Although I am a member of 'the brights' I get monthly newsletters and wanted to share this interesting challenge they are putting together for anyone who wants to participate. Here's the introduction to the program:
"Persons who have a naturalistic worldview are perpetually “up against” the false but widely held cultural presumption that they, because of their worldview, lack certain requisites to be moral persons. This presupposition by others is an encumbrance that crops up again and again. In our view, it appears to be the single most significant hindrance to public disclosure that one has a naturalistic worldview. Brights must address this “morality problem” head on—with zest, and with profundity.
It is important to firm up understanding within the constituency of what is known about the natural underpinnings of human morality so that Brights can more effectively counter “common knowledge” that morals are presented to humanity by a supernatural deity through scripture."
http://the-brights.net/action/activitie … /arenas/1/
I have considered this before, and found it interesting that less than .3% of US convicts are atheists... while more than 83% are of Judeo-Christian religion.
Oh gosh beelzedad. You might double check your credentials. You might be wrong on this one. This idea doesn't appear to be too bright. A little lame, if you ask me.
Interesting that you would resurrect an old thread, which seems to have received a few more comments now.
Your comment once again dismisses out of hand without offering a shred of explanation. Still batting a thousand with that style of responding.
Or, are you waiting for someone to take up the challenge and beg to ask the obvious questions?
Looks like just another liberal group that wants to re-define right and wrong. I wouldn't call that too "bright", since they're up against the real standard of morality---God Himself.
Real standard of morality #1: Thou shalt have no other god before me. Love, Buddha
That is exactly their point, Brenda, that is exactly their point...
If they are comparing moral standards of humankind to that of a god standard, then common sense there already exists a belief that a god exists. Yes?
Btw- I didn't read the link you provided, because it's rarely that I follow any link, unless it leads to a hub.
The "reality" about human morality is that too many people lack any understanding of the meaning of the word. Very few, truly understand it.
I would suspect that to be true, if I'm reading that right.
God Standard - Human Morality - One slight difference.
God Standard is perfection.
Human Morality isn't.
Since Human cannot be perfect, it would be irrelevant and/or stupid, to waste any effort in comparing the two.
It's already understood, at what level of morality the "God Standard" is and not achievable, and for one specific reason- Rights. Which is ironic, considering many think that rights are god given to begin with.
I did some work on this a while ago. I have a hub called A Rational Code of Ethics - Discussion Page, easily found, which covers it.
That's all "morality" is a definition of one's conscience. It describes "good" and "bad" actions. Nothing more, nothing less.
Our theistic moral superiority will reign as soon as we kill off all the infidels.
Morality is conditional behavior without prohibitions based on authority. You get to do whatever you want to what does not conform to authority. You can't steal from your friends but you can from your enemies. Ethics applies the same prohibitions to all alike. You don't steal from anybody for any reason.
Here are the statements in question:
Morality is an evolved repertoire of cognitive and emotional mechanisms with distinct biological underpinnings, as modified by experience acquired throughout the human lifespan.
Morality is not the exclusive domain of Homo sapiens; there is significant cross-species evidence in the scientific literature that animals exhibit "pre-morality" or basic moral behaviors (i.e. those patterns of behavior that parallel central elements of human moral behavior).
Morality is a "human universal" (i.e. exists across all cultures worldwide), a part of human nature acquired during evolution.
Young children and infants demonstrate some aspects of moral cognition and behavior (which precede specific learning experiences and worldview development).
No. Morality, the concept is a set standard derived by understanding one's conscience and defining it. It should not be changed or modified.
Irrelevant what animals and other species do with moral behavior.
Yes, when humankind defined the conscience.
It's only an appearance, perceived by those who observed the behavior.
Maybe its easy to be perfect when you live in heaven, and don't have to deal with survival in all manner of conditions.
by Longmire 4 years ago
Can science provide a wholly naturalistic explanation for moral and religious beliefs?
by Justsilvie 8 years ago
After reading a large number of Hubs and forum threads and what seems at times like the clash of civilization my need to know the whys of it kicked in.In his book Moral Politics - How Liberals and Conservatives Think George Lakoff analyzed the unconscious and rhetorical worldviews of liberals and...
by fred allen 9 years ago
Can morality exist without a divine authority?Without absolutes who has the authority to establish moral boundaries? If there is no divine standard, can there be such a thing as morality or right and wrong?
by Raymond D Choiniere 10 years ago
Hello Religious folks,I have just came to a nasty self-realization thanks to another religious thread.I have determined that anyone who practices any religious view, which deems a higher cause other than humanity, is down right SELFISH in their action, regardless of what they do.Your moral...
by ngureco 8 years ago
To You Atheists, If No God Exists To Be Obeyed, How Do You Expect Us To Be Obligated To Be Good...To Other People?
by hitalot 10 years ago
Since the 1950's nearing the end of the decade their has been a moral decline in our nations value system.For example the issue over morality has been in decline cause,Women have their right to choose whether or not they want to have an abortion ?Society has replaced love with that of lust for it...
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|