Science must destroy religion

[Candide West]

Originally Posted by DCNBILL

Just as you have stated above there have been numerous accounts of moral behaviors in cultures that we would find reprehensible, so the question is;

Do you think that, using your terms, there have existed some (moral codes) that are better or more acceptable than others?

Of course, by my standards very many moral codes are worse than my own. Those which have caused enormous suffering are definately inferior when measured against by their ability to prevent suffering. The extent to which they are inferior is I guess roughly proportional to the extent of the difference when compared to my own. ie the extent to which they fail when measured against my own moral code.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by Candide West

Incorrect, the error you made here is that you have separated out "our choices" and "the choices due to physical causes" they are the same thing. “our choices” ARE “choices due to physical choices”. So yes they will always correspond.

If our choices and their physical causes always correspond to each other we cannot be the authors of our choices because we do not cause them.

It isn't surprising that you made this error given that you are starting from a presumption of dualism, but the problem vanishes once you shed that position.

It isn't surprising that you made this error (of equating "our" choices with physical causes given that you are starting from a presumption of materialism but the problem vanishes once you shed that position.

Ahhh, school playground tactics of repeating something someone said to you. I’m afraid I stopped responding to such japes when I was a teenager, but thanks for the stroll down memory lane.

The fact remains that your statements were unnecessary, did nothing whatsoever to further the discussion and in addition to being useless they are discourteous.

Incorrect, science has told us huge amounts about morality. As you would expect it is an observable phenomena so it has been studied extensively across many species, including our own.

Precisely what has it told us?

Incorrect, lets pick an example – lets say you pick up a rock and bash your neighbours head in with it. This is unquestionably a physical event, it is also immoral.

It is a physical event deliberately caused by a person - not by natural events.

Incorrect, the moral status of our behaviour attaches due to our status as moral agents. It is not due to the physical cause of our behaviour.

According to you our status as moral agents has physical causes - which are amoral because they don't know what they are doing.

Not quite, it would be more accurate to say that “no non-physical causes have ever been detected”.

Science is restricted to natural entities, persons are animals and animals are amoral..

No, you see if two people had exactly the same makeup and exactly the same physical background then those two people would be the same person. You are talking about a level of similarity far beyond what could possibly be created, even taking identical twins and exposing them to precisely the same events at the same time would be insufficient, you’d have to directly control the internal events in their brains.

Irrelevant. If physical causes determined "our choices" we wouldn't make those "choices" and they wouldn't be rational choices. They would be caused by so many irrational factors it would be a miracle if two individuals happened to make the same "choices". They wouldn't be "their choices" at all.

But this is of course nothing to do with your conclusion that everyone holds contradictory views. People can be different to each other and yet still share common views, they just won’t hold exactly the same views on ALL subjects.

It has everything to do with my conclusion because in your scheme of things persons have no control over "their choices". There is only one cause: either you or something else, i.e. physical causes: you are just a cog turned by events.

The fact that people share some views and the similarity of their views is roughly proportional to their similarity of background is what we would expect if activities have physical causes. It is also what we observe in the real world.

You have put yet another naiI in the coffin of materialism. If our views are determined by our background we don't choose them: they are chosen for us by our background - and we cannot rationally claim they are "ours".

And in that you are incorrect because while the universe is amoral people are not and I and plenty of others have provided a rational basis for morality without religion.

You have given no reason why everyone should be regarded as equal.

Because they are axioms. Or if you prefer, because they come from the definitions of those terms, which are themselves axiomatic.

In other words you create a universal axiom out of the blue without giving a reason why it applies to everyone.

In general suffering is the more intense experience, so prevention of suffering is more heavily weighted.

So suffering should always be prevented?

I’d reject the first two because they both assert things which in themselves are likely to cause suffering but not the last because killing people causes suffering.

So you would never kill a person?

In that case the belief has failed on the terms I provided, this bit “and causes no suffering to anybody.”

So all suffering should be prevented regardless of any other considerations?

Disagree, I can’t recall any wars being undertaken in the name of hedonism, or genocide being undertaken in the name of skepticism.

Not explicitly but the lust for pleasure and the rejection of morality has led to wars and genocide.

In any case the argument you are making here is one of relativism “sure people have done terrible things in the name of religion but they’ve done terrible things for other reasons too”. My answer to that would be “so what?”. Are you saying that just because some systems of thought cause problems we should accept any other systems of thought which also cause problems? If so then again I must disagree with you.

Relativism is inevitable in a Godless universe because it is relative to human beings.

Nope, granted it’s relatively common in recent human history but that is a long way from universal.

Religion is as old as mankind.

So what you are saying is that belief in a spiritual world is a phenomena which has existed for a tiny fraction of the history of a single species on one planet. And religion is of course a subset of that. Given what you have written in 1. This would appear to mean that you have a very myopic idea of “universal”.

You have a very myopic view of spiritual reality. You think man is the measure of all things.

4. The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity originated in the teaching of Jesus.
Nope, they didn't originate with Jesus. Indeed the principles such as the golden rule were in circulation in a number of ancient cultures hundreds, if not thousands of years BCE.

"Love thy neighbour as thyself" is a typical example of the Golden Rule confined to a small group of people but not extended to everyone in the world- and certainly not to one's enemies

Fortunately though it IS supported with evidence, piles of it in fact. If you wish to satisfy yourself of this just go and speak to some atheists out there in the real world. Or speak to those of us who come on this website. You’ll find that we are all in posession of working moral systems.

Based on what? Their own ideas, nothing more...
On what rational basis do you select your moral values and principles from that medley of sources?

As I said I compare propositions against axioms to test out their moral status.

Comparison presupposes the existence of criteria by which you test...
Test for what? Convenience? What exactly do you mean by "moral status"? How do you distinguish moral from amoral?

You still have not explained the rational basis of those axioms... Are they confined to persons on this planet? Do they apply to animals? To unborn children? If we exist for no reason whatsoever how can axioms possibly be based on a reason? In an absurd universe nothing makes sense... Values are just man-made conventions for the sake oc convenience... The criminal's views are as true as anyone else's in a crazy, unplanned world which just happens to exist by sheer chance...

Why not admit you're trying to establish good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust in a system which is totally devoid of any concern for what occurs on this planet? Morality is a just a fairy tale. The problem is that - unlike Camus and Sartre - you fail to take your scepticism to its logical conclusion: everything is absurd... If only matter exists nothing matters - and that is all there is to be said.