Resolved: All but the nihilist shares an operative form of faith.

I gave elaborate examples to show why morality is species-dependent, but Pro claims I presented no evidence. I gave multiple historical examples of religion evolving to eliminate things like human sacrifice, slavery, and the divine right of kings; but Pro clams I offered no evidence. I cited the instinctual conflicts between tribe (society) and individual rights (self-preservation) and gave examples of people willingly tolerating pain (e.g. from physicians) due to belief in authority. Pro claimed I gave no evidence. I don't insist that Pro find my evidence compelling. If he does not find it compelling, he should present counter-examples and arguments as to his view leads to better generalizations. I strongly object to his ignoring the evidence I presented and claiming I presented nothing. He is not debating; he is preaching. Pro skeptically questions "Our importance is, therefore, merely a state of mind. If we only matter to our own internal architecture, what is the loss if humanity winks out of existence? Our non-existence would not matter because we only matter to ourselves and we would no longer be here to care." The short answer is "Yes." Some theists might rebut, "Surely God cares." That is true only if a god exists, which is possible, and if it is part of the nature of that particular god to care. Possibly there are alien beings from Vega who patrol the universe and have a nature of also caring. It's possible. Similarly, humans care about the welfare of some creatures because it is in our nature to care. We care a whole lot about whales and not a whit about paramecium. That relative amount of caring does not derive from theoretical logical derivations or from the theory of the creatures, it comes from our nature. We happen to relate better to large warm-blooded creatures. Back to the nitty-gritty, I reduced the argument to four propositions. 1. Morality derives from the nature of mankind. Pro rebuts that this claim is "a primitivistic ideal." Primitivism is the belief that early cultures are better http://dictionary.reference.com...; I am arguing the opposite, that modern cultures are evolving to improve. Is there any question that mankind has a nature? We have very different natural tendencies from other species. For our discussion the most important characteristic are simultaneous instincts to preserve ourselves, out families, and our tribes. Those characteristics are, for example, distinct from tigers, who meet only to mate. We are social animals. Consider: ". . . some species that, while unable to create structures to live in, have extremely advanced social organizations and relationships. Gorillas, dolphins, orcas, and wolves are just a few notable examples of these creatures, all of which are so distinctly human-like in some of their behavior that they've been said to have their own cultures. ... All these animals have in common that they rarely, if ever, 'go it alone.' ... Each of these species move about their surroundings with a territorial purpose, and defend what they deem as rightfully their own. They defend the members of their social grouping, and they care for their young, old, and sick. They use babysitters, they have affairs, they have deadbeat fathers and even the occasional runaway bride. They mourn their recently departed." http://webecoist.com... There are endless examples of moral principles being derived from those instincts. More properly, moral principles derive as rules for resolving conflicts among instincts. "Thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not murder" resolve the self-preservation instinct with the tribal instinct. Extreme self-preservation, self-defense, and extreme tribal defense, war, arise as important special cases that engender special rules. The Declaration of Independence attributed morality to a Creator. But how did the Founders know what the Creator wanted morality to be? The authors were Deists, so they did not believe God passed down rules as scripture. Rather moral principles were "self-evident." Madison said that the Constitution was derived entirely from "natural law," meaning observation of the nature of mankind. 2. Religions derive morality from human nature Pro claimed I provided no proof. I gave significant examples of religion evolving. In his opening statement, Pro admitted that moral rules could be derived as self-evident. I have added the examples of the American Founders deriving morality as self-evident. He should address his previous admission as well as the evidence I presented rather than rote denial. 3. Atheists and theists end up with similar moral principles because both derive them the same way Pro claims, "I agree there are similar moral principles but only because there is a similar core of faith which cannot (and has not in this debate) been supported by logic." In the previous round I argued that common principles cannot be derived from leap of faith, because a leap of faith can take you anywhere. Leaps of faith have in fact led to belief in human sacrifice, believe that slavery is morally correct, and belief in the divine right of kings. So why have many things once thought morally mandated as a consequence of faith now become morally prohibited as a result of faith? I say it is because the beliefs were discovered to be inconsistent with having a good society. If that is not case, then Pro should say why faith changed. He cannot point to logic or society, because his whole point is that it is necessary to make a leap of faith that ignores logic and experience. I explained the the Milgram, et al experiments in terms of conflicting instincts for self-preservation and for conforming to group authority. People have conflicting tendencies to be resolved. Pro should explain why, if everyone has faith in the ultimate value of human life, virtually everyone failed the test of the experiments. He claims that all but nihilists have faith, then cites as proof that almost no one has the faith he claims. 4. Therefore no leap of faith is required by atheists, nor do atheists make a leap of faith. Pro rebuts, "If no leap is required, you have to know what you are stepping on to get from point A (we are beasts driven by instinct) to point B (it is wrong to kill three people even if you believe you are saving the world)." Point A is clearly well-established. We have instincts for preserving self, family, and tribe. We do not know where that will lead the outset. We try steps in different directions and eventually accept what works. Slavery, once believed moral, is now believed immoral. Since atheists need not pretend to know where a leap will end, they need not make one. Note the Pro seems to assert that he knows "it is wrong to kill three people even if you believe you are saving the world." He used that as the common destination at which every leap must land. Very few people would agree. 1. "There is nothing in man's genetic makeup, or the "nature of mankind" which affords a basis that humanity's existence or interrelationships matters." Agreed, there is nothing that makes man's existence matter beyond man. It suffices that humans care about humanity as a whole. Is there any doubt that man is inherently familial and tribal? I know of none. that is why interrelationships count. 2. If humanity does not matter to some higher power, for some higher principle or simply as a matter of faith, we could destroy humanity and no wrong would be done . . . We could destroy a subset of the population based on an arbitrary criteria and no wrong has been done." Nonsense. We are both self-preserving and social, therefore it matters to us at a very basic level. It suffices that our species cares about humanity. ============== Evolution occurs only under stress. That is why morality has evolved with the challenges of modern society.