Secular Morality?

[shunyadragon]

Of course on this subject from those of an anti-theist persuasion, they will firstly tell you that morality is subjective because that is what we observe in reality but then further on they will try and argue that morality is real because people exhibit behaviours that are common. The first implication here is suggesting that our observation of people not having common moral values is an indication of morality being subjective while the second implication suggests morality is real because of people having common moral values. This is a case of having your cake and eating it.

This is a distorted view of how science and the secular view considers morals and ethics. By definition morals and ethics are human social and cultural constraints on human behavior that maintain order and cooperation in the human family and community. It is neither objective nor subjective, but morals and ethics have subjective and objective attributes. Yes, morals and ethics have a consistent pattern throughout the diverse cultures of humanity and history, and a natural diversity.

No cake involved.

[Darth Ovious]

Of course on this subject from those of an anti-theist persuasion, they will firstly tell you that morality is subjective because that is what we observe in reality but then further on they will try and argue that morality is real because people exhibit behaviours that are common. The first implication here is suggesting that our observation of people not having common moral values is an indication of morality being subjective while the second implication suggests morality is real because of people having common moral values. This is a case of having your cake and eating it.

[seer]

Yes we do. We have very good archaeological evidence of our how our caveman predecessors lived, namely in ordered, rule-based, hunter/gather societies with notions of right and wrong behaviour essential for communal living. Their life style is well known from fossils, artefacts and as depicted in their cave-art.

What do you mean by "notions" of right or wrong? That they were thinking in moral terms? Or just acting on instinct with no notion of right or wrong?

Again Tass, you are suggesting that apes are thinking in moral terms, rather than just acting on instinct.

Nonsense! It is perfectly reasonable to assess motives by the behaviour being exhibited. We do it all the time in our society.

Again, this is just silly. You claimed that the monkey was acting from a sense of unfairness, but it could just as well been that he was acting from a sense of envy. The point is, we CAN NOT KNOW. We can not know that he is acting from anything but base instinct.

[Leonhard]

There's more to the argument than that. We presume “natural causes" because there is no good reason to think otherwise. To date everything that we understand about the universe, including our own existence has been accounted for by natural causes...

There you have it, now go on and grill him on him begging the question. He might try to make this about the case for naturalism being apparently "so good" that he can just presume his metaphysical commitment in a discussion like this, without bothering to argue for it. Don't let him do that, either the science can tell us how rationality came into being, or it can't. It can't, ergo his argument is a red herring, since what he's really doing is simple presuming naturalism.

[Tassman]

There is nothing more than me, but that does not mean I lack God.

Therefore, what have I to show you? My bad, I misread, thought you were referencing the human soul.

On another note; why presume anything? why not wait upon the evidence? Let us remain impartial, or if you have the evidence, why presume?

We(who is this, does it not include me?), should do so, maybe a moratorium upon human rationality is in order, especially since you think it is akin to instinct(that with no reason).

I really need to go to bed...

Have a final night cap first, just one now!!!!

[pancreasman]

There is nothing more than me, but that does not mean I lack God.

Therefore, what have I to show you? My bad, I misread, thought you were referencing the human soul.

On another note;



why presume anything? why not wait upon the evidence? Let us remain impartial, or if you have the evidence, why presume?

We(who is this, does it not include me?), should do so, maybe a moratorium upon human rationality is in order, especially since you think it is akin to instinct(that with no reason).

I really need to go to bed...

what-does-it-mean.jpg

[Pytharchimedes]

If you think there's more then you provide the evidence to "show how it happened".

There is nothing more than me, but that does not mean I lack God.

Therefore, what have I to show you? My bad, I misread, thought you were referencing the human soul.

On another note;

There's more to the argument than that. We presume “natural causes”

why presume anything? why not wait upon the evidence? Let us remain impartial, or if you have the evidence, why presume?

We(who is this, does it not include me?), should do so, maybe a moratorium upon human rationality is in order, especially since you think it is akin to instinct(that with no reason).

I really need to go to bed...

[Tassman]

No, I can not say anything beyond the example of the watchmaker argument sans darwinism. The power of the watchmaker argument was diminished at the dawn of darwinism. The same argument occurs when speaking of abiogenesis.

Neither the argument from ignorance concerning abiogenesis, nor any such argument involving knowledge of biological evolution hold any water; when it comes to the existence of God.

I was wrong though in what I said. It is people(including me) that anchor their arguments in the past, not a single group, such as atheists or theists.

Both are guilty.

There isn't a viable “watchmaker argument” since the advent of Evolution any more than there is a viable “geocentric argument” since the advent of heliocentrism. Both notions have been superseded by the advance of knowledge.

<snip>

Get Tassman to account for the origin of the feature, not for the advantage it confers. Yes it makes us survive better, concede the point (it costs you nothing), then press him on where it came from. Likely he'll tip his hand that as a naturalist he can only presume natural causes, and so he's forced to believe that it came about by natural selection, but that would be begging the question! The only way out of that, is to show how it happened, which he would not be able to.

There's more to the argument than that. We presume “natural causes” because there is no good reason to think otherwise. To date everything that we understand about the universe, including our own existence has been accounted for by natural causes. To imagine something more than this is pure conjecture at this stage and unsupported by any substantive evidence. If you think there's more then you provide the evidence to "show how it happened".

[Tassman]

But in post #484 you tied rationality directly to survival. I'm glad you finally agree that it is not necessary.

No, I tied directly to survival not necessarily rationality. I've never said that rationality was essential to survival. But it was and clearly is an advantage.

They have no clue about right or wrong. They just act on instinct. When an alpha male takes the female and food from a beta male is that right or wrong? This whole line of reasoning is just silly.

The other primates most certainly do

That is correct so stop assuming you know what a monkey is thinking about, stop assuming that you know his motives.

I specifically said that one know the inner mental life of any creature, including our fellow humans but that one can arrive at reasonable conclusions about the thought processes via observations, comparisons and tests, i.e. via scientific methodology.

Again, we have no idea what cave men did or did not know along these lines. And stop assuming that you have any understanding of the "notions" of apes. Again, when an alpha male takes the food and female from a beta male does he think that is wrong behavior?

No Tass, this whole line of reasoning is specious. You claimed that this experiment showed that monkeys had a sense of fairness, that was just a silly conclusion. We do not know their motives or that they are acting on any more than instinct .

Nonsense! It is perfectly reasonable to assess motives by the behaviour being exhibited. We do it all the time in our society.

[Pytharchimedes]

Could you elaborate on that?

No, I can not say anything beyond the example of the watchmaker argument sans darwinism. The power of the watchmaker argument was diminished at the dawn of darwinism. The same argument occurs when speaking of abiogenesis.

Neither the argument from ignorance concerning abiogenesis, nor any such argument involving knowledge of biological evolution hold any water; when it comes to the existence of God.

I was wrong though in what I said. It is people(including me) that anchor their arguments in the past, not a single group, such as atheists or theists.

Both are guilty.

[Jaecp]

Indeed, if one takes the current state of the universe and disregards all that before it, the dominant conclusion is God, the intelligible artificer(think the watchmaker argument sans evolution). I believe this is why so many people grasp onto the past to anchor their atheistic ideas.

Could you elaborate on that?

[seer]

Evolutionary psychology though is a dead end. Scientists have largely given up on trying to use the theory of natural selection, to account for how we got to have the particular mental make-up we have.

Many people who aren't involved in the science of biology have failed to get the memo though.

This would be a much stronger line of attack for you, and I think its more in line with the kind of argument you were originally pushing. Get Tassman to account for the origin of the feature, not for the advantage it confers. Yes it makes us survive better, concede the point (it costs you nothing), then press him on where it came from. Likely he'll tip his hand that as a naturalist he can only presume natural causes, and so he's forced to believe that it came about by natural selection, but that would be begging the question! The only way out of that, is to show how it happened, which he would not be able to.

Ok...

[Pytharchimedes]

I'm not sure its the best line of attack, though,

Might as well use the incompleteness of abiogenesis as an argument against evolution, no?

At a certain point back, like with most everything, our ability to see diminishes. This shouldn't diminish what we can see.

Indeed, if one takes the current state of the universe and disregards all that before it, the dominant conclusion is God, the intelligible artificer(think the watchmaker argument sans evolution). I believe this is why so many people grasp onto the past to anchor their atheistic ideas.

[Jaecp]

I'm not sure its the best line of attack, though,

Might as well use the incompleteness of abiogenesis as an argument against evolution, no?

At a certain point back, like with most everything, our ability to see diminishes. This shouldn't diminish what we can see.

[Leonhard]

Perhaps Leonhard we need to back up. First, let me repeat, intelligence is a two edged sword and it may be in fact, the thing that we use to destroy ourselves, that is a very real possibility. But this discussion was about why/how consciousness came into being. That was what Tass and I were discussing. My claim is that there was no evolutionary necessity for consciousness. Or rationality that springs from that. We could have just as well survived without either. And this goes back to a quote I linked by Sam Harris. Now Harris is an atheist so he believes that human consciousness is a naturally occurring trait - I see no reason to accept that. But this is what he said:

Ah, but once humans got intelligent, that certainly did give them an advantage. Could we have survived as ape like creatures? Maybe. But once we could understand how rocks could be sharpened, fires could be lit... that did give us a survival advantage.

However there being a clear survival advantage to the ability to reason, to think abstractly, that only shows that once some humans had that, it would tend to spread quickly, it would be selected... the question to ask is whether it could be developed on its own. Which I think Tassman, et. al. are presuming. They need to show this.

Evolutionary psychology though is a dead end. Scientists have largely given up on trying to use the theory of natural selection, to account for how we got to have the particular mental make-up we have.

Many people who aren't involved in the science of biology have failed to get the memo though.

This would be a much stronger line of attack for you, and I think its more in line with the kind of argument you were originally pushing. Get Tassman to account for the origin of the feature, not for the advantage it confers. Yes it makes us survive better, concede the point (it costs you nothing), then press him on where it came from. Likely he'll tip his hand that as a naturalist he can only presume natural causes, and so he's forced to believe that it came about by natural selection, but that would be begging the question! The only way out of that, is to show how it happened, which he would not be able to.