Excerpt:

"It's a question people have asked for as long as there have been people: are human beings inherently good? Are we born with a sense of morality or do we arrive blank slates, waiting for the world to teach us right from wrong? Or could it be worse: do we start out nasty, selfish devils, who need our parents, teachers, and religions to whip us into shape?

The only way to know for sure, of course, is to ask a baby. But until recently, it's been hard to persuade them to open up and share their secrets. Enter the baby lab.

This is the creature at the center of the greatest philosophical, moral, and religious debates about the nature of man: the human baby. They don't do much, can't talk, can't write, can't expound at length about their moral philosophies. But does that mean they don't have one? The philosopher Rousseau considered babies "perfect idiots...Knowing nothing," and Yale psychologist Karen Wynn, director of the Infant Cognition Center here, the baby lab, says for most of its history, her field agreed."

Link to article:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57551557/babies-help-unlock-the-origins-of-morality/

Link to video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRvVFW85IcU

--------------------------------------------------------------

So, as it turns out, it looks like humans have the capacity to be moral with or without "religious intervention".

So much for the idea that if a person doesn't believe in a God then that person is incapable of moarlity.

Ahtiesm 1 ... Religion 0



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2012 10:00AM by tiffanyspencer.

Karen Wynn's (PhD) Research on this subject:

www.yale.edu/minddevlab/papers/kuhlmeier_et_al.pdf

www.yale.edu/minddevlab/papers/ennumeration.pdf

mba.yale.edu/faculty/pdf/newmang_causal_perception.pdf

people.duke.edu/~mitroff/papers/MitroffSchollWynn05_Cogn.pdf

I love this post, but in my normal confrontational way I would like to argue the premise of the post. I think the word morality is misused here, being "born with a sense of morality" assumes a specific morality. Something that is impossible to define becomes impossible to detect. Babies are born with a whole mess of genetic baggage which they are initially powerless to combat. I would not call that genetic baggage morality.

My second gripe is your reference to Locke's "Tabula Rasa" and how it fails in this regard. First it isn't Locke's it is Aristotle's then Aquinas's, then Locke's then Rousseau's, and so forth. It doesn't argue a blank slate in the way that you are describing. The basic idea is that a baby is free to act, and is not born in a state in which it will always be acted upon. It is the idea that all the human race is free to act, not because it is given to them, but because that was the state that they were born in.

Lastly, the idea that you can scientifically prove a philosophical principle is foreign to me. Just as you can't use a philosophical principle to prove a scientific hypothesis.

I forgot to add

Religion still at 0, atheism now at 2



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2012 10:33AM by jacob.

tiffanyspencer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, as it turns out, it looks like humans have the
> capacity to be moral with or without "religious
> intervention".

And it also looks like we have the innate tendency toward selfishness and bigotry, both of which can be trained out.

Stray Mutt, that would have been a good moral in many societies.

Ow, look at the cute one year old that just kicked the shit out of the other one year old for taking it's toy. That cute little baby will grow up to be a strong warrior one day, and that little baby will eat the heart out of it's enemy one day.

O.K. Let's think about this for a minute.

What is required for a moral choice?

First and foremost, there must be a conceptual understanding of such things as justice, suffering, fairness, etc. A person must be able to conceptualize right and wrong, and understand how these terms relate to human interaction, including human goals, well-being, etc. Morality is more than an emotional response to a situation. It requires some level of appreciation for what is at stake, what the trade-offs of a decision might be. Thus, if I see someone in obvious pain, I might empathize with such person, and might even offer some level of assistance. But this, of itself, does not encompass morality--unless the decision encompasses some sort of context encompassing a moral conflict of some sort, usually where self-interest is at stake.

Second, to be moral the choices made must be motivated by a moral theory that encompasses the above conceptual understanding. Suppose I am walking along the beach and see a debtor of mine drowning, and realizing if he drowns he will be unable to pay his debt, I save his life, while putting my own at risk, solely because I want the debt paid. Have I made a moral decision? Obviously not. I was motivated solely by self interest.

I watched the 60 Minutes piece on this with bemused skepticism. Do babies really have the conceptual aparatus to understand "justice" "fairness" etc? Are we prepared to hold them blameworthy for inappropriate moral responses? Clearly, the answer is no.

Do babies have a built-in moral theory that is hard-wired to the brain. Is there a "moral gene?" Now, it may well be that emotional responses to suffering are hard-wired in the brain. But this does NOT imply that we are operating under a built-in moral theory, that encompasses moral duties and obligations based upon principles of justice and fairness. A moral theory requires culture and conditioning.

So, how do I explain the statistics? Well, after all, this is psychology, where "scientific" studies, and models are notoriously suspect. I will acknowledge the possibility of some low-level empathetic preference. But there is no moral decision making here.

Regarding your conclusion that this somehow promotes the atheistic position, is wrong too. Again, morality is a cultural phenomenon. No thinking religious person has ever claimed that religion is necessary condition for moral decision-making. THat is simply empirically false. The problem is not the suggested inability of an atheist to act morally, or denial of such person's inclination to do so. The problem is philosophical. How is any moral theory to be grounded? Religion insists that such grounding is in God's dictates. An atheist has literally nowhere to turn for such grounding, simply because the "ought" statements required for morality (its moral authority) cannot be grounded in any facts about the world, including human suffering. Of course, if God is to be deemed the moral authority, then you better have a good theory about the existence and nature of God. That, of course, is the religious problem.

The first part is very insightful and helpful in this discussion. Why did you have to fly of the rails on your last paragraph?

Thank you.

But, why do you suggest that my last paragraph was "off the rails?" After all, the poster claimed that the baby study somehow supported atheism. On the contrary, I think that if such conclusions were actually valid (i.e. babies have a moral sense) that would suggest to me dualism; that there was some independent spirit entity where morality was somehow grounded (don't ask me how), since such a position does not make sense biologically.

On second thought, maybe that's another post.

Simply the fact that most religions dictate that the sole source of morality is God. When someone acts in a moral way they should thank God that God instilled the morals. A true believer would never claim that the religion is not necessary for a moral decision because a true believer wouldn't recognize any other source for the morality in the first place.

The mere possibility that morality is sourced from something other than God is a blow to the idea that there is a God. Philosophically it need not be that way, practically speaking if it isn't that way than the God is false.

Maybe the world has piled layers of intellectual fluff on top of what is fairly simple and innate.

Also, you might want to read the actual research I posted as well. The research I posted is academically reviewed research from respected publishers including "Elsevier".

Now, to burst my own bubble before you think that I don't know my bubble is capable of being burst ... yes, my argument in this post is an appeal to authority; that authority being "Yale", "Elsevier", and the many "other" academic journals where Dr. Wynn's studies have been posted. If we assume that the peer review process of academic research is not sufficient, then we can default to the religious experience; however, defaulting to religious experience is just as stupid, if not more stupid, than defaulting to academically reviewed experience. At the end of the day, the probability that science is correct is much higher than the probability of religion being correct. Unfortunately, both are suspect ... and at the end of the day, we can either be poisened by religion or a little less poisened by science, but either way, we are poisening ourselves.

On the oher hand, we can choose to believe nothing thereby opening our minds to more information, which in turn, "might" produce something better than both science and religion. Because of this "might", I'll rephrase all my arguments as contingently sound based on past events but unsound based on future unknowns. Yes, I've poisened myself with science, yet I've left open the possibilty that a better process will be discovered in the future. So for now, the peer review process is fine by me.

I think you should stick with academic research when you are referring to what these people are studying. As I stated before, this to me isn't science since there is no clear way to measure what is and isn't moral.

"Also, you might want to read the actual research I posted as well. The research I posted is academically reviewed research from respected publishers including "Elsevier"."

I am not interested in this research. Being peer reviewed really means nothing to me. The study and its conclusions must stand on its own merits. I have seen too much nonsense that is peer reviewed. If the study does in fact make a claim that these babies have some sort of innate moral sense, it is misinformed from biology and cognitive psychology, unless morality is a component of one's spiritual nature, in a dualistic sense of an independent spirit or soul. (I doubt the study wants to go there.)

"If we assume that the peer review process of academic research is not sufficient, then we can default to the religious experience; however, defaulting to religious experience is just as stupid, if not more stupid, than defaulting to academically reviewed experience."

No. No. No. It is not that the peer reviewed process is flawed as a process, and thereby should be rejected. It is one way to weed out questionable theories. The problem is that there are no guarantees that a peer reviewed article reflects logical or even academic merit, much less "truth." It only means that it has survived one academic filter. Moreover, questioning a peer reviewed essay does not leave a person in a default religious position. Religion has nothing to do with it.

"At the end of the day, the probability that science is correct is much higher than the probability of religion being correct. Unfortunately, both are suspect ... and at the end of the day, we can either be poisened by religion or a little less poisened by science, but either way, we are poisening ourselves."

Why the pessimism? I believe we should be open to all potential sources of information and "truth," and that to some extent we can grow in our knowledge of the world. I would even say that religion has some things to offer in this regard, even if not ultimately convincing.

"On the oher hand, we can choose to believe nothing thereby opening our minds to more information, which in turn, "might" produce something better than both science and religion."

Well, we cannot choose to believe nothing and still function as human beings. But, again, why can't we just be positive and enjoy the ride? Tomorrow I might have such a profound religious, NDE, or other experience, that my entire worldview might shift. Or more likely, I will finally understand a scientific principle that I have been stuggling with. Isn't that exciting!

"Yes, I've poisened myself with science, yet I've left open the possibilty that a better process will be discovered in the future. So for now, the peer review process is fine by me."

I am not sure what "better process" you might discover. But peer review is an academic publication process. Of itself, it has nothing to do with the discovery of truth or understanding. What you need to do, if I might suggest, is develop the skills to read and understand a wide variety of materials, scientific and otherwise, so that you can determine for youself whether some position makes sense, whether peer reviewed or otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with everything Jacob, Henry Bemis, and future forum folks post in reference to my initial post. As may have noticed by now, I don't create forum posts from a nuetral and unbiased standpoint. IN MY OPINION, interesting forum debate (if we can call it "debate") is derived from those "forum posts" that begin with some form of bais whether the bias favor religion or favor atheism. I appreciate the responses, it gets everyone thinking, myself included.

I will admit to commenting without reading the relevant information; however, there is an interesting podcast from WNYC's RadioLab that addresses the idea of morality and where it comes from. There is a section that discusses brain scans of people thinking when asked a question that requires a "moral" response, and another section where they suggest that while most religious people approach the idea of morality as something given to humans from "on high", perhaps it is just as likely that it we received it from the "bottom up"--they look at the group behavior of apes and how they work through problems and share to support their community.

Sorry, don't have the link. I believe it's free on iTunes or from their website. Called "Morality".

Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate" was an excellent book about this.

It is indeed a great book, but where Locke is concerned his "Blank Slate" isn't the idea that a child is only what it is taught to be. Locke's "Blank Slate" is primarily an essay on freedom to act. The idea that no person is born a citizen of a country, or a member of a religion and that they can only choose to be such is a very liberating idea.

Yes, the term is used in different ways. The one I don't like is the one that says a child can be totally molded by training and comes to the world with no moral compass until it's indoctrinated with god thoughts.

Philosophically speaking the idea has some merit, minus the god thoughts. Genetically speaking it isn't true at all. I think there is some wisdom in keeping the two disciplines separate.

Playing devil's advocate here...

Doesn't Mormonism's doctrine suppose that a thing called the "Light of Christ" is what gives everyone a sense of good and bad? And isn't that independent of religion/god or any teaching? That we're just born with it?

Now that said, I don't think a dualistic or supernatural explanation is needed to explain morals. Just as superstitions can be explained naturally, morals can be explained as an evolved instinct in humans, and found in the genetic structuring of the brain. Animals have instincts that tell them to get along in packs and not eat each other. At some level instinctive "morals" are found in all mammals and probably in most reptiles, birds, etc. Humans have evolved a more complex version of them.

Does this mean atheism wins? (I'm agnostic to atheist.) Not necessarily. I can envision a god (like Loki) that created life and let it evolve its own instinctive morals. But such a non-invasive (or a mischievious) god is hardly necessary to explain morals. Nor is a soul/spirit or light of christ. But the naturalistic explanation or genetic wiring of morals doesn't obviously rule out god either.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2012 03:39PM by Jesus Smith.

Is this "the philosophies of man mingled with scripture"? Thank you, you have expanded my thinking.

"Doesn't Mormonism's doctrine suppose that a thing called the "Light of Christ" is what gives everyone a sense of good and bad? And isn't that independent of religion/god or any teaching? That we're just born with it?"

O.K. Fair enough. But Mormon morality also rests heavily upon free will, which is grounded in the individual spirit or soul. (Where else might it come from? Not raw biology!) Presumably, the "light of Christ" speaks to the soul to assist in the moral choice. But, like you say, so far who needs religion.

"Now that said, I don't think a dualistic or supernatural explanation is needed to explain morals. Just as superstitions can be explained naturally, morals can be explained as an evolved instinct in humans, and found in the genetic structuring of the brain. Animals have instincts that tell them to get along in packs and not eat each other. At some level instinctive "morals" are found in all mammals and probably in most reptiles, birds, etc. Humans have evolved a more complex version of them."

Well, if we are still talking about Mormonism, I think the soul is needed to ground free will, and the soul implies dualism.

Of course, the moral sense can be "explained" naturally, but in my view it cannot be justified, or imposed as a moral theory simply through naturalistic explanations. How do you get from "instincts," "human nature generally," and/or genetic brain structuring, to the dictate, "this is what you morally ought to do." That is what I claim cannot be done naturalistically. Put in another way, naturalistic explanations of morality deny morality their moral theoretic force.