Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false?

[epeos76]

Getting a tad condescending there, fella. Where did I dismiss the importance of it? I dismissed your assumption I was practicing nursing in the 50s. If I were old enough in the 50s to be practicing nursing I'd have to be between 70 and 80 years old now, unlikely to be currently practicing.

This, at least, was not intended to be condescending. It was intended to be clear. I admit I have no idea how long formula was presumed to be the better option. I do know that various new moms have told me about being harrangued by women in their 50's and 60's who, in their time, were told that bottle feeding was the only responsible choice.

You are missing the entire question I asked you. I asked you how would filling in the gaps with god beliefs change the outcome of an unsound medical practice based on bad evidence gathering and/or bad logic analyzing the evidence?

My god beliefs have very little bearing on physical health. I brought up this point for the very limited purpose of showing that: (1) we have to make decisions, even when the evidence isn't all in, and (2) guessing that principles we understand apply in areas that appear similar is not a good way to make these decisions. In particular, it is not as good as relying on established human practices.

It's interesting to note that some eastern religions have more to say on things like diet, breathing, and careful exercise. Practioners of Jainism for example can point to several generations of observational experience to support the results of their dietary requirements. I think that as a result, they are less likely to be buffaloed by misapplied developments in the area of nutrition.

Now you are getting away from science and into the morals arguments. The evidence is very clear, one does not need god beliefs to determine moral decisions. Atheists are just as moral and immoral as are theists.

I think my god beliefs are specifically relevant to social, psychological, and therefore moral questions. Given that there is no agreement about what constitutes morality, I don't think the evidence is clear.

Your statement ignores the on-going challenge to define or possibly invent moral behavior. That's the realm where I claim god beliefs help most. Mine provides something like model for what a human being is and how people should be treated. I say "something like a model" because it isn't something that I can spell out analytically. It arises from the whole mishmash of beliefs, practices, and relationships.

Just to be as clear as possible, I think the evidence you cite is related to something like how well people live up to the investigator's moral ideals. I have no doubt that a fair share of the variation is explained by non-theist factors.

For example, whether someone has the skills and resources to meet basic needs without cheating might be signficant. How much thought someone has given the matter might also be relevant. I would guess that atheists actually score slightly higher than average in some of these areas.

If there was any significant variation between specific groups of believers, it might reflect on how well the investigator's moral ideals fit with the actual constraints on human existance. Christianity is certainly critized for failing in this area. My second objection to your claim, however, is that not all theisms are equivalent. To be useful, measurements would have to at least take into account the self-delineated differences between groups.

In the example you are using here, marriage decisions, I'd have to say the dogmatic approach, God said this or that, gay marriage is a sin. yadda yadda, actually inhibits an evaluation of all the aspects of the matter and proclaims society should never change. But we know from history, such an approach is entirely futile. Societies do change. Trying to apply ancient rules to modern people is not the best approach. It is in fact, an ignorant approach that only leads to strife.

I consider this a strawman. I'm not interested in dogma. I'll consider any evidence that suggests an answer, and I expect change. In fact, liberal christianity has a tradition allowing people to publicly recant and admit their earlier position was a product of wordly striving.

My position is that god beliefs provide a way of responding to change. I can see the results of several generations of people weeding the substance from the form by applying the priorities that follow from these god beliefs. I think you are ignoring the value that accumulates by running human lives through a set of beliefs and evaluating the results. I also think you are mistaken in imagining how at least one group of theists would go about answering the questions I asked.

Regarding gay marriage: you don't need religion to do dogma or homophobia (see China under Mao). More to the point, my church and its members were among those leading the fight to oppose Wisconsin's marriage amendment. We lost, badly.

Most of the money sponsoring the amendment came from the religious right, but the voting demographics show that the amendment was passed basically on class lines. I think the radio divas and religious celebs on the right have been using this issue to get buy in, not the other way around.

 

[epeos76]

I think a Scientologist and many people who believe things you find "wooish" could say the exact same thing about their beliefs in support of why their beliefs should be taken more seriously. That is why skeptics tend not to take them more seriously.

Scientology fails at the first gate. As far as I know, its practioners don't accept the independent authority of science, ethics, or historical investigation. You hit harder when you acknowledge this distinction.

More important, though, is your point about claiming a god belief does something useful, but poorly understood. You are right, anyone can make claims like that. Disciminating between such claims is a matter of judgment. It is not unprincipled, or capricious of me to observe what the scientologists do and say and dismiss their claims. I apply the same standard to my co-religionists.

Correct. No dodging and weaving from me. I onlyl point out that nothing else has verifiable claims on any true description of the universe. The facts, so far, that have been verifiable... have all come from science and measurable evidence.

You do more than point out that nothing else has a verifiable claim. You routinely state that any other claims are delusional. I'm simply pointing out that we rarely deal with verfied claims, and there are reasonable ways to discriminate between those that are less well verfied.

Everything we've achieved to advance our understanding has been because we use that understanding. Of what use would it be to posit an inconsistent reality that changes willy nilly. And if we were to posit it, what who would we get the information about this willy-nilly ness from. How could we tell them from the sham people with matrix theories and so forth?

I hope you recognize that this is an appeal to utility. It says nothing about whether the result of applying this axiom is true. It is a sufficent response to show that adopting a different axiom could be useful for another purpose. Especially since there are likely some positions between perfect consistency and willy-nilly.

Better than anyone else... and in a way that has allowed us to refine understanding.


It is the best explanation for the facts observed and the only one being used to refine and learn more... and not by woo, either.

I don't have a problem with this. Systematic analysis of emprical observation is the best way to investigate. It's a pity we don't know more about some of the central features of human existence. I hope we stick around long enough to unravel a few.

I don't know what the "one true nature of the universe" means. It sounds like woo.

I meant something like this:

I don't think there are two sides to reality. There is one side.

and this:

I am quite convinced that there is one reality independent of human belief

.

It's possible my paraphrase doesn't capture what you mean here.

I just know that everything useful, true, and verifiable about the universe has come from science and nothing but spin and semantics and murky implications of "higher truths" seem to come from woo.

I think this is an irreducable disagreement. I think most of our useful ideas about the universe have come from science, philosophy, ethics etc., at least recently. I believe on the basis of my reading of history that a number of profoundly useful ideas came from much less transparent sources. The idea of science itself has some murky headwaters. (at least as opposed to a less systematized empiricism)

Right... we use evidence, replication, corroboration , knowledge of human logic errors, testing the null hypothesis, and build each bit of understanding on the most complete data available--we don't insert supernatural entities into the parts we don't understand yet... or magic or god or "synchronicity" or "bad vibes" or karma or souls etc.

God beliefs are part of religion, which is, in fact one of the things we don't understand, or only partly understand. There's no need to insert anything. It's already in there. I'm as interested as you are in figuring out what it does, using the methods you listed.

Moral values like opinions are not part of the true false spectrum...

Yet much more important than opinions and at least potentially decidable by referrence to objective consequences and goals. As you suggest below, the intersection of sociobiology and game theory suggests that it's even possible some belong to the class of things that wouldn't go away if we stopped believing in them.

but when making moral decisions it helps to use facts and not imaginary desires, wants, etc. that we are told will please some invisible guy who killed his kid for us or whatever...

.

As you know, I certainly recommend getting all the facts available and seeing if they help at all. The second half of this sentence wounds me deeply, though. It suggests you haven't read the pages upon pages I've written here with the quivering attention each word so richly deserves. In short, it's about more than what "they" tell you will please the invisible "guy".

How does my dog manage to be loyal, not kill the cats, show guilt, aim to please and show more moral character than many very religious humans? Why does brain damage to a specific area of the brain affect moral decision making? I think these kinds of things show that you have bought into the theistic meme that morals come from god or that people would be immoral without god or religion... but there is no evidence to support that claim and lots of evidence to show that morality evolves in organisms in which cooperation enhances the survival of their genes and those who share them....

Putting aside the fact that it is fascinating, so what if some chunk of morality is the result of our genome trying to solve the problems of group cooperation? Would you argue that we should randomly rewrite the relevant genetic imperatives until we can explicitly determine which ones make us sweet and which ones make us mean? Wouldn't it be easier just to select for the relevant traits?

I have to say I consider memes bordeline woo. The idea that the mechanics of evolution can apply to ... well, ideas is interesting, but so far not really very productive. Anyway, isn't it possible that we're working on that cooperation problem on more than one level? Even from a purely evolutionary perspective, there are no grounds yet to assert that religion is a spandrel as opposed to a vital organ.

 

[Beth]

But if another couple billion people draw a different and opposed unscientific conclusion, and another couple billion draw yet another different and opposed unscientific conclusion, why do you assume yours is correct?

That would (and has) caused me to reconsider my beliefs. I am not certain of the correctness of anyone's beliefs regarding the existance (or not) of any god. But, to continue the analogy that was being used, I see the different god beliefs as being more like the difference between pink and peach rather than black and white. Despite the differences, I see a consistency in the different beliefs regarding god and spirituality much like the similarity of pink and peach.

People have experiences and they map their experiences onto descriptions of other peoples experiences to try and create a coherent understanding of reality. I am reluctant to assume that simply because some people describe pink and others peach that their seemingly contradictory descriptions imply that red does not exist.

Isn't it more reasonable to assume that the common factor is that people were parentally and culturally programmed to believe the contradictory beliefs?

Certainly that is a factor, but that doesn't explain how such beliefs a) came into being in the first place and b) continue to be held by the vast majority of humans on this planet. There are other explanations for those things - been discussed here before - but putting them altogether makes the total explanation package rather complex. That's okay, we need complex explanations to understand our world, and those complex explanations of how religion evolved are often consistent and can be convincing. But we are formulating a fairly hefty package of theories and hypotheses to explain a phenomena that can be far more simply explained by accepting that people are communicating about an intangible something that exists in the way that mathematics can be said to exist.

To epeos76: I just wanted to say I've enjoyed your posts. You sound very reasonable and make a lot of sense to me. You have far more patience with the more abrasive members of this forum than I can manage and I admire that. You have inspired me to continue posting in this thread.

 

[volatile]

That would (and has) caused me to reconsider my beliefs. I am not certain of the correctness of anyone's beliefs regarding the existance (or not) of any god. But, to continue the analogy that was being used, I see the different god beliefs as being more like the difference between pink and peach rather than black and white. Despite the differences, I see a consistency in the different beliefs regarding god and spirituality much like the similarity of pink and peach.

You might have convinced yourself that this is the case, but you're wrong.

The fundamental doctrines of the major faiths (and even their sub-divided sects) are often mutually exclusive. There cannot be many gods and one god. There cannot be a God who both wants you to kill those who don't believe in Him, and who wants you to leave them be. There cannot be a God who both sends you to Hell for all eternity or who simply extinguishes you. There cannot be reincarnation and the Christian heaven. There cannot be karma and judgement. There cannot be an omnipotent God and a fallible God. There cannot be a vengeful God and a forgiving God. There cannot be both God above us and God within us all. There cannot simultaneously be animals with souls, and without souls.

Black and white, Beth. Not pink and peach. Most religions are diametrically opposed to at least one other in most respects. If you actually read about Hinduism, Bhuddishm, Jainism, Sikhism, Scientology, the Raleians and all the rest, you'd realise that the differences are many, and also fundamental. Hell, even the core beliefs of the Roman Catholics and the Anglicans can't be reconciled (are Saints divine, or not? Does transubstantiation occur? Is Mary the co-redemptrix? Is there a purgatory?), let alone Anglicanism and Jainism!

 

[Beth]

You might have convinced yourself that this is the case, but you're wrong.

The fundamental doctrines of the major faiths (and even their sub-divided sects) are often mutually exclusive. There cannot be many gods and one god. There cannot be a God who both wants you to kill those who don't believe in Him, and who wants you to leave them be. There cannot be a God who both sends you to Hell for all eternity or who simply extinguishes you. There cannot be reincarnation and the Christian heaven. There cannot be karma and judgement. There cannot be an omnipotent God and a fallible God. There cannot be a vengeful God and a forgiving God. There cannot be both God above us and God within us all. There cannot simultaneously be animals with souls, and without souls.

Black and white, Beth. Not pink and peach. Most religions are diametrically opposed to at least one other in most respects. If you actually read about Hinduism, Bhuddishm, Jainism, Sikhism, Scientology, the Raleians and all the rest, you'd realise that the differences are many, and also fundamental. Hell, even the core beliefs of the Roman Catholics and the Anglicans can't be reconciled (are Saints divine, or not? Does transubstantiation occur? Is Mary the co-redemptrix? Is there a purgatory?), let alone Anglicanism and Jainism!

Yes, if you look at many of the doctrines and dogmas of the various religions, they seem diametrically opposed - some of them aren't even self-consistent but have contradictory statements within their own dogma. However, I'm talking about the individual experiences of spirituality and/or god that people describe having had. I find an underlying similiarity in those descriptions that seems more like the difference between pink and peach than the black and white of the dogmatic creeds you are referring to here.

 

[volatile]

Yes, if you look at many of the doctrines and dogmas of the various religions, they seem diametrically opposed - some of them aren't even self-consistent but have contradictory statements within their own dogma. However, I'm talking about the individual experiences of spirituality and/or god that people describe having had. I find an underlying similiarity in those descriptions that seems more like the difference between pink and peach than the black and white of the dogmatic creeds you are referring to here.

But the differences between the religions are these dogmatic ones. You can re-assert that all religions are the same until you're blue in the face, but the fact is that you're wrong.

Furthermore, there's hardly any congruity between even the wooly "spirituality" you are describing - the Buddhist and the Anglican Christian and the Baptist Preacher all feel "God" in manifestly different ways. Sometimes God is felt as a warm embrace, sometimes as an awe-inspiring dictator. Sometimes he is felt as internal, sometimes as external. Sometimes he is calming, sometimes he is rousing. Sometimes he instils peace and meditation, sometimes he inspires fervour and violence. This "all religions are essentially the same" line is manifestly not true.

I'm not sure what you're arguing? There is one true God, and he's the one you happen to believe in, and it's so obvious that everyone who describes him and his wishes differently are just getting a garbled signal?

That makes no sense whatsoever, frankly, and it hardly counts as "evidence" or attests to the veracity of your deism.

 

[Beth]

But the differences between the religions are these dogmatic ones.

I agree and that's what I said in my last post. There are definitely big differences between the dogmas of various religions.

You can re-assert that all religions are the same until you're blue in the face, but the fact is that you're wrong.

I'm not saying they are the same, anymore that I am saying that pink and peach are the same color. I'm saying that when I listen to (or read) descriptions of people's spiritual experiences, I see underlying similarities as well as the overt differences, much as one might recognize that pink and peach are fairly close when examining the entire color spectrum.

Furthermore, there's hardly any congruity between even the wooly "spirituality" you are describing - the Buddhist and the Anglican Christian and the Baptist Preacher all feel "God" in manifestly different ways. Sometimes God is felt as a warm embrace, sometimes as an awe-inspiring dictator. Sometimes he is felt as internal, sometimes as external. Sometimes he is calming, sometimes he is rousing. Sometimes he instils peace and meditation, sometimes he inspires fervour and violence. This "all religions are essentially the same" line is manifestly not true.

Not quite what I was trying to express. I think the core experiences that drive religious belief have many similarities across different religions and cultures despite there being profound differences. There is more that one way to interpret this. One, the atheist perspective, is that no god(s) exist and these reported experiences are just constructs of our fallible human minds. Another way to interpret this is that god/s does/do exist/s and humans can only imperfectly comprehend such beings, leading to different dogmas and interpretations of those experiences. Where I disagree with most of the atheists (and some theists) posting on this thread is I find both explanations to be reasonable and do not have a firm conviction that one is correct and the other is not.

I'm not sure what you're arguing? There is one true God, and he's the one you happen to believe in, and it's so obvious that everyone who describes him and his wishes differently are just getting a garbled signal?

That makes no sense whatsoever, frankly, and it hardly counts as "evidence" or attests to the veracity of your deism.

You seem to have mistaken me for a deist. I'm sorry, but that's not correct. I'm agnostic.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So many contradictions, so little time...sigh.

This, at least, was not intended to be condescending. It was intended to be clear. I admit I have no idea how long formula was presumed to be the better option. I do know that various new moms have told me about being harrangued by women in their 50's and 60's who, in their time, were told that bottle feeding was the only responsible choice.

My god beliefs have very little bearing on physical health. I brought up this point for the very limited purpose of showing that: (1) we have to make decisions, even when the evidence isn't all in, and (2) guessing that principles we understand apply in areas that appear similar is not a good way to make these decisions. In particular, it is not as good as relying on established human practices.

So to illustrate why god beliefs are useful where science has not yet provided answers, you give an irrelevant example.

It's interesting to note that some eastern religions have more to say on things like diet, breathing, and careful exercise. Practioners of Jainism for example can point to several generations of observational experience to support the results of their dietary requirements. I think that as a result, they are less likely to be buffaloed by misapplied developments in the area of nutrition.

What an unsupportable conclusion this is. I was hoping for a more rational explanation why god beliefs were useful. This isn't even factual. Where's your evidence this is even remotely true?

I think my god beliefs are specifically relevant to social, psychological, and therefore moral questions. Given that there is no agreement about what constitutes morality, I don't think the evidence is clear.

Your statement ignores the on-going challenge to define or possibly invent moral behavior. That's the realm where I claim god beliefs help most. Mine provides something like model for what a human being is and how people should be treated. I say "something like a model" because it isn't something that I can spell out analytically. It arises from the whole mishmash of beliefs, practices, and relationships.

Just to be as clear as possible, I think the evidence you cite is related to something like how well people live up to the investigator's moral ideals. I have no doubt that a fair share of the variation is explained by non-theist factors.

For example, whether someone has the skills and resources to meet basic needs without cheating might be signficant. How much thought someone has given the matter might also be relevant. I would guess that atheists actually score slightly higher than average in some of these areas.

If there was any significant variation between specific groups of believers, it might reflect on how well the investigator's moral ideals fit with the actual constraints on human existance. Christianity is certainly critized for failing in this area. My second objection to your claim, however, is that not all theisms are equivalent. To be useful, measurements would have to at least take into account the self-delineated differences between groups.

If there is one thing the evidence is clear on, it's that the claim morals come from or are even better suited to theistic determinism is completely and utterly false.

Theists, if you think about it, claim we are moral because we are afraid of going to hell. Naturalists claim we are moral because we evolved to live in groups. The latter is clearly a more logical explanation of where human morals originate.

I read a recent example given in Time Magazine a week or so ago. This is a modified version because I don't remember the exact details. If a child is taught to not eat in a classroom and the next teacher says it's OK to eat in class, the child has no problem adjusting to the new rules. If you take that same child and say your new rule is, it is OK to hit the child sitting next to you, the child knows there is something wrong with the new rule. How does the child know the two situations are different? We are programmed and biology, not god beliefs, have something to do with it. And there is plenty of evidence all great apes possess the same range of biologically determined morals. There also happens to be moral and immoral behavior among non-human primates. And the group often ostracizes badly behaving apes as well.

I consider this a strawman. I'm not interested in dogma. I'll consider any evidence that suggests an answer, and I expect change. In fact, liberal christianity has a tradition allowing people to publicly recant and admit their earlier position was a product of wordly striving.

My position is that god beliefs provide a way of responding to change. I can see the results of several generations of people weeding the substance from the form by applying the priorities that follow from these god beliefs. I think you are ignoring the value that accumulates by running human lives through a set of beliefs and evaluating the results. I also think you are mistaken in imagining how at least one group of theists would go about answering the questions I asked.

Regarding gay marriage: you don't need religion to do dogma or homophobia (see China under Mao). More to the point, my church and its members were among those leading the fight to oppose Wisconsin's marriage amendment. We lost, badly.

Most of the money sponsoring the amendment came from the religious right, but the voting demographics show that the amendment was passed basically on class lines. I think the radio divas and religious celebs on the right have been using this issue to get buy in, not the other way around.

In other words, having god beliefs has just as inconsistent results on morality as not having god beliefs does.

 

[epeos76]

So many contradictions, so little time...sigh.So to illustrate why god beliefs are useful where science has not yet provided answers, you give an irrelevant example.

It would be nice if you acknowledged that this example is directed only to your claim that "we don't know yet" is sufficient to address the gaps. I'm doing you the courtesy here of acknowledging that the first question is, "do we need to worry about the gaps at all?" because you raised this in several earlier posts. In a manner of speaking, the evidence is clear that we do.

If there is one thing the evidence is clear on, it's that the claim morals come from or are even better suited to theistic determinism is completely and utterly false.

How about providing some specific evidence and then we can discuss it? It can be an ancedotal recap or what have you. The phrase, "where morals come from" covers a lot of territory, and I don't think we agree about the goal posts here.

We doubtless have some genetic programing about when it's ok to hit people. I believe the judgment of one anthropologist was something like: humans, amazingly peaceful in-group, sociopathically violent towards outsiders.

That may be where we get the hardware to feel bad about some acts, empathize with certain people, respect authority etc, but it's only the most rudimentary beginning of the story. It's possible to emphasize certain drives, and down play others. Which should we listen too?

Theists, if you think about it, claim we are moral because we are afraid of going to hell. Naturalists claim we are moral because we evolved to live in groups. The latter is clearly a more logical explanation of where human morals originate.

Only exceptionally irrelevant theists claim we are moral because we are afraid of hell (thank you DOC, for muddying the waters). Dismissing this group falls under the rubric of acknowledging the validity of external criticism. For the last 400+ years you have not needed to leave the judeochristian playing field to find god beliefs in which heaven and hell play basically no part in moral calculus.

You are also playing fast and loose with the subject in your analysis. The first sentence presumably refers to how individuals make each moral decision. The second sentence presumably refers to why on average, members of the species tend to act in certain ways.

[qoute] We are programmed and biology, not god beliefs, have something to do with it. And there is plenty of evidence all great apes possess the same range of biologically determined morals. There also happens to be moral and immoral behavior among non-human primates. And the group often ostracizes badly behaving apes as well. [/quote]

I have no problem with the assertion that biology has something to do with it. That conclusion doesn't support the idea that god beliefs have nothing to do with it. Good deeds at the zoo are only a problem for people arguing that belief in god is the sole source of moral behavior.

In other words, having god beliefs has just as inconsistent results on morality as not having god beliefs does.

You did read the preceding paragraph? It wasn't too long? Morality isn't a closed set of well understood principles.

Here is a non-god version that you might consider. Suppose there are some principles buried in the deep structure of group dynamics. Suppose that the mathematics of cooperation and competition depends on lots of variables, incuding, perhaps information and group identity.

It is perfectly reasonable to predict that in the long run social creatures will have genes that foster optimal behavior. Isn't it just as reasonable to assume that creatures capable of using language, ritual, and belief to effect the relevant variables will develop language, rituals and beliefs that do the same? Some beliefs might even create conditions for the success of cooperative strategies that would otherwise fail.

I don't think we know enough to define success and failure in advance. I think god beliefs can help with this, based on (1) my observations, and (2) my guesses about how they store accumulated knowledge.

 

[Mobyseven]

You seem to have mistaken me for a deist. I'm sorry, but that's not correct. I'm agnostic.

What a coincidence. So am I.

I'm sure someone else will deal with the rest of the post, but I wanted to comment on this because it's a pet peeve of mine, and one that has been explained to you many times in the past.

Let's say it again: 'Agnostic' is not a position between 'theist' and 'atheist'. 'Agnostic' is a position on knowledge - it is an epistemological position. 'Theist' and 'atheist' are positions on existence - they are ontological positions.

If you are an agnostic (as I am), you will still be either a theist (I don't/can't know whether god exists but I believe in it/him/her anyway) or an atheist (I don't/can't know whether god exists, and I do not believe in it/him/her). If the answer to the question, "Do you believe in god?" is "No," then you are an atheist. To try and find a non-existent middle-ground by saying that you, "Don't not believe in god," is to express a nonsense proposition - you are claiming p & ~p, which is a contradiction.

So, do you believe in god? This isn't a question I put out to judge you - this is simply to determine whether or not you are an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It would be nice if you acknowledged that this example is directed only to your claim that "we don't know yet" is sufficient to address the gaps. I'm doing you the courtesy here of acknowledging that the first question is, "do we need to worry about the gaps at all?" because you raised this in several earlier posts. In a manner of speaking, the evidence is clear that we do.

What were you discussing? I asked you specifically to explain why you said we needed god beliefs because there were inadequacies in scientific knowledge. You then elaborated that the beliefs somehow replaced or filled in the gaps in scientific knowledge.

Did I misunderstand that claim?

If so, then tell me, why does anyone need god beliefs? Why does anyone need god beliefs specifically because science doesn't have all the answers yet? I don't see any need for god beliefs. I think all god beliefs are equally as silly as believing in Pele or Zeus.

How about providing some specific evidence and then we can discuss it? It can be an ancedotal recap or what have you. The phrase, "where morals come from" covers a lot of territory, and I don't think we agree about the goal posts here.

I did. I described the child knowing instinctively the difference between a rule on eating in the classroom and a rule on not harming another person.

We doubtless have some genetic programing about when it's ok to hit people. I believe the judgment of one anthropologist was something like: humans, amazingly peaceful in-group, sociopathically violent towards outsiders.

That may be where we get the hardware to feel bad about some acts, empathize with certain people, respect authority etc, but it's only the most rudimentary beginning of the story. It's possible to emphasize certain drives, and down play others. Which should we listen too?

You know the answer, I know the answer. How does having god beliefs improve on those decisions?

Only exceptionally irrelevant theists claim we are moral because we are afraid of hell (thank you DOC, for muddying the waters). Dismissing this group falls under the rubric of acknowledging the validity of external criticism. For the last 400+ years you have not needed to leave the judeochristian playing field to find god beliefs in which heaven and hell play basically no part in moral calculus.

You say it isn't fear of hell. I agree. That was my point. People claim religion provides morals, I say nonsense. Explain how they do that? Did the pastor of your church teach you more about behaving than your parents? Do people consult their Bibles when deciding to not kill abortion doctors? In other words how moral is religion if it tells you to kill abortion doctors? Think only theists are prolife? Got any other examples where god beliefs really provide morals or is it merely that people claim that without thinking it through?

I have no problem with the assertion that biology has something to do with it. That conclusion doesn't support the idea that god beliefs have nothing to do with it. Good deeds at the zoo are only a problem for people arguing that belief in god is the sole source of moral behavior.

Show me why anyone needs god beliefs to be moral. Show me where god beliefs even make anyone more moral. I can show you where god beliefs make lots of people less moral.

Isn't it just as reasonable to assume that creatures capable of using language, ritual, and belief to effect the relevant variables will develop language, rituals and beliefs that do the same? Some beliefs might even create conditions for the success of cooperative strategies that would otherwise fail.

I don't think we know enough to define success and failure in advance. I think god beliefs can help with this, based on (1) my observations, and (2) my guesses about how they store accumulated knowledge.

You are merely arguing that because we developed god beliefs they must be useful. They probably were. We don't need them anymore. Now we have accumulated enough observational data to conclude god beliefs are false beliefs.

 

[articulett]

I don't think anyone has given a good answer or reason for why they should think their god beliefs are more likely to be true than the stuff they don't believe in.

I watched the Tom Cruise tape... he really believes he's "chosen" and "knows" divine secrets. But I don't believe he does... to me all believers seem like that-- the certainty coupled with the nothingness it's built upon. How can you guys reject his "truth" that he "feels' so sincerely and yet accepts some equally nebulous story or conclusion based on your own feelings or those of someone you trust. How do you know your feelings of "divine possibilities" aren't as built on nothing as his is? Lots of people believing assorted wacky things is only evidence that people are ready to believe certain wacky things-- it is NOT evidence that invisible immeasurable magical entities exist!

 

[schlitt]

I don't think anyone has given a good answer or reason for why they should think their god beliefs are more likely to be true than the stuff they don't believe in.

I watched the Tom Cruise tape... he really believes he's "chosen" and "knows" divine secrets. But I don't believe he does... to me all believers seem like that-- the certainty coupled with the nothingness it's built upon. How can you guys reject his "truth" that he "feels' so sincerely and yet accepts some equally nebulous story or conclusion based on your own feelings or those of someone you trust. How do you know your feelings of "divine possibilities" aren't as built on nothing as his is? Lots of people believing assorted wacky things is only evidence that people are ready to believe certain wacky things-- it is NOT evidence that invisible immeasurable magical entities exist!

A lot of it comes down to your signature.

 

[Beth]

Show me why anyone needs god beliefs to be moral. Show me where god beliefs even make anyone more moral. I can show you where god beliefs make lots of people less moral.

Anecdotal evidence that can be countered with anecdotal evidence of people who were able to conquer addictions and/or give up a life of crime that they attribute to gaining a belief in god. I think that humans ‘need’ god beliefs to be moral in the same way that they ‘need’ meat in their diet to be healthy. While it’s well established that people can stick to a vegan diet and stay healthy, it takes considerably more effort to construct and maintain a healthy vegan diet than to do so with diet that includes meat. Most people prefer to include meat in their diet when they have the option of doing so. Do humans 'need' meat in their diet?

You are merely arguing that because we developed god beliefs they must be useful. They probably were. We don't need them anymore.

What evidence are you basing that statement on? We don’t really understand what benefits god beliefs may provide either to more primitive societies or to our own. I think your hypothesis that humans don't need god beliefs is not well supported. Sure, some people can get along fine without god beliefs. Other people seem hard-wired to have them. No sizeable community seems to be without them. I think it is possible that our species might need god beliefs even if every individual of our species does not. Some people get along fine without ever having sex, but our species would die out if everyone gave it up.

Now we have accumulated enough observational data to conclude god beliefs are false beliefs.

1) While we have sufficient observational data to conclude that some god beliefs are false, others are not falsifiable so this is NOT a true statement.
2) A false belief is not necessarily without worth. We Americans have based our society on at least one demonstrably false belief : “All men are created equal” Do you think that because this is a false belief, we should discard it? I think it has value as an ideal and cling to it despite an intellectual understanding that it is not an accurate statement about reality.

 

[epeos76]

SkG, I don't think I've managed to convey my position to you. I think, in part, this is because the field is littered with the junk from earlier debates you've had here.

I've expressly and consistently disclaimed any assertion that god beliefs are necessary. I’m not claiming we need them, or that moral chaos would result without them. I'm claiming only that some are useful and valuable.

I think I proposed a principled, reasonable distinction between types of god beliefs. Some accept the validity of external criticism from science and ethics. Some don't.

This is a distinction I think lots of theists make. It excludes any number of christian-types, including those who would kill an abortion doctor (better verified ethics at work). It includes some members of incompatible faiths.

This means I have to explain what to do about that over inclusive, incompatibility. I've already explained what to do with the dogmatic types. Dismiss them.

If so, then tell me, why does anyone need god beliefs? Why does anyone need god beliefs specifically because science doesn't have all the answers yet? I don't see any need for god beliefs. I think all god beliefs are equally as silly as believing in Pele or Zeus.

If science, or ethics, or philosophy had even most of the answers in the areas I'm concerned about, we would have no use for god beliefs (or we would be able to explain exactly what they do, and why we should have them).

Science doesn't. So what? I took you at your word when you suggested that the gaps were simply not a problem, and required no further response than "we don't know".

If that were true, it would likewise undermine my argument that god beliefs are valuable. I specifically tried to show why, independent of religion or god beliefs, "we don't know" is not a great answer. We still have to make decisions, and science isn't a good source for guesses. This doesn't advance my argument except by addressing the threshold criticism you raised.

Assuming you waive that point, or are at least as tired of it as I am, we get to the next question: are god beliefs useful? Social dynamics, and the intersection of individuals and groups is one of the areas we know the least about. In that one, specific area, I have anecdotal, observation evidence that my god beliefs (and some other, incompatible god beliefs) are valuable moral tools.

Their value doesn't lie in enforcing compliance with a particular moral check list. It lies in providing a model, training, and a framework of relationships for thinking about certain moral questions that can't yet be answered by other means as they arise.

I think abortion is not a bad example. Empirical observation and/or analysis so far doesn't provide much insight into the potential value of a human life, or the relations among potential mom, potential baby, potential dad, and society.

My god beliefs don't provide a hard an fast answer to the question abort, or not. They weigh in favor of legal abortion, but that part of the debate is likely better handled by well developed political philosophy. They have a lot to say about how an individual might think about the meanings attending such a decision.

I described the child knowing instinctively the difference between a rule on eating in the classroom and a rule on not harming another person.

Sure, and I addressed this. This is evidence that morality, in part has a basis independent of belief. That's not a problem for me. It is not evidence that beliefs have no influence on morality. There is room for a theory in which certain baseline conditions arise from biology, then other factors become important.

Originally Posted by epeos76
. It's possible to emphasize certain drives, and down play others. Which should we listen too?
heaven and hell play basically no part in moral calculus.

you know the answer and I know the answer.

Do you think we agree on the answers? If so, do you think our intuition is entirely explained by biology? For my part, I don't think we do know the answers, in every situation. I don't think science or intuition is enough.

Show me why anyone needs god beliefs to be moral. Show me where god beliefs even make anyone more moral. I can show you where god beliefs make lots of people less moral.

I've observed my god beliefs reliably teach otherwise ordinary, unreflective people something like compassion. I know other god beliefs do similar things. I know many atheists reach a similar result. In my view, each of those people had to learn, or invent that perspective. It doesn't come with the biological hardware, because it isn't reasonable, as a stand alone strategy. Mine work with at least the consistency of asprin, even for people who aren’t going to be reading Schopenhauer, or whoever.

You say you will show me god beliefs that make people less moral. I will gladly list genetic imperatives that make people commit atrocities. What is important and relevant is discriminating between the different results.

You are merely arguing that because we developed god beliefs they must be useful. They probably were. We don't need them anymore. Now we have accumulated enough observational data to conclude god beliefs are false beliefs.

I disagree that they no longer have any value. I disagree that we have accumulated enough data to know they are false. I don't even think we've accumulated a complete description of what they are, or what they do.

In a number of threads, you and others have wondered why believers want to believe. The general consensus seems to be indoctrination, "memes", or fear of the unknown. I'd like to suggest an alternative that doesn't require condescending to a large swath of the human beings currently alive on the planet.

Maybe god beliefs serve some important roles that haven't been accounted for yet. They may even be different from their stated roles. The practioners have experienced the value, but lack the sophistication to separate the wheat from the chaff. This gap is partly because science has only just begun to address the relevant questions.

Oh, and I stenously and vehemently object to your completely unjustified use of the word "merely" above.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

I think that humans ‘need’ god beliefs to be moral in the same way that they ‘need’ meat in their diet to be healthy. While it’s well established that people can stick to a vegan diet and stay healthy, it takes considerably more effort to construct and maintain a healthy vegan diet than to do so with diet that includes meat. Most people prefer to include meat in their diet when they have the option of doing so. Do humans 'need' meat in their diet?

I think your 'meat vs. vegan' analogy is not really representative. I would say that god-beliefs are like vitamin or mineral supplements in an unhealthy diet. If the diet is ok, then there’s no need for them. After all, non-belief is the default position.


[And in some cases too much of one particular vitamin or mineral can turn into poison!]

 

[epeos76]

My thanks again to SkG, Articullet, Beth and others for sticking with this thread. I apologize for my periodic absence.

Anyone seriously engaged has put positions they consider important up for debate. I appreciate that, barring some minor friction and bickering, the overall discussion has been relatively fair. I'm pretty pleased we've avoided any serious death spirals.

 

[halofish2000]

This is a good thread. This can be broken up into "my god" can beat "your god" type of discussion with "no god" as the referee. Even within the christian god community we have the same battle going on and will always have. What I find intriguing is where in the developement of man's mind did we get the thought of god period?

 

[Beth]

I think your 'meat vs. vegan' analogy is not really representative. I would say that god-beliefs are like vitamin or mineral supplements in an unhealthy diet. If the diet is ok, then there’s no need for them. After all, non-belief is the default position.


[And in some cases too much of one particular vitamin or mineral can turn into poison!]

You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with your modification. Modern man has the ability to supplement poor diets with concentrated does of things like vitamins and minerals when necessary. Primitive man did not. He relied on eating meat when possible to sustain him.

Is it more analogous to say that modern man can supplement his moral judgement with god beliefs when necessary or to claim that primitive man would rely on such beliefs in forming moral judgements? I think the latter.

Also, I disagree that the default assumption is no god. My observation is that far more people have 'god exists' as their default assumption and most of those who don't have made a conscious decision to switch to 'no god' as the default rather than starting with it.

 

[Mobyseven]

Anecdotal evidence that can be countered with anecdotal evidence of people who were able to conquer addictions and/or give up a life of crime that they attribute to gaining a belief in god. I think that humans ‘need’ god beliefs to be moral in the same way that they ‘need’ meat in their diet to be healthy. While it’s well established that people can stick to a vegan diet and stay healthy, it takes considerably more effort to construct and maintain a healthy vegan diet than to do so with diet that includes meat. Most people prefer to include meat in their diet when they have the option of doing so. Do humans 'need' meat in their diet?

What a silly argument. What evidence do you have that it takes more effort to be a moral atheist than a moral theist? I, for one, have absolutely no trouble staying moral without any need for god beliefs - indeed, the contradictions that arose when I was religious hindered more that augmented my moral development. The number of atheists in jail in the USA, compared to the number of Christians and followers of other religions, would also seem to support the idea that it is no more difficult to be a moral atheist than it is to be a moral theist.

The whole argument is nothing more than the standard line believers and apologists seem to peddle - a variation on the idea that even though some atheists are moral, most are not. In this case however, the argument has been changed - most atheists are moral, but it is far harder for them to remain moral than it would be for an equivalent theist. It's poppycock, and rather insulting too.

What evidence are you basing that statement on? We don’t really understand what benefits god beliefs may provide either to more primitive societies or to our own. I think your hypothesis that humans don't need god beliefs is not well supported. Sure, some people can get along fine without god beliefs. Other people seem hard-wired to have them. No sizeable community seems to be without them. I think it is possible that our species might need god beliefs even if every individual of our species does not. Some people get along fine without ever having sex, but our species would die out if everyone gave it up.

Burden of proof is on you: If humans (or human societies) need god beliefs, then why do they need them? What advantages do they confer that cannot be obtained any other way? And how can you explain the large number of people who do not require belief in god to function?

Your argument here is the fallacy of deriving a normative from a descriptive. Just because most people do believe in god, doesn't mean they should believe in god. Moreover, it certainly doesn't entail that they need to believe in god, and it has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not god exists!

1) While we have sufficient observational data to conclude that some god beliefs are false, others are not falsifiable so this is NOT a true statement.

What does it even mean to say that an entity exists if it is completely undetectable and has no effect on the universe?

A description of god that is unfalsifiable means that a universe in which that god exists and a universe in which that god does not exist are identical. Through application of Occam's Razor we shave away unnecessary entities, and thus can do away with any unfalsifiable descriptions of god as well.

2) A false belief is not necessarily without worth. We Americans have based our society on at least one demonstrably false belief : “All men are created equal” Do you think that because this is a false belief, we should discard it? I think it has value as an ideal and cling to it despite an intellectual understanding that it is not an accurate statement about reality.

Okay, we've had this discussion before, but you keep bringing it up. "All men are created equal," does not mean, "All men are born with the same potential for physical and intellectual growth," or any other such equivocations. It is a legal statement in a legal document - it refers to the idea that all men (and even women now, by gosh!) are 'created' equal in the eyes of the law. In other words, all men should be afforded the same legal rights. This is not a false belief - it is actually rather a well supported belief.

Please don't equivocate that statement again. I've explained it to you once before, and you're still using it to clutch at straws.