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]

You have not responded directly to what I have written, here or elsewhere the best I can tell (the quote function is invaluable). So, let's try once more...

You said;

...You guys are the one making this claim that the Golden rule exists and are "built-in or evolved.
...You claim it has, that this golden rule exists (other than a rule of thumb or wishful thinking).

...and I say again, with an addition;

Please quote where I have made either of these claims, or retract the statements per the forum rules. I made neither claim, and you are misrepresenting what I have actually posted. Please correct your error. This is my second attempt to get you to see that you are mistaken.

...and again, since you seem to have missed it...

Artie's claim was this;

they simply described with words behavior that evolved and was selected for because it was advantageous for survival when living in communities.

...and, again, your response was;

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

So again, please pay attention here, the claim you asked for peer reviewed support for was that, "behavior that evolved and was selected for because it was advantageous for survival when living in communities". You asked how is it advantageous, and if peer reviewed sources could be supplied to back this up. You were given this.

As I said, this is exactly what I provided for you, from multiple sources.

Right. Now you are denying that we are debating if this golden rule exists or not.

Why yes, that is what I am saying, since I never made the claim. Nor was this the claim that you asked evidence for, as I've just explained to you, yet again. You asked for evidence (peer reviewed) that supported the claim, "they simply described with words behavior that evolved and was selected for because it was advantageous for survival when living in communities". I gave you that.

So you are not claiming that this Golden rule exists (other than just wishful thinking, a definition)?

Correct, that is also a claim that I did not make. Please use the quote function if you wish to show me where I made such a claim.

Is that why you tried to project this golden rule onto evolution?

Again, simply show me where I attempted to do this - problem solved. What I actually did, is show that there are several peer reviewed sources that credit evolution/natural selection for what we have labeled 'the golden rule'. I did this, again, because this is what you requested. You have it.

We have been discussing the existence of the Golden rule as a 'product' or 'part' of evolution, both of you projected this.

I'm not certain what you mean I 'projected' it. I supplied peer reviewed sources that clearly show such a connection, nothing more.

That is the scientific journal that I want. If your can not produce it, then you are in error to say this rule exists as something that evolution gave us (or whoever you trying to claim got/has it).

You have been given this from multiple sources. I'm beginning to think you are being willfully obtuse. Surely not?

I see your post above as your way of conceding; this Golden rule is just pure wishful thinking, a definition of 2 words strung together, nothing more.

As yet, I have expressed no personal opinions about whether or not the golden rule is a product of evolution, only the findings of various peer reviewed scientific studies which indicate that yes, it is.

If not, then formulate your claim and present your argument (with evidence).

What claim would that be, exactly? That there is peer reviewed literature that demonstrates that "they simply described with words behavior that evolved and was selected for because it was advantageous for survival when living in communities". I've done this, and you've yet to respond to the actual request you made of Artie, and the actual evidence I supplied to you. Can you not do so?

You have not responded directly to what I have written,

I think you are now writing about your own behavior here. In fact, you have not responded at ALL to what I am asking.

You have the burden of proof.
And the irony is, you can not even define your claim (other than the golden rule exists).

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

Was in relation to this GOLDEN RULE.

Artie knows is it was via:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 960#609960

And I suspect you knows this as well via the above and:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 032#610032

Sure, you are welcome to deny this in order to avoid admitting your defeat to me. But the evidence is recorded. Any reader can decipher this self, easily.

Am not going to play a game of fallacies (straw man, red herring, ad hominem - as evident in your posts). We know what the issues is here, what is being debated.

Your claim that the golden rule exists as part of evolution for "some life" (or whateva, you have not even defined it) is AGAINST the current knowledge that science provides. No wonder you fail to back up your assertion.

Let me ask you this:

Do you agree that this Golden rule is just wishful thinking ("a rule of thumb", a mere entry in Wikipedia, an abstract concept) and is not always conducive to maximize the survival of the human species?

That is a simple yes or no answer please.
(And I will not tell anyone that your answer could in fact signal that you lost this debate. Nor will I ask Danmark to explain his MPG donation to your post that was way off.)

[JohnA]

You clearly have no peer reviewed scientific journal(s) to show this rubbish Golden rule exists...

It occurs to me, incredulous as I may be about this, that you're primary objection with the numerous sources you've been provided with, may actually be that they did not use the specific words, 'golden' and 'rule'. I'd like to think I'm wrong about that (it might not feel like such a huge waste of time if I am!), but I've a feeling that this is, in fact, what you take issue with.

You seem a tad obsessed with the term 'golden rule', as opposed to what it actually is. You do understand that 'golden rule' is essentially a philosophical/religious term of art, yes? Further, that this term actually has a meaning, and that one can discuss and investigate this meaning without actually using the term?

If I used the following; "a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the center)", would you insist that I wasn't describing a circle...because I didn't use the word 'circle'? Seriously?

This is why I provided what it actually was for you in my very first post ("ethic of reciprocity"), along with some synonyms, in hopes that my supplying it might avoid the barrage of nonsense that has followed (but alas). If you don't understand the base meaning of the term we're discussing, how could you possibly know if someone is discussing it in any of my sources? Apparently, you cannot.

Did you actually expect that such a term would be flung about willy-nilly in a scientific journal? I certainly wouldn't. That is not, generally speaking, the language of science. What I would expect to find, is an exploration of how various mechanisms might bring it about, make it beneficial, etc. They do so by describing it, its components, and how it might function. They use terms such as reciprocity, cooperation, altruism, etc. These all describe and define, quite elegantly I think, what the 'golden rule' actually is.

But hey, I'm game. Let's see if we can find some qualified scientists who use the specific term 'golden rule', just to satisfy your - in my opinion somewhat bizarre - request (spoiler:we can);

There's this (conveniently titled just for you it would seem, "The Evolution of the Golden Rule"), from the AAAS ("the world's largest and most prestigious general scientific society")

There's an entire book written on the subject by Donald Pfaff, Ph.D., head of the Laboratory of Neurobiology and Behavior at Rockefeller University, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. It is entitled "The Neuroscience of Fair Play: Why We (Usually) Follow the Golden Rule". Does this Ph.D. count as 'qualified' in your opinion?

Perhaps Robert Wright would suffice? He studied both sociobiology and evolutionary psychology at Princeton, then taught graduate seminars at same. One of which he co-taught with Peter Singer on the biological basis for moral intuition. He gave a 'Ted Talk' in '09 where he, "uses evolutionary biology and game theory to explain why we appreciate the Golden Rule".

There is Frans B. M. de Waal, Ph.D., a Dutch-born pri­ma­tol­o­gist, ...C. H. Can­dler Pro­fes­sor at Emory Uni­ver­sity and direc­tor of the Liv­ing Links Cen­ter at the Yerkes National Pri­mate Research Cen­ter in Atlanta. He also makes the link quite clearly. Here's an article from him (in association with 'Greater Good' magazine, of U of C, Berkeley) where he explores the idea. From the link;

"We are so used to empa­thy that we take it for granted, yet it is essen­tial to human soci­ety as we know it. Our moral­ity depends on it: How could any­one be expected to fol­low the golden rule with­out the capac­ity to men­tally trade places with a fel­low human being? It is log­i­cal to assume that this capac­ity came first, giv­ing rise to the golden rule itself."

So there you go - some highly educated, well respected scientists actually using the specific term 'golden rule' in connection with evolution. Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that you'll attempt to find some way to weasel out of even this? Heh. Gotta' love some dogma.

A very nice post. But you are just avoiding your burden of proof. In fact, you are denying what science says about it; denying what your, your very own (Wikipedia) link says about this Golden rule.

It occurs to me, incredulous as I may be about this, that you're primary objection with the numerous sources you've been provided with, may actually be that they did not use the specific words, 'golden' and 'rule'.

Ok, now you are back here with claiming that this golden rule exists. Shall I ignore your previous post(s) where you tried to deny this?

Can you be more specific, what you mean by this? I do not quite follow your claim, to be honest. I think you are trying obscurantism to argue that you have answered/addressed your unclear claim.
What exactly are you claiming by implying this golden rule exists?
Can you define this, who does it apply to, when, how, etc.,

Did you actually expect that such a term would be flung about willy-nilly in a scientific journal? I certainly wouldn't.

Why not? Gravity is gravity, why use obscurantism?
You are now reverting to stating/projecting what scientists offers as equivalent to what science offers because you can not provide back up for your ill-defined claim. How is that logical? Since when is opinion = knowledge? If that was the case (opinion = knowledge), why are we debating then? Or are you admitting that scientific knowledge is not opinion, yet you offer it as such? You can not have it both ways, you know. Have you cake and eat it.

The Neuroscience of Fair Play: Why We (Usually) Follow the Golden Rule"

The title says it all - usually. So, why on earth would there be exceptions? Hmmm.

It is log­i­cal to assume that this capac­ity came first, giv­ing rise to the golden rule itself.

Now it is logical, but he rejects the fact that I can decide to not follow this rule to benefit a group (my family or friends). This is speculation, opinion, wishful thinking.
This actually summaries your argument: It is logical, therefore golden rule exists.
And that gives more weight to my speculation: You only know that it's logical that this golden rule exists when not asked, but you do not know when asked. This is quite evident in your repeated failure to provide sceintific knowledge (accepted journals) to back up your ill-defined claim.

I could go through every one of your sources/links and point out issues with it, but why do that when you are clearly not living up to your burden. The scientific journal needs to be approved / accepted by the scientific community. Normally such scientific knowledge are known to the extend where the source or the author is irrelevant to the knowledge gained. We call these things laws of nature, or scientific theories, or sceintific facts, scientific laws. You may as well just keep on asserting your ill-defined claim and offer your own credentials as authority & opinion. All you have done is showed a misunderstanding of science, and that you rely on arguments of authority. You may as well offer me the bible (or the watchtower Jehovah witness propaganda) and say that is evidence that some god exists. How absurd.

State you claim. State your argument. State you evidence. Without this, your claim is pure wishful thinking, a figment of your imagination.

You have given me NO objections to this obvious flaws of their fictional golden rule. User instantc are exposing this as well. You see, we have good reason (even if this is not our burden) and you have NONE. You have no evidence because what you provided does not support your claim (assertion). In Fact, if it did, then you would be pointing me to accepted scientific knowledge, not authoritative wishful thinking. Why not just send me an creationist 'scientific journal' to state that evolution is false? Your authority opinion (links) falls in the same category.

It seems (reading/interpreting some of his posts) to me that uer keithprosser3 agrees that this rule does not exist (other than a def), yet he gives you an MPG donation for your post. Think it was for your research, not for your false conclusion (unsupported ill-defined claim). keithprosser3 is most welcome to state if I am misrepresenting his position or intent. Seems to me that use instantc also agrees with me. See, I can offer fallacies* well, not only you!


*
potentially straw manning keithprosser3 claiming he disagrees with you,
argument from authority claiming keithprosser3 disagrees with you,
argument from population that both keithprosser3 and instantc reject your nonsense ill-defined claim.

[instantc]

We should use our reasoning ability to figure out [...] the action leading to the well being and survival for the most amount of people.

Why should we?

Because we are a part of the community and the more stable the community and the more members we help the more likely we are to receive help when we need it and if all follow the same policy it increases all our chances of survival.

In essence you are saying that we should increase our chances of survival because it increases our chances of survival. Why should we? Why is survival of the species important?

[Artie]

In essence you are saying that we should increase our chances of survival because it increases our chances of survival. Why should we? Why is survival of the species important?

It is important to us because we evolved a survival instinct that tells us that our survival is important. If we didn't have a survival instinct and thought that our survival was important we wouldn't be here in the first place. Of course one could debate whether our survival is or should be important to anything or anybody else but ourselves and why.

[Artie]

To JohnA:

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

You said and I quote: "How is it advantageous?
Can you reference any peer reviewed scientific journals that has been accepted by the scientific community to support your claim?"

Why do you need references from peer reviewed scientific journals to understand that if we do to others what we would like them to do to us, that is help others since we would like others to help us we have a better chance of surviving and if we kill each other instead we don't survive? How can you even ask the question "How is it advantageous?" indicating that you can't figure that out for yourself?

[JohnA]

To JohnA:

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

You said and I quote: "How is it advantageous?
Can you reference any peer reviewed scientific journals that has been accepted by the scientific community to support your claim?"

Why do you need references from peer reviewed scientific journals to understand that if we do to others what we would like them to do to us, that is help others since we would like others to help us we have a better chance of surviving and if we kill each other instead we don't survive? How can you even ask the question "How is it advantageous?" indicating that you can't figure that out for yourself?

I think you are quote mining me, or attempting to.
We are discussing this golden rule. You claim is exists, and I want to know how you know this.
Please define your claim clearly (you can use my terms or make your own - I converted this already).
State your argument.
Provide your evidence.
And since we both accept evolution, this is a biological claim you are making. That is why I want accepted peer review scientific journals for your premises of your argument (obviously depending on what your premises look like).
If you can not do this, then you failed at meeting your burden of proof. The problem you have is that you can not even define your claim clearly.

This is debate. This is how it works.


Btw. You have not answered instantc's question.

[Artie]

I think you are quote mining me, or attempting to.

Then simply go to http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 960#609960 and read that post. Now, will you answer or not?

"Why do you need references from peer reviewed scientific journals to understand that if we do to others what we would like them to do to us, that is help others since we would like others to help us we have a better chance of surviving and if we kill each other instead we don't survive? How can you even ask the question "How is it advantageous?" indicating that you can't figure that out for yourself?"

[keithprosser3]

Can I ask JohnA and Artie to state (preferably in no more than a line or two) what their respective positions are? I don't know what you are actually arguing over any more.

[Artie]

Can I ask JohnA and Artie to state (preferably in no more than a line or two) what their respective positions are? I don't know what you are actually arguing over any more.

My post 519 says it all. I just want to know why JohnA would need "references from peer reviewed scientific journals" to understand that if we do to others what we would like them to do to us, that is help others since we would like others to help us (the Golden Rule) we have a better chance of surviving. I want to know the reasoning of a man who can't figure that out for himself but needs "references from peer reviewed scientific journals".

[keithprosser3]

Thanks Artie. I can't comment until we get JohnA's side. I hope he is as succinct!