And what do we make of someone who, contrary to all evidence, claims moral tenets for something that doesn't appear to have any? Not to be too much of a bastard about it all, but it appears to me that if you're a creationist, you agree with the fascists about the existence of said moral tenets, and it's left to the dirty atheists to try and hold the line somehow. And if that's the case, I have to say I'm somewhat underwhelmed by "objective" morality.
Social Darwinism is not the theory of evolution, any more than Christian socialism is Christianity - neither social Darwinism nor socialism are necessary consequences of the theory of evolution or the New Testament.
Here we're faced with a philosophy that explicitly attempts to base human interactions on what we can observe of nature -- it's precisely what Ayn Rand says we should do.
Who? Ayn Rand? And we care what she thinks because...?
The problem before you is entirely different: you've got to tell us why it's not morally permissible to act according to what we can observe.
I don't have to do any such thing - I merely point out that all the shortcomings you observe in other systems are, in fact, omnipresent, even within your preferred system. I propose no alternative - I simply acknowledge the shortcomings of yours, much as you do with others.
Still, I suppose the best approach to this would be to find a scientific definition. One such scientific definition -- which happens to be in accord with the way evolution proponents think things really happen -- would be that of natural selection.
Why should we accept that? What makes that more "objective" than defining "good" as "that which gives us the most physical pleasure"?
Personally, I'm not in much of a hurry to defend Objectivism as an ethical system, but if you are, be my guest ;)
Objective moral philosophies are supposed to be in accord with reality. I believe Dawkins makes this very point
I'm sure, but I dispute that it's wise, or even possible, to spin scientific theories into moral systems. I suspect I'll get more votes than Dawkins, if it comes right down to it.
If we accept this as true, and if we deny the existence of any supernatural or irrational basis for moral principles, it follows either that there is no such thing as morality, or that morality must have a scientific basis.
No, it really doesn't follow at all. If morality isn't handed to us on a silver platter, all that really follows is that we're responsible for rolling our own. If it amuses us to make a "scientific" morality - not really sure what that means, but whatever - so be it. If we choose to make a moral system exalting the desires of r9etb over all else, so be it. In any case, it's not an either/or thing - either God does it, or all we're left with is fecundity as a moral imperative.
You can certainly describe them as such, but that hardly makes it so.
And your dismissal of same hardly makes it false.
Indeed. And the really nice thing about that argument is that it works equally well for the existence or non-existence of lots of things. Santa Claus, for example. On the other hand, if you wish others to join you in affirming Santaism, you're probably going to have to lay some actual cards on the table eventually. And asking to see them, or a bit more than "the check is in the mail", is not entirely unreasonble, I think.
You might want to defer embracing smug dismissals, also.
"Smug"? Sure. "Dismissal"? Gotta give me something to dismiss first ;)
Well, I guess that's your problem, then -- except it's not, because you get to sponge off of those who believe that Judeo-Christian moral tenets are real and correct.
Not to be too much of a bastard about it all, but it appears to me that if you're a creationist, you agree with the fascists about the existence of said moral tenets, and it's left to the dirty atheists to try and hold the line somehow.
You'd only be a bastard about it if this statement was logically sound. But it's not.
And if that's the case, I have to say I'm somewhat underwhelmed by "objective" morality.
Fine -- then you have no legitimate complaints about anything at all.
Social Darwinism is not the theory of evolution, any more than Christian socialism is Christianity - neither social Darwinism nor socialism are necessary consequences of the theory of evolution or the New Testament.
The problem, however, is that something like Social Darwinism is as close to a "scientific" moral system as you're likely to get. The problem for those who disagree with it is to show why it's wrong, despite the fact that it's in accord with the scientific evidence. Those who take a more atheistic approach to life have a much harder time doing this. Of course, as Mr. Dawkins shows, he has no problem using the word "evil," but as Diamond pointed out earlier, the word has no meaning within Dawkins's worldview.
Who? Ayn Rand? And we care what she thinks because...?
Because she claimed to have arrived at an objective moral system. She was a fraud, of course, but the basic claim is still touted, even on this thread.
I propose no alternative - I simply acknowledge the shortcomings of yours, much as you do with others.
Fair enough.
Why should we accept that? What makes that more "objective" than defining "good" as "that which gives us the most physical pleasure"?
Again, I agree with you: it's the problem with objectivism (and that's the context in which the comment was made).
I'm sure, but I dispute that it's wise, or even possible, to spin scientific theories into moral systems. I suspect I'll get more votes than Dawkins, if it comes right down to it.
Which leaves an atheist in something of a muddle when it comes to the point of a) knowing right from wrong, and b) defending right and opposing wrong.
Unfortunately, I haven't time to respond to your full post. Maybe later....