Morals

[mikegideon]

Mitch McConnel evolved from a turtle. It's obvious.

[daddyo]

Speaking of evolution, if man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

[mikegideon]

Speaking of evolution, if man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

And, why are there still turtles?

[Guest ThePunisher]

Mitch McConnel evolved from a turtle. It's obvious.

And what did Obama evolve from?

[mikegideon]

And what did Obama evolve from?

Don't know. Pretty sure it wasn't a turtle.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

A pineapple!

[mikegideon]

No way. His ears are too big

[Metalhead]

Pastafarianism

Man, I havent heard that in a long time hahaha.

[tnhawk]

And what did Obama evolve from?

Answer:

[tnhawk]

Why can't governments legislate morality?

History has proven that governments can not legislate morality.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well they can, but it usually causes more problems than it helps.

"On the teleological argument that the universe is a watch and God the watchmaker-- If everything must be manufactured in order to exist-- Then who made the watchmaker? etc. I don't know."

I don't either, but that is like the Big Bang theory. What happened before the big bang? Where did it come from?

I'm happy that there "just is" the Watchmaker, Lester. I don't have the capacity to manipulate that part of what I believe

without wandering off the playing field. If it's mysticism, so be it. I have my faith to guide me in some directions. That's

where I find answers to good and evil, right and wrong.

People use the excuse to disprove things they do not like a lot of times because they may have had a dream and

decided to re-invent a philosophy or moral. They usually don't stand up to scrutiny. Then there are others who

find a premise, challenge, accept and build on that.

[Guest profgunner]

I wasn't there to see it. The various theories are interesting, but observational and deductive science IMO is not as "strong" as statistical-based experimentalism. Because we don't have a bunch of parallel universes to experiment with, to run double-blind parametric studies, many things will never be entirely "certain".

Modern evolutionary theory draws support from both history (fossil record, ancient DNA) and experiments. Many thousands of cases of evolution have been observed directly both in nature and in the lab. This includes cases of speciation in organisms as diverse as birds, fish, plants, and bacteria. Craig Venter's recent success at creating living cells in the lab has opened the door to more sophisticated studies of life's origins. But there is still so much that we don't know. As to morals, it would not surprise me if they serve some adaptive value - but I'm not really sure how we could go about testing that in humans, and so it might not even qualify as a valid scientific question. The emergence of intelligence and consciousness in computational systems may provide some insight. So, you think that's a bit over the top? Kind of like your great-grandfather would have reacted to you telling him his great-grandkids would someday be talking to each other on a computer! Edited April 12, 2012 by profgunner

[Guest profgunner]

I don't either, but that is like the Big Bang theory. What happened before the big bang? Where did it come from?

AR. I am very happy to admit that science is only one part of human experience, and that it can't answer some of the most important questions in our lives. As a matter of fact, there is NO scientific case to be made against the existence of God. To do so would be an abuse of science. Religion and science are two very different ways of understanding our world. As long as we understand that there is no need for conflict. In fact, some of the very best scientists I know are people of deep faith. The trouble comes when we try to prop up religious beliefs with science, or vice versa. Doing that leads nowhere. Edited April 12, 2012 by profgunner

[Guest profgunner]

Speaking of evolution, if man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

Evolution does not proceed upward, like a ladder. For example, DNA evidence confirms that all modern dogs are the descendants of wolves, yet wolves still exist. It's a branching process. Humans did not evolve from modern day apes, but the evidence suggests, rather strongly, that we share a common ancestry. Human DNA is about 98% similar to that of chimps. Also, recent studies have revealed that certain human populations contain substantial amounts of Neanderthal DNA! Bet most of them are in Congress! Edited April 12, 2012 by profgunner

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Modern evolutionary theory draws support from both history (fossil record, ancient DNA) and experiments. Many thousands of cases of evolution have been observed directly both in nature and in the lab. This includes cases of speciation in organisms as diverse as birds, fish, plants, and bacteria. Craig Venter's recent success at creating living cells in the lab has opened the door to more sophisticated studies of life's origins. But there is still so much that we don't know. As to morals, it would not surprise me if they serve some adaptive value - but I'm not really sure how we could go about testing that in humans, and so it might not even qualify as a valid scientific question. The emergence of intelligence and consciousness in computational systems may provide some insight. So, you think that's a bit over the top? Kind of like your great-grandfather would have reacted to you telling him his great-grandkids would someday be talking to each other on a computer!

Thanks profgunner

I don't have any problem with evolution and it is interesting to consider. Have even read of various mechanisms that could explain ferinstance 20 chromosome organisms descended from 24 chromosome organisms or whatever. Which a few years ago seemed extremely unlikely that such a mutation could have a breeding pair and reproduce at all.

I just keep an open mind on things. Classical skepticism is nearly identical to the scientific method, except without so many assumptions. Another reason I shy away from defending evolution, is because some of the most unpleasant asshats I've spoken to online happen to be evolution evangelists. I'm not talking about you. Just some of those people are such arrogant dweebs I'd rather not people assume I might be one of them. Some of them make fundamentalist preachers look open-minded by comparison. They make the taliban look open-minded by comparison.

One comment though, on experimental validation of speciation-- Lets say I am given a black box with an input and an output. I analyze the black box and build a new black box which behaves exactly the same. Perhaps I could build ten entirely-different circuits which behave exactly the same. Merely because I was able to duplicate behavior of the sample black box, gives me no information about what is actually inside the original black box.

I'm not trying to refute anything. Merely mentioning one reason the details can remain difficult to nail down, about things long ago and far away.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Guest profgunner]

I'm not trying to refute anything. Merely mentioning one reason the details can remain difficult to nail down, about things long ago and far away.

Lester. I always tell my students that it is much better to simply admit you don't know something than to pretend you know it all. I have a hard time respecting anyone who is dogmatic and unwilling to just nut-up and admit that they don't know everything. Unfortunately, many scientists give this impression when they are talking to the media. While most people are willing to concede that somebody might be an expert on something, nobody wants to be treated as if they are an idiot. I think this is a big part of the problem with climate science. People who really don't know a hell of a lot are acting as if they have all the answers and, to make things worse, they treat anyone who asks questions with outright contempt. Little wonder they've had a hard time convincing people of their claims. Edited April 12, 2012 by profgunner

[Guest 6.8 AR]

AR. I am very happy to admit that science is only one part of human experience, and that it can't answer some of the most important questions in our lives. As a matter of fact, there is NO scientific case to be made against the existence of God. To do so would be an abuse of science. Religion and science are two very different ways of understanding our world. As long as we understand that there is no need for conflict. In fact, some of the very best scientists I know are people of deep faith. The trouble comes when we try to prop up religious beliefs with science, or vice versa. Doing that leads nowhere.

I could tell by the way you address topics. Your sincerity is most pleasing. I agree with all of the above.

There never was a need for a conflict between the two.

[Guest profgunner]

One comment though, on experimental validation of speciation-- Lets say I am given a black box with an input and an output. I analyze the black box and build a new black box which behaves exactly the same. Perhaps I could build ten entirely-different circuits which behave exactly the same. Merely because I was able to duplicate behavior of the sample black box, gives me no information about what is actually inside the original black box.

Lester. Instead of a black box, think of an organism such as you or me. Inside of our cells is DNA which we inherited from our parents, who inherited it from their parents, and so on. So how much about your great-great-great-grandfather's (or any of your other ancestors) DNA can I know from looking at your DNA? Quite a bit, actually. If I know something about the mutation rate (DNA is pretty stable) and selection (which cause genes to increase or decrease in frequency across generations) I can infer quite a bit about your ancestors DNA. And since DNA encodes biological traits, I can infer quite a bit about how you ancestors looked, behaved, etc. Individuals are born and die, but encoded in our DNA is an unbroken history of our family tree across the ages. Do you know that there is a whole new field of "synthetic biology" devoted to engineering new forms of life? Amazing as it may seem, it is happening now. Some of these companies have actually written their copyrights in the DNA of the organisms they've made!!! Edited April 12, 2012 by profgunner

[Guest CCI]

Since were talking about religion and morals, I found this on Yahoo!

http://news.yahoo.com/rise-atheism-america-110700315.html

The number of disbelievers is growing, but they remain America's least trusted minority. Why?

How many atheists are there?

It depends on your definition of the term. Only between 1.5 and 4 percent of Americans admit to so-called "hard atheism," the conviction that no higher power exists. But a much larger share of the American public (19 percent) spurns organized religion in favor of a nondefined skepticism about faith. This group, sometimes collectively labeled the "Nones," is growing faster than any religious faith in the U.S. About two thirds of Nones say they are former believers; 24 percent are lapsed Catholics and 29 percent once identified with other Christian denominations. David Silverman, president of American Atheists, claims these Nones as members of his tribe. "If you don't have a belief in God, you're an atheist," he said. "It doesn't matter what you call yourself."

Why are so many people leaving religion?

It's primarily a backlash against the religious Right, say political scientists Robert Putnam and David Campbell. In their book, American Grace, they argue that the religious Right's politicization of faith in the 1990s turned younger, socially liberal Christians away from churches, even as conservatives became more zealous. The dropouts were turned off by churches' Old Testament condemnation of homosexuals, premarital sex, contraception, and abortion. The Catholic Church's sex scandals also prompted millions to equate religion with moralistic hypocrisy. "While the Republican base has become ever more committed to mixing religion and politics," Putnam and Campbell write, "the rest of the country has been moving in the opposite direction." As society becomes more secular, researchers say, doubters are more confident about identifying themselves as nonbelievers. "The collapse of institutional religion in the first 10 years of this century [has] freed so many people to say they don't really care," said author Diana Butler Bass.

How are nonbelievers perceived?

Most polls suggest that atheists are among the most disliked groups in the U.S. One study last year asked participants whether a fictional hit-and-run driver was more likely to be an atheist or a rapist. A majority chose atheist. In 2006, another study found that Americans rated atheists as less likely to agree with their vision of America than Muslims, Hispanics, or homosexuals. "Wherever there are religious majorities, atheists are among the least trusted people," said University of British Columbia sociologist Will M. Gervais. As a result, avowed atheists are rare in nearly all areas of public life. Of the 535 legislators in Congress, for example, only one — Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) — calls himself an atheist. Few sports stars or Hollywood celebrities own up to having no religious faith.

Why so much distrust?

Many Americans raised in the Judeo-Christian tradition are convinced that atheists can have no moral compass. Azim Shariff, a University of Oregon psychologist who studies religious thinking, sums up how believers view nonbelievers: "They don't fear God, so we should distrust them. They do not have the same moral obligations as others." The antipathy may have actually grown with the recent emergence of "New Atheist" writers such as Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens, who have launched impassioned attacks on organized religion. Dawkins has encouraged his followers to "ridicule" anyone who could believe in "an unforgiving control freak" and "a capriciously malevolent bully" like the God portrayed in the Old Testament. Dawkins's harsh approach, said Barbara J. King, an anthropologist at the College of William and Mary, has confirmed "some of the negative stereotypes associated with the nonreligious — intolerance of the faithful, first and foremost."

How have atheists responded to this negative image?

A coalition of nonbelievers is out to make atheism more acceptable, starting with last month's "Reason Rally" on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., where thousands stood up for their right to not believe. Silverman of American Atheists, who helped organize the rally, said it was intended to give heart to young, "closet atheists" who fear the social stigma of being "outed," in much the same way closeted gays do. "We will never be closeted again," he said. Some within the movement advocate taking a more conciliatory approach to believers, too. Alain de Botton, the Anglo-Swiss writer of the new book Religion for Atheists, assails Dawkins as being "very narrow-minded," and praises religions as "the most successful educational and intellectual movements the planet has ever witnessed."

Will atheism ever be accepted?

If growth continues at the current rate, one in four Americans will profess no religious faith within 20 years. Silverman hopes that as nonbelief spreads, atheists can become a "legitimate political segment of the American population," afforded the same protections as religious groups and ethnic minorities. But he's not advocating a complete secular takeover of the U.S. — nor would he be likely to achieve one, given the abiding religious faith of most Americans. "We don't want the obliteration of religion; we don't want religion wiped off the face of the earth," Silverman said. "All we demand is equality."

Atheists in foxholes

Atheists are barely visible in politics and entertainment, but they are clamoring for recognition in another area of public life — the military. The Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers estimates that 40,000 soldiers identify as nonbelievers, and counts the most famous casualty of the war in Afghanistan, former NFL star Pat Tillman, as one of its own. In attempting to secure the same rights and support enjoyed by religious soldiers, the association lobbies against the idea that "there are no atheists in foxholes," and wants "atheist chaplains" made available for the ranks of the armed nonbelievers. Jason Torpy, the association's president, says that nonbelievers outnumber every religious group in the military except Christians, yet receive no ethical and family counseling geared to their own nonbeliefs. "These are things that chaplains do for everybody," he said, "except us."

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, that's impressive. It has star power, and a person trying to co-opt others in his circle.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

"On the teleological argument that the universe is a watch and God the watchmaker-- If everything must be manufactured in order to exist-- Then who made the watchmaker? etc. I don't know."

I don't either, but that is like the Big Bang theory. What happened before the big bang? Where did it come from?

I'm happy that there "just is" the Watchmaker, Lester. I don't have the capacity to manipulate that part of what I believe

without wandering off the playing field. If it's mysticism, so be it. I have my faith to guide me in some directions. That's

where I find answers to good and evil, right and wrong.

Thanks 6.8

Have read some on the big bang, don't have definite opinion. As best can recall I wasn't there to see it. I don't understand certainty but have no desire to negate it. It sounds as if you can't understand uncertainty. Different strokes. Its cool.

Was raised in church. Once saved always saved! Always enjoyed the music and still do.The people were nice and still are. No complaints with the people. About age 10 the theology started sounding like santa claus or the easter bunny. At first I felt guilty about having doubt. God would be mad at me for doubting. As years progressed it was more and more obvious malarky. I didn't just get up one day and decide not to believe it. The stories did not seem any way believable.

So finally made it to 17 and moved out of the folks house and haven't been to church since except weddings and funerals. I recall even age 6 thinking there was something vaguely creepy about worship services. I got over it for awhile but over the years it just kept getting more creepy and less tolerable.

I have a provisional theory that religious folks may be, on average, slightly more pleasant than the average atheist. I don't know lots of people and perhaps it is an accident of meeting unusually grumpy atheists and unusually nice church folk. Most all my relatives and inlaws are dedicated bible thumpers and they are as nice people as you will ever meet. But the theology, man its fine if you believe but to me its pure malarky. Also got phobic about religious ceremonies. Not just christian ceremonies. A Satanic ritual or Hindu ritual would be equally unpleasant.

It is creepy to get trapped in the middle of a religious ceremony. I go visit relatives and inlaws who are good as gold and I love em. But there is the constant danger that at any random moment they might decide to spontaneously call a prayer meeting with the halleluyahs and the praise the lords, causing me to freak out on the creepiness of it all. They most likely understand my discomfort though I never explained it to them. They are usually polite enough not to trap me in an instant halleluyah prayer meeting.

Call it crazy or phobic, but I figure if religion always felt bad for 50 years, then maybe it is bad for me, even if it is good for somebody else. Some folks are allergic to peanut butter and maybe I'm allergic to religion.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Oh Shoot]

.... but that is like the Big Bang theory. What happened before the big bang? Where did it come from?..

Possibly from the last Big Crunch, which was the result of the previous Big Bang. There is a Cyclic Theory of the known universe such that even though the universe is still expanding, and even speeding up doing it, it may eventually slow, combine, and collapse back into a single singularity, and the cycle begins again.

- OS

[Guest profgunner]

Possibly from the last Big Crunch, which was the result of the previous Big Bang. There is a Cyclic Theory of the known universe such that even though the universe is still expanding, and even speeding up doing it, it may eventually slow, combine, and collapse back into a single singularity, and the cycle begins again.

- OS

Experiments done in the big cyclotrons give us a peek into what happened when our universe was very young. According to what I've read, success at finding the Higg's boson will confirm some of our predictions about matter. All very heady stuff. As a biolgist, I won't pretend to have a working understanding for the mathematical underpinning of these theories, but they do make testable predictions that can be confirmed or refuted by experiments. Science has contributed enormously to our quality of life over the last century, and will continue to do so in the coming years. It troubles me deeply to see so many of our leaders disparaging science for short-term political gain. I've been a university professer and a research scientist going on 20 years now, and I have seen a steady erosion of public trust in science. Support for basic research from the NIH and NSF has led to a huge number of very important discoveries in all areas of science, and has played a critical role in making the US the world leader in science. But that seems about to change. China has it's eye on the ball and is pumping billions of dollars into basic research. Once we fall behind, it will be very difficult to catch up. Just my two cents. Edited April 14, 2012 by profgunner

[Dolomite_supafly]

Morals change and it is the majority of people within the society that determines what is or is not moral. What may have been considered moral or immoral 50 years ago my be just the opposite now. People have their own reasons for their own morals or lack thereof. Whether it be religion, greed or just plain laziness it is what shapes them and how they live day to day. And it is those groups that determine what is moral within a society.

Take marriage. In our society a man who is 20 that marries a 15 year old is viewed as an immoral person. The exact same scenario is moral in another country where the majority feel it is moral. It is because their society feels it is moral for a 20 year old to marry a 15 year old. And it wasn't always considered immoral in our country, 150 years ago it was commonplace.

I think morals change when people see there are benefits to the change, nothing more and nothing less. People, by nature, are creatures of habit and like things to be easy. So people sho change their moral compass are not going to do it unless there is a benefit to them.

Dolomite

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Experiments done in the big cyclotrons give us a peek into what happened when our universe was very young. According to what I've read, success at finding the Higg's boson will confirm some of our predictions about matter. All very heady stuff. As a biolgist, I won't pretend to have a working understanding for the mathematical underpinning of these theories, but they do make testable predictions that can be confirmed or refuted by experiments. Science has contributed enormously to our quality of life over the last century, and will continue to do so in the coming years. It troubles me deeply to see so many of our leaders disparaging science for short-term political gain. I've been a university professer and a research scientist going on 20 years now, and I have seen a steady erosion of public trust in science. Support for basic research from the NIH and NSF has led to a huge number of very important discoveries in all areas of science, and has played a critical role in making the US the world leader in science. But that seems about to change. China has it's eye on the ball and is pumping billions of dollars into basic research. Once we fall behind, it will be very difficult to catch up. Just my two cents.

I agree that it is troubling the way politicians twist scientific inquiry, well, some scientists have, also. I'll always want

to see science move forward, just less politics. The two just don't mix. Global warming comes to mind. That's one area

I wouldn't like to see funding cut, but I want the politics to go away. As a lesser of understanding of those things you

mention, I try to keep up on them and am fascinated at the discoveries. I hope those things continue.

The public trust erodes when Hadley CRU and NASA, etc become so involved in misleading that they seemed to have

walked away from their missions. Doesn't bode well for seeking the truth. We need to get away from that.