re: Does Satanism exist without Christianity?

quote:

---

I'm not aware of any denomination that teaches congregations that it is God's will that people (young people in particular) have pre-martial or extra-marital sex. If you are, you'll have to link me to something to take a look at.

So basically from that list we have homosexuality.

Now here's the thing—even if I agreed that every one of those examples was legit in the context of what we're discussing, that still wouldn't be very much to disagree upon, would it? Not only would it not be very much to disagree upon in terms of volume, but those things aren't very weighty moral dilemmas, are they?

If morality were entirely subjective we wouldn't be quibbling over R-rated movies. We'd have people killing and raping and stealing and cheating whenever they thought they could get away with it.

Even if you do like most atheists and claim that morality is an evolutionary development that genetically programs us to avoid violating feelings of empathy, well, that's still providing an objective basis for the vast consensus we agree upon to act according to. When you claim morality has no objectivity, you deny even that sort of basis.

Now, that sort of basis for morality has no way to validate the reality of right and wrong...it doesn't mean rape is actually "wrong," in the context of violating an actual objective framework of justice, it's just a popular feeling that most people have due to genetic programming, but it's at least some sort of basis outside the individual's mind.

The main thing that is happening with this discussion, though—and it's the same thing that almost always happens with this sort of discussion—is that the lines between epistemology and reality are blurred. This almost always happens when discussing morality with atheists and I can't decide whether it's because they assume certain premises due to their worldview (atheists do that a lot, IME) or if they are trying to avoid the very real philosophical problem that atheism inevitably leads to when discussing morality.

What atheists always want to frame the questions in terms of epistemology, and in doing so they try to sneak in the premise that morality is basically just information instead of conclusions drawn from circumstance in the context of an actual, real, objective reality of justice.

In other words, the almost universal argument of the atheist is, "No one needs God/religion/the Bible to know what is right or wrong."

This ignores the reality of the situation that if no objective standard of justice exists, there is no "right" or "wrong" as we commonly conceptualize those things. Rape may destabilize society (or it may not...one of the biggest problems with arguing morality as a function of utility is that many things we take for granted as being virtuous, such as democracy, are very arguably not the most stable, efficient, or utility-producing systems) and it may be shown to be a bad idea to allow it in society, but it's not "wrong" in the context of having violated actual rights or justice. Or if the basis is feelings of empathy, acting selflessly may make us feel good, but we didn't really do "good" in the context of acting in accordance with a system of justice. (And, what if our feelings change? What if in 50 years, that segment of the population that feels no empathy, the anti-socials, what if that percentage climbs from 1-2% to 10%? And in 100 years, what if it becomes 40%?)

The Christian will agree that the most basic and fundamental tenets of morality are self-evident to almost all humans. That's not the problem.

The problem is that while the atheist thinks those tenets are illusory social or genetic or personal constructs (hey, like gender!), the Christian thinks they are real, and that violating them has real consequences.

---