[AndyTheBear]

It is the equivalent of me blaming the despotism and genocide of the previous two thousand years on Jesus.

...

And even then it was the religiously motivated Islamic invasion of the Indian Subcontinent that still stands as the greatest mass genocide in all of history.

Both you and I are able to look back at these social trends and declare them evil. But there is a problem with your theory of why:

It should offend us because we possess empathy and understand that what we do not want to happen to us is thereby wrong. I think most people start figuring that out by about age 5.

The social evils that offended us, were not offensive to all the people involved. Certainly not all of the nazis who thought it was right to exterminate jews were younger than 5. So how is it that they thought they were doing right? So your answer to this implied question seems to be:

The problem comes when people start proposing moral systems based not on empathy but on "revealed truth."

But certainly we both can see that "revealed truth" is not always a common factor in all the goings on we object to. And on the other hand the holding of some "revealed truth" is not always a cause for what we consider evil, but sometimes a cause for what we would call good. I find three of four cases easy to think of examples for:

1) Stalin: Evil with no "revealed truth".

2) Mohammed: Evil with "revealed truth".

3) Mother Teresa: Good with "revealed truth"

While I'm pretty sure there are examples of relative good without "revealed truth", most of the people who epitomize good in my mind seemingly believed in "revealed truth". Perhaps you know of some examples off the top of your head?

But honestly, can we not both admit "revealed truth" as the commonality of evil doesn't pan out?

But I suspect what you were really driving at was being "wrong" about the truth? That the problem comes when people have false notions about what moral truth is? And presumably you think of "revealed truth" as being perilously arbitrary in that regard, and empathy should be our guide.

If so, naturalism still has a problem. Why "should" empathy be our guide? What standard tells us so? And how is such a standard not ultimately just as arbitrary as some false revelation by a religious nut?

Perhaps survival and happiness are what is ultimately good? But then who told us that. Why is it better for life to continue at all? On the naturalist view, the only reason we think so is that such a disposition made us more likely to survive and reproduce et al.

A consistent and thoughtful naturalist is forced to believe all moral systems are products of natural processes, and have no more validity than the result of a coin toss. Even if its a "good" natural cause like a warm fuzzy "empathy"...and if you think it through, you can find times where empathy sometimes leads to bad moral decisions.

Alternatively, if you accept that some things really are good and some things really evil, logic insists you accept it as a transcendent truth that was somehow revealed to us. Otherwise, we are just making arbitrary judgments as the biochemistry in our brains directs us.

[EnderWiggins]

”The social evils that offended us, were not offensive to all the people involved. Certainly not all of the nazis who thought it was right to exterminate jews were younger than 5. So how is it that they thought they were doing right?”

I will address the question directly rather than (and I hope you don’t mind) considering the straw man answer you provided for me. After all... you deserve my answer rather than your own.

First and foremost, let’s not pretend that European anti-Semitism derives originally from some naturalistic philosophy. Hatred for the Jews is instead a long standing characteristic of Christianity and found a welcome reception in post-war Germany specifically because it already had such a long Christian tradition. As a primarily Lutheran nation, we need only observe that Martin Luther’s vicious hatred for the Jews was no small component of the rhetoric of the Reformation.

In Luther’s book On the Jews and Their Lies we find the foundation of Nazi anti-Semitism. Luther calls them a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth." He writes that they are full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine." He urges that their synagogues and schools be burned to the ground, their homes torn down, their property and money confiscated. He recommends that these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. And he finally advocates their genocide, writing "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them."

Hitler’s anti-jewish rhetoric was well refined because he had in Martin Luther (among others) a very good teacher.

So out of the gate we can see that at least some of them “thought they were doing right” because they were pious Christians before they were Nazis. I would argue that most were motivated by these religious convictions, and the Nazi leadership merely took advantage of the groundwork that had been provided by the Gospels.

Second, who here has pretended for a second that no people are sociopaths? Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by a lack of empathy... the very characteristic that allows “you and I ... to look back at these social trends and declare them evil.” This is why the rest of us create moral/ethical frameworks and then attempt to impose them on the community through the formulation of law. We have the imperative to protect ourselves from the worst among us.

”But certainly we both can see that "revealed truth" is not always a common factor in all the goings on we object to.”

It is odd that you are trying to saddle me with this particular straw man, since I already called it absurd in my previous post. It is not and has never been my contention that “revealed truth” is the root of all evil. In fact, I find most religious traditions to be at the very worst benign, at the best great sources of solace, continuity, community and beauty. Alas... such traditions no longer have the franchise for most human devotion since they have been rather ruthlessly suppressed over the last few millennia by the anomalously intolerant imposition of “exclusive monotheism” in forms of Islam and Christianity.

By “exclusive monotheism” I mean religions that exclude all non-believers (infidels) from the benefits of salvation. If you do not believe in their particular version of God, you are essentially reduced to a lesser sub-human status, worthy ultimately of oppression, exploitation and slaughter. I mean after all... what can a true believer do to an infidel that is worse than what God has planned for them; eternal suffering in a lake of fire?

”While I'm pretty sure there are examples of relative good without "revealed truth", most of the people who epitomize good in my mind seemingly believed in "revealed truth". Perhaps you know of some examples off the top of your head? “

Robert Wilson (Atheist) – Gave the Archdiocese of New York received a record-breaking gift of $22.5 million to provide educational scholarships for inner-city children. Asked why he did it, Wilson said, "It was a chance for a very modest amount of money to get kids out of a lousy school system and into a good school system."

Bill Gates (Atheist) - Has given over $36 billion to charity.

Andrew Carnegie (Atheist) - Gave away most of his money to establish many libraries, schools, and universities in America, the United Kingdom and other countries, as well as a pension fund for former employees.

Warren Buffett (Atheist) - In 2007 gave $30.7 billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Ted Turner (Atheist) - Has donated $600 million to UN causes, and has pledged to add another $400 million - taking his commitment to $1 billion.

Fred Hollows (Atheist) – “Australia's unofficial saint.’ His foundation has provided cataract operations for the needy around the world.

S.H.A.R.E. (The Secular Humanist Aid and Relief Effort) - Has contributed aid to the Tsunami disaster relief effort in Sri Lanka; Medical relief for victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans; Aid to assist displaced families in the California wildfires; Basic food aid for tornado victims in middle Tennessee; Aid to the families of the February 2009 plane crash in Clarence, NY.

I could go on... but you did ask for “just off the top of my head.”

”If so, naturalism still has a problem. Why "should" empathy be our guide? What standard tells us so? And how is such a standard not ultimately just as arbitrary as some false revelation by a religious nut?”

Again, we stray into the excruciating and often pointless philosophical miasma of “ought” vs. “is.” I do not particularly care to waste significant bandwidth over the question “Why ‘should’ empathy be our guide?” because our speculations on that matter are ultimately of no consequence.

Empathy is the origin of all morality and moral systems. It is the basis by which each (or at least most) individuals understands viscerally without instruction that a difference exits between wrong and right. “Ought” it to be that way? I don’t particularly care. Because when I leave my front door and engage with the universe I must account for what actually “is,” not for how I wish it were.

”Perhaps survival and happiness are what is ultimately good? But then who told us that. Why is it better for life to continue at all? On the naturalist view, the only reason we think so is that such a disposition made us more likely to survive and reproduce et al. “

Close, but not quite. You asked, “Who told us that?” And the answer has always been, “We told us that.” This inexplicable need that some have for things to be imposed on us by some external “other” is fascinating, but ultimately little more than a pleasant fiction.

We are what we are because it works. If it didn’t, then the ruthless and invariant operation of natural law would have gotten rid of us long ago. You came closest to hitting the nail on the head when you mused, “the only reason we think so is that such a disposition made us more likely to survive and reproduce.”

Of course!!That is what has worked for us and made us successful. Heck, we certainly do not have the tools that other species have for success. We do not have the teeth of a lion, the claws of a bear, the poison of a pit viper, the size of a blue whale. Even our big brains would serve us in poor stead were we to try to stand alone against most other organisms on the planet. It is the fact that we are social animals that generates our success as a species. We do not and cannot survive as individuals... we only survive as communities. And critical to that communal success is the empathy that we have evolved to transform individual desire into communal imperative.

”A consistent and thoughtful naturalist is forced to believe all moral systems are products of natural processes, and have no more validity than the result of a coin toss. Even if its a "good" natural cause like a warm fuzzy "empathy"...and if you think it through, you can find times where empathy sometimes leads to bad moral decisions.”

So... excuse me... you actually believe that there is such a thing as a perfect moral system which never leads to bad decisions? Can you show me one?

We do not design our moral systems to be perfect. We design them to be good enough for the community.

But since a community can be anything ranging from two consenting adults negotiating a sexual encounter, to the family, to the economic business organization, to the city, to the nation/state, to the global community with shared interests in global assets such as clean water and the ozone layer... there will be always be irremediable conflicts. Each individual operates within overlapping and different sets of morals and ethics relevant to the communities to which that individual belongs. And the same act can be either moral, immoral or have no moral implications whatsoever depending on the communities involved. And when different communities overlap the identical act can be both moral and immoral at the same time... depending again on the perspective of that community.

Hey... it’s messy stuff. Just like real life.

”Alternatively, if you accept that some things really are good and some things really evil, logic insists you accept it as a transcendent truth that was somehow revealed to us. Otherwise, we are just making arbitrary judgments as the biochemistry in our brains directs us. “

Since it is clear that this is your position, I’d love for you to give me a discrete and granular example of one of these things that “really are good [or] really evil.” I mean something that is simply never, ever of a character opposite from its inherent ‘goodness” or badness.”

I will telegraph my own position here... the universe shows us without question that there are no such things. We pretend there are, but do not genuinely believe there are.

Even the few rules that almost all moral systems agree on are ultimately only suggestions at best. There is (for example) not a people on the planet who actually believes that "Thou shalt not kill."

Everything that we can label good is sometimes evil. And everything that we label evil is sometimes not only good... it is necessary. This is because the universe does not care what we label things. The universe operates entirely dependent on what “is,” not on what “ought.”

The biggest failing of "revealed truth” is that it causes so many of us to abdicate the hard work around defining what is good or bad to some great cosmic lawgiver who does not ultimately exist. It allows us to stop making moral choices at all and instead blindly follow like sheep those who would use the authority of God to manipulate us against our genuine interests. It misleads us into bleieveing that we are not responsible for those choices.

The most obscene statement I have ever read is this:

“God said it. I believe it. And that settles it.”

In those ten words you have set the stage for atrocity.