The Best Evidence of a Creator is Also a Blow to Traditional Religion

[joe1776]

Logical arguments are often built on a basic premise. The argument might be perfectly logical thereafter, but if the basic premise is false, the argument is invalid. For many centuries, theologians and philosophers have almost universally agreed on the premise that the judgments of conscience are the product of reason.

[Example] From the Catholic Catechism: 1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason...

This basic premise is the foundation of the arguments supporting the moral judgments of our social institutions like religion and criminal justice. Philosopher David Hume (1711 - 1776) was one of the few intellectuals who didn't agree with this premise. He said that our moral judgments were based on feelings. Now, it seems that research will support Hume's opinion .

Over the past 20 years or so, research has been confirming that our sense of right and wrong is intuitive and not a product of reason. An unpleasant feeling which signals wrong emerges instantly from the unconscious when we encounter an immoral act. One researcher puts it this way:

Humans are born with a hard-wired morality: a sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. I know this claim might sound outlandish, but it's supported now by research in several laboratories --- Paul Bloom, Yale psychologist.

Years ago, I suspected Hume was right when I considered the axiom that all knowledge begins with the senses. It's about cause and effect: before we learn, we first have to notice an effect and then wonder about it. Since we can't see, hear, smell or taste the difference between right and wrong, we must feel it. I concluded that everything we think we know about morality, we humans learned from those feelings that we refer to as conscience.

Furthermore, if the judgments of conscience were the product of reason as the world seems to believe, then there would be an obvious correlation between intelligence (the talent for reasoning) and morality. We've never noticed that correlation. In general, smart people aren't morally superior to the less intelligent.

Perhaps because reason is a function of the conscious mind associated with the ego, we humans engage in Reason Worship.

Due to Reason Worship, our reasoning minds want to learn about morality from conscience and then make moral rules. When our moral rule doesn't conflict with the guidance of conscience, it does no harm. It's simply unnecessary. When our moral rule conflicts with conscience, it becomes a potential bias capable of misleading those who follow it. Since they can only be unnecessary at their best, and biases at their worst, moral rules should be abandoned.

If I'm right, the following products of moral reasoning will be undermined in the future:

-- most of the work of ethical philosophers
-- the moral guidance of religious leaders
-- the moral guidance interpreted from religious texts
-- criminal justice laws

If I'm right, we humans have a universal conscience. It doesn't seem so because all cultures aren't on the same moral level. For example, in 1860, half the world had abolished legal slavery and the other half had not. It wasn't until the year 2000 that this conscience-driven moral advance had run its course. There are other conscience-driven human rights advances happening now with some cultures lagging behind others.

While the idea that we humans have a universal conscience undermines the notion of traditional religion as a moral authority, it's evidence that a Creator might exist and that we humans were given freewill along with a dirt-simple but quite remarkable internal moral guidance system. We can follow its guidance or not.

It's not compelling evidence of a Creator because an atheist can argue that the intuitive judgments of conscience are well-aligned with the survival of our species and, as such, they're a product of evolution.

 

[PureX]

Over the past 20 years or so, research has been confirming that our sense of right and wrong is intuitive and not a product of reason. An unpleasant feeling which signals wrong emerges instantly from the unconscious when we encounter an immoral act.

Intuition is not exclusive of reason. Intuition is just faster, since it is not bogged down by a conscious narrative.

 

[joe1776]

Intuition is not exclusive of reason. Intuition is just faster, since it is not bogged down by a conscious narrative.

It's not exclusive of reason? What do you mean by that?

 

[PureX]

It's not exclusive of reason? What do you mean by that?

There is no evidence to suggest that intuition lacks reason. It only lacks a conscious awareness of the reasoning process.

 

[joe1776]

There is no evidence to suggest that intuition lacks reason. It only lacks a conscious awareness of the reasoning process.

Is there any evidence to suggest that intuition has anything at all to do with reasoning? If so, explain it, please.

 

[February-Saturday]

Plenty of us do not have consciences. The conscience is based on a delicate interplay between guilt, affective empathy, and judgment. Not only are each of these very selective, they're also rather temperamental and are more and less sensitive depending on the person. Somebody might have more empathy and less guilt, or more judgment and less empathy, and I highly doubt that we could discern which one all humans are "supposed" to have.

If you factor in mental illness, the whole concept goes right out the window. A lot of mental illness deals with reduced or inappropriate emotion, irrational thinking, preoccupation with things that might become a higher priority than any component of the conscience, pathological egocentrism, and so on. So the conscience is definitely not universal.

The fact that different cultures can vary wildly at all should already show you that. There wouldn't be what you call "different moral levels" if there was one universal conscience. Some people still have their conscience tell them that we should re-enact slavery, or at least replace it with something similar, and slavery hasn't exactly gone away.

Arguments from a conscience is ultimately emotional reasoning, which isn't really reason at all. I don't think it's rational to compare the conscience with reason at all.

Although, admittedly, I'd be one of those people that doesn't have one, so maybe I'm not the right woman to comment on this. I see a lot of people with consciences constantly torn in completely different directions, though. If there's an underlying universal reason there, I'm not seeing it.

I do find it interesting that a lot of ethical systems move increasingly towards Pantheism. Even Humanist movements have started giving credence to animal rights activism, for instance. A lot of modern ethical and moral systems come from religions who had their mandates composed by mystics, and mysticism tends to run incredibly close with Pantheism if the two concepts can even be divorced from each other.

In that sense, maybe there's a universal morality there in those philosophies and practices, but I don't buy that it's tied into our consciences. Not that I would know, but I doubt it.

 

[Quintessence]

Is there any evidence to suggest that intuition has anything at all to do with reasoning? If so, explain it, please.

Intuition is basically another way of describing heuristics, or cognitive shorthands or "rules of thumb" people use to make quick decisions in day-to-day life. The heuristics we build are based on past experiences and are a type of reasoning. Note that no form of reasoning is error-free, and this includes heuristics.

Not sure if this is what PureX was thinking of, but it's what I thought of at any rate.

 

[exchemist]

Intuition is basically another way of describing heuristics, or cognitive shorthands or "rules of thumb" people use to make quick decisions in day-to-day life. The heuristics we build are based on past experiences and are a type of reasoning. Note that no form of reasoning is error-free, and this includes heuristics.

Not sure if this is what PureX was thinking of, but it's what I thought of at any rate.

I thought the same. However that explanation of intuition, as a product of experience that is able to short-circuit the conscious reasoning process and reach a conclusion more rapidly, doesn't seem consistent with the idea of a "hard-wired" moral sense, from birth, as one of the quoted sources suggests.

 

[metis]

Over the past 20 years or so, research has been confirming that our sense of right and wrong is intuitive and not a product of reason.

Partially.

We humans are very similar to both chimps and dogs in that we are also territorial creatures like they, with strong in-group/out-group dichotomies that appear to be at least somewhat genetically driven. Our in-group we tend to treat generally well minus the periodic fights for leadership. The out-group we tend to view with suspicion or even disdain.

 

[GardenLady]

Since we can't see, hear, smell or taste the difference between right and wrong, we must feel it. I concluded that everything we think we know about morality, we humans learned from those feelings that we refer to as conscience.

But we do see and hear the consequences of many actions, such as the result of cruelty and of kindness, the joy of love and the pain of adultery, the benefits of meaningful charity versus the financial damage of stealing or fraud, etc. While the world of the toddler or preschooler is smaller and the lessons perhaps simpler, they still observe the consequences hitting or taking things from others or saying mean things.

We've never noticed that correlation. In general, smart people aren't morally superior to the less intelligent.

Perhaps the threshold for observing and internalizing the difference between right and wrong is very different from that required to get a college or graduate degree or to understand quantum mechanics.

 

[joe1776]

Plenty of us do not have consciences. The conscience is based on a delicate interplay between guilt, affective empathy, and judgment. Not only are each of these very selective, they're also rather temperamental and are more and less sensitive depending on the person. Somebody might have more empathy and less guilt, or more judgment and less empathy, and I highly doubt that we could discern which one all humans are "supposed" to have.

If you factor in mental illness, the whole concept goes right out the window. A lot of mental illness deals with reduced or inappropriate emotion, irrational thinking, preoccupation with things that might become a higher priority than any component of the conscience, pathological egocentrism, and so on. So the conscience is definitely not universal.

The fact that different cultures can vary wildly at all should already show you that. There wouldn't be what you call "different moral levels" if there was one universal conscience. Some people still have their conscience tell them that we should re-enact slavery, or at least replace it with something similar, and slavery hasn't exactly gone away.

Arguments from a conscience is ultimately emotional reasoning, which isn't really reason at all. I don't think it's rational to compare the conscience with reason at all.

Although, admittedly, I'd be one of those people that doesn't have one, so maybe I'm not the right woman to comment on this. I see a lot of people with consciences constantly torn in completely different directions, though. If there's an underlying universal reason there, I'm not seeing it.

I do find it interesting that a lot of ethical systems move increasingly towards Pantheism. Even Humanist movements have started giving credence to animal rights activism, for instance. A lot of modern ethical and moral systems come from religions who had their mandates composed by mystics, and mysticism tends to run incredibly close with Pantheism if the two concepts can even be divorced from each other.

In that sense, maybe there's a universal morality there in those philosophies and practices, but I don't buy that it's tied into our consciences. Not that I would know, but I doubt it.

Because of birth defects, there are people born without arms and legs, so it's possible that people are born without consciences, but my argument is concerned with what is generally true and not with the exceptions.

You imply that you don't have a conscience. If that's true, you haven't experienced it. Yet, you have theories about how it is formed in others.

You mentioned guilt. That feeling is conscience in operation, but you've never felt guilt?

However, empathy is not a factor in whether an act is moral or immoral. It is a factor in whether one follows the guidance of conscience or not. Conscience is a moral guide only.

 

[February-Saturday]

Because of birth defects, there are people born without arms and legs, so it's possible that people are born without consciences, but my argument is concerned with what is generally true and not with the exceptions.

I'm not quite sure mental illness can be just shooed away as a "birth defect." It's a bit more complicated than that. Our modern conception of what constitutes a mental illness is constantly changing; it's mostly a social construct. That's especially true when you get into autism and personality disorders, especially higher-functioning cases.

Moreover, a lot of mental illnesses are just severe forms of what those without mental illness experience, so they're important to consider when you're making broad statements about psychology. These aren't people that are missing parts of their brain. They just think differently, and the threshold between not having a mental illness and being mentally ill but high functioning is a very difficult line to draw.

Most people meet sub-clinical criteria for a variety of mental illnesses, so these points don't just refer to people who are clinically diagnosed as above those lines. It applies to a wide number of people with similar minds. Due to this intense neurodiversity, the whole concept of an "average" conscience doesn't really make sense. Or at the very least, it's not going to be a clear enough picture that you can form a moral theory out of.

You imply that you don't have a conscience. If that's true, you haven't experienced it. Yet, you have theories about how it is formed in others.

Not really, I'm repeating what psychologists and ethicists have noted on the subject, and my own observations of people's actions. I won't pretend to know what goes on in their heads.

You mentioned guilt. That feeling is conscience in operation, but you've never felt guilt?

I have my regrets, but I'm assured by my psychologists that regret is not the same thing.

However, empathy is not a factor in whether an act is moral or immoral. It is a factor in whether one follows the guidance of conscience or not. Conscience is a moral guide only.

I've never heard the conscience defined like this, but I think it's irrelevant. Your empathy is definitely informing you on whether you consider a specific act moral or not. If you don't understand that, you might be low on the empathy spectrum, too. If that's the case, I'm sorry you had to find out this way.

 

[metis]

I think in this area, it's likely both nature and nurture that's involved, and it's often quite difficult to figure out how much of each is at play. It's probably variable from one person to another, my guess.

 

[joe1776]

Intuition is basically another way of describing heuristics, or cognitive shorthands or "rules of thumb" people use to make quick decisions in day-to-day life. The heuristics we build are based on past experiences and are a type of reasoning. Note that no form of reasoning is error-free, and this includes heuristics.

Not sure if this is what PureX was thinking of, but it's what I thought of at any rate.

My understanding of heuristics involves probability or "rules of thumb" as you put it. Probability is not involved in moral judgments.

The killing in case A might be judged as murder while the killing in case B might be justified and yet, once all the relevant facts are known in each case, conscience will instantly judge both.

 

[joe1776]

Partially.

We humans are very similar to both chimps and dogs in that we are also territorial creatures like they, with strong in-group/out-group dichotomies that appear to be at least somewhat genetically driven. Our in-group we tend to treat generally well minus the periodic fights for leadership. The out-group we tend to view with suspicion or even disdain.

Group pride and group prejudice are biases which will affect how we act. They explain why we sometimes don't follow the guidance of our conscience. But, they aren't evidence that we humans don't share a universal conscience.

 

[joe1776]

I think in this area, it's likely both nature and nurture that's involved, and it's often quite difficult to figure out how much of each is at play. It's probably variable from one person to another, my guess.

Nature and nurture are involved in our behavior, but conscience is a moral guide only. It won't vary in its guidance from one person to another.

Harvard has had a Moral Sense Test online now for several years. It's showing consistency in moral judgments across all demographics: age, religion, culture and so on.

 

[joe1776]

But we do see and hear the consequences of many actions, such as the result of cruelty and of kindness, the joy of love and the pain of adultery, the benefits of meaningful charity versus the financial damage of stealing or fraud, etc. While the world of the toddler or preschooler is smaller and the lessons perhaps simpler, they still observe the consequences hitting or taking things from others or saying mean things.

Perhaps the threshold for observing and internalizing the difference between right and wrong is very different from that required to get a college or graduate degree or to understand quantum mechanics.

Here's an article from the NY Times on your point...The Moral Life of Babies

 

[PureX]

Is there any evidence to suggest that intuition has anything at all to do with reasoning? If so, explain it, please.

Well, if intuition did not result in reasonable propositions, we would ignore it all together. I am an artist. I have acted on intuition in the creative process MANY times, and found that it is often able to provide me with a better (more reasonable) course of action than any I could have arrived at by conscious deliberation. And I am quite certain that any artist, anywhere, would echo this sentiment. In fact, so will anyone who engages in creative activities.

 

[joe1776]

Well, if intuition did not result in reasonable propositions, we would ignore it all together. I am an artist. I have acted on intuition in the creative process MANY times, and found that it is often able to provide me with a better (more reasonable) course of action than any I could have arrived at by conscious deliberation. And I am quite certain that any artist, anywhere, would echo this sentiment. In fact, so will anyone who engages in creative activities.

We have a different definition for the word reasonable. I have talent as an artist. I've painted and I've judged the work of others for many years. And I have never once used the word "reasonable" to describe what I see.

A reasonable judgment can be explained. Intuitive moral judgments usually can't be explained. Researchers (Haidt 2000) determined that the judgments of conscience were intuitive because the judgments came immediately and the attempts to explain, which followed, were rarely good explanations..

 

[PureX]

We have a different definition for the word reasonable. I have talent as an artist. I've painted and I've judged the work of others for many years. And I have never once used the word "reasonable" to describe what I see.

And yet what you see would make no sense to you if you were not able to recognize the "reasoning" behind the various decision the artist made in creating the object before you.

A reasonable judgment can be explained. Intuitive moral judgments usually can't be explained.

Being unaware of the reasoning by which we intuit something does not mean that reason was absent. It just means that it happened subconsciously: intuitively. Our lack of explanation isn't because there isn't one, it's because we arrived at it subconsciously.

Researchers (Haidt 2000) determined that the judgments of conscience were intuitive because the judgments came immediately and the attempts to explain, which followed, were rarely good explanations..

The whole point of intuition is to allow our brains to arrive at a conclusion without the burden of being consciously aware of every step. So of course if you then ask the person to consciously explain the thought process by which he intuited a conclusion, he will have difficulty, because the whole point of intuition is to circumvent that process.