Challenge - Scientific reason for being moral.

[Skipper]

@Padriac- So reason alone is indicative without scientifc evidence? I think the point was to defend his lack of scientific evidence of the existance of God.

In the video it says... "Where ever else it comes from it's not from scripture" when if some use scripture to better their own personal morality. Those individuals are then part of society which shapes societal morality. Societal Morality is at least partially based on the Bible (or at the very least people who use the Bible). His contention is that any influence from the Bible would be counter productive to furthering altruis, but one of the key proponents of Biblical teachings are to love thy neighbor as you would want to be loved. Seems to be an inaccurate and unfounded statement.

But morals were around before the bible, it's not like everyone was murdering everyone, stealing, and screwing each others wives. Granted, some people were doing all them things before the bible, but they are still doing them now so the bible dosen't really come into play

I hold that it's an evolution thing much along the lines of how Dawkins is talking in that video and in his book. It's a trait that whilst evolving proved beneficial in the sense that treating anyone you met fairly was likely to mean you were also treated fair. A rather selfish, but mutually beneficial way to look at it. The same can be seen among pack animals now, they don't go around killing each other, they work together and mostly all benefit from that. He also mentions at the end of that video a lot of it can be seen as purely not wanting to act in a way that you wouldn't want a society to act, another yet mutually beneficial way to look at it, one which people unfortunately do exploit . I think that's why people give to charities that wont actually benefit them in any way, a sense that by them contributing they are living in a world in which if they needed help they would expect perhaps to be helped in the same way they did help. So I'd say as long as your friend belives in evolution, there are perfectly good Darwinian answers for morality, but if he dosen't then fuck knows how you will explain that, or anything to him.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@Padriac- So reason alone is indicative without scientifc evidence? I think the point was to defend his lack of scientific evidence of the existance of
God

Oh, I must have misread. My understanding was he was questioning the existence of morality without science, which is a strong indicator of profound ignorance and/or stupidity.


viz

He says I need a scientific reason for being moral and for living by the secular humanism philosophy

Richard Dawkins may suffer fools, I don't. The OP's friend is still an ignoramus.

[radames]

What exactly is the difference between secular morality and religious morality? Is the issue here with the kudos given to ourselves or some egotistical "fathead?"

[tackattack]

the difference would be the basis for that morality radames. A secular morality seeks to better individual morality by contributing and bettering societal morality. A theistic morality seeks to better individual morality by using a more dogmatic and stable reference depending on their brand of theology.

[Skipper]

the difference would be the basis for that morality radames. A secular morality seeks to better individual morality by contributing and bettering societal morality. A theistic morality seeks to better individual morality by using a more dogmatic and stable reference depending on their brand of theology.

A Atheistic morality is enforced in a person wanting to live a good a fair life in this world as they believe this is the only one they have. A Theistic morality is enforced in a person due to threats of hell if bad and the reward of heaven if good. Would that be fair to say?

[tackattack]

If it was accurate, which it isn't.

[radames]

Does there have to be a reason to be moral? Does a child sincerely wish the suffering, death, and torture of another child in order to gain something?

In my opinion, a child would figure out that certain behavior brings about certain consequences in the world and it would be best to consider others when acting or speaking. A child doesn't need an authority figure to alter the perception of something inherent of all of our species by labeling it a "fruit of the spirit."

---

the difference would be the basis for that morality radames. A secular morality seeks to better individual morality by contributing and bettering societal morality. A theistic morality seeks to better individual morality by using a more dogmatic and stable reference depending on their brand of theology.

What is more stable than truth experienced through evidence? An example, a religious person believes the verse, "greater things shall they do because I go to the father" yet try to experience the "truth" of walking on water and what you have is a very unstable assertion. If walking on water is a lackluster ability why is it impossible? Unless the bible left out the idea that people had boats for feet back then.

[tackattack]

The only reason to be moral is your own personal moralistic code. Developed without guidance this could lead to thinking bullying someone on the playground or punching someone in the face (just look at those jackass guys) is funny. It's not genetic so it has to be learned right? I'm sure it comes from lots of extraneous inputs and not one solid place. When you surpass the age of reason you should be able to rationalize and determine where you get your guide for betterment of your moralistic code by selection. Some people choose religious ideals, some people mimic heroes or authority figures. Some use TV. The only thing that makes one worth more is a) it's reliability b)track record c)the impact on it's relative society.

[radames]

The only reason to be moral is your own personal moralistic code. Developed without guidance this could lead to thinking bullying someone on the playground or punching someone in the face (just look at those jackass guys) is funny. It's not genetic so it has to be learned right? I'm sure it comes from lots of extraneous inputs and not one solid place. When you surpass the age of reason you should be able to rationalize and determine where you get your guide for betterment of your moralistic code by selection. Some people choose religious ideals, some people mimic heroes or authority figures. Some use TV. The only thing that makes one worth more is a) it's reliability b)track record c)the impact on it's relative society.

Have you seen what happens when you pick on someone bigger and stronger than you? You get your ass kicked. I'm guessing that the bullies who picked on kids only did it with the weaker kids otherwise their selection process would need some altering. Simply put, if you want to sustain your life, you will avoid dangerous situations as much as possible or refine your ability to escape. When someone is hungry or in danger I'd really like to see them stick to their moral code then. Until you are strong enough and witty enough to survive on your own (build a shelter and find food) your "moralistic code" isn't really your own but one that is imposed on you by stronger and more resourceful people.

Due to the premise that life always has to be about more than just survival, "betterment" of ones moralistic code seems an unspoken rule for everyone. This is due to the ideas of popularity and favoritism dominating survival and harmony. Thereby the "moralistic code" is no longer being used for it's original purpose in the animal kingdom; survival and producing offspring, but it has been the tool for aesthetics in behavior. Animals of the same species respect the territories of others, participate in diplomatic acts, protect their property, and work together to achieve the same goal. Not all species have the same approach but there is a commonality that indicates that there is no need for a book of guidelines.

[HeyItsZeus]

Exactly, Radames, no need for a religion to guide me. Society will set morals regardless of a religion or not.