(April 5, 2012 at 12:34 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The ‘heart of the matter’ on which all your assumptions rest is that ‘real moral issues’ are only about species survival.

Wrong.

I don't know why you keep saying that despite repeated corrections from me.

Quote:I have demonstrated that evolutionary mandates, the why as you put it, does not provide a rational basis for the should.

This is your attempt to poison the well ("evolution is amoral, therefore empathy, the product, must also be amoral"). I have already explained how your attacks are both fallacious and beside the point.

Quote:I have also shown that religious demands for obedience, to which you object, could (in the flawed understanding of evolutionary psychology you use) be seen as an evolutionary advantage.

Actually, no you haven't. You've made that assertion, to which I provided a contra-example. And furthermore, you're entire obsession with "evolutionarily sound = moral" is not something I've ever asserted and so you're off charging at windmills and strawmen.

Quote:Meanwhile, you have repeatedly and hypocritically avoided providing an alternative to evolutionary psychology as the basis for understanding ‘real moral issues.’

The only avoidance going on here is your dodge of the crux of my argument which is:

Quote:religion has a conflict of interest, secularism does not

...and instead you keep swinging at the strawman of your own creation. You are either very confused or dishonest.

Seems to me we should both take a deep breath. For my part, I cannot see wherein lies the conflict of interest. My failure to answer the question to your satisfaction lies in the fact that I apparently do not understand your point. Returning to the Penn's video, he compares religious morality with that of non-believers. He states that believers behave morally because they fear punishment, whereas non-believers do so simply because it is the right thing to do. Penn is wrong. As a general rule, believers and not-believers, when they behave morally, both follow their intuition of what is right and wrong.

But if you ask a believer why they trust their conscience they will reply that God instills conscience into people to guide them. As seen above, the atheist trusts his/her conscience because it developed by a process of evolution and as such it secures a survival benefit. Or according to Penn, just because. Sure that is a simpler, but its just an unsupported opinion and not a basis for claiming the 'high ground'.

(April 5, 2012 at 11:26 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 5, 2012 at 11:03 am)Tempus Wrote: The system I've developed (and I'm not claiming to be entirely original) for what I ought and ought not do makes the following assumption: Happiness is worth pursuing.

Then you are in agreement with Aristotle. That’s not a bad place to be.

I'm not familiar with Aristotle at all (I know who he is though of course). Did he acknowledge that the thing that 'ought' to be done (pursuing happiness) was an assumption? If so, I agree. If he thought it was some sort of self-evident truth I totally disagree. As far as I'm concerned there's no way to prove it's self-evident that happiness is good - it's an unsupported assumption. I don't particularly see this as problematic personally since all views are based on core assumptions which cannot be proven.

I chose a goal / motivation / assumption that coincided with what most people want as well as with my own desires. From what I know happiness of the individual is very often tightly linked to the happiness of society. Hence why I generally behave in a manner that doesn't hinder society. Every time I've gotten into fights / arguments / or screwed someone over I've felt bad afterwards. So I avoid it to increase my happiness.

(April 5, 2012 at 2:10 pm)Tempus Wrote: I'm not familiar with Aristotle at all (I know who he is though of course). Did he acknowledge that the thing that 'ought' to be done (pursuing happiness) was an assumption? If so, I agree. If he thought it was some sort of self-evident truth I totally disagree.

To paraphrase the Nichomachean Ethics, "Happiness is the good that all men desire." From there he goes on to give examples showing that the pursuit of pleasures, money and fame are sought because people believe those things will make them happy. His general approach is empirical, but you still get the impression that Aristotle thought of it as self-evident. After all who would want to be unhappy.

(April 5, 2012 at 1:37 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Seems to me we should both take a deep breath.

I'm not upset. A bit frustrated with what I saw as strawmanning, perhaps, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and try to explain again.

My speculation, which seems probable to me, that we developed our sense of empathy, compassion and fair play from our evolution as community animals is just that. It would make no difference to my argument if it turned out that GodDidIt, an alien race programmed it in us or if we got it when the purple snorklewacker sneezed in our intergalactic direction. The "why" of why we have compassion is actually irrelevant and we need to put that aside.

Quote:For my part, I cannot see wherein lies the conflict of interest.

Religion, by its nature, can be expected to promote first and foremost a greater following and stricter adherence among its followers. The ones that do not will be eclipsed by the ones that do. Compare the success of Islam or Christianity with that of, say, Zoroastrianism.

This is not mere speculation but is borne out when you read either the Bible or Koran cover-to-cover. When these books condemn what they call "evil", they are occasionally speaking of real evil but more often are railing against blasphemy, idolatry, apostasy or turning to other gods. Similarly, "righteousness" refers to non-moral "virtues" like proper observance of rituals, prayer, faith, church attendance, obedience to religious authority and other useless activities.

Religion condemns victimless crimes while exalting activities that do no earthly good. Truly good behavior, like charity, compassion, mercy, love, goodwill to fellow humans, etc are afterthoughts at best.

I offered you could look at Exodus 20 for a prime example (the Ten Commandments).
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not commit idolatry
3. Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vein
4. Thou shalt remember the Sabbath
5. Honor thy mother and father
6. Do not murder
7. Do not steal
8. Do no commit adultery
9. Do no lie
10. Do not covet.

1-4 have nothing to do with moral behavior but pertain to proper religious activity.
5 is questionable. Some parents deserve respect. Some do not. Half a point.
6-9 do indeed encourage real moral behavior. One point for each.
10 forbids what keeps our economy going. No credit there.

Score: 4.5 out of 10. That's an "F" in my book. And this is the best of what the OT has to offer in terms of moral guidance. Other parts of the Bible fall even further short.

Some may say I'm being unfair to the true message of the Bible but this is precisely what we should expect. As I've said, a religion that doesn't concern itself first and foremost with piety and only secondarily with real morality is going to be eclipsed by one that does.

Religion is not only not necessary to understand either what is moral or what morality is, it's actually counterproductive. At best, it muddles the moral landscape, demonizing the harmless and sanctifying the useless. At worst, promotes the kind of fanaticism that demonizes others, glorifies cruelty and sanitizes inhumanity.

(April 1, 2012 at 11:08 am)Napoleon Wrote: Atheists will always have the moral highground. We aren't condemning 99% of the population ever to exist to burn in hell for eternity.

How does your worldview determine how a person ought to live morally???

(April 5, 2012 at 4:01 pm)elunico13 Wrote: How does your worldview determine how a person ought to live morally???

Haven't you heard? They an have an innate moral sense, i.e. personal revelations of unknown origin.

(April 5, 2012 at 2:32 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 5, 2012 at 2:10 pm)Tempus Wrote: I'm not familiar with Aristotle at all (I know who he is though of course). Did he acknowledge that the thing that 'ought' to be done (pursuing happiness) was an assumption? If so, I agree. If he thought it was some sort of self-evident truth I totally disagree.

To paraphrase the Nichomachean Ethics, "Happiness is the good that all men desire." From there he goes on to give examples showing that the pursuit of pleasures, money and fame are sought because people believe those things will make them happy. His general approach is empirical, but you still get the impression that Aristotle thought of it as self-evident. After all who would want to be unhappy.

The point also works conversely in that people avoid "suffering". To me all sentient beings are afforded rights because of their ability to suffer. These things are not arbitrary and are related to human nature and biology. Couple this with others treating others as "ends in themselves" instead of means to an end and you have the rational basis for ethics. Ethics being normative in the sense that they demonstrate how people ought to act as defined by good and bad.

I responded to one of your earlier posts with essentially this same argument. I for one do not believe in complete "moral relativism" in the sense that morality is purely capricious and arbitrary. It is instead based on reason and human nature, if one does not believe in divine command then inevitably it will be based upon those two things.

(April 5, 2012 at 10:53 am)ChadWooters Wrote: You and many other members continue to present a straw man of religious belief. Terms like ‘imaginary friend’ and ‘sky daddy’ do not accurately reflect most believers’ concept of a supreme being. This kind of willful misrepresentation of the others’ opinion does not help further your case. It just makes you sound like a jackass.

Oh, cry me a river.

What part of "we're atheists" don't you comprehend now?

Either provide evidence and a positive ontology for your "own personal unique super special awesome particular brand of god" claim, or sod off.

(April 5, 2012 at 4:41 pm)mediamogul Wrote: I responded to one of your earlier posts with essentially this same argument.

Sorry, if other posts distracted me. Your posts are thoughtful and worthy of comment.

(April 5, 2012 at 4:41 pm)mediamogul Wrote: To me all sentient beings are afforded rights because of their ability to suffer. These things are not arbitrary and are related to human nature and biology.

Nature seems indifferent to suffering. The strong prey on the weak. One of my dogs caught a rabbit. While it was still alive, he held it down and bit it from head to toe, breaking every bone in its body. Then he ate the rabbit. I do not see nature as a good place to find moral instruction.

(April 5, 2012 at 4:41 pm)mediamogul Wrote: Couple this with others treating others as "ends in themselves" instead of means to an end and you have the rational basis for ethics. Ethics being normative in the sense that they demonstrate how people ought to act as defined by good and bad.

Gee thanks! (sarcasm) Now I have to go back and read Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason.

(April 5, 2012 at 4:41 pm)mediamogul Wrote: It [morality] is… based on reason and human nature…it will be based upon those two things.

I do not disagree with this. The question to me is this. Where do we get our reason and our humanity? For the reasons I stated above I do not think we can draw on evolution for help. Even though I haven’t found an alternative that fully satisfies, I’m still reasonably confident that morality does indeed have some absolute basis.