For the Sake of Science

One of the most common theist tricks to avoiding actual discussion on whether something is right or wrong – sometimes even when the topic isn’t even religious in nature – is just to appeal to the notion that they have an objective basis for morality whereas an atheist does not. There are a couple of problems with this. First, it’s a red herring. Learn some basic fucking logic. Second, just because the theist claims to have an objective basis does not mean he does have one. In fact, he’s just assuming his position is correct. If we’re going to let the theist get away with arguing fallacies, then we may as well point out that he has never shown his view to be right. What he needs is evidence, not only for a deity, but for his specific, cultural choice of a deity. No one has provided that to date. Third, the important issue in this red herring isn’t whether or not someone believes in an objective basis for morality, but rather, Is it true? Is it true that there is an objective basis to be had? The answer, of course, is no. The basis we always use is operational; we are a social animal (and it’s important to remember that we are not somehow magically separate from other animals) and we have a basis for acting which is being applied in a modern world but that was evolved for the African jungles and plains, places with animals far more toothier than we were or are.

Filed under: Misc | Tagged: morality, Thought of the day | Leave a comment »