Six Iranians arrested for dancing to promote islam

[jem]

Its funny just 3 or 4 pages ago you Stu wrote this. As if science has decided that right and wrong comes from evolutionary biology.

Come on now! Evolutionary biology explains morality. That's science.

 

[jem]

yet stu's last quote says this.
Could he be more of a troll.

It is a scientific question and there is a scientific answer and a scientific explanation. You obviously don't like that answer so what are you doing but ignoring the answer and pretending one wasn't given.

Who has said "Nature determines what is Right and Wrong" except you? No one has.

As a theist you're suggesting to define what is right and wrong is not something which can occur through any natural process, naturally, but rather something which can only come about supernaturally? Really!?
You can't see the glaring contradiction?

What problem do you have with moral values being based on human reasoning as a natural process?

 

[stu]

"Evolutionary biology explains morality"... I said that.

"Nature determines what is Right and Wrong" .... I didn't say that.

"Instead they [Atheists] say Nature determines what is Right and Wrong like it's a matter of fact."...I didn't say that.


Naturally, I'm not surprised you are confused by those simple facts.

 

[dbphoenix]

"Evolutionary biology explains morality"... I said that.

Forgive me for not reading three hundred posts, but on what do you base this statement? Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by "evolutionary biology".

 

[stu]

Forgive me for not reading three hundred posts, but on what do you base this statement? Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by "evolutionary biology".

Biology / Evolutionary biology / Sociobiology
Scientific explanation for natural moral behavior and capacity for moral judgment.

In contrast to the separate issue of esoteric philosophical justifications, or the untenable theodicy disparate groups and societies tend to use in part as motivation for the adoption of moral standards.

 

[dbphoenix]

Biology / Evolutionary biology / Sociobiology
Scientific explanation for natural moral behavior and capacity for moral judgment.

In contrast to the separate issue of esoteric philosophical justifications, or the untenable theodicy disparate groups and societies tend to use in part as motivation for the adoption of moral standards.

Can you elaborate, if you care to do so? It has always seemed to me that "moral behavior" stems more from logic than anything natural, depending on how one defines "natural". All groups form for essentially the same reasons: protection, shared tasks, shared rewards, even "strength in numbers", if that is their wont. These groups may develop into communities, then societies, usually after a leader asserts himself or is thrust into the role. Then you get into the development of religion and a class system of some kind and so on.

But not everyone wants to be a part of a group. They prefer the lone life. That doesn't mean, however, that they have no moral center. Of course they may not. Which brings me back to the notion of "natural" morality vs moral constructs that are necessary in order for the group/society to survive.

 

[stu]

Can you elaborate, if you care to do so? It has always seemed to me that "moral behavior" stems more from logic than anything natural, depending on how one defines "natural". All groups form for essentially the same reasons: protection, shared tasks, shared rewards, even "strength in numbers", if that is their wont. These groups may develop into communities, then societies, usually after a leader asserts himself or is thrust into the role. Then you get into the development of religion and a class system of some kind and so on.

But not everyone wants to be a part of a group. They prefer the lone life. That doesn't mean, however, that they have no moral center. Of course they may not. Which brings me back to the notion of "natural" morality vs moral constructs that are necessary in order for the group/society to survive.

I'd be glad to elaborate , but first can we be clear on what you mean by using quotation marks around the words "natural" and "moral behavior"? Are you suggesting they don't have specific meanings in this context? Should that be the case, why no quotations around "logic".
Also you say, "moral behavior" stems more from logic than anything natural. Logic isn't natural!?

But let me say broadly to your overall point if I understand your drift correctly, the moral constructs you mention are the natural evolutionary processes of social organization. Individuals group to form communities for natural reasons to do with survival including strength in numbers, by which societies form, react, adapt, and develop for the benefit and preservation of that community as a whole. Moral behavior logically declared to be good or bad is being determined in relation to the considered impact on the community. Adapting and changing them to the environment over time, the most successful survive. Works on all levels in all aspects.

A natural process.

 

[dbphoenix]

I'd be glad to elaborate , but first can we be clear on what you mean by using quotation marks around the words "natural" and "moral behavior"? Are you suggesting they don't have specific meanings in this context? Should that be the case, why no quotations around "logic".
Also you say, "moral behavior" stems more from logic than anything natural. Logic isn't natural!?

But let me say broadly to your overall point if I understand your drift correctly, the moral constructs you mention are the natural evolutionary processes of social organization. Individuals group to form communities for natural reasons to do with survival including strength in numbers, by which societies form, react, adapt, and develop for the benefit and preservation of that community as a whole. Moral behavior logically declared to be good or bad is being determined in relation to the considered impact on the community. Adapting and changing them to the environment over time, the most successful survive. Works on all levels in all aspects.

A natural process.

There are quotes around them because at the time I didn't understand what you meant by them. But given your elaboration in your second paragraph, I agree. The only extremely minor quibble I would make is that the evolutionary process of social organization is natural only for those who seek that. Those who don't can seek some other route. Whether it's moral or not would depend on how one defines "moral", but, again, this would have to do with the particular societal construct. Without that, one could claim that human sacrifice, for example, is "immoral" in the absolute, and defending that posture would be prickly.

 

[Lucrum]

 

[stu]

There are quotes around them because at the time I didn't understand what you meant by them. But given your elaboration in your second paragraph, I agree. The only extremely minor quibble I would make is that the evolutionary process of social organization is natural only for those who seek that. Those who don't can seek some other route. Whether it's moral or not would depend on how one defines "moral", but, again, this would have to do with the particular societal construct. Without that, one could claim that human sacrifice, for example, is "immoral" in the absolute, and defending that posture would be prickly.

I largely agree, just that it is not only natural for those who seek it. For those who don't, that is natural too. Neither is unnatural. Which is moral and which is not is justified by logical reasoning, I agree with you there too. But remember, logic too emerges through natural evolutionary principles, unless one invents a god to arbitrarily declare that logic and morality and everything else is unnaturally-supernaturally-magicked.

No, rather the whole nine yards is actually an explainable observable natural evolutionary process in accordance with the physical world.