Doesn't the fact that we have to have these social norms for society to work imply that we were somehow designed with a need for morality?

No, it's a very logical decision to form a society. There's pros and cons to be sure, but when you're talking about survival, it makes sense. More people will be able to defend eachother and their mates, use their collective ingenuity to build technology that allows for increased survival, etcetera.

Similarly, if morality works in practice, why shouldn't this be taken for evidence that moral statements can be true?

You know why Jews can't eat pork? Back in the day, they would have gotten trichinosis. It's easier to just tell the masses "God said so, and that's what they did. Really it was keeping their tribes alive, and so they called it a moral standard. You can apply that principle to anything. Even infidelity - part of your survival instinct is to want your own genetic code to pass on to the next generation. Obviously, if your mate is carrying someone else's child that can't happen, especially if you're an animal with a life span on the shorter side. Moral standards allow a society to flourish <---fact, that's their purpose and function. I'm only arguing that since life has no actual value to those living it, neither does society. Since society is an artificial construct of those bound to their instincts, the moral standards that allow it's continuity are also artificial constructs.

And who defines "flourishing."

I would say that evolutionary progress such as increased survival and whatnot. Of course, society's fake morals get in the way of this as well, but again we need to steer away from the topic of genetically inferior reproduction. But like Jurassic Park says, "life finds a way." People will still put themselves and their families first, and eventually this happens on a large enough scale to allow for the house of cards to collapse. Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome... most of them get about 200 years before they end. The signs in our own culture are visible now, they have been to some for years.

"This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars---and yet they have done it themselves."

No, it's a very logical decision to form a society. There's pros and cons to be sure, but when you're talking about survival, it makes sense.

Not at all! There's still all kinds of value judgments that would play into that. Survival is a value. Logic has everything to do with finding means toward ends, but without a value system, there are no ends.

You know why Jews can't eat pork? Back in the day, they would have gotten trichinosis.

How would an ancient Hebrew have known about trichinosis?

It's easier to just tell the masses "God said so, and that's what they did.

Again, here you assume that religion is a sham and that it is in place only because it somehow has survival value. All right, so let's take this to its logical conclusion:

All right, so our belief-forming faculties are aimed (under your evolutionary theory) at survival value not truth.

However, your theory is itself the product of these same belief-forming faculties.

Therefore, either a) the theory is untrustworthy, being logically incoherent or b) we have to bring in some other reason (a Divine creator, for instance) why our belief-forming faculties are trustworthy for delivering true beliefs rather than simply advantageous ones.

In other words, for your story to be plausible at all, some sort of design mechanism aimed at truth, not just survival, is necessary.

TBG

That's a completely different matter. Some people find find cheesecake disgusting, others don't; that's entirely based on an opinion that varies from person to person. Getting drunk is dangerous, and that's a conclusion that has been reached through observance and data.

I hope you don't think, "Hmm, my friend said that getting drunk isn't a good idea. But she finds cheesecake disgusting, and I love cheesecake. So she could be wrong about everything else - I'll have to get drunk just to make sure."

Are you asking me if I invalidate someone's opinion on everything if they don't like cheesecake? Well...yes!

TBG, I think if they saw enough people dying after eating a lot of pork, they would assume it was better to stay away from it, even though they wouldn't have known the technicalities.

As for your other points, I agree with them if survival had actual value to the individual. However, what does life profit a man? Nothing. I've already stated that the truth is my virtue, not for any logical reason, but it still is nonetheless. That's why I do what I do, and seek what I seek.

Now, I am no God, so I won't say I am above any psychological ramifications of life that would drive me to target Christians. I've grown up with them, I know hundreds of them, I know what they believe (a twisted view, you would say), what they're taught, and perhaps most importantly I've been hurt by them, a lot. This isn't to say that I have animosity towards Christians, and at least half of my friends are Christian. But I'm still against anything that opposes the truth, and Christianity isn't consistent with that objective truth I believe in.

But I'm still against anything that opposes the truth, and Christianity isn't consistent with that objective truth I believe in.

And the trouble is, Andrew, that unless you can get away from naturalism, you won't have even that "truth." Again, look at the argument in my previous post: if you assume that everything is the result of natural selection and that our faculties are aimed at survival, not truth, then you will have to conclude that the story you just told, having been produced by these faculties, is not true, merely convenient for survival.

If your faculties are the result of unplanned natural selection, then they cannot be relied upon to deliver the truth, only a better chance of survival.

I've already stated that the truth is my virtue, not for any logical reason, but it still is nonetheless. That's why I do what I do, and seek what I seek.

And, therefore, it is irrational. Further, given your presuppositions, you've set yourself a Sisyphian task---one that is futile. You don't know anything. What truth there is is unknowable by you. Let's face it: given your premises, the task of finding truth isn't possible.

If you want to go grasping at straws for no reason, by all means do so. But don't expect anyone with common sense to be convinced by an argument that is logically incoherent.

TBG

The only way it's logically incoherent is if you are basing this on the assumption that there is a God. Also I feel like you're projecting skepticism onto me, which I certainly am not. I agree that we don't have absolute knowledge yet, and so do you. But there's still a lot of knowledge we do have. It's a house of cards to be sure, but so is your beliefs and everyone else's. However it's consistent with itself and with reality, unlike Christianity (well, Christianity isn't generally self-referentially incoherent, it just goes against the real world).

If your faculties are the result of unplanned natural selection, then they cannot be relied upon to deliver the truth, only a better chance of survival.

Without free will, sure. But here's the kicker, if you don't have free will (and I think you're a Calvinist, right?) then you really can't rely on your reason or experience or a combination of the two to find truth. I can't prove free will exists, but I can demonstrate how it does through process of elimination.

I absolutely agree that my quest is futile, but not for the reason you gave. Knowledge is possible, it's just that I'm going to die eventually so none of it matters. Same goes for every other living being, though. I know most people choose to ignore the fact and live in blissful ignorance*, but that's their choice and I should hope none of us is egotistical enough to believe that our opinions effect the objective reality.

* - By which I literally mean they are ignoring the truth.

Also I feel like you're projecting skepticism onto me, which I certainly am not.

Not at all. I'm just saying that if you were consistent, you would be a skeptic.

Without free will, sure.

That's the point, though: a naturalistic paradigm has no place for free will, which goes by the wayside like the myth of the soul.

But here's the kicker, if you don't have free will (and I think you're a Calvinist, right?)

I am a Calvinist and I believe in freedom of the will, properly defined and explained.

Knowledge is possible

Again, please tell me how you know that your faculties are reliable. I know that mine are because they were given to me by God, who aimed them at truth. But since you reject God's existence, you can't take this way. There are two options here: a) God exists b) you're stuck in Plato's Cave.

TBG

TBG, skepticism doesn't work. If knowledge was impossible, we couldn't know it, so it follows that we have to have knowledge. Even Plato would agree with me on that.

That's the point, though: a naturalistic paradigm has no place for free will, which goes by the wayside like the myth of the soul

You're saying that all things are materialistically determined. I agree that many things are, and that through all our prior events we are slated to choose option a over option b, but the choice is still there. As I said in my last post, saying everything is determined is like saying you know that you can't know anything. If we are determined, then we can't know that for sure either, because the thoughts that allowed us to reason that out are just effects of causes and have no basis for believability. Therefore, we have some limited free will.

I have a question, you believe in irresistible grace? Which I understand as the idea that once God reveals himself to a human, his grace is irresistible, so "free will" is more of a theoretical abstract idea that logically could exist but realistically cannot. You can call it free will all you want but that's like saying a soldier who was pressed into service has the free will to jump off the boat.

TBG, skepticism doesn't work. If knowledge was impossible, we couldn't know it, so it follows that we have to have knowledge. Even Plato would agree with me on that.

Well, no matter what philosophy or belief system you go down, it always seems like there's some sort of paradox or circular reasoning at the core of it.

Tolerance - Everything should be tolerated, except intolerance.

Postmodernism - Every opinion is just as good as the other, except the opinion that says that there is only one right opinion.

Skepticism - Knowledge is impossible, except this piece of knowledge.

Relativism - All knowledge is relative, except for the knowledge that everything is relative.

Scientism - Everything has to be proven empirically! ... Except for this statement, of course.

The more you look at things, the more you realize so much of what people believe is just a paradox.

TBG, skepticism doesn't work.

My point exactly. Therefore naturalism doesn't work.

I have a question, you believe in irresistible grace?

Yes---God reveals Himself to me in a particular way and at the same time changes my very being such that my affections, which were previously opposed to God, are now inclined toward Him, and therefore I freely choose Him.

As I said in my last post, saying everything is determined is like saying you know that you can't know anything. If we are determined, then we can't know that for sure either, because the thoughts that allowed us to reason that out are just effects of causes and have no basis for believability. Therefore, we have some limited free will.

Yes, but might I suggest that this is impossible on a naturalistic paradigm. I've just shown it. The only option left, Andrew, is theism. There's no way around it. You believe in freedom of the human agent, yet your scientistic paradigm leaves no room for that possibility: there are only three options:

a) Learn to live with the logical incoherence of your own belief system.
b) Reject freedom of the human agent.
c) Reject naturalism/scientism.

TBG

God reveals Himself to me in a particular way and at the same time changes my very being such that my affections, which were previously opposed to God, are now inclined toward Him, and therefore I freely choose Him.

So, God changes you so you'll choose him, and then you choose him? Big whoop! The people of North Korea can't even question their "beloved leader," they don't have vocabulary for it as they're so indoctrinated. They 'choose' to worship him, but so what? They don't even understand that they have a choice.

Yes, but might I suggest that this is impossible on a naturalistic paradigm. I've just shown it.

I haven't really seen any evidence to back that up.

So, God changes you so you'll choose him, and then you choose him? . . . They don't even understand that they have a choice.

Well I certainly did! You're grasping at straws with that analogy and you know it! I have the vocabulary, and I know that God is responsible and yet it was a free choice.

I haven't really seen any evidence to back that up.

1) Everything that exists is either matter or energy (naturalism).
2) Matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed, merely change forms from one to the other.
3) Every effect has a cause.
4) Everything that exists in you is either matter or energy.
5) You were caused by your parents who were themselves caused.
6) Everything you do has some material or energy cause.
7) Free will is not materially determined.
8) Either free will is matter/energy or it is not.
8a) If it is not, this contradicts premise 1.
8b) Therefore free will is matter/energy.
9) If free will is matter/energy, then it can be the cause of your actions.
10) However, since you are the product of your parents, your free will is the product of your parents.
11) Therefore free will is causally/materially determined.
12) This contradicts premise 7.
13) Therefore free will does not exist (if premise 1 is true).

TBG

I know that God is responsible and yet it was a free choice.

Then either you don't believe that grace is "irresistible" or you don't really believe you had a choice.

Your proof was pretty good, but it falls apart around 8b. The free will I speak of is limited, sure. I can't use it to fly. I can use it to choose between two caused options, or to cause other options. Causality is like a hillside we're standing on. We can choose to go up the hill or down the hill, but we will usually choose to go down - the option that determinism slates us to choose. It's easier, predictable, etcetera. However, we still have the choice to go uphill, and people do that every day.

Then either you don't believe that grace is "irresistible" or you don't really believe you had a choice.

Andrew, ever heard of compatibilism? I believe both that the grace of regeneration is irresistible and that the choice to accept or reject the Gospel is a real choice. Why is this so difficult?

It's easier, predictable, etcetera. However, we still have the choice to go uphill, and people do that every day.

Ok, but my point is that either your "freewill" is material/energy-based (material for short) or it is not. On a naturalistic worldview, it must be material, therefore like all other material objects, it is caused. And therefore it does not exist.

The question is whether your choice to go up the hill is materially determined. Step 8b (which flows from the others) shows this.

TBG

Andrew, ever heard of compatibilism? I believe both that the grace of regeneration is irresistible and that the choice to accept or reject the Gospel is a real choice. Why is this so difficult?

Sure, but you can say it all you want but it doesn't make it true. It's contradictory; either God chooses who to reveal himself to and they cannot resist him (even if the only reason they can't is because there's no way they would, or he's changed their being, or whatever other reason), or we choose whether to see God or not.

On a naturalistic worldview, it must be material, therefore like all other material objects, it is caused. And therefore it does not exist.

The idea of free will is caused: the chemical reactions in the brain that create the two options. But which option is chosen is freely available to the individual. Whether they go uphill or downhill is the result of free will.