The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Morality and the 'new atheism' > Comments

Morality and the 'new atheism' : Comments

By Benjamin O'Donnell, published 1/2/2008

The problem of morality: good deeds, it seems, really are their own reward.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. ...
  14. 15
  15. 16
  16. 17
  17. All
And this is at the heart of the entire debate:

What value do human beings have?

Would the planet be better off without us?

I agree with Celivia - that the only value we have is what we award ourselves.

And this is why religion has such a powerful hold - it gives us a value, a worth.

"son of god" "afterlife" "souls"

Such terms denote a value to humanity, that we deny to other creatures. To me this is very arrogant, placing ourselves above everything else. Especially when considered in light of Fractelle's Youtube link to the Battle at Kruger.

What do the religious think of this? That they are the most important life on this planet?
Posted by Johnny Rotten, Monday, 4 February 2008 9:33:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
goodthief (or should I call you St. Dismas?),

I must admit I am perplexed by your suggestion of the need to explain why "in the absence of God, altruism and empathy are 'good'. To me that is like asking for the need to explain why, in the absence of God, facts are true. Mutual consensus is "good" for the same reasons that correlations with external facts are "true" or for that matter individual tastes determine "beauty". There is no need for God for these justifications, entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Philip Tang,

I have read your links and I find them rather devoid of sophiticated reasoning. For starters I may point out to you that Hitler's extermination of Jewry used the scientific false category of human 'races' to justify a religious outlook of the "need" for Christians to exterminate Jews, as evident by his public and private assertions (http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm).

The first link you provide (Fraud in Science) gives some examples of human fallibility. Which interestingly enough, were discovered not by divine revelation, but by the application of scientific methods. You must realise that science is always imperfect, but through the process of verification and falsification, makes propositions which are increasingly true. It has a self-correcting mechanism.

The second link (Scientific Method), apart from giving a rather junior-high school definition of the title makes the remarkable claim that evolutionists and creationists alike have "No absolute way to objectivity test their assertions" because there are "No eyewitnesses".

Unfortunately for the creationists, this is demonstrably untrue. There is significant examples of observed speciation including plants (e.g., oenothera gigas, primula kewensis, tragopogon, raphanobrassica, galeopsis tetrahit etc etc) and animals (e.g., drosophila paulistorum, drosophila melanogaster, rhagoletis pomonella, eurosta solidaginis, nereis acuminata etc etc).
Posted by Lev, Monday, 4 February 2008 10:41:15 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I reckon religious folk get "one God" confused with "One Good".
Their dogma has blinded them to the one Good as society has moved on.
"God" gets in the way, and conflicts with "Good" despite the prophets best attempts.

Buddhism is a non-thiestic morality, alas corrupted by native superstitions. I'm sure another athiestic system can be devised that enoough people can believe in. (multiverse metaphysics seems to be part of the "standard spritual model", allowing infinite "incarnations" without supernatural stuff).
One thing major religions seem to get right: Society needs a common set of ground-rules to avoid social upheaval.
I believe we need an Athiest Church of Minimum Dogma: To protect the kiddies from religion and allow moral athiests to defend themselves from the dodgy dogma so common today.
Posted by Ozandy, Monday, 4 February 2008 11:10:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
goodthief, your non-reply is ridiculous. it is true that you are questioning the notion of "good" in evolutionary explanations, but you do so by constant reference to god. your posts are saturated with god versus no-god dichotomising.

if you simply want to question the moral messages of evolution, that's fine. but if, as you do, you present god as a better/correct alternative, as giving some sort of moral clarity, then of course i and others have every right to ask that you back that up.

if you don't mention god, i won't ask you about the value of god. if you do, i will.
Posted by bushbasher, Monday, 4 February 2008 2:29:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Goodthief,

<<I was focused on O’Donnell’s assertion that evolution can explain morality... On this aspect, the onus is on him and you.>>

It's already been explained. Unfortunately though, it's just not sinking in. This is what worries me about the religious mindset – the inability to absorb certain information if it conflicts with their beliefs.

God is a less logical explanation as there is no proof of a God – or 'Creation'.

Phillip Tang,

<<the ‘LOGICAL’ evolutionist, would have attributed the opened windows it to the strong wind and, an animal must have come into the room to mess it up.>>

I liked this statement of yours. It's a good example of why Creationists are laughed at so much, and exposes their simple mindset and their gross misconception that evolutionary theory is just a state-of-mind, like religion is.

For starters, what does a 'break and enter' have to do with the 'origins of life'?

Only until you can explain this, does your comment make any sense.

<<Evolution is a hypothesis. It is not scientific.>>

So then, by your logic, there is no such thing as a 'scientific hypothesis'.

<<...it is a speculation about our beginning as much as a belief that an intelligent being made this world.>>

With the difference being, that there is no evidence for creationism, and mountains of evidence for evolution.

Lev has also pointed out a major distinction between the two: “...science is always imperfect, but through the process of verification and falsification, makes propositions which are increasingly true. It has a self-correcting mechanism.”

Creationism, on the other hand, has nothing more than a rigid and absolutist book of old scribblings. Many of which have now been proven to be historically inaccurate, and filled with borrowed mythology.

The rest of your post is just misinformed racism and homophobia, and shows that you are a very poorly educated person with a blurred understanding of science, evolution and history.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 4 February 2008 5:28:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It sounds as though, on the evolutionists’ side of the discussion, there is no notion that the human race is especially valuable. In fact, the not-especially-valuable view is so strongly held that I am accused of arrogance for suggesting that the human race might be more valuable than other species. Okay, not the result I was expecting, but there you are. (This might be old news to you guys, but it's new news to me.)

It would follow that altruism and empathy, and every other “good”, should actually not be limited to one’s own species. After all, we’re not special. Egalitarianism and considerations of justice would then apply for the benefit of all species – equally. Is this what is intended?

In saying this, I’m assuming that each act of altruism is a chosen act. If it’s not chosen – if we’re just wired by our evolutionary pedigree to act altruistically towards other humans (on the odd occasion it happens) – and we just do what we do, then I would not call that morality, as I believe morality is about choices.

However, if it’s a chosen act, and if the human species is no more valuable than other species, then we must regard the simplest life-form as equal to ourselves. Is this right? Or, is there a cut-off point somewhere?

AJ Philips – not bushbasher! :) – I don’t see why God is a less logical explanation. Just not an empirical one. For that to mean “less logical”, someone would need to explain why empirical knowledge is the only legitimate form of knowledge. So far, it just seems to be assumed.

Pax,
Posted by goodthief, Monday, 4 February 2008 9:25:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. ...
  14. 15
  15. 16
  16. 17
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy