re: Does Satanism exist without Christianity?

quote:

---

many would disagree that any form of Psychology is an actual Science.

---

There is science behind it, just not all Psychologists practice science.

Anything dealing with social behaviors will have subjectivity though.

quote:

---

That's not true, at all. The context builds the goal. How can you make a goal without knowing any information (context)? Should you throw a spear at that thing in front of you? That depends, is that thing in front of you the woman you're having sex with, a crouching tiger, or just a damn tree? Context matters

---

Everyone has basic presuppositions that form the context. Those are a given (or should be).

Remember the question I asked was whether someone should be compelled to live according to empathy rather than anger. Empathy is thrown out as a universal emotion that is evolutionary produced that forms the foundation for morality. I'm asking why we think empathy and not anger, lust, or jealousy should be the basis for morality?

Within the confines of that question, the only context that truly matters is the goal. Is it "to build societies"? Is it "to further the human species?" I've heard those two used in particular. The goal is assumed in this discussion.

In your example, if you're angry, why not throw the spear regardless of what is in front of you? People punch people and things all the time to express their anger. People even hit and hurt the ones they are having sex with. They do it to animals. They do it to trees and all sort of other objects.

Again, the question isn't whether or not throwing a spear at something in front of you is going to be beneficial to you or the thing you're throwing at, but what constitutes what is "moral" in the situation based on the goals at play? If expressing anger through action is the "moral" thing, then it doesn't really matter what's in front of you as long as you express your anger.

quote:

---

Completely irrelevant to evolutionary adaptations.

---

It's not irrelevant at all to the discussion of evolution-based morality. If the argument is that morality is based purely on empathy, which is a biproduct of evolution, then that which is moral is that which expresses the most empathy towards others. And yet it is an arbitrary designation to make empathy be the basis of morality rather than, say, anger. If there is no objective moral law to act as a standard, then humans are free to choose whatever standard they want, whether that be empathy or anger or something else. Evolution can't provide an objective basis for morality, and without an objective basis for morality, nothing is truly "moral" or "immoral".

quote:

---

It could.

---

Enough said

quote:

---

If this is the case, it seems like that nature and character has changed over time.

---

It hasn't. How humans understand and apply it does change (not for the better), but as I've been saying, deviation from the standard doesn't do away with the standard.

quote:

---

God revealed how: He made man in His image and impressed the moral law on the hearts of mankind so that we, by nature, know what is right and wrong, but in our sinful natures twist and pervert it to our own ends.

---

If it was this simple, there would only be one version of Christianity.

quote:

---

Like I've said, reasoning alone won't get you to an objective moral standard

---

It won't get you to the standard but it will get you TO the standard, apparently.

quote:

---

The "single set version of Christianity available to the masses" is the Bible, itself. It's been available to the masses in differing amounts for nearly 2,000 years.

---

And yet, since it's literally production, has created various forms of morality.

quote:

---

Not believing Bishop Usshers chronology makes one hell bound?

---

Not at all. Not believing that Adam was a historical figure has theological implications on sin and salvation.

quote:

---

I'm asking why we think empathy and not anger, lust, or jealousy should be the basis for morality?

---

Because the human tribes that might have thought that lust or anger should be the basis for moral codes either died off, or barely survived. Those who built it, at least partially, on empathy, created the modern world and put a man on the moon. The success of such moral codes is apparent.

You keep pointing to might makes right... How many people do you think will take the 1% odds that they'll be the man who kills off the other men and takes all the women for himself, but that world leaves him shitting in bushes and dying by 30 because of tooth decay or something else easily preventable by a society whose moral code is built, at least partially, on empathy and provides him with modern technology, protection from predators, medicines, etc.?

quote:

---

Is it "to build societies"? Is it "to further the human species?" I've heard those two used in particular.

---

I'd say it's way more basic than that. It's to avoid pain and to try and maximize pleasure. Societies are the means by which we best accomplish this.

quote:

---

In your example, if you're angry, why not throw the spear regardless of what is in front of you? People punch people and things all the time to express their anger.

---

If you're attempting to counter my claim that context builds goals, shouldn't you not be adding context (this person is just really really angry) to prove your point?

quote:

---

Again, the question isn't whether or not throwing a spear at something in front of you is going to be beneficial to you or the thing you're throwing at...

---

Why isn't it? I'm making the claim that it is. You can explain it away, but you can't just dismiss my argument without explanation and pretend you're proving anything.

quote:

---

And yet it is an arbitrary designation to make empathy be the basis of morality rather than, say, anger.

---

What's arbitrary about evolution selecting the fittest genes/behaviors?

You might as well be calling the fact that things fall down instead of up "arbitrary". That's just how things are. They cannot be any other way. It's the exact opposite of arbitrary.

quote:

---

Enough said

---

You could win the lottery. That doesn't mean the odds are in your favor. If we're talking about winning = living and losing = dying, those who don't play are better off than those who do, even though there are a few winners.

quote:

---

How convenient.

---

It is, isn't it? Funny how truth often times coincides with convenience.

quote:

---

It is, isn't it? Funny how truth often times coincides with convenience.

---

Absolutely. And it’s funny how it’s all settled on what you believe. Of course when it inevitably changes again, that will be because people have lost their way.

quote:

---

Because the human tribes that might have thought that lust or anger should be the basis for moral codes either died off, or barely survived. Those who built it, at least partially, on empathy, created the modern world and put a man on the moon. The success of such moral codes is apparent.

---

You act as if this is a universal truth even today

"Success" is a relative term. A societies change a perish over time, even those based on empathy. There have been many societies that survived for periods of time with heavy-handed policies based on "might-makes-right" moral paradigms.

You also seem to think that scientific or technological advancement is a sign of "success". Why, and where did you get that standard?

quote:

---

You keep pointing to might makes right... How many people do you think will take the 1% odds that they'll be the man who kills off the other men and takes all the women for himself, but that world leaves him shitting in bushes and dying by 30 because of tooth decay or something else easily preventable by a society whose moral code is built, at least partially, on empathy and provides him with modern technology, protection from predators, medicines, etc.?

---

That's the wonderful thing about "might makes right" morality: most people don't get the choice to take it or leave it. And it doesn't even matter if most people get to. Ultimately when you argue that what society at large deems moral is moral, you're arguing for might makes right, because it means that those with the might (majority of society, or at least those with the power to enforce their moral views) determine for the rest what is right and they either have to conform or be expelled. "Might makes right" works just as well in democracies as it does in dictatorships.

quote:

---

I'd say it's way more basic than that. It's to avoid pain and to try and maximize pleasure. Societies are the means by which we best accomplish this

---

Not necessarily. First, "to avoid pain" and "maximize pleasure" are arbitrary goals in and of themselves (what about those who get pleasure by maximizing pain to themselves or others?), but even so, societies don't typically function on that premise. Sure, certain aspects do, but not all. Justice demands inflicting pain and suffering to various degrees. Order in society has to put limits on pleasure for some at the expense of others. So it's not a universal truth, and even if most societies today operate in such ways, that doesn't mean that is what is optimal. Why not optimal? Because "optimal" assumes a standard of what is best in order to be measured against, and as we've been discussing, morality that is entirely subjective cannot be a measuring stick to judge anything in an objective sense. You really can't make a meaningful judgement about societies that have been based off of cruelty and sexual submission compared to those based on empathy and caring because such judgements assume you have a singular objective measurement to compare those to, and we don't (unless we adhere to God's standard).

quote:

---

If you're attempting to counter my claim that context builds goals, shouldn't you not be adding context (this person is just really really angry) to prove your point?

---

I don't think it's necessary. The discussion has moved on to empathy (an emotion) being the driving force for morality in evolutionary biology. If there is no objective moral standard in existence, then nothing truly matters in the end anyway. People make goals and then call that the moral standard. Functional society is a goal. Altruistic pursuits are a goal. Technological advancements are a goal. Long-term preservation of the human species is a goal. "Do what feels good" is a goal. People act in accordance with what they see is the greatest good or goal, and evolution cannot dictate that in an objective way.

quote:

---

Why isn't it? I'm making the claim that it is. You can explain it away, but you can't just dismiss my argument without explanation and pretend you're proving anything.

---

I've been explaining it. You even cut short my full quote that ended with "...but what constitutes what is "moral" in the situation based on the goals at play? If expressing anger through action is the "moral" thing, then it doesn't really matter what's in front of you as long as you express your anger."

I've been explaining to you exactly what I mean. If "empathy" is given as the preferred evolutionary trait responsible for morality, I'm asking why that must be, and why not other emotions like anger? I'm pointing out the arbitrary and unsatisfactory nature of leaning on evolution for morality because it doesn't do anything about the arbitrary nature of the particular aspect (empathy) used to defend it.

Since empathy is just as arbitrary for defining morality as anger, my point stands: why not just say that expressing anger is what is morally good and throw the spear regardless of what's in front of you? If the expression of anger is all that matters, then who cares what's in front of you?

And if it's true that context matters, then empathy by itself is not the measuring line of morality, and that whole argument falls apart.

quote:

---

What's arbitrary about evolution selecting the fittest genes/behaviors?

You might as well be calling the fact that things fall down instead of up "arbitrary". That's just how things are. They cannot be any other way. It's the exact opposite of arbitrary.

---

What is arbitrary is assigning meaning to what just happens. Some people act out of empathy while others act out of selfish ambition and desire. Which is the moral way to act? I'm saying it's arbitrary to pick one evolutionary response over another because there is no objectively right choice in that worldview.

quote:

---

You could win the lottery. That doesn't mean the odds are in your favor. If we're talking about winning = living and losing = dying, those who don't play are better off than those who do, even though there are a few winners.

---

It doesn't matter what the odds are. We're talking about what is right and what is wrong.

quote:

---

Absolutely. And it’s funny how it’s all settled on what you believe.

---

If by "what you believe" is the object of my belief, which is the Bible, then I'd agree with you.

If by "what you believe" you mean that my personal belief, then I don't agree. I hope that my beliefs are aligned with God's standard, but I freely admit that I'm a sinner and may even be wrong about my understanding of some things. My goal is to be continually conformed to God's word, not have it conform to me.

quote:

---

Of course when it inevitably changes again, that will be because people have lost their way.

---

God's word won't change.