September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  


« Links Mentioned on the Show | Main | The Itch Atheists Can't Scratch »

August 13, 2012


"God has built in the moral equpiment in the human being....God has written his law on every human heart"

Unsupported assertion.

Clearly here the blogger just asserts some examples are objectively true without explaining why - its just an appeal to an objective standard. Followed by some scare tactics about moral relativism.


There are different sorts of objectivity at play in moral discussions. It sounds like you're stressing something I like to dub semantic objectivity. That is, we have a more or less fixed meaning to our moral vocabulary, and so we can evaluate moral statements in roughly the same way that we evaluate any other statement which has meaning---by looking to the real world to see if it corresponds to the meaning of the statement as determined by the meaning of its underlying vocabulary.

Let me explain exactly what I mean by this. Suppose we fix the meaning of the word "novella" to be something like the following: "a written work of prose fiction which is between 15,000 and 40,000 words." In that case, when a person says, "Animal Farm is a novella," we can evaluate the truth or falsity of that statement by determining whether Animal Farm is a written work of prose fiction which is between 15,000 and 40,000 words.

Similarly, the words "right" and "wrong" are going to (presumably) have fixed meanings, call them R and W. So in order to evaluate the truth or falsity of a claim like "murder is wrong," we need only discover whether murder satisfies the conditions of W.

Obviously, God is not required in order for moral statements to be objectively true or false in this semantic sense. This is why philosophers like William Lane Craig have instead defended a different kind of objectivity, where God serves as a perfect concrete exemplar for moral goodness.

So the questions the Christian apologist evidently needs to be asking have nothing to do with whether moral claims are objectively true in a semantic sense. Of course they are! But in order to make the moral argument for the existence of God work, you need something much stronger: You need to show that there exists a perfect concrete exemplar for moral goodness.

Hey Mike,

The line you had trouble with wasn't supported because it is universally recognized by those to whom the video was targeted. By the title alone we may surmise that this is a video by someone who believes in an objective morality to others with the same view. Also this is a Christian blog, and the Bible is thick with the theme Brett referenced.

As to whether he explained why, I thought Brett gave a reasoned basis to support the position. He gave examples that seemed quite clear to me, and illustrated the issue by taking them to their logical conclusion.

What reasons would you give in favor of moral relativism?


W. Craig in this quote does not hold to the notion of exemplar, with "I don't cash that out in terms of God's standing in some mysterious relation called exemplification to some abstract objects beyond space and time...."

From this:

"I agree wholeheartedly with Scotus that there is a univocal concept of being which applies to both God and creatures. One of the aspects of Thomas Aquinas' thought that I find most disturbing is his claim that we can speak of God only in analogical terms. Without univocity of meaning, we are left with agnosticism about the nature of God, able to say only what God is not, not what He is. Scotus rightly saw that when we say that God is or exists, we are using the term in the same sense in which we say that a man is or exists.

As for onto-theology, that means different things to different people..... I'm not claiming that we have comprehensive knowledge or certainty concerning God, so as to promote pride, but I certainly am a realist when it comes to talking about God. When in discussions with atheists I affirm, "God exists" and they reply, "God does not exist," we may need to be sure that we mean the same thing by "God," but there is no equivocation on the meaning of "exists." I take it that the biblical view is realism, and if modern theology feels uncomfortable about that, so much the worse for modern theology! As philosopher Thomas Morris used to say, the biblical God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Anselm.

............What makes God more than just one being among many is precisely His aseity: God alone is self-existent; everything else exists contingently. Only God exists of Himself (a se); everything else exists through another (ab alio). That makes God the source of being for everything apart from Himself.

This doctrine is challenged by platonism, which holds that there are infinities of infinities of uncreated, necessary beings which exist a se, abstract objects like numbers, properties, and propositions. Truly, on platonism God is but one being among many and not the Creator from Whom and through Whom all things exist ( I Cor. 8.6).........

So.....God is not just a set of properties. A set is an abstract object, as are, most plausibly, properties. But God is a concrete object, capable of exerting causal power to bring about effects. Moreover, the set {all knowing, all powerful, all loving, all good} isn't itself all knowing, all powerful, all loving, and all good, any more than the set of odd numbers is itself an odd number! So God is clearly not just a set of properties. There needs to be something that has those properties, a substance or thing which is all knowing, etc. God is such a substance. Not a physical substance, of course, but a spiritual substance like a mind.

Indeed, because I am an anti-platonist, I'm inclined to say that sets and properties don't really exist. We use talk of sets and properties as a convenient façon de parler, but such talk shouldn't be taken literally. So while I certainly think that God is all knowing, all powerful, all loving, and all good, I don't cash that out in terms of God's standing in some mysterious relation called exemplification to some abstract objects beyond space and time. Ironically, in that sense I agree with Aquinas that God is not composed of substance and properties (or accidents, in his terminology). But then neither are we!" (William Lane Craig)

We must be careful here with what we claim is objective truth in merely contextual terms, such that we cannot assert that round squares do not exist in All-Contexts, Everywhere, Ever, Always. Your appeal to Contextual Semantics is, ultimately, in denial of Logic in some context somewhere.

The possiblity of round squares, somewhere, for all we know, in some-context, embedded and hidden within the Subtext beneath one's feet cannot defend the Context above one's head, and that is not "enough" to "get by".

Hey Scott,

If people want to claim that there is such a thing as objective morality then surely one needs to do a little better than citing some examples and just asserting that they are examples. That is exactly what went on here - I'm not sure what you mean by a 'reasoned basis'.

As to taking things to their logical conclusion - I disagree. The Hitler v Theresa example is a classic scare tactic.

I'm making no claims here. I dont know what the origin of our morality is. All I know is that there are serious problems with any school of thought.

The above quotation from WL Craig deals with the question of abstract objects. Craig denies the existence of a Platonic, abstract exemplar. Instead he affirms the existence of a concrete exemplar. In his own words:

"So on my view neither numbers nor moral values are abstract objects. Rather I take the Good to be a concrete object, namely, God Himself. God Himself is the paradigm of Goodness."


Observe that this quote comes from the same document as the other quote.


Yes, but he ends that road in Mind. As per the enjoyable thread in "All Brain No Mind". If "Mind" is the Start/End of definition (you seem to agree with this) then we only need to know if you consider "Mind" to be an "Objectively Real" entity. After that, it is simply a matter of can My-Mind know Your-Mind, or can Self know Other. If Mind is not an objective reality, then, per your thread in All Brain No Mind, there will be no objective [anything, ever] for Mind is the bedrock of [all things] (per your thread in All Brain No Mind].

If the Subjective is the only Real, then the only Real is still Real, and therefore objectively so.

Perhaps WL was correct, and you seek to have it both ways?

As for Contextual Semantics, you may be left with a Subtext which cannot support Context, ultimately, for round squares are permitted "somewhere for all we know", or, Consciousness (that is, Man's Consciousness) is not granted the end of ad infinitum, despite such a Grant being in no way in need of knowing infinitely.

Logic and Love have much to say of Consciousnes, or, of Mind, and, that vise versa.......


I'm making no claims here.

Really, how about these?

- "The Hitler v Theresa example is a classic scare tactic."
- All I know is that there are serious problems with any school of thought."

Regarding the last one, can you list some of these problems?

Because we are social beings, we've evolved a whole suite of behaviors and emotions that fall into the 'moral' sphere. These are things that make living among others possible.

Or, you can turn that around that because we've evolved a certain suite of behaviors that fall into the moral sphere we can be social beings.

These behaviors and emotions are very very deeply embedded in our nature. This is what is objectively true.

The torture-for-fun challenge is designed take advantage of the depth of that embedding. We gave up things like torture-for-fun before we became human. TFF is repulsive to us. It's against our nature just as nesting on the ground is against an eagle's nature.

So don't let stumping someone with TFF build your confidence.

You have not given evidence.



How is it a scare tactic? Why do you feel it is not the logical conclusion? It seems fairly straightforward to me.

Also, I think it's important to make sure we're talking apples and apples. I don't believe Brett made the leap to the basis for morality. You claimed to not know the basis for morality. It seems to me that Brett wasn't attempting to establish a basis as much as he was attempting to illustrate that morality is objective.


I checked and you signed neither the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence.

So why don't you stop capitalizing every other word?



It seems that if we claim that TFF is not a big part of human nature, then perhaps we do not know the world in which we live. We know many who harm (induce pain in) others with either word, deed, or both for no good reason other than coming out on top: Tooth and Claw. This ends us at the 51%/49% game of what is "right", or, it ends us at but one more version of Man's Inhumanity to Man, which the world abounds with. Hence "the world is to evil for there to be a God". You speak as if the human element is all one, smooth, uniform incline. It is not.


We gave up things like torture-for-fun before we became human.

We did?

You have not given evidence.

Let’s have some evidence on when we gave up TFF? After that evidence is provided, we can discuss why we gave it up and whether or not the ‘pre-humans’ that indeed gave it up did so because of majority rule or necessity.

After that, we can discuss whether or not the method of deciding to give up TFF had any bearing on what TFF was in the first place.


Raising quite reasonable objections to somebody else's argument is not the same as making a counter claim about some other position.

Simply stating that 'Moral position X' is objective does not make it so. On what basis is that claim supported? I agree with Bretts examples being moral positions - but objective? How so?


The Mother Theresa v Hitler argument is an appeal to emotion rather than a logical standpoint. It doesnt mean moral relativism is a bad thing - its just an explanation.

And how does Brett demonstrate that morality is objective? He doesnt do any sort of job in eveincing that claim.

Has morality not changed over time? Do different cultures have different moral standpoints? How does moral objectivity account for that? Is torture wrong? Moral objectivity doesnt cope with the myriad examples that can be dreamed up

The difficulty with moral relativism is that it reduces down to nihilism - what is the value of any action? Moral relativism leads to different conclusions in similar circumstances and begins to allow different weight to be given to factors based on ones personal experiences - would you kill one to save 5?

Thats why there is a philosophical debate.


I think some of you may have misunderstood what Brett was trying to do in this video. I don't get the impression Brett was trying to prove that there are objective moral values. The purpose of the examples was to get the other person's moral intuitions to rise to the surface in hopes that by thinking about the example, the other person will come to realize that the already believe in objective moral values. Nothing Brett said amounted to an argument for objective moral values. So pointing out that Brett failed to substantiate his claim that torturing babies for fun is objectively wrong is to misunderstand what Brett was trying to accomplish with the example.

God has built that equipment into every human being...

I find this assertion very problematic. The more we learn about the brain, the more we begin to learn that some people lack this equipment - literally.

Some people are born with brains that don't function properly, some people experience traumatic injury and lose brain function, etc.

The problem is pretty obvious from here. If the argument for moral objectivity depends on every human being "having the equipment," the rest of the argument is weakened (if not completely undermined) when human beings become natural exceptions to that rule.


What broke the equipment, and how?

How do you explain to an evangelical apologist that the objectivity of morality probably doesn't require theism?

One's desire and pleasing with an ought to kill or love are Real: they exist. Immutability requires more than this sort of arbitrary contextual semantic. Slavery is an objectively semantic reality so much so that there are more slaves now then there has ever been, ever, and this because people like having them. It's good/acceptable. Contextual semantics gives us this and no more. Immutable Love within Eternal Personhood gives much, much more.


God has built that equipment into every human being.

Some people are born with brains that don't function properly, some people experience traumatic injury and lose brain function, etc. The problem is pretty obvious from here.

Hardly. I don’t necessarily use the ‘God wrote it on each human heart’ language when discussing objective morality (though I do believe it), but human beings have all kinds of equipment built-in.

It doesn’t follow that because the brain can’t do X, that X is somehow compromised. If all brains could perceive or function correctly in relation to X, X is still X. X is unchanged despite these differences. The smell of cooked broccoli is unchanged even if one doesn't have the ability to smell it.

If my brain can’t tell reality from fantasy, it doesn’t follow that reality is in question. If this is the argument you’re using I find it extremely odd. If you want to ask why God would create a human being deficient in this area then ask that rather than making sweeping statements about morality based on what one human’s cognitive abilities are.


First of all, TFF is not special. It's just one of many things that work against being a successful social species. In fact, it works against being a solitary species too; it's not adaptive. It's like killing all your offspring or castrating yourself.

The evidence that we gave it up before we were human is that other animals have given it up too - if they ever practiced it. Non-human animals don't torture for any reason - let alone for fun. TFF is not adaptive so we have no interest in it; indeed it repels us.

Genes build organisms to preserve themselves, of course.
The next priority is close kin.
After that other conspecifics.
Preservation can be done actively (protect) or passively (don't harm without reason).



The OP suggests trotting out TFF because it stumps people. These people feel they can either hold their fire (agree that TFF is 'objectively wrong') in which case they have granted the apologist a premise ('Objective moral values' exist.) without his having to support that premise OR they can say TFF is not 'objectively wrong' in which case the apologist can ask What kind of person are you anyway?

TFF: the apologists human shield.

People are stumped by the TFF gambit and annoyed. But not convinced. They sense there is a problem even if they don't know how to express it.


Humans torture for fun all the time.


There are more slaves now then ever before. Ever. Owners like it. It fosters perpetuation.

You seem at odds with the Real-World.

I heard it said once that, if one can persuade a person into a position, one can just as easily persuade him out of it.

The examples given have been acceptable at times in certain cultures. ('Exposing' babies, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the 'spoils' of war, etc.)

For, if they were accepted as truly objective, they wouldn't have been practiced, however bad things got.

I believe the law of gravity is objective, and so the consequences of jumping off a skyscraper prevent me from doing so, and if we believed morality was just as objective, we'd treat it with the same respect we treat gravity.

As a result, every evil is justifiable eventually. Christians thought contraception universally wrong until 1931 when it became convenient. The existence of Hell is now questioned, as is marriage and the conjugal act itself, through the doctrinal equivalent of an 'Overton Window'. It's no longer 'the woman made me do it', but the Lambeth Conference, Rob Bell, etc.. - some scapegoat.

I often find STR just too optimistic about man's ability to discern morality, as well as the correct biblical interpretation of scripture, through the use of man's capacity of reasoning, as if being really committed to selflessness and quashing all personal bias, one would be able to discern right and wrong.

As Ben says, you've got to have something more meaty than semantic objectivity.

It seems Mind, and that Uncreated, is that out of which [all real things] flow, or, that upon which [all real things] are inevitably grounded.

Perhaps WL is correct after all (though I probably arrive at his destination via a different route) with, “…..And, of course, I do believe there was at least one mind before there were any physical objects...there has to have been one, since there is no mind independent physical reality. That mind is God……”

Anthony Flew echoes this: "Some have said that the laws of nature are simply accidental results of the way the universe cooled after the big bang. But, as Rees has pointed out, even such accidents can be regarded as secondary manifestations of deeper laws governing the ensemble of universes. Again, even the evolution of the laws of nature and changes to the constants follow certain laws. 'We’re still left with the question of how these "deeper" laws originated. No matter how far you push back the properties of the universe as somehow "emergent," their very emergence has to follow certain prior laws.'1 So multi-verse or not, we still have to come to terms with the origin of the laws of nature. And the only viable explanation here is the divine Mind.”

[Mind] and [the Immaterial] become a bedrock for all things Real: “If [the universe had not a beginning] then we are faced with an everlasting impulse which, by its very nature, is opaque to scientific thought. Science, when it becomes perfect, will have explained the connection between each link in the chain and the link before it. But the actual existence of the chain will remain wholly unaccountable. We learn more and more about the pattern. We learn nothing about that which feeds real events into the pattern. If it is not God, we must at the very least call it Destiny; the immaterial, ultimate, one-way pressure which keeps the universe on the move.” (C.S. Lewis)

Mind and the Immaterial again rise to the surface yet again:

"If time and space came into existence (as physics, philosophy, and theology all indicate), this means, by necessity, there was a first cause beginning the existence and subsequent chain of events in this universe. Since nothing caused that first cause (by definition), we can know two things about it:

1. The first cause had to have begun this universe by a decision of will. We know this because the first event was not a natural result of an earlier event (since there were no earlier events), and only a personal being can will to initiate something that's not an automatic result of an earlier chain of impersonal causes.

To illustrate why a personal being with a will is necessary to begin a chain of events, imagine you're watching a row of dominoes in a room where nothing else exists. Once that first domino falls, the falling of each domino can be explained by the previous domino that hit it.

But if nothing besides you exists in that room, how will the first domino fall? There is no natural force compelling it to fall-no earthquakes, no falling objects, no wind to knock over another object that would then cause it to fall. Nothing. You could watch it for all of eternity, and nothing would ever happen.

The only way those dominoes will begin to fall is if you decide on your own, expressing your own will and not physically compelled by any nonexistent prior event, to begin the chain of events by knocking over the first domino. The only way an unchanging state can change is if an agent with a will chooses to step in and begin the process.

2. The being who acted as the first cause of everything in existence must be a self-existent being that did not come into existence (or else that being would not be the first cause). That being is God. By definition, as the first cause, He does not have a cause.”

On that which Mind and which Knowing [Exemplify] in the In vs. the Out, or, in the Inside vs. the Outside:

"Human intellect is incurably abstract. Pure mathematics is a type of successful thought. Yet the only realities we experience are concrete; this pain, this pleasure, this dog, this man. While we are loving the man, bearing the pain, enjoying the pleasure, we are not intellectually apprehending Pleasure, Pain or Personality. When we begin to do so, on the other hand, the concrete realities sink to the level of mere instances or examples: we are no longer dealing with them, but with that which they exemplify. This is our dilemma; either to taste and not to know or to know and not to taste, or, more strictly, to lack one kind of knowledge because we are in an experience or to lack another kind because we are outside it. As Thinkers we are cut off from what we think about; as tasting, touching, willing, loving.. we do not clearly understand. The more lucidly we think, the more we are cut off: the more deeply we enter into reality, the less we can think. You cannot 'study' Pleasure in the moment of nuptial embrace, nor repentance while repenting, nor analyze the nature of humor while roaring with laughter. But when else can you really know these things? "If only my tooth ache would stop, I could write another chapter about Pain." But once it stops, what do I know about pain?" (C.S. Lewis)

It seems Created Minds, Created Selves, who stem either off of our out of the Uncreated Mind, encounter this Taste-See juxtaposed to this Know-Think. Here we find two sorts of Knowledge, that of the Inside and that of the Outside, “……to lack one kind of knowledge because we are in an experience or to lack another kind because we are outside it……..” Know. Taste. Here Logic and Love within Consciousness have much to teach us and within Logic and within Love we find we come to the end of ad infinitum to that Uncreated Mind wherein Eternal Love dwells alongside of Logic’s Immutable Semantics of All-Contexts and the Created-Self here Knows-Thinks, or, and, depending on the depth of immersion, Tastes-Sees and Mind knows Mind, Created-Self touches Uncreated-Other, and it never could be otherwise. Though not knowing Infinitely, the Created-Self sees to that Hard-Stop that is the Immutable and Uncreated-Other in which Will is inevitably found within Aristotle’s Uncaused Cause over in the Immaterial, and, in that Will the Created-Mind touches Personhood, and this Uncreated. The I here Knows, here Tastes the You, and Love’s Eternal Embrace therein lies Immutable, Uncreated.


You are correct. What is needed is the Immutable Semantics of an Eternal Language. Such a thing seems to exist, viewed from either the Inside or the Outside.

Perhaps this from another page:

It seems all Real Things are Mind-Dependent. It seems Mind knows Mind. Can Know Mind. Does Know Mind. Logic and Love see to the end of ad infinitum from Outside experience and Inside experience, and these, though not knowing infinitely, touch that Hard Stop that is the Uncreated Mind in which Will speaks with the Immutable Semantics of an Eternal Language and Consciousness in All-Contexts finds the I there Knowing, there Tasting, the You, and Love’s Embrace is thus found, and that eternally so. There are no round squares, just as, the Uncreated Is-Personhood.


First of all, TFF is not special.

This isn’t at issue though I find TFF very special. It’s especially wicked. Something I think you would agree with, say, if you were having a chat with a friend about the daily headlines.

It's just one of many things that work against being a successful social species. In fact, it works against being a solitary species too; it's not adaptive. It's like killing all your offspring or castrating yourself.

I agree. Killing your offspring doesn’t lead to the success of the species (if that’s a good goal in your view), but it still doesn’t answer my question. Why does the moralness of an act depend on this exclusive arbitrary criterion?

Eating transfats everyday doesn’t promote the species either – is that immoral?

The evidence that we gave it up before we were human is that other animals have given it up too - if they ever practiced it. Non-human animals don't torture for any reason - let alone for fun.

Non-human animals do all sorts of things that if human beings practiced them they would be considered immoral. If they’re just animals, however, why bring them up?

What exactly is the point of this argument? Relativism vs. Absolutism? And to what end? So Christians can easily campaign against homosexuality (or whatever else they want) in the public arena?

There is a difference between relativism and respect for difference. Your example of Hitler/Mother Theresa, it moves to say there is a universal morality against the actions of Hitler. That is to say, nobody should do what Hitler did; it was wrong. Similarly, should everybody do what Mother Theresa did because it was good? I suspect you would adamantly deny this assertion. Is that relativism? No. It is a respect for our differences and our ability to choose how we live our life so long as we aren't living a heinous lifestyle committed to killing or denying rights to others.

Almost nobody living on this world is living a life that mimics Hitler or Mother Theresa. We are all somewhere in between. So we aim to give much mercy and respect for our differences. That isn't relativist. It is respect for our innate heterogeneity, our God-given differences.

You want to have an honest conversation about specific areas of morality, do it. I welcome it. But this kind of vague argument is, as has been said, a scare tactic to say that if one tries to respect differences and allow a pluralistic society, they are allowing Hitler to torture their children. That isn't philosophy; that demagoguery.

Thomas, the point of showing that there are objective morals is not so Christians can campaign against homosexuality. Rather, it's because it's essential to the gospel. If there are no objective morals, then there's no such thing as sin, and if there's no such thing as sin, then Christ didn't die for sins. That Christ died for sins is essential to the gospel, so if there are no objective morals, then Christianity is not true.

It's also one of the premises in the moral argument for God:

1. If there is no God, then then are no objective morals.
2. There are objective morals.
3. Therefore, there is a God.


Let's qualify "objective".

Some use that word to mean whatever semantic rule we develope among ourselves. "Slavery is good for society" has such "Objective Semantics". This is just a fancy way of saying our own evoloved rules and semantics / word choices (all based in whim) "exist". Which of course is not what the Christian means. The Christian means that there exists a Hard Stop of Personhood such that affronts against Personhood, while perfectlly allowed and in full existence, find themselves pressing up against something that not only exists, but is Immutable, and, therein, there is the Immutable Semantics of that Eternal Language spoken by that Mind which precedes all things, Whose Name is Love, in Whom the I-You eternally beget the singular We. This is Love's Triune.

In other words, should 100% of humanity declare "X" to be "good" or "right" we find but mutable and arbitrary semantics which "exist", and, there is yet Another Immutable and Eternal against which that presses in a futile push to define Real.

The Immutable Semantics of No-Round-Squares exist Anywhere, Ever, Always, is half of this, as is found in Logic, while, the other half is found in Love's identical reach to the end of ad infinitum where the Everywhere and Always lives Uncreated.

The alternative is that round squares just may exist in "some context somewhere" "for all we know".

@ Maria

"How do you explain to an evangelical apologist that the objectivity of morality probably doesn't require theism?"

You don't, because you cannot.

If there is no God (and the particular type of God described in Scripture) upon what basis can we make any moral standards/categories at all?

In other words, who decides what's morally right or wrong, or whether moral right and wrong even exist?


You’re confusing universally held moral instincts (it’s wrong to torture, for example) with universal moral truths. Both explain what we see, but the first one doesn’t handwave supernatural grounding into existence—much easier to accept.


What reasons would you give in favor of moral relativism?

Let's not imagine a false dichotomy between objective morality (morality is grounded outside humans) and relative morality (I have my "truth" and you have yours, and I can say nothing against your "truth"). Most atheists I know would reject both of these.


Many humans enjoy torturing. Thus "universal" does not apply here. If you mean to call such pathologic then you do so based on majority/minority precepts.

For most of human history slavery has been considered "normal" and even "good". We would need to argue that we evolve out of this, as one famous atheist describes, for equality is a herd mentality which has evolved in the weaker in their attempt to foist their will upon the stronger. If there is some other mechanism which the atheist posits to account for the presence of appetites, I have yet to see it put forth.

That which perpetuates itself in the gene pool will remain, thus the presence of rape, and so forth. Again, if there is another mechanism which accounts for the presence of itching, vomiting, appetites, and so forth, in the human element, I have yet to see it put forth by atheists.

Rape is here to stay. It is simply too strong to be selected out of existence. If you mean to posit "that which promotes the species is 'good'" then so be it. That would be consistent with what I have seen Atheists posit. FYI: Sex slavery is on a rapid rise the world over: it is out pacing the population in percentage growth per million. It seems we are evolving toward a stronger liklihood of survival.

I have seen no other explanation put forth by atheists. "Good" equals "that which perpetuates the Self".


Most well published atheists posit arbitrary morality. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music...... I have more respect for such honesty than for other, less honest, commentators.

The comments to this entry are closed.