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

[Left Coast]

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

How do you figure? If I know action A is likely to cause outcome X, and action B is likely to cause outcome Y, and X is morally preferable to Y, I'm going to opt for action A (presuming my goal is to behave morally).

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.

Collection and careful methodical analysis of all relevant facts in a case, as happens in a trial, is not "intuition" by any normative definition. Intuition makes a call before seeing all the facts and carefully reasoning them out. That's the whole distinction.

 

[Jimmy]

I think my soul is more than just the five senses.

 

[joe1776]

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.

Please don't be offended, but what you wrote makes no sense to me. It seems obvious that you define the key words like "sense" and "reasoning" in ways that I don't understand.

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.

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.

There is no evidence that I can think of to support your belief in subconscious reasoning. Am I wrong to think that it's a faith-based belief?

 

[joe1776]

How do you figure? If I know action A is likely to cause outcome X, and action B is likely to cause outcome Y, and X is morally preferable to Y, I'm going to opt for action A (presuming my goal is to behave morally).

Apples and oranges. Conscience is moral guidance, only involved in the moral judgment. Your selection of action A is a freewill choice.

Collection and careful methodical analysis of all relevant facts in a case, as happens in a trial, is not "intuition" by any normative definition. Intuition makes a call before seeing all the facts and carefully reasoning them out. That's the whole distinction.

What exactly happened? Who did it? These are questions of fact to be determined by reasoning minds.

Was this act immoral or not? This is a question of conscience. The answer will be intuitively felt by the consciences of unbiased jurors.

 

[Left Coast]

Apples and oranges. Conscience is moral guidance, only involved in the moral judgment. Your selection of action A is a freewill choice.

But my selection ("freewill" is a misnomer) occurs only after I reason through which action is morally preferable.

What exactly happened? Who did it? These are questions of fact to be determined by reasoning minds.

Was this act immoral? This is a question of conscience. The answer will be intuitively felt by the consciences of unbiased jurors.

It may be intuitively felt, that's true, but not always. And sometimes our intuitions are simply incorrect.

 

[PureX]

Please don't be offended, but what you wrote makes no sense to me. It seems obvious that you define the key words like "sense" and "reasoning" in ways that I don't understand.

To reason is to create an intellectual pathway from a quandary to a resolution using facts and logic. We can do it consciously, and deliberately, or we can do it subconsciously, and intuitively. But either way, reason is the term we use to refer to that intellectual pathway from a quandary to it's resolution.

 

[metis]

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

Agreed.

but conscience is a moral guide only. It won't vary in its guidance from one person to another.

Again, I find no evidence for that. For example, some cultures practiced human sacrifice believing that this was God(s) will.

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.

Thanks, and I'll check it out.

 

[joe1776]

But my selection ("freewill" is a misnomer) occurs only after I reason through which action is morally preferable.

Let's start again. You were debating my claim that probability is not involved in moral judgments and you wrote:

How do you figure? If I know action A is likely to cause outcome X, and action B is likely to cause outcome Y, and X is morally preferable to Y, I'm going to opt for action A (presuming my goal is to behave morally).

Your determination that X was morally preferable was a judgment of conscience not determined by probability. Your decision to opt for action A is your freewill choice and not a judgment of conscience.

It may be intuitively felt, that's true, but not always. And sometimes our intuitions are simply incorrect.

Conscience is the only moral authority we have so the judgments of conscience have to be regarded as correct.

 

[joe1776]

Again, I find no evidence for that. For example, some cultures practiced human sacrifice believing that this was God(s) will.

Bear in mind that conscience is a moral guide only. People don't always do the right thing for any number of reasons. Being told that it is God's Will by someone in authority is just one of thousands of reasons to ignore one's conscience.

 

[Left Coast]

Let's start again...Your determination that X was morally preferable was a judgment of conscience not determined by probability.

Incorrect. It was a judgment predicated explicitly and directly on the probability of the outcomes of my choices.

Your decision to opt for action A is your freewill choice and not a judgment of conscience.

Again, "freewill" is a misnomer.

Conscience is the only moral authority we have so the judgments of conscience have to be regarded as correct.

So Hitler's belief that exterminating the Jews was morally justified must be regarded as correct? Surely you can't actually think that.

In more routine examples, your view seems to lead quite quickly to contradictions. People, for example, have genuine differences of opinion on the morality of abortion. Some people's conscience informs them that all abortion is morally unjustified. Other people's conscience informs them differently. They can't both be correct, if they're using the same definition of "morally justified."

 

[joe1776]

Incorrect. It was a judgment predicated explicitly and directly on the probability of the outcomes of my choices.

We still have a misunderstanding but one not worth pursuing.

Again, "freewill" is a misnomer.

The word conveys my meaning.

So Hitler's belief that exterminating the Jews was morally justified must be regarded as correct? Surely you can't actually think that.

No, I don't. What makes you think that Hitler was acting on his conscience? I doubt that he owned one.

In more routine examples, your view seems to lead quite quickly to contradictions. People, for example, have genuine differences of opinion on the morality of abortion. Some people's conscience informs them that all abortion is morally unjustified. Other people's conscience informs them differently. They can't both be correct, if they're using the same definition of "morally justified."

When we hear of a cold-blooded murder, we immediately feel the wrongness. This is followed for an urge to punish the wrongdoer. This urge to punish is confirmation of our judgment.

When people say that abortion is murder but they don't have the urge to severely punish the woman who aborts, it should alert us to a mistake in reasoning.

Furthermore, conscience makes judgments case by case. There is no act that is always wrong or always justified. So, there might be individual cases of abortions that are immoral. We'd need to hear all the facts of the case.

 

[Left Coast]

No, I don't. What makes you think that Hitler was acting on his conscience? I doubt that he owned one.

This seems to be a variety of No True Scotsman. The fact that Hitler's conscience differed from others doesn't demonstrate he didn't have one. He wrote a whole book explaining why he had the moral views about Jews he had. We have as much reason to think he was operating on what he felt was moral as we have for anyone else.

When we hear of a cold-blooded murder, we immediately feel the wrongness. This is followed for an urge to punish the wrongdoer. This urge to punish is confirmation of our judgment.

Sometimes. Other cases (in fact, I'd argue most) are more morally complex.

When people say that abortion is murder but they don't have the urge to severely punish the woman who aborts, it should alert us to a mistake in reasoning.

People can believe abortion (in some or all cases) is morally unjustified without believing it's the moral equivalent of cold-blooded murder. The fact remains that people's consciences differ on this point, precisely because it is a complex situation that requires us to weigh (ie rationally consider) multiple competing moral values.

Furthermore, conscience makes judgments case by case. There is no act that is always wrong or always justified.

To some people. Other people disagree.

So, there might be individual cases of abortions that are immoral. We'd need to hear all the facts of the case.

Again, why would we need to hear all the facts if our moral beliefs are purely intuited? The only reason we'd need to hear all the facts is if we needed to apply reason (indeed, even just hearing and comprehending all the facts would require us to reason).

 

[joe1776]

This seems to be a variety of No True Scotsman. The fact that Hitler's conscience differed from others doesn't demonstrate he didn't have one. He wrote a whole book explaining why he had the moral views about Jews he had. We have as much reason to think he was operating on what he felt was moral as we have for anyone else.

Psychologists tell us that psychopaths lack a conscience. Now, it's possible that they know the difference between right and wrong, but just don't care. But you are the first person I've ever encountered who speculated that people might have different consciences.

However, I think that whether an act is morally right or wrong is determined by the collective conscience of a group of people (like a jury) who are uninvolved and unbiased on the relevant issue. If Hitler and his Axis allies had been pursuing a worthy cause, they would not have been defeated by the cooperative effort of 55 nations (most were not under threat).

People can believe abortion (in some or all cases) is morally unjustified without believing it's the moral equivalent of cold-blooded murder. The fact remains that people's consciences differ on this point, precisely because it is a complex situation that requires us to weigh (ie rationally consider) multiple competing moral values.

Consciences don't differ on abortion because conscience doesn't make judgments about national policies. Conscience judges individual acts, real or imagined, case by case. The abortion issue was created by people who used their reasoning minds to make up a moral rule.

Again, why would we need to hear all the facts if our moral beliefs are purely intuited? The only reason we'd need to hear all the facts is if we needed to apply reason (indeed, even just hearing and comprehending all the facts would require us to reason).

You added the word "purely" to my claims. I'm not claiming that conscience can determine the facts of a moral case.

 

[blü 2]

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:



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.

There have been a number of studies of morality this century, not least from the study of infants, including pre-verbal babies, and anthropological surveys of a range of cultures.

Yes, we have a set of evolved moral instincts, starting with mammalian nurture and protection of infants, but necessarily exaggerated because the human infant uniquely takes four or five years to become independent.

We dislike the one who harms, we like fairness and reciprocity, we respect authority, we're loyal to the group, and we get a sense of self-worth / virtue from self-denial.

We also have empathy ─ last time I checked it was still being debated whether this could be attributed to mirror neurons. And we've evolved to have a conscience, the idea that some of our moral feelings aren't merely personal to us but have universal application (though our lists don't coincide).

The rest of our morality we get from our upbringing, culture, education and experience ─ how to dress, how to eat in a group, meeting males and females who are younger, older, relatives, strangers, &c, the rules of excreting, social customs such as whether at a wedding a bride-price, a dowry, or something else, or nothing, is payable, and so on.

O

 

[joe1776]

There have been a number of studies of morality this century, not least from the study of infants, including pre-verbal babies, and anthropological surveys of a range of cultures.

Yes, we have a set of evolved moral instincts, starting with mammalian nurture and protection of infants, but necessarily exaggerated because the human infant uniquely takes four or five years to become independent.

We dislike the one who harms, we like fairness and reciprocity, we respect authority, we're loyal to the group, and we get a sense of self-worth / virtue from self-denial.

We also have empathy ─ last time I checked it was still being debated whether this could be attributed to mirror neurons. And we've evolved to have a conscience, the idea that some of our moral feelings aren't merely personal to us but have universal application (though our lists don't coincide).

The rest of our morality we get from our upbringing, culture, education and experience ─ how to dress, how to eat in a group, meeting males and females who are younger, older, relatives, strangers, &c, the rules of excreting, social customs such as whether at a wedding a bride-price, a dowry, or something else, or nothing, is payable, and so on.

O

Your summary seems like a good one. That's pretty much where the science on morality is right now. Some of it doesn't make sense to me. However, there's nothing on the current slate that would counter the argument I made in the OP.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

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.

I agree that religion ought to have a strong reason component. However, I do not agree that all knowledge begins with the senses, nor does it end there.

Do I knock three times on the ceiling? Because it insists the answer is no.

While many of what we know about the physical world can in fact be trusted (see the thread where someone insisted that testimony cannot be trusted, and how they booed that idea down), this cannot be all there is. There are things that can be seen but not touched, things that can be touched but not seen, and things that cannot be grasped at all by the senses (like the tree falling in the forest) yet leave evidence of their passing.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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:



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.

Interesting post. It will take some effort to respond, which I don't honestly have the energy for right now, but I found it thought provoking.

 

[Left Coast]

Psychologists tell us that psychopaths lack a conscience. Now, it's possible that they know the difference between right and wrong, but just don't care. But you are the first person I've ever encountered who speculated that people might have different consciences.

You could argue that Hitler was a sociopath, and I might be persuaded to agree. But I don't think it's reasonable to say that every Nazi was/is. Or that every person who has ever believed slavery is moral (or who has literally owned slaves and defended it) is. Or that every person who thinks gay sex is immoral is. Yet these people do exist and have existed in droves, for millenia. The fact that people have varying moral compasses just seems obvious to me.

However, I think that whether an act is morally right or wrong is determined by the collective conscience of a group of people (like a jury) who are uninvolved and unbiased on the relevant issue.

Wait, now we're talking about morality being determined by collective intuition/non-reasoning? This hypothesis gets more convoluted the deeper down the rabbit hole we go.

If Hitler and his Axis allies had been pursuing a worthy cause, they would not have been defeated by the cooperative effort of 55 nations (most were not under threat).

This just seems like a variant of might makes right moral reasoning, which I don't buy. You don't think people groups who adhere to any kind of immoral ethical practices ever succeed? What do you make of the United States, arguably the wealthiest and most powerful country on the planet, which has perpetrated horribly immoral acts, and continues to do so (and defends its doing so)?

Consciences don't differ on abortion because conscience doesn't make judgments about national policies.

a) It doesn't? Public policy and ethics are necessarily intertwined. How did you determine our consciences don't inform our opinions on national policies?

b) Abortion is far more than a national policy. It is an individual act (which is what you say below that conscience judges).

Conscience judges individual acts, real or imagined, case by case. The abortion issue was created by people who used their reasoning minds to make up a moral rule.

I confess, I find your thinking here truly bizarre. The "abortion issue" was born the moment that two people discovered they had different opinions on the moral status of abortion. Again, reasoning has to be involved, to even comprehend the concepts in question.

You added the word "purely" to my claims. I'm not claiming that conscience can determine the facts of a moral case.

Then what is it you think we're doing when we morally intuit a judgment about something? You just said conscience judges individual acts, case by case. But now you're saying it can't determine the facts of any individual moral case it's presented with. This seems to be an outright contradiction.

 

[joe1776]

Interesting post. It will take some effort to respond, which I don't honestly have the energy for right now, but I found it thought provoking.

Glad to hear it. I hope to hear your thoughts soon.

 

[joe1776]

You could argue that Hitler was a sociopath, and I might be persuaded to agree. But I don't think it's reasonable to say that every Nazi was/is. Or that every person who has ever believed slavery is moral (or who has literally owned slaves and defended it) is. Or that every person who thinks gay sex is immoral is. Yet these people do exist and have existed in droves, for millenia. The fact that people have varying moral compasses just seems obvious to me.

You are confusing moral opinions with the judgments of conscience. People who think gay sex is immoral hold a moral opinion. That's not their conscience guiding them. Conscience is concerned with their actions. If they consider causing intentional harm to gay people, their conscience will trouble them. If they disregard the warning and cause harm, they will be nagged with guilt for the rest of their lives when they remember their transgression.

It might help you to remember that conscience operates with only the pain and pleasure functions of our brains. The pain function sends an unpleasant signal when the act we have in mind is morally wrong or unfair. The pleasure function rewards us when we are especially kind to others. We feel good about it.

Wait, now we're talking about morality being determined by collective intuition/non-reasoning? This hypothesis gets more convoluted the deeper down the rabbit hole we go.

This is a complex topic. I'd be glad to explain anything you don't understand.

We can't count on every individual member of a jury being unbiased on any issue. So, it is the "collective conscience" that will drive the majority opinion on the case.

This just seems like a variant of might makes right moral reasoning, which I don't buy. You don't think people groups who adhere to any kind of immoral ethical practices ever succeed? What do you make of the United States, arguably the wealthiest and most powerful country on the planet, which has perpetrated horribly immoral acts, and continues to do so (and defends its doing so)?

All my comment requires is the reasonable deduction that people are more likely to cooperate in a worthy cause than in an unworthy cause. This is because the good side of our species is stronger than the bad side.

You don't think people groups who adhere to any kind of immoral ethical practices ever succeed?

Nope. I don't think that. Are you taking my general statement as an absolute in order to find fault?

a) It doesn't? Public policy and ethics are necessarily intertwined. How did you determine our consciences don't inform our opinions on national policies?

I made a logical deduction. Since conscience works case by case and since there is no act that is always wrong, conscience can't guide on the prohibition of any action as national policy.

b) Abortion is far more than a national policy. It is an individual act (which is what you say below that conscience judges).

And, when it is an individual act, conscience will offer guidance.

I confess, I find your thinking here truly bizarre. The "abortion issue" was born the moment that two people discovered they had different opinions on the moral status of abortion. Again, reasoning has to be involved, to even comprehend the concepts in question.

The abortion issue wasn't created by the people who favored abortions. The issue was created by people who wanted to stop them. Their reasoning minds first created the moral rule that "Only God can take a life" or some similar creation that will conflict with the judgments of conscience.

Then what is it you think we're doing when we morally intuit a judgment about something? You just said conscience judges individual acts, case by case. But now you're saying it can't determine the facts of any individual moral case it's presented with. This seems to be an outright contradiction.

The job of reason is to answer the questions of fact. Therefore, this is a rational exercise.

It's the job of conscience to determine whether the action is moral or immoral. This is an intuitive exercise.