One of the interesting units I studied at University was Religions of Oceania. To break it down to a few words is extremely difficult. People who do not understand create a plausible explanation within peers and from this they establish rules. In the next village, they have another explanation and another set of rules. What is right on one side of the hill is wrong on the other.Very simply if it fits your integrity and does not put a physical or mental spear in another person you should do it.If you can get away with it indicates that there is an existing set of rules and in that case humans should abide by a majority decision on those rules. Just do it indicates the capacity to act without contravening laid down and accepted laws by all.Angryant47.

"It would seem to be a rather extraordinary occurrence if lifeless, unconscious matter should have somehow generated in particular units of matter, known as human beings, the sense that certain behaviours are “right” and others “wrong”. (And it does seem that moral notions are largely confined to homo sapiens.)"

Since we have good reason to believe that this has happened, and we don't have any reason to believe that a sense of right and wrong has ever originated in any other way, I don't see what's so 'extraordinary' about it. For all we know it was completely inevitable that it should happen under those circumstances.

Perhaps arguments about what is 'extraordinary' or 'inconceivable' or 'unimaginable' should simply be banned from debates about morality or metaphysics. They have been used to defend a great deal of nonsense, and they really demonstrate nothing but paucity of imagination. One person's 'inconceivable' event is usually another person's everyday occurrence.

The author has clearly never read much about primatology, or he would
understand that morality is grounded in biology. Authors like
Frans de Waal and similar, are a good place to start.

As to claims about somebody being in touch with the Almighty, we
have had many snakeoil salesmen make many claims, earn lots of
money, gain lots of power, but so far no substantiated evidence
that any one of them is correct.

The alleged Almighty is free to write his rules on the face of
the moon, for all of us to see. He/she has never bothered.

So at this point the evidence shows that morality is little more
then our subjective opinion, grounded in biology. Much like other
social primates, we agree on rules which are to the benefit of
the group as a whole

Graham,

I enjoyed your post though I note the usual scrofulous suspects did not.

The problem for the God haters is just what do you base your system of morality on – personal desires, the greater good?

I found it fascinating in reading Dawkins Hitchens Harris Onfray and Dennett to compare them with the likes of Nietzsche, Camus and Sartre who at least were willing to explore existential nihilism even if they fell back. Dawkins and his mob are the soft core kind of atheist, blast religion out of existence but limp in the backdoor clutching the last remnants of Christian morality pretending their genes or memes or whatever told them so.

What a joke, what self deception, what parasitic nonsense! The fact is two or three generations back their forebears belonged to the Church – Christopher Hitchens’ brother Peter is a Christian – and whatever decent morality they retain is their inheritance – not for nothing early Melbourne was dotted with churches on every street corner and in the 1870’s, 60% to 70% of Melbournians regularly attended church.

However I do them an injustice, because despite all their rage, despite all their anaemic unconvincing, groping like blind men protestations, God made them and put his law within them – there are simply things they can’t not know and conscience will always have its revenge.

But as a system of thought secular humanism, or whatever they want to call it, is built on shifting sand, as there is no moral demand (witness the discussion on other threads over euthanasia, abortion and the current latest cause célèbre - naked female children posing as art, so daring, yet so diminishing), no objective remedy for human weakness, no objective hope for the finding of virtue and happiness whether in this life or the world to come. In fact, welcome to the culture of death.

So thank you Graham, and keep on writing and don’t be put off by people who haven’t a clue about mounting a decent argument, for whom an ad hominem attack is about the best they can muster.

David that whole post seemed to be an ad hominem attack on those who disagree with the content or the article.

There has been quite a bit of material in the responses which deals with the subject matter rather than the character of the author. Would you care to debate some of those points rather than launch general character attacks on those who didsagree?

R0bert

"But as a system of thought secular humanism, or whatever they want to call it, is built on shifting sand, as there is no moral demand (witness the discussion on other threads over euthanasia, abortion and the current latest cause célèbre - naked female children posing as art, so daring, yet so diminishing), no objective remedy for human weakness, no objective hope for the finding of virtue and happiness whether in this life or the world to come. In fact, welcome to the culture of death."

David, I've argued alongside you on the euthanasia and Henson debates and many others I'm sure and so have other atheists and other non-believers. It is insufferably arrogant of you to maintain so unquestioningly that the only ethical code for all humanity in all its diversity is the one supposedly handed to us by your god. Like Yabby, I'll accept that as gospel when I see the rules written on the moon and not before.

The other problem when you set yourself up as the arbiter of all things ethical is that to be at all credible the tone of your posts needs to reflect this at all times. There's only one Christian poster I've encountered regularly on OLO who consistently achieves this and going by the few posts already of yours I've happened to read it certainly isn't you David.