Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Evidences for Religion (reposting)
Message-ID: <852@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 00:49:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.852
Posted: Mon Jul 15 00:49:12 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jul-85 07:31:05 EDT
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 33

In article <353@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes:

>> If human beings, as you believe, are mere biological organisms, bags of
>> protoplasm, collections of chemicals, pieces of meat, then why should there
>> be even the rudimentary morality of non-interference rules which you have
>> plugged many times?  Why should it matter in the least if one collection of
>> chemicals -- if that's all it is -- is violently put permanently out of
>> commission?  This seems to be a notable logical inconsistency between
>> different parts of your beliefs.

>It is consistent to maintain a view point which accords protection to
>members of society on the basis of the increased stability and comfort
>resulting for the group as a whole. This approach does not require absolute
>moralistic criteria.

The hell it doesn't.  You've simply transferred moral authority somewhere
else, in this case to impart "rightness" to societal or group stability and
comfort.  Why should it matter?  Why should I care about improving society?
It should be clear that there still are moral principles here, but (as best
I can ascertain) they derive out of some notion of human nature.  Now,
perhaps you can make an argument on that foundation, but you'll need some
empirical evidence, and even then you'll need a defense as to why this
supposed human nature should be catered to.

I've yet to see an atheistic exposition of morality which deals effectively
with the problem of why you should listen to some agregation of feelings
which we will call shared human nature, instead oneself.  And besides, you
must also deal with the existentialist challenge: is there really any
essential human nature?

Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe

"You want me to make a donation to the Coast Guard Youth Auxiliary!"