The question we are considering is whether or not neurobiology can adequately explain the source of morality without supplemental explanations from nonscientific disciplines.
— Merkwurdichliebe

That was not the original question. This discussion about adequacy stemmed from a later comment by praxis, and he was never clear on what criteria he was going by — S

I wouldn’t say “nonscientific disciplines,” whatever that is. I used the term “soft sciences.”

The source of morals must include culture. Neurobiology is an incomplete or ‘inadequate’ source.

It's like some people are just looking for an argument. — S

I read yesterday that someone wrote a plugin that can help you ignore such people. I predict that it will be wildly popular.

I wouldn’t say “nonscientific disciplines,” whatever that is. I used the term “soft sciences.”

The source of morals must include culture. Neurobiology is an incomplete or ‘inadequate’ source. — praxis

'Incomplete' is a better word, and this was never denied. You read too much into my comments if you actually thought that I was denying that.

I read yesterday that someone wrote a plugin that can help you ignore such people. I predict that it will be wildly popular. — praxis

That's okay. You can take cheap shots at me. I have quite thick skin. This just means that you can't act like you have the moral high ground without being a hypocrite.

Hi, if our culture is even a factor of how we choose the right course of action then its entire foundation is corrupt.

I've seen this line of reasoning for 11 years from so-called "atheists." They claim emphatically and dogmatically, & continuously, "We're all born atheists, it's a scientific fact" and their leader, the most vociferous of the four horsemen of the new atheist apocalypse, a self proclaimed "militant atheist" emphatically states, "If you're born in Iran, you're a Muslim."

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the science in the major premise is disavowed by their greatest scientist.

Evolutionary psychology is problematic because evolution has no interest in the truth about anything.

Evolutionary psychology is problematic because evolution has no interest in the truth about anything. — Daniel Cox

And the truth is that God created us, etc.?

What does science have to say about that?

I wouldn’t say “nonscientific disciplines,” whatever that is. I used the term “soft sciences.” — praxis

I can agree with that. Perhaps I was overgeneralizing.

The source of morals must include culture. Neurobiology is an incomplete or ‘inadequate’ source. — praxis

Yes, but Terrapin and S have no argument after I introduced that article (Intentionality and “free-will” from a neurodevelopmental perspective), in which it is asserted that morality cannot be adequately explained from a neuro developmental perspective. So, now they are scrambling to save their wet paper bag full of irrattional opinions by vomitting out a bunch of confused rhetorical nonsense.

I read yesterday that someone wrote a plugin that can help you ignore such people. I predict that it will be wildly popular. — praxis

Lol. But, I would never ignore S. I have too much fun watching him get dizzy when I'm running philosophical circles around him.

I was certainly never talking about anything like that, a fortiori because I refuse to do "explanation" discussions (a la "is this explained?") without first exploring someone's general criteria for explanations, and no one ever even starts trying to do their general criteria for explanations . . . because no one actually has any such criteria. They simply use "explanation" comments ("that's not (sufficiently) explained" etc.) as a bludgeon for views they don't care for. — Terrapin Station

Ok guy, sure you don't do explanation discussions. But, please go on and explain more about how you dont explain things.

Then it follows that all of science is complete bullshit. So then, let's agree to never mention science when trying to validate a point about anything.

Why are we even discussing this tangent? Isn't it interesting enough to discuss what we know about the source of morality, in answer to the opening post? It's like some people are just looking for an argument. — S

But that is just it. People begin throwing out neurobiological explanations for the source of morality, and then we proceed to discuss it. And it isn't going well for those who put all their eggs in that basket.

Yes, but Terrapin and S have no argument after I introduced that article (Intentionality and “free-will” from a neurodevelopmental perspective), in which it is asserted that morality cannot be adequately explained from a neuro developmental perspective. So, now they are scrambling to save their wet paper bag full of irrattional opinions by vomitting out a bunch of confused rhetorical nonsense.

Lol. But, I would never ignore S. I have too much fun watching him get dizzy when I'm running philosophical circles around him. — Merkwurdichliebe

What do you mean I "have no argument"? No argument against what? I don't need to argue against something that misses the point. I already explained that the relevant topic is the source of morality (which is crystal clear from the title: just scroll to the top of the page), not simply morality. And I already explained that I am not in disagreement with either yours or the other one's claims about "inadequacy", now that you've bothered to actually clarify what you mean.

And I'm glad you haven't ignored me, because your bluster is quite amusing.

Ok, sorry for my mistake.

Ok guy, sure you don't do explanation discussions. But, please go on and explain more about how you dont explain things. — Merkwurdichliebe

Debates about whether something is explained, goofball.

Then it follows that all of science is complete bullshit. So then, let's agree to never mention science when trying to validate a point about anything. — Merkwurdichliebe

I can't even begin to imagine how confused you must be, or how you could have ended up that confused, if you think something above has some implication for whether science is bullshit.

But that is just it. People begin throwing out neurobiological explanations for the source of morality, and then we proceed to discuss it. And it isn't going well for those who put all their eggs in that basket. — Merkwurdichliebe

It could have been a more productive discussion, but then began the whining about inadequacy, and things were taken out of context. Instead of talking about what we know through science about the source of morality, it became an opportunity to attack the limits of science. Yawn.

I have learnt that it would probably be better for me to just look for answers myself instead of trying to get somewhere through a discussion on a philosophy forum. Sometimes I forget this. Books are often more sensible and more knowledgeable than people on the internet.

It could have been a more productive discussion, but then began the whining about inadequacy, and things were taken out of context. Instead of talking about what we know through science about the source of morality, it became an opportunity to attack the limits of science. Yawn. — S

No, you began with claims about a specific science (neurobiology) and not science in general.

People may not want to ignore you so much if you were more honest.

The Truth is that I direct my awareness every waking moment and a lot when I'm sleeping. The phenomenology of psychic experience undeniably falsifies naturalism; atheism; functionalism; behaviorism; epiphenomenalism; intertheoretic reductionism; psychoneural identity theory; & determinism (causal; motivational; & hedonistic).

If you reject the direct evidence our noetic subsystem of mind is evaluative and supervisory, then there's still the logic of Sherlock Holmes. If you rule out all of the other possibilities and all the other possibilities here are those suggested by materialism then what is left must be true and what is left is that there is an immaterial subsystem which is responsible for awareness.

The word 'God' has a bad rap from the God hater position and that's why I didn't use it in the comment you replied to.

Instead of talking about what we know through science about the source of morality, — S

But if we only discuss it as an effect of neurobiology, we will never adequately understand the source of morals.

Nah, you just can’t waste time with dummies and ideologues who can’t listen.

The word 'God' has a bad rap from the God hater position and that's why I didn't use it in the comment you replied to. — Daniel Cox

Really? I assumed it was because you were trying to using science to invalidate evolutionary psychology, and it would have been awkward, to say the least, had you mentioned God in the same breath.

But if we only discuss it as an effect of neurobiology, we will never adequately understand the source of morals. — Merkwurdichliebe

What do you figure is a non-neurobiological source?

What do you figure is a non-neurobiological source? — Terrapin Station

A non-neurobiological explanation for the source of morals would include historical or societal explanations that go far beyond the scope of neurobiology.

I'm a student 10 years (or so, maybe 8) under the tutelage of a physicist whose specialty is God v. Naturalism. His 67 video curriculum matches his book: God, Science & Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism. I transcribed nearly all of his videos and I typewrote his entire book including the footnotes.

If you really want to know.
If spiritual longings evolved in the same way as our desires for food, drink, sex and knowledge, how could those longings be incapable of fulfilment? Imagine two genetic lines, one of which spends significant time and resources searching for mucta, which does not exist, and another like it in all respects except for the mucta-drive. Cleary, the second line will out-compete the first. For such evolutionary competition, we need the two variants, each able to pass its mucta-desire trait on to its heirs.

If we take mucta to be God, the naturalist hypothesis points to the demise of spirituality. Is this hypothesis viable? There are atheists who profess no spiritual longings, and they tend to pass their position on to their children. So, while the preconditions for the evolutionary demise of spirituality exist, theists are not an extinct variant, but the majority of the population. So, spirituality is adaptive. Its adaptiveness is confirmed by the correlation of spiritual behavior with health, psychological well-being and longevity.7 Thus, if evolutionary psychology correctly accounts for the development of behavior, including spiritual behavior, it is hard to see how the quest for God could be baseless. At the very least, naturalists attacking religion and spirituality are working to reduce human fitness.

7 Hummer, et al. (1999), "Religious Participation and U.S. Adult Mortality." See also ScienceDaily (1999), "Research Shows Religion Plays a Major Role in Health, Longevity." Maselko, et al. (2006), "Religious Service Attendance and Decline in Pulmonary Function in a High Functioning Elderly Cohort." See also ScienceDaily (2006a), "Go to Church and Breathe Easier." Maselko, et al. (2008), "Religious Service Attendance and Spiritual Well-Being are Differently Associated with Risk of Major Depression," See also ScienceDaily (2006), "Weekly Religious Attendance Nearly as Effective as Statins and Exercise in Extending Life."

I only had to remember one word "mucta." But he talks about little else throughout his book, 1000 authoritative case references, more with the videos, and each one of those science books has maybe 100 references.

Love to me is more important than science, or I guess I would say, "Love and science must be joined at the hip for maximum existential penetration."

A non-neurobiological explanation for the source of morals would include historical or societal explanations that go far beyond the scope of neurobiology. — Merkwurdichliebe

Can you be a bit more specific. What would be an example of this?

So in short, what was the non-neurobiological source in all of that?

"Weekly Religious Attendance Nearly as Effective as Statins and Exercise in Extending Life." — Daniel Cox

Is that supposed to be impressive?

Love to me is more important than science, or I guess I would say, "Love and science must be joined at the hip for maximum existential penetration." — Daniel Cox

Religion, or any particular religion, is not love.

You value truth, as we all do, but you value the system of meaning that you've subscribed to more than you value truth. That's what you're saying, and that's fine, it's quite common.

Anyway, I think we all know that monotheists believe that the source of morals is God.

Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves, we still need to lock down what neurobiology can say about the source of morals. No need to complicate it by also asking what history can say.

(Add. But a multi-varied analysis is necessary if we wish to sufficiently understand the source of morals.)

Because there was confusion about this earlier with someone else, are you using "source" to refer to where morals arise as morals? An analogy would be the source of a river.

. He lectures at the Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies International Symposiums. Entry fee is $350.00 — Daniel Cox

I knew it! This has all just been one long info-mercial.

"Quick! Act now and you'll get not 1, not 2, but 3 hours of mystical wannabe science for the price of one!"

Nah, you just can’t waste time with dummies and ideologues who can’t listen. — DingoJones

Oh, but I can and I have. Whether or not I should do so is another matter, of course. And you left out those who nitpick and take cheap shots yet act morally superior. Don't forget that one.

But if we only discuss it as an effect of neurobiology, we will never adequately understand the source of morals. — Merkwurdichliebe

There's that word again: "adequately". We have to start somewhere, clever clogs. There's no need to have a seizure just because I approached the topic from the angle of neurobiology. It can explain a heck of a lot about emotion, and what's morality without emotion? An empty shell. It wouldn't exist. How could it if we didn't feel anything at all about things like murder or rape?

. It can explain a heck of a lot about emotion, and what's morality without emotion? An empty shell. It wouldn't exist. How could it if we didn't feel anything about murder or rape? — S

Then how is it that I can have no emotion concerning murder and rape, but nevertheless judge it to be morally wrong?