Brain, Mind & Neuroscience

[prodigalson2011]

Which actually only strengthens the claim that our moral intuition is independent of any preaching or teaching.

Surely, after so much time on a Catholic forum, you are familiar with the phrase, “it is written on their hearts”?

A valiant effort, nevertheless.

 

[Sair]

Surely, after so much time on a Catholic forum, you are familiar with the phrase, “I will put my law in their mind and write it on their hearts.”

I’m aware that the inventors of religions - like all charlatans - understand exactly how to exploit existing circumstances to their advantage. Appropriating human empathy and social awareness and claiming them as benefits bestowed by an imaginary deity is just one example…

 

[prodigalson2011]

I’m aware that the inventors of religions - like all charlatans - understand exactly how to exploit existing circumstances to their advantage. Appropriating human empathy and social awareness and claiming them as benefits bestowed by an imaginary deity is just one example…

Let’s talk like grownups and leave the taunts and provocations where they belong–on the playground. And, while we’re at it, let’s cut the pretense of materialists being so nobly altruistic. You guys have an agenda, too. I assume you’re saying that religions appropriate morality in order to claim power and influence in society?
Hmm, sounds a lot like what Harris, Dawkins and their ilk are doing for their “deity.”

And while we’re on that subject, yes, Christ and his apostles and the countless Church leaders and lay people martyred for their faith over the millenia certainly exploited circumstances to their advantage–assuming they were both pathologically masochistic and suicidal. And the Jews? Well, I mean, we see how good they’ve had it through history. If you’re going to disparage religion, at least do so coherently.

 

[Sair]

Let’s talk like grownups and leave the taunts and provocations where they belong–on the playground. And, while we’re at it, let’s cut the pretense of materialists being so nobly altruistic. You guys have an agenda, too. I assume you’re saying that religions appropriate morality in order to claim power and influence in society?
Hmm, sounds a lot like what Harris, Dawkins and their ilk are doing for their “deity.”

And while we’re on that subject, yes, Christ and his apostles and the countless Church leaders and lay people martyred for their faith over the millenia certainly exploited circumstances to their advantage–assuming they were both pathologically masochistic and suicidal. And the Jews? Well, I mean, we see how good they’ve had it through history. If you’re going to disparage religion, at least do so coherently.

Any provocation came in the form of the assumption that human altruism is the result of a divine infusion of grace or some such similar explanation for why humans demonstrate an inclination to treat each other well - when they happen to do so.

What has been observed over the course of human history is that regardless of prevailing religious beliefs, people have behaved towards one another with comparable degrees of cooperation and antagonism. Belief in Christianity certainly didn’t prevent people from killing and torturing each other over fine details of dogma, nor did it prevent the pursuance of wars of aggression or the practice of slavery or of oppression of women. What it might have done is allowed people to believe they were doing the “right” thing regardless of the obvious suffering they caused, as long as they were following the dictates of their religious leaders. This is what I mean about faith having the ability to override empathy.

If humanists like Dawkins and Harris have an agenda, it is to put human-centred reasoning and human well-being - as well as the well-being of other sentient beings - back in the spotlight as the yardstick for determining issues of ethics, rather than the competing metaphysical claims of religionists and ideologues of any and all stripes.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Any provocation came in the form of the assumption that human altruism is the result of a divine infusion of grace or some such similar explanation for why humans demonstrate an inclination to treat each other well - when they happen to do so.

Provocation comes in the form of calling the opposition “charlatans” and their beliefs “imaginary”–not in having differing opinions.

What has been observed over the course of human history is that regardless of prevailing religious beliefs, people have behaved towards one another with comparable degrees of cooperation and antagonism. Belief in Christianity certainly didn’t prevent people from killing and torturing each other over fine details of dogma, nor did it prevent the pursuance of wars of aggression or the practice of slavery or of oppression of women. What it might have done is allowed people to believe they were doing the “right” thing regardless of the obvious suffering they caused, as long as they were following the dictates of their religious leaders. This is what I mean about faith having the ability to override empathy.

Historical distortions aside, this says everything about human nature and nothing about religion. Do you honestly think the oppression of women is a strictly religious phenomenon? Misogyny is notoriously rampant in the atheist community. Have you ever visited reddit? Sheesh. And, besides that, Christianity has taught, from the very beginning, that women and men are equal. Women have played an important and invaluable role in Christian society. Women’s suffrage movements were predominantly Christian. The Catholic Church was also historically very vocally opposed to slavery. A total straw man argument filled with ad hominems. No one claims that Christianity stops people from being sinners.

If humanists like Dawkins and Harris have an agenda, it is to put human-centred reasoning and human well-being - as well as the well-being of other sentient beings - back in the spotlight as the yardstick for determining issues of ethics, rather than the competing metaphysical claims of religionists and ideologues of any and all stripes.

Yes, Dawkins. That icon of compassion. The same Dawkins who belittles rape victims and calls for his fellow “reasonable” people to desecrate all that people of faith hold sacred. Forgive me if I find it laughable that a man who has said “there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference,” wants to present himself as a champion of ethics.

But enough with the pleasantries. Ethics is meaningless without some metaphysical basis. The beautiful thing about Catholic morality, though, is that one needs only the base hypothesis of a transcendent moral order to begin with, and reason can suss the rest out. On the other hand, if there IS no transcendent moral order, then all “ethical” issues become rather meaningless. “What atheists mean by morality is this: accidental patterns of social behavior designed to promote group cohesion. The behaviors are accidental and they are basically the same as group food preferences, clothing preferences and traffic law preferences. They are made up. Any member of the group who is sufficiently powerful can do as he pleases, because there is no real moral obligation – just customs and conventions.”

 

[Sair]

Provocation comes in the form of calling the opposition “charlatans” and their beliefs “imaginary”–not in having differing opinions.

Frankly, I think the insult pales in comparison to being told one cannot be moral without a god to look over one’s shoulder or to magically infuse a sense of right and wrong.

Historical distortions aside, this says everything about human nature and nothing about religion. Do you honestly think the oppression of women is a strictly religious phenomenon? Misogyny is notoriously rampant in the atheist community. Have you ever visited reddit? Sheesh. And, besides that, Christianity has taught, from the very beginning, that women and men are equal. Women have played an important and invaluable role in Christian society. Women’s suffrage movements were predominantly Christian. The Catholic Church was also historically very vocally opposed to slavery. A total straw man argument filled with ad hominems. No one claims that Christianity stops people from being sinners.

Historical misrepresentation aside (even if the Church did not actively condone slavery and misogyny, it provided at least tacit support for them and contributed to ideolgical notions that allowed them to flourish), I think you’ve missed my point - which is to say, with or without religion, human nature and human morality is what it is - a work in progress. We patently do not get our morals from religion, but religions have historically tapped in to human moral inclinations - and immoral ones.

Yes, Dawkins. That icon of compassion. The same Dawkins who belittles rape victims and calls for his fellow “reasonable” people to desecrate all that people of faith hold sacred. Forgive me if I find it laughable that a man who has said “there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference,” wants to present himself as a champion of ethics.

Yes, Dawkins is a white Anglo male who peddles his privilege without being demonstrably aware that he does so. But that does not make his scientifically-grounded pronouncements any less valid - the universe is indifferent to the suffering or well-being of sentient beings, quite obviously so. But the thing about atheists is that they generally don’t take the state of the cosmos to be an ethical prescription. If we want morality, we have to make it for ourselves.

But enough with the pleasantries. Ethics is meaningless without some metaphysical basis. The beautiful thing about Catholic morality, though, is that one needs only the base hypothesis of a transcendent moral order to begin with, and reason can suss the rest out.

Good luck demonstrating that any such transcendent moral order exists.

On the other hand, if there IS no transcendent moral order, then all “ethical” issues become rather meaningless. “What atheists mean by morality is this: accidental patterns of social behavior designed to promote group cohesion. The behaviors are accidental and they are basically the same as group food preferences, clothing preferences and traffic law preferences. They are made up. Any member of the group who is sufficiently powerful can do as he pleases, because there is no real moral obligation – just customs and conventions.”

“Accidental” patterns that are also “designed”? Whoever you’re quoting here is obviously confused. The thing about morality is that, like all natural phenomena - as is being increasingly discerned - it evolves. Why does it evolve? Because humans are innately capable of recognising that certain behaviours promote well-being and others don’t. That’s why even religious believers cherry-pick the rules they’re going to follow and reject others from the same holy books. As we see from history, ethical development is a process of trial and error. As I’ve argued before, none of this matters to the cosmos as a whole, and it doesn’t need to - if it matters subjectively to humans, that is enough to furnish us with the necessary tools to develop morality.

Maybe some people feel they need a higher authority to refer to in order to justify their morality, or provide a reason for their morality - but that is only because they don’t believe that apprehending the happiness or suffering of their fellows is enough motivation for them. It’s a bit like needing a parent to tell you what you should and shouldn’t do - and then when you grow up, deciding that because your parent no longer has authority over you as a fellow adult, that what they told you no longer has any value. The only way you can decide that is if you fail to understand that the behaviours your parent taught you have generally good consequences, and thus are to be considered ‘good’ behaviours. Sociopaths might need an authority figure weilding a big stick to tell them what are good and bad behaviours - most normal, healthy adults don’t need any such thing.

 

[Sair]

Anyway, it seems the only way to get this thread back on track - as a discussion about brain, mind and neuroscience - may be to advance the proposition that our ethical sense is one of the functions of our evolved brains…

 

[tonyrey]

Beyond Harl and Ehrman from whom you can trace the overall history and development of christianity, here is a partial reading list which I think will help establish in any reasonable mind that principles similar to the beatitudes ( the sermon on the mount) and other prototypical precepts associated with Christ predate his ministry by perhaps as much as a tousand years:

1. Will Durant, The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage, Part One (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1935), vol. 1, p. 449.
   2 Latourette, Kenneth Scott (1975). A History of Christianity. p. 274
2. Brockman, John (2003-07-17). “The Politics of Christianity: A Talk with Elaine Pagels”. The Third Culture. Edge Foundation, Inc… Retrieved 2009-07-07.
3. Bentley, Jerry H. (1993). Old World Encounters. Cross-cultural contacts and exchanges in pre-modern times. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-507639-7.
4. Iqbal Singh, S. Radhakrishnan, Arvind Sharma, (2004-06-24)). The Buddhism Omnibus: Comprising Gautama Buddha, The Dhammapada, and The Philosophy of Religion. USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-566898-7.
5. Michael , Buddhism’s relation to Christainty
6. Charles Eliot (1921, reprint 1990), Hinduism and Buddhism: An Historical Sketch
7. Pagels, Elaine (1979, repr. 1989). The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Random House.

When you’ve read them let me know what you think.

Please** refute** the points I have made. It should be a very simple task if you are in possession of the facts.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Frankly, I think the insult pales in comparison to being told one cannot be moral without a god to look over one’s shoulder or to magically infuse a sense of right and wrong.

I would say the problem is that the idea of morality, in the sense of absolute right and wrong, cannot exist without God. A person can certainly be compassionate/sympathetic/benevolent towards others with or without the existence of a God. The point I, and most other Christians I’d boldly presume, wish to make is that it is misguided at best and dishonest at worst to ascribe value judgments such as “right” and “wrong” in a purely material framework. Such judgments assume that actions are directed towards an objective, specified end. The only “specified end” of life on materialism is specifically its end. How one arrives at that end becomes utterly irrelevant.

Historical misrepresentation aside (even if the Church did not actively condone slavery and misogyny, it provided at least tacit support for them and contributed to ideolgical notions that allowed them to flourish), I think you’ve missed my point - which is to say, with or without religion, human nature and human morality is what it is - a work in progress. We patently do not get our morals from religion, but religions have historically tapped in to human moral inclinations - and immoral ones.

Yet more unsubstantiated assertions. Why don’t you educate yourself on the matter of the Church’s historical relationship with slavery?

You are posing a false dichotomy. Scripture itself traces an evolution of society and culture from the more primitive and barbaric to the comparatively civilized. There is no contesting that we, as a species, “grow in understanding.”
And I would unflinchingly contend that morality, in the prescriptive sense, has never excelled, and can never excel, beyond the level taught by Jesus Christ, as his moral vision extends to the utmost possibility: unrequited charity, nonviolence, compassion for benefactors and malefactors alike, and, ultimately, total self-sacrifice. In fact, the Christian prescription is more rigorously moral than seems practical for many. Hence, it doesn’t tap into our moral inclinations–it elevates them.

Yes, Dawkins is a white Anglo male who peddles his privilege without being demonstrably aware that he does so. But that does not make his scientifically-grounded pronouncements any less valid - the universe is indifferent to the suffering or well-being of sentient beings, quite obviously so. But the thing about atheists is that they generally don’t take the state of the cosmos to be an ethical prescription. If we want morality, we have to make it for ourselves.

Again, it is patently absurd for someone who believes that life is an accidental product of blind forces and openly denies the reality of free will to even address the issue of ethics seriously. There is just no way around it; equivocate all you like. No free will=no choice=no right and wrong. End of argument.

Good luck demonstrating that any such transcendent moral order exists.

If you are using terms such as “right” and “wrong” you are tacitly assenting to the existence of such a moral order. If you believe otherwise, any discussion of ethics becomes relativistic and the terms "right and “wrong” must be replaced with “preferable” and “unprofitable.” Failure to do so is blatant equivocation–it is an important distinction, to be sure. “Right” and “wrong” apply across the board; preference and profitability vary widely according to one’s desires and station in life. (“Might is right” as the saying goes.)

“Accidental” patterns that are also “designed”? Whoever you’re quoting here is obviously confused.

“Designed” is admittedly a misnomer in that case, but replacing it with “adopted” patches the whole thing up perfectly. I’m sure you knew as well as I what the author was attempting to express, and conceptually, it stands to reason.

The thing about morality is that, like all natural phenomena - as is being increasingly discerned - it evolves. Why does it evolve? Because humans are innately capable of recognising that certain behaviours promote well-being and others don’t.

As you grew up and gradually learned arithmetic, multiplication, division, algebra, geometry, etc. was it mathematics or your understanding thereof that was evolving? A false dilemma, compounded by the equivocation of morality with the promotion of well being. Is=/=ought.

That’s why even religious believers cherry-pick the rules they’re going to follow and reject others from the same holy books. As we see from history, ethical development is a process of trial and error.

Well, I can’t speak for other religions, but the one I follow has taught the same things for the entire 2,000 years of its existence. And I don’t cherry pick which parts of its doctrine I’m going to believe. Regardless, the ethical development of humanity has no bearing on the existence of an objective moral order. The absence of understanding does not equate to the absence of existence.

As I’ve argued before, none of this matters to the cosmos as a whole, and it doesn’t need to - if it matters subjectively to humans, that is enough to furnish us with the necessary tools to develop morality.

It leaves you with the tools to develop subjective morality, which by its very nature will differ from person to person, with the majority opinion taking precedence. Again, might is right.

Maybe some people feel they need a higher authority to refer to in order to justify their morality, or provide a reason for their morality - but that is only because they don’t believe that apprehending the happiness or suffering of their fellows is enough motivation for them.

Or perhaps they truly believe that that higher authority exists. I admire your mindreading abilities, though. Having been an unbeliever, I can say that I managed to find motivation for moral behavior in the absence of God. What I couldn’t do is justify it.

It’s a bit like needing a parent to tell you what you should and shouldn’t do - and then when you grow up, deciding that because your parent no longer has authority over you as a fellow adult, that what they told you no longer has any value. The only way you can decide that is if you fail to understand that the behaviours your parent taught you have generally good consequences, and thus are to be considered ‘good’ behaviours. Sociopaths might need an authority figure weilding a big stick to tell them what are good and bad behaviours - most normal, healthy adults don’t need any such thing.

The “parenting” of religion follows the exact same path, so your comparison is inept. Knowing, as I do, that you’ve been around these forums a long time, I know that you are well aware that serious Catholics have a deep understanding of the moral teachings of the Church and do not just blindly follow them because “the Church says so.” If they don’t understand or accept them, an active effort is made to gain understanding as to why the Church teaches it. Another straw man.

 

[tonyrey]

Morality doesn’t appear in relationships out of the blue. The teaching of Jesus is the source of the moral values of modern civilisation based on the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

Principles have no place where people are ruled by the law of the jungle which still exists in many societies of the world today even under the cloak of democracy. The world’s economic system with one third of the population living in harsh poverty amply demonstrates how the only principles that count for many people are greed, selfishness and the lust for power.

The ultimate source of the values of modern civilisation is the pragmatic realisation that if we don’t treat each other with a minimal level of respect, bad things have a tendency to happen.

Fear of the consequences is not a moral principle but **selfish **expediency.

Coupled with the realisation, supported by science and grudginly conceded by religious authorities, that we are all the same kind of animal, regardless of race or religious beliefs, with the same capacity to experience happiness and suffering.

Religious authorities do not regard human beings as animals.

Science considers persons as animals and does not recognise any moral values or principles whatsoever.

I think you would be hard-pressed to demonstrate that Christianity is in any way responsible for the evolution of empathy which, as has been pointed out before, is where our moral sense comes from.

Our moral sense is not based on feeling but primarily on reason.

If anything, religions and other poisonous ideologies only afford people the opportunity to subvert and distort their natural empathy and what’s possibly even worse, to do so with a clear conscience in the belief that they are serving a “higher” good than the well-being of sentient beings.

Materialism and other poisonous secular ideologies only afford people the opportunity to exploit and persecute others on the false assumption that moral values are man-made and can be safely ignored when necessary in order to serve what they mistakenly believe is the highest good for themselves and those they know - **including their pets **- rather than the well-being of the entire human race.

Christian beliefs and values have had a profound effect on the vast majority of people.

Even granting this, it certainly does not follow that this ‘profound’ effect has been positive.

Materialist beliefs and non-values have undoubtedly had a profound effect on the millions of people who have been massacred or endured lives of appalling misery even in recent years - with** dialectical materialism **being by any standards the most diabolical ideology.

What would be the point of establishing a community which could spread a pack of lies? Unless of course one is a psychopath or a criminal who foresees a golden opportunity for his descendants to profit from most people’s gullibility by teaching them to love and forgive those who trespass against them…

No response…

The credibility of Christianity is neatly disposed of by the argument from incredulity - although unfortunately it does cast doubt on the moral rectitude of those who use it.

The credibility of Christianity is disposed of internally by its claims to supernatural entities and to be a repository of “the” truth - even though the “one true church” has changed its mind on both social issues and items of dogma over the course of the development of modern civilisation.The credibility of materialism is disposed of by its inconsistency in claiming that subnatural robots are capable of autonomy and the power of reason, let alone a conscience and moral responsibility. It has no mind or values to change whereas the Church has developed its teaching in the light of social changes and scientific discoveries.

And the church has profited immensely from people’s gullibility over the centuries, both in material terms and in the embedded social respect it has built up as an institution, since the time when it could force people to do what it wanted. What could be a more golden opportunity than to hoodwink, fleece and abuse people who are bound on pain of damnation to forgive you for doing so?

And the church has profited immensely from people’s gullibility over the centuries, both in material terms and in the embedded social respect it has built up as an institution, since the time when it could force people to do what it wanted. What could be a more golden opportunity than to hoodwink, fleece and abuse people who are bound on pain of damnation to forgive you for doing so?Those who promote the doctrine that persons are mere animals have not only hoodwinked, fleeced and abused people by making them believe this life is nasty, brutish, short and terminated by death but driven them to despair, suicide and even the murder of their own families - not to mention genocide.

The aggressive hatred of religion manifested in posts on this forum by the disciples of Dawkins and Harris amply demonstrates the intolerance of those who would be the first to oppress and persecute believers if they were in a position of power and capable of doing so - like their predecessors such as Hitler and Stalin…

 

[tonyrey]

Provocation comes in the form of calling the opposition “charlatans” and their beliefs “imaginary”–not in having differing opinions.

Historical distortions aside, this says everything about human nature and nothing about religion. Do you honestly think the oppression of women is a strictly religious phenomenon? Misogyny is notoriously rampant in the atheist community. Have you ever visited reddit? Sheesh. And, besides that, Christianity has taught, from the very beginning, that women and men are equal. Women have played an important and invaluable role in Christian society. Women’s suffrage movements were predominantly Christian. The Catholic Church was also historically very vocally opposed to slavery. A total straw man argument filled with ad hominems. No one claims that Christianity stops people from being sinners.

Yes, Dawkins. That icon of compassion. The same Dawkins who belittles rape victims and calls for his fellow “reasonable” people to desecrate all that people of faith hold sacred. Forgive me if I find it laughable that a man who has said “there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference,” wants to present himself as a champion of ethics.

But enough with the pleasantries. Ethics is meaningless without some metaphysical basis. The beautiful thing about Catholic morality, though, is that one needs only the base hypothesis of a transcendent moral order to begin with, and reason can suss the rest out. On the other hand, if there IS no transcendent moral order, then all “ethical” issues become rather meaningless. “What atheists mean by morality is this: accidental patterns of social behavior designed to promote group cohesion. The behaviors are accidental and they are basically the same as group food preferences, clothing preferences and traffic law preferences. They are made up. Any member of the group who is sufficiently powerful can do as he pleases, because there is no real moral obligation – just customs and conventions.”

The truth will out… and outlast the madness of materialism…

 

[Sair]

I would say the problem is that the idea of morality, in the sense of absolute right and wrong, cannot exist without God. A person can certainly be compassionate/sympathetic/benevolent towards others with or without the existence of a God.

Yet the whole concept of “absolute” right and wrong is problematic, unless you have uniform circumstances. It’s worth remembering that the so-called “atheistic” regimes of the 20th century, which committed such horrific crimes against humanity, were founded on absolutist principles.

Yet more unsubstantiated assertions. Why don’t you educate yourself on the matter of the Church’s historical relationship with slavery?

Yet scripture itself enjoins slaves to accept their lot in life - and that is tacit support. If one believes that the true meaning of life is to store up benefits in a better life to come, there’s no end to the injustices you can convince people to accept in this one. Schooling people to such acceptance is primarily where religion has been complicit in worldly injustice.

You are posing a false dichotomy. Scripture itself traces an evolution of society and culture from the more primitive and barbaric to the comparatively civilized. There is no contesting that we, as a species, “grow in understanding.”

Yet the stock in trade of religious dogma is the claim that “final” and “ultimate” revelation has been given to humanity. That claim is entirely subverted by any subsequent social or ethical development.

And I would unflinchingly contend that morality, in the prescriptive sense, has never excelled, and can never excel, beyond the level taught by Jesus Christ, as his moral vision extends to the utmost possibility: unrequited charity, nonviolence, compassion for benefactors and malefactors alike, and, ultimately, total self-sacrifice. In fact, the Christian prescription is more rigorously moral than seems practical for many. Hence, it doesn’t tap into our moral inclinations–it elevates them.

Yet even Jesus, according to at least one of the church-sanctioned gospels, had to be persuaded by his disciples to extend compassion to a woman not of his own race…

Again, it is patently absurd for someone who believes that life is an accidental product of blind forces and openly denies the reality of free will to even address the issue of ethics seriously. There is just no way around it; equivocate all you like. No free will=no choice=no right and wrong. End of argument.

First of all, the free will argument has not been resolved - unless you are a believer in libertarian, contra-causal free will, which almost certainly does not obtain. Secondly, if our behaviour is caused or at least influenced by our environment, including the behaviour of people in our societies, then it is possible to generate social interactions that lead to beneficial effects, just as it is possible by the same means to generate interactions that produce detrimental effects. Why would anyone assume that human well-being is an illusion just because it’s not sanctioned by a magical overlord?

If you are using terms such as “right” and “wrong” you are tacitly assenting to the existence of such a moral order. If you believe otherwise, any discussion of ethics becomes relativistic and the terms "right and “wrong” must be replaced with “preferable” and “unprofitable.” Failure to do so is blatant equivocation–it is an important distinction, to be sure. “Right” and “wrong” apply across the board; preference and profitability vary widely according to one’s desires and station in life. (“Might is right” as the saying goes.)

This only holds if you believe “right” and “wrong” have some objective existence as entities above and beyond the needs of sentient beings. Understandable if you’re referencing the supposed dictates of a supernatural god, but otherwise unintelligible.

“Designed” is admittedly a misnomer in that case, but replacing it with “adopted” patches the whole thing up perfectly. I’m sure you knew as well as I what the author was attempting to express, and conceptually, it stands to reason.

Conceptually, it’s utterly ignorant and misguided to suppose that humans need supernatural dictation to behave towards one another in ways that are mutually beneficial.

As you grew up and gradually learned arithmetic, multiplication, division, algebra, geometry, etc. was it mathematics or your understanding thereof that was evolving? A false dilemma, compounded by the equivocation of morality with the promotion of well being. Is=/=ought.

What do you think morality is, if not the pursuance of behaviours that lead to human flourishing? Is it merely kowtowing to a demonstrably capricious and vengeful (if the Bible is anything to go by) deity?

Well, I can’t speak for other religions, but the one I follow has taught the same things for the entire 2,000 years of its existence. And I don’t cherry pick which parts of its doctrine I’m going to believe.

Um…okay. Does this mean you stone your children for disobedience and execute those who declare unbelief? Maybe I should be grateful that we live in different places…

Regardless, the ethical development of humanity has no bearing on the existence of an objective moral order. The absence of understanding does not equate to the absence of existence.

If the objective moral order was prescribed by a benevolent god, however, this deity has been quite remiss in making sure that his creations abided by it.

It leaves you with the tools to develop subjective morality, which by its very nature will differ from person to person, with the majority opinion taking precedence. Again, might is right.

Subjectivity is the tool for developing morality - if we didn’t care, nothing would matter.

Or perhaps they truly believe that that higher authority exists. I admire your mindreading abilities, though. Having been an unbeliever, I can say that I managed to find motivation for moral behavior in the absence of God. What I couldn’t do is justify it.

Why did you need to justify it beyond its demonstrably good consequences?

The “parenting” of religion follows the exact same path, so your comparison is inept. Knowing, as I do, that you’ve been around these forums a long time, I know that you are well aware that serious Catholics have a deep understanding of the moral teachings of the Church and do not just blindly follow them because “the Church says so.” If they don’t understand or accept them, an active effort is made to gain understanding as to why the Church teaches it. Another straw man.

That would seem to support the contention that these Catholics, as evolved human beings, have an innate moral sense that allows them to separate the wheat from the chaff…

 

[prodigalson2011]

Yet the whole concept of “absolute” right and wrong is problematic, unless you have uniform circumstances. It’s worth remembering that the so-called “atheistic” regimes of the 20th century, which committed such horrific crimes against humanity, were founded on absolutist principles.

They were not “so called” atheist regimes. They were atheist regimes who were also absolutists. Which is besides the point, anyway. And moral relativism is itself an absolute philosophy, which makes it utterly self-contradictory.

Yet scripture itself enjoins slaves to accept their lot in life - and that is tacit support. If one believes that the true meaning of life is to store up benefits in a better life to come, there’s no end to the injustices you can convince people to accept in this one. Schooling people to such acceptance is primarily where religion has been complicit in worldly injustice.

I’d like to know what you think justice is. It is as though you are suggesting people have some kind of God given rights.

Scripture’s relationship to slavery is an evolving one, and the process of Judeo-Christian revelation was the foundation and prime mover in ridding the world of its practice, in ancient societies as well as modern ones. More importantly, slavery as it was practiced in ancient times was much different than the European brand of the late second millenium. In primitive societies, enlisting oneself as a house slave was the only way some people could make a living. It would be wise to familiarize yourself with the entirety of Scripture and Catholic teaching before cherry picking and distorting it.

Yet the stock in trade of religious dogma is the claim that “final” and “ultimate” revelation has been given to humanity. That claim is entirely subverted by any subsequent social or ethical development.

False. The revelation has been received, but Scripture itself and the ongoing teaching of the Church state that she (the Church), and humanity in general, are in a constant process of moral and spiritual growth and understanding of said revelation. All of your objections thus far are completely imagined.

Yet even Jesus, according to at least one of the church-sanctioned gospels, had to be persuaded by his disciples to extend compassion to a woman not of his own race…

I assume you’re referring to this passage:

21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”
23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.

First off, you are wrong in saying that the apostles persuaded Him to help her; they actually did quite the opposite. Second, you miss the point of this story completely: It is about the importance of persistence in faith, and a lesson to His apostles who shared in the prevailing Jewish attitudes of racial superiority/favor with God. No one persuaded Jesus; he knew what he was doing all along.

First of all, the free will argument has not been resolved - unless you are a believer in libertarian, contra-causal free will, which almost certainly does not obtain. Secondly, if our behaviour is caused or at least influenced by our environment, including the behaviour of people in our societies, then it is possible to generate social interactions that lead to beneficial effects, just as it is possible by the same means to generate interactions that produce detrimental effects. Why would anyone assume that human well-being is an illusion just because it’s not sanctioned by a magical overlord?

Again, morality and human well being are not the same thing. Just cause you call a potato a tomato don’t make it so. As for free will, I think it’s a relatively incoherent concept from a materialistic view. I am of the opinion that materialism entails hard determinism. We may just have to agree to disagree.

This only holds if you believe “right” and “wrong” have some objective existence as entities above and beyond the needs of sentient beings. Understandable if you’re referencing the supposed dictates of a supernatural god, but otherwise unintelligible.

You’re trying to have it both ways here. If “right” and “wrong” don’t have objective existence, then they are meaningless. Your only recourse is to, again, co-opt the terms and conflate their meanings with the meanings of the words I provided. The concepts you’re trying to equivocate with the terms “right” and “wrong” already have names, and “right” and “wrong” already have pretty well agreed upon definitions. If you don’t agree with them, let them go.

Conceptually, it’s utterly ignorant and misguided to suppose that humans need supernatural dictation to behave towards one another in ways that are mutually beneficial.

Never said it. In fact, I have repeatedly repudiated the notion. That’s not the point I’m making, nor was it the point the author was making.

What do you think morality is, if not the pursuance of behaviours that lead to human flourishing? Is it merely kowtowing to a demonstrably capricious and vengeful (if the Bible is anything to go by) deity?

More ad hominems. I think morality is adhering to natural law.

Um…okay. Does this mean you stone your children for disobedience and execute those who declare unbelief? Maybe I should be grateful that we live in different places…

Seriously? I’m just about done with this conversation. You know full well the Catholic Church has never condoned the stoning of children or anyone else for that matter. Jewish legal laws have never been binding on Christians, and Christ himself essentially banned this practice. So much for reasonable discussion… I guess you’re just running out of ammunition.

If the objective moral order was prescribed by a benevolent god, however, this deity has been quite remiss in making sure that his creations abided by it.

Free will much?

Subjectivity is the tool for developing morality - if we didn’t care, nothing would matter.

Subjectivity is notoriously and demonstrably unreliable. Reason stands above subjective feelings because subjective feelings are at the whim of brain chemistry, conditioning, and a host of other factors that lead to utterly irrational desires and senses of justice. Subjectivity is what allows people like Hitler to rouse people’s passions to the point that they’re willing to commit genocide. Subjectivity is “A” tool that aids in the development of morality, but it is utterly inefficient and, in fact, destructive on its own. You can’t build a house with nothing but a saw…

Why did you need to justify it beyond its demonstrably good consequences?

It’s not quite that simple. It’s a chicken or egg problem. What came first? My belief or my need for justification? (I’ll give you a hint: it was the first one.)

That would seem to support the contention that these Catholics, as evolved human beings, have an innate moral sense that allows them to separate the wheat from the chaff…

Indeed. You fail to understand that to a Catholic, the universe was intended to develop just as it has. I’d like to recommend a book to you called “Genesis and the Big Bang,” by Gerald Schroeder, PhD. (an applied physicist). The Judeo-Christian understanding of creation has long allowed (since before Christ) for a self-unfolding, self-developing universe (including life). The only places we solidly depart from materialist philosophy, as far as creation/existence goes, is a) the initial act of creation and b) the ensoulment of man.

 

[Sair]

They were not “so called” atheist regimes. They were atheist regimes who were also absolutists. Which is besides the point, anyway. And moral relativism is itself an absolute philosophy, which makes it utterly self-contradictory.

You are the one who applied the term “moral relativism” to this discussion. And the reason I say “so-called” atheist regimes is because, upon close examination, they turn out to be just as dogmatically focused upon the wishes of an exalted leader as any religion ever could be - and would not have gained such a hold over the minds of their respective subjects were it not for an established history of habitual deference to religious authorities - and religiously-sanctioned secular authorities; except the Western European and South American fascist regimes, of course, which received direct and robust approval from the Catholic church.

I’d like to know what you think justice is. It is as though you are suggesting people have some kind of God given rights.

And you really think god-given rights are the only possible rights? Justice comes about from our innate sense of fairness. Ask any two-year-old…or any dog, for that matter.

Scripture’s relationship to slavery is an evolving one, and the process of Judeo-Christian revelation was the foundation and prime mover in ridding the world of its practice, in ancient societies as well as modern ones.

Well, that’s a fine appropriation of credit. If religious revelation was really as efficacious as it’s been claimed to be, one would expect far more immediate results. Your argument here actually supports my contention more than yours.

Again, morality and human well being are not the same thing.

Then what is morality for?

You’re trying to have it both ways here. If “right” and “wrong” don’t have objective existence, then they are meaningless.

Happiness and sadness don’t have objective existence either, except as chemical conditions of the brain. Does that make them meaningless to those who experience them?

I think morality is adhering to natural law.

Another notion on which we will have to agree to disagree - as I intimated earlier, atheists and unbelievers in general don’t tend to take the factual conditions of the universe as an ethical prescription for human behaviour and relationships.

Seriously? I’m just about done with this conversation. You know full well the Catholic Church has never condoned the stoning of children or anyone else for that matter. Jewish legal laws have never been binding on Christians, and Christ himself essentially banned this practice. So much for reasonable discussion… I guess you’re just running out of ammunition.

Actually, it constitutes a valid question, in view of the claimed unchanging nature of your God - why dictate one set of acceptable behaviours to one group of people, then change the parameters later? Even if God thought earlier peoples could not conform to his real wishes, why compromise and allow a lesser standard?

Subjectivity is notoriously and demonstrably unreliable. Reason stands above subjective feelings because subjective feelings are at the whim of brain chemistry, conditioning, and a host of other factors that lead to utterly irrational desires and senses of justice.

I think you’ll find that what we consider to be “reason” is also a product of brain chemistry, and of our perception of causal relationships.

Subjectivity is what allows people like Hitler to rouse people’s passions to the point that they’re willing to commit genocide. Subjectivity is “A” tool that aids in the development of morality, but it is utterly inefficient and, in fact, destructive on its own. You can’t build a house with nothing but a saw…

Subjectivity also allowed for the crusades and the Inquisition - yet it’s still the essential ingredient for morality since, as I argued earlier, without subjectivity, we would have no ability to care whether we were treated fairly or not - we would have no emotional responses that could be provoked by injustice, and it would seem perfectly reasonable to defer to those with the bigger sticks. In short, if we were purely rational animals, might would indeed equal right, since it makes perfect sense for the strong to subordinate the weak.

It’s not quite that simple. It’s a chicken or egg problem. What came first? My belief or my need for justification? (I’ll give you a hint: it was the first one.)

I really didn’t think it was the other way around…

Indeed. You fail to understand that to a Catholic, the universe was intended to develop just as it has. I’d like to recommend a book to you called “Genesis and the Big Bang,” by Gerald Schroeder, PhD. (an applied physicist). The Judeo-Christian understanding of creation has long allowed (since before Christ) for a self-unfolding, self-developing universe (including life). The only places we solidly depart from materialist philosophy, as far as creation/existence goes, is a) the initial act of creation and b) the ensoulment of man.

Why these two, and how would you demonstrate that they were the case - never mind that there was any intention behind the universe at all? Why not go the whole hog and suppose an entirely natural universe? Is the only reason because you can’t uphold certain moral tenets without certain supernatural assumptions, or are there more disinterested grounds?

 

[prodigalson2011]

You are the one who applied the term “moral relativism” to this discussion. And the reason I say “so-called” atheist regimes is because, upon close examination, they turn out to be just as dogmatically focused upon the wishes of an exalted leader as any religion ever could be - and would not have gained such a hold over the minds of their respective subjects were it not for an established history of habitual deference to religious authorities - and religiously-sanctioned secular authorities; except the Western European and South American fascist regimes, of course, which received direct and robust approval from the Catholic church.

If you wish to maintain that there is such a thing as morality, yet dismiss moral absolutism, moral relativism is your only remaining option. Except that it’s not an option at all, as the very premise of moral relativism is an absolute claim.

More to the point, your claim that religion is to blame for people’s support of such regimes is tenuous at best. Large societies are by necessity hierarchical and elaborate participation in the processes of political discernment by the average person is incredibly unrealistic. I would also like some source material for your claim that the Catholic Church “robustly approved” fascist regimes. I suspect you have none.

And you really think god-given rights are the only possible rights? Justice comes about from our innate sense of fairness. Ask any two-year-old…or any dog, for that matter.

A dog has no sense of fairness and a 2 year old’s sense of “fairness” is completely egotistical. Just observe their behavior with other children. As for the dog, I’m sure it will have no qualms with begging you for food or eating yours while you’re away. But just try and get to its food or treats while it’s eating. That is just a silly argument.

Well, that’s a fine appropriation of credit. If religious revelation was really as efficacious as it’s been claimed to be, one would expect far more immediate results. Your argument here actually supports my contention more than yours.

It’s not an appropriation–it’s a matter of historical record. And why would you expect far more immediate results? Holding human progress up to your subjective standards does not lend any support to your contention, it merely shows your personal bias.

Then what is morality for?

Obviously, as a Christian, I believe that morality is for the purpose of love, love being the absolute good of the other. The purpose of love is merely to give and share, which is the Christian understanding of God’s nature. Obviously, as a nonbeliever, you cannot share this intimation. However, “morality”, whether Christian or otherwise, has always been understood to relate to a transcendent immaterial order. If you wish to create another system of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors based on purely material philosophy, feel free to do so, but don’t appropriate religious terminology to bolster it.

Happiness and sadness don’t have objective existence either, except as chemical conditions of the brain. Does that make them meaningless to those who experience them?

Happiness and sadness are intrinsically subjective concepts, right and wrong are not. Happiness is a mental state, being right is not. To show the inverse, if you were to say a rock was happy, happiness would become meaningless because you are appropriating a subjective idea to a material object. So in that way, they become meaningless.

Another notion on which we will have to agree to disagree - as I intimated earlier, atheists and unbelievers in general don’t tend to take the factual conditions of the universe as an ethical prescription for human behaviour and relationships.

Natural law is not “the factual conditions of the universe.” It is really of great benefit to understand your opponents’ position properly before you argue against it.

Actually, it constitutes a valid question, in view of the claimed unchanging nature of your God - why dictate one set of acceptable behaviours to one group of people, then change the parameters later? Even if God thought earlier peoples could not conform to his real wishes, why compromise and allow a lesser standard?

It is an invalid question because it is an ad hominem. The Catholic faith doesn’t teach it, I don’t practice it, so it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

A change in prescription does not amount to a change in the prescriber. The prescription changes according to the state of those to whom it is given. As for Old Testament commandments about stoning, etc., much has been written on the topic, but in short it is not a part of the moral law. It was Jewish social law, limited strictly to their particular community and times, prescribed to shape them into a devout people and to prepare them for their mission which, of course, from a Christian perspective, was to foreshadow and prepare the world for the coming of Jesus.

I think you’ll find that what we consider to be “reason” is also a product of brain chemistry, and of our perception of causal relationships.

Reason, properly understood, is detached from personal considerations. Else, it’s not reason.

By “brain chemistry”, I meant those chemical functions which produce emotional reactions. My apologies for not being more clear.

Subjectivity also allowed for the crusades and the Inquisition - yet it’s still the essential ingredient for morality since, as I argued earlier, without subjectivity, we would have no ability to care whether we were treated fairly or not - we would have no emotional responses that could be provoked by injustice, and it would seem perfectly reasonable to defer to those with the bigger sticks. In short, if we were purely rational animals, might would indeed equal right, since it makes perfect sense for the strong to subordinate the weak.

Let’s not get started on the Crusades/Inquisition trope. Enough with the red herrings. I clearly indicated in the last post that it IS A NECESSARY TOOL for morality, but it is NOT sufficient in itself. Nothing you’ve said here has any bearing on the discussion.

I really didn’t think it was the other way around…

Seems to me that if you didn’t, you wouldn’t have asked that question, as that’s exactly what your question implied.

Why these two, and how would you demonstrate that they were the case - never mind that there was any intention behind the universe at all? Why not go the whole hog and suppose an entirely natural universe? Is the only reason because you can’t uphold certain moral tenets without certain supernatural assumptions, or are there more disinterested grounds?

Because a) Once the universe was set in motion, the forces “created” thereupon led logically to the development of the universe as is. However, science and logic are incapable of describing what came before the Big Bang. The philosophical arguments for the necessity of a prime mover are numerous and I invite you to study them at your leisure. b) This is an act of faith, but it has been bolstered, in my case, by historical research, philosophy, personal experience and a wealth of other sources. Limiting yourself to one particular method of knowing is saddeningly impoverishing.

 

[tonyrey]

It is significant that even those who reject the claim of Christ to be the Son of God still respect His teaching which is the basis of the values of every civilised person and commands the allegiance of one third of the world’s population.

Statements which overlook the fact that people are not born into a moral vacuum. Gandhi based his belief in nonviolence on the teaching of Jesus. Buddhism has the noble principle of compassion but not the unselfish love that is prepared to die for one’s enemies. For all its virtues Buddhism rejects the value of desires and regards them as a handicap to spiritual development - a view that is certainly not shared by the hedonists on this forum. Moral wisdom stems from far more than empathy which is a notoriously unreliable basis for morality as we can see from the immense amount of needless suffering in the world.

Abandon reason all ye who join the ranks of the empathy camp!

 

[tonyrey]

If you wish to maintain that there is such a thing as morality, yet dismiss moral absolutism, moral relativism is your only remaining option. Except that it’s not an option at all, as the very premise of moral relativism is an absolute claim.

More to the point, your claim that religion is to blame for people’s support of such regimes is tenuous at best. Large societies are by necessity hierarchical and elaborate participation in the processes of political discernment by the average person is incredibly unrealistic. I would also like some source material for your claim that the Catholic Church “robustly approved” fascist regimes. I suspect you have none.

A dog has no sense of fairness and a 2 year old’s sense of “fairness” is completely egotistical. Just observe their behavior with other children. As for the dog, I’m sure it will have no qualms with begging you for food or eating yours while you’re away. But just try and get to its food or treats while it’s eating. That is just a silly argument.

It’s not an appropriation–it’s a matter of historical record. And why would you expect far more immediate results? Holding human progress up to your subjective standards does not lend any support to your contention, it merely shows your personal bias.

Obviously, as a Christian, I believe that morality is for the purpose of love, love being the absolute good of the other. The purpose of love is merely to give and share, which is the Christian understanding of God’s nature. Obviously, as a nonbeliever, you cannot share this intimation. However, “morality”, whether Christian or otherwise, has always been understood to relate to a transcendent immaterial order. If you wish to create another system of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors based on purely material philosophy, feel free to do so, but don’t appropriate religious terminology to bolster it.

Happiness and sadness are intrinsically subjective concepts, right and wrong are not. Happiness is a mental state, being right is not. To show the inverse, if you were to say a rock was happy, happiness would become meaningless because you are appropriating a subjective idea to a material object. So in that way, they become meaningless.

Natural law is not “the factual conditions of the universe.” It is really of great benefit to understand your opponents’ position properly before you argue against it.

It is an invalid question because it is an ad hominem. The Catholic faith doesn’t teach it, I don’t practice it, so it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

A change in prescription does not amount to a change in the prescriber. The prescription changes according to the state of those to whom it is given. As for Old Testament commandments about stoning, etc., much has been written on the topic, but in short it is not a part of the moral law. It was Jewish social law, limited strictly to their particular community and times, prescribed to shape them into a devout people and to prepare them for their mission which, of course, from a Christian perspective, was to foreshadow and prepare the world for the coming of Jesus.

Reason, properly understood, is detached from personal considerations. Else, it’s not reason.

By “brain chemistry”, I meant those chemical functions which produce emotional reactions. My apologies for not being more clear.

Let’s not get started on the Crusades/Inquisition trope. Enough with the red herrings. I clearly indicated in the last post that it IS A NECESSARY TOOL for morality, but it is NOT sufficient in itself. Nothing you’ve said here has any bearing on the discussion.

Seems to me that if you didn’t, you wouldn’t have asked that question, as that’s exactly what your question implied.

Because a) Once the universe was set in motion, the forces “created” thereupon led logically to the development of the universe as is. However, science and logic are incapable of describing what came before the Big Bang. The philosophical arguments for the necessity of a prime mover are numerous and I invite you to study them at your leisure. b) This is an act of faith, but it has been bolstered, in my case, by historical research, philosophy, personal experience and a wealth of other sources. Limiting yourself to one particular method of knowing is saddeningly impoverishing.

:thumbsup:True, trenchant and triumphant!

 

[Touchstone]

If you wish to maintain that there is such a thing as morality, yet dismiss moral absolutism, moral relativism is your only remaining option. Except that it’s not an option at all, as the very premise of moral relativism is an absolute claim.

I’m not sure whether to argue for the reality of human ethics as “moral absolutism”, just in a godless/non-supernatural context, or for human ethics as “moral relativism” that is grounded in the biological imperatives of evolved human psychology.

But either way, you’ve left out the “human” in assessing human ethics and value systems. Humans proceed from an objective, unchangeable, demonstrable biological reality: the wiring of the psychology they inherit from thousands of antecedent generations.

This is their “moral absolute”. They cannot operate otherwise, no matter what. They are hard-wired with a moral grammar that is no less intrinsic to their biological nature than is the color of their eyes, or the number of digits on their hands.

Given that, I suggest that the entire edifice you’re trying to construct here, and it seems quite a lot of text here just in this thread trying to prop this up, collapses. All we need to do is understand some science, and bam! – moral absolutes that ground and inform, unavoidably, human ethics.

Having selfish impulses is not a choice. Being empathetic is no more voluntary for humans than breathing is. There is no need to consider any god, any demons, any voodoo superstition. It’s just natural biology establishing our moral faculties as a necessary adaptation as a species.

With that, secular morality has all the ground it needs, or could want. And even at that, “need” and “want” are foolish expectations. Humans are what they evolved to be. It’s a brute fact, not something we can choose or alter, given all the evidence we have available.

So whether you call evolved human psychology a “moral absolute” (I’d be OK with that), or “moral relativism ground in absolute imperatives from nature” (I’d be OK with that, too), secular morality doesn’t need, and can’t use theology. That’s not grounded in the facts and evidences we have about human beings. Secular morality proceeds from what is biologically necessary, “absolutely required”, you might say. However flimsy, and “relativist” it gets from there, it cannot possibly detach from these “moral imperatives” that are hardwired into our person.

-TS

 

[prodigalson2011]

I’m not sure whether to argue for the reality of human ethics as “moral absolutism”, just in a godless/non-supernatural context, or for human ethics as “moral relativism” that is grounded in the biological imperatives of evolved human psychology.

But either way, you’ve left out the “human” in assessing human ethics and value systems. Humans proceed from an objective, unchangeable, demonstrable biological reality: the wiring of the psychology they inherit from thousands of antecedent generations.

Hmm. The “psychological wiring” of human beings is very changeable. Incredibly so. You’re already on weak footing here.

This is their “moral absolute”. They cannot operate otherwise, no matter what. They are hard-wired with a moral grammar that is no less intrinsic to their biological nature than is the color of their eyes, or the number of digits on their hands.

And here you’ve hit the banana peel. I suppose one could believe what you just said, provided they were completely ignorant of history! But, even if we were to assume that what you say has any ground in reality, you are still conflating “is” with “ought.” I’ve spent more than enough time on the subject already, so I’ll invite you to reread my previous post if you need any clarification on the distinctions involved.

Given that, I suggest that the entire edifice you’re trying to construct here, and it seems quite a lot of text here just in this thread trying to prop this up, collapses. All we need to do is understand some science, and bam! – moral absolutes that ground and inform, unavoidably, human ethics.

Science cannot make value judgments. Morality is a system of values. At best you have a weak system of ethics. What you most certainly don’t have is moral absolutes. People have this pesky thing called “self-identity” that tends to move their behavior in the direction of self interest. Some people could, doubtless, care less what happens to the majority of the human race so long as they and those they favor, if any, thrive. You cannot provide any objective reason for them to participate amicably in your social construct.

Having selfish impulses is not a choice. Being empathetic is no more voluntary for humans than breathing is. There is no need to consider any god, any demons, any voodoo superstition. It’s just natural biology establishing our moral faculties as a necessary adaptation as a species.

Did I say that it was a choice? I don’t believe I did. Again, from a theistic perspective, it is perfectly reasonable to think that the entirety of our world and biology, from brains to eyes to the environment that shapes us, arose through totally natural processes. The difference is that we think this development was intentional. There may be no need to consider God for the development of empathy specifically, but the very existence of our universe does call for such a consideration. Science still has no answers for the fine tuning argument–the multiverse theory is the best they’ve got, and that’s such a copout it’s not even funny.

Nevertheless, I love your faith in a blind process to develop such intricate means of survival. There is as much evidence for the evolution of empathy as there is for voodoo. Not that I reject the possibility that empathy has a naturally explicable origin–point being, though, that you are putting faith in a metaphysical reading of science that has little to no objective evidence in its favor.

With that, secular morality has all the ground it needs, or could want. And even at that, “need” and “want” are foolish expectations. Humans are what they evolved to be. It’s a brute fact, not something we can choose or alter, given all the evidence we have available.

You’re left with no ground at all. You’ve done nothing but provide an explanation for a fairly prevalent pattern of behavior; you haven’t given anyone a good reason to go along with it. The overflowing of prisons makes your assertion that people can’t go against their biology-given morality beyond laughable. Not everyone is concerned with the well-being of the species, and given that, on your view, they have no long term stake in it, I don’t see them being very likely to become so. I think it’s worth noting that while not all atheists are nihilists, all nihilists are atheists.

So whether you call evolved human psychology a “moral absolute” (I’d be OK with that), or “moral relativism ground in absolute imperatives from nature” (I’d be OK with that, too), secular morality doesn’t need, and can’t use theology. That’s not grounded in the facts and evidences we have about human beings. Secular morality proceeds from what is biologically necessary, “absolutely required”, you might say. However flimsy, and “relativist” it gets from there, it cannot possibly detach from these “moral imperatives” that are hardwired into our person.

-TS

Again, you are left with the large number of human beings who do not share your sense of “biological imperative.” And you guys say we live in a fantasy world!
But I digress. At least you admit it’s flimsy. Still, human experience betrays your notions of “facts and evidences about human beings.” Your “absolute imperatives from nature” are really nothing but a desperate clinging to certain accidental behaviors currently present in the human species. If we’re going to claim that morality arises from natural imperatives, consider that neighboring packs of chimpanzees often fight and kill one another over territory. By your view, then, territorial war is perfectly moral. Lions kill the cubs of conquered rivals. None of this behavior threatens their survival. So the idea that we “cannot possibly detach from these ‘hardwired moral imperatives’” is, for want of a nicer word, naive. By your view, whatever particular course of action will ensure the survival of the species at whichever particular point of its development is “moral.” So, to throw out a current example, the Chinese policy of forced abortion to control overpopulation is perfectly moral in your view, right?

 

[Touchstone]

Hmm. The “psychological wiring” of human beings is very changeable. Incredibly so. You’re already on weak footing here.

No, I think you are confusing neuronal plasticity with the basic wiring plan for the human brain. With just a little thought here, you can quickly understand why this is so. If human neurology was — what word shall I use – “flimsy” in such a way as you suggest, such that empathy wasn’t a predictable/automatic product of the development process, humans wouldn’t HAVE that trait, predictably (by definition). This would mean disaster adaptationally for humans – same with the “flimsiness” of selfish impulses, sex drive, altruism, etc.

Humans have these features because they represent successful adapations to our environment over long periods of time. They are “designed” in, in an impersonal fashion, by the vagaries of our ecosystem, over uncountable generations. If they aren’t successfully, “baked in”, we wouldn’t be here, as we would not be gregarious, cooperative, jealous, paranoid, etc., and thus would not be able to survive as these adaptations have allowed us to.t

And here you’ve hit the banana peel. I suppose one could believe what you just said, provided they were completely ignorant of history! But, even if we were to assume that what you say has any ground in reality, you are still conflating “is” with “ought.” I’ve spent more than enough time on the subject already, so I’ll invite you to reread my previous post if you need any clarification on the distinctions involved.

It’s not conflation, but unification at the core. “Is” is “ought” at the core of human psychology. Humans have an objective, unchangeable impulse toward empathy baked into the design of their brains. “Ought” in the deontological sense is not a coherent concept at this level. There is only “is” – that’s what “baked in” means; it’s not a choice, it’s not a “value” in the abstract philosophical sense. It is a brute fact of our natural constitution that does not admit of any alternatives that “ought” would entail. “Ought” entails a phase space of values. Empathy (and the other biological imperatives I mentioned) are not subject to any set of such choices. Evolution has chosen them for us, and they are accomplished, unchangeable facts for humans. Fixed axioms if you like. Built-in “oughts”, that are only “oughts” because they inform our values. They are 100% “is” as a matter of biology, though.

Science cannot make value judgments.

It cannot get off the ground without making value judgments. Science is predicated on the axiomatic value that performative models are “better” than less performative models. It assumes, metaphysically, without any a priori justification, that our senses reflect reality to some degree, and that the supreme value in human knowledge is developing models predicated on this assumption; better performing models are “better”, “truer”, more “valuable”, than less performative models. And all of this is based on valuing empirical correspondence metaphysics!

Morality is a system of values.

Yes, but that in no way puts it beyond the domain of science. As above, the foundational values of humans (and gorillas, and dogs, etc.) are biological facts, and squarely in the province of science, and beyond the reach of theology, or (non-natural) philosophy.

At best you have a weak system of ethics.

Weak in what sense??

What you most certainly don’t have is moral absolutes.

I think that term can be fairly applied, as above. Man’s “moral grammar” is a brute fact of biology, as “absolute” as absolute gets. Empathy, for example, is a “moral absolute” at a fundamental level. This is a scientific proposition about human biology. If that isn’t absolute – unchangeable, independent of anyone’s desires, wishes, etc., universal in scope – I don’t know what you mean by the term.

That said, I’ve no problem calling human morality “relativist ethics ground in an fixed moral substrate established by our evolved biology”. “Moral absolute” does not commend itself, on its own terms, any more than “moral relativism” commends itself on its own terms. Calling either “weak” or “strong” like this is confused.

People have this pesky thing called “self-identity” that tends to move their behavior in the direction of self interest. Some people could, doubtless, care less what happens to the majority of the human race so long as they and those they favor, if any, thrive. You cannot provide any objective reason for them to participate amicably in your social construct.

I’m not claiming that these moral absolutes in human nature are invincible. Hardly the case. They often compete and conflict with each other. If selfishness and altruism are both basic values of the human animal – and biologically, they are – then one of those values will be defeated in case after case. Nevertheless, the absence of each is fatal to the species; Nature is the cleverest designer, enough to make YHWH green with envy, and humans are honed in the “wind tunnel” of time to have both of these competing impulses that interact in sufficient ratios and dynamics to support the survival of the species: humans draw upon selfish interests for motivation to work, act, create, destroy, etc., and also on their cooperative/social empathy to provide enough social cohesion and collaboration to support the benefits of group behavior (specialization, for example, and social trust as workflow optimization).

Did I say that it was a choice? I don’t believe I did. Again, from a theistic perspective, it is perfectly reasonable to think that the entirety of our world and biology, from brains to eyes to the environment that shapes us, arose through totally natural processes. The difference is that we think this development was intentional. There may be no need to consider God for the development of empathy specifically, but the very existence of our universe does call for such a consideration. Science still has no answers for the fine tuning argument–the multiverse theory is the best they’ve got, and that’s such a copout it’s not even funny.

Hold on. You are a theist, and you are calling the multiverse theory a “cop out”? I’m vexed by that. As a matter of parsimony, it’s hands down more economical than theism; it’s just more of the entity we already know can and does exist (a universe). Theism posits a whole different class of entity.

Which is not to say that we have, or can have, empirical evidence for external universes. By definition, “empirical” would make whatever evidence we garnered part of our universe. But the theist cannot criticize that at all. His position is pathetic by comparison. It’s your prerogative to believe as you do, but you are a hypocrite in the extreme to throw stones at a multi-verse hypothesis, as a theist. That’s just crazy talk from a theist.

-TS