Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

You do tell such silly lies, don't you?Would your world really fall apart if you stopped?

Or to take another example, suppose someone smells a sweet and fragrant rose. He then proclaims: "This rose is only sweet and fragrant if it was grown in a crystalline vial of perfume by a beautiful woman; if, on the other hand it was grown by an ugly man in a bucket of manure, then it does not smell nice at all." But the smell of the rose is a given: it cannot be changed by some discovery about the origins of the rose.(And one could extent the analogy by pointing out that sweet-smelling roses can be grown in manure, but no roses of any kind will grow in perfume.)

If human life is the result of evolution, then everything pertaining to humanity behaviour must be the result of evolution. Therefore morality is the result of evolution (where else could it have come from? God?). But if human behaviour is the result of natural selection, is it not morality, because natural selective offers no choice. Therein lies the contradiction.

PaulK: "If evolution places constraints on what human morality could be then it cannot be "literally anything you want it to be"".If evolution places constraints of what human morality could be, then it is not morality; it is simply being forced into conforming to a certain pattern of behaviour. This is no different to dog learning that if it doesn't crap in the master's house, it won't be punished.Some environmentalist lunatic might believe that human pollution is destroying the earth, so for the sake of the planet he starts murdering folks who drive cars. Back in the 1940s, an anti-semite in Germany thought that eradicating Jews would be good for mankind, so he murdered six million of them in gas chambers. In other words, morality can be whatever you want it to be.----------------------------------------------PaulK: "Which would show no understanding of the relevant science or morality".How can you use science to show that the life of a human is worth more than the life of a bug?

New Cat's Eye: "Given the chemistry involved, some the things-that-happen would be inevitable".Do you realise that if this is true, it is an argument for design?------------------------------I would think it impossible for "selective pressures" to produce morality and "learned behaviours" are not necessarily morality. Selective pressures can only produce modes of behaviour that one is forced into conforming to, and learned behaviour is something any dog can do.So I doubt if evolution can produce any morality at all. But Darwinist can by-pass this argument by resorting to circular reasoning: "But morality exists, therefore evolution MUST have produced it!"

Some evolutionists argue that evolution is not based on chance and luck, but on natural selection. But this is at least half-nonsense because the mutations that arise (which are then subjected to natural selection) are a result of pure accident - sheer chance and luck, in other words.

quote:

---

If human life is the result of evolution, then everything pertaining to humanity behaviour must be the result of evolution.

---

It must ? Don't you think that culture has sonething to do with it ? Do you think that humans run on pure unthinking instinct ?

quote:

---

But if human behaviour is the result of natural selection, is it not morality, because natural selective offers no choice.

---

Well that would be true if human behaviour is all unthinking instinct. But that is a pretty bizarre view. Perhaps you would like to support the idea instead of assuming it.

Again, a thing's properties and identity obviously do not depend on its origins. If we possess morality, we possess morality whether it was bestowed on us by evolution or foisted on us by an omnipotent god.

When you refer to the "slavery" mentioned in the Bible, it could refer to a very kind of slavery experienced by blacks in the US, for example, which was mostly chattel slavery. In Australia, the armed forces impose a form of slavery on most of it members - once they sign up, they cannot leave the service for an alloted number of years - they are "owned" by the goverment for those years. This is a form of "indentured" slavery that was commonplace centuries ago and is also found in the Bible. The slavery experienced by the Israelites under the Egyptians was a different form of slavery again.

Things you do not understand are not necessarily nonsense. Sometimes the problem is at your end.

... but it doesn't, as you can see by actually reading the Bible instead of merely speculating about what it means.

A human being has the capacity to formulate a personal code of morality, but if you think the human race is going to formulate a communal code of morality that pleases everyone, you are dreaming. Eradicating religion won't solve the problem, either.--------------------------------------------------------If all religions are false, then the morality of those religions is not the morality of any God, but really just morality invented by humans - in which case, there is no reason to suppose that religious morality is any better or worse than the morality invented by non-religious folks, since all are expressions of human morality. For example, many religious teach that homosexuality is morally wrong. But if religion is a human construct, then this religious anti-homosexual morality is also a human construct. So if anti-homosexual morality and pro-homosexual morality are both invented by humans, how can you decide which morality is the correct one?

Phat: "Can anyone think of morals that society intrinsically knows to be true yet rountinely ignores or rejects?"Yes. Abortion is murder. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

If you think this is the case, maybe you could try arguing for it instead of just saying so. If you think this is the case, maybe you could try arguing for it instead of just saying so. Or we could say the things we actually say instead of the silly things you make up in your head.Yeah, I think we'll do that.

quote:

---

If evolution places constraints of what human morality could be, then it is not morality; it is simply being forced into conforming to a certain pattern of behaviour. This is no different to dog learning that if it doesn't crap in the master's house, it won't be punished.

---

If any constraints on human morality render it "not morality" then morality would have to be "whatever you want it to be". So make your mind up - is being "whatever you want it to be" a failing or essential ?And I am not talking about being forced into a certain pattern of behaviour either. Rather I mean that there are constraints on the moralities that could be produced.

quote:

---

How can you use science to show that the life of a human is worth more than the life of a bug?

---

Worth more in what sense ? Is it a sense that science deals with ? If not, why would you EXPECT science to answer the question ?If you had any understanding of science and morality you would realise that science does not deliver moral judgements and should not be expected to.