Simon Paynton

Autumn wrote:
I think that stacks weird theologically. Even worse, it brings us within a hair’s breadth of another free will discussion.

I think the Christian explanation might be: God gives us the free will to accept either our own “sinful” nature, rejecting God, or to accept God’s nature and go to heaven after we die.  So, it’s our choice wh…[Read more]

jakelafort wrote:
It might also be instructive to know why something that is ACTUALLY INHERENT in nature is abhorrent to the creator.

You’re right about that.  It’s a good objection.

On the other hand, rape and murder are also inherent in nature.

And if you’re right, then the proper explanation of your belief will appeal to your exercise of moral competence to grasp a moral truth.

The author, William J Fitzpatrick, is confusing physical or practical reasons – knowledge about the world – with moral reasons for deciding that a course of action is the morally correct one.  That’s “what is mi…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
If objective ethical values exist, we’ll have to give up tribalism to realize them.

That is at least what moral practice is like when viewed “from the inside.”  By that I mean your moral phenomenology as an engaged participant.  This perspective presents the appearance of at least a core of basic objective and uni…

[Read more]

lol

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
Should moral evolution lead to religious evolution?

This is an interesting article, about the book “Progressive atheism: how moral evolution changes the god debate” (J. L. Schellenberg).  I think the premise is, that given the broad moral/utilitarian “improvements” that have happened (at least in the West) over the…[Read more]

Authoritarian Left, and Alt-Right, populations share a similar “dark” profile: i.e., a willingness to use violence and intimidation to achieve their political goals.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844020312974

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
I have no problem with the genuinely “woke” when it comes to finding solutions to social inequities and removing any legal forms of discrimination. But the “virtue signalers” are a different breed. I will stir any pot just to set them off on a rant. Leave ’em to me.

I distrust political extremists in general. …[Read more]

What number of friends can Dunbar have? Is it a bad theory?

It’s great to see an article about the Dunbar number, actually written by Robin Dunbar.  He appears to make a stout defence of his theory.  It’s a reminder that a hypothesis is just a hypothesis, especially when it comes to social sciences.

It seems that Dunbar takes into account that w…[Read more]

Autumn wrote:
It is the paradigm in which we exist, and so it’s really no challenge to accept that our moral and ethical considerations exist in that paradigm too.

I think it is a case of living in the everyday (in the present) and applying everyday standards to everyday things.  In evolutionary psychology, as I understand it, there are two ca…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
Abduction is how you make the vast majority of your daily decisions.

Somehow I think you’re confusing it with the word “adduce”.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
A lack of belief in his (undefined) god is all that Atheism is. It is certainly not a code of ethics or a guide to the behaviour of atheists.

That’s true, but I think the point that Sveda is making, is that since there are two possibilities on the table for how morality originated: 1) God did it; 2) evolution and…[Read more]

As for a flaw – those are the flaws: relying on these “proofs” as evidence.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
Can you spot one major flaw in this more sophisticated argument by a Christian apologist?

how could we possibly trust our brain in thinking about such truths if it evolved out of a mindless, unguided process that selected not for truth at all but only survival and advantageous behavior?

This is a classic case of…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
I would say that 98 percent of all philosophers would agree with me that essentially free will is a myth.

Stephen Fry, in a recent interview with the NYT.

I would say, in that case, that 98% of philosophers are dismissing the existence of something because they can’t explain it.

This is what I mean.  We have to call it something, but “rape culture” is an unpleasant name, although somewhat descriptive.

We could call it patriarchal abuse.

“Rape culture” is going to stick because it’s snappy and catchy.  But men need to get used to that paradigm, of being seen as potential rapists.  However, that’s an accurate paradigm according to that pyramid diagram.  Lack of consent, and coercion, are rapey.

TheEncogitationer wrote:
What is not needed is harping on a “rape culture” without firmly defining terms.

I think @TheEncogitationer has a point – “rape culture” is a massive downer.  Why not frame it in more neutral or positive and less gruesome terms, such as misogyny, sexism, or consent culture?  Who wants to be thinking about rape the whole…[Read more]