[inthebox]

The materialist who believes there is no god, believes in evolution. If so, and I link a scientific article earlier to bolster the argument that there may be an organic/ material part of the brain necessary for "moral" judgement, then why do we judge as good or bad, moral or immoral the actions of such a being that "lacks" a part of the brain that may be responsible for "morality?"

Why the question of good and bad, justice and injustice, suffering - these are all just the facts of this world - accept it. There is no place for morality in evolution, just survival, propagation of the species [though I seriously doubt that animals think of these things] and living as long as possible till an unavoidable death. This is nihilistic. Meaningless as pointed out in the Book of Ecclesiastes, until 12:13-14



G&P

[TUT317]

Hello Tokugawa,

I think the source or your distress is you are combining emotivist and naturalistic theories. Naturalistic theories can be regarded as humanistic because moral judgments are said to be science based (usually psychology). The Important point is that Naturalistic theories hold that that moral judgments are true or false.
Emotivist theories are also humanistic but claim that moral judgments are neither true or false. They are just a expression of feelings. It is important not to combine the two.

The other type are non-naturalistic and they of, course, hold that moral judgments are true or false. We recognize these types of judgments in terms of Christian ethics.

[Alty]

Those that decry the Judaic religions, those "humanists", that decry the notion of sancity, of holding something dear, forget what it is to LIVE! YES! WE HAVE EVOLVED! Of this there can be no dispute! What meaning do you humanists give? NONE!! You are nothing, you aim at nothing, you will become nothing.

Are you claiming that people with no belief in God hold nothing dear?

There is a lot that I hold dear, my family, my friends, my memories, my life, my health, the list goes on. I have not forgotten how to live, I strive to live a better life every single day and I do it without religion.

There goes that theory. ;)

As for being nothing, aiming at nothing, and eventually becoming nothing. How dare you? You don't know me or my beliefs, nor do you know anyone else on this site. I doubt very much that you know anyone other then the people that fall into your very narrow little view of people worthy of you. People with the same beliefs as you.

I am far from being nothing, in fact, if you ever met me, listened with an open mind, you would know that I'm so full of something that you can't miss it (Boys, I know you're dying to say it, but don't. I do hope it gave you a giggle though).

I aim to be a better person every day of my life. I aim to make a better world for my children. I have a lot of aims, none of them are nothing.

As for what I will become, well, hopefully better then I am now. You see, even though I am a Deist, I don't believe in doing wrong, sinning against others, destroying this beautiful world we live in. I believe in preserving the gift we were given, and because of that I will never be nothing, I will always be someone, perhaps even more of someone then you.

Judge not lest you be judged. I guess you didn't read that part.

[TUT317]

Quote Wolverine

And if it would have been completely different, doesn't that mean that religion and morality ARE connected, and can't be separated as some would like us to believe? Would it mean that morality cannot develop without a religious background to act as a petrie dish in which to grow.

The purpose of this entry is to answer Wolverine's original question.

When dealing with ethics it is important to distinguish between naturalism and non-naturalism.

The non-naturalistic position is that concepts such as good,bad,right and wrong come from God ( from my point of view this is a fair call).

On the other side of the debate we have naturalistic theories which also claim to have concepts such as good, bad, right and wrong. The difference being that these theories are based on science. It is important not to lump in nihilism and emotivism and claim they are the same as all naturalistic theories, there are some important differences. Differences that I won't outline at this time. In fact nihilism does not have to be naturalistic. Anyway, back to the job at hand.

If I told someone that I was going to steal their car then they might say to me that stealing it morally wrong because it is against God 's law. (being a Christian I would agree). This is a non-naturalist position.

Naturalism, on the other hand,claims that if something IS the case(scientific/psychological fact) then we OUGHT to do such and such (ought meaning that it is possible to do).

If I asked someone did they vote in the last election and they answered me no I would probably say that they should have voted because they have a moral obligation. By appealing to moral obligation here I am appealing to naturalism. Why? Because nowhere in the bible does it say say anything about democracy and voting in elections. How does naturalism work in this case?.

It is a FACT that I live in a democratic country. It is a FACT that voting is a cornerstone of our democratic system. Therefore I OUGHT to vote because I have a moral obligation to the country that has given me so much.

Some might say that the above statement is naturalistic fallacy. This may or may not be the case, the point is that we live in a complex society with complex legal and political institutions. The concepts of right,wrong, just and unjust are important to the overall philosophical development of these institutions. Naturalism does the job, however this does not diminish the role of non-naturalism in these institutions. Non-naturalism also does the job as well.

In conclusion it is incorrect to assume that naturalism in ethics is somehow a product of Darwin's theories. Naturalism in ethics can be traced as far back as Aristotle.

[cadillac59]

Quote Wolverine

And if it would have been completely different, doesn't that mean that religion and morality ARE connected, and can't be separated as some would like us to believe? Would it mean that morality cannot develop without a religious background to act as a petrie dish in which to grow.

The purpose of this entry is to answer Wolverine's original question.

When dealing with ethics it is important to distinguish between naturalism and non-naturalism.

The non-naturalistic position is that concepts such as good,bad,right and wrong come from God ( from my point of view this is a fair call).

On the other side of the debate we have naturalistic theories which also claim to have concepts such as good, bad, right and wrong. The difference being that these theories are based on science. It is important not to lump in nihilism and emotivism and claim they are the same as all naturalistic theories, there are some important differences. Differences that I won't outline at this time. In fact nihilism does not have to be naturalistic. Anyway, back to the job at hand.

If I told someone that I was going to steal their car then they might say to me that stealing it morally wrong because it is against God 's law. (being a Christian I would agree). This is a non-naturalist position.

Naturalism, on the other hand,claims that if something IS the case(scientific/psychological fact) then we OUGHT to do such and such (ought meaning that it is possible to do).

If I asked someone did they vote in the last election and they answered me no I would probably say that they should have voted because they have a moral obligation. By appealing to moral obligation here I am appealing to naturalism. Why? Because nowhere in the bible does it say say anything about democracy and voting in elections. How does naturalism work in this case?.....

It is a FACT that I live in a democratic country. It is a FACT that voting is a cornerstone of our democratic system. Therefore I OUGHT to vote because I have a moral obligation to the country that has given me so much.

Some might say that the above statement is naturalistic fallacy. This may or may not be the case, the point is that we live in a complex society with complex legal and political institutions. The concepts of right,wrong, just and unjust are important to the overall philosophical development of these institutions. Naturalism does the job, however this does not diminish the role of non-naturalism in these institutions. Non-naturalism also does the job as well.

In conclusion it is incorrect to assume that naturalism in ethics is somehow a product of Darwin's theories. Naturalism in ethics can be traced as far back as Aristotle.

I don't know about all this naturalism vs. non-naturalism babble, but we do NOT need religion to be moral, act morally or develop moral beliefs. I tend to agree with Bertrand Russell that morality evolves and that our moral actions are guided by a conflict of desires: a man wants to drink but he also wants to be fit for work the next day. Hence, he may choose not to drink. Or he may compromise and only drink a little. What always holds one desire in check in some other competing desire.

Some of the most moral and decent people in the world are atheists and the most immoral the religious. I've never noticed any consistent nexus between the quality of the individual and his or her moral convictions and religion.

[TUT317]

Naturalism and non-naturalism is just a way of dividing ethical theories. Most ethical theories fall into these two categories. There are those who believe that morality can only be derived from the scriptures or a supreme being and these are non-naturalists.
Those who believe that morality can be derived from the sciences/psychology are naturalists. Both theories have codes of conduct such as right, wrong, good, bad, just and unjust. Sometimes, they might even agree.
My point was that in a society with its complex legal and political institutions we need a naturalistic approach to determine what is right and wrong. Sometimes this comes into conflict with religion sometimes it doesn't. Religion has a part to play in these institutions as well.

Can a person who practises some type of naturalistic ethics be a moral person? OF COURSE THEY CAN. They can be just as moral as anyone who subscribes to any other ethical theory, be it religious or otherwise.

[cadillac59]

Naturalism and non-naturalism is just a way of dividing ethical theories. Most ethical theories fall into these two categories. There are those who believe that morality can only be derived from the scriptures or a supreme being and these are non-naturalists.
Those who believe that morality can be derived from the sciences/psychology are naturalists. Both theories have codes of conduct such as right, wrong, good, bad, just and unjust. Sometimes, they might even agree.
My point was that in a society with its complex legal and political institutions we need a naturalistic approach to determine what is right and wrong. Sometimes this comes into conflict with religion sometimes it doesn't. Religion has a part to play in these institutions as well.

Can a person who practises some type of naturalistic ethics be a moral person? OF COURSE THEY CAN. They can be just as moral as anyone who subscribes to any other ethical theory, be it religious or otherwise.

Ok, so religion's not much good in answering the question of whether it's immoral to run a stop sign or talk on your cell phone driving down the freeway. Fine. What other point were you trying to make, if any?

[TUT317]

My main aim was to 'put to bed' any idea that Naturalism in ethics does not have concepts such as right wrong, good, and bad. There a few psychology based theories such as emotivism which don't make use of concepts such as good and bad. The number of people who actually subscribe to these types of theories are in a minority. That's pretty much all I was trying to say.

[cadillac59]

My main aim was to 'put to bed' any idea that Naturalism in ethics does not have concepts such as right wrong, good, and bad. There a a few psychology based theories such as emotivism which don't make use of concepts such as good and bad. The number of people who actually subscribe to these types of theories are in a minority. That's pretty much all I was trying to say.

Was someone disputing that ethics arise apart from religion? While societies can exist quite well without religion, none can survive without ethics. Pretty simple.

[TUT317]

Yes,the original argument was that you cannot have ethics without religion. The answer is that you can and we do.

As to the question of which is superior; Christian based or scientific based ethics? Well, the answer is,"it depends on the situation?".

The only other Western example of ethics developing independently from religion is in ancient Greece. Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics is largely a Naturalistic account.

[Tokugawa]

This thread is progressing quite nicely, TUT317 in particular has offered some great contributions, which are actually on topic. This is more than can be said for my own, however I shall forgo the opportunity to address the points he has raised at this time in order to proceed with the point I was rather ineptly trying to make last week.

Altenweg writes...

Are you claiming that people with no belief in God hold nothing dear?

No. Neither the belief in God, nor the "legalistic" aspect, are for me the defining essence of the scriptures, particularly the Old Testament, which is perhaps the greatest literary achievement in the history of man. It is a grappling with existence, an effort to "define" what it is to be human. To suffer, to inflict suffering, to love, hate, above all, to FEEL! There is great wisdom in the Judaic tradition of not "naming" God, as you cannot define the indefinable, and it is with this indefinable that humanity grapples now, as then. Humanism would sweep this profound struggle, which is the very HEART of humanity, under a carpet of insipid "reason", which is in itself synthetic, and therefore also a fiction, albeit a very useful one.

There is a lot that I hold dear, my family, my friends, my memories, my life, my health, the list goes on. I have not forgotten how to live, I strive to live a better life every single day and I do it without religion.

How do you know that what you are doing is "holding something dear", or "loving"? This presupposes that you have compared the state of "loving" to something different, "hating" perhaps? Certainly it cannot be compared to "indifference", which is what "humanist reason" offers, as then you would not know whether it was one or the other, love or hate. No, to see that hate is a necessary part of love, that you cannot have one without the other, that it is in fact INHUMAN to view life through the "objective lense" of humanism, that is to impugn on the "Brave New World" of secularism in a most seditious manner, and one need not subscribe to ANY religion in order to take up this PURELY human position.

And of the people you love, what is it about them that makes them loveable? The logical form in which they are presented? The chemical processes that make them function? Or if I were to list all the "objective facts" as they pertain to these people, every single one, would that describe what you love? Pfft... "man as chemical process", "love as indifference", THIS is the form in which modern humanism presents itself to us, and I reject it entirely. That you know "how" to live, does not mean you know "what it is" to live, and THAT is what religion has hitherto attempted. The fact that it has failed in large part should not be derided by those who are too weak to even ATTEMPT such a noble and vast undertaking.

Science is in no way an "explanation" of reality, only an "exposition" of how it functions. Even then, we can only make sense of it by imposing synthetic structures such as logic and math over the top of it. Science is considered as more because it deals with objects of sense, it can be heard, seen, touched. It resembles religion in that it seeks out immutable and unchanging "laws", much in the same way that some religions have sought out an immutable and unchanging "God". Both were "invented", not "discovered", to help us make sense of life. Science to help us find out "how" it is, religion to help us find out "what" it is. Science has progressed magnificently, religion looks pale by comparison. However the question to which religion has presented itself is FAR more profound, and it is one that "humanism" would have us ignore completely.