The More We Evolve, the Less We Need God

[seer]

To merely assert a proposition is not to demonstrate it.

Are you speaking of yourself Doug? Remember I asked you this

And it is a fact, like our prime cousins, that we are biologically inclined to harm each other. And yes, we do philosophy, but how does it follow that there is any more meaning in us calling a human act evil, or not, than calling what a Chimp does evil or not? I don't see the logical connection - apart from mere assertion.

[Mountain Man]

I take you don't like my answer. And, I can well understand why you don't like it. That doesn't mean I didn't answer your argument.

Huh, and here I just assumed you were self-aware enough that you knew what you were up to, but apparently your thinking is so scatter-shot that you've convinced yourself that you delivered a fatal hit when you were never even close to the target.

Oh well...

[Mountain Man]

OK. Context restored:



And my answer:

As soon as you demonstrate the relevance of my ice cream preferences to my moral philosophy, I will attempt to defend my preference for some flavors over others.

I know how I defend my behavior, and I do not defend it the way you say I defend it.

I don't believe you can avoid negative consequences for yourself of your evil behavior. And, just because you would not fear the consequences doesn't mean you would like them. I'm not afraid of anchovies, but I don't want them on my pizzas.

That was an interesting attempt to salvage your argument, but it still has the exact same problems as your original presentation. I'll point out the first problem and leave it up to you to figure out the rest.

Your very first sentence is a challenge to explain something that was explained later in the post, but you didn't realize it because you hastily attacked a single sentence out of context instead of waiting until after you had read and digested my entire argument before attempting to respond.

[Tassman]

[I]And it is a fact, like our prime cousins, that we are biologically inclined to harm each other.

More to the point it is a fact, like our primate cousins, that we are biologically inclined to maintain cohesive communities.

And yes, we do philosophy, but how does it follow that there is any more meaning in us calling a human act evil, or not, than calling what a Chimp does evil or not? I don't see the logical connection - apart from mere assertion.

Chimps act entirely from instinct in maintaining their cohesive societies, whereas humans have the intellectual ability to modify their instinctive behaviour in order to best maintain social cohesion.

[Tassman]

The real irony is the fact that you instinctively rejecting the logical implications of atheism is good evidence that theism is true.

[Doug Shaver]

Remember I asked you this

And it is a fact, like our prime cousins, that we are biologically inclined to harm each other. And yes, we do philosophy, but how does it follow that there is any more meaning in us calling a human act evil, or not, than calling what a Chimp does evil or not? I don't see the logical connection - apart from mere assertion.

I don't remember.* I also don't remember making the assertion that there is "more meaning in us calling a human act evil, or not, than calling what a Chimp does evil or not." To call chimp behavior evil is not less meaningful than calling human behavior evil. It is meaningless, period. And I do not infer that from my atheism. I infer it from (a) my rejection of Aristotelian metaphysics and (b) what I have come to believe about the philosophy of language.

*I sometimes miss posts addressed to me. I have been unable to get the site's email notification system to work properly, so I need to periodically scan each thread where I have posted to see if anybody has replied to something I have said. Sometimes I don't scan carefully enough and so I fail to notice a reply.

[Doug Shaver]

you've convinced yourself that you delivered a fatal hit when you were never even close to the target.

Whether my hit was fatal is irrelevant to your complaint. I'm not claiming to have hit anything. But you accused me of not even taking a shot. That is what I am denying.

[Doug Shaver]

Your very first sentence is a challenge to explain something that was explained later in the post

You may think you explained it later in the post. You are in error.

[seer]

Chimps act entirely from instinct in maintaining their cohesive societies, whereas humans have the intellectual ability to modify their instinctive behaviour in order to best maintain social cohesion.

Or we have the intellectual ability to slaughter each other more efficiently. Cohesion, slaughter - all perfectly natural, all the same...

[rogue06]

Or we have the intellectual ability to slaughter each other more efficiently. Cohesion, slaughter - all perfectly natural, all the same...

Interestingly there are studies that indicate that in the distant past a much higher percent of those who lived then died as a result of violence.

[Tassman]

Or we have the intellectual ability to slaughter each other more efficiently. Cohesion, slaughter - all perfectly natural, all the same...

No doubt, we have developed nuclear weapons after all. But the defining characteristic of our species has been the developing and maintaining of communities and building vast cities. This has been our history as a species, rather than slaughter. We actively seek ways to minimise violence via the legal system and international law..."all perfectly natural."

[Doug Shaver]

Cohesion, slaughter - all perfectly natural, all the same...

There are a few people who suppose that whatever is perfectly natural is ipso facto morally acceptable. The rest of us know that such thinking is logically fallacious. We do not look to the natural world to tell us the difference between right and wrong, nor to tell us whether there is any difference.

[seer]

There are a few people who suppose that whatever is perfectly natural is ipso facto morally acceptable. The rest of us know that such thinking is logically fallacious. We do not look to the natural world to tell us the difference between right and wrong, nor to tell us whether there is any difference.

But what is there in your world but the natural? If the Communist Chinese believe it is a moral good to murder millions of dissenters, and we don't, where is the objective rule or standard that decides between these two opinions?

[seer]

No doubt, we have developed nuclear weapons after all. But the defining characteristic of our species has been the developing and maintaining of communities and building vast cities. This has been our history as a species, rather than slaughter. We actively seek ways to minimise violence via the legal system and international law..."all perfectly natural."

Until we let fly thousands of those nukes...Thanks to science we finally have the ability to pretty much decimate our own race.

[Doug Shaver]

where is the objective rule or standard that decides between these two opinions?

Why does there need to be one?