@fredsbend Who sez?

@fredsbend No it isn't. And "Christianity" is mostly wrong about these things anyway.

@fredsbend That's your opinion. And it's a common atheist opinion. But it's purely speculation, based on an assumption that there is no God. The fact is that religion has been around as long as recorded history, and before that we can't know for sure what was running through people's heads. So we can't know whether human morality developed "naturally" or whether it was a product of religion or contact with God.

I expand on this a bit more in a recent response to an atheist apologia: "God Is Unconvincing To Smart Folks? – Part 4, specifically under point 14: "God is not a convincing explanation of morality."

@fredsbend Lower animals do have an analog of morality. But it's not because of any sense of good and evil, as in humans, and they don't make choices, as humans do. They're driven by their instincts for species survival, not by morality. So their "morality" is not really morality. It's just what's needed for their species to survive and thrive.

Humans, on the other hand, commonly do things that are antithetical to our species' survival, even knowing that it's antithetical to our species' survival. Humans have a concept of good and evil. And humans fairly often choose evil over good. That's something lower animals can't do. Morality requires a sense of good and evil, and the ability to choose evil over good.

@LeeWoofenden It's a common biologist's opinion. There's no reason to think we're exempt from the courses of evolution.

@LeeWoofenden It's what was/is needed for us to survive. Without cooperation humans cannot survive solo for very long in pretty much any environment on the planet. And that cooperation led to the concept of innovation. A big leap, but allowed humans to escape survival mode and ponder bigger things. Given higher needs met routinely and several thousand generations, reaching human capacity doesn't seem that far fetched for any other social species. Orangutans are very interesting in this. Very smart.

@LeeWoofenden A case of self-destruction is not evidence of your point. Further, if the species tended toward practical self-destruction then there'd soon be no species. Further still, from a biology standpoint, it's only harmful to the species if it prevents procreation.

Complicated behaviors exist in the animal kingdom too. Just because animals appear to not internalize it means little. The behavior is still analogous. There's no reason to think our stupendously high brain capacity is any more than an anomaly brought on by genetic drift or some other non-selective process.

@fredsbend So a degree in biology makes a person an expert on morality? I don't think so!

@fredsbend But humans go far beyond social animals. Humans will do or not do things because of a sense that they are right or wrong, even when those things do not look very expedient. Human morality is on a whole different level than animal behavior.

@fredsbend If we actually used all of the nuclear devices we've created, it would cause the end of all reproduction, and the end of most species on earth, including our own. And yet, we've been very close to using them a number of times.

@fredsbend At any rate, you can believe that morality is merely a product of evolution if that's what you wish to believe. Just understand that this is just that: a belief. There is no actual evidence for it. And there is a great deal of evidence that morality, religion, and a belief in God have been intertwined for as long as we have any records to provide that evidence.

@LeeWoofenden Strawman. Certainly an expert in Morality does not exist. A biologist is no more an expert on morality then a gardener, a lawyer, or a priest.

The biologists can give an explanation for how the morality came about and why it's even there. Conversely, religion just gives a magic answer. It's the explanatory power that makes it better in my opinion. Without explanatory power it's just talk.

In fact every explanation involving God is a magic explanation.

@LeeWoofenden There can be so-called evolutionary holdovers or by-products. A certain advantageous behavior or trait can lead to other traits that are certainly not advantageous and maybe even harmful. Noted biologist and religion critic Richard Dawkins says as much in pretty much all his books.

Again, that has explanatory power. It doesn't just describe what is or what should be. It tells you how it got there.

@LeeWoofenden Another straw man. No one said humanity cannot destroy itself. Ironically that's been a religious conviction in the past.

In fact nearly every species has the capability of eating itself out of existence. Talk to anybody who works in Fish and Game.

@LeeWoofenden the time frame of known records does not always coincide with provanance.

And again it's not a belief. It's a theory supported by empirical data. This is what "explanatory power" means. A belief in God is also probably a byproduct. And as you know belief in God does not prove God.

You see religion is founded in belief. What I've said here today is founded in science. Things we actually know.

Now I didn't really care for the book overall, but the portion of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion that discussed this did so very well. I recommend it just for that portion. If you aren't already an audible member I can send you a free audiobook.

So you can believe whatever you want knowing just that: it's only a belief. I choose to rely on data and theories founded in that data. If you want to try and squeeze God in those theories like theistic evolution is I won't stop you there either. At least you're a step closer to something more reasonable.

@fredsbend I'm stepping down. As far as I know, I'm the only one stepping down so it should be a net gain of one.

@fredsbend Uh oh. Trotting out the "logical fallacies" attack. I'm starting to feel like I'm talking to a real atheist! :-P

@fredsbend In your opinion. But that's because you assume that there's no God, and you believe that there's no God. If I were to assume and believe that there's no material reality, but that all reality is actually just consciousness, then everything that the biologist says would be poppycock (to use another favorite atheist term).

@fredsbend At any rate, biology is not the study of morals. It's the study of the physical functioning of living organisms. Biologists who presume to speak about morality and its origins are stepping outside of their field of study.

@fredsbend Richard Dawkins is a pretty good biologist, from what I understand. But he's pretty ignorant and uninformed when it comes to religion. In fact, he's a perfect example of the nonsense that gets written when scientists step out out of their field of expertise and presume to talk about things they aren't qualified to talk about.

@fredsbend And it works quite well for the lower animals. But for humans it pretty much fails miserably in its "explanatory power." There's just too much humans think, feel, and do that biology is entirely inadequate to explain.

The whole idea that the concept of God came from fear of lightning and other things humans didn't understand is pretty ridiculous. There's no particular reason early humans would ever come up with the idea of a god. After all, out of the other side of their mouths the same atheists will swear up and down that there's absolutely no evidence for God anywhere in the natural universe.

So the "explanatory power" of this idea of the origin of God is pretty much nil. It's pure speculation based on the assumption that there is no God, and that the idea of it must have come from somewhere, eh?

@fredsbend Ooh. More "logical fallacy" stuff! I love it! Soooo Atheist! :-P

@fredsbend Animals don't eat themselves out of existence. But the limitations on available food do put limits on the ability of populations of animals to expand. And if an animal's food source dries up altogether for any reason, that animal must either adopt other food sources or go extinct.

@fredsbend No, it's not founded on science. It's speculation based on analogy to biological evolutionary theory.

It's akin to saying, "The only moon we know about is gray, so every other moon in the universe must be gray also." It's not science. It's speculation.

@fredsbend It would be much better for you to simply admit that science can't really say anything definite about God's existence or non-existence, nor can it really say anything definite about the higher functions of human consciousness such as morality and the concept of God. These things are outside of science's purview.

If you choose to believe only what you can derive from science, that is, of course, your choice. But that means your knowledge will be limited to what exists as material reality in the physical universe. Anything outside of that will also be outside of your knowledge--including God and the spiritual world.

@David Sorry to see you go. You've been great and fair.

@fredsbend This is definitely a real and growing problem. As fewer users actually understand the why behind our guidelines I see more just applying them as a formula. Bad posts get pass just for tacking the right formula on and good posts get busted for not doing so.

@Caleb Any suggestions on how to word the question for moderator election?

@fredsbend The exegesis one is actually starting to cover that ground.

@Caleb I'm pretty strict, so would you think these problems arise from some of my voting habits?

I'm happy to vote quickly because being put on hold is not a death sentence for a question. Improving bad posts and preventing more bad posts from accumulating are the aims of quick action.

@curiousdannii Not in my observation, no. As far as I can tell (based on VTC/comments/flags happen to notice) you do understand the why behind the rules and so your application of them typically makes sense (even in cases we may disagree about specifics I can still see the sense in your reasoning about them).

I was thinking more along the lines of asking 79 poorly researched truth questions, tagging them all catholicism, and expecting them to stick because "ask for a specific perspective".

@Caleb Ahh, yep I understand what you mean.

@curiousdannii And not just the OP (who I'm not naming but you can probably guess), there were an awful lot of people defending that particular series of questions saying that they fit the rules so why were we being so hard on them etc. That's when I know people have latched onto the formula without understanding the reason behind it.

And it works both ways, we see pedantic support of bad posts because on some surface level they fit the mold, and we also see pedantic opposition to otherwise perfectly good posts that anybody with any domain knowledge can tell is reasonably scoped even if it doesn't use the "approved" terminology.

@Caleb I'm more concerned with perfectly good posts receiving opposition. I find the older the SE site the more likely they have this problem. And it's often perpetuated by older users, not new ones.

@fredsbend My concern is that the site not drive away potential new users because they aren't part of the in crowd who know the in rules.

We do need rules to keep the site on track. But it should remain clear that the rules are meant to serve the purposes of the site, which is to provide a place where people can get knowledgeable and objective answers to questions about the beliefs of various groups of Christians. If we chase away people who are seeking such answers by clubbing them over the head with rules, we're not supporting the purpose of the site.

@LeeWoofenden +1

@fredsbend pedantry ;)

@TRiG Suitably pedantic! :-D

@TRiG I knew "pedantism" wasn't right. It even has the red line under it, but I didn't believe it. Pedantry. Pedantry. Pedantry.

@LeeWoofenden Is there such a thing as "an expert on morality"? If not, then your objection means nothing, whether I use a proper name to call it out or not.

There's ethics, but that's not morality. Ethics is the study of frameworks that hope to provide moral decisions. Morality itself is a loose, ethereal topic.

Even more to the point, we were agreeing morality exists, but arguing over the why. We were not making judgments on what morality is good or not, which would be the purview of an "expert on morality" if one existed.

@LeeWoofenden I've told you before I'm not an atheist. I'm a skeptic. I have to reason to believe in God. I further have no reason to not believe in God. Currently, I sit here with no convincing evidence there is a God, so I'm skeptical of the proposition.

Further, your analogy is bollocks (is that an 'atheist' word?). We have our senses and when we talk to each other we concur that we've all sensed similar things. Our eyes see light. Our ears hear sound. Our skin feels touch. However, we have to organ that can sense God or the supernatural.

@LeeWoofenden Did you get that from me? I said about that in this room I'm sure.

Therefore God exists.

@LeeWoofenden There's plenty of particular reason why inventing things you should revere or fear would happen. The first is obvious. We have a propensity to assume danger. If you see the bushes wiggle, assuming it's dangerous first is harmless if you're wrong. But assuming it's safe is fatal if you're wrong.

There must be thousands of superstitions for every religious dogma. These didn't come from no where, and you can brush them all aside as coming from genuine religion first, especially since they usually take the form "I did X, then Y happened, therefore causation. I'll now continue to do X for many years with very few Y events following."

We see this in children. They do something and believe causation, especially strongly if the second event was especially pleasurable or harmful.

It makes perfect sense that "acts of god" came about this way. It also makes perfect sense that the more lucky with occurrences of second events would become "experts" aka priests. Because "there obviously doing it right".

@LeeWoofenden What do you expect? Any act of God is literally a claim that there are causations that are entirely undetectable while there effects are normal and very detectable.

We all see the same effects, but you want to insist there's undetectable causes when we have perfectly reasonable detectable explanations.

@LeeWoofenden You're bringing up something no one said anything about. Throwing "logical fallacy stuff! So Atheist!" in my face only makes you look foolish.

@LeeWoofenden Again, putting words in my mouth. I did not say that science can prove non-existence of God, but I think it could prove existence. If we can perceive it, science can measure it and record data. Data on God is grossly lacking.

Then you jump non sequitur (such atheist, too?) and say science has no capability to study "higher functions of human consciousness" like morality or the concept of God.

Even if I fully agreed with your first statement, the second doesn't follow.

@LeeWoofenden Please tell me which organ I can use to perceive God, then I'll simply use it. Until then, your apparitions or whatever makes you believe are qualitatively identical to delusions. The exact same process happens for people who insist they have a best friend who's invisible and also a giant squirrel, yet there's no argument that he's delusional.

@fredsbend There don't seem to be generally accepted experts on morality. Clergy, philosophers, ethicists, and so on have all filled that role. But the very fact that society doesn't widely accept any particular experts on morality suggests that morality is not something that can be objectively pinned down and defined as can the objects of study of the various sciences.

@fredsbend Yeah, "bollocks" is another good atheist word. :-P

I simply find the charged (and often just a little bit archaic) language that atheists regularly use to be highly amusing.

They seem to have their own dialect of words, phrases, and memes to use in making fun of theists and calling theists stupid.

And I find that funny.

Why can't they just come right out and say, "You're a stupid idiot because you believe in God!"

That's what they actually think.

@fredsbend I had already formed that opinion about Dawkins when you wrote that about him here.

@fredsbend To an atheist or skeptic, this all sounds very convincing. But there's still no particular reason primitive people would have come up with a concept such as "god" of something that is totally outside of anything they have seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched. Where would such an idea come from? How would it even occur to them if it is not represented to their senses in any way?

Presumably they had the ability to imagine hidden animals that they couldn't see with their eyes, but they could sense with their ears, noses, and so on. And they might think some animal they can't see is doing something they can't immediately explain. But why would they come up with the idea of something they had never sensed or experienced in any way?

I find that whole line of reasoning unconvincing.

@fredsbend This assumes there is nothing but material reality, and that thinks are detectable only by our physical senses, aided by whatever physical instruments we may use to increase their sensitivity and recording capability.

Inherent in my concept of God and the universe is that there are whole other levels of reality that are specifically non-physical, and that therefore cannot be detected by the physical senses or by any instrument designed to extend the physical senses.

So the general answer is that things related to God and spirit are detectable, not by physical senses or scientific instruments, but by the spiritual senses that our spiritual body comes equipped with. And in general, any effects of that influence that aren't just the ordinary, invisible interaction of God, spirit, and matter that holds the universe together and intact, would come primarily through human minds, which form a bridge between spirit and matter.

Atheists and materialistic scientists tend to call this "psychology" and to deny that there's any divine or spiritual influence involved. But that's not anything they can demonstrate. It's something they believe due to their disbelief in God. So if someone has a near-death experience and comes back with a vivid description of the spiritual world and of an encounter with God, they consider it to be a hallucination caused by hypoxia of the brain.

But they don't know that. They simply believe it because they disbelieve that the experience could be a real experience of other realms of existence--realms which the atheist and the scientific materialistic deny the existence of.

@fredsbend In short, if the only "evidence" that you or another skeptic or atheist will accept is evidence derived by the physical senses, then you will move more and more toward disbelieving in and rejecting the existence of God and spirit. It's not that evidence for these things doesn't exist. It's that you reject the whole class of evidence that does provide evidence for these things because it is not derived by way of the physical senses.

@fredsbend No. Because science can measure and record only physical evidence.

@fredsbend Oh, come on! Can't you just give me one little Invisible Pink Unicorn?!? Be a real atheist for me just this once! :-P

I specifically chose not a unicorn or dragon.

Anyway, if you want my response to the common arguments made by atheists and skeptics against the idea of God see my response to a recent article by Dr. J. H. McKenna titled "God Is Unconvincing To Smart Folks," which I rather unimaginatively titled, "God Is Unconvincing To Smart Folks?"

@fredsbend Yeah. And I think McKenna specifically chose an invisible pink teacup so that he would not be caught talking about an invisible pink unicorn. That was actually one of the funniest little morsels in his whole piece, I thought.

BTW, Flying Spaghetti Monsters are also great! ;-)

Sorry, I can't help it. Atheists think I'm stupid. I think atheists are funny!

@LeeWoofenden Was said teacup in orbit?

@TRiG Read the article and find out!

@LeeWoofenden Shall do.