The "thrust" of your inquiry:
I’m still unclear as to why you should be upset for victims of “catastrophes” - weren’t they just organisms who happened to be in the “wrong” place when the natural earthquake occured? Why is that a bad thing? Why help them? If children die isn’t that just part of living in a naturalistic world? Why try to cheer them up? Why try to create better warning systems? What’s the purpose of that? To save people’s lives? Why is that a good thing?
In a nut shell: Cogito, ergo sum. I am a rational being, most of the time (i.e., excepting dream-states and the like). I am capable of distinguishing between "desirable" and "undesirable" conditions and outcomes (because I am rational - like a well-programmed computer - but also because I have instinctive tendencies, motivations, and personal wants and needs - unlike a computer). As a human being with a normal level of socialization (not suffering from autism; not a "wolf-child;" not a psychopath; hence successful psychological integration into society; assimilation of societal norms; acceptance of most societal standards - all natural human tendencies!), I am not unmoved by the plight of others. Also, as a human being, I am myself affected by such catastrophes.
As to why human beings frequently/usually display such characteristics as compassion, etc. Slight Darwinian advantage; better propagation of genes by those societies where a slight degree of altruism prevailed; etc.
Other than that, my theory requires no further presuppositions.
My niggling:
1. My (initial) failure to provide supporting arguments and instead simply make a flat assertion does not justify your statement that I "implied" anything. You were making an UNNECESSARY assumption. You could have first asked: What is your justification? Are you, in fact, dismissing countless philosophers without having first examined their arguments, etc. It is improper of you to leap to the conclusion that I have not done those things.
2. Which Christian thinkers' books and essays have I read - too involved to discuss here. Do I SOUND like someone who has never "cracked a book?" Nor am I actually "required" to provide my credentials (you haven't!).
3. The word "bad:" I asserted above that a thinking, feeling being is capable of making moral judgements; I state here that I see no need for recourse to a "higher" authority.
Regards,
re: “As a human being with a normal level of socialization . . . not a psychopath; hence successful psychological integration into society; assimilation of societal norms; acceptance of most societal standards - all natural human tendencies!), I am not unmoved by the plight of others. Also, as a human being, I am myself affected by such catastrophes. . . As to why human beings frequently/usually display such characteristics as compassion, etc. Slight Darwinian advantage; better propagation of genes by those societies where a slight degree of altruism prevailed; etc. . . The word “bad:” I asserted above that a thinking, feeling being is capable of making moral judgements; I state here that I see no need for recourse to a “higher” authority.”
alexander_busek,
I must say that previous generations of atheists were much more honest about their atheism than are contemporary ones. Nietzsche would say that today’s atheists are foolish and somewhat cowardly because they want to get rid of God, yet hang on to some type of quasi-altruistic morality.
Why not, as Nietzsche proposed, go all the way and realize that since “god is dead” there is no universal morality (based either on religion or science), as he pointed out in “The Madman” - “Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing?”.
In fact, Nietzsche correctly surmised that any kind of universal morality are restraints on your true personhood.
I’ll give you credit that you admitted that things like “compassion” are the result merely of “Slight Darwinian advantage; better propagation of genes by those societies where a slight degree of altruism prevailed; etc.”
But, Nietzsche would say you need to go all the way and recognize that since there is no god - you, yourself are the new God (see his book, “Übermensch”). You are above all moral constraints - morality is only for the weak - it only holds you back from being your true self. It holds you back from experiencing life in all its fullness. Nietzsche “got it”. He understood the full consequences for the death of god. But, most atheists today don’t want to do that.
So, alexander_busek, quit kidding yourself about holding to any kind of moral constraints. They are only limiting you and, in a way, it insults the intelligence of theists when atheists won’t admit to nor live by the logical consequences of their atheism.
As to your point about me making an unsubstantiated assumption about you - let me remind you that you were the one who claimed that God was sadistic. The only support you gave was because of the existence of natural disasters, disease, etc. Wouldn’t you agree that that is pretty slim evidence considering the provocative statment you made?
You said, in a previous post, that you had read Christian authors dealing with the subject and I merely asked you which ones and you now say that is “too involved to say here”. In addition, I didn’t ask you for “credentials” - just Christian authors you claimed to have read.
As I said, you should embrace your atheism and all it entails. Your attempts at retaining some kind of morality, while charming and nice, is completely unnecessary, unsupported by the naturalistic, atheistic worldview you say you subscribe to, and even “irrational” from Nietzsche’s point of view.