Richard Dawkins

You strike me as an inteligent person. So you must know that there is no such thing as a clearly definable right and wrong. If there was this planet wouldn't be such a mess.

that is not necessarily true! for example (and I could provide the secular argument but I will resort to the religious one here) suppose god exists and is the definition of "morally good". Then lots of evil could still happen because god gives us free will. "good" could be defined as "what god wants" but the planet might still be in a mess.

Sure. But "what God wants" is NOT clearly definable. The fact that so many people are so convinced they know what God wants is the cause of a lot of bloodshed and has been throughout history. It's that undeniable fact that leads Dawkins to his conclusion that religion is the greatest source of evil. Before we go down that tangent I just want to say that I don't agree. There are plenty of non-religious evil SOBs and plenty of very good religious people.

A similar argument is that science tells us they we are destroying the planet. But even though all the scientific evidence is there foor all to see it does not stop us doing that does it?

Saddly not

I'm not appealing to any natural law.

So then was the WWII holocaust wrong or was it not? If it was wrong according to what standard was it wrong?

There is no absolute standard. That's my whole point. We all have our own internal standards. By my standards, and those of the majority of people, certainly in the western world, it was wrong.

Our internal senses of right and wrong line up very similarly. But not the same. If they did then we would all agree on matters moral. We don't. Just look at the world around us!

I am stating the FACT, borne out by EVIDENCE, that religious people do not have a monopoly on moral compasses. Whether or not you believe in one or more Gods does not determine whether or not you have morals.

So what? I have ALREADY stated that "natural law" may be treated as either a secular or religious concept.

Fair enough, you insist in calling it natural law. I don't believe it exists as anything more than an average of all our internal moral compasses. Which to me means it doesn't really exist at all. Needless to say I don't care whether it's seen as secular or not.

On what evidence or principles do you base the fact of the NAZI atrocities being wrong?

Personally, I am guided by a principal of live and let live. I disagree with biggotry, racism and other forms discrimination of discrimination.

But, like I said before, that's MY personal reasons.

No one can prove WHY we have morals but there are some insights I'd like to share. Firstly, I think empathy is key. Humans can feel the pain of others. They can put themselves into other people's shoes. That makes it much harder to be a git than if there was no empathy.

According to what scientific fact evidence or principles do humans have empathy? And even if they do have it what is there to mitigate in favour of not hurting people? how is it more likely that people will strive not to cause damage? I am reminded of the african tale of the scorpion and the frog.

Direct observation. We observe empathy. I feel it. I don't see how you can deny the existence of empathy.

Basing arguments on pretending real observed effects don't exist is rather pointless. It's not an avenue I have the time to go down.

Secondly, elementary game theory shows that cooperation is more productive in the long run than non-cooperation.

A branch of economics? Is that science? If you just deal with it mathematically then it depends how one adjusts the payoff Matrix! So I sugest it DOES NOT show co operation is more productive! Where in elementary game theory does that happen? I submit it is only when human values adjust the payoff matrix that co operation is more productive!

OI! Don't put words in my mouth. I did NOT say anything about economics. That's what's called a straw-man falacy. Pretend I'm arguing something I amn't and then attacking that imagined argument.

I said game theory. It's a branch of computer science and mathematics. It most certainly is science.

I'd suggest you have a read of the truely excellent book "Complexity - the emerging science at the edge of order and chaos" (or something like that, I can dig up the full reference if you like). Despite being a book mainly about computer science it has a lot to say about maths, biology and even economics since you seem to show an interest in it.

That means that evolutionarily speaking those who are prepared to cooperate have an advantage.

It would mean that if the premise is true but you haven't established that game theory does establish such a Premise.

I have cited my reference above. There's not much point in my parroting other people's work when others have expressed it much more eloquently than I could. My point was not to convince you that this is correct, but to point you towards some related fields of scientific study you may find interesting.

Simple put, you asked if science has anything to say about this stuff, I pointed you at the relevant areas that I'm familiar with.

That kind of cooperation requires a moral compass to work.

This is circular reasoning! You set out to prove morals and now you are saying it is based on morals exiating in the first place.

I did not set out to prove morals! I clearly said I did not. I just pointed out some related areas of science. Please take the time to read my posts more carefully. It will save a lot of needless typing.

So, there is an argument to be made that moral compasses could be engineered into us by evolution.

Not based on unestablished premises from economics and circular reasoning there isn't!

OK, seriously, stop arguing with things I havn't actually said. YOU brought up economics, not me! Like I said before that's a strawman fallacy.

I do however accept that one could suggest that (this isn't a proof or even evidene but what we wanbt to prove ) that "evolution mitigates in favour of 'moral' behaviour"

But then we are back to what is 'moral'? How does one scientifically define it? I suggest we have to look outside science into philosophy law or God help us - pun intended even Theology

Well, if, for the sake of argument, we accept the biological origin morals then the answer becomes simple. Behaviour that enables cooperation is moral. Behaviour that hinders it is amoral. I'm not suggesting things really are that simple, but IF we accept the biological argument then that would be a valid definition which does not require a deity.

I'm not saying that is all there is to it. I'm not ruling out a God, but I am saying that people who do not believe in God do have a moral compass.

and Im not ruling that out either. It is called "secular natural law".

Excellent. That's at least one point we've managed to put to bed

What ever arguments you can make one way or another, you cannot say that we need a God to be good people.

I just showed you why this is defunct. hte point I am making is that science isn't sufficient for society. Scientism does not accept this!

You have not! There are moral people in this world who do not believe in God. That, in and of itself shows that we do not need a God.

You seem determined to assume that everyone who does not believe in God is a follower of scientism. That's just not true. No one in here is saying that science has all the answers. I most certainly am not. But I also do not either believe or actively dissbelieve in God. You seem to think that you can be religious or follow scientism and that that's all that is possible. I'm sorry but that simplistic view does not stand up to scrutiny.

Now, I've said it before and I'll say it again, who on this thread is arguing FOR scientism? You are dead set on pretending people are but I don't see any evidence for that in this thread anywhere. If I'm wrong and people have argued for it then please correct me by showing me the relevant quotations.

Bart.

Before we go any further I like to make a request. ISAW, you you please indicate who you are quoting when you quote them. Your un-attributed quotes really make things very difficult to follow.

Thanks,

Bart.

Just as a matter of interest, who in here is supporting scientism? You seem dead keen to argue against it but I don't see anyone arguing for it!

Eh! This was about Dawkings remember?

Fair point.

However, you seem to be assuming that I'm arguing for scientism. I'm not. When it comes to Dawkins I agree with you on a lot of things. I do not agree that science has all the answers. I also agree with you that Dawkins takes science to the point of turning it into a world-view and arguably even a religion. I don't agree with that.

Where you and I seem to diverge is on the following points:

1) The need for the existence of God to explain the world around us
2) The role of faith in science.

I don't believe there is a need for one or more Gods to explain the world around us. I also don't believe that the existence of one or more deities can be rulled out. In short, I'm agnostic. Since I do believe there is a spiritual dimension to reality as well as a physical world some would argue that I'm a deist. To be honest I'm not that fond of labels. The point is I don't know what the story is with God or Gods. I can't and won't make categorical statements on the matter.

However, I also don't believe science has all the answers. It doesn't, what it is is our current best-guess at how the physical universe works. That best guess is however 100% rooted in reality, not faith.

Bart.

...good" could be defined as "what god wants" but the planet might still be in a mess.

Sure. But "what God wants" is NOT clearly definable.

If God exists (and does for the purposes of this argument) than what God
wants IS FACT. What we might think God wants is another matter altogether. I am referring to morality as "what God wants" . Faulty interpretation of that is a wholly different matter!

The fact that so many people are so convinced they know what God wants is the cause of a lot of bloodshed and has been throughout history.

I just dealt with this point as going off the topic of the FACT of a moral authority or natural law (whether secular or faith based) but i'll add that I already mentioned MUCH MORE people were killed by athiestic regimes than by religious ones!

It's that undeniable fact that leads Dawkins to his conclusion that religion is the greatest source of evil.

well he is quite clearly logically WRONG then since MORE people died because of athiestic regimes! LESS = NOT greatest!

Before we go down that tangent I just want to say that I don't agree. There are plenty of non-religious evil SOBs and plenty of very good religious people.

But the tangent being "religion is bad for society". Now I was trying to stay with "science is sufficient" which is why I asked you for example from where the idea of the holocaust being wrong flows?

A similar argument is that science tells us they we are destroying the planet. But even though all the scientific evidence is there for all to see it does not stop us doing that does it?

Saddly not

So moral authorits does not imply moral utopia!

I'm not appealing to any natural law.

So then was the WWII holocaust wrong or was it not? If it was wrong according to what standard was it wrong?

There is no absolute standard.

Does science have absolute standards or is it all made up depending on the mood at the time?

That's my whole point. We all have our own internal standards. By my standards, and those of the majority of people, certainly in the western world, it was wrong.

So your own internal standard is what is right. what is "good for you" is "good"? But isnt that the very basis of Facism which brought Hitler to power? Telling people what is good for them as opposed to democratic elections?
And why are you referring to a "majority of people"? Where did this come from? Are you now saying "good" is what the majority of peoplw decide? If it isnt then how do you judge the holocaust? By what standard?

Our internal senses of right and wrong line up very similarly.

how does this "sense" work? what units does it measure? If it is scientifically explainable then please tell me the principles it follows and what they are based on?

But not the same. If they did then we would all agree on matters moral. We don't. Just look at the world around us!

But this is an argument FOR religion! Actually fairly much all the religions of the world agree on a similar set of moral standards. Much much more so then even the legal systems of different countries!

I am stating the FACT, borne out by EVIDENCE, that religious people do not have a monopoly on moral compasses. Whether or not you believe in one or more Gods does not determine whether or not you have morals.

isaw wrote: So what? I have ALREADY stated that "natural law" may be treated as either a secular or religious concept.

Fair enough, you insist in calling it natural law. I don't believe it exists as anything more than an average of all our internal moral compasses.

Which is a valid definition as "what most practitioners subscribe to". which is also a valid definition of a mainstream religion with dogma. and indeed a science.

Which to me means it doesn't really exist at all. Needless to say I don't care whether it's seen as secular or not.

What either of us care is beside the point for the purposes of reasoned debate. Such Thomist ideas have filtered from Greek and Christian rationality into western science.

On what evidence or principles do you base the fact of the NAZI atrocities being wrong?

Personally, I am guided by a principal of live and let live. I disagree with biggotry, racism and other forms discrimination of discrimination.

But that is a PERSONAL belief! What is the evidence that this principle of tolerance is good for humanity?

No one can prove WHY we have morals but there are some insights I'd like to share. Firstly, I think empathy is key. Humans can feel the pain of others. They can put themselves into other people's shoes. That makes it much harder to be a git than if there was no empathy.

According to what scientific fact evidence or principles do humans have empathy? And even if they do have it what is there to mitigate in favour of not hurting people? how is it more likely that people will strive not to cause damage? I am reminded of the african tale of the scorpion and the frog.

Direct observation. We observe empathy. I feel it. I don't see how you can deny the existence of empathy.

So "feelings" are valid evidence for existence are they? What if I feel god exists?

Basing arguments on pretending real observed effects don't exist is rather pointless. It's not an avenue I have the time to go down.

But one can argue that one persons observations of empathy are anothers proof of divine inspiration.

Secondly, elementary game theory shows that cooperation is more productive in the long run than non-cooperation.

A branch of economics? Is that science? If you just deal with it mathematically then it depends how one adjusts the payoff Matrix! So I sugest it DOES NOT show co operation is more productive! Where in elementary game theory does that happen? I submit it is only when human values adjust the payoff matrix that co operation is more productive!

OI! Don't put words in my mouth. I did NOT say anything about economics.

Game theory! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
a branch of applied mathematics that is often used in the context of economics

That's what's called a straw-man falacy. Pretend I'm arguing something I amn't and then attacking that imagined argument.

that whats called a definition of "game theory" ! Whatever were you referring to when you referred to "game theory"?

I said game theory. It's a branch of computer science and mathematics. It most certainly is science.

Mathematics is not science! It is formal logic! And computer "science" one can construe to be engineering. But leve that aside and care to tell me how game theory shows anything mitigating in favour of co operation?

I'd suggest you have a read of the truely excellent book "Complexity - the emerging science at the edge of order and chaos" (or something like that, I can dig up the full reference if you like). Despite being a book mainly about computer science it has a lot to say about maths, biology and even economics since you seem to show an interest in it.

Yes. But we are not discussing what I should be reading, but about YOU supporting YOUR claims about game theory. I fail to see how it proves co operation is better. where does it?

That means that evolutionarily speaking those who are prepared to cooperate have an advantage.

It would mean that if the premise is true but you haven't established that game theory does establish such a Premise.[/quote]

I have cited my reference above.
There's not much point in my parroting other people's work when others have expressed it much more eloquently than I could.

Indeed there IS! Where in that work does it prove that evolution mitigates in favour of co-operation?

My point was not to convince you that this is correct, but to point you towards some related fields of scientific study you may find interesting.

So you therefore withdraw you claim as unsupported do you?

Simple put, you asked if science has anything to say about this stuff, I pointed you at the relevant areas that I'm familiar with.

If you are familiar with it and claim something themn where is your supporting evidence?

That kind of cooperation requires a moral compass to work.

This is circular reasoning! You set out to prove morals and now you are saying it is based on morals exiating in the first place.[/quote]

I did not set out to prove morals! I clearly said I did not.

I clearly asked you from wher the source of morals flows. You went into hgame theory as an example of science proving co operation was a better option (which you havent supported) which is making a case that science can explain morality.

I just pointed out some related areas of science. Please take the time to read my posts more carefully. It will save a lot of needless typing.

Related to proving morality.

So, there is an argument to be made that moral compasses could be engineered into us by evolution.

Which is just what you stated you were not tryiong to do!
There may be such an argument but you have as yet to make it or support it!

Not based on unestablished premises from economics and circular reasoning there isn't!

OK, seriously, stop arguing with things I havn't actually said. YOU brought up economics, not me! Like I said before that's a strawman fallacy.

Please explain how you support your claim abnout "game theory" . I'll bet you will bring up an example from economics. If not let us see where it takes you in proving co operation.

I do however accept that one could suggest that (this isn't a proof or even evidene but what we wanbt to prove ) that "evolution mitigates in favour of 'moral' behaviour"

But then we are back to what is 'moral'? How does one scientifically define it? I suggest we have to look outside science into philosophy law or God help us - pun intended even Theology

Well, if, for the sake of argument, we accept the biological origin morals then the answer becomes simple.

Not related - abiogenesis and evolution are two different things.

Behaviour that enables cooperation is moral. Behaviour that hinders it is amoral. I'm not suggesting things really are that simple, but IF we accept the biological argument then that would be a valid definition which does not require a deity.

Yes but then what is "co operation"? Mutual benefit for both? where in game theory can you construct such a game unless a person actually puts in what people "win" ? What if choosing an attack option instead of a do nothing or defendoption was awarded more points? Surely it is the "payoff" that shows what one wins? So the person who determines the matrix rigs the game! IT DOES require an outside operator to set up the payoff matrix!

Note in game theory we can also have bigger payoffs for behaviour which works against co operation?

I'm not saying that is all there is to it. I'm not ruling out a God, but I am saying that people who do not believe in God do have a moral compass.

and Im not ruling that out either. It is called "secular natural law".

Excellent. That's at least one point we've managed to put to bed

It didnt get out of bed in the first place.

What ever arguments you can make one way or another, you cannot say that we need a God to be good people.

I just showed you why this is defunct. the point I am making is that science isn't sufficient for society. Scientism does not accept this!

You have not! There are moral people in this world who do not believe in God. That, in and of itself shows that we do not need a God.

You claim you put that to bed and her you are waking it up! I just told you that the "natural law" argument fdoes not rest on there being a God! It can be made in a secular sense as well! Morality as natural law does NOT require God! I have already told you the "natural law" argument does not need to bring God into it! It is NOT however a proof that god does not exist!

You seem determined to assume that everyone who does not believe in God is a follower of scientism.

You seem not to have been reading what I wrote which is quite the contrary of this assumption.

That's just not true.

Now that IS a straw man!

No one in here is saying that science has all the answers.

I believe I have given sufficient quotes showinf at least SOMe have. But the main point is Dawkings (whom I also quoted) DOES!

You seem to think that you can be religious or follow scientism and that that's all that is possible.

Believe me what I say I know what the fallacy of the excluded middle is. I didn't commit that either no matter how it "seems."

I'm sorry but that simplistic view does not stand up to scrutiny.

No it wouldnt! If I had that view. But as I dont it is another straw man!

Now, I've said it before and I'll say it again, who on this thread is arguing FOR scientism?

I gave a list of quotes. Would you like to show how they all were not giving some point of view related to scientism. Partiucularly Dawkings?

You are dead set on pretending people are but I don't see any evidence for that in this thread anywhere. If I'm wrong and people have argued for it then please correct me by showing me the relevant quotations.

i already did. page 4 Nov 24, 2007 9:46 pm



Bart.[/quote]

you seem to be assuming that I'm arguing for scientism. I'm not.

Did I claim you were? I claimed Dawkings was and some here echoed his sentiments. My main issue is linked to science as some sort of "supreriour" way of looking at the world.
In many ways it is. But not morally superiour. Nor is it acceptable to dismiss religious spiritual or artistic knowledge as "juju" or "superstition".

When it comes to Dawkins I agree with you on a lot of things.

Oddly so do I sometimes I am at two with myself. given your name I certainly feel that way

I do not agree that science has all the answers.

there is only one. It apparently is "42".

I also agree with you that Dawkins takes science to the point of turning it into a world-view and arguably even a religion. I don't agree with that.

Well thats two things we agree on. We will be in government next.

Where you and I seem to diverge is on the following points:

1) The need for the existence of God to explain the world around us
2) The role of faith in science.

Well now we are getting somewhere.

for 1 read
The existance of an overarching moral authoriry whether that necissitate a God or not.

and in 2 you are already aware of the Nemsis theory. Let me ask you. does Muller believe in Nemsis? Even though there is NO evidence? Is it science none the less? His faith in Nemesis?

The point is I don't know what the story is with God or Gods. I can't and won't make categorical statements on the matter.

You just did!

However, I also don't believe science has all the answers. It doesn't, what it is is our current best-guess at how the physical universe works. That best guess is however 100% rooted in reality, not faith.

good points . Names aside, we have much in common. I am reminded of Plato's Cave.

Before we go any further I like to make a request. ISAW, you you please indicate who you are quoting when you quote them. Your un-attributed quotes really make things very difficult to follow.

Fair enough. But the point wasnt WHO stated it just that it was stated and did relate to scientism. you can easily go to page one of this discussion and do a find text search on it . I dont know how to reference individual messsages yet.