Some Reasons Why Atheists/materialists/physicalist/naturalists Are Delusional

I know I get myself into an infinite regress here, but (again) where does this come from if not from nature?

What do you mean by coming from nature?

I know I get myself into an infinite regress here, but (again) where does this come from if not from nature?

It certainly gets complicated. Nature can be the only source if one is a materialist and believe that all that Man is evolved by Darwinistic processes from lower animals, and things like altruism, love, compassion, etc. are neural complexes evolved because they have been adaptive, in other words have been adaptively selected for from countless random mutational variations. These things that evolved by such mechanisms would have to include morality. 

Cultural evolution would have to be included. The Darwinist anthropologist would cite cultures that have practiced abhorrent religious rituals that directly violate some of our cherished moral principles. Indicating that these moral principles might be ultimately subjective and evolved not absolute. Like for example the absolute and inherent wrongness of torturing babies. The culture that comes to mind is the ancient Carthaginians who at least according to Roman reports sacrificed babies to Bal by burning them alive.  

But as has been explored very extensively in this forum Darwinism has proved to be a bankrupt and untenable ideology, and more importantly there is an extensive body of evidence for the existence of a spiritual realm that is the natural source and environment of human consciousness. This evidence is in part furnished by parapsychology in the existence of psi and esp, and psychical research in much strong evidence for an afterlife. Many strong philosophical arguments also bolster the view that human consciousness is ultimately immaterial - the mind is not the brain, but is independent of the physical brain.

As I posted on another thread, I prefer what could be considered some form of Platonism and a supernatural realm as to the issue of morality. In this view we are not only creatures of space and time and matter/energy. We are primarily creatures of a higher spiritual realm of existence in which the absolute moral principles are grounded. These principles are therefore part of our basic spiritual nature not our animal nature. Who or what established these principles is above our pay grade. Whether it is a God on a throne or some sort of powerful spiritual beings, perhaps also responsible for our physical reality, or whatever.

What do you mean by coming from nature?

NB's subsequent post captures what I was getting at.

Thanks Sci.

I guess I probably need to read up on Platonism as it relates to this issue.  I've found Atheistic explanations to support objective moral truth/ethics to be convoluted and unsatisfying (e.g., Sam Harris).  If there are objective truths on morality/ethics/right vs wrong, that screams design to me as the easiest explanation.  Otherwise, they are just things that sprung into existence somehow?

I strongly agree with Sci's answer - regarding love and wisdom being the underlying fundamentals to the action.  

That said, that humanity responds with instinct  to moral questions, tells us that there are unconscious underlying fundamentals.  Instincts being the roadway to unraveling how minds evolved to cause behavior.  That there are instinctual memes about morals says there is informational structure in the environment to be studied.  

Is there "divine" information and meanings being broadcast?  Not a subject for the process role of natural information, but the documentation of such reception is.  The claims of deep insight - by some special case testimony - have had immense causal effects on the human response, through-out all history.  At the level of the single individual and her subjective life - there is a small but persistent effect of Psi-like insight that again is significant in influence.  

The general public is always exhibiting small victories over troubles coming from personal inspiration and finding deeper meaning.  Maybe they are of equal or greater importance then all the mystics.  These can be seen as chemical events, with consistent peptides being secreted.  Still, the science points to the cause being from changes to the structure of the inner person's character.  Intent starts the process, with adrenal gland secretions in response to the thought.  Endorphines come after intentional deeds, when the plan is finishing.

That same deep insight - is at the core of much of science.  One can see all of the "ah ha" moments as paranormal.


As for the cosmological questions, the IR worldview handles them with ease.  Understanding the evolution of any actual event sets  the pattern.  Before manifestation, all probability factors reduce to a single P=1 set.  Before the singularity, there was measurable probability in superposition as to the "big whatever".  Before the the singularity was a probability for mind to make structured mutual information from detection of its environment.    While having conditions that may exclude it at times and places, the universe always had a probability for life in its future.  Just like running the physics back to the first moment in time, the state before it happened is open to information science.

I don't think anyone's necessarily claiming it so but IMO whether it's culture, nature, Information Realism, instinct, etc - all of these are merely descriptions of what can be observed.

As per Hume's point with the Is-Ought distinction descriptions of what is cannot give you morality - you can't argue that because some animals mate for life that adultery is wrong or that because some animals choose cooperation over violence that war is wrong.

And of course some animals exhibit behavior like eating their own young that I believe has been morally taboo across almost all of human civilization.

It's a similar issue with rights - you cannot argue for rights without appeal to some kind of real Universal, otherwise you are equating rights with preferences and thus have no moral ground.

I don't think anyone's necessarily claiming it so but IMO whether it's culture, nature, Information Realism, instinct, etc - all of these are merely descriptions of what can be observed.

As per Hume's point with the Is-Ought distinction descriptions of what is cannot give you morality - you can't argue that because some animals mate for life that adultery is wrong or that because some animals choose cooperation over violence that war is wrong.

And of course some animals exhibit behavior like eating their own young that I believe has been morally taboo across almost all of human civilization.

It's a similar issue with rights - you cannot argue for rights without appeal to some kind of real Universal, otherwise you are equating rights with preferences and thus have no moral ground.

So for me it seems to be sort of black and white:  If you believe there is an objective ethics/morality then it would seem to require a belief in a source for said ethics/morality (call it God, universal consciousness, whatever) as I haven't found a good explanation for a mundane, natural/physical/materialist explanation for such objective ethics/morality.  I'm, again, probably missing something here but that's how I parse it.

It's almost like someone could just drop into one of these conversations and carry on as if nothing has changed.

I hope everyone is healthy and hanging in there.

~~ Paul