[scientismo]

edit.

[scientismo]

Originally Posted by Jerome_1

The degree of the psychological effects on women who have had abortions are much worse than people who have had their animals put down, or people who have put their children up for adoption. One report found that women are six times as ikely to commit suicide if they have had an abortion.



Read the link again.

guys, there are many angles to attack jerome's ideas. The most basic are:

1. Denying God's existence
2. Confuting the coherency or truth of his met.aethics.
3. moral epistemological objections
4. Arguing for the veracity of the Naturalistic fallacy
5.Scriptural basis, reliability and so forth.

Anyone of those, if successfully argued, would leave jerome impotent. Have fun.

[scientismo]

Originally Posted by Jerome_1

Yes it does, because abortion is socially acceptable among many people, it is legal in many countries. So why would evidence suggest that women who have had abortions are more prone to psychological problems?



I can fathom many scenarios where it would be acceptable to kill. I believe there is cause for just wars, and in the case of self defence it may be acceptable to kill.

Here is a link to an evolutionary biologist who believes morality is innately built into each one of us.

Source: http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may...ew-marc-hauser

Hi Jerome,

I agree that moral agency came from evolutionary processes. However, the problem, for you, rests in arguing that moral agency was an act of God. For the God- evolution hypothesis to be established as a better explanation than naturalism, it needs to be argued that the God-evolution hypothesis is more probable than naturalism-evolution. Or, if the God-evolution hypothesis is equiprobable to the naturalism-evolution hypothesis, then it needs to be established that the God-evolution hypothesis is the simpler explanation of the two.

Frankly, I have a hard time seeing the God-evolution hypothesis as the simpler of thw two because it evokes more ontological neccessities than naturalism.

[Three Gun Fish]

Originally Posted by scientismo

Hi Jerome,

I agree that moral agency came from evolutionary processes. However, the problem, for you, rests in arguing that moral agency was an act of God. For the God- evolution hypothesis to be established as a better explanation than naturalism, it needs to be argued that the God-evolution hypothesis is more probable than naturalism-evolution. Or, if the God-evolution hypothesis is equiprobable to the naturalism-evolution hypothesis, then it needs to be established that the God-evolution hypothesis is the simpler explanation of the two.

Frankly, I have a hard time seeing the God-evolution hypothesis as the simpler of the two because it evokes more ontological neccessities than naturalism.

I think that's because Jerome keeps using the word "innately," as if conscience was built into our genes. However, if we perceive the "god-concept" as though it was a virus -- or rather, a meme -- then his view is more plausible. The memetic delivery system would be through religious indoctrination, which saturates us from birth here in America. This acculturation is effective to some degree. Example: though I did, and still do, not believe in God -- growing up it was very difficult for me to lie when someone impressed upon me to "swear to God."

That being said, believing morality stems directly from God is truly an act of faith, and by that very nature it will fail the standards of logic. While people like to pretend logic is the fulcrum by which our moral plane tips -- we all know logic is but one small, sometimes picayune, criterion.

[Rinksterk]

How can morality be instilled in us by god when "god" doesn't exist?

[Three Gun Fish]

Originally Posted by Rinksterk

How can morality be instilled in us by god when "god" doesn't exist?

Since we can't prove he doesn't, the answer would be "hypothetically."

God is a concept as interchangeable as love, creativity, free will, and a humble Karo Parisyan. People will believe andsay these things are real -- but proving it's another thing entirely.

[Darwinist]

This thread is pointless since "good" and "evil" don't actually exist anywhere outside the skulls of human beings. They are abstract concepts.

[Tiger_vs_Mantis]

Originally Posted by Jerome_1

The degree of the psychological effects on women who have had abortions are much worse than people who have had their animals put down, or people who have put their children up for adoption. One report found that women are six times as ikely to commit suicide if they have had an abortion.

I am skeptical about this statistic, but even assuming you are correct, my point still stands: if having a pet euthanized or giving a child up for adoption is potentially traumatic, then having an abortion may just be that much more traumatic. Having an abortion often involves a difficult decision-making process and it can be a traumatic experience. If women are more prone to psychological problems after having abortions, why does this mean it it because the abortion offends their innate sense of morality? Isn't it just as likely, or more likely, that the moral implications being dealt with are learned?

Read the link again.

okay I see it says he is an evolutionary biologist. still, his case is weak.

[AJax]

Originally Posted by AJax

Feb 2008 lecture by Bill Craig at Georgia Institute of Technology.
(with student Q&A at the end of the lecture)

MP3 Lecture:
http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/604

This covers a lot of what this thread is talking about, and argues that objective moral values do exist. I encourage anyone who holds the negative stance listen to the arguments.

If you hesitate to listen to this, keep in mind that you will learn interesting facts such as that male great white sharks rape the female sharks.

Just curious if anyone has taken the time to check this out, and what they think about the arguments...there's a great Q&A session at the end.

[Jerome_1]

Originally Posted by Tiger_vs_Mantis

I am skeptical about this statistic, but even assuming you are correct, my point still stands: if having a pet euthanized or giving a child up for adoption is potentially traumatic, then having an abortion may just be that much more traumatic. Having an abortion often involves a difficult decision-making process and it can be a traumatic experience. If women are more prone to psychological problems after having abortions, why does this mean it it because the abortion offends their innate sense of morality? Isn't it just as likely, or more likely, that the moral implications being dealt with are learned?

It obviously isn't learned a high percentage of women have two or more abortions.

Originally Posted by Tiger_vs_Mantis

okay I see it says he is an evolutionary biologist. still, his case is weak.

I didn't read it all but i basically understood that the majority of people gave the same answers regarding a number of moral dilemmas. This supports his argument that morality is universal, and innately programmed into each one of us.

Originally Posted by AJax

Just curious if anyone has taken the time to check this out, and what they think about the arguments...there's a great Q&A session at the end.

The link didn't work for me.