Can you give me a link or reference to any study done in neurobiology that shows how emotion is the source of morality?

I think it's clear how we're using the term "source" - in a very ordinary and mundane sense. No need to confuse things by turning it into some cryptic mathematical abstraction.

And I wouldn't mind hearing an explanation on how the big bang is the source of everything. What that tells us about the source of morals remains to be seen.

The source of a river is a common term of art in the Earth sciences. I guess you're not familiar with that. As that term of art, it refers to the point where the river beginsas the river in question. — Terrapin Station

I'm not talking about earth science. I'm making an analogy to the source of morals, and it works. You'll have to vomit up some better rhetoric than that if you wish to make a point.

Amnesia is a deficit in memory caused by brain damage or disease. Amnesia can also be caused temporarily by the use of various sedatives and hypnotic drugs. The memory can be either wholly or partially lost due to the extent of damage that was caused. — S

You aren't a neurobiologist. How about citing an actual neorobiological study. You can even paraphrase it.

And what does this have to do with the source of morals, besides nothing?

Why don't they present evidence from neurobiology like I done did?

I can't believe you are rehashing the old empiricist-rationalist debate.

Why are you being silly? — S

You bring it out of me. :wink:

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. — Terrapin Station

Take a river. It's source is the snow from a mountain top. Snow has its source in ice precipitation, which has its source in cloud condensation, and so on. All these factors are necessary if we want to adequately understand the source of the river.

Ok, then let me change my judgment, I believe it is a ethical right to murder and rape.

Still no emotion.

More like you are neglecting the present moment.

You've already had that emotional moment. You don't need it each time. You've already made the connection. — S

Prove it.

Electrons and neutrons are very scientific .

But, tables and chairs are certainly more practical

We have to start somewhere — S

I agree, and neurobiology is a great place to start, but not to end.

. 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?

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.)

[...] the "people" claiming "atheism" don't like the term I use, "God hater."

They're telling me, "atheist" and I tell them "God hater." I think that's fair, don't you? — Daniel Cox

Why would they care about being called God hater? For them, God represents a delusion and a lie, and I think its perfectly reasonable to hate deluded lies. Sure it's fair.

I think we're in agreement, just not about "non-atheist." — Daniel Cox

:grin: Forgive my immaturity, I was using non-atheist because I thought it was antagonistic sounding and might instigate a little digression between some of the members here. So, I'm not married to it.

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.

"Your clan"? Who's that?
— Merkwurdichliebe

I come from a clan of ninjas who fix typos with lightning speed. You must be from a rival clan. We are mortal enemies. — S

Love thine enemy.

I am deviating (for the nonce) from that here. I expect more of someone who would post on a board dedicated to philosophy.

We'll see. Don't want to rush to judgement.

Going to prod and poke...and see what jumps out. — Frank Apisa

Indeed, Socratic ignorance is the key to approaching this topic.

I don't think it's possible. How do we not know it's just a delusion.

I know I was hungry this morning. Am I just delusional?

"Your clan"? Who's that?

And if you want reasonable ground as evidence, of course you are asking for proof.

Indeed. And I am saying the atheist cannot do anything but understand God as an abstraction, and the more they approach it conceptually, the furth they get from the actual reality, which is an immediate relation.

Yes, true. And he probably has reasonable ground for his belief, just no positive proof. Have you two settled the question of whether or not you can know something and not be able to prove it?

there's no way to distinguish between your belief and a delusion — S

However, there is a way for @EnPassant to distinguish between his faith and his belief, and that makes all the difference.

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.

Do you honestly believe the Creator of the universe, the ongoing source for all reality has a problem with informing everyone He exists? Of course not. I sin, and when I do I don't think about God but I know God still exists because I'm a rational featherless biped. — Daniel Cox

I like the Plato reference. I think God informs every rational creature by directly relating to each one individually. For Non-atheists to look for direct proof outside of that direct relation is not only futile, it is the pagan sin of idolatry.

In the atheist sense, knowing God exists is as ridiculous as knowing your ethical principles exist. Even if you attempted to prove you held to certain ethical principles, you would need to be eternally tested by every possible moral choice, and you would never prove anything.

It is direct evidence only for the witness. To another person, that witness would actually need to be God itself if he were to factor as direct evidence.

Ok, sorry for my mistake.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This makes a fundamental difference; I can accept theists having their personal ideas of the universe but will question them if they put that conviction into the world as "truths" without any rational reasoning or evidence provided that survive the scrutiny all other truth claims in the world needs. A Theist, however, has a hard time accepting there even to be ideas that don't follow their personal belief, since that would be to accept questioning of their belief to be a valid perspective. — Christoffer

Your analysis is on point.

I think both sides should be able to agree that the truth is the most important thing and work together towards that. — Devans99

Well, if it helps, I believe in miracles, after-all Trump is president, unfortunately or not.

it's not about converting theists to become atheists, it's about questioning why to use that framework for the understanding of the world and universe. — Christoffer

I argue this is exactly the point. Your failure to convert is an offense to everything they believe, and this is exactly how they betray their faith - by relying on another to confirm it. Instead of budging you, he conforms to your terms , your framework, to convince you. And, then he doubles down.

No, I'm just saying that there is an enormously undefined grey area in which ordinary language operates, and it is a sort of cop-out, philosophically speaking.

Art, music, carnal knowledge, sensory knowledge etc are non intellectual means to knowledge about the world. — EnPassant

Oooo wweee, you just introduced the aesthetic mode of existence.

I would say, as far as theists hurts themselves with their zealotry, atheists, deep down and psychoactively, desire a deep and meaningful subjective existence that transcends all understanding (e.g. eternity or infinitude), but that's just personal speculation.