Thoughts on a Debate

That’s the problem Freddy because objective morality was the whole point. let’s go back to the beginning.

If there is no God then… if atheism is true there is no ultimate standard so there can be no moral obligations or duties. In an atheistic worldview who or what lays such duties upon us? No one… Remember, for the atheist humans are just accidents of nature. Highly evolved animals but animals have **no moral obligations to one another.

** When a cat kills a mouse it hasn’t done anything morally wrong the cat is just being a cat. If an otter or a duck rapes and kills a female and has sex with its corpse. Has it done anything morally wrong? No, the duck and the otter are just being ducks and otters. If God doesn’t exist, we should view human behavior in the same way. No action should be considered morally right or wrong.

So, can evolution explain morality? That is what you are really suggesting. First of all Moral laws are not chemical or biological; they are immaterial and come from personal agents. If there is no God there is no such thing as a “law”. Secondly Chemistry and biology are descriptive not prescriptive; evolution describes what does survive. Not what ought to survive. Survival of the fittest?

That’s exactly what Hitler believed in That’s why he was trying to get rid of the unfit because the unfit were taking resources away from the fit

If survival is all that matters… Should we rape to survive? If survival is our goal then maybe we ought to rape. We could propagate our DNA by raping right? Many species in the animal kingdom do propagate via rape. Why not us? You can rape and survive that way. You don’t need consent if there is no objective morality. Also, should we murder the weak to survive? That’s Hitler’s point.

Consistency demands then that you would say that homosexuality is immoral. After all it doesn’t do anything to help us survive. If all people adopted it… It would be the end of humanity’s survival within 100 years. So… therefore it’s immoral? I’m sure you have heard of Theists referring to the “Natural Law”. Glad to see you and I agree on one thing. :wink:

For example God’s essential attribute of Love is expressed in his command to Love your neighbor as yourself. This command provides the foundation from which we can affirm the objective goodness of Generosity, Self-Sacrifice, and equality. From this we can condemn as objectively evil; greed, abuse, and discrimination. However this does a bring question… Is something good just because God wills it? Or does God will something because it is good? The answer is neither one! God wills something because HE IS GOOD.

"…says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts…" Jeremiah 31:33

"They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them."
Romans 2:15

If there is no God, you cannot condemn these people for surviving by being selfish. Society might collapse sure but they would be King of the Ashes and still survive. Worked well for Genghis Khan.

Why is he wrong?

If people don’t have the altruistic gene they aren’t doing anything wrong they are just following their DNA.

That which enabled us to survive didn’t include assault under normal conditions. It did include aspects of survival that now result in arguments about abortion and euthanasia.

But there are positive actions one could take (in that you had to actively do something) like sharing food, having children etc. And negative acts such as killing women of child bearing age. Under exceptional situations, you wouldn’t kill them but assault them. We see this in war situations where rape is very common. In those circumstances we often unfortunately revert to very unpleasant instincts.

Homosexuality? Entirely neutral. Not a positive gain nor negative loss. Evolution could care less.

These two statements seem completely contradictory to me Freddy. It’s clear that homosexuality has no value towards survival and in fact is detrimental to human survival.

I noticed that you skipped over a lot of things in your response. It’s clear that objective morality has no place in an atheistic worldview.

2 Likes

Lots of things have no value in helping us survive. If you prefer fish over beef. If you have curly hair. If you like folk music over blues. If you find an overbite sexy. All of these are entirely neutral and none of them aid our survival. Which doesn’t make them detrimental.

And you’re not correct about objective morality. It’s not that it has no place. It’s that it doesn’t exist. Well, in my humble opinion.

Without technology or relations with someone of the opposite sex despite not being attracted to them a homosexual won’t have children.

I would class that as bad for evolution.

Homosexuality only relates to a few percent of the population. Maybe 3 - 5%? A much greater proportion of heterosexual people simply don’t want children ( In March 2020, Quest reported that research had shown that, in Belgium, 11% of women and 16% of men between the ages of 25 and 35 did not want children.[[8]])(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_childlessness#cite_note-van_de_Water-8)

Those percentages are irrelevant as far as evolution is concerned. It works on populations, not individuals.

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.