ant wrote:Is it biased or irrational because it doesn't have a naturalistic explanation attached to it?

The verse has a naturalistic explanation. Tit for tat, game theory. It's not "attached" in the bible, but I think the biblical authors had a great deal of wisdom without a more truthful understanding of why it was wise. Lacking modern knowledge, they attribute it to some supreme intelligence rather than the much more difficult to understand naturalistic version.

The verse has a naturalistic explanation. Tit for tat, game theory. It's not "attached" in the bible, but I think the biblical authors had a great deal of wisdom without a more truthful understanding of why it was wise.

I didn't actually claim the verse is entirely supernatural, did I?

I think it's arrogantly presumptuous of you to claim the authors didn't know why it was wise because game theory would later tell us why it's really wise.

So the authors of the Bible weren't really wise because they had faith that a metaphysical being exists. so their logic "judge not least ye be judged" is rooted in a flawed concept?
And now game theory makes us all the more wiser - tit for tat is eventually bad.


Suppose the Nazis had been victorious.
Suppose the Ubermensch philosophy won out and an Aryan race began to flourish and surpass the number of inferiors murdered.

Here are the numbers:

Earth, pre-Ubermensch - population 30 million

Earth, post Ubermensch (some years after) - population 35 million (and rising)

What does the wisdom of game theory tell us about the judgements made by the Ubermensch race?
The "you kill me - I'll kill you" game didn't cause any long term harm to the survival of homo sapeins.
In fact, the numbers say in the long term there was a net profit.

ant wrote: So what' up with this doctrine right here...,

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Matthew 7:1

Is it biased or irrational because it doesn't have a naturalistic explanation attached to it?

Some of these ancient Biblical verses are quite compatible with a modern secular vision of critical thinking. We don't need religion to understand that these are words of wisdom, although obviously some people would prefer the Biblical verses.

Here's my favorite (from Matthew 7:5):

"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

ant wrote:Geo wrote:

My two cents on shame and humility, those are emotions that fall more along a political axis than a religious one.

Actually, those were "religious" concepts that came well before and laid the foundation for political/secular bodies.

But, okay.., fine.

These emotions have been with us before we were even "human." The words are used in many different contexts, religious and otherwise. Christianity's conception is perhaps one of the more negative. The Buddhists consider shame as a spiritually useful emotion.

ant wrote:I think it's arrogantly presumptuous of you to claim the authors didn't know why it was wise because game theory would later tell us why it's really wise.

Why is it arrogantly presumptuous? The wisdom is good because it leads to good outcomes. But the model for it, the reason that it leads to good outcomes, is what I'm contesting. They appeal to a divine god, where the wisdom is simply good because god says so. There is a name to this fallacy, if you can spot it. This isn't arrogantly presumptuous, I think my point is valid.

ant wrote:So the authors of the Bible weren't really wise because they had faith that a metaphysical being exists.

Says who?

ant wrote:And now game theory makes us all the more wiser - tit for tat is eventually bad.

I don't understand this, and it looks nothing like what I intended to say. I think you'll have to elaborate.

ant wrote:What does the wisdom of game theory tell us about the judgements made by the Ubermensch race?

The wisdom of game theory? Can you be more specific?

geo wrote:The Buddhists consider shame as a spiritually useful emotion.

And we modern materialists would agree with them, using different language. Shame is useful to good moral behavior.

Interbane wrote:

geo wrote:The Buddhists consider shame as a spiritually useful emotion.

And we modern materialists would agree with them, using different language. Shame is useful to good moral behavior.

What a great way to look at the emotion of shame. Here's an interesting blog I found just now.

Excerpt:
"Shame is considered to be a spiritually useful emotion — an emotion that leads to our happiness and well-being — because it realigns us with our ideals. It’s uncomfortable, but good for us. When we’ve not acted at our best, or way below our best — when we’ve hurt someone, or been untruthful, or let someone down, for example — and we then become aware that this is not how we want to behave, a painful feeling can arise. This is shame. This is us reconnecting with our deeper values."

http://www.wildmind.org/blogs/on-practi ... -and-shame

Suppose the Nazis had been victorious.
Suppose the Ubermensch philosophy won out and an Aryan race began to flourish and surpass the number of inferiors murdered.

Here are the numbers:

Earth, pre-Ubermensch - population 30 million

Earth, post Ubermensch (some years after) - population 35 million (and rising)

What does the wisdom of game theory tell us about the judgements made by the Ubermensch race?
The "you kill me - I'll kill you" game didn't cause any long term harm to the survival of homo sapeins.
In fact, the numbers say in the long term there was a net profit.

The moral hazards of "tit-for-tat" did not have a long term negative impact on the numbers and survival/propagation of the species as outlined in the above hypothetical.

What is immoral about the outcome of above scenario? Express it in "materialistic language" for me, please.

Thanks

ant wrote:The moral hazards of "tit-for-tat" did not have a long term negative impact on the numbers and survival/propagation of the species as outlined in the above hypothetical.

Interesting. What do you think I meant by "tit for tat"?

ant wrote:What is immoral about the outcome of above scenario? Express it in "materialistic language" for me, please.

The slaughtering of millions is what makes it immoral. Reproducing faster after the fact falls light years short of balancing the scale. Population growth is obviously not the sole yardstick to measure moral acts.

I really wonder what image you have of the materialist worldview. Don't you stop to consider that it's arrogantly presumptuous to think we'd overlook such an obvious moral failure in our worldview?

ant wrote:I'm not well versed on Christian doctrine but I'd say that shame and humility in relation to a Christian perspective are not mutually exclusive. Quite the contrary. You are stopping at "shame" and not including what immediately follows: altruistic deeds motivated by a healthy state of humility.

I think Flann would know much more about this, though.

Hi ant.
I think at times there has been an abuse by some Christian preachers to crush people with guilt.

If we take though the story of the woman taken in adultery we find a contrast between the Pharisees who were quick to judge and condemn and Christ who challenged them with whoever was without sin casting the first stone.
The central message of the gospel is Christ atoning for sins to provide forgiveness and justification for sinners.
The problem with the Pharisees was that they despised others as being sinners but thought they themselves were well nigh perfect.
We've digressed from evolution and baseball caps. The point about the link on "criminal genes"was to raise the question of how this fits with our "evolutionary genetic heritage" being explanatory for the more destructive human behaviours.

The slaughtering of millions is what makes it immoral. Reproducing faster after the fact falls light years short of balancing the scale.

Of course it does. And you and I, and Flann and Geo can all agree without a doubt.

But what does pure materialism have to say about the totality of this event?
Isn't that the goal of naturalism - to reduce everything to a natural explanation?

Isn't our collective moral outrage about this an emotional reaction?
Emotions were selected by nature and its blind forces.
What does nature know about immorality, Interbane?
You've added semantic meaning with the word "immoral" (rightfully so) but nature (and any natural explanation) is blind to your outrage, right? You have an illusion grafted on to your blind genes.

Your comment that the population (species) fell light-years short of balancing some scale after the fact may or may not be true (a similar number may have been lost over time by a natural cause..or..some may not have contributed to long term population flourishing).
It's a prognostication.

A comet once obliterated life on earth. Do you think the life scale is unbalanced now? How did we lose out?
Life still found a way to blindly flourish. We are just one of many branches on the tree of life. I thought naturalism prides itself for recognizing we are no more special than any other branch of life. Only theists believe we are cosmically special. (we value our lives, of course)


In QM's Many Worlds Interpretation the Nazis probably won and eventually flourished after their evil atrocities.
Is that universe the wrong universe to inhabit? Why - because Nature screwed up?

I know everyone here would not excuse acts of evil like Nazism.
All I'm trying to do is get naturalism and its beliefs clarified.
Thanks