In fact the “Tabula Rasa” theory is more or less outdated and debunked, since it proceeds modern evolutionary biology which pretty much confirms that humans, just like other animals are born with innate instincts and sentiments, including altruistic ones.
If anything the “blank slate” theory in which all human knowledge is simply learned externally ties more in with religion than anything else. Since they idea was that Adam and Eve, the first man and woman were instructed by God, and that the knowledge was then passed down in word from generation to generation.
So unless one is a creationist, then the theory makes no sense anyway - since if all knowledge and sentiments are simply ‘passed down’ externally, then where did the first humans get it from? From God? By Magic?
Therefore the only logical theory compatible with secularism and evolutionary biology is that humans are born with certain knowledge or sentiments pre-encoded into them genetically, as evolutionary psychology postulates.
No, it wasn’t in reference to Germany or the Jews.
It was simply debunking the notion that all moral sentiments are simply “learned externally from society”, since if humans evolved, then there was no one for the first humans to have “learned it from”. This would only have been possible for example if God “taught them” to Adam and Eve, and they were passed down from there.
So the only secular moral theory compatible with evolution would be that moral sentiments are innately encoded into DNA (e.x. evolutionary psychology), which would hint at morality being objective and tying in with humans’ innate evolutionary biology - rather than socially ‘constructed’ or ‘taught’.
Much as altrustic instincts exist in chimpanzees for example, despite them having never “learned” or been “taught” them through verbal or written instruction.
Morality has nothing to do with evolution. Morality and morals are a human concept and only apply to humans.
As for how morality may have developed, there is no need for a creator nor for morality to be “encoded into DNA” – our brains evolved very adaptable behavioral features, resulting in novel behaviors developing through ingenuity and group learning. It’s entirely reasonable to posit that morality developed by groups of humans living together and determining (consciously or unconsciously) that their society functions better with some sort of moral system, whether or not they recognized that they were creating such a system or attributed it to a deity or other supernatural figure.
*Many social animals such as primates, dolphins and whales have shown to exhibit what Michael Shermer refers to as premoral sentiments. According to Shermer, the following characteristics are shared by humans and other social animals, particularly the great apes:
*
If you believe that, then that’s equivalent to believing that humans have a magical ability to “create” knowledge out of nothing.
The only theory compatible with naturalism, would be that knowledge, including moral knowledge cannot be invented, only discovered, whether externally or via knowledge pre-encoded into our DNA.
Morality may have “evolved”, as many concepts change over time, but I don’t believe this has anything to do with human biological evolution.
Humans have the ability to create (or discover, if you prefer that word) all kinds of concepts – language, for example; art; music; government; political parties; money; religion; and a million others.
What the hell is “moral knowledge”? This just sounds like word games and nonsense. It’s entirely reasonable to posit a wholly natural invention of morality in just the scenario I suggested – a group of humans finds, through trial and error, that their society functions better when they develop a set of rules that serve as a basic sort of moral system. This requires no gods and no “pre-encoded” knowledge in our DNA.
Indeed, the issue I see here is that Calico Jack is avoiding one big fly in his reasoning, namely that anti-semitism really has no logic, WWII was a big trial that was endured to get rid of that error (not completely removed yet, of course), an error that came also from the twisting of religion. And it is clear to me that humans are beginning to move away from relying on explanations from religionin part because of how easy it was for extremists to use religion for their purposes.
I agree with Latro it “must have been something else that made the Nazi’s unempathic towards Slavs and Jews.”
The specific rules may have adapted, but not the underlying principles, as the rules were of course means to that end, not ends in and of themselves.
Those aren’t “creations”, those are simply ways of modifying things which already exist. Humans inventing technology for example is just them physically re-arranging matter into different forms and functions, not literally “creating” anything, just discovering things which already exist.
If you believe humans can literally “create” something out of nothing whether physical or abstract, that is indeed a supernatural belief.
Ah but it does, since the moral goal of course would be the better functioning of society, and then the specific rules governing how that be done would have been developed in accordance with that objective moral goal.
So the only idea logically compatible with naturalism, is that morality comes from the altruistic instincts pre-encoded into the DNA of humans, which evolved from other animals, and that the survival and thriving of individuals and members of their species or tribe is the objective goal of morality.
The principles could have developed naturally through trial and error, by seeing what works. A moral system might be functional and useful to human societies.
Word game nonsense. I don’t care what you call it, and I’m not going to go back and forth about whether it’s created or discovered. Whatever it is, it requires neither DNA-knowledge nor a god to come into use among humans.
No, trial and error could have accomplished this. There is no “objective goal of morality”, any more there is an “objective goal of art”. These are human created concepts and are inherently subjective.
Sound exists, producing music is modifying the matter around us to create sound waves in different forms which produce different harmony and melody.
So sure, he came up with the “idea”, but your argument only holds water if you’re saying “ideas” have an objective existence independent of the specific objects or things they refer to.
Well then if you are, you could just as well argue that one could logically prove the existence of a creator or objective truth, if you’re agreeing that even things which are not physically observable, such as ideas or logical concepts, can still have an objective existence.
Therefore the “I believe nothing unless there is empirical evidence for it” argument would be invalid, since ideas don’t have a physical existence, they exist only in theory or logic.
Songs are observable, and physical - they can be written down, or recorded, or heard. But even concepts that aren’t physical all exist (don’t know what “objective existence” is) - justice exists, even as people disagree on what it consists of. It’s a human created concept that is nonetheless a real idea that exists.
It was said that Carl Sagan asked other scientists and experts for what music to put on the Voyager space probe disks for posterity or aliens out there. A reply came from Freeman Dyson: “I’d send just Bach … but that would be showing off.”
(That quote has been attributed to Carl Sagan, but it seems that Dyson did originate it.)
You misunderstand.
I’m not claiming a ‘tabula rasa’ at all, quite the opposite.
Humans have a natural empathy with other humans, being social group animals.
But humans also had to compete with other groups. Hence our mistrust of “others”.
The fact that the Jews became to be seen as “others”, others that were a danger to our group, was a product of the time and place, the surroundings.
There’s nothing “magical” about it - it’s called “experience”. Do you only know things that have been directly taught to you by another person? Or is the greater proportion of your knowledge the result of your interaction with the world - observation, trial and error, and so forth? Because I’m fairly sure that the latter is true.
I also refer you to my reference to emergence theory above - even the simple basic rule sets can produce complex structures and mechanisms, and that includes the rules and practices of societies large and small.
And what’s “harmony” and “melody”? Is there an objective view of what there are and how they work (hint: no)? So where did *those *ideas come from?
Go read The Republic and get back to us.
So much of this is Philosophy 101 stuff. You are not presenting arguments that many other college freshmen haven’t already pondered and subsequently rejected.
