22 comments
There is a part of social sciences dealing with morality. Research fail, once again.
They try this shit with the words "good" and "Evil" too.
No matter how many times they're told these are terms we've assigned to concepts and both are completely within the realm of an organized society and natural development of social animals they still act like these are mystical ideas.
It bogs down a lot of debates in that the religious side will stubbornly cling to the claim that their religion and their God solely imparted morals and concept of good and evil to us and that, and this is just stupid, we couldn't have come to these beliefs and ideas any other way. To defend this bullshit they will claim the Bible's well over 4000 years old and the first writings and laws ever produced, it works on their flock so why not keep it up.
Science observes evidence.
Morality is subjective; every single country, culture, society, group, family and person have their own version of what is moral and what is not. The ones based on common decency (like not killing or harming others, or infringing on others' "personal space"), are present in most groups.
There is ample evidence that some sense of morality, decency, empathy; whatever you might call it, evolved with humans, as a group works best if all cooperate and show consideration towards each other. No supernatural explanation needed.
Morality cake.
Say hello to my cat, Schrodinger:
image
Is eating cake bad? Against the law? A Sin ? No.
Did you observe the cake prior to it's consumption? Can you prove the cake existed? No.
Does it somehow affect your life that a cake is being served that you are unable - or not entitled - to eat? No.
Is the cake a lie ...?! [/"Portal"]
Moral: You certainly don't have the right to any moral outrage when an LGBT couple takes a bakers to court for not serving them the cake they ordered.
@Kanna
"That's like saying since we cannot weigh the English language it is supernatural."
I'd like to ask the OP if he/she can see 12:15 PM without the aid of a watch or clock. Or next Tuesday. They're just concepts .
A rainbow doesn't physically exist, but can be seen .
image
So much for the so-called 'Supernatual', then.
Instinctual preservation of the group is common among animals with social structures. An aversion to causing senseless discord - thus harming the group or putting it at risk - falls neatly in line with your concept of morality.
Religiom on the other hand is capable of convincing a group to directly harm itself by creating artificial norms and taboos that are systematically punished and further prohibits cooperative function even if survival is at stake going as far as to trample their own members and throw them to predators who hang around waiting for the next easy meal.
If you mean descriptive morality clearly people have beliefs about what people should do and shouldn't do, hence morality exists.
If you mean normative morality (meaning what is truly right and wrong regardless of anyone's opinion on it), that one is trickier. Still there is a good secular arguments in favor of it. Regardless of my opinion or anyone's opinion certain things are beneficial and certain things are detrimental. Certain things make us healthier, stronger, wiser, and certain things make us sicker, weaker, or dumber, and this would be true regardless of anyone's opinion. Some things cause both good things and bad things either certainly or with varying degrees of chance, so there are shades of gray, but normative morality is still not purely gray.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
