If time is infinite then space must also be. It is hard to believe time began at some point. Events unfolding from nothing is highly unlikely. There can only be no beginning and no end.Perhaps, the question "what lies beyong this universal limit?"
This still isn't answering my questions.
If survival of the species is "good" as opposed to "not good" (i.e. "neutral or bad") , how was this logically determined from a secular viewpoint?
This still isn't answering my questions.
If survival of the species is "good" as opposed to "not good" (i.e. "neutral or bad") , how was this logically determined from a secular viewpoint?
You are still failing to answer the question!It doesn't require to be logically determined. The mechanism of evolution is natural selection through random mutation. If those who are predisposed to cooperation tend to survive and reproduce better than those who fight among themselves, then the culture that encompasses the former will be more likely to become dominant in succeeding generations (I am using culture very loosely here). That is the natural selection. Those cooperative traits (epitomised by "do unto others ... ") become the dominant morality of that society and deviations from it tend to be ostracised.
In a way one cannot say that this evolved morality is either good or bad as our evolved concept of good and bad is likely determined by the same evolutionary mechanics and thus that which we see as morally good is that which helps our survival as a species.That would also account for changes in morality over time as that which was beneficial previously may not be so today.
You are still failing to answer the question!
What you are describing here is an evolved behaviour or behavioural trait, that cannot be said to be "good" or "bad" from a purely secular perspective.
My apologies if I misinterpreted your response, but please be aware that you are still misunderstanding the point that my question is raising.No. That is not what I said. Our understanding of "good" or "bad" is very likely an evolved understanding and it is based on what behaviours have led to the success of the survival of our species. It is in a sense tautological. Certain behaviours have resulted in the successful survival of our species and are thus labelled "good".
Whether there is an absolute "good" or "bad" is probably beyond our ability to determine as we cannot judge outside of our evolutionary constraints. But those who claim that a theistic determined morality is absolute would need to reconcile lots of inconsistencies across religions and even within the same religion. When you asked why I think Christian morality is based on secular morality the answer is simply that there is really no other morality than secular morality. The Bible is essentially a man made product and of course the morality of the Bible will then be congruent with the secular morality of the time. And that is why as secular morality evolves, the morality of the Bible, since it is a snapshot of the times in which it was written, gets left behind.
But it is you who haven't answered many of my questions. If our morality is not secular and the product of our evolution, where does it come from? If imbedded in our consciousness by a deity, when did this occur and was it across all of mankind simultaneously? If it came from reading scriptures or "good" books, why is that morality similar to what was accepted by society at that time and since the morality of the many religious scriptures is different in some fundamentals, which is right?
The evolution of the secular morality and the secular concept of "good" and "bad" makes sense from my point of view even though I am a layman in terms of the "science" involved. But alternative explanations, particularly those based on divine intervention of some sort, seem to be full of inconsistencies and leave so many fundamental questions unanswered. But feel free to educate us on what you think it correct.
How can anyone deviate from a plan, when no plan exists?
I quite agree!But evolution isn't a plan nor is morality.
....
I quite agree!
But you are still missing the point!
In order for something to be truly wrong, it must surely be out of accord with a purpose, intent or design, otherwise it could not be objectively deemed to be wrong, aberrant, sinful, or in any way incorrect!
In our current secular understanding of existence, where is the objective purpose, intent or design to be found?
In our current secular understanding of existence, where is the objective purpose, intent or design to be found?
But nothing is truly wrong as our morality is not the product of a purpose, intent or design. Things are only relatively wrong with reference to our currently accepted morality, which is the product of our evolution (both physical and cultural) which arguably is without purpose, intent or design. That is why I said that murder (of people from other tribes) was quite possibly morally acceptable to our ancestors in earlier times, but is not accepted by most societies today.
I'm still awaiting your answers regarding morality that I posed this evening.
I guess it all boils back to the old belief, that if you do the right thing are honest and help others, the favour will be repaid.
I think that fable has been well and truly squashed, in most facets of life.
In the old days, you would stop to pick up a hitch hiker.
In the old days, you would let anyone into your house, to give them a cup of tea.
In the old days, you would leave your back door unlocked.
In the old days, you would expect not to be attacked, if you were old.
In the old days, you would stand up on public transport, to give a seat to someone more needy.
In the old days, you wouldn't swear in front of a Lady or in public.
Oh well get over it, times are changing, no one has time to talk about the old times.
This is the here and now, we don't need to be told, we know and if we don't know, we can facebook it.
I am quite unable to recognise the validity of any question that presumes the existence of a non-existent thing.As far as I can see, all the so called Christian morals can be encapsulated in the sentence "do unto others as you would like them to do unto you". All the 10 commandments, except the first 3 (which have more to do with a jealous and insecure God than morality), can are encapsulated in that sentence. Even the exhortation "love thy neighbour as thyself" is encompassed.
And if that sentence is the sum of Christian morality, how do you account for the fact that those same words (paraphrased, but with the same meaning) were expressed by others long before Christ was born. Thus what is Christian morality other than a re-expression of long held secular morality?
I maintain that the existence of morality demands the presence of purpose, intent or design, else morality cannot truly be said to exist!Where else did it come from? If you suggest some divine intervention, then on what basis do you hold that? If a divine intervention, when on our evolutionary scale did it happen if it predated Christianity? And if the result of divine intervention, why has it changed over time?
As has been explained by VC on numerous occasions, morality as has been honed throughout the ages is entirely consistent with other aspects of our evolution that allowed to to reach where we currently are in our evolutionary path. Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you is far more likely to allow groups to survive than a selfish free for all. As societies evolved, those social attitudes that helped the species survive and reproduce were, by natural selection, also those attitudes that were going to be passed on.
As I said, denying rights to gay couples is an example of Christian immorality, but the fact that you are brain washed into the culture means you probably can’t see it.
Also the very foundation of Christianity is based on scape goating, I happen to find that immorral.
If Christ were being killed in front of me I would do everything in my power to stop it, you however would take joy in his sacrifice and think it a good thing, then stand around and pretend to end his flesh and drink his blood.
Just like the laws of physics, the objective morality exists even if people don’t understand it, it’s something we are discovering over time, not something that is decided by a tribe or a god.
The leading factor of morality is harm, and that is objective
It doesn't require to be logically determined. The mechanism of evolution is natural selection through random mutation. If those who are predisposed to cooperation tend to survive and reproduce better than those who fight among themselves, then the culture that encompasses the former will be more likely to become dominant in succeeding generations (I am using culture very loosely here). That is the natural selection. Those cooperative traits (epitomised by "do unto others ... ") become the dominant morality of that society and deviations from it tend to be ostracised.
Part of what you say I agree with. After all, morality is built into us. We have a conscience. But we needed Jesus to get us there, since some morals aren't obvious enough (we can't see clearly), and some we wouldn't follow unless He taught.As far as I can see, all the so called Christian morals can be encapsulated in the sentence "do unto others as you would like them to do unto you". All the 10 commandments, except the first 3 (which have more to do with a jealous and insecure God than morality), can are encapsulated in that sentence. Even the exhortation "love thy neighbour as thyself" is encompassed.
And if that sentence is the sum of Christian morality, how do you account for the fact that those same words (paraphrased, but with the same meaning) were expressed by others long before Christ was born. Thus what is Christian morality other than a re-expression of long held secular morality?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?