Naturalism provides a sound basis for morals

I would like to start by thanking my opponent for his participation in this debate and I commend him for his challenging rebuttals.For my final rebuttal I will address each topic under a slightly different heading so as to accommodate all of Creationtruth’s points.Definition of soundIt appears that my opponent has dramatically confused the explanation with the explained. For example, he successfully demonstrated that “a sufficient and reasonable explanation” is effectively synonymous with “reliable;” however, he ambitiously interchanges this with what is being explained – morality. A computer scientist might be able to provide an explanation for how a computer works, but this does not preclude that computers are always reliable. Contemporary psychology can explain the nature of psychopathy, but it does not mean that psychopathy is reliable. Similarly, naturalism can provide a reliable explanation for morality, but this is not to say that morality itself is reliable. Thus, there is nothing to be considered in Creationtruth’s definition. Answering refutations In the first round of rebuttals, my opponent challenged my resolution by claiming I held to a relativist approach to morality. He then accused my response for its lack of evidence. I wish to clear this misunderstanding: My opponent held the view that: if morality is subjective, naturalism does not provide a sound basis for morality. I merely commented on how relativist morality certainly does not conclude anything of that sort, providing the proper definition of sound is advocated. Appeal to majority I was somewhat disappointed by my opponent’s analogy. It is beyond me how somebody could claim that scientific knowledge in the seventeenth century is comparable to modern day science. I ask you: How can we rationally compare seventeenth century science with advanced scientific equipment and advanced scientific knowledge? Our knowledge of the sciences has progressed in unimaginable proportions: the Higgs-Boson, the discovery of DNA, the Hubble Telescope, quantum mechanics – my opponent’s comparison does not take into account the vast steps we have taken since then. Whilst I expected compelling evidence, I was further disappointed by my opponent’s source credentials. He might be interested to know that the original 700 “dissenters” represented approximately 0.00063% of all biological and geological scientists in the world. [1] For a careful examination of exactly who signed the list, I invite my opponent to realise how only 2% were actually biologists. [2] My opponent also expects us to believe that the vast approval of evolution in the scientific community is due to “peer pressure” and a “one sided education”. The thousands of articles and observations published in peer-reviewed journals are, that’s right, a result of peer pressure! My opponent should be familiar with the rigorous process of peer-review before making such claims. [3] Not only is this offensive to proponents of evolution, it is blissfully ignorant. Natural Selection and Reciprocal Altruism Please see the comments for this rebuttal. Morality in survival I was concerned as to why Creationruth did not respond to my key arguments in my last rebuttal. He persists in arguing “why is survival good?” and “why do animals strive for survival?” without engaging with my previous response. I will reiterate for my opponent’s sake. The fatal flaw in my opponent’s question is that it is assuming that survival and drive for survival actually have moral worth. Now, if I asked you why it was good that the Earth revolved around the Sun, or why it was good that a branch fell from a tree, you would consider me lunatic. I regard survival in the same light. The answer is that it is simply amoral; it is neither good nor bad. The apologist would be encouraged to probe deeper, asking questions such as: “Why is life preferable to death?” However, it is only because we have conceived connotations of life and death that we attribute preference to one or the other. Our desire for survival can also be viewed cogently from a mathematical and logical standpoint: The reason that we have the desire to replicate is because we are programmed to. And the reason that our DNA sequences program us to do this is not because of some innate desire of them to replicate, but rather because, since they do replicate, those traits which replicate more successfully will be more frequent. [7] I contend that we only consider survival to be good because we developed the brain capacity to attribute them these qualities. Much could be the same about aesthetics: beauty, and art. Problems with relativism Unfortunately my opponent has disregarded the inextricable relationship between morality and psychology. Our empathy is shaped by our upbringing. We do not condemn a child for asking if a woman is pregnant, or pointing out the size of a man’s nose. We do not condemn a child for screaming in the supermarket in the same way that we would for an adult. Why? Because their empathetic cognition is shaped as they grow up. [8] This can also apply to the development of our morality, i.e., moral conscience. [see 8] As I demonstrated in “Reciprocal Altruism”, our moral principles have evolved. Thus, I appeal to what I consider to be true. This is not to be confused with what is actually true. Religion and morality My opponent is correct in identifying the Bible as a key propagator of moral principles. I cannot deny that it has promoted ideas of equality and justice. I consider this to be a part of our evolving morality. For example, no longer do we consider burying children in building foundations to be morally good, or the burning of witches to be divinely commanded. [9] However, the human species have been around much longer than the writers of the Pentateuch. [10] They would not have had scriptures to advocate, for indeed communication by writing was elusive to the illiterate. I contend, using evidence of reciprocal, competitive and kin altruism, that humans must have had a basic morality before the Bible. If not, the only alternative would be that humans were purely amoral or immoral previously. Thus, I would view the Bible as a means of establishing (and innovating) values that had existed before the Pentateuch. Conclusion It appears, then, that any objection my opponent makes is either due to a confusion of definition or a misunderstanding of an argument. Having observed his refutations, we can safely conclude that there is no plausible reason for why naturalism does not account for our morality through means of altruistic behaviour. [1] Referenced article found here: http://rationalwiki.org... [2] http://scienceblogs.com... [3] http://www.jisc.ac.uk... [4] http://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk... [5] Competitive Altruism, p13, http://professormarkvanvugt.com... [6] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [7] Due to the lack of literature on this subject, I sought opinions from Rational Response. If my opponent or any readers wish to point me to more informed articles, I will be happy to read them. http://www.rationalresponders.com... [8] Empathy and Moral Development, http://books.google.co.uk... [9] Referenced article found here: http://www.samharris.org... [10] National Geographic, http://press.nationalgeographic.com...