Your post in the other thread that I quoted–at least on its face–wasn’t limited to a defensive war or even war in general. You stated flatly that the U.S. should overthrow a government whenever it was in its interest to do so. But that’s neither here nor there for purposes of this thread.
[/quote]
The position I articulated in the other thread is related to warfare because:
International relations is essentially warfare. The international environment is anarchic and lawless; it is essentially the “state of nature”. All foreign nation states are either allies or enemies. This may be a dark and pessimistic view of the world but it’s a reality.
That’s difficult to address because you haven’t explained why you think it’s immoral.
Not learn no. I believe we already know what is ethical and what is not. To use a Severianian phrase it’s “hardwired” into us.
Fair enough. A lot of religious people would take that position too.
Actually I can. Man has certain inalienable natural rights. The right to life, liberty and property.
They differ because people have been confused by ideology and by their attempt to ground ethics upon individual interest and group interest. And of course, their views are distorted and clouded by ego - their own desires, fears and animosities.
I agree. As a lawyer you are probably familiar with how these problems relate to the law. The law resolves these problems to an extent - at least on a fundamental level - by using natural law(lex naturalis as the foundation for human law(lex humana. On a practical level, legislators have realised that natural law is the only foundation that achieves satisfactory outcomes. That the law needs to assume the existence of transcendental, objective moral laws is indicative of what I’ve been saying.
Mine too. And for the same reason: man has an inalienable right to life.
And yet I’m pretty sure that you and I agree that they are wrong because man has an inalienable right to life. It seems to me that we are both intuitively aware of this fact, no?
I would say we probably can agree. In simplest terms, I’d say we can agree that man has an inalienable right to life, liberty and property.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
In simplest terms, I’d say we can agree that man has an inalienable right to life, liberty and property.
[/quote]
Life and liberty, absolutely. But property? There are many tribes and early peoples who lived entirely without that concept for a long, long time. That’s a human function, I think, and a relatively recent development[/quote]
That’s not actually correct. The tribes you’re referring to are said to not have had a concept of chattels but they actually just had a different understanding of ownership. They were communal based societies in which property was shared however prestige was linked to distribution(just like in any Communist nation). So essentially, having stuff was desirable because you gain prestige by giving it away. But no one simply takes stuff from someone else because that constitutes theft. This concept holds up to empirical scrutiny: go up to anyone, anywhere in the world who denies that private property ownership is a natural right and try to take stuff they value away from them. Invariably you’ll find that their commitment to their theory is inversely related to how much stuff you take from them.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
In simplest terms, I’d say we can agree that man has an inalienable right to life, liberty and property.
[/quote]
Life and liberty, absolutely. But property? There are many tribes and early peoples who lived entirely without that concept for a long, long time. That’s a human function, I think, and a relatively recent development[/quote]
I think you’re wrong here. True communal living is and has always been relatively rare. Even North American Indian tribes before and after their contact with whites had systems of private property and capitalism.[/quote]
Yep. The myth of collectivism amongst Native Americans is a postmodernist fantasy.
In Australia the idea the aborigines had no concept of private property was espoused to support British claims to the land(terra nullius) on the grounds that no one “owned” it. So it’s a view associated with the political “right”. In reality, land that was rich in natural resources was fiercely contested - eg, the ochre mines in South and Western Australia.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
In simplest terms, I’d say we can agree that man has an inalienable right to life, liberty and property.
[/quote]
Life and liberty, absolutely. But property? There are many tribes and early peoples who lived entirely without that concept for a long, long time. That’s a human function, I think, and a relatively recent development[/quote]
I think you’re wrong here. True communal living is and has always been relatively rare. Even North American Indian tribes before and after their contact with whites had systems of private property and capitalism.[/quote]
Yep. The myth of collectivism amongst Native Americans is a postmodernist fantasy.
[/quote]
I would say, unless the population in question was truly, and 100% polygamous, they certainly had a system of private “property”. As in, you and your mate’s affections were each other’s property. (Please lets ignore the calls of “patriarchy” and “sexism” someone will see in that comment.)
No, I’m just pointing out that it’s silly to say that we cannot make value judgements off reasons that science and very basic reason informs us of.
Just like you wouldn’t rely on something like prayer to pay your bills, it’s also silly to rely on prayer and God to posit what is right and wrong.
And, it doesn’t benefit anyone to have religious extremists, or at least ones who think they know what Gods will is, what right and wrong is, projecting their beliefs in such a way that they limit everyone elses autonomy.
[/quote]
Okay, reason out for me from science why rape is wrong.[/quote]
It would be a set of moral principals that are informed by and responsible to science, rather than informed by Bible’s, Koran’s, and Torahs, and responsible to God. in the case where we discover new information, that information changes whatever the current moral norms are if they apply.
Ethical norms should inform us of rules that take into account our environment and maintaining things that are deemed necessary for human health (mental and physical) according to how we are wired. Human health can be roughly linked to virtue theory/ human flourishing without much trouble at all, but other moral principals can be attached similarly, and remain responsible to science.
In the case of rape, we know from Psychology that people are wired with an aversion to harm and also wired to have a strong affinity towards autonomy.
What we know from the mirror neuron and the study of Neurology is that we experience the same sensations that we witness.
So in the case of rape we violate our own autonomy and do self damage, since we experience the same sensations we witness. Those are two things we are WIRED to have aversion to, and that is why rape is wrong. [/quote]
Assuming everyone is wired nicely. Quite a leap, my friend!
[/quote]
Exactly.
It’s your people actually who define what normal is via defining what abnormal is. If a person is not normal, like someone who doesn’t experience the same way due to some form of say Autism or the milder Asperger aren’t going to be subject to the same code. People who have those syndromes don’t have the same mirror neuron activity.
As far as great leaps, the basic morality I propose is very similar to ones we find from various religions and Ethical groundwork. It’s not exactly the same as do unto others, but it’s extremely similar… Is it still such a great leap?
Moving from various unchanging holy books as guides, and God being the thing you are responsible to…
Vs. relying on knowledge we learn from science, and science being the thing that ethics are responsible to?
It’s a similar frame of ethics, it’s just that my version is responsible, critiqueable and able to change with environments as well as knowledge we gain.
[/quote]
Why should I or my ethics be “responsible” to science? It doesn’t even make sense.
Ethical behavior and empathy are present in some people, absent in others. For some these are strong guides to behavior regardless of religious upbringing or the lack of it; regardless of impoverishment or opulent wealth. For others all conditions can be met for optimal moral development, but positive qualities be underdeveloped or not at all.
I believe you are mistaken when you try to replace religion with science, which is what you seem to be doing, as an all-knowing entity which guides human belief and behavior.
[/quote]
Where did I say all knowing entity? Knowledge isn’t something there seems to be a ceiling for as far as I know… The concept of something knowing everything there ever will be to know, and at the same time us having autonomy is pretty abstract.
I want to rely on what knowledge we have. I want any sort of rule to not be rigid and to be subject to change when we learn new things. Remember how I defined open mindedness? That is part of what I propose, that it be encouraged to change. It’s supposed to mirror science’s self critiquing ways, and mistakes are expected because we are always learning and the environments are always changing.
That is actually opposite of what the various religions say they do. But, getting religions to change takes a lot of time because they are intended to be rigid and unchanging. The word of God is perfect and unchanging, and in those books.
[/quote]
Where did you say it? Above:
[quote]It’s your people actually who define what normal is via defining what abnormal is. If a person is not normal, like someone who doesn’t experience the same way due to some form of say Autism or the milder Asperger aren’t going to be subject to the same code. People who have those syndromes don’t have the same mirror neuron activity.
As far as great leaps, the basic morality I propose is very similar to ones we find from various religions and Ethical groundwork. It’s not exactly the same as do unto others, but it’s extremely similar… Is it still such a great leap?
Moving from various unchanging holy books as guides, and God being the thing you are responsible to…
Vs. relying on knowledge we learn from science, and science being the thing that ethics are responsible to?
It’s a similar frame of ethics, it’s just that my version is responsible, critiqueable and able to change with environments as well as knowledge we gain.
[/quote]
I can tell you that “empathy” is not universally present in human beings, and goes right out the window when one is hungry or threatened or when one’s offspring are.
I’m not sure why you feel the need to change my mind or pigeonhole my beliefs. I believe myself possessed of free will and as such am completely autonomous. I don’t have a need to decide whether one side or the other is right as I am comfortable where I am and am comfortable with both fundamentalist religious beliefs and atheism in others. YOU seem to be the one struggling.
Excellent deductive powers, Mr. Holmes. But did I not say exactly that several pages ago? (Not sure what “typical in the good ol USA” represents, but it sounds like world-weary mockery of people less er, educated than yourself. Have you indeed traveled far and wide and observed the customs and religious mores of other cultures?)
I am nothing like your sister, given that I have no fear or thought of sin unless I believe I have committed one. When that happens I fix what I can and regret what I can’t. I don’t thumb my nose at God and go about my sinning ways, I don’t conceive of God the way you apparently do. (Empathy FAIL, given that I have stated clearly my beliefs and yet you still can’t seem to mirror my neurons effectively.)
The thing is, you seem to have some rigid ideas of your own concerning religion and spirituality and people in general.
[/quote]
Thanks again. I’m just going by facts in the world that are based on things that you seem to either ignore or fail to comprehend and the nature of the information I’ve shared with you.
I’m pigeon holing, so you believe I’m not being fair about my critique of organized religion? Why don’t you get specific?
You are pissed at me for thumbing my nose at God while you sin without fear, which to most here is also thumbing your nose at God. So, WTF? Obviously it’s personal.
[/quote]
The facts in the world based on the video you linked? I’m not sure why you imagine that I fail to comprehend just because I don’t conclude what you do. Mirror neurons - okay! Empathy as a guiding moral system - not happening! I think your theory is full of holes.
Also, I’m not pissed at you for thumbing your nose at God. Go ahead! I don’t care whether you thumb your nose or refuse to acknowledge or imagine God as the malevolent enemy of a just and rational science! I simply don’t care.
As for my sinning without fear, no. I sin with great remorse IF what I’m doing meets my criteria for sin. The Catholic Church does not determine that for me any more than ISIS does.
I would suggest that you stop trying to think for others and instead devote that energy to trying to understand why they think the way they do. You’ll get further, Sir Empathy.[/quote]
You said you sin without fear… Which one is it hon?
I’ve built up my position, and at every point you have been there with all of your emotion to express how wrong I am and in the process you have insinuated that I’m the one that is afraid, to I’m not qualified to tell you such things.
If those things are true then it shouldn’t matter what I say.
I want to point out that you have been averse to my perspective since I brought up Existentialism, which led you to claim that I’m more inclined to feel fear than most based on something that has been recognized by people long before me, and by lots of people who faced some of the bloodier wars of our times. You claimed that existentialism isn’t limited to the faithful, and with the exception of investment I agree with you. But, it seems you are just as invested as others with your more generalized conception of the western God, which I absolutely nailed about you.
The critiques of organized religion I have given are based on what the various religions believe.
The information I’ve given from the sciences are contemporary and relevant.
The way I characterized your generalized faith is accurate as far as I can tell, you even refer to God as a male and as if he actually exists.
You seem to fall into exactly what I’ve been talking about when it comes to people who become too invested in bullshit. You are entrenched in your position because you are invested in it, or you are just averse to being influenced to change by a simpleton like myself… So what’s the point?
Only you could be condescending to a woman who has shown you 10 x the fairness, patience and kindness you deserve.
But like I said, you enjoy hearing yourself talk so much that it hardly matters to you what you are saying. [/quote]
Maybe you are right. I didn’t read it that way, maybe it’s because I’m not qualified and I’m insensitive and afraid? At this point I don’t really care that much. I’m not changing anyone’s mind here, and it’s never been my goal to impose my beliefs on others. More to just point out there are other ways that can be rooted in things we know rather than things that are arbitrary faith about the times and locations we’ve grown up in.
Why so much anger over asserting there probably isn’t a God? If I claimed the same about Apollo or Osiris there probably wouldn’t be a problem because they are easier to dismiss for some reason. But really, I’m only treating God like most people treat Apollo and Osiris.
And, if someone got pissed off that I wrote off Apollo and Osiris based on reason, most of you would be fine with that as well. But when I do it with God look at the entrenched reactions? I’m just calling it how I’m reading it Mr. Samurai.
And at this point, I don’t want to share with you all what I’ve picked up in school and in life. Most of you aren’t open to entertaining much outside of what you are familiar with anyhow.
I don’t expect a response but I’m going to address this because it needs to be addressed:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Ethical norms should inform us of rules that take into account our environment and maintaining things that are deemed necessary for human health (mental and physical) according to how we are wired.
[/quote]
Your position is not even coherent or consistent. The assertion that “ethic norms” should “inform us” runs completely counter to your previous and subsequent reliance on empiricism. An appeal to “ethical norms” is essentially “consensus theory of truth”. Intelligent and honest atheists understand that a “consensus theory of truth” based approach to ethics is synonymous with “legal positivism” - the legal and epistemological basis of law in The Third Reich.
“Principles” not “principals”. You have obfuscated analysing the consequences of:
Ethics based upon “individual interest” and “group interest”
And
How science, which existentialists understand as the evidentiary basis of nihilism, can be used as a justification for any ethical construct.
Two problems:
Obviously this “aversion” doesn’t actually work for the most part as people are still raping and killing others.
And
Again, you are obfuscating the fundamental basis of group interest as an epistemological basis for ethics - essentially, if the avoidance of the negative feelings envinced from hurting others is in and of itself the basis of ethics then one could argue that suppressing empathy is a rational response.
Then why not suppress them in the group interest? Example, a group of people are concerned about the group fertility rate - they’re not having enough children; many of the women in the community do not want to become mothers. In the interests of the group, why not suppress empathy to facilitate the rape of these women?
Then we should suppress empathy no? Maybe a drug could be developed that suppresses the mirror neuron response.
[quote]
Those are two things we are WIRED to have aversion to, and that is why rape is wrong. [/quote]
Rape is wrong because it evinces negative feelings in the perpetrator? Lol! Forgive me if I opt out of your ethical system.
And yet the irony of that is completely lost on you. Your ethical system is derived from Christian ethics. You appear to largely accept this system while attempting to remove it from its epistemological base and then ground it in…well, your argument is incoherent - empiricism? Group interest? Current norms and mores? None of them work so your arguments are confused and rife with internal inconsistencies.
Ethics can’t be “responsible to” a method of knowledge that by definition is supposed to be “value neutral”. That’s why you veer off into group interest arguments and the like.
Able to “change with environments?” Again, you’re wheeling back to “consensus based theory of truth” and legal positivism. As I said, count me out. I wouldn’t even trust the majority to make decisions of a beauricratic nature let alone allow my fundamental ethical beliefs to be answerable to them.
Yeah well, I want the exact opposite. I want human life in particular to be regarded as sacred and I want a legal system to be based upon fixed principles of natural law. I don’t want the value of human life to be determined by what 50.01% of people happen to ascribe to it in any particular election cycle. So that puts us at odds in a fundamental way. This is exactly what I hate about secular humanism and why I have always been and will always be opposed to it.
You seem to ascribe to psychology and the scientific method the power to inform our ethics. So I would direct you to a study by a team of psychologists and social scientists entitled “Zietgeist and minority influence” that shows:
How a minority within a group can change the group ideology
And
How consensus within a group is not guided by informed and rational decisions but rather by irrational impulses
Essentially a small group of vocal and aggressive ideologues can dominate and determine the fundamental beliefs of the whole group. Those subject to the psychological coercion come to believe that they have changed their own opinions through rationalism when in fact they have succumbed to the psychological projections of the ideologues. Groups don’t actually think rationally. This is the secret of crowd psychology that Gustave Le Bon discovered and that the political ideologues of Italian fascism, National Socialism and Stalinism cynically harnessed. And it’s no surprise that they grounded their ethics in “consensus theory of truth” and remodelled their legal systems upon “legal positivism” as opposed to natural law.
You haven’t “built up [your] position”. Your argument is a mess full of internal inconsistencies. You can’t even articulate the fundamentals - ie, what exactly you’re appealing to. One minute it’s group interest and you ignore all the implications associated with that position. The next sentence it’s “consensus theory of truth” and again, you ignore the implications. I don’t understand why you’re so wedded to your “theories” if I can call them that. Other atheists don’t deny the conundrums associated with their position. Other atheists don’t pretend that they’ve solved millennia-old problems of ethics - well maybe the odd idiot here and there like Stefan Molyneux. You don’t have any answers. You have nothing. Until you admit that no one, religious or otherwise, should take you seriously.
People like you do matter because you vote and you’re steeped in ideology. The “religious extremists” you see as the enemy are profoundly moderate in that they’re not seeking radical “change”. They’re appealing to restraint - let’s just leave things as the are; if it ain’t broke don’t fix it; our system may not be perfect but let’s not be too hasty; there are good reasons for the way things are set up - these are the arguments of the “extremists”. We don’t see society as a lab experiment. We don’t want radical change. We want autonomy and to be left alone. We don’t we the state or anyone else to fuck around with us like we’re guinea pigs.
But you have failed to address the critiques directed at secular humanism - critiques that are not founded in any particular religious dogma or necessarily in religion at all. Your critiques of specific religious dogma are just straw men because as far as I can see no one in this thread has appealed to any rigid dogma of any kind.
Terrible. Maybe we should use a gender neutral pronoun huh? Your ideology is literally dripping off the page.
I try my best not to believe in a god despite a Catholic upbringing. I see no compelling reason why any of the contemporary deities and religions are any more real than those widely acknowledged to be fictional (Greek, Roman, Norse, Pagan, Egyptian, etc.), and while I can’t quite shake the upbringing and erase the concept of a Christian god from my worldview, I do not have faith.
I am, however, open to the existence of things that we do not/cannot understand or even that we are not equipped to receive, or equipped to receive in a way that a faulty TV aerial only picks up intermittent snippets of a signal. I am also open to these phenomenon that we cannot fully detect persisting after the death of our bodies and brains. Like god, this cannot currently be proven or refuted.
I say this because on two occasions in my life I have had the very real sensation of being visited by a dead relative in my sleep. I cannot be sure that this was not a dream but the experience felt very different to a dream, in the way that looking at a picture of a landscape is different from looking at an actual landscape. My mother has also had the same experience with the same dead relative. I have two hypotheses for this:
a) A dead relative visited me in a dream, and there is an after life, or existence not tied to the physical
b) The fact that two people had the same experience speaks to a common need in the human psyche
I lean towards hypothesis (b), and look forward to finding out for sure at the end of the line.
On ethics
I reject the idea of divine ethics. Concerning the 10 commandments, I read an interesting article in David Bodanis (which I think he has since expanded into a book) positing that they were created as a list of rules that could be observed and agreed upon by a community made up of disparate peoples from diverse cultures living in the desert between ancient Egypt and Israel, rules that transcend cultural differences.
I also reject the idea of inalienable rights (Oxford English Dictionary: Inalienable - unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor), but I agree that there are certain rights that most people agree are inalienable most of the time. If you can waive a right to suit a strategic objective in warfare, it is only inalienable as long as it suits and is agreed to be so. If you believe you are qualified to waive a right you consider to be universal, inalienable, and “god given”, do you not also believe you are god?
However, I agree that the 10 Commandments and these “inalienable rights” are a good basis for a society, and would not seek to do away with them. I also think that it would be nigh-on impossible to untangle their influence on modern society even if we wanted to.
As for rape and murder and what not, surely this would be easy to prove “immoral”, or wrong, from an evolutionary perspective. Human’s are social creatures (indeed, we wouldn’t be so successful as a species if we were not), and it is easy to see the deleterious effect of such actions on the cohesion and success of a group and, by extension, the species.
I try my best not to believe in a god despite a Catholic upbringing. I see no compelling reason why any of the contemporary deities and religions are any more real than those widely acknowledged to be fictional (Greek, Roman, Norse, Pagan, Egyptian, etc.), and while I can’t quite shake the upbringing and erase the concept of a Christian god from my worldview, I do not have faith.
I am, however, open to the existence of things that we do not/cannot understand or even that we are not equipped to receive, or equipped to receive in a way that a faulty TV aerial only picks up intermittent snippets of a signal. I am also open to these phenomenon that we cannot fully detect persisting after the death of our bodies and brains. Like god, this cannot currently be proven or refuted.
I say this because on two occasions in my life I have had the very real sensation of being visited by a dead relative in my sleep. I cannot be sure that this was not a dream but the experience felt very different to a dream, in the way that looking at a picture of a landscape is different from looking at an actual landscape. My mother has also had the same experience with the same dead relative. I have two hypotheses for this:
a) A dead relative visited me in a dream, and there is an after life, or existence not tied to the physical
b) The fact that two people had the same experience speaks to a common need in the human psyche
I lean towards hypothesis (b), and look forward to finding out for sure at the end of the line.
[/quote]
You say you’re open minded to “the existence of things we cannot understand” yet you “try not” to believe in God? That’s a pretty unusual position to take.
The problem with such a theory is that we don’t know enough about the cultural and ethnic origins of the Israelites. There aren’t enough contemporaneous sources. One clue lies in the Egyptian origins of many of their names - particularly the tribe of Levi. Some scholars have speculated that the Levites were runaway slaves who had been in Egyptian captivity for several generations and that the other tribes had not actually been slaves. This is of course theologically heretical.
See my comments in previous post. You need to understand on what grounds you’re appealing to and then to understand the implications of such a position. “On evolutionary grounds” sounds like an appeal to “group interest” which is fraught with difficulties as I’ve explained above.
[quote]
Human’s are social creatures (indeed, we wouldn’t be so successful as a species if we were not), and it is easy to see the deleterious effect of such actions on the cohesion and success of a group and, by extension, the species.[/quote]
Yep. As I thought: an appeal to group interest. No one yet has acknowledged the implications of such a position let alone articulated any kind way out of these conundrums. You acknowledge that law needs to be based upon theology(natural rights) - that’s a good start. But I contend that ethics also need to be based on theological grounds; that man can only relate to the Other via a mediator(God). This is demonstrable and can be shown via the absurd results of any ethical construct that is not based upon theology - essentially, a reductio ad absurdum. This is widely recognised in the philosophy of law hence the dominance of natural law philosophy.
No, I’m just pointing out that it’s silly to say that we cannot make value judgements off reasons that science and very basic reason informs us of.
Just like you wouldn’t rely on something like prayer to pay your bills, it’s also silly to rely on prayer and God to posit what is right and wrong.
And, it doesn’t benefit anyone to have religious extremists, or at least ones who think they know what Gods will is, what right and wrong is, projecting their beliefs in such a way that they limit everyone elses autonomy.
[/quote]
Okay, reason out for me from science why rape is wrong.[/quote]
It would be a set of moral principals that are informed by and responsible to science, rather than informed by Bible’s, Koran’s, and Torahs, and responsible to God. in the case where we discover new information, that information changes whatever the current moral norms are if they apply.
Ethical norms should inform us of rules that take into account our environment and maintaining things that are deemed necessary for human health (mental and physical) according to how we are wired. Human health can be roughly linked to virtue theory/ human flourishing without much trouble at all, but other moral principals can be attached similarly, and remain responsible to science.
In the case of rape, we know from Psychology that people are wired with an aversion to harm and also wired to have a strong affinity towards autonomy.
What we know from the mirror neuron and the study of Neurology is that we experience the same sensations that we witness.
So in the case of rape we violate our own autonomy and do self damage, since we experience the same sensations we witness. Those are two things we are WIRED to have aversion to, and that is why rape is wrong. [/quote]
Where did you come up with the idea that human health is good? Many people choose pleasure over health, who are you to say they are wrong. Seeking pleasure is an evolved trait too. And even more who decided what healthy means? People may (or may not) be programmed to avoid harm but people are also programmed to harm others. You are telling me what tends to happen, not at all why it’s bad. I could equally make the cause, scientifically, that the benefit of organisms and the ultimate goal of life is to replicate and preserve genes NOT avoid pain. Therefore a serial rapist, smart enough to get away with it is, scientifically speaking, an evolutionary step forward and hence a scientifically good individual.
Because again, you can only use science as a means to an end, you cannot use it to choose an end. You in your above post still unscientifically choose the end to pursue.
But even using your own reasoning where norms (though non-absolute and non-universal) inform you of what goals we should pursue, it will lead to really messed up things. Rape, murder, theft, lack of human rights and on and on are all normalized in many cultures and at many times. AND even further, it is the norm to believe in a god by an enormous margin and there is even biological evidence this is an evolved trait. That should then have at least equal validity and weight to your empathy.
[quote]We may not have invented ears or sound, but we invented music.
Are you going to tell me God made music and electronics?
[/quote]
sigh… If you weren’t so busy being preoccupied with your elevated sense of self worth and accomplishment you could take the 3 seconds it would require to see my point.
Like electricity, music wasn’t invented, it is just sounds. All we did was invent an instrument to arrange the sounds that already existed into a pattern.
We didn’t invent current, we invented a tool to use it. We didn’t invent sound, we invented a tool to use it.
I could equally make the cause, scientifically, that the benefit of organisms and the ultimate goal of life is to replicate and preserve genes NOT avoid pain. Therefore a serial rapist, smart enough to get away with it is, scientifically speaking, an evolutionary step forward and hence a scientifically good individual.
[/quote]
Yep. In fact, psychologists have posited exactly this; that psychopathy is a beneficial evolutionary trait. Some have even suggested that it’s an advanced evolutionary development and that the next evolutionary step is a race of clinical psychopaths. What a wonderful world the secular humanist offers us! An epoch of moral nihilism in which psychopaths struggle for existence in an environment of industrialised warfare over diminishing resources on an insignificant planet in which the entire human race is inevitably doomed to extinction. Happy days!