Atheists and believers surprisingly share moral values, except for these 2 key differences

[PureX]

You make this claim, but fail to provide evidence that it is actually 'purposeful':" in other words, that there is intention behind it.

Design is a process of enforced order intended to achieve a specific result. The function of DNA is to impose a design process that intends to achieve specific results. That you refuse to acknowledge this is not my responsibility to overcome for you.

You are assuming there *is* a goal. And you do that without any reason for assuming such.

There is a specific result that has been predetermined by a specific design process. This is not an assumption. It is an observed fact. That you refuse to connect the process and the result of the process to infer intent is not my problem to deal with.

So it is action because of hope? That seems an unusual way to define it, but sure. In that case, how is it relevant to our discussion? What does it have to do with moral values or justifying such because of consequences?

The hope is that our embodying those gifts of the spirit as we live our lives will fulfill an existential purpose that remains hidden from us.

In that case, I would simply say that you are very lucky. I have found intuition to be *much* worse that evidence based decision making.

I suspect that your 'intuiter' is broken.

And, contrast to what you claim, the fact that intuition is immediate and 'inclusive' is *precisely* why it is overwhelmed with bias. It is the biases making the decision in that case, not rational consideration of the alternatives.

And I would simply say that if you have to explain this to most people, then it is *you* that is using the word incorrectly.

Which simply means there is no actual justification, only our own biases and feelings.

Intuition is like any other metaphysical tool available to we humans. The more we engage with it, the better we get at it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I accept that you are not.

I am not a believer in Deontology........TTFN

You are not?

You sure put a lot of value in rules for one who is not. Maybe I misunderstood you at some point.

 

[Polymath257]

Design is a process of enforced order intended to achieve a specific result.

Good. I like that definition.

The function of DNA is to impose a design process that intends to achieve specific results. That you refuse to acknowledge this is not my responsibility to overcome for you.

And what you fail to show is *intent*. DNA is a chemical molecule. It interacts chemically with other things in its environment. There is no 'goal' to achieve a specific result, merely chemicals doing what they do. There is no 'imposition' of order. There is simply order.

If you disagree, please give a good criterion for determining when there is intent and apply it to DNA.

There is a specific result that has been predetermined by a specific design process.

There is no evidence of 'design' outside of the evolutionary process that has no 'goal'. This is NOT order being imposed, but rather order simply existing because of the properties of chemicals.

This is not an assumption. It is an observed fact. That you refuse to connect the process and the result of the process to infer intent is not my problem to deal with.

No, the *intent* is not observed. In fact, there is no evidence of intent and every evidence otherwise (including the randomness of mutations and the way evolution works in practice).

The hope is that our embodying those gifts of the spirit as we live our lives will fulfill an existential purpose that remains hidden from us.

Do you see that this is a very different type of 'hope' than hoping our plans will work out on a day to day basis? For the day to day hopes, we have the observed order of things to base our intuitions and knowledge.

I suspect that your 'intuiter' is broken.

Intuition needs training by evidence.

Intuition is like any other metaphysical tool available to we humans. The more we engage with it, the better we get at it.

Yes, we learn by looking at the evidence and then modifying our intuition to fit reality.

 

[Stonetree]

You are not?

You sure put a lot of value in rules for one who is not. Maybe I misunderstood you at some point.

I have a bad habit of writing with my foot in my mouth........Have a Good Day.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I am suggesting that before intelligent beings conceptualized 'morals', there was a need for rules that governed the conduct of the members in any group or even a family. I see these basic rules as the seeds for 'morality'

I agree slavery is immoral. However, the conclusion that slavery is immoral is relatively new.

Here in America, some 500 years ago, slaves started running away and creating their own communities.

The evolution of the sexual division of labor and the the configuration of the family was specifically designed to protect the freedom of the family and the community in a slave regime.

It’s complicated. Matrilineal social culture. Avuncular. Stuff like that.

As for slavery, it was against their religion.

Many of the slave masters in Cauca were Idolaters who mistreated their slaves.

 

[Kathryn]

What if I am a Theist but also lean libertarian? Or at the very least, Independent. I definitely lean Libertarian however. For instance, sex acts - I choose not to participate in some but I don't think they should be against the law or anything like that. I mean, I think that any sexual act that is CONSENSUAL between adults should be fine even if personally I find it distasteful or worse. To me, there is a huge difference between what I personally want and what I see around me, and I'm actually fine with that. I can and do create my own world. I don't expect everyone else to agree with or go along with my idea of what my world is, but I also want the freedom to create my own world. (And others do join me there, which I enjoy!)

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

What if I am a Theist but also lean libertarian? Or at the very least, Independent. I definitely lean Libertarian however. For instance, sex acts - I choose not to participate in some but I don't think they should be against the law or anything like that. I mean, I think that any sexual act that is CONSENSUAL between adults should be fine even if personally I find it distasteful or worse. To me, there is a huge difference between what I personally want and what I see around me, and I'm actually fine with that. I can and do create my own world. I don't expect everyone else to agree with or go along with my idea of what my world is, but I also want the freedom to create my own world. (And others do join me there, which I enjoy!)

I didn’t know that makes somebody a libertarian.

This sort of stuff caused all sorts of problems when my wife’s culture sent emissaries reaching out to the colonial church back in the 1720s asking for a priest to perform baptisms, who in turn informed the colonial state as well.

It’s a long story, but the House of Bourbon had to come up with this novel political notion of a Separation of Powers within the monarchy since the colonial state considered their existence as illegal, since they had run away from their masters.

 

[Kathryn]

Oh, it's not just sex acts - it's a whole plethora of beliefs. That's just one example. Plus, I am not a libertarian, I just lean in that direction. I do consider myself to be an Independent though.

 

[Kathryn]

I didn’t know that makes somebody a libertarian.

This sort of stuff caused all sorts of problems when my wife’s culture sent emissaries reaching out to the colonial church back in the 1720s asking for a priest to perform baptisms, who in turn informed the colonial state as well.

It’s a long story, but the House of Bourbon had to come up with this novel political notion of a Separation of Powers within the monarchy since the colonial state considered their existence as illegal, since they had run away from their masters.

Oh, it's not just sex acts - it's a whole plethora of beliefs. That's just one example. Plus, I am not a libertarian, I just lean in that direction. I do consider myself to be an Independent though.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Oh, it's not just sex acts - it's a whole plethora of beliefs. That's just one example. Plus, I am not a libertarian, I just lean in that direction. I do consider myself to be an Independent though.

The problem was the configuration of the family, which was itself related to the sexual division of labor.

It was a matrilinear social culture in a larger patrilinear political culture of the Spanish empire.

 

[Kathryn]

The problem was the configuration of the family, which was itself related to the sexual division of labor.

It was a matrilinear social culture in a larger patrilinear political culture of the Spanish empire.

OK but I am not talking about any of that. I am talking about me, a woman in the 21st century in the USA.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

OK but I am not talking about any of that. I am talking about me, a woman in the 21st century in the USA.

I realized that afterwards. I initially thought that the word “Plus” demarked a transition between the two, so I thought I was replying to the first two sentences. Sorry.

 

[Kathryn]

I realized that afterwards. I initially thought that the word “Plus” demarked a transition between the two, so I thought I was replying to the first two sentences. Sorry.

No worries!

 

[Valjean]

I know, but it is. Faith is not 'belief', and faith is not 'religion'. Unfortunately these misconceptions serve a lot of people's bias, both religious and non-religious, and so the misuse of the term is very commonplace and very persistant.

Faith is HOW we make those decisions when we lack sufficient information.

You are acting on the hope that your "guess" will prove to be correct, even though you do not know that it will. That's called 'faith'.

..."Acting as if".

No one ever chooses to act on "hope alone". This is a false option created by people with ill intent.

It also often brings into effect things that we really did NOT want. Which is why a lot of people have a lot of trouble acting on faith. And why some people become obsessed with obtaining "evidential proof" that they will never get. Certainly not without taking the action.

So faith = guesswork.
Walk into any casino and you will see people acting on "faith alone."

This thinking is far too anthropomorphic and 'colloquial'. DNA is both functional and purposeful. In fact, all natural process is both functional and purposeful (I digress). But as we come to understand how it functions, this does not really help us to understand the purpose of this functionality. The result of the function of DNA (the continuation and variation of life) is presumably the purpose of it's functionality. But this doesn't really tell us anything because it doesn't tell us why the continuation and variation of life forms is a 'goal'.

What evidence is there that DNA and other natural processes are purposeful? Purpose implies intention and pre=planning.
Natural processes are functional. There is no evidence of design or purpose.
There is no evidence of a designer. The intricate functions of life-processes can appear designed, but they are explicable by the natural selection of ordinary chemistry and genetic variants.

Faith is not about having "confidence" (i.e., 'belief'). It's about trusting in our hopes enough to act on them when we do not have the confidence of belief.

Are they? That's not really how I have found that life works. I have found that intuition is as good as, and very often better than an "educated guess" based on partial and nearly always biased "evidence" when it comes to taking action in the face of the unknown. Intuition is more immediate and inclusive, and so less inclined toward bias.

I never interchange the words faith and belief. I am CONSTANTLY pointing out to people that these terms are NOT referring to the same things. And I am constantly explaining WHY they are not referring to the same things. But few will listen, because their bias is being served by their remaining ignorant.

Faith neither seeks nor requires any justifucation. It is a choice we make based on hope. Our hope and our unknowing are faith's justification.

"Faith" as you've explained it, is guesswork.

 

[Valjean]

Design is a process of enforced order intended to achieve a specific result. The function of DNA is to impose a design process that intends to achieve specific results. That you refuse to acknowledge this is not my responsibility to overcome for you.

There is a specific result that has been predetermined by a specific design process. This is not an assumption. It is an observed fact. That you refuse to connect the process and the result of the process to infer intent is not my problem to deal with.

The hope is that our embodying those gifts of the spirit as we live our lives will fulfill an existential purpose that remains hidden from us.

I suspect that your 'intuiter' is broken.

Intuition is like any other metaphysical tool available to we humans. The more we engage with it, the better we get at it.

But there is no evidence of intentional design. There is a much more familiar and evidenced explanation for the appearance of design in Nature.

 

[PureX]

So faith = guesswork.

There was no need to try and make it look foolish. Faith is hope in the face of our unknowing, expressed through action. There is no guessing involved. Only possibility, hope, and the courage to act on it.

Walk into any casino and you will see people acting on "faith alone."

What evidence is there that DNA and other natural processes are purposeful? Purpose implies intention and pre=planning.
Natural processes are functional. There is no evidence of design or purpose.
There is no evidence of a designer. The intricate functions of life-processes can appear designed, but they are explicable by the natural selection of ordinary chemistry and genetic variants.

"Faith" as you've explained it, is guesswork.

Only if you just want to denigrate it.

 

[PureX]

But there is no evidence of intentional design. There is a much more familiar and evidenced explanation for the appearance of design in Nature.

Design is itself evidence of intent. But evidence isn’t proof.

 

[Valjean]

There was no need to try and make it look foolish. Faith is hope in the face of our unknowing, expressed through action. There is no guessing involved. Only possibility, hope, and the courage to act on it.

Only if you just want to denigrate it.

How is uninformed hope any different from guesswork?
Hope without knowledge is a guess -- that a belief or action will prove true/expedient.

Design is itself evidence of intent. But evidence isn’t proof.

Yes, "design" implies intent, and intent implies a conscious, planning entity.
But function and complexity can be explained without any plan or planner. They are not evidence of intent. They are evidence of ordinary, automatic, chemistry or physics.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How is uninformed hope any different from guesswork?
Hope without knowledge is a guess -- that a belief or action will prove true/expedient.

Yes, "design" implies intent, and intent implies a conscious, planning entity.
But function and complexity can be explained without any plan or planner. They are not evidence of intent. They are evidence of ordinary, automatic, chemistry or physics.

Well, I have no evidence that the universe is real, fair, orderly, knowable and so on. So I act on faith and the hope that the universe is that.
Now if you have solved the main eopistemological problem of knoweldge, evidence and so on, please start a thread in a debate (sub-)forum and explain how you do it.
I have been doing this for close to 30 years now and I have never seen evidence for the correct version of evidence. I have observed* that humans use different cogntive models, but that is just that.
*used as per the axiomatic assumptions that the universe is real, fair, orderly, knowable and so on.

 

[PureX]

How is uninformed hope any different from guesswork?

No one said hope is "uninformed" but you?

Hope without knowledge is a guess -- that a belief or action will prove true/expedient.

There is no such thing as hope without knowledge. You're trying to impose irrational extremism as an excuse to dismiss. Why are you doing that?

We all act on our hopes all the time without knowing that they will be fulfilled. We have to, because we are not omniscient. And also because we understand that sometimes we can actually bring about the thing we were hoping for by trusting in the possibility of it, and acting accordingly. We all engage in acts of faith all the time. We really have no choice.

Yes, "design" implies intent, and intent implies a conscious, planning entity.

I agree. But logically, conscious intent is not necessary. Design can and does occur without it.

But function and complexity can be explained without any plan or planner.

People love to presume that understanding how a design functions "explains" why it exists. But it doesn't. It only explains how it works. But for those who are looking to prop up a bias, this phony "explanation" provides them with an excuse not to look any further. Because they don't want see anything beyond their bias.

They are not evidence of intent. They are evidence of ordinary, automatic, chemistry or physics.

Explaining a design process is not an explanation of anything but the process. The question of design intent requires that we explain the existence of the process. Ignoring this question does not make it go away.