputable that, rationally-speaking, atheistic morality is a total failure and theistic morality is a total success. Indeed, theistic morality is so successful that atheists like Lizzie still practice it!Chris Doyle
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
Comment 481:
[F]or the theist, morality is not hard to know: it is etched in our souls so we quickly realise the difference between right and wrong when we contemplate the moral decision to be taken. Actually doing the right thing or refraining from doing the wrong thing is not at all easy. But, ultimately the Book of Scripture (again, using that term in its widest sense) contains the highest moral guidance. Take both together and that is how the theist discerns which acts are immoral.
Let's please be careful with language. Chris Doyle, I think what you are claiming is that every human being has morality "etched in" his or her soul. You are not claiming that only theists have mortality so etched in, but I think you are arguing that via theism (and only via theism) human beings can recognize this intrinsic morality. But this set of claims raises obvious questions: (1) By "morality," what specifically is it that gets etched into the human soul? (2) How etched? (3) What's specifically meant by "soul"? (4) How could we confirm or disconfirm whether the etching actually happens? (5) Does the exact same morality get etched into every soul? (6) Does the etching always 'take,' or do some people get etched more deeply or lightly than others? Ultimately, "etched in our souls" must be a figure of speech. It's a poetic and dramatic way of saying something that many atheists and agnostics will agree with: that human beings are generally predisposed to learning and following some moral strictures. On the other hand, if you mean "etched in our souls" literally, I don't see how anyone can take the claim seriously without having items #2-5 above answered in a demonstrable way (and probably independent of the teachings of holy books and commentaries). Even the ardent believer in gods and souls and such must finally admit that we do not yet have a generally accepted definition of what the soul is/should be> Neither do we have conclusive evidence for the existence of something matching any definition of the soul. Nor can this ardent believer explain in a verifiable way how and when (and where) the etching actually happens. So, I can't tell whether you mean "etched in our souls" literally or not. If you are speaking figuratively, as makes the better option, then the full weight of everything you've really been arguing about falls on a simple question: (a) Can a self-consciously moral (and happy) life be lived with a secular (non-theist) philosophy? The social corollary to this question is (b) whether a moral and happy society can result from secular (non-theist) governance. I think (a) and (b) are demonstrably true. Dr. Liddle and others have given information already that supports this. Should you disagree with me, you need to explain the benefits a theistic moral philosophy that are in principle unavailable in a non-theistic philosophy. Of course, benefits are subjective, but at least on matters of taste people can disagree without hard feelings.LarTanner
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
Mark, if we’re now talking about “total well-being” then it will always be rational for a theist to be moral: no matter how much they value the welfare of others.
If they can work out what moral is (see #482) and so long as they the value doing God's will above everything else.
But it will only be rational for an atheist to be moral when they both value the welfare of others, and value it above their own welfare. What would the atheistic cab driver have done, honestly?
I have no idea what the atheist cab-driver would have done. Some atheists would be able to imagine the problems that missing the money might cause to a foreign visitor and make an effort to return the money (my wife would definitely fall into this category). Others would imagine the problems and suffer from weakness of the will (like any theist) and fail to do what they ought to do (I might well fall into this category). Another group might not even think about the consequences for Hitchens and just think it is their lucky day(and I contend many theists would fall into this group).Mark Frank
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
for the theist, morality is not hard to know: it is etched in our souls so we quickly realise the difference between right and wrong when we contemplate the moral decision to be taken. .... But, ultimately the Book of Scripture (again, using that term in its widest sense) contains the highest moral guidance. Take both together and that is how the theist discerns which acts are immoral.
The strange thing is that theists and even Christians disagree vehemently about substantial moral issues such as contraception, homosexuality, extra-marital sex and abortion - to the extent of torturing and killing each other from time to time.Mark Frank
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
Just a quickie: Lizzie, for the theist, morality is not hard to know: it is etched in our souls so we quickly realise the difference between right and wrong when we contemplate the moral decision to be taken. Actually doing the right thing or refraining from doing the wrong thing is not at all easy. But, ultimately the Book of Scripture (again, using that term in its widest sense) contains the highest moral guidance. Take both together and that is how the theist discerns which acts are immoral. Mark, if we’re now talking about “total well-being” then it will always be rational for a theist to be moral: no matter how much they value the welfare of others. But it will only be rational for an atheist to be moral when they both value the welfare of others, and value it above their own welfare. What would the atheistic cab driver have done, honestly?Chris Doyle
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT
Returning after a few hours I see my #468 was incoherent - too early in the morning I guess. I apologise to anyone who was kind enough to try and make sense of it! Anyhow Lizzie and 5for seem to have made the important points.Mark Frank
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
5for, it is not immoral to have food clothing and shelter. But it is immoral to make food clothing and shelter your main, 'selfish', priority in life, to the detriment of yourself and others: Matthew 6:31-33 So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Steven Curtis Chapman - More to this Life - music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ndbma-BQJK8bornagain77
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT
Chris ii assume you live a Gandhi like existence and give everything you have to others. Or do you just live an immoral existence by having food clothes and shelter while others don't have those things?5for
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT
As to who uses less negative words on the internet, Atheists or Theists, this recent study found: Study finds Christians tweet more cheerfully than atheists - 27 June 2013 Excerpt: The research found that overall, tweets by Christians had more positive and less negative content than tweets by atheists.,,, However, most of the studies has relied on individuals to tell researchers about how satisfied they are with their lives or their emotional state at a given time. Professor Preston said: "What's great about Twitter is that people are reporting their experiences – good or bad – as they occur.' 'As researchers, we do not need to ask them how they feel because they are already telling us.' While the authors have drawn their conclusions that Christians appear to be happier than atheists on Twitter, they are careful to say that their results are based on observing correlations. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2349478/Study-finds-Christians-tweet-happily-analytically-atheists.html Christians happier than atheists – on Twitter - June 28 2013 Excerpt: Two doctoral students in social psychology and an adviser analyzed the casual language of nearly 2 million tweets from more than 16,000 active users to come up with their findings, which were published in Social Psychological and Personality Science. The team identified subjects by finding Twitter users who followed the feeds of five prominent public figures. In the case of Christians, those select five were Pope Benedict XVI, Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, conservative political commentator Dinesh D’Souza and Joyce Meyer, an evangelical author and speaker. In the case of atheists, the five followed feeds included Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Monica Salcedo and Michael Shermer - the latter two respectively being a self-described “fiercely outspoken atheist” blogger, and a science writer who founded The Skeptics Society. With the help of a text analysis program, the researchers found that Christians tweet with higher frequency words reflecting positive emotions, social relationships and an intuitive style of thinking – the sort that’s gut-driven. This isn’t to say that atheists don’t use these words, too, but they out-tweet Christians when it comes to analytic words and words associated with negative emotions. Christians, they found, are more likely to use words like “love,” “happy” and “great”; “family,” “friend” and “team.” Atheists win when it comes to using words like “bad,” “wrong,” and “awful”,,, http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/28/christians-happier-than-atheists-at-least-on-twitter/bornagain77
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT
The relevance of the Montserrat story, it seems to me, is that it is an excellent example of human beings mandating their governments to use their own relative wealth to alleviate the suffering of those in need. Human beings are capable of enormous generosity as well as appalling cruelty. I don't see evidence that belief in god or gods has any predictive power over which we will choose.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
01:43 AM
1
01
43
AM
PDT
Seems the atheist who who acts selflessly by, say, saving someone from drowning can claim the moral high ground.Alan Fox
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
01:43 AM
1
01
43
AM
PDT
Re Internet Atheists: I've seen pretty appalling online behaviour from both Atheists and Christians (don't know about other religions). What I will say is that sites run by Christians tend to be more tightly moderated for vulgar behaviour than sites run by atheists. I don't see a lot of difference in the amount of insulting behaviour. However, if you look at the online behaviour on unmoderated sites (e.g. YouTube, facebook), I'd say that you see as much appalling behaviour from both groups, with nothing to choose between them. The perpetrators of terrorist atrocities in my lifetime, however, have been overwhelmingly theist. In other words: I see no evidence of any correlation whatsoever between belief or otherwise in god or gods and preparedness to insult and/or kill other people.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT
Apologies to Kairosfocus. My remarks about the sustainability of the Monserrat economy following the 1995 eruption and under the continuing threat of a further likely eruption were off-topic. I sympathize with those who continue to suffer from displacement and uncertainty. Human effort against the blind, unpredictable forces of nature is indeed puny.Alan Fox
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT
I accept Chris's answer, which seems to be the same as William's: that theists are more likely than atheists to consider another person's wellbeing even when they don't personally value it, simply because their own ultimate well-being depends on it. To which I reply: that doesn't mean theists are more moral, it's just that they think their own self-interest is served by behaviour they think God regards as "moral". In other words, they do unselfish things for self-serving reasons, not other-serving reasons. But we may have to agree to disagree on this. I'd now like to ask my third and last question of Chris: Given that, as a theist, you know that immoral acts have adverse after-life necessary consequences for you, how do you discern which acts are immoral?Elizabeth B Liddle
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT
#469 Chris Well that's easily addressed - let's make up a new phrase such as "total wellbeing" which we define as the sum of all our prospects over whatever duration we think we will exist. Then use "total wellbeing" instead of wellbeing.Mark Frank
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PDT
An error in #468 above. Chris's sentences are not false they are just misleading because there are other options including choosing one's own well-being over present comfort.Mark Frank
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT
Well-being simply refers to this life, Mark. If it doesn't, we can't compare atheistic morality to theistic morality.Chris Doyle
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT
So if an atheist regards someone else’s wellbeing as less valuable than their own present comfort, then they will choose their own present comfort, even at the cost of someone else’s wellbeing. That would be both immoral and rational. But if a theist regards someone else’s wellbeing as less valuable then their own present comfort, then they will still choose someone else’s wellbeing, even at the cost of their own present comfort. That would be both moral and rational.
As they stand both are false. Chris has skewed the issue by talking about well-being versus present comfort. An atheist, like anyone else, will take future personal gains into account as well as the present (even if that future is somewhat shorter than for a theist) and “comfort” implies trivial benefits when an atheist is well capable of valuing deeper benefits to himself such as the satisfaction of having helped someone. So rewriting to substitute “wellbeing” for “present comfort” we get: So if an atheist regards someone else’s wellbeing as less valuable than their own wellbeing, then they will choose their own wellbeing, even at the cost of someone else’s wellbeing. That would be both immoral and rational. This is true by definition – to value A more than B and then choose B is irrational. That is what “valuing” entails. But if a theist regards someone else’s wellbeing as less valuable then their own wellbeing, then they will still choose someone else’s wellbeing, even at the cost of their own present comfort. That would be both moral and rational. False. If tthe theist values his own wellbeing more highly and is rational he will choose it – that is what “valuing it more highly” means.What may be confusing the issue is that for a theist their own well-being takes into account what happens to them after death so someone else’s well-being may coincide with their eventual well-being.Mark Frank
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
01:19 AM
1
01
19
AM
PDT
Morning Lizzie, This will be my one and only post today and you’re not going to like what follows. If you want to respond, can I suggest you take your time about it please? A rushed response which repeats stuff you’ve already said and doesn’t fully address what I’ve said below will be a waste of my time and yours. That said, I feel like it is time to bring this conversation to an end: we’ve come as far as we can without you either ditching atheism or ditching morality. I’m happy to make this my final contribution and for you to have the last word. We agreed that atheistic morality equates to "valuing the welfare of others". We haven't agreed that the same is true of theistic morality. Far from it: after all a rational theist would act morally towards someone even if he does not value their welfare. In fact, he will be performing the best kind of moral act especially if he doesn't value their welfare. Until you separate these two fundamentally different kinds of morality in your reasoning (ie. atheistic morality on the one hand and theistic morality on the other), we will keep hitting a dead end. So if an atheist regards someone else’s wellbeing as less valuable than their own present comfort, then they will choose their own present comfort, even at the cost of someone else’s wellbeing. That would be both immoral and rational. But if a theist regards someone else’s wellbeing as less valuable then their own present comfort, then they will still choose someone else's wellbeing, even at the cost of their own present comfort. That would be both moral and rational. "5for" provided a great little example about an anecdote from Christopher Hitchens (brother to the great Peter Hitchens) that illustrates this vast difference between theistic morality and atheistic morality:
a cab driver in Cairo returned to him the next day with a lot of money that had fallen out of Hitchens’s pocket in the cab. Hitch was surprised but delighted – until the cab driver told him he had a moral obligation under Islam and had no other choice but to return the money.
So, let's assume the cab driver is a rational atheist. Sometime after dropping off Christopher Hitchens, he notices a thick wad of cash in the back seat. He asks himself, "Do I value this man's welfare?" If the answer is no, he keeps the money. If the answer is yes, his next question is "Do I value this man's welfare more than my own?" If the answer is no, he keeps the money. Now, even if the answer is yes to both questions, he has a strong incentive to question his motives. Does he really value the welfare of a stranger, more than his own? I mean, seriously: would he sacrifice his life so that Hitchens can live? Would he give him everything he owned if Hitchens really needed it? Does he even value Hitchens’ welfare at all? After all, he’s never going to see this guy again (unless he goes looking for him). He entered his existence for the length of a cab ride and now Hitchens might as well not exist. Even still, has he just been conditioned to value Hitchens’ welfare through the same kind of evolutionary instincts as those that make him want to practice reproduction as often as possible? Because if that is the case, isn't he capable of ignoring evolutionary instincts? Indeed, given that free-will is an illusion, if he chooses to keep the money after all, then that is because the universe itself determined that it should be so: you can hardly blame someone for theft if he was compelled to steal by the universe: that’s duress, at best. Does he really want to be on his death-bed, on the brink of oblivion, wishing he had more fun in this one and only life rather than wasting it working long hours in a cab? He doesn’t want to look back on this day thinking, "if I only I kept that cash, I could have made that go a long way and had so much pleasure doing it". No way! There is no reason whatsoever to value Hitchens’ welfare, certainly none to place it above his own. And frankly, it looks like he could do with the money more than Hitchens did (he might even be insured, so it’s a win-win!) That is irresistible reasoning: very realistic and totally sound. It is a knock-out punch for atheistic morality. But, here’s where we follow through with the elbow: the fact that the cab driver took the money back to Hitchens is not really an act of morality. The outcome was already determined by the universe, it could not have been any other way: he had no choice but to return the money. He does not have any true free-will! You can’t give credit to someone for something that was pre-determined by a load of molecules bashing together as per unbreakable physical laws. That is why atheistic morality is a complete and utter, total failure with no redeeming features whatsoever. Now, let’s assume the cab driver is a rational theist. Sometime after dropping off Christopher Hitchens, he notices a thick wad of cash in the back seat. He asks himself, "Do I value this man's welfare?" The answer is no. The next question is "Is there any way I can keep this money without breaking the Moral Law?” The answer is no. The next question is “Is there any way I can break the Moral Law without having to account for that in the next life?” The answer is no. He now has a strong incentive to question his faith… but doesn’t because he already knows: he wants to please God, filled as he is with profound awe, admiration, loyalty and respect for his Creator. He wants to prove to himself that he can be moral, no matter how tempting the immoral alternative is. He loves the challenge! And his very soul is urging him to do the right thing, thanks to the divine instruction that is etched on there. There's a whole new breed of men without souls (Internet Atheists)... he doesn't want to live like that. Life is a test, and doing the morally right thing is exactly what this test is all about, it is the only reason he is here on this planet. And if he fails the test, he will pay for it in the end. Whereas, if he passes the test, it will be worth more than all the money in the world left in the back of his cab. By doing the right thing, he gets all the credit for it because he truly, freely chose it, even though it was detrimental to his self-interests. Of course, if he did question his faith, and became an atheist there and then: he would keep the money and have a great time with it. But, if theism is true, he gets all the blame for it because he truly, freely chose to keep it, precisely because it served his own self-interests. That is why theistic morality is the only kind of morality that works: it has clear Moral Imperatives that are reinforced by clear Moral Sanctions. Laws without sanctions, or even laws with weak sanctions are simply ineffective*. They are easily broken because you can handle the weak sanctions. Worse still, they become mere guidelines, something you can follow or ignore depending on how you feel at the time. Which is yet another problem with atheistic morality. Game over, Lizzie. PS. *This peculiar complaint that Lizzie, “5for” and Mark have raised, that what the cab driver actually did was “not a moral act at all as it is motivated by selfishness, not care for another person” is dreadfully weak. That’s like saying, “You should go to work, but never ever accept a wage: it’s not all me me me you know!” Or, “The only reason you don’t play on the motorway is because you’re afraid of being hit by a car: so selfish!” If selfish motivations rationally result in a life characterised by true moral works, of the unappealing kind that involve self-sacrifice, then selfish motivations are exactly what a theist needs. I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever and never will have. You are judged by your works and there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing good works simply because you’re hoping for heavenly rewards and also hoping to steer clear of hell. There are other reasons to be moral, as I’ve already discussed, but if a theist is only motivated to be moral by the prospect of heaven or hell, that’s absolutely fine by me. If they are always rational, then they’ll still be the nicest, kindest, most peaceful, humble, selfless caring kind of person you will ever meet. The beauty of this test we call ‘Life’ is that although we know that heaven or hell awaits depending on how we conduct ourselves in this life, it is very much something that we won’t know about until after we die. You’ve literally got to wait an entire lifetime before you will receive what you have earned in this life. There are no rewards in this life, nor are there any punishments. And it takes enormous discipline and self-restraint to do good without reward in this life or to refrain from doing evil without punishment in this life. We are reasonable and intelligent beings. There has to be consequences for our works in this life, because if there truly wasn’t any, then although theists may still choose to lead a moral life for other reasons – they would have a similar rational basis as atheists have to make immoral choices. The notion that Anne Frank and Adolf Hitler are both going to exactly the same place because the acts of their existence do not affect the afterlife is so wrong, so unbelievable, that you literally have to be an atheist to believe it.Chris Doyle
July 18, 2013
July
07
Jul
18
18
2013
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT
Chris Doyle:
Seriously, Keith, you honestly think Internet Atheists conduct themselves morally online?
Some do, some don't. Just like Internet theists.keiths
July 17, 2013
July
07
Jul
17
17
2013
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT
#462 5for Absolutely. A nice example which illustrates the difference is the Abraham's being prepared to sacrifice his own son because God told him to. In one view Abraham was acting morally because he was suppressing his feelings for his son in order to conform to God's will as he saw it. In the alternative view Abraham was acting immorally because he allowed his own standing in God's eyes (as he saw it) to take priority over his son's life. (As to why God decided to subject Abraham to this mental torture - well no doubt one of the Christian's here will explain.)Mark Frank
July 17, 2013
July
07
Jul
17
17
2013
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT
Hi vj, Good! I look forward to it. This thread is getting pretty long, anyway, and also veering off topic.keiths
July 17, 2013
July
07
Jul
17
17
2013
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
Hi KeithS, I'll be putting up a special post on your split-brain case in about 18 hours. Sorry for not addressing it sooner. Cheers.vjtorley
July 17, 2013
July
07
Jul
17
17
2013
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
There are just very different conceptions of morals going on here. WJM and CD think it is a moral act to sacrifice your own needs for another even if you don't feel anything for the other person, because if you don't make the sacrifice, there will be consequences to you (at day of reckoning, in heaven etc). To me, and other non-theists, that is not a moral act at all as it is motivated by selfishness, not care for another person. Hitchens used to talk about this a lot. He had an anecdote where a cab driver in Cairo returned to him the next day with a lot of money that had fallen out of Hitchens's pocket in the cab. Hitch was surprised but delighted - until the cab drive told he had a moral obligation under Islam and had not other choice but to return the money.5for
July 17, 2013
July
07
Jul
17
17
2013
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7 21

Leave a Reply