Can Moral Education Be Grounded in Naturalism?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]ephrem wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

The Christian theistic framework does provide a basis for moral absolutes.

I think Gordon Clark’s argument thoroughly refutes the humanists.

…“Thou Shall not Kill” is one moral absolute, and if the USA is indeed a christian nation, would that mean the abolishment of capital punishment?

I don’t think that is an absolute anywhere in the world. self defense is almost always allowed.

…the commandment is a religious moral absolute, but as you point out, only a few take notice…

Interpretation of the sixth commandment is informed by other passages in Scripture in accordance with the “Scripture interprets Scripture” hermeneutic. Read the Heidelberg Catechism or Westminster Larger Catechism’s exposition of the sixth commandment.

…but if you are looking for moral absolutes [based in religion], shouldn’t you take those commandments at face value and not interpret them? What good are absolutes if they have exceptions?[/quote]

…since this thread is up and running again, and if your inclined to do so, answer the question, PRCalDude?

102

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
666Rich wrote:
the burden of proof lies on those making the claim of existance. So where is your proof that god exists? Only existance exists, to say otherwise is to nullify perception. If you nullify perception then you essentially forfeit your right to be taken rationally, ie your argument is contradictory.

This has been covered in a great deal by subjectivists (religion, Kant, keirkegaard) vs objectivist (rand) and neitzchean thought. To say that god is the alpha and he just “exists” is as viable a claim as me saying the boogeyman exists.

The counter argument is "“well I just know he exists”. The presupposes that ones logic is based on feeling and emotion, which in turn means the world is entirely subjective, thus the term subjectivism. This would refute the notion of absolutes and axioms, which we know is not the case because existance exists.

That is the first axiom of a sound philosophy rooted in Aristolianism. Furthermore, one cannot choose to say “Well, ill believe in god because im just used to it from growing up, but ill be rational the rest of the time”. This evasion is tantamount to cognitive suicide. Aristotle referred to man violating one premise of his values is violating them all, and that example is a crime of cognition.

Ill ignore reality sometimes, and adhere to it only when it benefits me! That is a mantra that is against life.

I never said he exists because whatever your lame examples. Boogeyman has never been proclaimed as an omnipotent deity. God exists through the evidence, the patterns of life and nature, the complex yet similar biological make up of animals. Our intellectual knowledge compared to the rest of the animal population. The events that happened throughout history, that are brought back to God’s hand.

Philosophically speaking, there has to be a non-caused cause.[/quote]

So the proclamation of an omnipotent deity is that which is required as proof? Proclamation, meaning resting on the opinion of the masses? Right…

I understand your malice towards my viewpoint, however it is not furthering your goal of anything other than your opinion minus any facts. You say “the facts of life” what facts. Correlation does not equal causation, Oh animals and people are similar in genetic makeup. Brillaint observation. I believe religion demonized darwin who essentially proved this. I am not going to make some trite middle school darwinism > god argument, but you need to dig alot deeper to even have your idea considered. “the events that are linked throughout history” = a prime example of the vague speak that promoted religion in the first place. Your attitude is that of the mystic.

103

What if a purely secular philosophy is a Darwinian dead end for the population it takes hold in? What if their fertility rates fall so low, they’re simply out reproduced by the religious (native and immigrant)? Why would a population adopt it, if survival is the prime directive? Maybe the religious are just going to inherit the earth either way.

104

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Only problem is that if you standardise the IQ testing for language using phrases that are more common in black or latino communities there is no difference in IQ between US whites, blacks or latinos.

I see your understanding of IQ testing is about as solid as your understanding of natural selection, both of which tell us uncomfortable things about humanity.

I did well enough in IQ tests to join Mensa at the age of 10 so go on, enlighten me where am I wrong?

Do they still hassle you to this day?[/quote]

LOL, I had to move to a different contintent but I finally escaped.

105

[quote]Sloth wrote:
What if a purely secular philosophy is a Darwinian dead end for the population it takes hold in? What if their fertility rates fall so low, they’re simply out reproduced by the religious (native and immigrant)? Why would a population adopt it, if survival is the prime directive? Maybe the religious are just going to inherit the earth either way.[/quote]

Darwinian Evolution doesn’t always lead to the long term good of the species.

106

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What if a purely secular philosophy is a Darwinian dead end for the population it takes hold in? What if their fertility rates fall so low, they’re simply out reproduced by the religious (native and immigrant)? Why would a population adopt it, if survival is the prime directive? Maybe the religious are just going to inherit the earth either way.

Darwinian Evolution doesn’t always lead to the long term good of the species.[/quote]

If the species thrives, instead of approaching non-replacement level fertility rates, then…

107

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What if a purely secular philosophy is a Darwinian dead end for the population it takes hold in? What if their fertility rates fall so low, they’re simply out reproduced by the religious (native and immigrant)? Why would a population adopt it, if survival is the prime directive? Maybe the religious are just going to inherit the earth either way.

Darwinian Evolution doesn’t always lead to the long term good of the species.

If the species thrives, instead of approaching non-replacement level fertility rates, then…[/quote]

Evolution doesn’t care, it is not sentient. Huge numbers of species have evolved themselves into a corner and gone extinct. The mutations are random, if the random mutation confers an advantage in the short term then their is a higher than average probability that it will be passed on. This says nothing about the mutations effects in the long term.

Giant Pandas evolved to have a very specialized diet, this was an advantage when their food was plentiful as they were able to digest something that most other animals couldn’t meaning that they were not directly competing. Unfortunately, that food source became more rare and the Panda’s went hungry. (massively over simplified example I know)

108

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What if a purely secular philosophy is a Darwinian dead end for the population it takes hold in? What if their fertility rates fall so low, they’re simply out reproduced by the religious (native and immigrant)? Why would a population adopt it, if survival is the prime directive? Maybe the religious are just going to inherit the earth either way.

Darwinian Evolution doesn’t always lead to the long term good of the species.

If the species thrives, instead of approaching non-replacement level fertility rates, then…

Evolution doesn’t care, it is not sentient. Huge numbers of species have evolved themselves into a corner and gone extinct. The mutations are random, if the random mutation confers an advantage in the short term then their is a higher than average probability that it will be passed on. This says nothing about the mutations effects in the long term.

Giant Pandas evolved to have a very specialized diet, this was an advantage when their food was plentiful as they were able to digest something that most other animals couldn’t meaning that they were not directly competing. Unfortunately, that food source became more rare and the Panda’s went hungry. (massively over simplified example I know)[/quote]

Ok. But I’m not sure we’re on the same page.

109

It seems the forum void obliterated part of my post, losing the thought behind it.

So, if increasingly secular societies are approaching, or, have already fallen below replacement level fertility rates, where’s the win? Especially when this is used to justify the mass immigration of people who very often have strong religious beliefs. Who then outreproduce the increasingly secular natives by large margins in many cases. Isn’t the secular society just replacing itself with a fertile religious one? So what’s the point?

110

[quote]Sloth wrote:
It seems the forum void obliterated part of my post, losing the thought behind it.

So, if increasingly secular societies are approaching, or, have already fallen below replacement level fertility rates, where’s the win? Especially when this is used to justify the mass immigration of people who very often have strong religious beliefs. Who then outreproduce the increasingly secular natives by large margins in many cases. Isn’t the secular society just replacing itself with a fertile religious one? So what’s the point?[/quote]

…sub-replacement fertility rates is hardly a tenet of secularism, but merely a consequence of shifting priorities…

111

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It seems the forum void obliterated part of my post, losing the thought behind it.

So, if increasingly secular societies are approaching, or, have already fallen below replacement level fertility rates, where’s the win? Especially when this is used to justify the mass immigration of people who very often have strong religious beliefs. Who then outreproduce the increasingly secular natives by large margins in many cases. Isn’t the secular society just replacing itself with a fertile religious one? So what’s the point?

…sub-replacement fertility rates is hardly a tenet of secularism, but merely a consequence of shifting priorities…[/quote]

Doesn’t need to be a tenet. It just needs to follow.

Edit: And it doesn’t answer the replacement question.

112

[quote]Sloth wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It seems the forum void obliterated part of my post, losing the thought behind it.

So, if increasingly secular societies are approaching, or, have already fallen below replacement level fertility rates, where’s the win? Especially when this is used to justify the mass immigration of people who very often have strong religious beliefs. Who then outreproduce the increasingly secular natives by large margins in many cases. Isn’t the secular society just replacing itself with a fertile religious one? So what’s the point?

…sub-replacement fertility rates is hardly a tenet of secularism, but merely a consequence of shifting priorities…

Doesn’t need to be a tenet. It just needs to follow.

Edit: And it doesn’t answer the replacement question.[/quote]

…as i said: it’s not a correlation but a consequence, if that makes sense. No society becomes secular with the intent to slowly fade out due to dropping replacement births. Iow, even now when we see that, for instance, Italy’s birthrates are at an all time low church attendance is still dropping: Italian church attendance lower than thought and Italy Birth rate - Demographics

…so what exactly is your point?

113

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It seems the forum void obliterated part of my post, losing the thought behind it.

So, if increasingly secular societies are approaching, or, have already fallen below replacement level fertility rates, where’s the win? Especially when this is used to justify the mass immigration of people who very often have strong religious beliefs. Who then outreproduce the increasingly secular natives by large margins in many cases. Isn’t the secular society just replacing itself with a fertile religious one? So what’s the point?

…sub-replacement fertility rates is hardly a tenet of secularism, but merely a consequence of shifting priorities…

Doesn’t need to be a tenet. It just needs to follow.

Edit: And it doesn’t answer the replacement question.

…as i said: it’s not a correlation but a consequence, if that makes sense. No society becomes secular with the intent to slowly fade out due to dropping replacement births. Iow, even now when we see that, for instance, Italy’s birthrates are at an all time low church attendance is still dropping: Italian church attendance lower than thought and Italy Birth rate - Demographics

…so what exactly is your point?

[/quote]

I’m not sure I can be any clearer, sorry. But oddly, you seem to have supported my point.

114

[quote]Sloth wrote:
It seems the forum void obliterated part of my post, losing the thought behind it.

So, if increasingly secular societies are approaching, or, have already fallen below replacement level fertility rates, where’s the win? Especially when this is used to justify the mass immigration of people who very often have strong religious beliefs. Who then outreproduce the increasingly secular natives by large margins in many cases. Isn’t the secular society just replacing itself with a fertile religious one? So what’s the point?[/quote]

You seem to be looking far too short term for one thing also you could well be mistaking environmental adaptations for genetic adaptations.

Religion exploits the pattern detecting capabilities that humans have evolved. This is not the same as saying religion is a genetically inheritable characteristic.

115

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It seems the forum void obliterated part of my post, losing the thought behind it.

So, if increasingly secular societies are approaching, or, have already fallen below replacement level fertility rates, where’s the win? Especially when this is used to justify the mass immigration of people who very often have strong religious beliefs. Who then outreproduce the increasingly secular natives by large margins in many cases. Isn’t the secular society just replacing itself with a fertile religious one? So what’s the point?

You seem to be looking far too short term for one thing also you could well be mistaking environmental adaptations for genetic adaptations.

Religion exploits the pattern detecting capabilities that humans have evolved. This is not the same as saying religion is a genetically inheritable characteristic.[/quote]

I think we’re still talking past each other. To me your response isn’t relevant to my posts.

116

[quote]Sloth wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It seems the forum void obliterated part of my post, losing the thought behind it.

So, if increasingly secular societies are approaching, or, have already fallen below replacement level fertility rates, where’s the win? Especially when this is used to justify the mass immigration of people who very often have strong religious beliefs. Who then outreproduce the increasingly secular natives by large margins in many cases. Isn’t the secular society just replacing itself with a fertile religious one? So what’s the point?

…sub-replacement fertility rates is hardly a tenet of secularism, but merely a consequence of shifting priorities…

Doesn’t need to be a tenet. It just needs to follow.

Edit: And it doesn’t answer the replacement question.

…as i said: it’s not a correlation but a consequence, if that makes sense. No society becomes secular with the intent to slowly fade out due to dropping replacement births. Iow, even now when we see that, for instance, Italy’s birthrates are at an all time low church attendance is still dropping: Italian church attendance lower than thought and Italy Birth rate - Demographics

…so what exactly is your point?

I’m not sure I can be any clearer, sorry. But oddly, you seem to have supported my point.[/quote]

…i agree with you that secularization is followed by a drop in birth rates. What i don’t get is your question: “What is the point?” as if there is a point to be had with secularization…

117

Another point, what makes you think that there is a causal relationship between religion and birth rate? There certainly seems to be a correlation but that is not the same thing.

118

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i agree with you that secularization is followed by a drop in birth rates. What i don’t get is your question: “What is the point?” as if there is a point to be had with secularization…

[/quote]

If there isn’t a point, then why promote it? If it’s self defeating (can’t replace, outreproduced by religious), why actively promote it?

119

[quote]Sloth wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…i agree with you that secularization is followed by a drop in birth rates. What i don’t get is your question: “What is the point?” as if there is a point to be had with secularization…

If there isn’t a point, then why promote it? If it’s self defeating (can’t replace, outreproduced by religious), why actively promote it?[/quote]

…who’s promoting it then? All i know is that the Catholic Church failed to adapt to changes in people’s perception during the '60s in Holland, and lost a lot of members because of it. There was no one actively promoting secularism. Where did you get that from?

120

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Another point, what makes you think that there is a causal relationship between religion and birth rate? There certainly seems to be a correlation but that is not the same thing.[/quote]

Religion provides cohesion. Marriage, family, offspring, are cherished (and expected) treasures for adults coming of age within such a society. Religion provides the morality and norms neccessary for strong, intact, productive families, society wide. It provides the culture and guardianship underpinning it’s importance. I don’t think atheists and agnostics can ever replace this. So, I see the ongoing secularization of Western nations as temporary. Some new religion will replace that old time religion. They might not be as tolerant of the mocking “brights”, however.