Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[Gary Childress]

What do you want me to say to you to demonstrate that point? Shall I conduct a scientific study? And how would I go about conducting it objectively?

All you have to produce is a single example of determining the moral status of murder, rape, war, genocide, abortion or any other moral hot potato from facts.

A continuous logical process from Nature to morals.

That's precisely what deriving morals from nature means, right?

No. That's where science has gone off the rails.

[Skepdick]

Religion doesn't seem to have a sterling record either. Will you be reinventing the wheel in that case?

There's no need for that at all.

The theoretical concept remains untarnished. Ever if people do evil shit in its name.

[Skepdick]

What do you want me to say to you to demonstrate that point? Shall I conduct a scientific study? And how would I go about conducting it objectively?

All you have to produce is a single example of determining the moral status of murder, rape, war, genocide, abortion or any other moral hot potato from facts.

A continuous logical process from Nature to morals.

That's precisely what deriving morals from nature means, right?

No. That's where science has gone off the rails.

No, it hasn't. Nature is a continuous process. Time.

There was a beginning. And there is now. There is a continuous transformation from the big bang all the way to NOW.

To derive morals from nature is to stat with any arbitrary state of the universe at any given point in the past; and arrive at the moral rightness or wrongness of any other given event in the past or present.

That's not "unreasonable". It's just how logical soundness works. It's predicated on continuity.

[Gary Childress]

Religion doesn't seem to have a sterling record either. Will you be reinventing the wheel in that case?

There's no need for that at all.

The theoretical concept remains untarnished. Ever if people do evil shit in its name.

What is there no need for? No need for repeating what has been done by some in the name of God and religion or no need to stick with the idea of there being a God?

[Gary Childress]

All you have to produce is a single example of determining the moral status of murder, rape, war, genocide, abortion or any other moral hot potato from facts.

A continuous logical process from Nature to morals.

That's precisely what deriving morals from nature means, right?

No. That's where science has gone off the rails.

No, it hasn't. Nature is a continuous process. Time.

There was a beginning. And there is now. There is a continuous transformation from the big bang all the way to NOW.

To derive morals from nature is to stat with any arbitrary state of the universe at any given point in time; and arrive at the moral rightness or wrongness of any other given event in human affairs.

That's not "unreasonable". It's just how logical soundness works. It's predicated on continuity.

What "logical soundness" are you referring to? That God is the source of morality?

[henry quirk]

That's a fallacy.

Justify that the product of sociological interactions/politics when subjected to selection pressures from evolution produces "morals"; and not merely social norms and various social mechanisms for enforcing those social norms.

It certainly gives us principles for distinguishing which behaviour will and won't be tolerated by others; behaviour for which we may be rewarded; and. behaviour for which we may be punished; and behaviour towards which others will remain indifferent.

But that's a long stretch from...

morality /məˈralɪti/ noun principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

I don't know if it's fallacious but it brings me back to my first post, in-thread...

The impasse is the same as always: the definitions of moral, morality, etc. I've yet to see any offered by anyone (including me) everyone agrees to. All definitions are skewed to favor morality is just opinion or morality is factual.

[Skepdick]

What is there no need for? No need for repeating what has been done by some in the name of God and religion or no need to stick with the idea of there being a God?

You are welcome to discard the idea of God on grounds that the name has a bad wrap.

But do you think we should discard the idea of objective morality; or a supreme moral authority; or whatever else we might call it?

The fact is that YOU believe in it. Irrespective of the name you give it.

[Skepdick]

What "logical soundness" are you referring to? That God is the source of morality?

I am refering to the way logic works.

If you start with black and white universe you can't get colorful photos.
You can't start with non-moral premises and arrive with moral conclusions.

This is the principle of continuity.

Logic cannot "add" what is not already there. So then...

One theory is a logical impossibility (naturalism).
And one theory is improbable (God).

Which theory is scientifically better?

[Gary Childress]

What is there no need for? No need for repeating what has been done by some in the name of God and religion or no need to stick with the idea of there being a God?

You are welcome to discard the idea of God on grounds that the name has a bad wrap.

But do you think we should discard the idea of objective morality; or a supreme moral authority; or whatever else we might call it?

The fact is that YOU believe in it. Irrespective of the name you give it.

I believe there are right and wrong actions. I couldn't tell you more than that. As far as I'm aware, right and wrong may or may not apply to what happens to a moral actor who performs those deeds in this world. As far as I'm aware there may or may not be a heaven or hell (beyond death of the obdy). Other than that I try to stay out of trouble in a world that pays a person well to get into it.

However, it's difficult not to turn oxygen into CO2 and food into other waste products. ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[Gary Childress]

What "logical soundness" are you referring to? That God is the source of morality?

I am refering to the way logic works.

If you start with black and white universe you can't get colorful photos.
You can't start with non-moral premises and arrive with moral conclusions.

This is the principle of continuity.

Logic cannot "add" what is not already there. So then...

One theory is a logical impossibility (naturalism).
And one theory is improbable (God).

Which theory is scientifically better?

Are God or else "naturalism" the only two choices?

[Skepdick]

What is there no need for? No need for repeating what has been done by some in the name of God and religion or no need to stick with the idea of there being a God?

You are welcome to discard the idea of God on grounds that the name has a bad wrap.

But do you think we should discard the idea of objective morality; or a supreme moral authority; or whatever else we might call it?

The fact is that YOU believe in it. Irrespective of the name you give it.

I believe there are right and wrong actions. I couldn't tell you more than that.

As far as I'm aware, right and wrong may or may not apply to what happens to a moral actor who performs those deeds in this world. As far as I'm aware there may or may not be a heaven or hell (beyond death of the obdy). Other than that I try to stay out of trouble in a world that pays a person well to get into it.

However, it's difficult not to turn oxygen into CO2 and food into other waste products. ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

That's fine. Everybody does.

The point is more fundamental/metaphysical here.

Observe that right and wrong are TWO categories.
Observe that true and false are TWO categories.
Observe that nature is one category. Everything natural is true!

What splits nature into two? So where does "false" come from?

[Gary Childress]

You are welcome to discard the idea of God on grounds that the name has a bad wrap.

But do you think we should discard the idea of objective morality; or a supreme moral authority; or whatever else we might call it?

The fact is that YOU believe in it. Irrespective of the name you give it.

I believe there are right and wrong actions. I couldn't tell you more than that.

As far as I'm aware, right and wrong may or may not apply to what happens to a moral actor who performs those deeds in this world. As far as I'm aware there may or may not be a heaven or hell (beyond death of the obdy). Other than that I try to stay out of trouble in a world that pays a person well to get into it.

However, it's difficult not to turn oxygen into CO2 and food into other waste products. ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

That's fine. Everybody does.

The point is more fundamental/metaphysical here.

Observe that right and wrong are TWO categories.
Observe that true and false are TWO categories.
Observe that nature is one category.

What splits nature into two?

"Natural" vs "man-made" (the definition from the Oxford Dictionary that you requested).

[Skepdick]

"Natural" vs "man-made" (the definition from the Oxford Dictionary that you requested).

That doesn't fly on a naturalistic world-view. Everything is nature. Humans are part of nature.

Nature is ONE category. Everything in nature is true.
Everything that happens - happens.
Every thought.
Every consequence.

It's all just a totality of truths/facts.

So where does "false" come from?

[Gary Childress]

"Natural" vs "man-made" (the definition from the Oxford Dictionary that you requested).

That doesn't fly on a naturalistic world-view. Everything is nature. Humans are part of nature.

Nature is ONE category. Everything in nature is true. So where does "false" come from?

Everything that happens - happens. Every thought. Every consequence.

So where does "false" come from?

Then this "naturalistic" world-view is missing some pretty vital aspects of life. I would suggest revising it. Otherwise, who's God are you going to adopt as the one true "scientific" one? And who is going to serve as the official spokesperson for what is pious and what isn't?

[Gary Childress]

Science is a tool for creating tools. It's not philosophy.