1 hour ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Morality itself is an extremely recent invention - humans are the only organisms on Earth capable of it and we've only been around for 300,000 years while life on Earth is 3.4 bln years old at least. How would karma and samsara work for E. coli? Or Vibrio cholerae?

Because you didn't use the quote function, I cannot be sure this was addressed to me...

None of this even touches what I said. I said (or clearly implied) actions have consequences, that's why morality has everything to do with cause and effect.

Morality came later? But of course! Animal metabolism came only much later than energy, although conservation of energy came first. But animal metabolism has everything to do with energy and its conservation. You seem to be inverting the arrows of implication here.

And it was @Phi for All who mentioned samsara when arguing about religions general motivation and conceptual apparatus. I didn't mention samsara, although it's also a Sanskrit word. Nothing cause-and-effect about samsara, AFAIK. It's karma what I was talking about, IOW, cause and effect.

I was surprised that you seem to think morality has nothing to do with cause and effect.

I still am.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

There are many studies on the subject, do I have too???

This schtick is getting old.

33 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Morality itself is an extremely recent invention -

We are social animals and our evolution goes back millions not 100s of 1000s of years.

1 hour ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Morality itself is an extremely recent invention - humans are the only organisms on Earth capable of it

I don't agree, though it does depend upon your definition of morality. If you take @joigus definition certainly other higher animals display some measure of taking cause and effect into account.

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

I don't agree, though it does depend upon your definition of morality. If you take @joigus definition certainly other higher animals display some measure of taking cause and effect into account.

Other animals do show a form of proto-morality or pre-morality, elephants are a good example of this but only H. sapiens has a fully developed moral compass and not even all of us.

31 minutes ago, joigus said:

Because you didn't use the quote function, I cannot be sure this was addressed to me...

None of this even touches what I said. I said (or clearly implied) actions have consequences, that's why morality has everything to do with cause and effect.

Morality came later? But of course! Animal metabolism came only much later than energy, although conservation of energy came first. But animal metabolism has everything to do with energy and its conservation. You seem to be inverting the arrows of implication here.

And it was @Phi for All who mentioned samsara when arguing about religions general motivation and conceptual apparatus. I didn't mention samsara, although it's also a Sanskrit word. Nothing cause-and-effect about samsara, AFAIK. It's karma what I was talking about, IOW, cause and effect.

I was surprised that you seem to think morality has nothing to do with cause and effect.

I still am.

Hindus and Buddhists believe that morality is literally woven into the very fabric of the universe and that one's morality (karma) directly determines their rebirth (samsara) or lack of thereof (for those who have achieved Moksha or Nirvana*) - and this claim of theirs is far from being a proven fact. I agree that my previous statement about morality being unrelated to causality wasn't precise enough - they are interconnected but not as strongly as Hindus and Buddhist think.

*Not the band.

Edited August 25Aug 25 by Otto Kretschmer

5 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Other animals do show a form of proto-morality or pre-morality, elephants are a good example of this but only H. sapiens has a fully developed moral compass and not even all of us.

Probably a mammalian thing.

Allman and his colleagues have delved beyond the level of brain infrastructure to investigate how von Economo neurons function at the superstructural level, focusing on their role as "air traffic controllers for emotions ... at the heart of the human social emotion circuitry, including a moral sense".^[14][15] Allman's team proposes that von Economo neurons help channel neural signals from deep within the cortex to relatively distant parts of the brain.^[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Economo_neuron#In_the_anterior_cingulate_cortex

21 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Other animals do show a form of proto-morality or pre-morality, elephants are a good example of this but only H. sapiens has a fully developed moral compass and not even all of us.

It would be more true to say that only H sap has developed atomic weapons.

25 minutes ago, studiot said:

It would be more true to say that only H sap has developed atomic weapons.

The "not even all of us" part of my previous post adresses this issue. 😄

On 8/20/2025 at 4:37 AM, Otto Kretschmer said:

Recently I debated Buddhists and Hindus about certain metaphysical beliefs of theirs. I have great respect for both religions and their self-cultivation methods, I just disagree with the supernatural stuff.

I have often read posts in the science forums that state a member "respects" some religion, but wants to "debate" the "beliefs" of said religion. This makes no sense to me. If a person respects the religion, then why would they wish to challenge and possibly damage the religious person's belief? Belief is a major component of religion. It would be like saying I respect your family, even though I know they are all lowlifes. What?

On 8/20/2025 at 4:37 AM, Otto Kretschmer said:

Their key argument was that my skepticism is meaningless because science was wrong before and when the germ theory was created, scientists initially rejected it (which is largely true).

Actually, the "germ theory" argument is just one small example and does not really explain the problem. The problem with a science person debating a religious idea is that religion and science study entirely different subjects, so they need to use entirely different methodologies. Science studies changes in the "now" and how this affects the physical, but religion studies the constant and the always of the spiritual. You can not use science to understand and answer questions in religion, any more than you can use religion to answer questions in science.

On 8/20/2025 at 4:37 AM, Otto Kretschmer said:

How would you guys counter it? Those two discussiosn were the first time I've debated religionists for over a decade.

I wouldn't even try. But then, I am not a science person. I like science. I like religion. I respect both and often learn from each of them, but it is my nature to be a philosopher.

You know that science studies the physical, and the methodology that science uses supports that study. Most people do not know that religion actually studies emotion; spirit is just one interpretation of emotion. Using science's methodology to study emotion/spirit would be beyond ridiculous and a little foolhardy.

People tend to see the superficial aspects of religion as the subject matter of religion, so they think that spirituality is the subject matter -- it is not. The base subject matter is emotion, which means that religion studies the unconscious aspect of mind. This is where the "metaphysical" and "supernatural" ideas come in to play -- as these ideas are interpretations, and often not physical. Consider that emotion does not work the same way as physical studies, so religion's methodology needs to support the study of emotion. I believe that the branch of science that can give the most information about religion would be psychology, as psychology studies the unconscious and emotion. Jung had some interesting ideas about "Gods" and whatnot.

On 8/20/2025 at 6:35 AM, exchemist said:

Sounds to me as if they may be falling into what I think of as the "Dawkins Trap" of treating religion and science as alternative accounts of the physical world, whereas their roles in human thought are in my opinion quite different. Science provides an account of the natural, physical world. Religion is not about that but is a guide to help human beings live their lives.

So the undeniable fact that science can and does make errors is beside the point. Of course it does, like any human enterprise. But it isn't trying to guide people as to how to live their lives.

I think you are mostly right, but it is not about making "errors", it is about change. Science not only can, but it must, accept change in order to be accurate and to progress. Emotion, however, does not readily accept change and can be destructive if too much change is forced upon it. Remember that emotion causes bonding; a married couple that changes partners each day, or a child that is traded off every day, or a plant that is uprooted and replanted over and over will all be damaged, stunted, or even killed because of the lack of consistency and their bonds forfeit -- caused by too much change. Religion is very slow to change for these reasons. Beliefs must also be slow to change, or belief can be lost. Any knowledge that is not backed by emotion is not believed, so it becomes worthless.

On 8/20/2025 at 6:35 AM, exchemist said:

Its methodology depends on scepticism in its older sense (e.g. as in Robert Boyle's "The Sceptical Chymist"), that is, requiring observational confirmation of phenomena to justify hypotheses, before accepting them as explanations. It is undeniable that applying this principle has met with enormous success. Without it, we would not have modern science at all. Moreover this reliance on confirmed observation is the mechanism by which the inevitable errors and false leads are corrected, over time.

Conversely, if and when religion strays from its purpose and purports to explain the physical world, it is often shown by observation either to be wrong or else to be proposing ideas that can't be tested by observation. In the latter case such ideas are ipso facto not scientific, so science has nothing to say about them one way or the other.

You, by the sound of it may be a physicalist, that is, one whose worldview is that the physical world as portrayed and investigated by science is all there is. That's a point of view, but it is not the only position that followers of science can take. Many scientists are also religious believers. In fact historically this was normal. Quite a number of scientists in the c.19th and c.18th were clergymen.

I bolded the above sentence, as you made a very good point and that is what I want to address. When people start thinking that "science is all there is" as to knowledge, they start endangering science. This can be a problem because if science is "all there is" to learning, then science is the beginning and end of knowledge. Or something can not actually be known unless it has been tested by science. It can be considered, hypothesized, guessed, speculated, etc., but it can not be known. Eventually this thinking will lead to beliefs in scientific revelations and as noted above, belief does not like to change. I have read posts in this forum where members complained that the "old guard" would not accept new ideas even when there is sufficient evidence to support those ideas. So practically, we can believe in science as a discipline, we can believe that the methodology is valid, but we can not believe that what science has uncovered is all there is, because that would make science an unchanging belief like religion -- which would limit science's ability to advance and endanger science's growth.

On 8/20/2025 at 7:10 PM, Phi for All said:

Then I would say their faith in their respective teachings is meaningless because both Buddhism and Hinduism practice things that are wrong.

How can anyone call the caste system "right"? Coupled with the idea of ahimsa, doing no harm, this system fixes a person's place within Hindu society so they can never prosper past what is expected of them.

I would not call the caste system right, but I would call it honest. I live in the US, and we don't have a "caste system". We don't even have the aristocracy and commoners, but we do have social divisions and we do have racism, and elitism, and misogynism, and perpetual immigrants because the paperwork is never ending making them second-class citizens, and we have the homeless and the poor and the disenfranchised -- BUT WE DO NOT LOCK PEOPLE INTO A CASTE SYSTEM. We just recognize that they are there and if people can not lift themselves up, it is because they are lazy/stupid -- or so say the liars.

On 8/20/2025 at 7:10 PM, Phi for All said:

The concept of samsara, the birth-death-rebirth cycle, can cause complacency in many people. Accepting your fate means you don't always fight for yourself very well. Add the idea of moksha, where enlightenment can only be found after death, and you have a belief system that's oppressive and stultifying, that lacks hope for THIS life.

At least science can admit and then analyze their mistakes. Are religions ever wrong? Do they ever admit it? The Catholics repealed eating meat on Friday as a venial sin, but as George Carlin pointed out, there are still people in Hell doing time on the meat rap.

If you want to see the results of religion's adaptions to new knowledge, you are going to have to go back hundreds and thousands of years to see many of the changes. I always thought that George Carlin was a little brilliant, but he was a comedian and there is a difference between philosophy/theocracy and jokes.

Gee

On 8/24/2025 at 10:05 AM, joigus said:

I don't think so. Karma for Buddhists (and in Indian tradition in general) is a fancy Sankcrit word for "cause and effect". Not the same. In Abrahamic religions God can break the law of cause and effect (think of the Book of Joshua, and the Sun standing still under God's command).

Karma is NOT a word for cause and effect. Science people always misinterpret karma. Karma is about balance, not cause and effect. Is there a difference? Yes, and it is a huge difference. Balance affects everything.

On 8/24/2025 at 2:13 PM, Otto Kretschmer said:

Hindus and Buddhists treat Karma and Samsara as if they were facts, like gravity, while in practice the evidence for their existence is... vastly less clear. Causality does feature prominently in physics but it has nothing to do with morality.

That would be because they are facts like gravity. Karma is about balance. What does not use balance?

On 8/24/2025 at 2:13 PM, Otto Kretschmer said:

Also add that what is considered moral varies quite significantly with place and time. For example, in Ancient Rome, killing a slave for trying to run away would be a perfectly moral thing to do. Subjecting the killer to negative karma would mean punishing them for breaking moral rules they were not even taught to follow - an act far brom being just.

When I stated that people tend to see the "superficial" aspects of religion, this is what I was talking about. You are taking morality, probably ethics, justice, and cause/effect, and mixing these ideas with religion/emotion/spirituality. You can mix these ideas if you want, but you will never get anywhere in your debate regarding religion because you don't know what you are talking about. Your point has nothing to do with balance.

Whether you are talking about Ancient Rome, or the Deep South in the United States a hundred and fifty years ago, killing a runaway slave was perfectly correct and moral. While reading arguments that supported slavery, I found one where a psychiatrist noted that a Negro, who would run away into the forest, rather than stay on the plantation where he had food, shelter, and work, was obviously mentally deranged and should be put down. You should read some of those arguments. They are mind blowing, but make it clear that people can justify anything.

On 8/25/2025 at 10:15 AM, joigus said:

We're talking cause and effect here, not the laws of physics. Morality is all about cause and effect. You don't need physics to have cause and effect.

We are not talking cause and effect; we are talking about balance.

On 8/25/2025 at 10:15 AM, joigus said:

Do show me.

What would you like to see?

Gee

38 minutes ago, Gees said:

Karma is NOT a word for cause and effect. Science people always misinterpret karma. Karma is about balance, not cause and effect. Is there a difference? Yes, and it is a huge difference. Balance affects everything.

I didn't get this concept from science. Karma is not a scientific concept, so I could hardly have got my meaning from science. I got it from Mahayana Buddhist teachers, for whom karma is a common concept. And they told me it's Sanskrit for "cause and effect", or "deed and consequences", or sometimes consequences from past events. According to them, you can even carry karma from previous lives. According to Mahayana Buddhism, not science that is!

It's very clear, eg, from the Wikipedia article:

Karma (/ˈkɑːrmə/, from Sanskrit: कर्म, IPA: [ˈkɐɾmɐ] ^ⓘ; Pali: kamma) is an ancient Indian concept that refers to an action, work, or deed, and its effect or consequences.^[1] In Indian religions, the term more specifically refers to a principle of cause and effect, often descriptively called the principle of karma, wherein individuals' intent and actions (cause) influence their future (effect):^[2]

1 hour ago, Gees said:

What would you like to see?

I'm sorry. That wasn't addressed to you.

3 hours ago, Gees said:

I have often read posts in the science forums that state a member "respects" some religion, but wants to "debate" the "beliefs" of said religion.

The science forums? Which ones? I’m guessing it’s not this one; if it is I’d like some links.

I’m a lot less interested in what happens somewhere else. Take it up with their management, not us, because this tactic is suggestive of being a straw man.

On 8/20/2025 at 6:37 PM, Otto Kretschmer said:

Recently I debated Buddhists and Hindus about certain metaphysical beliefs of theirs. I have great respect for both religions and their self-cultivation methods, I just disagree with the supernatural stuff.

Their key argument was that my skepticism is meaningless because science was wrong before and when the germ theory was created, scientists initially rejected it (which is largely true).

How would you guys counter it? Those two discussiosn were the first time I've debated religionists for over a decade.

They need to demonstrate the reality of their supernatural stuff - and/or of the universe having a fundamental nature that enables it. But don't expect such minds to be changed with evidence and reason.

Examples of 'science was wrong' from nearly 2 centuries ago - haven't they got something more current? - are examples of scientific methods working. The disease example was not even a case of an existing science based understanding being shown to be incorrect - Miasma and Humors, God's punishments and Karma as causes were never science based.

It took an improved and demonstrably more correct understanding for the previous incorrect 'knowledge' of how diseases work to be deemed wrong and abandoned. If they can show a specific science based understanding is incorrect then they can claim that one is incorrect; it doesn't work as a way to reject other unrelated things, let alone reject scientific methodologies entirely.

Claiming the supernatural stuff 'proves' science is wrong is kinda weak when they can't demonstrate the supernatural stuff.

I do know that faith and reason are technically separate - but since the number of possible religions is infinite and none of them can be proven empirically, why not subscribe to all possible religions at once? Like, just build a shrine with the infinity (♾️) symbol or whatnot and pray to it.

Edited September 17Sep 17 by Otto Kretschmer

1 hour ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

I do know that faith and reason are technically separate - but since the number of possible religions is infinite and none of them can be proven empirically, why not subscribe to all possible religions at once? Like, just build a shrine with the infinity (♾️) symbol or whatnot and pray to it.

Maybe, you only think you know?

On 9/15/2025 at 8:42 PM, Gees said:

The problem with a science person debating a religious idea is that religion and science study entirely different subjects, so they need to use entirely different methodologies.

What is the methodology of religion? Can you add some examples from different religions, like Christianity and Buddhism?

On 9/15/2025 at 8:42 PM, Gees said:

You can not use science to understand and answer questions in religion, any more than you can use religion to answer questions in science.

Well, it seems quite obvious to me what science can do: do research in questions that can be empirically answered. (We leave out mathematics here...). So what is left for religion? E.G. Ethics, Aesthetics, meaningfulness, etc. These are important topics, and in my opinion, not empirical. But they can all be done without religion. Or not?

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Maybe, you only think you know?

Care to elaborate?

So far - you shall feel the honour of being downvoted.

Edited September 17Sep 17 by Otto Kretschmer

Showing scientists get something wrong doesn't mean all science is wrong, just that that specific thing is wrong. I think they need to provide examples of science being wrong that have not been challenged by scientists and faced correction rather than a history of poor science being challenged and corrected.

The infectious agents (germs) example is especially weak; it didn't replace wrong science, it replaced miasma, humors, God's punishments, karma. ie superstition. Granting the possibility a widely held science based understanding could be wrong as a means to identify error is an error correction methodology but that kind of skepticism can only hold the possibility of 'wrong' as a hypothesis; it is not the same as knowing (demonstrating with evidence and reason) that it is wrong.

There are areas of science where uncertainty is high and there are competing hypotheses - science as a work in progress. There are areas where there is no real uncertainty; the confidence is that high. But the very willingness to subject existing scientific understandings to challenge can be seen as lack of confidence, ie a state of perpetual uncertainty.

Not that I think there is much successful arguing with religious devotees using evidence, logic and reason; they will be hard pressed to provide evidence the fundamental nature of the universe enables supernatural phenomena and will reject evidence, logic and reason that conflicts with their dogma. And their dogma may not allow admissions of 'wrong'.

On 9/15/2025 at 3:47 PM, joigus said:

I didn't get this concept from science. Karma is not a scientific concept, so I could hardly have got my meaning from science.

I never stated that Karma was/is a scientific concept. Please try to consider what I state, rather than what you think I mean. What I stated is that science people interpret karma as a kind of cause and effect concept, because that is as close as they can get to understanding it. They see Karma as being either cause and effect, or maybe mysticism/magic.

On 9/15/2025 at 3:47 PM, joigus said:

I got it from Mahayana Buddhist teachers, for whom karma is a common concept. And they told me it's Sanskrit for "cause and effect", or "deed and consequences", or sometimes consequences from past events. According to them, you can even carry karma from previous lives. According to Mahayana Buddhism, not science that is!

Question: If you can carry karma from previous lives, how do you think "cause and effect" makes that happen? What causes the effect? How does that work? If there is no causation, then how can it be called cause and effect?

On 9/15/2025 at 3:47 PM, joigus said:

I'm sorry. That wasn't addressed to you.

My apologies. I thought you wanted answers. I didn't realize you just wanted to argue.

On 9/15/2025 at 6:28 PM, swansont said:

The science forums? Which ones? I’m guessing it’s not this one; if it is I’d like some links.

I’m a lot less interested in what happens somewhere else. Take it up with their management, not us, because this tactic is suggestive of being a straw man.

If you want a link, you need go no further than this thread. If you look at, what I believe is, the first sentence in the original post, it states that the author "respects" religion, but wishes to "debate" the "beliefs". Did you not read the first post, or did you just skim it and miss those words?

Gee

33 minutes ago, Gees said:

If you want a link, you need go no further than this thread. If you look at, what I believe is, the first sentence in the original post, it states that the author "respects" religion, but wishes to "debate" the "beliefs". Did you not read the first post, or did you just skim it and miss those words?

No, I read it.

They did not say they wished to debate the beliefs (with or without scare quotes). They did say they had debated “religionists” (somewhere else, obviously) but did not say it was on any kind of science forum.

They also said they disagreed with “the supernatural stuff” but not that they wanted to debate it. What they asked to discuss was pretty clearly spelled out in the post and thread title. The introduction, which gave the backdrop for the question, was presumably there for context.

I wonder how much disagreement online is from failure of reading comprehension and how much is from deliberate misinterpretation used to try and justify indignation. (one way to tell the difference is when it’s pointed out that the scenario that was objected to is a straw man, are they relieved or do they just get more indignant)

9 hours ago, swansont said:

No, I read it.

They did not say they wished to debate the beliefs (with or without scare quotes). They did say they had debated “religionists” (somewhere else, obviously) but did not say it was on any kind of science forum.

They also said they disagreed with “the supernatural stuff” but not that they wanted to debate it. What they asked to discuss was pretty clearly spelled out in the post and thread title. The introduction, which gave the backdrop for the question, was presumably there for context.

I wonder how much disagreement online is from failure of reading comprehension and how much is from deliberate misinterpretation used to try and justify indignation. (one way to tell the difference is when it’s pointed out that the scenario that was objected to is a straw man, are they relieved or do they just get more indignant)

It just occured to me - should we even debate religious folks? With the exception of stuff like creationism and faith healing, most of human religion is pretty harmless even though it can be bizarre at times.

Edited September 18Sep 18 by Otto Kretschmer

20 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Care to elaborate?

So far - you shall feel the honour of being downvoted.

If you think about, properly, we can only have faith in our reason/perception, not in a solipsistic way, but in a human way; for instance, we tend to assume that our culture is the correct one, we also tend to assume that we are correct, we also tend to assume that only other people are biased etc.

But thanks for the downvote, I shall wear it with pride (irony).

9 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

It just occured tro me - should we even debate religious folks? With the exception of stuff like creationism and faith healing, most of human religion is pretty harmless even though it can be bizarre at times.

Patronising much!!!

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If you think about, properly, we can only have faith in our reason/perception, not in a solipsistic way, but in a human way; for instance, we tend to assume that our culture is the correct one, we also tend to assume that we are correct, we also tend to assume that only other people are biased etc.

But thanks for the downvote, I shall wear it with pride (irony).

Eh, I've already retracted that downvote. I had overreacted a bit yesterday.

1 minute ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Eh, I've already retracted that downvote. I had overreacted a bit yesterday.

No backsies... 😉

10 hours ago, Gees said:

I never stated that Karma was/is a scientific concept. Please try to consider what I state, rather than what you think I mean. What I stated is that science people interpret karma as a kind of cause and effect concept, because that is as close as they can get to understanding it. They see Karma as being either cause and effect, or maybe mysticism/magic.

Question: If you can carry karma from previous lives, how do you think "cause and effect" makes that happen? What causes the effect? How does that work? If there is no causation, then how can it be called cause and effect?

What makes you think karma has a rollover?

Karma is about damaging ones soul, cause and effect is a purely internal affair.

"Damaging one's soul

At Apology 30c7–e1, Socrates cautions his jurors about the risk they face. The risk Socrates himself faces is obvious but, as he explains it, the danger he faces is far less grave than the one the jurors may inflict upon themselves:

Now, the claim that trying to kill a man unjustly is a greater evil than being killed unjustly may seem simply obvious from a moral point of view."

11 hours ago, Gees said:

I never stated that Karma was/is a scientific concept. Please try to consider what I state, rather than what you think I mean.

You did say "science people always misinterpret karma". You either meant the question of karma shouldn't be addressed from a scientific stance, or --worse--, that "science people" --in general-- are too stupid to understand this particular religious idea no matter how well-read they are in it.

It's one or the other.

11 hours ago, Gees said:

Question: If you can carry karma from previous lives, how do you think "cause and effect" makes that happen? What causes the effect? How does that work? If there is no causation, then how can it be called cause and effect?

How on Earth would I know? I'm just carrying over a concept I learnt from religious folks. Ask them for the finer points of karmic existence. I can facilitate you access to a karmic consultant if you're interested.

In the meantime, karma does mean "cause and effect" to a vast community of people interested in Eastern religions, including those considered masters of the subject.

Edited September 18Sep 18 by joigus
minor addition

3 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

It just occured to me - should we even debate religious folks? With the exception of stuff like creationism and faith healing, most of human religion is pretty harmless even though it can be bizarre at times.

I think it depends on whether it’s good-faith debate, and what the goal is. With creationists it’s generally not good faith, and if someone’s trying to convert the other I have no interest, but I think it’s ok if it’s a matter of an honest misunderstanding being cleared up, whether it’s how science works or what the religious beliefs actually are.