I wonder if this will impact the 50% creationist believers in the US...

[Rodimus Prime]

Its a theory, I am not trying to portray it as fact (and convert everyone to my way of thinking) thus don't need a 97% certainty.

so to translate you are dodging the question because it completely kills your entire argument. Gottcha.

[Zombie Acorn]

so to translate you are dodging the question because it completely kills your entire argument. Gottcha.

Thanks for your input, but no I still stand by my opinion that basic morals are instinctual and others are evolved in a society (which is why some morals are relative to location).

[Macaddicttt]

Its a theory, I am not trying to portray it as fact (and convert everyone to my way of thinking) thus don't need a 97% certainty.

So you waive the right to criticize anyone else's morals?

[Macaddicttt]

(which is why some morals are relative to location).

And yet you haven't defined the geography. Does depriving someone of his guns become more immoral the closer one gets to the Mason-Dixon line? Or have you chosen some other equally arbitrary measure?

[Zombie Acorn]

So you waive the right to criticize anyone else's morals?

There are universal or basic morals everyone follows (as I have stated many times), if it falls out of that area then I will not criticize.

And yet you haven't defined the geography. Does depriving someone of his guns become more immoral the closer one gets to the Mason-Dixon line? Or have you chosen some other equally arbitrary measure?

Go do some research of foreign societies, we have different morality lines once we break off from the basics.

Guns don't fall anywhere in morality, its not immoral or moral to have one.

[Macaddicttt]

Go do some research of foreign societies, we have different morality lines once we break off from the basics.

What constitutes a "foreign" society? I'm in California. Is Alabama a foreign society? I'm in San Diego. Is Los Angeles a foreign society? Is Tijuana a foreign society? It's certainly closer to me than Alabama.

[Iscariot]

I'm arguing that morality can only exist if the universe is a personal one, that it matters to something eternal what someone does. Call that God if you want. Religion is merely the pursuit of it.

If morality is so subjective that it only depends on a single person's point of view, then the word "morality" is meaningless. No one can be any more or less moral than anyone else since it's all in the eye of the beholder.

I think that many people hold extremely superficial morals and never really decide what morality is or what the common thread between every action that makes it moral or immoral.

People usually define their morals as "personal" or "societal," but both of these definitions of morality lack any meaning. If all morals are subjective and depend on each individual, then nobody's morals are any better than anyone else's. There would be no basis for law, since how can you punish someone for doing something that someone else thinks is immoral? Both versions of morality would equally valid.

If morals are determined by society, what is the criteria for those morals? Simple majority? So if the majority of people think that slavery is okay, then it is. There would be no impetus to change at all. Morality would not evolve, since anyone who held a minority view of morality would be immoral by definition. In addition, what are the geographic bounds of society? State? Country? City? Continent? Are lynchings okay because the majority of the community thought it was right?

Really my point is that without an external measure of morality, the entire concept of morality is useless since it becomes so subjective that no qualitative statements can be made about it.

I'm not seeing the connection to God, then. Let's assume for a second you're right and there are no morals without an external measure. Why does that make an argument in favour of God?

[NoSmokingBandit]

Such as?

The archaeoraptor comes to mind first.

[Cave Man]

The archaeoraptor comes to mind first.

"Archaeoraptor" never made it through peer review. That National Geographic published it without careful scrutiny was quite embarrassing for them. One should always consult the peer reviewed journals for such information, not the popular press magazines.

[Macaddicttt]

I'm not seeing the connection to God, then. Let's assume for a second you're right and there are no morals without an external measure. Why does that make an argument in favour of God?

Because that's the very definition of God: That which is outside of space and time, that which is eternal, that to which the actions of the universe matter.

[Zombie Acorn]

Because that's the very definition of God: That which is outside of space and time, that which is eternal, that to which the actions of the universe matter.

Thats your opinion on the definition of God.

II. Be willing to engage in fact-based debate

1. Provide links or other form of citation to corroborate claims; uncited claims will be considered opinion/hearsay

[Macaddicttt]

Thats your opinion on the definition of God.

II. Be willing to engage in fact-based debate

1. Provide links or other form of citation to corroborate claims; uncited claims will be considered opinion/hearsay

True, it is my opinion. But unfortunately God is one of those things that it's tough to get empirical data on. Unlike, say, claiming 50% of junior high school students can pass a test, despite a study showing that, at least in Oklahoma, 50% of eighth graders did not pass.

The rules don't say you can't give your opinion. You have the unfortunate habit of opining data.

[VenusianSky]

May have already been mentioned, but this will not impact creationist in any way. Anytime these "findings" come up, creationist simply say that it is completely fabricated by scientist and is done for publicity. It could very well be, but the same goes when it comes to a book written by man.

I don't always believe what I read or see. I am very skeptical when it comes to things such as this and religion. It does make for good entertainment though.

[Iscariot]

Because that's the very definition of God: That which is outside of space and time, that which is eternal, that to which the actions of the universe matter.

I still don't see the connection. Even if you are right about morals needing an external ruler, it doesn't provide any evidence for God. It's just a false dilemma logical fallacy.

[Macaddicttt]

I still don't see the connection. Even if you are right about morals needing an external ruler, it doesn't provide any evidence for God. It's just a false dilemma logical fallacy.

First, I agree, morals needing an external measure isn't evidence for God. It would only be evidence if we could prove that there was such thing as morality.

Second, I don't see the logic gap. We need an external measure of morality. I'm going to call that external measure God. That's all I've said here. I haven't said that God was anything other than an external measure of morality. There is no "connection."

[Iscariot]

First, I agree, morals needing an external measure isn't evidence for God. It would only be evidence if we could prove that there was such thing as morality.

Okay, cool. I was just curious what you thought.

[Queso]

First, I agree, morals needing an external measure isn't evidence for God. It would only be evidence if we could prove that there was such thing as morality.

Second, I don't see the logic gap. We need an external measure of morality. I'm going to call that external measure God. That's all I've said here. I haven't said that God was anything other than an external measure of morality. There is no "connection."
Richard Dawkins would argue that "morality" is based on a genetic predisposition towards creating a stable environment in which to raise the young. It gave our branch of the hominid family an evolutionary advantage to share a general idea about what we consider right and wrong.

I would argue that if that's true the gene isn't universal, which is why some (e.g. born again Christians) really seem to need religion whilst being unable to understand that others don't. Without an imposed structure of rules some amongst us find it more difficult to behave ethically.

[steve knight]

Richard Dawkins would argue that "morality" is based on a genetic predisposition towards creating a stable environment in which to raise the young. It gave our branch of the hominid family an evolutionary advantage to share a general idea about what we consider right and wrong.

I would argue that if that's true the gene isn't universal, which is why some (e.g. born again Christians) really seem to need religion whilst being unable to understand that others don't. Without an imposed structure of rules some amongst us find it more difficult to behave ethically.

or they are sheeple that need someone/something else to take responsibility for their lives and decisions. I think this is what most new religions get s members.

[Macaddicttt]

Richard Dawkins would argue that "morality" is based on a genetic predisposition towards creating a stable environment in which to raise the young. It gave our branch of the hominid family an evolutionary advantage to share a general idea about what we consider right and wrong.

I would argue that if that's true the gene isn't universal, which is why some (e.g. born again Christians) really seem to need religion whilst being unable to understand that others don't. Without an imposed structure of rules some amongst us find it more difficult to behave ethically.

The problem with genetic-based morality is that it falls woefully short as a complete moral system. I mean, you could interpret white enslavement of blacks as an advantage that a subgroup of a species to create a stable environment in which to raise the white young. And it totally destroys any ability to discuss morality in grey areas since there is no underlying basis besides "make society better." "Better" becomes entirely subjective based on your point of view.

You do need a set of ideals to advance morality, and not just genes, as evidenced by the fact that it was adherence to universal ideals, not genes that produced the greatest moral strides in the past couple hundred years: abolition, women's sufferage, civil rights, etc. A majority bequeathing power to a minority does nothing to help the majority's genes survive, but quite the opposite.

Plus, reducing moral behavior to one gene is way oversimplifying genetics.

[Gelfin]

The problem with genetic-based morality is that it falls woefully short as a complete moral system.

What doesn't? It would be disingenuous to count the failures of a rationalist morality against it without subjecting religious morality to similar scrutiny: people who believe God's will is the only basis for morality are at times able to convince themselves God wants them to do unthinkable things they would never do on their own initiative alone.

Supporters of either approach naturally tend to dismiss such failures as not representative of the true, "pure" ideal, but that's just cherry-picking. We're all in the same boat. People do bad things, and are quite adept at rationalizing them within whatever moral framework they happen to operate.

Whether it comes from God or evolution (or both), humans generally come equipped with a pretty finely honed moral sense, and the best morality is the one that never lets people use rigid philosophical ideals as an excuse to do awful things to other people.

[Macaddicttt]

Supporters of either approach naturally tend to dismiss such failures as not representative of the true, "pure" ideal, but that's just cherry-picking. We're all in the same boat. People do bad things, and are quite adept at rationalizing them within whatever moral framework they happen to operate.

I'm not cherry-picking, but pointing out the systematic failure of "genetics" as a basis for morality because it cannot answer certain moral questions simply because of the nature of it. It destroys the very ability to even discuss morality.

Take civil rights. Please make a coherent argument argument from genetics as a basis for the majority of society to relinquish power to a minority. You can't. The only argument you can make is, "I feel like it's the right thing to do." But that's not only genetic; it also is a result of your upbringing, an upbringing that places value in eternal ideals such as equality and liberty. So before you can even make an argument for civil rights from genetics, you have to create an argument for placing value in equality and liberty from genetics.

[skunk]

The problem with genetic-based morality is that it falls woefully short as a complete moral system. I mean, you could interpret white enslavement of blacks as an advantage that a subgroup of a species to create a stable environment in which to raise the white young.Slavery was apparently acceptable both to Jesus and his followers and to many millions of Jews, Christians and Muslims since. "Genetically-based morality" has no monopoly on shortcomings.And it totally destroys any ability to discuss morality in grey areas since there is no underlying basis besides "make society better." "Better" becomes entirely subjective based on your point of view.Considering the wide spectrum of behaviours practised by religious types over the years, what advantage do you suggest they have in this respect? Philosophical discussion of ethics can result in perfectly clear positions without the need to defer to some arbitrary supernatural authority.

[Macaddicttt]

Slavery was apparently acceptable both to Jesus and his followers and to many millions of Jews, Christians and Muslims since. "Genetically-based morality" has no monopoly on shortcomings.

Of course there are shortcomings of religious morality, but at the very least it provides a framework for discussion that does not even exist if the only criteria for morality is genetics.

Considering the wide spectrum of behaviours practised by religious types over the years, what advantage do you suggest they have in this respect? Philosophical discussion of ethics can result in perfectly clear positions without the need to defer to some arbitrary supernatural authority.

But philosophical discussion of ethics almost always ultimately derives the value of morality from some external, eternal value or ideal. Remove religion from the discussion; I'm talking about the existence of something eternal and outside of the universe, call it God or not.

EDIT: And if you compare ancient slavery with modern slavery, you'll see that they are completely different and are not really useful at all for comparing moralities.

[skunk]

Of course there are shortcomings of religious morality, but at the very least it provides a framework for discussion that does not even exist if the only criteria for morality is genetics.Nobody is suggesting that the criteria for morality are genetic, only that we and other species may be genetically predisposed to behave in socially harmonious ways, including for example displays of altruism, empathy and loyalty. We can discuss these traits perfectly reasonably and fruitfully within a framework of genetic and social advantage.

But philosophical discussion of ethics almost always ultimately derives the value of morality from some external, eternal value or ideal. Remove religion from the discussion; I'm talking about the existence of something eternal and outside of the universe, call it God or not.An ideal is not external because it is "eternal". It may be simply self-evident. Your assertion of extraterrestrial authority is unnecessary.

[Macaddicttt]

Nobody is suggesting that the criteria for morality are genetic, only that we and other species may be genetically predisposed to behave in socially harmonious ways, including for example displays of altruism, empathy and loyalty. We can discuss these traits perfectly reasonably and fruitfully within a framework of genetic and social advantage.

An ideal is not external because it is "eternal". It may be simply self-evident. Your assertion of extraterrestrial authority is unnecessary.

Person A values fetuses as much as he values an adult life.
Person B values the convenience of terminating a pregnancy.

Please use "terrestrial" values to determine the morality of abortion by only using ideals that are "self-evident" to all involved.

[skunk]

Person A values fetuses as much as he values an adult life.
Person B values the convenience of terminating a pregnancy.

Please use "terrestrial" values to determine the morality of abortion by only using ideals that are "self-evident" to all involved.Persons A and B may both adhere nominally to the same "extraterrestrial" creed, but it profiteth the validity of their valuation nothing.

I do not determine the "morality" of abortion any more than I determine the "morality" of epidemics, wars and natural disasters.

Rigid absolutism is rarely self-evidently beneficial, either in a genetic or a religious context.

[djellison]

Not to mention the assertion that evolution is fact. It is a theory. Too many people get deluded into believing it as absolute truth.

It's a theory, like gravity.

Did you leave your house from the front door - or the 2nd floor window?

[bobr1952]

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. anyone who says otherwise is either narrow-minded or has an agenda.

I have to agree with your excellent point--and those comments of others in this thread who support it. I've always thought the same way so it is refreshing to see that others also support this reasoning.

[djellison]

Organised formal religion and science are mutually exclusive. One is about getting to the truth of the universe, changing ones world view based on the variables and improving them over time.

One is not. It's fixed beliefs and stated truths, that can not be changed regardless of any and all data, progress and evidence.

From a moral standpoint 'religion' and 'science' are surely mutually exclusive. They contradict one another.

One can still believe in a 'god' whatever that's supposed to be. But you can't subscribe to an organised religion whilst agreeing with science - they are two fundamentally opposed world views.

[.Andy]

I have to agree with your excellent point--and those comments of others in this thread who support it. I've always thought the same way so it is refreshing to see that others also support this reasoning.
What reasoning?