Atheism And Moral Progress

[carpedm9587]

There is no way to know, sure, however, it can be used for activities beyond evolutionary outcomes.

Again - I don't see how you can show this to be true.

Up to you really. I am not particularly interested in methodological naturalism, to me it's a form of religious belief on par with actual believers - although exhibiting a different kind of self-righousness. There's usually not much point discussing it, because it gets to the bedrock.

As with most people (I hope), I take the evidence to wherever it goes. When I hit an impasse, I say, "I don't know" for anything beyond the impasse. I might speculate about possibilities beyond that point, but ultimately, "I don't know" is the answer until the impasse can be overcome.

[Zara]

Again - I don't see how you can show this to be true.

I don't either. Leave this here since I can't even remember what the purpose of the thread is anyway?

[shunyadragon]

Actually, fair enough.

And if you want to know what set me off, it was his bald face justification of "rape" as moral as a weapon of war in some tribal societies. Yeah, nah.

Actually yes, rape was a weapon of war in ancient tribal societies as in the Old Testament, but whether it is moral or not at that time is another issue.

[carpedm9587]

I don't either. Leave this here since I can't even remember what the purpose of the thread is anyway?

Nice chatting with you...

[Zara]

Actually yes, rape was a weapon of war in ancient tribal societies as in the Old Testament, but whether it is moral or not at that time is another issue.

No kidding, dumb ass. If it was being used, and provides an evolutionary advantage - then it meets the criteria of Mr. Tasstard.

[shunyadragon]

No kidding, dumb ass. If it was being used, and provides an evolutionary advantage - then it meets the criteria of Mr. Tasstard.

I do not believe it necessarily meets anyone's criteria. It is simply how humans behaved under certain circumstances at a certain time in history. Morals and ethics evolve and vary to a degree from culture to culture over time.

[Zara]

I do not believe it necessarily meets anyone's criteria. It is simply how humans behaved under certain circumstances at a certain time in history. Morals and ethics evolve and vary to a degree from culture to culture over time.

According to Tassman, and you. Again, I don't buy into that view - I find it disgusting even - and am not particularly interested in discussing it further since neither of you can be convinced it is incorrect by anything other than your own ontological naturalism and its method.

[shunyadragon]

According to Tassman, and you. Again, I don't buy into that view - I find it disgusting even - and am not particularly interested in discussing it further since neither of you can be convinced it is incorrect by anything other than your own ontological naturalism and its method.

My moral and ethical standards are not determined by ontological naturalism. I am a Baha'i and my standards are not determined by the behavior of ancient world views nor contemporary self-justified morality and ethics justified by selfish motives.

[Zara]

My moral and ethical standards are not determined by ontological naturalism. I am a Baha'i and my standards are not determined by the behavior of ancient world views nor contemporary self-justified morality and ethics justified by selfish motives.

And what do the Baha'i believe is the moral standard, and is there a ground for it?

[shunyadragon]

And what do the Baha'i believe is the moral standard, and is there a ground for it?

The moral and ethical standards are the Baha'i principles and spiritual laws.

[Zara]

The moral and ethical standards are the Baha'i principles and spiritual laws.

Ok, sounds mildly interesting. What are those principles, and what are the spiritual laws? A list would be fine.

Is it based on some form of evolutionary development by a causal mechinism on the basis of survival and reproductive success leading to moral relativism (if the word moral even binds in such an ontology)?

[shunyadragon]

Ok, sounds mildly interesting. What are those principles, and what are the spiritual laws? A list would be fine.

Source: http://www.bahai.com/Bahaullah/principles.htm

The principles of the Bahá'í Faith were established by Bahá'u'lláh, the Founder of the Faith, in the latter half of the nineteenth century and promulgated by His Son and appointed successor, 'Abdu'l-Bahá during a tireless twenty -nine year ministry. While on an historic teaching trip in 1912 throughout the United States and Canada, 'Abdu'l-Bahá explained Bahá'u'lláh's Teachings to audiences of infinitely varied backgrounds. Many of His talks included discussions of such Bahá'í principles as:

• The oneness of mankind.

• Universal peace upheld by a world government.

• Independent investigation of truth.

• The common foundation of all religions.

• The essential harmony of science and religion.

• Equality of men and women.

• Elimination of prejudice of all kinds.

• Universal compulsory education.

• A spiritual solution to the economic problem.

• A universal auxiliary language.

The explanations of these principles in the sections following are excerpts from the public talks of 'Abdu'l-Bahá in America in 1912, published in The Promulgation of Universal Peace.

© Copyright Original Source

The laws are in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas and are subject to the evolution of spiritual evolution over time, and reflect the Baha'i Principles.

Is it based on some form of evolutionary development by a causal mechanism on the basis of survival and reproductive success leading to moral relativism (if the word moral even binds in such an ontology)?

The Baha'i Faith believes in the physical and spiritual evolution of the nature of our physical existence, life and humanity. The causal mechanism is God.

[Tassman]

According to Tassman, and you. Again, I don't buy into that view - I find it disgusting even -

Whether you “buy” into it or not or find it “disgusting even” is irrelevant, this is where the evidence takes you.

and am not particularly interested in discussing it further since neither of you can be convinced it is incorrect by anything other than your own ontological naturalism and its method.

…methodological naturalism, actually.

[Zara]

I am no longer responding to messages full stop. However, my apologies for name calling and derogatory language - it was unnecessary.

[Jim B.]

It is hard to see what an atheist would mean by moral progress. Would she mean that what agrees with her ethical point of view is progress? Or that more of us agree with each other? I suppose the atheist could look at increasing peace and prosperity as moral progress, but again that would still revert to that which agrees with her ethical point of view (that increasing peace and prosperity is actually a moral good). So it seems that without a universal moral standard to aim at, or move towards, that there is no moral progress, merely moral change.

You don't have to be a theist to be a moral realist, if that's what you mean, Seer. I would say that a good percentage of moral realists among moral philosophers today would be atheist or agnostic. If you mean that theism is the most coherent foundation for moral realism, I agree. But I think it's more complicated than just "Theist=Moral Realist" and "Atheist=Moral Relativist."