Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Evidences for Religion (reposting) Message-ID: <1225@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Tue, 16-Jul-85 12:17:22 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1225 Posted: Tue Jul 16 12:17:22 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 04:16:51 EDT References: <852@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 43 >>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. [PADRAIG HOULAHAN] > 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. Transferred? That assumes that is "was" someplace before. Any particular place that you had in mind? That you might have assumed? Not a transfer at all, but a proper placement. > Why should it matter? Why should I care about improving society? [WINGATE] Because it benefits you. Roads, telecommunications, all these real marvey type things. Could you create and maintain them yourself? Could you ever in your wildest dreams be "self-sufficient". The interdependence of humans and the benefits of cooperation behoove to cooperate or not partake of the fruits of the cooperation. > 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? On the contrary, one's immediate natural instincts lead one to immediate gratification type actions, which in a world with other people will most likely hurt you in the long run. That's one thing humanity has (at least partially) learned over thousands of years, and the reason why such societies are built. The notions have nothing to do wih "human nature", but rather with a system that provides maximal benefits. "You want me to make a donation to the Coast Guard Youth Auxiliary!" -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr