Hello again beastie, I do hope you and your family are well.
We’re just going to have to agree to disagree.
Of course, but I enjoy the dialogue.
I think that the secular explanation of human morality has far more depth, richness, and explanatory power than the theist explanation.
I know.
In my example about the universal tendency to gossip, you offered “I don’t know” as a satisfactory response. While certainly “I don’t know” can reasonably be invoked at times, in comparison the fact that secular morality powerfully predicts this exact human trait, it certainly fails the test of explanatory power.
Here you missed my greater point. I am to blame, too hasty on that one. I had been dancing on this thread between two main issues - epistemology of morality (bridging the subjective/objective divide when secularism is ones proffered outlook) and the founding or basis of morality - mine and your discussion was primarily about the foundations, I was responding to the epistemological effect - I'll be more careful.
I’m glad to see that you recognize that there are very reasonable explanations to why morality exists outside of a godbeing.
Ok, let me attempt clarification of my position. I AM an evolutionary theist, I accept evolution. Pointing out sociobiological examples doesn't eliminate or even provide evidence that the explanation is without God. Here are my criticisms of how
you are attempting to use soiciobiology to philosophically ground morality. Please understand I am not saying sociobiology is all bogus and we need not discuss that, but that sociobiology cannot serve as ones (yours) total edifice of the basis and/or foundation for ethics:
1) Ethics primary search is for "The Good". Sociobiology cannot by its very method tell us what is "The Good".
2) If one uses sociobiology in the manner you are using against my position you suffer from the naturalistic fallacy.
3) Biological Altruism IS NOT moral/ethical altruism or Theistic/Christian altruism, the two latter are still not explained by sociobiology.
4) When arguing for a moral basis or foundation we are asking deeper questions than a biologically
descriptive account of, for example 'gossip' - we are asking the ethical questions of what is the value of morals, life; what is the meaning of my moral choices, why should I be moral; sociobiology doesn't answer these questions. Sociobiology is reportive.
5) Sociobiology alone cannot solve the Is/Ought problem. Sociobiology is a science, how can we move from a scientific description to an ethical "ought"?
6) Sociobiology itself is deeply divided on basic issues and departs from classical or present-day darwinism by no longer focusing on the organism (or group of organisms) as the basic unit of evolution; i.e. where exactly does natural selection take place - group/individual; the gene? Culture? psychology, society? etc...; the correct answer to these scientific questions has great bearing on where the secularist can even begin his own position being grounded, yet they themselves are not fully scientifically and empirically resolved.
7) Ethics is normative. It attempts to explain and offer action guiding principles - it is difficult to derive actions in terms of long term survival.
8) Morality is concerned with Universality or (categorical natures), this is still a problem for sociobiology.
9) We can transcend morality and religion - we can make decisions morally that could go against mere survival? Experience is trumping past recording of tribal groups.
10) Survival is tautological - almost anything can be described as 'for survival'. So in discussions concerning morality and religion - (meta-theory's) richness can never be met by the secularist - the theist can accept "survival" as part of "the good" - i.e. a godbeing would accept the need for survival.
11) Sociobiology is descriptive, it fails as a complete explanation - and fails as being prescriptive - even oughts in particular moral dilemmas can become confused by sociobiology- so it doesn't add any further richness or prescriptiveness.
12) How determined is morality? Great issues are at stake here as well and sociobiology is divided.
13) Egoism, Is everyone really 'hard wired' to 'biological altruism' - or is culture simply in and of itself more responsible. This is the question drive, instinct etc.. there are good and bad in all of us that don't seem to be acknowledged in the banal descriptions and reporting of sociobiology - a richness problem. Plato's parable of Gyges is applicable here.
14) Selectionism/adaptation - in many cases sociobiologists tend to elevate what are basically pragmatic concepts (selection and adaptation) to a near god-like status in their treatment of behavioural evolution - the tautological problem creeps in here again - what animals do must be adaptive because the behaviors survived. Sociobiology suffers from anti-individualism displayed not only in agency but also in dealing with Homo sapiens as a concrete species in reality. On the one hand, the retreat is toward the genes behind, on the other, into the culture around us. It seems an appropriate enough request that we try to bring the organism (including the nervous system and its attendant psychobiology) back in.
15) It leaves much out regarding our own personal confrontations with reality by assuming that virtually everything significant about the human condition is explained by biological factors alone. Virtue ethics are important to most people. Sociobiology doesn't provide a virtue ethics that is morally satisfying.
16) Ideological influences and political infighting being present in the discipline.
17) Biological causation does not equal rational articulation of intentions, reasons and desires.
18) Illusion of objectivity being conscious to us? What does that then morally mean? An objectivity or justification not bridging the instrumental vs. categorical divide.
19) Motivation. The mere collocation of atoms is the real basis from a secular vantage point.
20) Social Darwinism doesn't go so far as to justify itself, we are not shown why we are justified in accepting a normative darwinian theory as opposed to a utilitarian, kantian, virtue or other kind of ethics.
Well, “thoughtful” theist is an escape clause. I do know theists who believe that God is free to violate his own edicts, or order his believers to do so. In fact, it requires determined reasoning to explain how, for example, God telling Nephi to kill a drunk, semi-conscious man is not a violation of his commandment “thou shall not kill”.
Theists concede that God cannot be held to our moral logic and reasoning when they say things such as “God’s ways are not man’s ways”.
I think you are the one attempting an escape clause, even the most fundamentalist Christian believes God IS love, and so even if they are tricked by the secularists modern Euthyphro is doesn't change that their actual position is a autonomy position. And "free to violate" assumes an arbitrariness on your part that I'm sorry, just isn't present in thoughtful theism.
Well, since you conceded that reasonable, secular explanations exist for the development of morality, my former point is muted. I truly do not understand why the secular idea of morality fails the test for “the need to explain at an individual level” why morality benefits us personally. Game theory has demonstrated that a group of living beings that interact – generally speaking, with some deviations – in terms of reciprocal altruism will survive to reproduce at a more successful rate than groups of living beings adhering to other moral philosophies.
Many of the above difficulties speak to this. Game theory has not been tested with a genuine Christian ethic and altruism for example, unless you can give me a cite.
Moreover, why is there a present need to adhere to moral behavior at an individual level when repentance and forgiveness is a future option? Or when “being saved” is all one needs, anyway, and all sins are forgiven by the mere fact of that belief?
Genuineness, sincerity, integrity - remember those Christian ethics beastie? Your not describing an honest Christian forgiveness ethic - but a mere cartoon of it.
Is the world you experience the same world that our evolving ancestors experienced? To understand our instincts, it is imperative to remember the ancestral environment. Our ancestors lived in small tribal units, where everyone knew everyone else fairly intimately. Of course, even in this environment, it was possible to “trick” people, which is why we have the tendency to try to do so even today, but it was still a much closer society, in which individual deeds could, by and large, accurately correlate with the reputation gained.
See my problems listed above. Also, the discussion is not only about instincts developing tribally - it is much broader beastie, much broader. When you speak of depth this is where I can only shake my head.
If morality originates with a godbeing whom we know sees all, even our most secret behavior, why would this tendency develop?
I never said morality originated with a godbeing. Morality - if it is truly a stratum of reality tells us much about reality - which can imply more to the universe than a secular viewpoint, it also compares favorably with religious knowledge. (This is also in answer to what you asked me to clarify more for you.) In this thread, a swamp underneath the empirical moorings of scientific knowledge has been discussed - this is true for all of our knowledge, but our makeup as human beings allows us to perceive reality (there is a verisimilutudinous nature of ourselves toward reality). Many of us beastie, perceive God in that reality and morality and the perception of it is a close analogue to that self same perception. Second, it is comparison of world views that Daniel did. In a secular worldview morality seems queer, doesn’t fit in all of its depthness – in a religious view it doesn’t suffer the same. That is evidence for the religious over the secular if true.
I don’t want or need an entire list. Just a few examples. I think it is very pertinent to the conversation.
OK, I will post an example later tonight or tommorrow.
Regards, mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell.
-Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40