It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Though I could tell the argument wasn't going to amount to much when he made the presupposition that human florishing and cooperation were Good things.
He also states that everything is experienced in the brain(even thoughts and feelings)
so on a scientific basis thoughts are simply chemical reactions. One chemical reaction cannot be more good than another chemical reaction….
Basically what he did was try and appeal to the moral sense in humans and hide it behind the word well being.
The question is about the ontological existence of moral laws.
Next and more damning is his positioning of heaven and hell, good and evil as "religious morals". That is disingenuous. Those are enforcement mechanisms NOT morals.
Don't lie. Don't steal. Don't cheat on your spouse. So on. Those are morals. Not "heaven and hell".
That was enough evidence for me to "trash bin" it....
I’m not sure I understand what you’re disagreeing with. Unless you disagree with the whole underlying premise of his speech.
He’s suggesting it’s morally correct to value human flourishing and cooperation
Which is what the science is in support of. He’s got a Ph.D in neuroscience so he’s using that knowledge.
Or do you just mean whether they have existence in an objective sense?
Saying that we can look at factual truths [a scientific thing to do] of the World and our experience of the World as it relates to well-being and flourishing as a society.
What standard is he appealing to to say it is good to value human flourishing and cooperation?
Therefore on a scientific basis one can't assign anything more than mere chemical reaction to the idea of thought.
He done nothing to show there is an objective standard that say human flourishing should be valued to begin with.
In a scientific view of things, humans are just evolved bags of star dust fizzing chemically.
So that I understand, you feel the Ten Commandments are invalid due to the claim they are 'God-Sourced'.
originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy
It's not a premise, per say, more of a question.
I took a smoke break and thought this out a bit more.
As Religion has diminished in the west, I have also observed a definite drop in morals at all levels of society.
This is empirical and the correlation is hard to argue. Secularism and it's rise is also part of this observation. That's where this question comes up.
In general, moral codes seem to have their genus in religion. I care not which came first the chicken or the egg.