tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post3959698766483706550..comments2024-03-28T17:53:43.541-04:00Comments on DarwinCatholic: Secularism, Religiosity, Empiricism and WorldviewsDarwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-85692817905584541382007-06-11T14:16:00.000-04:002007-06-11T14:16:00.000-04:00"when we simply _know_ that something is wrong (....."when we simply _know_ that something is wrong (...) one may take this as a sort of inborn knowledge which should be listened to rather than ignored."<BR/><BR/>Should it? Many people _know_ that homosexuality is wrong.<BR/><BR/>Related blog post:<BR/><BR/>http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/05/even_if_its_wro.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-45191354319937050772007-05-31T18:31:00.000-04:002007-05-31T18:31:00.000-04:00John, I hope you send spies to my site once in a w...John, I hope you send spies to my site once in a while.<BR/><BR/>I could use the traffic.<BR/><BR/>;)John Farrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18280296574996987228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-24383879862203891072007-05-31T13:02:00.000-04:002007-05-31T13:02:00.000-04:00j. christian,Actually I picked the "steamrolling y...j. christian,<BR/><BR/>Actually I picked the "steamrolling your aged and ailing mother" example because it's not particularly mal-adaptive: If she's aged she won't have any more children, and if she's ailing he is probably producing a net burden on the social group rather than helping to raise he descendants. And while steamrolling is visually much nastier than giving the Dr. Kevorkian treatment, it's not actually different in outcome (unless one includes consideration of the potential emotional scarring of bystandards). <BR/><BR/>I would say that an atheist or agnostic _can_ arrive at the clear conclusion that killing the weak and the elderly is wrong via reason, but that the empathy as evolutionary trait argument will not get you there. I think you would need to go the route of assigning a certain degree of essential (as in essence) value and dignity to the human person qua human person beyond any current qualities of age, usefullness, etc.<BR/><BR/>But I also think that Plato is more worth listening to than he is often given credit for when he argues that when we simply _know_ that something is wrong (which in this case I think one unquestionably would) one may take this as a sort of inborn knowledge which should be listened to rather than ignored.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-16911607555935756642007-05-31T12:40:00.000-04:002007-05-31T12:40:00.000-04:00John,Point taken. I had, I guess, been taking the...John,<BR/><BR/>Point taken. I had, I guess, been taking the point too broadly in that I thought you basically saying: Look, I have an empirical worldview. Therefore, if I can't find a way in which what I'm saying has empirical implication, I'm agnostic on it.<BR/><BR/>I have actually known people to state this outright, but I can see how I was assuming to much in imputing such an absolute application of your principle here.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-42791635036894931702007-05-31T12:25:00.000-04:002007-05-31T12:25:00.000-04:00One could reason to the conclusion, but one could ...<I>One could reason to the conclusion, but one could not discover it empirically.</I><BR/><BR/>The atheist might say that it's wrong to steamroll your mother because it violates an evolutionary principle, man being a social animal, empathy is an adaptive trait, etc. Would that be considered "reasoning" to a conclusion or empirically discovering it (i.e., if there's some empiricism behind the evolutionary theory)?<BR/><BR/>I'd argue that, if this evolutionary-origin-of-morality hypothesis is true, then the wrongness of steamrolling your mother isn't more or less great than not having children. Both being maladaptive behaviors, why should we feel so much more revulsion at a person squashing mom than a person who decides, "Hey, kids aren't for me."<BR/><BR/>???Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-11037818651806023482007-05-31T12:17:00.000-04:002007-05-31T12:17:00.000-04:00I have spies everywhere (well, feeds of links to m...I have spies everywhere (well, feeds of links to me) and I would like to make a passing comment.<BR/><BR/>The agnostic debate is about knowledge of facts (of the existence or otherwise of a deity claimed to exist). It is mute about whether it is right or not that such a deity exists.<BR/><BR/>Likewise, the source of morality, and the rightness or wrongness of a moral claim, are quite distinct from the existence or otherwise of deities.<BR/><BR/>As an agnostic, I have moral values. This is not, despite the oft-repeated truism, something that I have to struggle for because I lack a god to underpin morality. In fact, I'd have to struggle pretty hard to <I>not</I> have morals - everyone who is not psychotic would, belief or no.<BR/><BR/>So morals are distinct from the existence of a god. And as the Euthyphro Dilemma shows, having a god doesn't in itself make a moral value right or wrong.John S. Wilkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04417266986565803683noreply@blogger.com