143 replies to this topic

[ado]

Hey Donna,
Thanks for bringing a little bit of sanity back to this place. As usual, I respect your opinions and look forward to what you have to say.
I think you have put forward some very interesting questions.
When I get a bit of time, I'll have a go at my view of those questions and where they lead. It promises to be an interesting discussion.
Of course, anyone is welcome to join in the discussion, but for the record, if they don't at least put a bit of thought into their posts (relevant to the topic) I for one am going to ignore them.


All,
In the meantime, I just wanted to quickly point out another book (sorry to sound like a broken record) that's sure to be interesting for those interested in this topic.
For decades Antony Flew was a promient and outspoken aethist philosopher. You may have heard that in the recent past he has reconsidered his position, and now considers himself as a theist. Quite a change. He published a book sometime ago, co-written with Roy Varghese, called There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind

Now you don't have to agree with his position (I don't), but surely if you have an interest in this topic, and you think you know something about it, it would interest you to know what this man has to say? It's available on Amazon....I won't hold my breath.

[Den]

Could it then be that it is the need for a God that is in our genes, not that there is a God to be accessed somewhere?
All human cultures seem to have art and music. It is very unique to each culture, but common across humanity. It seems to be a human need to make art and music. Maybe it is a human need to make God as well?

Hi Donna, if this is the case, its begs the question who or what is responsible for a God gene? It would be interesting to see a case made that its part of a natural selection process, Im not saying I dont think its possible, but if there was a God gene it seems more likely to me that it could be the signature of a creator rather than part a natural selection process.

I liked one response to Dawkin's God Delusion repeated by Proffessor Lennox "The God I believe in is not the same God that you dont believe in". An adequate response, since the picture Dawkins paints of God is based on his own personal incorrect interpretation of God.


Cheers
Den

[Donna]

Hi Ado,

I actually don't know much about anything. I am not familiar with the work of Dawkins, or any of the abovementioned work. Most of my world views are developed as a result of me having an "inner voice" that I am not afraid to argue with, and asking lots and lots "What if" questions. As a five year old I wanted to be a geneticist due mostly to watching my mum breed labradors and having a keen interest in watching inheritance unfold before my eyes. I am actually not a prolific reader, despite my university education In fact, the last paper I read, was the one you posted a while back.

Having said all that, sometimes a couple of questions will help focus the progression of the discussion. It has been an interesting journey, but sometimes I am unsure as to what people are actually trying to establish, if anything at all

It is clear that there will be no major paradigm shifts for people as a result of having participated

My latest question then stands?

What if God is not existing somewhere, but is in fact a human need in the form of a God gene, that we all possess? Increased Suseptibility is evident in people who join cults who have psychological stress, or in the Bedouin who have tremendous environmental stress.
Just as some people are more prone to develop heart disease, so they are at highly developing their God gene? (pretty simplified here, but if you develop the ideas you will come up with your own examples)
I am not trying to trivialise religion or a belief in god. I think in light of the above question, it is clear what an important role the God Gene may play in human survival. The absence of God for some people/cultures may positively correlate to the lack of economic, environmental stress in their lives.

So lets just say, for example, God lives inside all of us and is there to be accessed if we have been taught to do that, or if it is needed.

Regards,
Donna

[Den]

Q2: Is it possible to become a "moral" human being in the absence of God?

A2: It is possible to reach the highest level of morality (altruism) in the absence of god, religion. If one looks at ants or any other high functioning society, you wouldn't say they act they way they do because of a god. They act the way they do, because it is necessary for survival. Again, genetic. Humans are born with the genes necessary to become social and act in ways that favour the group and not just the individual. Perhaps it is the loss of this social moral gene and not a loss of god that is responsible for the break down of our social systems

One could argue that for an ant to act moral, it would need the ability to be immoral. I believe morality is a choice, not a virtue, otherwise inanimate objects could also be considered moral.

I guess I should add some examples, If an ant is simply behaving to the code of its genes, which are programmed for it to behave in an ultuistic fashion, without freedom of choice, what difference is there between an ant and lets say a robotic medicine factory, or any robot programmed to assist and aid humanity? if Ultruism is the ultimate morality as you say then the sun which destroys itself in order to allow all life on Earth to exist must be the most moral being in the Universe.

So Im not sure how you have managed to connect Ultruism to morality, Untruism itself can only be defined on the platform of the existence of selfishness, therefore should be appreciate selfish people?, since it is because of them some of us can choose to practice ultruism.

I would have to get back to you on question 1.

Cheers
Den