Is "Common Sense" a Valid Source for Atheist Moral Norms?

[inocente]

I know murder is wrong because my religion has been telling people that for millennia.

Only people with certain personality disorders need to be told murder is wrong. The rest of us have a conscience.

The Baptist denomination, while hugely vague these days, holds very, very firmly to original sin in the Baptist church I grew up in. The position was not unique, as I discovered at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

This may be a shock to you but fewer than 1 in 25 people are American.

*Either way, not super related to the question currently debated: How does an atheist derive their moral code and how can it function on a societal level?
*

That would be a little thing some like to call conscience.

Dr. E.O. Wilson and many others strongly disagree. When there is no personal benefit (even if the personal benefit is not consciously known), there is no evolutionary drive. -full stop-

You’re excellent at proof by assertion. Top of the class. Unfortunately, it’s still a fallacy.

First, there is no “universal common sense”. Many Chinese know that boiled rhino horn will cure their woes. Their own fingernails won’t have the same effect (even though they’re literally the same material).

You seem to keep confusing common sense with common knowledge. Common sense isn’t an argument so it can’t be a fallacy. Nor is common sense superstition. Common sense is about making decisions based on experience of what has worked in the past. Common sense = Good sense and sound judgement in practical matters (OED).

*Second, the idea and the adherent always bear disparity. A Baptist pastor in Lexington, KY was arrested on embezzlement from his church just a bit ago. It also came out he was cheating on his wife with a member of the youth group. The fact that people morally fail points to the relevant standard’s ability to identify this moral failure.

I’m trying to see what that standard is for atheism that serves the same function beyond “whatever you justify to yourself”.*

My point was there is no empirical evidence that people are any better at adhering to religious moralities than to others.

A common way of dividing up moralities is (a) Duty ethics, where the right thing to do is to follow rules. As long as they follow the rules, someone is moral. In religious terms it’s called legalism and Jesus argues strongly against it in Matt 23. (b) Consequentialism, where the right thing to do is maximize some outcome for all, such as well-being, and all acts are permitted to reach this goal. (c) Virtue ethics, where the right thing to do is be a good person.

There are secular theories of ethics for all these. In practice, whether we know the theories or not, we appear to switch between these modes when working out the right thing to do (see results of experiments using moral dilemmas).

 

[Vonsalza]

Only people with certain personality disorders need to be told murder is wrong. The rest of us have a conscience.

The only point being under absolute relativism, there exists cases where it’s apparently fine - as we see in our species and others.

This may be a shock to you but fewer than 1 in 25 people are American.

No shock. You were commenting that many Catholics are imperfect. I agreed and pointed out the same phenomenon with Baptists. It’s a human condition.

That would be a little thing some like to call conscience.

Conscience shares the same pitfall as “common sense”.

You’re excellent at proof by assertion. Top of the class. Unfortunately, it’s still a fallacy.

Positing a counter-claim is not “proof by assertion”. It’s simply how rhetoric works…
Quoting a naturalist in a discussion about naturalism is not an ad verecundian fallacy (fallacious appeal to authority). plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/ Number 9.

You seem to keep confusing common sense with common knowledge…

Bandwagon fallacy is bandwagon fallacy, regardless how hard you may try to rephrase it.

My point was there is no empirical evidence that people are any better at adhering to religious moralities than to others.

And there may not be. My point was that the atheist lacks a moral scheme that is built on nothing more than absolute relativism.

There are secular theories of ethics for all these. In practice, whether we know the theories or not, we appear to switch between these modes when working out the right thing to do (see results of experiments using moral dilemmas).

Sure, with ya 100%. In order to create answers to moral dilemma, there must be an appeal to some moral belief. The trouble with atheism is that it provides it with absolute relativism. On a macrosocial level, that isn’t a functional morality at all. All is permitted.

 

[Vonsalza]

I’m very glad that [Bradski] brought this up…

I think we know the answer, Enos…

If you guys want to start a thread entitled “Watch Two Atheists Lick Each Other’s Wounds”, knock yourselves out.

(And I forgot to say “welcome back”, Bradski.)

Atheism produces the morality of absolute relativism, which is useless as a moral system.

If you disagree that atheism produces absolute relativism or you disagree that absolute relativism is socially useless, it would be pertinent to explain why.

 

[EnosJadon]

If you disagree that atheism produces absolute relativism or you disagree that absolute relativism is socially useless, it would be pertinent to explain why.

Vonsalza, I’ve neglected to address one of your points, and that’s the point concerning the existence of altruism. Bradski has done an admiral job in attempting to show how true altruism evolved from reciprocal altruism, but you’ve rejected this premise. So although I’m certain that I’ll fail to persuade you as well, I’ll attempt to explain how one arises from the other. To do this I’m going to use the geese that are abundant in my area of the U.S. at this time of year.

Now geese exhibit certain behaviors that appear to be examples of reciprocal altruism. For example, when a flock of geese is feeding, certain individuals around the perimeter of the group will be on alert for dangers such as potential predators, and will sound an alarm to alert the others. Now alerting the others is of no direct benefit to the goose. It’s already spotted the danger and could simply fly away and leave the others to fend for themselves. But it doesn’t. The conclusion we draw from this is that the goose must gain in some way from this behavior. It either gains status or approval within the group, or it expects others to reciprocate at some future point in time. Each of these reasons however, raise some interesting questions.

If the goose does this to gain something from the group, but at the same time it benefits the group, then is this a case of what’s best for the group (Sounding the alarm) superseding what’s best for the individual (Flying away)? The knee-jerk reaction is to say no, that the goose simply does this out of its own self-interest, to gain something from the group. But coincidental to this is why the members of group reciprocate in some way to those who behave in this manner? Again the knee-jerk reaction is to say that the members of the group also gain by encouraging such behavior, because it benefits them as individuals. We have a symbiotic relationship, with each behavior reinforcing the other, and only coincidentally benefiting the group.

But the geese don’t have the benefit of our higher level reasoning. They probably haven’t thought this through. They just get a good feeling from their behavior. A feeling which is reinforced by the other members of the group. If I do a good thing for others, then they’ll do a good thing for me. It’s classic reciprocal altruism. It’s also classic behavioral reinforcement. The geese are being conditioned to behave in a certain manner. I do a good thing for you, and you do a good thing for me, and we’re both happy.

But the question is, can this behavioral reinforcement sometimes cause the goose to behave in a manner that actually isn’t in its own self-interest, but is predicated solely upon its conditioned behavior, and that which innately feels like the right thing to do. The answer…probably. Now if the goose had our higher level of reasoning it might be able to assess the situation and decide…whoa!!!..this definitely isn’t in my own self-interest. But it doesn’t, so it just does what feels “right”. It can’t run a cost/benefit analysis, or figure out what the tipping point is. It just does what feels “right”.

Now in the case of us humans, whether we realize it or not, we’re undergoing the same behavioral reinforcement. And like the goose we can sometimes do things that aren’t actually in our own self-interest, but which just feel “right”. We can even run a cost/benefit analysis and still decide to do what just “feels” right, and then we call it altruism. It’s when we do that which doesn’t benefit us in any way, but just feels right.

 

[inocente]

inocente;14502326:

Only people with certain personality disorders need to be told murder is wrong. The rest of us have a conscience.

The only point being under absolute relativism, there exists cases where it’s apparently fine - as we see in our species and others.

There’s a Catholic poster who argues that the Church teaches moral relative absolutes, but there’s no such thing as absolute relativism either. Although I wasn’t referring to philosophical positions, just that with the exception of psychopaths, we all show that the requirements of the law are written on our hearts, our consciences also bearing witness (Romans 2).

*No shock. You were commenting that many Catholics are imperfect. I agreed and pointed out the same phenomenon with Baptists. It’s a human condition. *

Nope. Go back to the post and you’ll see I was commenting on your aside about original sin and your Southern Baptists.

I’d already said that imperfection doesn’t just apply to any one religion, but thank you for adding another example to my argument that in practice, objective moral authority is no better than common sense. It’s may be worse of course, as those with an air of moral authority may get away with things simply because they are presumed to be moral.

Conscience shares the same pitfall as “common sense”.

There’s no pitfall (= a hidden or unsuspected problem) as we’re all well aware that we can reach differing moral conclusions.

Positing a counter-claim is not “proof by assertion”. It’s simply how rhetoric works…
Quoting a naturalist in a discussion about naturalism is not an ad verecundian fallacy (fallacious appeal to authority). plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/ Number 9.

Except I was referring to you saying “many others strongly disagree”, as if that proved anything.

*Bandwagon fallacy is bandwagon fallacy, regardless how hard you may try to rephrase it. *

Which confirms my suspicion that you keep confusing common sense with common knowledge. Thanks for the QED

*And there may not be. My point was that the atheist lacks a moral scheme that is built on nothing more than absolute relativism.

Sure, with ya 100%. In order to create answers to moral dilemma, there must be an appeal to some moral belief. The trouble with atheism is that it provides it with absolute relativism. On a macrosocial level, that isn’t a functional morality at all. All is permitted.*

There are lots of theories of ethics, none with the strange name absolute relativism. Perhaps someone somewhere believes there’s an absolutely absolute relatively relative relativism.

Offhand I think the only system which makes a direct appeal to God is divine command theory. Even natural law theories are secular unless based on a set of divine commands, and even then they give differing moralities depending on the chosen commands. But in practice we make decisions based on all modes (“their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them”). If you have the time, watch the first ten minutes of this popular class (7 million hits too) and see how most people switch principles.

 

[Vonsalza]

Hope everyone had a nice weekend! 75 degrees F in February, the lake called my name.

Vonsalza, I’ve neglected to address one of your points, and that’s the point concerning the existence of altruism. Bradski has done an admiral job in attempting to show how true altruism evolved from reciprocal altruism, but you’ve rejected this premise…

There simply is no evolutionary drive for “altruism” that costs more than it returns in personal benefit. None. Nada.
Bradski may be fine with you speaking/interpreting for him, but I’m unaware of any reference by the august gentleman to “true altruism”. I don’t recall either of us successfully arguing it even exists. Yet more proof of relativist disparity even between fellow atheists…

It may still be pertinent to note that while the religious still perform altruism in concordance with their creed (thereby arguably for some benefit), at least religious altruism doesn’t demand that the benefit bear temporal materiality in the same way evolutionary reciprocal altruism does.

…I do a good thing for you, and you do a good thing for me, and we’re both happy.

Happiness would be irrelevant. “We both survive” would be the result of reciprocal altruism.
I’m not going to address your fanciful internal monologue of a goose. I will say I enjoyed it.

…It’s when we do that which doesn’t benefit us in any way, but just feels right.

Sure. The relativist would argue it just the same. What is “right” would be subjectively determined and not objectively determined - a la relativism. It is a cornerstone of atheistic moral philosophy that there is no absolute, objective moral truth, which is an indictment of your quasi-religious belief about “right”. You’ve not fully embraced your atheism.

I don’t blame you.

…(Romans 2).

Romans 2 of the Christian Bible is not a recognized authority by most atheists, as I understand it. Thus in this conversation it is likely irrelevant.

…objective moral authority is no better than common sense.

It does potentially bear the useful quality of being objective, where “common sense” is not (think Chinese people and Rhino horns).

There’s no pitfall (= a hidden or unsuspected problem) as we’re all well aware that we can reach differing moral conclusions [with “common sense”].

Then that’s match-point in my favor. It is useless as a source of objective truth by your own admission. Thus it should be eliminated from discussions about secular moral truth.

Which confirms my suspicion that you keep confusing common sense with common knowledge. Thanks for the QED

Proof positive that you don’t want to give up popular-appeal as a source of moral authority. It is a logically fallacious approach even if you don’t want to admit it. Your displayed need to “hold on” in spite of it is an example of cognitive dissonance.

…Even natural law theories are secular…

I agree with the general idea, even as “natural law theories” is a bit oxymoronic (law-theory?).

 

[EnosJadon]

Hope everyone had a nice weekend! 75 degrees F in February, the lake called my name.

Not being facetious, I had a great weekend, spent 12 hours shoveling my driveway.

There simply is no evolutionary drive for “altruism” that costs more than it returns in personal benefit. None. Nada.

Sorry, but this simply isn’t true. The existence of altruism, no matter what form it’s in, is the direct product of evolution. That includes altruism, (however you choose to define it), religious altruism and reciprocal altruism. The only matter that may have any bearing on this discussion is what constitutes “personal benefit”. Defined broadly enough it would negate the very existence of altruism. Or shall we stick with what would seem to me at least to be the most reasonable definition of altruism. An act that benefits another, without the intent to benefit oneself.

Evolution can easily prompt people to behave altruistically.

It may still be pertinent to note that while the religious still perform altruism in concordance with their creed (thereby arguably for some benefit), at least religious altruism doesn’t demand that the benefit bear temporal materiality in the same way evolutionary reciprocal altruism does.

The odd thing is, that between the theist, the agnostic, and the atheist, seemingly the only one that can act altruistically is the atheist. The theist can’t act selflessly because they know full well that they’ll be rewarded in the afterlife. The agnostic on the other hand, acts with the understanding that they may be rewarded in the afterlife. Therefore it’s only the atheist that can act altruistically, because only they can act without any prospects for reward at all.

The relativist would argue it just the same. What is “right” would be subjectively determined and not objectively determined - a la relativism.

Right and wrong for the atheist is determined exactly same way as it is for the theist. The theist simply chooses to deny it. It’s not a matter of who’s right and who isn’t, it’s a matter of who’s being forthright and who isn’t.

You’ve not fully embraced your atheism.

I never claimed to be an atheist. Neither have I said that I’m not a Catholic. You assume too much.

 

[Vonsalza]

Not being facetious, I had a great weekend, spent 12 hours shoveling my driveway.

Well, that SHOULD be the weather I’m having. Thanks, I’m sure, to post-industrial age combustion and agriculture, the weather is a bit wacky here. Winter kinda skipped us as we’ve seen real snow only once and it may have been an inch. Not typical for where I live, at all.

I’ll cut to the chase.

Evolution does not have a mechanism for promoting a species that loses more in “altruistic” sacrifice than it gains from the sacrifice. Period.

Expanded, if the loss-to-survivability incurred from “altruism” is not offset by an equal or greater gain-in-survivability from reciprocation, natural selection will not favor that organism. It doesn’t “know how” to.

Any altruism that exceeds the possibility of reciprocation is, therefore, learned - not innate.
As to where it’s learned from, religion is your greatest contender - even if the individual is not religious. The culture they were reared in almost certainly was to some extent.
You could “back-up and punt” from the position of “culture” instead, as an alternative. But that only delays religion by one degree. “Culture” and “religion” are parts of the same.

Verily, most anthropologists posit that one of the markers of the advent of human culture is when our ancestors started ceremoniously burying their dead - often with tools and foodstuffs to serve them in an afterlife. Vis-a-vis, the birth of religion.

Right and wrong for the atheist is determined exactly same way as it is for the theist.

How so? The Catholic knows rape is universally wrong because because their catechism decrees it as such. The Buddhist knows it’s wrong because rape unambiguously violates The Great Precepts.
What standard does an atheist have that isn’t purely arbitrary? In fact, their admission to moral relativism allows for it and is enthusiastically used by virtually anyone who commits that particular obscenity.

You could swiftly counter that the arbitrary nature of the atheist’s relativist morality is immaterial, but you’d be wrong. The power of morality lies in the creation a body of norms shared by a common group, not lone individuals. Groups do not grant meaningful assent to the admittedly arbitrary. The forwarded idea must be transcendent, as though it was ordained by the creator(s). Without this power, the arbitrary moral idea is rejected the moment it becomes inconvenient to hold.

I never claimed to be an atheist. Neither have I said that I’m not a Catholic. You assume too much.

Hazard of the job. My batting average is pretty good though, so the behavior will likely continue.
Mea Culpa.

 

[EnosJadon]

So did you realize that you were wrong?

Because you changed your argument. In post #186 you stated:

There simply is no evolutionary drive for “altruism” that costs more than it returns in personal benefit. None. Nada

But now you’ve changed the argument to:

Evolution does not have a mechanism for promoting a species that loses more in “altruistic” sacrifice than it gains from the sacrifice. Period.

I assume that you changed your reference from the individual to the species because you realized that natural selection can indeed select for behavior in which the cost to the individual outweighs the benefit to the individual, so long as the benefit to the species as a whole outweighs the cost to the species as a whole. War immediately comes to mind for example. The survivability of the many is dependent upon the sacrifice of the few. Likewise altruism may benefit the species more than it costs the individual. In which case evolution will select for altruism.

EnosJadon:

Right and wrong for the atheist is determined exactly same way as it is for the theist.

How so? The Catholic knows rape is universally wrong because because their catechism decrees it as such. The Buddhist knows it’s wrong because rape unambiguously violates The Great Precepts.

That’s exactly how an atheist determines right from wrong, someone tells them right from wrong, and then experience either affirms or refutes it. For a Catholic it’s either a parent, or a priest, or a book that tells them right from wrong, and for a Buddhist it’s the same. We all learn right from wrong in exactly the same way.

Ultimately, it’s experience that teaches us right from wrong. Our own, as well the experiences of those who came before us. Passed down in various forms from generation to generation.

 

[Vonsalza]

So did you realize that you were wrong?
Because you changed your argument. In post #186 you stated:

There simply is no evolutionary drive for “altruism” that costs more than it returns in personal benefit. None. Nada

Those two statements mean literally the same thing… I’m at a loss…

If your personal sacrifices are not returned with equal or greater gains, evolution has no drive for your behavior. If it doesn’t benefit the individual, there’s no mechanism to translate that to the wider species; no matter how hard you wish it were true. If you don’t want to accept that… I dunno… tough?

That’s exactly how an atheist determines right from wrong, someone tells them right from wrong, and then experience either affirms or refutes it. For a Catholic it’s either a parent, or a priest, or a book that tells them right from wrong, and for a Buddhist it’s the same. We all learn right from wrong in exactly the same way.

The Catholic and the Buddhist have non-arbitrary sources of “right”. The atheist does not, thus their morality is not convincingly replicable. This is a non-negotiable requirement for the existence of morality beyond the individual level and an atheist simply cannot provide that. -Full Stop-

They further shoot themselves in the foot by admitting that they think morality is relative. While Buddhism and Catholicism can never be “ok” with rape, there must be some situation where rape is “ok” for the atheist because, to them, all moral choices are relative.

I do admire your fervor for defending the indefensible. Nonetheless, the problems with atheistic morality are known and unanswered. Ergo they are logically critiqued with almost boring ease…

 

[inocente]

Romans 2 of the Christian Bible is not a recognized authority by most atheists, as I understand it.

Irrelevant. You are arguing against your own religion. Natural law morality for Aquinas arises from human nature. Paul says the same. The atheist who argues we have shared morality by virtue of our common sense, arising from our common human nature, is much closer to your own religion’s theory of ethics than are you.

*It does potentially bear the useful quality of being objective, where “common sense” is not (think Chinese people and Rhino horns). *

You keep confusing common sense with superstition and common knowledge.

Then that’s match-point in my favor. It is useless as a source of objective truth by your own admission. Thus it should be eliminated from discussions about secular moral truth.

The “requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness” is in our human nature because, according to Aquinas, it reflects eternal divine law.

I agree with the general idea, even as “natural law theories” is a bit oxymoronic (law-theory?).

:ehh: If you really haven’t even heard of natural law theories, and we add in your confusion over common sense, your proofs by assertion, your private invention of “absolute relativism”, your apparent lack of knowledge of the many secular theories of ethics which are not relativism, then we might be forgiven for bringing to mind dilettante = someone who shows interest in a subject, but whose understanding of it is not very deep.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/
plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-theories/
qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/ETHICS_TEXT/Chapter_7_Deontological_Theories_Natural_Law/Natural_Law_Theory.htm
etc.

 

[Aloysium]

Excuse me, just passing through and wanting to add my :twocents:

What is being argued are articles of faith, frameworks into which we place our “facts” which in turn, are determined by the system or world-view that we adopt to connect with and participate within all of existence.

The modern scientific understanding, as utterly amazing as it is in its capacity to describe and reveal the mysteries of our physical nature, fails miserably when it is used to portray our coming into being.
This is not its role and when it tries to do so, as in the current theory of evolution, it reduces itself to merely the latest version of astrology, an attempt to assign meaning, what is spiritual to material events.

The most obvious, and hence most neglected piece of evidence that it cannot place in its framework is me. While all of physics, from quantum mechanics to relativity, point to its necessity, the nature and Source of our relational spirit, because it falls outside the mandate of science, remains unacknowledged for the most part within the literature, albeit not so, personally by scientists.

Just as the Ptolemaic System was supplanted by the Heliocentric, so too will our understandings of creation, which view matter as its centre, as the basic reality that underlies appearances. The truth is that all exists in relation to God, who is the Source of all there is, was and will be. God is Love; we are born, live our lives and die, all within the ocean of His infinite compassion that is the totality of existence.

Altruism in human behaviour expresses basic nature of the universe. And, it is in giving of ourselves to what is other that we connect with the Father, becoming children of God, Christ-like. That would be what true morality is all about, a journey to our Home, in communion within the Trinity.

 

[Vonsalza]

Altruism in human behaviour expresses basic nature of the universe. And, it is in giving of ourselves to what is other that we connect with the Father, becoming children of God, Christ-like. That would be what true morality is all about, a journey to our Home, in communion within the Trinity.

Excellent observation. I’m trying to figure out how an atheist explains this altruism without the aid of religion.

The atheist who argues we have shared morality by virtue of our common sense…

Ad populum fallacy is ad populum fallacy no matter how much you wish it weren’t.
If they want to rationally refuse god, fine with me. They must rationally replace the social derivatives of god. They have produced relativism. Relativism is the same as moral anarchy.

You keep confusing common sense with superstition and common knowledge.

Nothing is right simply because it is commonly believed; especially in rhetoric. Sorry.

The “requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness” is in our human nature because, according to Aquinas, it reflects eternal divine law.

You’ve totally missed the point. We’re discussing the source of atheist moral norms. An atheist has no reason to appeal to Aquinas, even if he was a brilliant Catholic. Ergo anything he produces is not relevant.

If you really haven’t even heard of natural law theories…

sigh
First, when someone cites a theory as though it were fact, that particular someone displays that they don’t know what a theory is. Specifically, they aren’t seeing how it differs from “fact” or “law”. If they want to at least appear credible, they need to learn this difference.

Next, from the material cited: “It is essential to the natural law position that there be some things that are universally and naturally good.” - that is what we are discussing. Where do these come from? For the theist, god! For the atheist…???

And congrats on refraining from citing Wikipedia. That’s a solid improvement. Now you need to actually read what it is you’re citing and you’ll be well on your way

 

[EnosJadon]

Those two statements mean literally the same thing… I’m at a loss…

":

There simply is no evolutionary drive for “altruism” that costs more than it returns in personal benefit. None. Nada

Evolution does not have a mechanism for promoting a species that loses more in “altruistic” sacrifice than it gains from the sacrifice. Period.

I’m sorry, but those two statements are clearly not the same. One is referring to what benefits the individual, and the other is referring to what benefits the group. The two things are fundamentally different. I gave you the example of war, to demonstrate that there are circumstances, where evolutionarily speaking, what’s good for the group supersedes what’s good for the individual. The group needs to have those who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the group. If one group had no members who were willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the others, then it would would always fall prey to the group who’s members were willing to sacrifice themselves. Natural selection is cruel that way. We must be willing to die in defense of our beliefs, because you’re willing to die in defense of yours.

We each find our own reasons for justifying this simple inescapable truth…that I must be as passionate in defense of my beliefs as you are in defense of yours. And we often call upon some moral authority to do so.

I realize that you’re never going to be able to grasp this concept, not because I haven’t explained it clearly enough, or because you’re stubborn, or because you’re ignorant, but because evolution has conditioned us to see only that which aligns with what we already believe. Which is very ironic…evolution has conditioned you not to recognize the evidence for evolution.

The Catholic and the Buddhist have non-arbitrary sources of “right”.

No, they don’t. They have a book which they have proclaimed to be non-arbitrary. But they arbitrarily selected that book over all the other books. They have created for themselves the illusion of preeminence. They have proclaimed themselves to be the authoritiy over right and wrong, based upon a book which they themselves wrote.

At least the atheist recognizes the fallaciousness of such self-directed authority. Appeals to the authority of God are just thinly veiled appeals to the authority of one’s self.

I’m trying to figure out how an atheist explains this altruism without the aid of religion.

You may indeed be trying, but evolution has fixed it so that you’ll have a very difficult time succeeding. You must overcome your preconceptions, with reason, which is a very formidable task.

 

[inocente]

inocente;14509118:

Irrelevant. You are arguing against your own religion. Natural law morality for Aquinas arises from human nature. Paul says the same. The atheist who argues we have shared morality by virtue of our common sense

, arising from our common human nature, is much closer to your own religion’s theory of ethics than are you.Ad populum fallacy is ad populum fallacy no matter how much you wish it weren’t.

You shouldn’t edit quotations to misrepresent. ‘Quote mining’ is a fallacy.

Our common human nature is not an ad populum, and by calling it that, you’re now arguing totally against your own religion.

*CCC 404 But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature.

For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself. - vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html*

If they want to rationally refuse god, fine with me. They must rationally replace the social derivatives of god. They have produced relativism. Relativism is the same as moral anarchy.

Not only have you denied human nature, you’re now talking of atheists as if they’re a different species. What do you mean by “they” have produced relativism? Do you mean every last atheist, in some world conspiracy? It may be of interest that the first references to relativism go back to the ancient Greeks, at least.

inocente;14509118:

You keep confusing common sense with superstition and common knowledge.

Nothing is right simply because it is commonly believed; especially in rhetoric. Sorry.

Now you’re even confusing common sense with beliefs !!!

“Apart from using our eyes to see and our ears to hear, we regularly and effortlessly perform a number of complex perceptual operations that cannot be explained in terms of the five senses taken individually. Such operations include, for example, perceiving that the same object is white and sweet, noticing the difference between white and sweet, or knowing that one’s own senses are active. Observing that other animals must be able to perform such operations, and being unprepared to ascribe any share in rationality to them, Aristotle explained such operations with reference to a higher-order perceptual capacity which unites and monitors the five senses. This capacity is known as the ‘common sense’ (koine aisthesis, sensus communis)”. - oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprofso/9780199277377.001.0001/acprof-9780199277377

You’ve totally missed the point. We’re discussing the source of atheist moral norms. An atheist has no reason to appeal to Aquinas, even if he was a brilliant Catholic. Ergo anything he produces is not relevant.

No, you keep missing the point over and over by speed reading.

Your religion holds that “requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness”, meaning all humans because of our shared human nature. Including black people, white people, Jews, atheists, Christians, male, female. Everyone. The source of atheist morals is the same source as for all humans. Written on our hearts, our consciences also bearing witness. Because atheists too are human beings.

sigh
First, when someone cites a theory as though it were fact, that particular someone displays that they don’t know what a theory is. Specifically, they aren’t seeing how it differs from “fact” or “law”. If they want to at least appear credible, they need to learn this difference.

Next, from the material cited: “It is essential to the natural law position that there be some things that are universally and naturally good.” - that is what we are discussing. Where do these come from? For the theist, god! For the atheist…???

See above.

And congrats on refraining from citing Wikipedia. That’s a solid improvement. Now you need to actually read what it is you’re citing and you’ll be well on your way

I think patronizing condescension might work for you if you showed any sign of understanding the subject. You don’t. So it won’t.

 

[Vonsalza]

I’m sorry, but those two statements are clearly not the same. One is referring to what benefits the individual, and the other is referring to what benefits the group. The two things are fundamentally different.

Then it is I who is sorry. You’ve never actually been taught how natural selection affects evolution. Let me illuminate your darkness:

Species change over time in response to pressure. But this change is affected at the individual level, not the group level. Why is this? Because it’s the innovation (be it mutation, adaptation, ect) of the individual that drives it.

How does the individual drive it?

By passing on their more beneficial genes to their descendants. They and their children will be more “fit” to survive as opposed to their literal cousins who lack this innovation. As a result, their cousins and their cousins’ descendants will be “pushed out” by the more competitive organism.
The species on the whole will slowly acquire this new, more “fit” set of genes because any individual member of the species who does not have the innovation will be bested on the individual level by members of the species that do have the innovation.

There is no “evolution en masse”. The species changes on the whole because the weaker individuals perish. Their lines come to an existential end.

Ergo, it is individual change that drives the change of species over time. They can thus be discussed interchangeably for anyone with an actual education on the topic.

Again, there is no “evolution en masse” where everyone changes at the same time. There is a change in an individual. And if it’s beneficial, any member of the species without that change will be pushed off the field of competition as the “children” of the innovator grow in number.

---

So how does this relate to reciprocal altruism? There is only evolutionary drive for it’s existence if the cost of the altruism is less than the benefit derived by the participant.
If there’s no net-benefit, there is no evolutionary drive that makes the altruist to push the non-altruist into oblivion and thereby mark the species on-the-whole with reciprocal altruism.

Period.

Vis-a-vis, “pure altruism” where the sacrifice is greater than any potential benefit has zero evolutionary drive. It is, therefore, not innate. It is learned.

Perhaps the behavioral “pure altruism” stacks on top of natural reciprocal altruism. I’ll happily concede that. But it still rebukes the notion that we are naturally altruistic to that magnitude. We’re not.

Thus an atheist’s insistence that it be included as a component of secular morality is unfounded hogwash.

They have a book which they have proclaimed to be non-arbitrary. But they arbitrarily selected that book over all the other books. They have created for themselves the illusion of preeminence. They have proclaimed themselves to be the authoritiy over right and wrong, based upon a book which they themselves wrote.

No, they did not write it. Their lauded ancients wrote it and it was followed by the fathers all the way back to it’s genesis.

This is a non-arbitrary basis for belief in a moral norm - even if factually untrue. It’s basis, regardless of fact, is woven into the culture in a functioning way.

This is simply something that an atheist cannot produce. They clearly admit to as much when they admit to their “reality” of moral relativism.
You can’t say “there are moral absolutes” while also saying “all morality is relative”. It’s self-contradictory non-sense - the hallmark of atheist morality thus far…

“Atheistic morality” can only function when the atheist is a minority within a nominally religious society that inherently provides the moral norms that an atheist can fallaciously allude to as “common sense”. Again, the irony is nigh unbearable.

Enos, I hope this has been illuminating.

 

[inocente]

Then it is I who is sorry. You’ve never actually been taught how natural selection affects evolution. Let me illuminate your darkness:

Species change over time in response to pressure. But this change is affected at the individual level, not the group level. Why is this? Because it’s the innovation (be it mutation, adaptation, ect) of the individual that drives it.

This is not agreed by biologists.

iep.utm.edu/altr-grp/
scientificamerican.com/article/whats-good-for-the-group/

 

[Aloysium]

Individual animals and plants which fit in with their environment are more likely to live until they reproduce. The genes that influenced this possibility may act similarly in the offspring who inherit them. Life thus unfolds in its myriad forms.

Consider that the garden with its multitude of denizens may be one, undergoing perpetual change, Zoos and aquariums are an aberration that mimic the totality.

That garden Is not unlike a placenta for the child - humanity, both emerging of the same earthly dust. It unites us bodily to the Source of all life, as we undergo the process of spiritual development, to be eventually born into the true reality that is the Divine.

 

[Vonsalza]

Individual animals and plants which fit in with their environment are more likely to live until they reproduce. The genes that influenced this possibility may act similarly in the offspring who inherit them. Life thus unfolds in its myriad forms.

Consider that the garden with its multitude of denizens may be one, undergoing perpetual change, Zoos and aquariums are an aberration that mimic the totality.

That garden Is not unlike a placenta for the child - humanity, both emerging of the same earthly dust. It unites us bodily to the Source of all life, as we undergo the process of spiritual development, to be eventually born into the true reality that is the Divine.

Another excellent observation. I appreciate it.

What I’m trying to “divine” is the basis of atheist morality evaluated on it’s own merits; not as opposed to Catholicism or any other specific religious scheme.

I often hear “common sense” tossed about, but appeals to popular belief are fallacious in the practice of logic. My “common sense” isn’t theirs.

They also toss up that “we’re innately good”. But the reciprocal altruism provided by nature doesn’t allow for personal sacrifice that isn’t matched by a personal benefit of at least equal magnitude. So if we’re innately good via natural selection, were not that innately good. We’re more like “selfishly innately good”; at least via that particular source.

Then they’ll cite moral relativism, as though that can somehow function on a societal basis.

I guess I don’t really know how they know what is right or wrong in an objective way. Thus my discussion with Enos.

I really don’t think they have anything…

 

[Vonsalza]

This is not agreed by biologists.

iep.utm.edu/altr-grp/
scientificamerican.com/article/whats-good-for-the-group/

No, it’s a subject of much debate. But the organism has the most identifiable level of drive.

Please actually read what you cite. Please.