Re: Re: POLITICS: OT: Sex, love and reproduction

[Guest guest]

> makes the case that there is a biological basis for *morality* which

> is in absolute disagreement with most religions, which hold that morality

> is somehow absolute. For instance, the injunction against " fornication "

> makes a lot of sense from a biological point of view (unwanted kids, STD's).

> But if you can show that homosexuality is biological, then you have the

> NEED to have a " new morality " to handle that case, since our current

> morality

> does not take that group of people into account.

I do not see saying that the biological basis for morality is in absolute

disagreement with most religions. The knowledges have not simply been integrated

together and need to be. What I read him as saying is that what is going today

is not a conflict of biology versus religion. To quote him " Every thoughtful

person has an opinion on which premise is correct. But the split is not, as

popularly supposed, between religious believers and secularists. It is between

transcendentalists, who think that moral guidelines exist outside the human

mind, and empiricists, who think them contrivances of the mind. In simplest

terms, the options are as follows: I believe in the independence of moral

values, whether from God or not, and I believe that moral values come from human

beings alone, whether or not God exists. "

In the conflicts regarding this current issue, homosexuals see that it is the

religious Christians that oppose their way of life. The religious Christians

see homosexuals as representing secularists beliefs that oppose their way of

life. Applying 's contributions, this is incorrect on both parts.

Do note, identifies himself as a deist which by definition is a person

who does not deny the existance of God. He discusses this in the following

article in Psychology Today -

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1175/n5_v31/21050188/p1/article.jhtml?term=

In that interview, he defines deist as " a person who's willing to buy the idea

that some creative force determined the parameters of the universe when it

began " . (In another interview I saw with him, he also said that the more he

learns, the more he realises how truly little we know of the universe.) While

he as a scientist would say there is biological basis to ALL behavior, he would

not say that any particular or all behavior is therefore, justifiably right or

moral by virtue of that. On the one side is determinism - if everything we do

is preordained or controlled by God, or biologically determined, than in

essence, we have no choice, therefore no responsibility in what we do. On the

other end is belief in free will in that everything we do is matter of choice

and thus, we are responsible for our behaviors. In that second article, he

discusses briefly these concepts. He is saying the brain and neurological

functioning are determining our actions but those processes also give us the

ability to make choices. Thus, applying biology to these philosophical

principals, tells us the truth lies inbetween the two different perspectives and

encompasses both aspects.

Regarding this merging, I have seen this integration occurring right now in the

philosophies in contemporary arguments of free will versus determinism. The

debate I have seen is not as to changing what we would consider rights or wrongs

in a moral sense, but the justifications of punishment of someone who were to

commit a wrong, crimes for example. Crimes are defined as actions that society

collectively have agreed as moral wrongs, and include such as murder, stealing,

etc. mentioned a psychopath who say for example, commits murder. Science

has been identifying abnormalities (or call them differences) in brain

functioning of these people. Obviously saying that biology caused his actions

would not justify saying his actions were right. Even applying the knowledges

of neuroscience, we still would say their murderous act is morally or ethically

wrong. But in acknowledging that this person was physically impaired with an

abnormal brain, would we morally be justified in captial punishment of that

person? Or say for example they were sick such as the case of Yates.

Are we morally justified in punishing her, or would the morally right thing to

do be that we should administer medical treatment?

In the following quote from the article (part II) on Biological Basis for

Morality, is saying that religions are not only biologically driven as

well, but instinctive within humans.

" THE same reasoning that aligns ethical philosophy with science can also inform

the study of religion. Religions are analogous to organisms. They have a life

cycle. They are born, they grow, they compete, they reproduce, and, in the

fullness of time, most die. In each of these phases religions reflect the human

organisms that nourish them. They express a primary rule of human existence:

Whatever is necessary to sustain life is also ultimately biological. "

" If the religious mythos did not exist in a culture, it would quickly be

invented, and in fact it has been invented everywhere, thousands of times

through history. Such inevitability is the mark of instinctual behavior in any

species, which is guided toward certain states by emotion-driven rules of mental

development. To call religion instinctive is not to suppose that any particular

part of its mythos is untrue -- only that its sources run deeper than ordinary

habit and are in fact hereditary, urged into existence through biases in mental

development that are encoded in the genes. "

[Guest guest]

:

>. What I read him as saying is that what is going today is not a conflict of

biology versus religion. To quote him " Every thoughtful person has an opinion

on which premise is correct. But the split is not, as popularly supposed,

between religious believers and secularists. It is between transcendentalists,

who think that moral guidelines exist outside the human mind, and empiricists,

who think them contrivances of the mind. In simplest terms, the options are as

follows: I believe in the independence of moral values, whether from God or not,

and I believe that moral values come from human beings alone, whether or not God

exists. "

>

>In the conflicts regarding this current issue, homosexuals see that it is the

religious Christians that oppose their way of life. The religious Christians

see homosexuals as representing secularists beliefs that oppose their way of

life. Applying 's contributions, this is incorrect on both parts.

>> Even applying the knowledges of neuroscience, we still would say their

murderous act is morally or ethically wrong. But in acknowledging that this

person was physically impaired with an abnormal brain, would we morally be

justified in captial punishment of that person? Or say for example they were

sick such as the case of Yates. Are we morally justified in punishing

her, or would the morally right thing to do be that we should administer medical

treatment?

Well, you see I agree with all this. I just don't see how it justifies opposing

gay marriage.

IF: Morality is mainly a " contrivance of the mind "

AND: Homosexuality is a biological thing that occurs in n percent of the people

AND: It is better for homosexuals to be in a stable relationship than otherwise

THEN: Why not perform homosexual marriages?

The main (and ONLY) argument that is *logical* against gay marriage is the

one that says " homosexuality is bad because God says so " (the trancendentalist

view). And THAT only holds water IF you are a trancendentalist (and

isn't).

If you are a secularist, the " gay marriage " becomes a more practical issue (does

it work for the people involved?) because you aren't worried about offending

God.

The " opposes my way of life " argument only holds water if one thinks that

ALL of society MUST obey your rules in order to have " your way of life " --

an argument the Muslims believe (and hence, we need a worldwide Jihad

to purge the world of evil). From the way the far Right talks in this country,

they ALSO believe this: ALL of society must obey the rules given by them (such

as the opposition to gay marriage). However, THAT argument has nothing

to do with what is saying, it's just the old unification of Church

and State, which we tried as a society a thousand years or so ago, starting

with Charlemagne, and it led to massive corruption and oppression.

But Joe and Fred getting married in San Franscisco does NOT affect anyone

else's way of life, any more than the fact the Amish don't drive cars

or Mike eats bugs affects mine. So that is an illogical argument,

with or without .

>In the following quote from the article (part II) on Biological Basis for

Morality, is saying that religions are not only biologically driven as

well, but instinctive within humans.

>

> " THE same reasoning that aligns ethical philosophy with science can also inform

the study of religion. Religions are analogous to organisms. They have a life

cycle. They are born, they grow, they compete, they reproduce, and, in the

fullness of time, most die. In each of these phases religions reflect the human

organisms that nourish them. They express a primary rule of human existence:

Whatever is necessary to sustain life is also ultimately biological. "

>

> " If the religious mythos did not exist in a culture, it would quickly be

invented, and in fact it has been invented everywhere, thousands of times

through history.

Again, I agree totally. But I don't see how it furthers your argument. If

religions are *invented*, then why not invent one that maybe works better for

the 20th century? As soon as you say " religions are invented " then they become

malleable, not transcendental, and we could actually have a beautiful, kind,

moral religion with great music and traditions that, say, could still accept the

idea of evolution, homosexuality, birth control, stem cell research, humane

treatment of psychopaths and schizophrenics, etc. etc. --- but something tells

me that's not what you are thinking.

-- Heidi