RE: Atheism, Gnosticism & the Problem of Evil
March 15, 2021 at 4:54 pm
(This post was last modified: March 15, 2021 at 4:56 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(March 15, 2021 at 2:42 pm)Seax Wrote: I just wrote up a great response, then clicked something wrong & lost it. 😭😭😭 I'll try & rewrite it as best I can, but I'm rather crestfallen so this probably won't be as good a response as it ought to be. I'll just briefly restate the points I made in the original.It happens, still alot to unpack below.
Quote:There is the natural order of nature, a natural morality, if you like, and then there is our human morality. I reject the so-called 'naturalistic fallacy' argument because our morality is an evolved trait, a product of what is. Our morality is subordinate to, and a product of nature. It serves a natural purpose.Serving a natural purpose (or any purpose) has nothing to do with the naturalistic (or moralistic) fallacies.
It's the suggestion that a thing being natural might not be interchangeable with it being good, or that a thing being deemed good may not make that thing natural. That with respect to these two sets - the good and the natural, if we made a venn diagram - there may be overlap, yes, but also content which would not fall within their confluence.
Is this something that you actually reject?
Quote:When I say that volcanos are not immoral I mean that they serve a natural purpose, and that is is foolish to try and apply human morality to the nonhuman.I think that most people here would agree with your conclusion even if they found your stated rationalizations insufficient or irrelevant.
Quote:This also means that we cannot necessarily apply things that might serve nature's end on the grand scale within a smaller microcosm; like survival of the fittest. Darwinian struggle is a natural and good thing, because it serves nature's purpose; God's purpose. But trying to apply it to human society by eliminating all safety & labour regulations destroying all social safety nets so only the strong survive would be a mistake, as humans are a social species that maximises fitness through coöperation and social cohesion. It would be pathological, maladaptive, immoral and would not serve nature's purpose.Natural is good, unless it's big and grand, big good is bad, and therefore unnatural. IDK...I think you may be confused. Here again you take a circuitous route to an unremarkable conclusion.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
