Objective Morality and God

[Sy Borg]

Sculptor wrote:

There is no doubt that evolution is a process that has led to all human innate characteristics.

There is much doubt to say the least!

Even some birds and other animal species evolve by learning that is passed from one generation to the next, by imitating others.

That is the problem with the word "evolution" being used to only refer to very specific biological inheritance. Logically, the entire universe has been evolving - as in developing and changing over time - for at least 13.8 billion years. However, quirks of language restrict words like "evolution" and "life" to the brief recent biological segment of much larger evolving processes. "Universe" is another concept named before we realised that it may be local rather than universal.

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

The universe per se = as such is not a label, dear friend.

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

The universe is a label

No, the universe

• per se = as such, it-self, on its own, in its own right, in its very essence

is independent on the brain.
It is not in the slightest "a label"
You are referring to the SYMBOL = LOGOS "the universe"
in order to erect a strawman about my assertions.

[Steve3007]

I don't really get what a "factual observation" is. To me, "factual" is a word that applies to propositions/statements and observation is an activity. I get what a "factual statement" or a "factual proposition" is, but not a "factual observation". That seems to me like a category confusion.

How else would you describe (scientific) observations of the real (as opposed to abstract) world? They are observations, and the data resulting from those observations is factual and objective.

Well, as I said, I tend to use "objective" and "subjective" to refer to propositions. That's why, in the later post, I was wondering whether you were using the word "observation" in the sense of a statement or proposition, as in "making the observation that..." as opposed to simply the act of sensing something. e.g.: "He made the observation that the sun was setting" versus "he observed the sunset". The first sentence implies saying/proposing something. The second just implies looking at something.

But I know the word "objective" doesn't have to be used to refer only to propositions. It can be used in slightly different senses depending on context, as with lots of words (as with the word "observation"!). As I've said, I think that's the cause of a lot of apparent disagreement around here. Simply people misunderstanding each other.

[chewybrian]

How else would you describe (scientific) observations of the real (as opposed to abstract) world? They are observations, and the data resulting from those observations is factual and objective.

The illusion of objectivity is a cognitive distortion that applies universally. We observe the world, and without any knowledge of a possible optical illusion or some trickery being suspected, we tend to take what we see at face value. People think that they can look out on the world and perceive facts directly. But, the facts are, presumably, what they are, without any regard for our perception, whether we got it right or not. And, all of us exist subjectively, not objectively, and we can never fully remove ourselves from our opinions, prejudices and preconceptions. The scientist is not immune. His data, despite his best attempts at objectivity, can still be subject to being pulled off center by his own cognitive distortion(s).

The danger is multiplied geometrically when the data is collected about other subjects. We stack the fundamental attribution error on top of the illusion of objectivity, along with other possible distortions. We assume unfairly that actions reflect character. We naturally attribute intentions to peoples' actions that tend to match our own intentions. If they do something we think is wrong, we assume they intended to do wrong, easily forgetting that they may have different 'facts' upon which to stack their logic before deciding to act.

There are plenty of other cognitive distortions that can come into play, like the anchoring bias or the conformation bias. I'm sure I don't have to give you examples where 'objective' scientific studies have gone off course due to these biases.

Of course, the scientist has a goal of getting things correct, of being objective and seeing only facts. Similarly, the religious man has a goal of being virtuous. Both are apt to miss the mark. The more certain they are, the more likely they will miss, as they will not be (properly) on guard against their own mistakes and failures.

[NickGaspar]

The universe is a label

No, the universe

• per se = as such, it-self, on its own, in its own right, in its very essence

is independent on the brain.
It is not in the slightest "a label"
You are referring to the SYMBOL = LOGOS "the universe"
in order to erect a strawman about my assertions.

You shouldn't take phrases out of my paragraph just to mispresents my position.
Again the word "universe" refers to a huge number on going physical processes. The universe is not a thing "it's self , on it's own", but the a concept including the total sum of things and processes in the cosmos.
I am not making any strawmans. I just point out that your greek are semantically incorrect rendering your efforts to classify these concepts problematic at best.
I will agree that real phenomena independent of our mind inform our concepts including time, space , etc.

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

The universe(Physis) exists (causes, evolves) regardless whether you are there or not.
Concepts (observe-hoods=PSYCHE=imaginary=un-real) are my up by the brain FROM/ABOUT the universe.

In order to clarify your assertions which I !!!DEEM TO BE!!! shady
I have a question for you:
Can you use logic?

[Pattern-chaser]

The word "universe" refers to a huge number on going physical processes. The universe is not a thing "it's self , on it's own", but the a concept including the total sum of things and processes in the cosmos.

I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with this. The universe is the whole; it is, as you say, the sum of the contents of, er, the universe. We humans conventionally practice reductionism on it, dividing it into a myriad of parts, but there is no logical reason for this, that I can discover. Localisations of matter density are not obviously a reason to say this [part of the universe] is separate and distinct from this other [part of the universe]. The universe is one thing, not a collection of parts. The sub-division is for human convenience only, as we cannot mentally handle such a big and complex thing as the whole universe. It's just too ... BIG for us. So we pretend it's a collection of (much) smaller parts; it isn't.

[NickGaspar]

The word "universe" refers to a huge number on going physical processes. The universe is not a thing "it's self , on it's own", but the a concept including the total sum of things and processes in the cosmos.

I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with this. The universe is the whole; it is, as you say, the sum of the contents of, er, the universe. We humans conventionally practice reductionism on it, dividing it into a myriad of parts, but there is no logical reason for this, that I can discover. Localisations of matter density are not obviously a reason to say this [part of the universe] is separate and distinct from this other [part of the universe]. The universe is one thing, not a collection of parts. The sub-division is for human convenience only, as we cannot mentally handle such a big and complex thing as the whole universe. It's just too ... BIG for us. So we pretend it's a collection of (much) smaller parts; it isn't.

You strongly disagree....and your reason is the etymology of the word???
We know from cosmology that what we label universe is an evolving process of many known processes within the cosmos.
Humans avoid practicing reductionism because it is a demanding intellectual endeavor.
The logical reason why reductionism is logical and helpful lies in your hands....your cellphone is the direct product of this method. Our modern way of living is based on our understanding on how systems form.

We tend to generalize , put things in groups(universe, tribes ), ignore the noise and create absolute ideal forms(geometrical shapes, values and qualities).
Reducing systems in to their constituents is epistemically our most successful method.

The universe is not one "thing" whatever that means. It's the total sum of different processes and things .
universe is an abstract concept. Concepts are not things or entities but labels that "group" different processes in groups.
That is a common mistake people do.
There is a great essay on Aeon about "magical thinking" that explains why our brains "see" concepts as entities.

[Steve3007]

...The sub-division is for human convenience only, as we cannot mentally handle such a big and complex thing as the whole universe. It's just too ... BIG for us. So we pretend it's a collection of (much) smaller parts; it isn't.

...The universe is not one "thing" whatever that means. It's the total sum of different processes and things.
universe is an abstract concept. Concepts are not things or entities but labels that "group" different processes in groups.
That is a common mistake people do.
There is a great essay on Aeon about "magical thinking" that explains why our brains "see" concepts as entities.

That common mistake you're talking about there sounds like it's the mistake which is also known as the reification of abstractions. But I think another thing that's often done is to think we can say "X is an example of a Y" without reference to our purpose in making that classification. So some would say "the universe is one thing" and others might say "no, no, the universe is a collection of things" and, of course, they're both right, depending on purpose. It's like arguing over whether a car is one thing or a collection of components. It's both!

[NickGaspar]

...The sub-division is for human convenience only, as we cannot mentally handle such a big and complex thing as the whole universe. It's just too ... BIG for us. So we pretend it's a collection of (much) smaller parts; it isn't.

...The universe is not one "thing" whatever that means. It's the total sum of different processes and things.
universe is an abstract concept. Concepts are not things or entities but labels that "group" different processes in groups.
That is a common mistake people do.
There is a great essay on Aeon about "magical thinking" that explains why our brains "see" concepts as entities.

That common mistake you're talking about there sounds like it's the mistake which is also known as the reification of abstractions. But I think another thing that's often done is to think we can say "X is an example of a Y" without reference to our purpose in making that classification. So some would say "the universe is one thing" and others might say "no, no, the universe is a collection of things" and, of course, they're both right, depending on purpose. It's like arguing over whether a car is one thing or a collection of components. It's both!

Well I have to agree and slightly disagree with you. If the issue was the definition of the word "thing" then you would be right when saying both statements are right.
But we are addressing the Universe as a concept and what it defines in the real world.
We can not point to an entity and say "there is our universe". On the other hand we can point to numerous different entities and processes and say....there is a planet or a comet or a galaxy or a car.
A car is an entity, an emergent pattern caused by many different parts. The universe emerges in our brain as an abstract entity not a physical entity.

We identify it more as a physical realm where entities emerge through the interactions of their evolving processes.

[Pattern-chaser]

The universe is not one "thing" whatever that means. It's the total sum of different processes and things .
universe is an abstract concept.

Universe: everything that exists, especially all physical matter, including all the stars, planets, galaxies, etc. in space Link

This was, and remains, my understanding of what "universe" means. What (logical?) reason is there to divide it into 'parts'?

[NickGaspar]

The universe is not one "thing" whatever that means. It's the total sum of different processes and things .
universe is an abstract concept.

Universe: everything that exists, especially all physical matter, including all the stars, planets, galaxies, etc. in space Link

This was, and remains, my understanding of what "universe" means. What (logical?) reason is there to divide it into 'parts'?

Sure, but nowhere in your definition we see the term entity or thing.You are confusing the map with the territory. The universe is the mental concept where all those entities and processes (you can read in your definition) are represented by the term. I don't know why this is so difficult to grasp.

[Sy Borg]

A cosmic web is all one thing. However, an incident on one side of the universe has zero impact on parts far removed from it. So how we group things is academic. It's difficult, though, to isolate spheres of influence with our entire galaxy currently being drawn towards the Great Attractor at 2,160,000 kms per hour. Then there's the interconnectedness of all things; even if remote parts of the network don't interact, they will interact with their neighbours, who will interact with their neighbours and so forth.

In terms of connections, the universe is like an ocean - where ripples do not resonate all the way through the entity but it is one thing. Then again, organisms are like that too, where small events in your big toe, for instance, won't be consciously noticed, but will have some degree of very local influence.

Most of it has nothing to do with morality. It's just the flow of extraordinarily large and powerful "currents" in perpetual motion. Ditto humanity. Most of us do our best morally, often failing, chalking it up to "human frailty". Based on the behaviour of those who adhere to the Bible and the Koran, it appears that the ideas of Middle Easterners 2,000 years ago seem no better than the ideas of Middle Easterners today.

Still, people do follow these ancient creeds because they like to have a "home base", some kind of family or network group that provides a financial, social, emotional and intellectual foundation on which they can build a life. Good on 'em. That's one way to live a life. However, that does not give them the right to impose their will on secular thinkers. No, it's the raw power from endless networking in politics that gives them the "right" to impose their will on the people, which they have done to some extent for thousands of years.

[NickGaspar]

A cosmic web is all one thing. However, an incident on one side of the universe has zero impact on parts far removed from it. So how we group things is academic. It's difficult, though, to isolate spheres of influence with our entire galaxy currently being drawn towards the Great Attractor at 2,160,000 kms per hour. Then there's the interconnectedness of all things; even if remote parts of the network don't interact, they will interact with their neighbours, who will interact with their neighbours and so forth.

In terms of connections, the universe is like an ocean - where ripples do not resonate all the way through the entity but it is one thing. Then again, organisms are like that too, where small events in your big toe, for instance, won't be consciously noticed, but will have some degree of very local influence.

Most of it has nothing to do with morality. It's just the flow of extraordinarily large and powerful "currents" in perpetual motion. Ditto humanity. Most of us do our best morally, often failing, chalking it up to "human frailty". Based on the behaviour of those who adhere to the Bible and the Koran, it appears that the ideas of Middle Easterners 2,000 years ago seem no better than the ideas of Middle Easterners today.

Still, people do follow these ancient creeds because they like to have a "home base", some kind of family or network group that provides a financial, social, emotional and intellectual foundation on which they can build a life. Good on 'em. That's one way to live a life. However, that does not give them the right to impose their will on secular thinkers. No, it's the raw power from endless networking in politics that gives them the "right" to impose their will on the people, which they have done to some extent for thousands of years.

Is the cosmic web the creation of a.... cosmic spider. I mean how one can produce meaningful definitions or descriptions by using "poetic" metaphors.
The universe is not an entity and doesn't "behave" as one.
We as observers group things according to specific characteristics and qualities.
The universe can not be called "a thing" or an entity because we don't even know its characteristics or position in the cosmos so this "grouping" can only be mental, not on it's physical qualities.