Is physicalism / materialism a dangerous belief?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

You forgot Santa Claus!

How could anybody possible act morally unless they know that Santa Claus is watching their every move and writing down when people are being naughty and nice?

Santa Claus must be real because otherwise everyone would be raping and pillaging all the time!

The decline in moral values that we see is exactly correlated with a decline in the belief in Santa Claus.

The materialistic theory of parentism says that Christmas presents are actually given by the parents rather than Santa Claus. Parentism in my opinion stunts emotional growth.

Cectic - External Delivery The Future - Episode 3

Chris,

What on earth are you talking about? I don't understand either your post or link. Explain please.

[Ersby]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Andrew, if I recall you once believed in *some* paranormal phenomena, why did you once believe? What changed your mind? Would you say your ethics have improved since becoming a skeptic? No change I reckon .... but what if you had been raised from childhood to think your were 'just a pack of neurons'? Personally if I had been raised like that, I fear I might have robbed the Bank of England by now ..... Well probably not.

I changed my mind after I researched them.

I think I'm a better person, morally, now than I was then, but that's more to do with getting old, learning, experiencing, etc. In fact, I'd say that most of my moral outlook was formed by me relating to people on a one-to-one basis, rather than philosophy, parapsychology or mass media.

But if people are "just a pack of neurons", then they're a fantastic, fascinating, amazing packs of neurons that deserve love, consideration and friendship.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Ersby

I changed my mind after I researched them.

Andrew,

I thought that not all that long ago at the JREF Forum you stated that you still believed there might be something to ghosts and hauntings, and then you were attacked for even saying that by another skeptic there. Am I misremembering this?

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

Chris,

What on earth are you talking about? I don't understand either your post or link. Explain please.

I am reacting to your and OpenMind's assertion that your particualr metaphysical beliefs are a necessary requirement for morality.

You share this arrogant claim with fundamentalist Christians.

I don't need a belief in the supernatural, psi, dogs that know, intentional chocolate, karma or the Judeo-Christian God to be moral. Basic principles such as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" predate all of these beliefs and are independent from any supernatural belief.

Your caricature of evil physicalism is exactly the same as they way fundamentalist Christians caricature "Darwinism". The only thing you forgot was to claim that physicalists eat babies and that physicalisms lead to Nazism.

The analogy with Santa Claus was meant to provide some perspective. I would imagine that if you did an experiment with children that involved one group reading a passage describing how Santa Claus watches their moves and gives presents to only the good children and another group that read a passage where they are told that it is their parents who give them presents and that they will probably get them presents no matter what their behaviour is then you might find that their is a difference in the amount of cheating behaviour. Perhaps the children who believe in Santa Claus are better behaved but this can never in itself justify the belief in Santa Claus.

It is far better for children to learn morals that are developed independently from supernatural entities such as Santa Claus, God or Karma.

Other people may be just a "pack of neurons" but so am I. I experience pain and happiness and I am fairly sure that other "packs of neurons" experience the same. I don't need supernatural beliefs to feel empathy. I don't need supernatural beliefs to be moral.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

I am reacting to your and OpenMind's assertion that your particualr metaphysical beliefs are a necessary requirement for morality.

You share this arrogant claim with fundamentalist Christians.

I am not religious and I hold no fundamentalist viewpoint. If the evidence, is replicated by other researchers in future that people told they are 'just a pack of neurons' or similar are more inclined to cheat, well let us follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Basic principles such as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" predate all of these beliefs and are independent from any supernatural belief.

I am not convinced these are 'independent from supernatural belief' (whether real or not). Why, should one continue to follow a traditional belief if one is just a pack of neurons?

Your caricature of evil physicalism is exactly the same as they way fundamentalist Christians caricature "Darwinism". The only thing you forgot was to claim that physicalists eat babies and that physicalisms lead to Nazism.

What if you are right and computers can be made conscious, is it wrong to kill computers too? In physicalism why is killing a baby more wrong than killing a computer program? Also what is definitely morally wrong in physicalism?

It is far better for children to learn morals that are developed independently from supernatural entities such as Santa Claus, God or Karma.

I tend to agree, I would tell them to listen to their 'conscience' not just to rationalize what is right or wrong (I doubt it can be rationalized from a 'pack of neurons' ) ... but unlike you I am not convinced consciousness or conscience is a brain function that evolved via physical natural selection, I seriously consider the probability mind and brain are not the same and something is evolving outside our physical brains, outside our physical reality too.

[David Bailey]

Chris,

I sense you would feel more comfortable arguing with religious fundamentalists

Your 'problem' is that we agree with you about the malign nature of these beliefs.

Never mind thinking of ourselves as a bunch of neurons - why not think of us as a bunch of quarks, or as part of a huge simulation of neurons or quarks. The problem that we are discussing, is that morality seems very hard to define sensibly in such systems. Do you, for example, worry about the morality of switching off your computer? It sounds daft to ask, but you and Paul are arguing that a sufficiently complicated system becomes conscious. There is a hell of a lot of complexity inside a PC - even if you only use it as a word processor - so why is it OK to turn off a computer, but not OK to murder someone?

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

I am not convinced these are 'independent from supernatural belief' (whether real or not). Why, should one continue to follow a traditional belief if one is just a pack of neurons?

Why should one follow any particular belief under any metaphysic?

What if you are right and computers can be made conscious, is it wrong to kill computers too? In physicalism why is killing a baby more wrong than killing a computer program? Also what is definitely morally wrong in physicalism?

Physicalism doesn't dictate moral rights and wrongs, people do. You've made some connection between ethics and metaphysics that I just don't understand.

~~ Paul

[Ersby]

Originally Posted by Mike

Andrew,

I thought that not all that long ago at the JREF Forum you stated that you still believed there might be something to ghosts and hauntings, and then you were attacked for even saying that by another skeptic there. Am I misremembering this?

Yes, that's right. He was a nice man, wasn't he? He said I was no better than an apologist for fascism. I searched for other posts by him and found he'd said exactly the same to someone else a few days before.

My belief (or lack of disbelief) in ghosts is due to never have got round to researching them properly. There are a few decent scientific papers out there, but ghost-hunting seems too sensationalist these days. This isn't to say that I think they're conscious or anything more than visual echoes in time.

[Larry Boy]

I essentially agree with the so called "physicalists" in this thread. Morality has nothing to do with metaphysics. I do think depression may lead to questionable behaviour though. I mean, we all know how it feels to be tired and how easy you can get upset when you are. But, a religious man can be as depressed as an atheist! Although I believe there's a high probability in the Afterlife, I sometimes get really depressed, and at such times I tend to think of people in ways that make me ashamed of myself.
To sum up, being happy makes it easier to be moral (or act that morality out), and while religion or spirituality may be a "shortcut" to happiness, it's certainly not a necessity.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

I am not religious and I hold no fundamentalist viewpoint. If the evidence, is replicated by other researchers in future that people told they are 'just a pack of neurons' or similar are more inclined to cheat, well let us follow the evidence wherever it leads.

I find the phrase "follow the evidence wherever it leads" to be vacuous. ID proponents use it in exactly the same way. They spend an inordinate amount of time with the pretence that they aren't starting with their metaphysical views and looking for evidence to support it.

I am not convinced these are 'independent from supernatural belief' (whether real or not). Why, should one continue to follow a traditional belief if one is just a pack of neurons?

You are begging the question. You are assuming that a "pack of neurons" is incapable of feeling empathy and love for other "packs of neurons" and that they are incapable of reason.

What if you are right and computers can be made conscious, is it wrong to kill computers too? In physicalism why is killing a baby more wrong than killing a computer program? Also what is definitely morally wrong in physicalism?

Your last sentence is revealing. Fundamentalist Christians view their religion as the primary source of all knowledge including morality. They falsely assume that a scientific theory such as evolution must also supply moral instruction. This is where they go on the tirade that "Darwinism" was responsible for Hitler. Evolution does not determine morals anymore than thermodynamics does. The idea of thermodynamical morality is ridiculous. I don't see why morality should be derivable from "physicalism" anymore than it should be derivable from thermodynamics.

Perhaps I've learnt why some people hold such strong beliefs about the supernatural. If they are tied up with ideas about morality then they are very personal.

I tend to agree, I would tell them to listen to their 'conscience' not just to rationalize what is right or wrong (I doubt it can be rationalized from a 'pack of neurons' ) ... but unlike you I am not convinced consciousness or conscience is a brain function that evolved via physical natural selection, I seriously consider the probability mind and brain are not the same and something is evolving outside our physical brains, outside our physical reality too.

I think both our conscience and reason should inform our morality.

Mirror neurons give us some clues about how we feel empathy for other human and non-human animals. Altruism can also arise though natural selection. I really don't see what the problems are.

Few people would deny that human drives such as appetite arose through natural selection and revolve around getting nutrients to supply us with energy and build blocks for our physical bodies. Does that I shouldn't enjoy going to restaurants and eating good food?