Tony wrote:The statement, "only what can be know by science or quantified and empirically tested is rational and true" is self-refuting. And any self-refuting argument is wrong and it's opposite is right be default. There is no way out of this truth.
I think you might have misstated this idea, since it doesn't make sense. If the opposite
of a self-refuting argument is "right by default", then, based on the first part of your statement, there would be "no way out of this truth" that: "Only what canNOT be known
by science or quantified and empirically tested is rational and true." Surely, that's not what you meant. Is it?
I am not saying God implanted in every human morals, but that every normal human... has the ability to have first hand knowledge of basic right and wrong.... We all agree in the rules of right and wrong in general.
Then what IS
the source of our morals, if not either from God or
as Emery suggests? Where do you think this "general sense of basic right and wrong" you say we all have comes from, if not as a result of God's implantation or because of his commands? (I realize you're talking about a universal "ability" to be able to know right from wrong, rather than some universally agreed upon "list" of morals we all share, so feel free to answer regarding this "ability" and where IT
came from if you prefer.)
The question is, why are we obligated to obey them? A naturalistic world view seems to fail philosophically. It says, we all got here because it was good for society, yet that doesn't answer the question as to why I need to follow those rules once I understand the foundation of them. The naturalistic world view leads to an absurd reason to obey. The theistic world view leads to a rational reason for the foundation of morals, the source of morals the motivation for morals and a fair outcome to violators of morals.
I think you're confusing morals with rules. We don't "obey" morals. We act
in accord with them. They're incorporated into our whole decision-making process. We use them to weigh the possible outcomes of our actions. They affect the ways we view our worlds and our interactions with other people and our environment. They are a strong determining factor in how we think and form our opinions. They're part of "who we are" as individuals. And when a bunch of individuals collectively agree on some particular moral values (such as "murder is wrong", for example) then rules are often made to attempt to control the behaviors of people who don't share the moral in question or choose to act against it. "When morals are sufficient, laws are unnecessary. When they're not, laws are ineffective."
-- (I wish I knew who said that...)
Anyhow, I think it's less "absurd" to picture the development of moral values as a function of "survival of the species" than to assume moral values were somehow supernaturally imposed on us. People who act in accord with what most of us agree on as some kind of universal moral standard are more likely to contribute to the continuation of the society (and therefore the species) as we know it than are people who act otherwise. IOW, people who think murder is wrong and act accordingly increase the survivability of the species, while those who either think murder is okay or who commit murders even though they don't, detract from the survivability of the species. Similar things are easily demonstrated regarding stealing, lying, cheating, having sex with someone else's mate, torturing babies for fun, etc.
Moral values like those set out in "rules" like (all but the first few of) The Ten Commandments are things that are "good" for survival of the species. That's why those moral values were held as far back as we're able to determine - LONG preceding YHWH and his list of rules. And that's why you don't steal Emery's iPod. It's good for the survival of human beings as a species.