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

Con boils morality to the thinnest gruel: "Is that action in accord the normal behavior of the human species?" The geek-speak translation is no more palatable, "Is that person's genetically coded software operating to the specifications for the species?" The Milgram and Stanford Prison experiments as well as 20th Century history too depressing to detail, establish that our genetically coded software, leads to killing fields and genocide. This point is softly critiqued by the Con. However, Milgram's students predicted that at most 3% of subjects would obey the experimenter all the way through to the lethal shock labeled "XXX." 65% of the "teachers" continued, pressing the button at the experimenter's command to deliver shocks of up to 450 volts (the "XXX" level) to a person who had been unresponsive for as many as ten straight answers. Only 14 of the 40 disobeyed. The Con claims, "The human species survived by evolving and following instincts, so survival is the fundamental motivating force." One of those instincts was to rally behind the leader in a time of crisis and to have no empathy for external threats. Using the example of the praying mantis with a grant money to spend and the codfish, Con contends, "[c]learly we would not be able to make any moral rules derived solely from logic. The nature of the beast is inherently linked." This helps my point. In any society in which I would want to live, there is a struggle to separate how we expect ourselves to act from the "nature of the beast." Although I did not claim that "human life [is] precious above all else," I did claim that the prevailing view of any good society will reject the type of thinking presented by the Unabomber and refuse to even consider his message even if that message were important to human survival. The Con fails to take up my challenge to explain why the Unabomber was to be reviled for killing and maiming even if he had a potentially world-altering message. Moral questions can be complex, but the core is that humanity, for some reason, matters. Perhaps the Con could make clear whether he thinks that is true or not. Does humanity matter? If not, Con is slip sliding near a chasm of nihilism. If so, I have yet to hear how the Con gets to that conclusion by logic. Indeed, the first portion of his argument is predicated on the notion that we do not logically matter, except as intelligent beasts fulfilling our own genetic codes. In the later portion of Con's argument, there may be a subtle shift in position. I will let Con explain the apparent shift. It is true that our genetic code does not yield a ". . .common belief that life is precious beyond all else." Why then should we reject killing three people and maiming several others for the sake of a message an author believes will save the world? Con contends, "the idea that life is 'sacred' is a religious one, not shared by atheists." Certainly, atheists would deny treating human life as "sacred" but I am more interested in how people act more than what they say. Con drops the Unabomber example which is but one illustration of how, at least in Western cultures, we do treat life as if it were sacred. Con then argues that submission to authority is not that much of a genetic imperative. No empirical evidence is provided to dispute the Milgram experiment. We could talk about the logistics necessary to accomplish genocide of the last century but I resist fulfilling Godwin's law. Con does not say why it is wrong, evil, unethical, immoral to override what could be considered positive genetic coding, e.g. thou shalt not kill. At best, Con initially presents a circular argument: morals are the norm, the norm is not to kill; it is immoral to kill. Con thereby self fulfills his premise that this is a definitional debate. A "follow the norm" set of morality would be disastrous. America's Bill of Rights was put in place precisely because the majority that defines a "norm" should not be entrusted with the natural rights of individuals. The entire idea of "natural" "inalienable" "self evident" rights is a leap of faith unsupported by the Con's logic. The vast majority of Atheists, I presume, would agree that such rights exist although Con provides no logic to support that view. The existence of exceptions merely proves the rule. Con contends, "[t]he reason that "humanity matters" is that we are programmed for it to matter. There is no logical derivation beyond that, and there is no reason to demand that there be one." 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. Any critique of theism is irrelevant to this debate since it is a given that theists have faith. However, I find this sentence very interesting because it may evidence a shift from the first part of his argument: "Over time, people have better understood the nature of mankind and tuned their religious institutions in accordance with the better understanding. " What is this "nature of mankind" that yields liberal progressive religions and societies? This is an alluring primitivistic idea with no basis in science or history. The notion requires a leap of faith (i.e. a conclusion unsupported by reason) that the deeper "nature of mankind" is better than it appears on the surface so that when this nature is "better understood" progress is made. Con also writes, "Religion did not make a leap of faith to positing morality. Religion discovered morality in the same way that atheists discovered it, by evolving society to better conform to human nature." I have read enough about prehistory to know (i) prehistorians rebel at the very label of "prehistory" and (ii) no adequate data exists to know whether the religious egg came before the moral chicken. This is a guess, without evidence, nothing more. However, the important point here is to note Con's faith in some kernel of "human nature." Societies have evolved to better conform to this undefined kernel and progress results. Con summarizes : "1. Morality derives from the nature of mankind." I have discussed why Con uses the phrase "nature of mankind" as a primitivistic ideal. After 100K year or so we "better understand" this "nature of mankind," so society improves. This premise is false. "2. Religions derive morality from human nature, then claim that whatever they are doing was derived from religious faith." Again note the appeal to a deep "human nature" as the motivating force for morals. No proof is provided. "3. Atheists and theists end up with similar moral principles because both derive them the same way, albeit imperfectly." 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. "4. Therefore no leap of faith is required by atheists, nor do atheists make a leap of faith." 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). Counter summary: 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. 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. We can override societal and genetic imperatives without fear of having done wrong. Nihilism this way cometh.