Replies

“The ones that act morally survive, and the ones that don’t die out...”

I don’t think there is evidence to support this.

You obviously don’t understand how the examples you cite don’t support you and illustrate a severe lack of understanding of evolutionary theory.

I’m just responding to pronouncements you made; asking questions. You should welcome them and not be defensive.

You and I, of course, both share the same views on morality. That we should not harm others and cause suffering and work for what is best for humanity from at the individual level to a large scale level regarding all of mankind.

This has not been a universal view of human cultures by any stretch of the imagination and where such morality is common, it is based on traditional religious views that do encompass the transcendent or supernatural, which provides an authority for holding to this morality.

You are saying there is a basis for this morality being universal without the need for a transcendent authority. But I don’t think such an argument can be supported.

So I’m curious how you argue for morality.

I also find it interesting how religious based traditional morality is the same as what you espouse. But you don’t seem to know or acknowledge that your pronouncements on morality are simply the traditional Judeo-Christian ethics that have underpinned Western civilization.

You obviously don’t understand how the examples you cite don’t support you and illustrate a severe lack of understanding of evolutionary theory.

I think the examples are just fine. They are recent and cursory, but provide an overview of how slavery, death, persecution, and torture can bring down large scale civilizations. These examples do not apply to evolution, as they've happened too recently for it to be a factor from a biological standpoint. But they're perfectly reasonable to infer when examining how much smaller, earlier civilizations might have functioned without moral parameters.

I'm not the least bit defensive as to providing a non-supernatural basis for morality. All I'm missing is something to argue against (on your part). Saying that non-supernatural reasons for morality don't exist or could only be supported by a "know nothing" like me is the sign of defensiveness. Calling me stupid is not an argument.

You are saying there is a basis for this morality being universal without the need for a transcendent authority.

Yes, I'm saying that. Perhaps as a retort, you could tell me two things.

*Where does the transcendent authority communicate these objective morals?

And..

*Why do we need a cosmic mediator to tell us things we already know, and that seem to be universal?

In other words, if God has real world reasons for telling us not to do things (don't murder because it causes suffering), then why do we need a Creator, and isn't more likely that we've figured these things out for ourselves and inscribed them on a creator.

In other words, do you find the non-supernatural reasons not to murder someone enough, or do you need the cosmic boss to say "Don't do that" to close the deal.

So I’m curious how you argue for morality.

I gave you a solid breakdown of that in post #212. Feel free to critique.

But you don’t seem to know or acknowledge that your pronouncements on morality are simply the traditional Judeo-Christian ethics that have underpinned Western civilization.

You are correct. They are similar in the sense that they mirror how Judeo-Christian ethics have evolved. They've evolved as one would expect if the holy texts were actually the work of man.

I have an objective basis to argue against the extermination of the Canaanites (women and children), I have an objective basis to argue against slavery (which the Bible does not), and I have an objective basis to argue against vicarious redemption.