Einie wrote
Quote:Exactly, if you aren't going to set up a system of ethics religion isn't going to help you do it. Theistic notions are not relevant.
OK
Quote:People have always formed social contracts, it is in their selfish interests to do so. The social contract will then enshrine the interests, selfish or not, of those with the power to shape it. This will not end regardless of peoples religious views.
This will not end full stop.
Quote:I can't answer for "proponents of evolution".
Semantics. Oh well, you're right, make it people with an understanding of evolution.
No don't.I speak for myself.I can't answer for anybody no materr what flag they fly.
Quote:Selfishness is the answer,Or convenience.Nothing to do with principles or ethical imperatives.
That same convinience would have you enter a social contract no doubt.
No problem.
Quote:You've just conceded my point, morality does not logically follow from theism any more than it does from evolution and vica versa. If your argument is to hold water now you'll have to argue that the general population of theists do not harbor any system of ethics, and only act morally due to the promise of punishment/reward.
That's a bit cynical but I don't mind.I could develop it but I'll refrain.
Quote:There are ethical imperatives, they exist in peoples minds as notions, and are the subject of debate. It follows that there are also first principles.
So notions are objects?The "are" says so.That's materialist theory of mind stuff.But what if these objects,these notions,don't simply change but are in a constant motion like molecules in another object and energised by a flux of data also constantly changing operating in a ground of habit or preferred pathways.And can objects have ethical principles or are the latter merely a a sort of colour.Colour is a big thing to politicians.
Quote:Now, you are making the case that either people do not commonly establish such first principles, and derive a system of ethics, or they are more likely to establish such first principles as theists. I do belive the burden of evidence is on you.
People believe they are establishing first principles which is not quite the same thing as establishing them and they derive a system of ethics from them which they hope will do the job.In my opinion the best set of principles yet established in the world is the monotheist one.One looks around one with a "born in time" mien and one can hardly believe one's good fortune.That might sound complacent but there it is.If you don't feel lucky you may wish to experiment with other ideas.If those who feel unlucky become a majority they will do but people like moaning and groaning as a pastime but not when they vote or not even bothering.
Quote:Why would a person with a theistic world view have more of an inclination to adopt or establish first principles than someone with a materialistic world view?
I don't think that's true.
Quote:And no, I'm not a feminist (I'm male), I'm a classical liberal. And it doesn't take a feminist to scowl on rape, and on the blame the victim approach.
You misunderstand me there.I was simply using that to make a point about change and to help avoid falling in the trap of thinking that now is all there is.
I don't scowl on rape.I think it's ridiculous.An unco-operative woman has as much effect on me as a saucepan full of burnt rice pudding gone cold.There has been a change of agenda in the last thirty years and it has been driven by feminists and they've won the argument hands down.And just look at the state of them.
Gee this quote function thing requires concentration.It's a hard work way of debating.
