Where does morality come from? || Debate Clip || Science Refutes God
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 дек 2012
- On the fundamental question--evolution or creation?--Americans are on the fence. According to one survey, while 61% of Americans believe we have evolved over time, 22% believe this evolution was guided by a higher power, with another 31% on the side of creationism. For some, modern science debunks many of religion's core beliefs, but for others, questions like "Why are we here?" and "How did it all come about?" can only be answered through a belief in the existence of God. Can science and religion co-exist?
For: Lawrence Krauss
For: Michael Shermer
Against: Ian Hutchinson
Against: Dinesh D'Souza
===================================
Main Debate: • Science Refutes God
Subscribe: bit.ly/IQ2onRUclips
Official site: iq2us.org/vote
IQ2US Twitter: bit.ly/IQ2Twitter
IQ2US Facebook: bit.ly/IQ2onFacebook
===================================
I totally agree with imnodog. Our society has only recently, last 100 yrs, become morally advanced. This was in no way due to religion, but in spite of it. Secular society and knowledge have improved our morals.
When I think of scientists and animal suffering at the same time, it just makes me think of the battles fought against animal mistreatment in science by PETA.
I cannot wait to see that.
@Adrian Jamshidnejad Thank you for sharing!
this whole morality from God argument is very easily beaten and I'm surprised to have never heard a scientist make this argument. If we get our morals from God, then our morals shouldn't change. yet they have, our morals from today are far superior then they were 100 years ago, and those morals are superior then those 100 years before that, and so on. that only means we get our morals from ourselves, within society. morals have evolved and will continue to evolve moving forward.
when does the entire vid get online?!?! I was seriously just researching this today. I had no idea intelligencesquared was doing this! Although you really should of had SAM HARRIS on the show in opposition
I don't think the argument is worth having, Science may or may not have influence on morality, I think the important insight is that humans have evolved their sense of morality through making mistakes, through trial and error and through philosophical debate. We are social animals and we understand that in order to achieve something we need to work together in solidarity, we wouldn't have computers, phones, cars etc if people weren't creating acts of goodwill and cooperating, it's innate...
D'souza's last argument sounded like something that was a construct of evolution(maybe Sherman and Krauss pointed this out later, I have yet to see the entire debate). I think morality coming from evolution is a pretty strong scientific argument to make.
All of your morals and values, you inherit, from your environment....and the values of your environment were inherited by previous generations of their environment, and so on. Ultimately, it reduces to this..... We are sentient, therefore we have the capacity to feel and pain and suffering. We also desire to avoid pain and suffering as much as possible, and we have concluded, over the course of our history, that the best to way to do this is to cooperate with one another, and put in place some rules to govern this. That is morality, in a nutshell...no magic required.
what specific moral would you consider rooted in religion?
Morals are simply behaviors a social species develops over many generations through both trial and error as well as natural selection as being conducive to a productive, well functioning social group.
Its for this reason we recognize "morality" like empathy, reciprocation, self sacrifice, sharing etc. in other social species from dolphins to elephants to wolves and even meerkats.
What an ill considered argument Dinesh comes up with there; God installed our voice of consciousness. What about other species of animal who also show solidarity and sacrifice between them? We all know animals don't go to heaven because they don't have a soul, so who installs that in the animals, God as well?
no, morality is what society deems moral, in general. it's what we, as a group of people, say is moral. we all have individual moral systems that we live by, and the mass of each people's moral system is what constitutes morality. that's why it changes, given time. that's why it's different from one culture to another. what may be considered moral by one culture is not necessarily moral by another.
So, psychopaths who have a very different voice in their head, telling them to do bad things, I suppose the believers would argue that that does not come from God. My question is, if morality comes from some ethereal source, then how can anyone know if they are good if they are doing good deeds merely to please some unseen God, rather than because that's what they naturally want to do?
In short, Dinesh almost hit on a good point in the above video:
Do you honestly think that before MT Sinai it never occurred to anyone that rampant theft and murder might be counterproductive?
no one has ever claimed that. that's what's called a strawman argument. what society deems moral is not based on some sort of moral intuition. we, as a people, live together, and learn to live together, and we evolve, gaining knowledge, the oppressed fight, we gain more knowledge, we change, our morals change, we evolve. there's no 'moral intuition' or knowledge coming from 'the universe'. wtf...
The question misses the point. As organisms, we prefer to live versus die and to not suffer versus not suffer both as an individual and as a group. Some actions facilitate this, some do not. What science does is inform the rational thinker to avoid suffering and death to those that are aware of these concepts and or feels it.The fact that "God' establishes morality is absurd because if the "God" concept were true, "God' would would be the most culpable transgressor.
"Universally Preferable Behaviour - A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics" by Stefan Molyneux
1st view !!! OH YEAH! I LOVE DEBATE!
I can't post links on RUclips, but go to intelligencesquaredus org. Then debates -> past debates.
The Intelligence Squared sign on the left is higher than the one on the right... hmm...
dude, read my original comments, I don't know where you get the idea that I'm bringing the collective of society just now, that's been my argument from the start, that we get our morals from SOCIETY, because we learn FROM EACH OTHER LIVING TOGETHER. why would I talk about individual morality when morality is measured within a societal standard?
As Hitch pointed out, you have to look back to how it was when religion DID have control of society. Ouch.
here's an idea, how about we stick to the point instead of shifting away from it...
Oh, Dinesh, back to throwing out unfalsifiable claims.
The existence of psychopaths/sociopaths deflates that argument. But Dinesh isn't known for intellectual honesty.
Which morals are superior? You think mankind has become more moral?
Pretty sure MLK was a man of the cloth not a scientist, same could be said for Ghandi. Yes duels are considered unacceptable by today's standards, but abortions were unacceptable 100 years ago. So I think we aren't as advanced as we like to think we are, I do think some advances in morals have been made through science, but most are rooted in religion like it or not. I think also to say if our morals are better now vs the past depends on your personal morals.
...just like a pack of wolves behave, they work together and look out for one another because it's a survival tactic, we are no different and we enjoy the feeling of contentment and joy, it's a no-brainer, the idea that there is an objective moral system is absurd, our moral system is still an ongoing work in progress, but it is us who decides the rules, through debate, questioning and overall, our instincts.
They are talking about God saying he did this, he said that. But God is not a fact. And the Christian God is the God of a minority of people on earth ...
But why is it moral to allow creatures to flourish/be happy/not suffer???
Knap- dalf Because you also want to flourish/be happy/not suffer. Humans, at least most of us, have empathy where we can put ourselves in another's shoes and know we would not want to suffer and assume that other living things do not want to suffer.
John Doe But does that assumption have any grounding? And even then why should I do what I want/what others want?
Knap- dalf
Humans are social animals. To live in social groups we have to benefit the others in our group. That's why the animals that evolved stronger empathy survived to pass on that trait.
Obviously you are living your life, so do what you want. But it should be pretty clear that you shouldn't take your joy at someone else's expense. If everyone did that then eventually you'd draw the short straw and be the one getting dumped on. No one wants that for themselves so they try to help prevent it happening to others.
"you shouldn't take your joy at someone else's expense" but why not? because it'll disadvantage me? but why should I try and stop disadvantaging myself?
I know being empathetic is advantageous from a evolutionary point of view.
I know I seem to be taking the mickey but I just want to point out that there isn't any way of logically arriving at the conclusion that we "should" be moral, or do anything for that fact (even with the God hypothesis). Our actions are based on our biological desires and there isn't really any should or should not. I at least haven't come across a reason to think otherwise yet.
Knap- dalf
There is an advantage in numbers. But for large numbers of people to live together they need to get along. A basic set of moral rules makes living together in a society easier. If everyone just did whatever they wanted people wouldn't want to be a part of that group or society. That means less help in their survival. Today that would mean less help taking care of and raising children, paying bills, buying food.
I'm sure you've heard it's more difficult to be a single parent. Well, no one would want to help that single parent if he or she was an asshole to everyone. Being kind and helpful would increase your chances someone would help back making life easier and more enjoyable.
MLK and Ghandi also had different Gods, are you saying we get our morals from one true God or many? Besides, that’s not what I’m debating, I’m talking about the cultural change, not individuals. There were plenty Christians during the Civil Rights Movement that were against it, that changed with time. Personal morals have nothing to do with it, anyone can go out and kill someone and think that’s fine, what matters is what SOCIETY deems to be moral or not.
not suffer to suffer*
well, I'm not going to waste my time googling that, let me just say then that I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT, you're talking to me, after all...
You serious? what about the civil rights movement? What about women’s rights? What about gay rights? You’re telling me you don’t see any difference between today’s cultural moral standards then those of 100 years ago? What if we go further than that? It wasn’t that long ago that duels were an accepted way to protect one’s honor, today that would be considered immoral. How about the future, can’t you imagine many things changing as well? Now, why don’t you tell me how our morals haven’t changed
well, that's a problem YOU have, you like to assume things, A LOT... morality in fact does not mean what society dictates, but society SHOWS what morals MOST people have, what's moral to you or I is irrelevant when we're talking about the morals of people in general, hence, society...
Lmfao here I thought I was getting a full debate, but much like the bible this debate was cherry picked as well.
By Jesus
For those of you who wish to view the debate in its entirety: intelligencesquaredus(dot)org/debates/upcoming-debates/item/728-science-refutes-god&tab=1
Answer: Because we're made in the image of God. In other words we bear God's nature and God's nature is good and any violation of good is what we call evil.
Dinesh D'Souza is horrible. Bleh.