The morals of an atheist

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Do you have links to some of this new evidence? Or the seeming prevailing theories of this time regaring innate morality?

http://www.brookscole.com/chemistry_d/templates/student_resources/0030223180_garrettgrisham/HotTopics/Love.html

This states:

Genetic analysis showed that both species of vole posses identical receptors for oxytocin and vasopressin, leading investigators to believe the difference was in the placement of the receptors. If an area of the brain contains these receptors the activity associated with that part of the brain would become stimulatede if vassopressin or oxytocin were introduced. In the prairie vole, oxytocin receptors were found in different locations of the brain than the Montane vole. Researchers have therefore theorized that the section of the brain enabliing monogamy is present in the area of the brain possessing the receptors of oxytocin and vasopressin in prairie voles. Researchers have likewise theorized that the area of the brain containing vasopressin receptors in Montane voles is responsible for grooming habits. Current research is trying to create transgenic mice that will have the vole vasopressin receptor, presumably making them monogamous.

There is more to it than this article covers, but I don't have time to find a better source. Just know that human brains are different as well. A neuroanatomist can tell the difference between a european brain and an african brain just by looking at them. There is diversity within lineages as well.

angelica

baraka wrote:

Here is an interesting article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?ex=1332043200&en=84f902cc81da9173&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

I can't wait until the biologists inadvertently reproduce the Ten Commandments!

Some questions come to mind: To what degree can the rules for morality be written solely as a function of evolution? It may be an interesting problem to discern between evolved moral traits, and those acquired socially.

I wonder about another component of this. Do animals love, and hate, as we do? Even if animal behavior can all be reduced to this hormone, or that stimulated response, can't human reactions be reduced in a similar manner? Why would we be fundamentally different in how we feel about each other, or about our pets for that matter, as compared to how they feel? Honestly, I find it hard to believe that my cats don't really love me.;)

The part of our brain that deals in emotion and instinct is the limbic system, otherwise known as the mammalian brain. These traits are shared with other mammals, so yes, animals have emotions.

Evolution stems from the less dense levels of reality/existence. Ultimately evolution stems from what is eternal and timeless beyond the evolution. These levels are perceived subjectively. They cannot be objectively quantified. People often use vehicles like religion/philosophy, or practices such as meditation and prayer to grasp these truths.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

http://www.brookscole.com/chemistry_d/templates/student_resources/0030223180_garrettgrisham/HotTopics/Love.html

This states:

Genetic analysis showed that both species of vole posses identical receptors for oxytocin and vasopressin, leading investigators to believe the difference was in the placement of the receptors. If an area of the brain contains these receptors the activity associated with that part of the brain would become stimulatede if vassopressin or oxytocin were introduced. In the prairie vole, oxytocin receptors were found in different locations of the brain than the Montane vole. Researchers have therefore theorized that the section of the brain enabliing monogamy is present in the area of the brain possessing the receptors of oxytocin and vasopressin in prairie voles. Researchers have likewise theorized that the area of the brain containing vasopressin receptors in Montane voles is responsible for grooming habits. Current research is trying to create transgenic mice that will have the vole vasopressin receptor, presumably making them monogamous.

There is more to it than this article covers, but I don't have time to find a better source. Just know that human brains are different as well. A neuroanatomist can tell the difference between a european brain and an african brain just by looking at them. There is diversity within lineages as well.

This kind of stuff is heavy on the research, light on the explanation. I work best in understanding with the opposite--stuff that is explained in lay-person's terms supported by evidence.


Did I understand you correctly, though, that theories of innate morality are emerging? Or are looking like they are considered the prevailing view at this time? I did find some stuff online, saying new theories are looking in this direction.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

This kind of stuff is heavy on the research, light on the explanation. I work best in understanding with the opposite--stuff that is explained in lay-person's terms supported by evidence.


Did I understand you correctly, though, that theories of innate morality are emerging? Or are looking like they are considered the prevailing view at this time? I did find some stuff online, saying new theories are looking in this direction.

Try this:

Patricia Churchland wrote:

There are two species of voles, one is called the prairie vole and the other is called the montane vole; they don't interbreed, they're similar in many respects but here is a respect in which they differ. The prairie voles are monogamous pair bonders; after the first mating they bond for life. They are also bi-parental nurturers, they both take care of the pups, and they take care of them for a long time. In this respect the montane voles differ. They are promiscuous pair bonders and they are mono-parental and the mothers don't take care of the pups for as long as the prairie voles.

Now you might think that this is a social behaviour that's extremely complex, that maybe needs to be mediated by culture, by religion. It turns out that it's actually regulated in the brain by a very simple peptide called vasopressin, and whether you're a monogamous pair bonder or a promiscuous pair bonder is a function of the receptor density, the receptors for vasopressin in a very specific part of the brain. You change that receptor density in the prairie vole, they become promiscuous, you change it in a montane vole and they become monogamous.

So we have learned something very important about social attachment and in a comparable way we're learning very important things about aggression and the various neural chemicals and pathways that mediate aggression, co-operation, altruism, mutual defence and so forth. And what this means is that it's giving ethics, or the whole domain of what it is to be a moral agent a very different look.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/inconversation/stories/2007/1852346.htm

You may have to click "View Transcript" on the linked page.

Patricia Churchland is a neurophilosopher.

duffy

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

So, I've had this argument used against me twice.

"But with an atheist, what stops them from killing another person?Or stealing? They don't have morals. Why would they?"

One of the most ridiculous, ignorant, and unfounded comments I've had the unfortunate luck to be around and hear.

Has any other atheist around here had their morals questioned with this argument? Why do people come up with this shit? And how can they really believe that?

yep, ignorant, that's all it is.

i've said it a million times....the meanest people i have ever met have been the "religious types". or at least types who thought they were the most upstanding individuals. but they're really just astronomical assholes.

atheists & non-religious types don't need some crazy "religion" to guide their morality. common sense rules the day.
doing what's "right" doesn't need some invisible faith-kinda-based approval for....thinkers.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Try this:



You may have to click "View Transcript" on the linked page.

Patricia Churchland is a neurophilosopher.

Thank-you. That works much better.

angelica

angelica wrote:

Thank-you. That works much better.

Except this neurophilosopher has shown a mind/body bias in materialism.

As long as the material aspects are accurate that's okay for my purposes, so I can suspend judgment on the materialist bias.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Except this neurophilosopher has shown a mind/body bias in materialism.

As long as the material aspects are accurate that's okay for my purposes, so I can suspend judgment on the materialist bias.

You'd be hard up to find a philosopher these days that ascribed to any form of supernaturalism.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

You'd be hard up to find a philosopher these days that ascribed to any form of supernaturalism.

Ken Wilbur, among others, is a very well known philosopher and very into the higher levels of perception, that entail a Maslow-type self-actualization and connections with those peak experiences described by Maslow:

"Feelings of limitless horizons opening up to the vision, the feeling of being simultaneously more powerful and also more helpless than one ever was before, the feeling of ecstasy and wonder and awe, the loss of placement in time and space with, finally, the conviction that something extremely important and valuable had happened, so that the subject was to some extent transformed and strengthened even in his daily life by such experiences."

Maybe the problem is in the term "supernatural". Those who experience these experiences know how natural they are and that they are our birthright as humans, even though this ability to tap into life to such a degree is dormant in most, due to life-situations. This potential still lies just beneath our life experiences.

It looks like you and I connect with very different philosophers.....

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Ken Wilbur, among others, is a very well known philosopher and very into the higher levels of perception, that entail a Maslow-type self-actualization and connections with those peak experiences described by Maslow:

"Feelings of limitless horizons opening up to the vision, the feeling of being simultaneously more powerful and also more helpless than one ever was before, the feeling of ecstasy and wonder and awe, the loss of placement in time and space with, finally, the conviction that something extremely important and valuable had happened, so that the subject was to some extent transformed and strengthened even in his daily life by such experiences."

Maybe the problem is in the term "supernatural". Those who experience these experiences know how natural they are and that they are our birthright as humans, even though this ability to tap into life to such a degree is dormant in most, due to life-situations. This potential still lies just beneath our life experiences.

It looks like you and I connect with very different philosophers.....

There is a material explanation for that. Remember Newberg?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

There is a material explanation for that. Remember Newberg?

A correlation is not an explanation. Correlates of consciousness do not equal consciousness itself.

edit: note the "co" part of the word "correlate".

angelica

double post

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

There is a material explanation for that. Remember Newberg?

The fact remains that there are philosophers who deal with outside the bounds of materialism at this point in time.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

The fact remains that there are philosophers who deal with outside the bounds of materialism at this point in time.

Not many. And is it at this specific point in time, or are you talking 5 - 10 years ago?

WMA

I think people have the same morals more or less whether they are religious or not. Most religious people in my experience have the same internal 'moral compass' that atheists have and do the same sorts of things, they just apologize after or bend the religion to their perspective so they will believe it is ok and they don't feel guilt.

A ton of religious 'rules' seem to have been thrown away just because people don't see the sense or the bad results in following them anymore. That in itself shows that there is a moral compass outside of religion.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Not many. And is it at this specific point in time, or are you talking 5 - 10 years ago?

I'm talking now.

For example, Ken Wilbur has developed an integral consciousness think-tank that is about other thinkers coming together to develop the further reaches of human thought at this time.

I will grant you that those who perceive our reality holistically are on the fringes since they are far fewer in numbers. Only two percent of the population has integrated with their potential which includes seeing a holistic view. So they are far from being the "norm". If you consider how many are philosophers, yes, they are a small percentage.

When a philosopher shows a bias toward materialism, they reveal themselves.

Many of the philosophers who emcompass current thought, say through our universities, deal with a much less rarefied world-view of awareness, just short of integrated awareness. Therefore they have yet to integrate all aspects of the view they see with reality.

Keep in mind that in one hundred or five hundred years, the philosophers of this era that will be remembered, will not be the ones who share a certain "normal" level of thought, but they will be ones who have comprehended new perceptions and paradigms in philosophy, itself. They will be rare and outstanding, rather than mediocre.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Try this:



You may have to click "View Transcript" on the linked page.

Patricia Churchland is a neurophilosopher.

Thanks, Ahnimus. I just finished the article. It was informative and as I suspected, considering I'm interested in the material aspect of morality, her philosophical slant towards it did not interfere with the neutrality of the information.

I also noticed the questions that soulsinging has raised in the past regarding "chemical-jailing" and other ethics issues were addressed, which I found interesting.

gue_barium

onelongsong wrote:

my buffalo were in the movie. except the bull that ran at the kid. he's owned by a bloke in Mn that takes him around the country and even rides him.

So now you're a woman named Kaye Ingle who owns a buffalo ranch in South Dakota? Wow. It just keeps getting better and better.

http://www.tripleuranch.com/htm/the_ranch.shtml

onelongsong

gue_barium wrote:

So now you're a woman named Kaye Ingle who owns a buffalo ranch in South Dakota? Wow. It just keeps getting better and better.

http://www.tripleuranch.com/htm/the_ranch.shtml

kaye and gerard are my neighbors there. i bought most of my herd from them. the balance were bought from the flying w ranch which you may remember from cowboy u. my bull is the son of king. i also have a ranch in nevada which is a national landmark which will be open to the public on july 1 2008.

nice try but i run with a good crowd. mel gibson has a small ranch down the road from me here. he flys in by helecopter often. just because you may be a nobody; doesn't mean everybody else is.

onelongsong

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Not that it excuses Ahnimus in any way...but you've said some fucked up shit to me to me in the 9/11 threads. It has nothing to do with sex...it has everything to do with allowing yourself to disrespect someone you disagree with.




edit...minus the ing

i don't recall any disrespect towards you. if so; i'm sorry. i do however remember attacking a rediculous theory and i stand behind it.