Moral objective values...

[whisperit]

[font=Verdana]In one of his papers, Dr. William Lane Craig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig) argues moral objective values is to say something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. If God does not exist, what is the foundation for moral objective values?[/font][/url]

[JohnA]

How is it advantageous?
Can you reference any peer reviewed scientific journals that has been accepted by the scientific community to support your claim?

You need some peer reviewed articles in scientific journals to understand that if you go around beating up people and because nobody wants to be beaten up the consequences will be to your disadvantage? You need some peer reviewed articles in scientific journals to understand that since nobody wants to be killed so if you go around murdering people the consequences for you are likely to be disadvantageous to you?

Agreed - an odd request indeed. But, allow me to assist. Here's just a few JohnA. How many do you require(?), as there appears to be no shortage from my short search...


From the peer reviewed Journal of Evolution and Technology;

"The Social Contract
Teamwork helps individuals succeed at survival and reproduction, and this has created evolutionary pressure for teamwork in humans and other animals. Thus we have social abilities such as language, and social values such as liking, anger, gratitude, sympathy, guilt and shame, that enable us to work in teams."

"Social values and the special processes dedicated to the logic of social obligation, which evolved in human brains because cooperation benefits individuals, are at the roots of ethics."



From the peer reviewed Public Library of Science;

"Cooperation has been reported at practically every level of biological organization and, in fact, it has been argued to play a key role in the major steps of evolution."

"...reciprocity is one of the most important forms of human cooperation, probably since almost two million years ago, as reciprocity appears to be an unavoidable consequence of small group size, given the cognitive abilities of humans"



From the peer reviewed Evolutionary Psychology Journal (PDF);

"Hamilton’s (1964) theory of kin selection or inclusive fitness predicts that altruistic actions... (help to) ...increase the proportion of shared genes in the population"

"altruistic behavior between non-kin can be favored by natural selection"

"human altruism can be driven by individuals selectively cooperating with
members of their (symbolically marked) ingroup"

None of those reference the Golden rule.
Please try again.

[JohnA]

How is it advantageous?
Can you reference any peer reviewed scientific journals that has been accepted by the scientific community to support your claim?

You need some peer reviewed articles in scientific journals to understand that if you go around beating up people and because nobody wants to be beaten up the consequences will be to your disadvantage? You need some peer reviewed articles in scientific journals to understand that since nobody wants to be killed so if you go around murdering people the consequences for you are likely to be disadvantageous to you?

I want the science journal that says the Gulden rule is built-in humans. Do you have it?
Either back up your claims, or stop the woo whoo.
The choice is yours now.

[Artie]

I want the science journal that says the Gulden rule is built-in humans. Do you have it?
Either back up your claims, or stop the woo whoo.
The choice is yours now.

"Even Bacteria Seem to Follow the Golden Rule" http://www.icr.org/articles/view/5674/361/ Even though this article is from ICR just ignore the religious references and focus on the science. It would appear you don't even need a brain to behave in the way you want others to behave towards you. If the behavior is already built into bacteria no wonder it comes in us also.

[instantc]

Are you now admitting that this rule was created by humans?

No, they simply described with words behavior that evolved and was selected for because it was advantageous for survival when living in communities.

Please elaborate this for me a bit, what does 'was selected for' mean? Selected by whom and for what? Are you talking about the natural selection favoring the societies who adhered to this rule, or are you talking about the actual process of certain societies choosing to adhere to this rule?

[olavisjo]

.

I think, but of course am open to instruction, that this view of 'right and wrong' is circular. It proclaims that 'right and wrong con only come from God; that its very definition is 'God.'

It could be circular in the same way that the Higgs boson and gravity are circular, I could speculate, but I don't understand it, I only know that it exists. It is something that I don't think I will ever understand, but I don't need to understand it. It is enough to just trust, experience and obey it.
Morality and God are essentially the same substance, people who lack belief in one most often lack belief in both.
I used to be an atheist, and I did not believe there was such thing as morality. I believed that what I did in secret stayed in secret, the universe did not know or care about what I did. The idea that there was a sky daddy that cared about me and my actions, violated everything that I knew about physics, chemistry, biology etc. The only thing that concerned me, with regarding morality, was political correctness.

I used to think like this...

You are right. Evolution can't make things right and wrong - this is because there is no such thing as right and wrong in an absolute sense.

But, now it is impossible for me to think that there is no right and wrong, it is just too obvious to me that there is, and I really struggle to understand why others can't see it.
When I was an atheist, no one ever tried to convince me that there was any morality, but I am sure it would have been a very tough sell, that is why I try not to be too hard on those who do not see it.

[NoisForm]

None of those reference the Golden rule.
Please try again.

My but you're a stubborn one! Heh. That's ok - dogma is difficult to let go of.

Apparently you are not familiar with what the 'Golden Rule' actually is? I can only assume this from your response. Let me help (my bold);

"The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity"

Yes, the ethic of reciprocity. Is that clear now? This is by definition what the 'golden rule' is. For your further elucidation, you may want to consult a thesaurus and find the following under reciprocity; cooperation, exchange, mutality

You might have noticed (if you had bothered to look at the links) the following;

Title of link; "Generosity Pays in the Presence of Direct Reciprocity: A Comprehensive Study of 2×2 Repeated Games"

and found such nuggets as;

"Cooperation has been reported at practically every level of biological organization"

"reciprocal altruism or direct reciprocity", "theories of cooperation, direct [/b]reciprocity", "reciprocity is a type of cooperation that is far from trivial", "as reciprocity appears to be an unavoidable consequence", "widening enormously our knowledge of the effects of direct reciprocity", "The evolution of reciprocal altruism", "Oscillations in the evolution of reciprocity", "reciprocity is one of the most important forms of human cooperation", "Genetic and Cultural Evolution of Cooperation", "Five rules for the evolution of cooperation", "Cooperation among animals: An evolutionary perspective.", "Cooperation in Primates and Humans: Mechanisms and Evolution.", The Evolution of Cooperation.�


In another of the links, you’d have seen an entire section called “The Social Contract�

...which among other things, included the line, “which evolved in human brains because cooperation benefits individuals, are at the roots of ethics.�


And of course, the last title, “The influence of social category and reciprocity on adults’ and children’s altruistic behavior� Two of the keywords used to search this particular article are ‘reciprocity’ and ‘altruism’.

It includes;

“reciprocal exchanges and ingroup favoritism have been important strategies leading to the evolution of altruistic behavior among strangers.�

“favored by natural selection if it follows the principle of reciprocity�

...and on, and on, and on....

...and now I’ve grown tired of spoon feeding. Read the material if you’d like to learn more. It really could not be more clear.

[Artie]

Please elaborate this for me a bit, what does 'was selected for' mean? Selected by whom and for what? Are you talking about the natural selection favoring the societies who adhered to this rule,

The societies didn't "adhere to this rule", some societies just behaved in such a way that they had a better chance of surviving and later on when we evolved the ability to describe behavior with words we described behavior conducive to survival in the words of the Golden Rule and other words such as altruism etc.

or are you talking about the actual process of certain societies choosing to adhere to this rule?

It was actually chosen for these societies by evolution long before people had any idea that this was a way of life that could be chosen. But now we know we can of course choose to follow the Golden Rule and all the other evolved moral codes.

[Artie]

Morality and God are essentially the same substance,

Morality isn't a substance it's just the ability to differentiate between "right" and "wrong".

people who lack belief in one most often lack belief in both.

Morality isn't something you can have a belief in. Anybody who says that some things are wrong and some things are right have morality.

I used to be an atheist, and I did not believe there was such thing as morality.

That is impossible of course. Every atheist who says that he thinks some things are right and some things are wrong has morality.

I believed that what I did in secret stayed in secret, the universe did not know or care about what I did.

That has nothing to do with morality.

But, now it is impossible for me to think that there is no right and wrong, it is just too obvious to me that there is, and I really struggle to understand why others can't see it.

We see it. We understand for example that following the Golden Rule is right because it enhances well being and survivability for all of us. Simple people don't have the ability to reason themselves into understanding this. For these people we have religion where a religious authority figure actually have to tell these unfortunate people how to behave morally.

When I was an atheist, no one ever tried to convince me that there was any morality, but I am sure it would have been a very tough sell, that is why I try not to be too hard on those who do not see it.

Actually we are the ones who see it. We are the ones who understand that acting in accordance with for example the Golden Rule is the moral thing to do because it enhances well being and survivability for all of us. You are the one who needs a god to tell you what's right and wrong. We don't. If you can't use reason to differentiate between right and wrong it is good that you turned to religion. That is its purpose.

[Artie]

...and now I’ve grown tired of spoon feeding. Read the material if you’d like to learn more. It really could not be more clear.

One thing is spoon feeding but he just spits it out again. If he had at least swallowed and digested it and understood it our efforts wouldn't have been a total waste of time. We'll see if he got it this time. If not I give up.

[TheJoshAbideth]

[Replying to post 447 by olavisjo]

Why does Morality have to be absolute for there to be morality? We can plainly see that most societies abide by a common sense of what is right and wrong - but we can also see that there are many differences as well between them. Objective morality can exist in the sense that civilization was the driver behind the propagation of our species and certain behaviors and tendencies are conducive towards perpetuating it. The behaviors and tendencies then became our objective set of tenets that our current moral system reflects. This too however changes, as is evident when it comes to things like slavery, equality, due process, etc...

My point - you explain this shared sense as coming from a God, in the form of a dictate. I contend that such explanations are unnecessary as there is - in my view - a far better explanation that is both more holistic, fluid and natural that doesn't appeal to a greater mystery to solve a smaller one.