Evidence for God from Science

zoegirl wrote:I have no problem seeing that YOU and many other atheists can be moral. In fact my worldview declares that all men have right and wrong written upon their hearts.

Your worldview, however, necessitates, even demands that you regard a rapist and a non-rapists are both valid moral decisions. YOU may decide that rape is wrong, there is nothing in your worldview that demands that to be so. In fact, you must (as you have already admitted) declare that all morality is subjective....which simply means that in your worldview, rape is acceptable. You have simply decided for yourself that rape is wrong. The rapist in your opinion is committing a crime but in reality his morality is just as valid.

I agree that rape is wrong, you agree that rape is wrong. There are many rapists that disagree with us. If all men have right and wrong written upon their hearts, why the disagreement?

They either don't see the connection to the continued success of mankind, or they don't value the continued success of mankind.

jlay wrote: How do I know it is wrong to murder? Because there is an objective standard to KNOW it is wrong. That standard is God. Now there is gobs of philosphy we could break out into, but for the sake of brevity, i'm not going there.

jlay wrote:

I agree that rape is wrong, you agree that rape is wrong. There are many rapists that disagree with us. If all men have right and wrong written upon their hearts, why the disagreement?

Are you saying that you have always obeyed your conscience? Have you ever done something knowing it was wrong?
I'd say rapist KNOW it is wrong to rape. Whether they care of not, is another issue. They value their own selfish desires more than right or wrong. But you bring up a good point. In our worldview, rape is a deplorable act in violation of the very source of objective truth. In your worldview, rape is a disagreement in preference related to subjective morality regarding the continued success of mankind.

It seems as if you are saying that rape isn't really a deplorable act in your eyes, in and of itself. You just don't prefer it because it doesn't fit with your subjective view of the success of mankind.

They either don't see the connection to the continued success of mankind, or they don't value the continued success of mankind.

Why does your vision of the success of mankind have more value than Hitlers? Hitler believed the extermination of Jews was key to the success of mankind. In fact he had a lot of support for his position.

I have to respectfully disagree with you. There are Muslims who think that rape is OK. They also think that they have access to objective truth. They think that their book is the word of God.

jlay, I don't quite understand why you keep bringing up Hitler. In my view, it was the idea that morality is objective that gave his message it's strength. Whether he actually believed in God is debatable, but he did reference God in propaganda speeches and he was a confessed Christian. You using Hitler in an argument to defend a Christian viewpoint would be like me using Stalin to defend an atheistic one.

zoegirl wrote:HS,

It DOESN"T MATTER that you think rape is wrong. I'm happy that you do. My entire point is that IF YOU are consistent with subjective morality, then YOU MUST accept that rape CAN be OK, you just have decided that it isn't. But in a secular worldview, the rapist is just as moral as you are.

Rape is simply, then, a product of years of selective pressure from societies that have survived and reproduced the most. It's as simple as that. Our ancestors that raped to ensure reproductive success (indeed any animal that uses force in copulation) were great and moral.

zoegirl wrote:Well let me ask you this...

What proof would satisfy you?

humblesmurph wrote:

zoegirl wrote:HS,

It DOESN"T MATTER that you think rape is wrong. I'm happy that you do. My entire point is that IF YOU are consistent with subjective morality, then YOU MUST accept that rape CAN be OK, you just have decided that it isn't. But in a secular worldview, the rapist is just as moral as you are.

Rape is simply, then, a product of years of selective pressure from societies that have survived and reproduced the most. It's as simple as that. Our ancestors that raped to ensure reproductive success (indeed any animal that uses force in copulation) were great and moral.

I get your point. I got it the first time.

The reason I came to the conclusion that morality was subjective was that I couldn't prove that it was objective. I would greatly appreciate it if you could show me how morality is objective. Things would be much easier that way. Would you care to share how you know right from wrong?

Every one has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and
sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we
can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they
say. They say things like this: "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to
you?"-"That's my seat, I was there first"-"Leave him alone, he isn't doing
you any harm"- "Why should you shove in first?"-"Give me a bit of your
orange, I gave you a bit of mine"-"Come on, you promised." People say things
like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as
well as grown-ups. Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the
man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behaviour does
not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of
behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man
very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to
make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the
standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there
is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the
seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he
was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him
off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had
in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or
morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed.
And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals,
but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means
trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no
sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as
to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that
a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the
rules of football.

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent
behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and
different ages have had quite different moralities.
But this is not true. There have been differences between their
moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total
difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching
of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and
Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each
other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in
the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our
present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different
morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for
running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the
people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a
country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what
people you ought to be unselfish to-whether it was only your own family, or
your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you
ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men
have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have
always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.
But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says
he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man
going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if
you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It's not fair" before
you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter, but
then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular
treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter,
and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong- in other words, if there
is no Law of Nature-what is the difference between a fair treaty and an
unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that,
whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?
It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong.
People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get
their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any
more than the multiplication table. Now if we are agreed about that, I go on
to my next point, which is this. None of us are really keeping the Law of
Nature. If there are any exceptions among you, I apologise to them. They had
much better read some other work, for nothing I am going to say concerns
them. And now, turning to the ordinary human beings who are left: