Clarifications of faith (for magicjoejoe) and moral relativity (for JamesYerian)

Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog Bookmark this site!

Clarifications of faith (for magicjoejoe) and moral relativity (for JamesYerian) 02.04.04 (8:41 pm)   [edit] Rather than continue conversations on these subjects in various places, I have decided to explain my points in a blog so that others may comment and to make things easier on myself. That's right, I'm lazy. Magicjoejoe replied to a statement I made in a comment on RedTigress' blog and had this to say: [i]I can't believe that someone would actually say that faith is illogical. Quite the contrary. The entire human history, every human culture, most human beings, most great human minds and simple human logic has always had faith in something. That's the one. The second point is that even the brain of dragonbait himself[/i] (correction: herself) [i]is hardwired for faith or belief or god or whatever you want to call it. That's right. The human brain itself provides the ultimate in evidence that human beings need a faith of some kind, because there is a specific rgion of the brain in every single human being that is entirely devoted to nothing else. It would be located, I do believe just inside your left temple, near the areas for language, thought, and emotion. I'll double check on the location.[/i] I said that faith, by definition is not logical. This is because faith requires a belief in something based not in logic or rational thought, but on emotion. Emotions are not logical. This in no way means that your emotions are wrong or that your faith is wrong. I was simply saying that to argue the existence of God and accept it is to go beyond logical thought and take a leap of faith. As far as the brain is concerned, there is evidence of an area of the brain that is responsible for religious belief. There is evidence that the brain experiences moments of hightened awareness when the person is involved in prayer or other, similarly intense, religious activities. To me, this signifies the strength and intensity of a person's religious beliefs, rather than pointing to an innate inclination towards such beliefs. I don't really know much about neurology, but I would be willing to bet that the area in the brain which you speak of as responsible for religious belief is also used for other functions. It does make sense that there is evidence that a portion of the brain is designated for allowing beliefs or faith, and it makes sense that it would be located near the areas of language, thought, and emotion, because we are all capable of understanding and even accepting stories of a grand nature, such as myths or fairy tales. Alright, moving on to moral relativity. I think I finally understand where it is that JamesYerian's ideas of moral relativity differ from my own. In a comment also on RedTigress' blog: [i]If we truly do create our own morality, then how sad is it that, in the view of an alarming number of people, morals are all relative. If all we have is ourselves, then you should really, really, ,really care about right and wrong, not discard it as a relative thing.[/i] The second point, that if all we have is ourselves we should really care about right and wrong, is precisely how I feel in regard to morality. Morals are relative because there is no set standard of morality that is universal. Religious belief is universal, but there is no one religion accepted universally. Our nature as humans includes a propensity for survival; our actions must be conducive to survival. The way I see it, the only absolute in morality is that the actions we choose must maintain a certain level of responsibility, otherwise we will not survive. I don't think that moral relativity means that we are not allowed to compare moral standards, or that all moral codes are equal. I view it as allowing a certain validity to all moral codes. My morality likely differs from yours (whoever you are, wherever you are) in some way. This does not mean that my standards are better than yours or vice versa, though that could be the case. It also doesn't mean that, because it's all relative, both views are equally valid. But they are both valid. There is no way to determine whose morality is better. That's my definition of moral relativity. Hopefully that clears up some things, and I apologize to both magicjoejoe and JamesYerian for the impersonal responses (but, like I said, I'm lazy).   posted by: jimmytherighteous (reply) post date: 02.04.04 (11:51 pm) Being that I am a biologist, I find the comments regarding the brain to be particularly interesting. I have no specialty in neurobiology (I'm a molecular biologist) but your suppositions are correct, and I do know enough to comment with factual points. The human brain is not hard-wired to do anything more than control the organs, walk, speak and reproduce. Every other part of us is learned behavior. That even includes the emotion of love, as has been demonstrated in experiments with primates. To hypothesize that the brain is wired for religion is taking a step too far. The human brain is not wired to confront certain realities, like the concept of infinity. It is this inability that stimulates our brains to respond favorably to stimuli that explain away what we cannot rationalize. Furthermore, certain stimuli affect said brain region equally as much as religion. Being part of a group, or cheering for your team generate the same results. The human brain is nothing more than a very intricate system of chemicals. Neither religion nor love are built in, they are learned. posted by: magicjoejoe (reply) post date: 02.05.04 (4:54 am) Thanks for the entry DB. Sorry you needed to correct me. I would still have to disagree with you that faith is illogical. Everything seems to say the opposite. But you did clarify your point very well. I do agree with you that morality is relative. Of course it's relative. It's also very fashionable and changes with the times. And as far as jimmy's comments go, umm.... Well, he couldn't be more wrong. There are specific parts of the brain that do specific things, and unless something freakish happens at a young age, it's not going to change. On top of that even personality is determined ahead of time. Studies done on twins seperated at birth, raised with different families, etc., extroversion, introversion. All that stuff is set in the genes. What isn't set are behaviors and particular ideas like morals and math problems or a specific language. This is getting to be old science too. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 02.05.04 (8:32 am) Reply to: magicjoejoe Now, I'm certainly no biologist (I even failed biology in high school, though I'm pretty sure I passed it in college), so everything I say could easily be wrong, but I think your view that the brain has certain functions that are absolute, determined to do specific things, is taking the evidence too far. As you said, there are specific functions of the brain. However, these functions only allow for the possibility of certain things, not determine them. Language is made possible by the area in the brain designated for language acquisition, but language is learned. We do not have the natural abliities of language itself, just the ability of acquiring language. It's the same with any area of the brain, including the part you mentioned as designated for religious belief. The brain allows us the ability of having religious beliefs, but does not guarantee them or determine the nature of these beliefs. If it did, I would have to have some sort of brain defect, I suppose. As far as personality goes, there is only a certain amount of that that can be determined by genes, but this would get us into the nurture vs. nature debate... posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 02.05.04 (8:43 am) Reply to: jimmytherighteous Thanks, righteous, it's good to have a biologist comment on this, since my thoughts on the subject are based more on opinion and thought rather than facts (I hate biology, especially molecular, geez). :) posted by: Nivek (reply) post date: 02.05.04 (6:55 pm) So is having faith, or a belief in something unproven—and seemingly false, a way to “rationalize” for that lack of evidence and fact? But you can't rationalize the irrational. Though the dilemma is simple with me—there must be both fact and evidence or there can be no belief. But it’s my opinion, and by what I think and know to be facts and non-facts. Some think that the mind of a child is infertile compared to an adult mind, but the child’s, or baby’s mind, is tabula rasa—or, simply, the only difference between a baby’s mind and an adult's is that the baby has no information input yet, or in a primitive state. All of this would probably prove that what I have learned over the span of my life—including rational thought and lack of belief in a god of sorts—is what I have learned when young. I’ve always thought religion to be irrational and lacking of all logic, but then I grew-up in a strict Catholic home. It was a good home, but even then, I knew the anti-concept of belief in a phantom—and further, following the rules of what was obviously irrational to me. But how did I know? Why didn't I stick with the irrational beliefs of my family? Though B. F. Skinner was an Orwellian, subjectivist nitwit, his ideas on learning and behavior has a factual base. I failed biology in high-school myself, so I could be all wet, but all that I can claim is the difference between a strong, rational mind, and a weak mind lost in a world of the unseen, unknowing, and ultimately unbelievable. Not to mention the inevitable chaos and lack of reason in a mind worthy of life and happiness. posted by: magicjoejoe (reply) post date: 02.05.04 (7:45 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 You're right language is learned. But the same part of the brain does the job for everybody, which is my point. Obviously, there are learned things, and plenty of them. And once again, the areas of the brain do specific things. I would never contend that religious beliefs were innate. How stupid would that be? However, what appears just as evident as any other human ability is an ability to experience faith, or belief, or spirituality, or god. It's not even just one area. It's a complete set of functions at that. It involves several areas of the brain. There are also several different levels of functions. So, do you propose that every single human being in history and on the planet learns to do the same thing in the same way without ever being taught directly how to do it? That sounds pretty irrational. I have never proposed that a certain religion or way of praying or meditating is innate. But what I have simply stated is that the brain is innately designed to provided the capacity for the function and the experience of faith or belief or spirituality or whatever you want to call it. Your Name: Your Comment:

"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins