Once again, you state these articles of faith but offer nothing to back them up. Game theorists have already (and repeatedly) shown the survival value of reciprocity and cooperation.
I guess you have never been a strong person, one able to impose his authority with might, one of the first things you realise is there is always some one bigger and harder than you. The fact is that tyrants do not tend to end their lives well, clever tyrants realise that early on and stop being tyrants!
I was going to start just listing animals that don't always behave according to usfan's account of how all animals should behave. But to keep things more focused and to do it with one hand proverbially tied behind my back, I'll just stick to animals I've seen in from my own suburban back yard. Here are the animals I've seen from my backyard that engage in cooperative behavior; they are not driven solely by prolonging their own personal survival, as usfan say all animals should. Feel free to ask for details about any of them and how they disprove the assumptions that the OP relies on: Domestic dogs Western honeybees Fire ants Termites Common rats Opossums Mexican free-tailed bats Golden-cheeked warblers Mockingbirds Killdeer I'll just cap it at 10 for now, but I'll gladly go into more.
In your first example you are merging morality with rights. Morality is a set of values based on logic, not divinity. Morality defines the logic by which people can live together in a civilized manor. Like mathematics, logic dictates that a value must remain constant. If you desire the right to life, you must recognize that right for others. To not do so is immoral. If you desire the right to property, then stealing is immoral because it deprives that right to others.
'Rights' are either, 1. Granted, by a human authority 2. Inherent, by God, e.g., Natural Law Inherent morality is the BASIS for human rights. They are not the same thing. Murder, an 'immoral' act, provides the basis for right to life. If murder is not immoral, then there is no inherent right to life. Morality is only 'logical', because of the commonality of human conscience. We all feel this inner 'sense' that murder, theft, fraud, assault, etc, are 'wrong!', so we can nod together in consensive unison when a moral appeal is made. In a godless universe, no such consensus exists. Morals are human constructs, to manipulate people. What you 'feel' is wrong, another can assert as right, and there is nothing objective or absolute to arbitrate between the assertions. Human power is the only absolute, and that depends on the beliefs (or decrees) of those in power. For example, Stalin and the Russian regime decided it was 'good' to eradicate certain people, who did not meet the standards of the 'New Soviet Man.' Those eradicated felt that was 'bad', no doubt. But with no human authority powerful enough to dispute Stalin's decrees, his definition of 'good' prevailed. Only if you premise a Higher Authority, Who endowed Natural Rights in humanity, can you judge Stalin as 'wrong'. Over 10 million people were 'cleansed' by Stalin, for the good of the collective. Other communists in the last century also eliminated undesirables in their goal of 'evolving' the New Man!', who would meet their social engineering ideals. So, the 'moral sense' of murder being 'wrong!', depends on the ideological basis. The godless universe of Stalin and other social engineers can justify murder as 'good!', for the higher goal of an evolved society. But the Natural Law basis of western civilization says that murder is wrong, since humans are equally Created by God. Genocide and ideological purging is viewed as 'evil!', in such a worldview, not 'good!', as it is in the collectivist, social engineering worldview.
If the universe is run by the God of the Bible, then murder isn't always wrong. You'll need to find a new basis for your morality.
What good are alliances with people who will just as soon stab you in the back as look at you? Neither do their victims, but in a Godless world you can only be one or the other.
That's exactly my point and why only looking out for yourself is not the survival strategy that usfan claims it is. Even in a godless universe, the "Golden Rule" is a logical way to ensure you have allies.
Not even close, trust me. So what good are allies who will just as soon stab you in the back as look at you?
Why would they? Game theory dictates that they also benefit by following the golden rule, even if no god exists.
Don't expect an answer. Their faith depends on a cartoonist, naive view of nature for which they will consider no evidence that challenges it, unfortunately. You'll only get bare assertions that they refuse to provide reasons for or defend, no matter how willing you are to talk in terms of logic and evidence. Same as the OP.
Natural Law This is perhaps the Central Theme of the Enlightenment. Man is endowed with Rights, inherently, not granted by human power. it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. ~Frederic Bastiat Life, Liberty, and Property. These are the Basic Rights of Man, summarized by the Enlightenment. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.. ~Thomas Jefferson Natural law is the basis for almost all human rights declarations, since the 18th century. From wiki: ..natural law has been claimed or attributed as a key component in the United States Declaration of Independence (1776), the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) of France, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948..)of the United Nations General Assembly, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights (1953) of the European Union. It is the basis for almost all perceptions of human rights, in contemporary culture. It is not always credited with the ASSUMPTION of human rights, but it is always there. Again from wiki: Natural law (Latin: ius natural, lex naturalis) is a philosophy asserting that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature, endowed by nature—traditionally by God or a transcendent source—and that these can be understood universally through human reason. As determined by nature, the law of nature is implied to be objective and universal;[1] it exists independently of human understanding, and of the positive law of a given state, political order, legislature or society at large. Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior from nature's or God's creation of reality and mankind. The concept of natural law was documented in ancient Greek philosophy, including Aristotle,[2] and was referred to in Roman philosophy by Cicero. References to natural law are also found in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, later expounded upon in the Middle Ages by Christian philosophers such as Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas. Natural law is an extrapolation of universal morality: IF... God or some Creative Power has imbued morality into mankind, as evidenced by the universal acceptance of conscience, THEN.. it follows that this same endowment would include rights, as well as obligations. If murder is 'wrong', then each person has a 'right' to life. If property is a 'right', then theft is 'wrong!'. Morality and natural law are 2 sides of the same coin. But both morality and natural law are contingent on an Embuing Power. A godless universe has no such power, but only human law and animal instinct. Morality and natural law are human constructs, for manipulation, in a godless universe. There is nothing inherently 'wrong!' about murder, or theft, or exploiting anyone.. there are only human laws for those things, passed to manipulate people. Theft, murder, and exploitation are virtues, in the natural world, and enhance survival.
"Good example of an unevidenced religious belief. You merely believe this. It is not empirical fact." - usfan (Words originally posted by usfan, quoted because it is a relevant response to this as well.)
Additional demonstrations that the assumptions being made about animal behavior, instincts, the natural world, and evolution are wrong.
All mankind... being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions. ~John Locke Law in general is human reason, inasmuch as it governs all the inhabitants of the earth: the political and civil laws of each nation ought to be only the particular cases in which human reason is applied. ~Montesquieu "Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience." ~John Locke
[Pro-social behavior involving reciprocity and empathy] - Not a quote from a philosopher because it is an instinct among social animals that predates spoken language and philosophy.
Get real, even in Soviet Russia Stalin wasn't able to eradicate every trace of piety, and I doubt you ever lived a society as Godless as that. Because they're looking out for #1 above all else, having not the slightest inclination to do otherwise. If no God existed, that would be utterly impossible. You think otherwise because you haven't got a clue about what it means to begin with. The irony escapes you, no doubt.
