Open Debate: Evolution.

[superluminal]

Religion is the basis for morality; what is a scientific reason for morality?

Hi sam. There are a number of threads where this has been debated. You can look them up or you can google on keywords: evolution,ethics,morality. The upshot is that "morality" is a direct, predicted outcome of the evolution of communal species such as ourselves.

 

[S.A.M.]

Hi sam. There are a number of threads where this has been debated. You can look them up or you can google on keywords: evolution,ethics,morality. The upshot is that "morality" is a direct, predicted outcome of the evolution of communal species such as ourselves.

So do atheists believe that humans need moral guidance?

Can an atheist sin?

 

[superluminal]

This is just a smattering of some references. There are some good books on the subject.

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/183572.htm
http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/Conduct/00000013.htm
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Morality_-_Evolution_of_morality/id/596090

 

[(Q)]

Wrong here, I'm afraid; both my parents are indifferent Muslims and I had no Muslim friends growing up; neither did my parents. A couple of Christian friends and a whole lot of Hindu friends.

But they were Muslims nonetheless and you grew up with with a mostly Muslim background. Why would you argue what is most obvious, that your beliefs are based on parental and geographical criteria? There's nothing wrong with that.

Because I respected their opinions?

Most Muslims do not when it comes to debating Islam, you must be an acception or you really didn't debate it.

I answered that; and if you knew me, you'd know how difficult it is to convince me of something.

On the contraire, you believe in the supernatural, that would make you quite the gullible person, in fact. And I seriously doubt that any amount of reason and rationale will make you change that view, regardless of the facts.

Wonderful! Now why don't YOU read these ayats carefully and tell me what you see?

Promotion of polygamy.

The Quran indicates that all living things began in the water;

There are also some verses that indicate that man moved through four phases of creation....if you google it you can find it...

You see, as I stated above, no amount of reason and rationale will change your mind about your religion. You're now going back to the same thing you were on about before which I've already refuted. Do we need to go over this again?

The Quran, or any other scripture, in no way defines the process of evolution as has been observed and is backed with mountains of evidence. If you refuse to accept this, then you're moving into the area of fundamentalism.

Doesn't it?

Religion is the basis for morality; what is a scientific reason for morality?

Again, that is where you're dead wrong, religion is NOT the basis for morality, which is actually another branch of evolution. Mankinds morals evolved along with man as it did with other species as well. Morality can be observed in animals, who have no interest in mans religion whatsoever.

Religion has once again, usurped that which it requires to sustain itself.

 

[superluminal]

So do atheists believe that humans need moral guidance?

Regarding our basic morality? No.

Can an atheist sin?

Certainly not in the religious sense. But in the broad sense of violating the innate moral directives most of us are equipped with? Yes. It is a "sin" to murder your fellows. It is a "sin" to steal from others. These all have serious consequences for the perpetrator in a group setting and therefore have a very low frequency in the behavioral gene pool. This is not to say that murder and stealing are not viable strategies under extreme circumstances.

 

[superluminal]

Mankinds morals evolved along with man as it did with other species as well. Morality can be observed in animals, who have no interest in mans religion whatsoever.

(Q) is correct.

 

[S.A.M.]

But they were Muslims nonetheless and you grew up with with a mostly Muslim background. Why would you argue what is most obvious, that your beliefs are based on parental and geographical criteria? There's nothing wrong with that.

Rather presumptuous of you to determine my background, but I'll let it slide.

Most Muslims do not when it comes to debating Islam, you must be an acception or you really didn't debate it.

How many Muslims do you know?

On the contraire, you believe in the supernatural, that would make you quite the gullible person, in fact. And I seriously doubt that any amount of reason and rationale will make you change that view, regardless of the facts.

Depends which side of the fence you are looking from...

Promotion of polygamy.

Right; which is why you see all Muslims with four wives?

You have to remember that the women must be willing, there is no marriage in Islam without the woman's consent; you missed the words "orphans" related to orphans of war; it is not a sanction for polygamy, but a protection for war widows and their children; when many men died in a particular war.

You see, as I stated above, no amount of reason and rationale will change your mind about your religion. You're now going back to the same thing you were on about before which I've already refuted. Do we need to go over this again?

The Quran, or any other scripture, in no way defines the process of evolution as has been observed and is backed with mountains of evidence. If you refuse to accept this, then you're moving into the area of fundamentalism.

I did not claim the Quran was a science textbook; that is your expectation; I said I did not disbelieve what it said because I found no absolute contradiction to what is scientifically known.

You are getting personal, Q and it is completely unnecessary.

Again, that is where you're dead wrong, religion is NOT the basis for morality, which is actually another branch of evolution. Mankinds morals evolved along with man as it did with other species as well. Morality can be observed in animals, who have no interest in mans religion whatsoever.

Religion has once again, usurped that which it requires to sustain itself.

Does animal behavior determine human ethics?

The origin of human ethics has no scientific rationale; science can only observe human moral behavior (and animal); it cannot effectively provide a reason for the origin of ethical behavior- at what point did humans decide what was right or wrong, develop a conscience and a consciousness of themselves as ethical animals?

I think I'll stop here; we seem to have reached full circle and it seems pointless to go on.

It was nice talking to you though, I like that you can say a lot in very few words; I learned a lot.

 

[GeoffP]

And if you claim to have debated with other Muslims, how is it you're still alive?

Because I respected their opinions?

But that's the problem, [name removed]: in your own words, you survived only because you respected their religious views.

Why should survival be contingent on an arbitrary concept? Why should I be forced to respect islam to debate with muslims and expect not to be killed? At what point does my questioning and argument turn into "disrespect"? Who decides that? An imam? A practitioner? Mohammed? Where do I cross the line? And why should that mean I should die?

And, moreover: what respect does islam give to nonbelievers - we who are to be "committed to the fire", we who reject Allah and islam utterly, what is our fate? How much respect does islam give to us? How much to Christians, whose beliefs are considered so evil, so sacreligious, so inordinately heretical that breach of the shahada - that cornerstone of islam which rejects Jesus' divinity as making 'partners with God', and which muslims say makes up 1/2 to 1/3 of the entire faith - is so serious that it is considered the only unforgiveable religious crime in islam? How much respect should Christians feel from that, or about their characterization along with all other "nonbelievers" as filth on the level with human excrement?

Wonderful! Now why don't YOU read these ayats carefully and tell me what you see? You do know when they were revealed, right?

I know when all the ayats of Sura 9 were revealed - last. Or second to. "For if Allah takes away a verse, does he not supply a better with which to replace it?" What does that say about the peaceful verses of the Quran? Are you familiar with abrogation? What should we make of al-Buhkari's reporting of Mohammed's saying: "If a man changes his religion, kill him."

The Quran indicates that all living things began in the water;

There are also some verses that indicate

Sam, these are all taken after the fact. You are attempting to fit evolution to religious preconception; you feel that the Quran was divinely revealed and that it must be the word of God, and so you scour the ayahs to find some way to reconcile your core appreciation of the absolutely huge amount of data behind evolutionary theory with something you have an emotional attachment to. They are seperate concepts; there is no evidence the Quran was constructed with any secret or special knowledge about natural theory, any more than there is any such evidence in the Bible.

Doesn't it?

It provides "answers" within a self-contained, unobjective version of reality. Science provides answers in the natural continuum of reality - which incidentally is the one we live in. In short: you cannot test for god. It might make you feel better about yourself, but so does Oprah, and she is not a deity, whatever she might think about that.

Religion is the basis for morality; what is a scientific reason for morality?

Which element of it?

 

[superluminal]

The origin of human ethics has no scientific rationale; science can only observe human moral behavior (and animal); it cannot effectively provide a reason for the origin of ethical behavior- at what point did humans decide what was right or wrong, develop a conscience and a consciousness of themselves as ethical animals?

Did you get to review the links I posted? Whether it's correct or not, science does indeed have a rationale for the origin of human ethics.

 

[S.A.M.]

But that's the problem, [name removed]: in your own words, you survived only because you respected their religious views.

Why should survival be contingent on an arbitrary concept? Why should I be forced to respect islam to debate with muslims and expect not to be killed? At what point does my questioning and argument turn into "disrespect"? Who decides that? An imam? A practitioner? Mohammed? Where do I cross the line? And why should that mean I should die?

When did argument/debate translate to disrespect?

If you live in a multicultural society as I always have, you need to recognize that all people have different opinions and beliefs and these are not always restricted to sexuality or religion, though those are the most sensitive.

So what gives any one person the right to determine what is right for everyone else? Fine you think one way, you are ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED this is the right way...Hey guess what! so is the other guy! So what next? Who attacks first? What is the consequence of that, that certain fundamentalist groups convince gulible teenagers they must "save" their religion and "attack the enemy"?

And, moreover: what respect does islam give to nonbelievers - we who are to be "committed to the fire", we who reject Allah and islam utterly, what is our fate? How much respect does islam give to us? How much to Christians, whose beliefs are considered so evil, so sacreligious, so inordinately heretical that breach of the shahada - that cornerstone of islam which rejects Jesus' divinity as making 'partners with God', and which muslims say makes up 1/2 to 1/3 of the entire faith - is so serious that it is considered the only unforgiveable religious crime in islam? How much respect should Christians feel from that, or about their characterization along with all other "nonbelievers" as filth on the level with human excrement?

See above; who gives power to the fundamentalists????

I know when all the ayats of Sura 9 were revealed - last. Or second to. "For if Allah takes away a verse, does he not supply a better with which to replace it?" What does that say about the peaceful verses of the Quran? Are you familiar with abrogation? What should we make of al-Buhkari's reporting of Mohammed's saying: "If a man changes his religion, kill him."

Why do people selectively quote the Quran and decide for themselves what the selected quote means?

Sam, these are all taken after the fact. You are attempting to fit evolution to religious preconception; you feel that the Quran was divinely revealed and that it must be the word of God, and so you scour the ayahs to find some way to reconcile your core appreciation of the absolutely huge amount of data behind evolutionary theory with something you have an emotional attachment to. They are seperate concepts; there is no evidence the Quran was constructed with any secret or special knowledge about natural theory, any more than there is any such evidence in the Bible

I gave an ayat; Q asked me did I believe it?; I said yes, it does not contradict what we know about evolution. Thats all.

It provides "answers" within a self-contained, unobjective version of reality. Science provides answers in the natural continuum of reality - which incidentally is the one we live in. In short: you cannot test for god. It might make you feel better about yourself, but so does Oprah, and she is not a deity, whatever she might think about that.

What is the reality of science? That which is obtained from knowledge and knowledge is a moving continuum. There was a time you could not test for cancer, for AIDS, does that mean it does not exist?

Which element of it?

Why don't you tell me?

 

[S.A.M.]

Did you get to review the links I posted? Whether it's correct or not, science does indeed have a rationale for the origin of human ethics.

I'll go through them and get back to you

*I am arguing about morality per se vs moral feelings; what is the origin of moral feelings even when an action is legally justifiable? e.g. legal murder like in war*

 

[(Q)]

Rather presumptuous of you to determine my background, but I'll let it slide.

Presumptuous perhaps, but correct nonetheless.

How many Muslims do you know?

Enough.

Depends which side of the fence you are looking from...

Oh really? Let's recap then. You've admitted to not knowing much about the topics of evolution, abiogenesis and cosmology but have also admitted to debating and extensively studying Islam and finding it correct.

In other words, you've studied religion and not the science of nature. You are therefore seriously restricted in your opinion of nature and how the universe came about.

You are therefore looking from ONLY one side of the fence.

One of two things must therefore occur - you will begin to undertake the research of such topics and make an informed decision regarding your religion, or you'll ignore those topics and remain ignorant in fundamentalism and dogma.

The latter will prevail if the fear of questioning your religion is an issue.

Right; which is why you see all Muslims with four wives?

You have to remember that the women must be willing, there is no marriage in Islam without the woman's consent; you missed the words "orphans" related to orphans of war; it is not a sanction for polygamy, but a protection for war widows and their children; when many men died in a particular war.

Polygamy is still polygamy anyway you slice it.

And you should remember that women are second class citizens in an Islamic state, not more or less the essence of chattel. Their rights as human beings are precluded by the practice of Islam, as I'm sure you've probably observed.

I did not claim the Quran was a science textbook; that is your expectation; I said I did not disbelieve what it said because I found no absolute contradiction to what is scientifically known.

But, you have admitted to know knowing what is scientifically known, hence you are unaware of the contradictions and have yet to form an informed opinion.

You are getting personal, Q and it is completely unnecessary.

I'm doing no such thing. Perhaps you perceive it that way as most Muslims do when Islam is questioned. It becomes personal. The fact that I mentioned you are approaching a fundamentalist view is merely an indication of your admittance to your ignorance on the science of nature - no big woop.

Does animal behavior determine human ethics?

Why would it? We can observe similar behaviours, though.

The origin of human ethics has no scientific rationale; science can only observe human moral behavior (and animal); it cannot effectively provide a reason for the origin of ethical behavior- at what point did humans decide what was right or wrong, develop a conscience and a consciousness of themselves as ethical animals?

That is the fundamentalist absolute view, not the scientific. You seriously need to do some research on the topic of evolution and behaviour.

Humans didn't "suddenly" decide one day to become ethical and moral, as is the main view of religion. You're religious view on morals is similar to the religious view of nature, that everything was made as is in its current form; creationism.

I think I'll stop here; we seem to have reached full circle and it seems pointless to go on.

It was nice talking to you though, I like that you can say a lot in very few words; I learned a lot.

I appreciate that, thank you. But I have also predicted, based on your responses, that you will follow the latter, and that you'll not research the topics you need to make an informed opinion, but will instead cling to the dogma of religion and remain a fundamentalist.

It is only pointless to go on if you don't wish to learn.

I apologize if that is personal to you, but it is, nonetheless, a fact.

 

[S.A.M.]

Presumptuous perhaps, but correct nonetheless.


Enough.



Oh really? Let's recap then. You've admitted to not knowing much about the topics of evolution, abiogenesis and cosmology but have also admitted to debating and extensively studying Islam and finding it correct.

In other words, you've studied religion and not the science of nature. You are therefore seriously restricted in your opinion of nature and how the universe came about.

You are therefore looking from ONLY one side of the fence.

One of two things must therefore occur - you will begin to undertake the research of such topics and make an informed decision regarding your religion, or you'll ignore those topics and remain ignorant in fundamentalism and dogma.

The latter will prevail if the fear of questioning your religion is an issue.



Polygamy is still polygamy anyway you slice it.

And you should remember that women are second class citizens in an Islamic state, not more or less the essence of chattel. Their rights as human beings are precluded by the practice of Islam, as I'm sure you've probably observed.



But, you have admitted to know knowing what is scientifically known, hence you are unaware of the contradictions and have yet to form an informed opinion.



I'm doing no such thing. Perhaps you perceive it that way as most Muslims do when Islam is questioned. It becomes personal. The fact that I mentioned you are approaching a fundamentalist view is merely an indication of your admittance to your ignorance on the science of nature - no big woop.



Why would it? We can observe similar behaviours, though.



That is the fundamentalist absolute view, not the scientific. You seriously need to do some research on the topic of evolution and behaviour.

Humans didn't "suddenly" decide one day to become ethical and moral, as is the main view of religion. You're religious view on morals is similar to the religious view of nature, that everything was made as is in its current form; creationism.



I appreciate that, thank you. But I have also predicted, based on your responses, that you will follow the latter, and that you'll not research the topics you need to make an informed opinion, but will instead cling to the dogma of religion and remain a fundamentalist.

It is only pointless to go on if you don't wish to learn.

I apologize if that is personal to you, but it is, nonetheless, a fact.

I did indicate that my knowledge of evoultion is limited and I did not defend my knowledge of evolution, if that is what you are saying.

I admit there are large gaps in my knowledge, but I am busy with other stuff right now, so I WILL get back to it and to you, about it.

What I DID debate about with you is my knowledge of Islam, about which I AM fairly confident.

If you cannot see that discussion of family, background and personal comments ( gullibility? wish to learn? ) is not personal, then we have different ideas about what constitutes personal.

It is possible to debate on a subject without venturing opinions on the other person's intelligence, personality or state of mind. Just not with you.

 

[superluminal]

*I am arguing about morality per se vs moral feelings; what is the origin of moral feelings even when an action is legally justifiable? e.g. legal murder like in war*

It's contained in the theory of evolutionary group selection. The origin of these feelings is not something you decide on.

War is fundamentally a means of ensuring the survival of a group. Those groups who could not or would not engage in "war" were selected against. They were wiped out by those who would. The moral feelings you speak of are conditional. In peacetime, murder (usually within the group) is abhorred. It clearly disrupts the group dynamic, unless it is in the interest of the group to get rid of a bad apple (a habitual theif, for instance). We easily overcome our moral revulsion at murder when the group (and therefore we) are threatened.

 

[S.A.M.]

It's contained in the theory of evolutionary group selection. The origin of these feelings is not something you decide on.

War is fundamentally a means of ensuring the survival of a group. Those groups who could not or would not engage in "war" were selected against. They were wiped out by those who would. The moral feelings you speak of are conditional. In peacetime, murder (usually within the group) is abhorred. It clearly disrupts the group dynamic, unless it is in the interest of the group to get rid of a bad apple (a habitual theif, for instance). We easily overcome our moral revulsion at murder when the group (and therefore we) are threatened.

So there is no difference between morality and moral feelings?

 

[Godless]

Are we fighting?

Hi Sam, I was answering muslim..This was not directed at you.


Wikipedia can be very bias as it's defenitions are contributed by any one who posts there their opinions.

By the nature of your religion Ali's life is at stake.
Islamic tolerance alert: Ali Sina threatened with death

So in any time this man, comes close to debate any muslim in person he does at great risk of his life.

Rational Thinking explores Islam

Godless

 

[superluminal]

So there is no difference between morality and moral feelings?

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're trying to make.

What is the difference between love and feelings of love?
What is the difference between pain and feelings of pain?
What is the difference between righteousness and feelings of righteousness?

I would say that moral feelings (that we evolved to have) are the root of our morality. Seems pretty straightforward to me. There are clearly many "secondary" morals that humans have invented to help make society run better (or to control the masses), like not going around naked in public, or swearing in church, or not eating meat on certain days, or making sex a dirty thing (however, there is good reasoning behind why humans almost universally have sex in private).

 

[S.A.M.]

Hi Sam, I was answering muslim..This was not directed at you.


Wikipedia can be very bias as it's defenitions are contributed by any one who posts there their opinions.

By the nature of your religion Ali's life is at stake.
Islamic tolerance alert: Ali Sina threatened with death

So in any time this man, comes close to debate any muslim in person he does at great risk of his life.

Rational Thinking explores Islam

Godless

This is only my opinion, but I would take Ali Sina with a very big pinch of salt.

If the Islamists wanted to really do away with him, they would not advertise it.

 

[(Q)]

I did indicate that my knowledge of evoultion is limited and I did not defend my knowledge of evolution, if that is what you are saying.

I admit there are large gaps in my knowledge, but I am busy with other stuff right now, so I WILL get back to it and to you, about it.

That would be beneficial, please do.

What I DID debate about with you is my knowledge of Islam, about which I AM fairly confident.

That's fine, but you can't agree that your knowledge of Islam and your knowledge of those other topics allows you to form an opinion in regards to finding connectivity between them.

If you cannot see that discussion of family, background and personal comments ( gullibility? wish to learn? ) is not personal, then we have different ideas about what constitutes personal.

Sorry, but when you exhibit those traits, they should be noted as they will affect your ability to discuss the topics.

It is possible to debate on a subject without venturing opinions on the other person's intelligence, personality or state of mind. Just not with you.

I apologize if the facts are not congruent to your being offended by them. You were beginning to go around in circles and I was forced to make assumptions based on your responses. You took that personal.

I can also conclude that we are venturing too close to the mark and that you simply don't want to go there as it may offend your religious beliefs.

That's fine, but you must understand that religion and the beliefs held by those who follow religion offends people's intelligence, which you have done. I have not made mention of me being personally offended by your beliefs, simply because it is the nature of what we're discussing.

For example, if you believe in a particular tenet of your religion that is contradicted by science, yet continue to believe regardless of the facts, I can only conclude delusion on your part. What other conclusion can anyone come to other than that? It's personal, yes, but the discussion ends there if the issue of delusion cannot be resolved.

 

[S.A.M.]

That would be beneficial, please do.



That's fine, but you can't agree that your knowledge of Islam and your knowledge of those other topics allows you to form an opinion in regards to finding connectivity between them.



Sorry, but when you exhibit those traits, they should be noted as they will affect your ability to discuss the topics.



I apologize if the facts are not congruent to your being offended by them. You were beginning to go around in circles and I was forced to make assumptions based on your responses. You took that personal.

I can also conclude that we are venturing too close to the mark and that you simply don't want to go there as it may offend your religious beliefs.

That's fine, but you must understand that religion and the beliefs held by those who follow religion offends people's intelligence, which you have done. I have not made mention of me being personally offended by your beliefs, simply because it is the nature of what we're discussing.

For example, if you believe in a particular tenet of your religion that is contradicted by science, yet continue to believe regardless of the facts, I can only conclude delusion on your part. What other conclusion can anyone come to other than that? It's personal, yes, but the discussion ends there if the issue of delusion cannot be resolved.

Alright, I see what you are saying; I'll refrain from passing comments on scientific matters about which my knowledge is limited; it was precipitous of me and I don't usually go into a discussion ill-informed, which is why I was probably going around in circles.

No hard feelings.