Natural
Supernatural
85%
17 votes
15%
3 votes
All animals have morality, all bacteria and viruses have morality, all things alive or not have morality. The foundation of morality is to complexify, and that's what matter does.
That "supernatural" picture is creepy dude.
You also need to define "supernatural", which Webster's states is, "departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature". In other words, anything that we cannot explain through science would qualify as supernatural. That being the case, why is so unreasonable to that a being may exist that is not bound by our scientific "laws", especially since there is so much we still have to learn about ourselves, let alone our universe, when we have not even explored the nearest planetary neighbor? On a cosmological scale, we have barely stepped out of our front door, and have little more than theories about the rest of our world.
@KidMedic: "That being the case, why is so unreasonable to that a being may exist that is not bound by our scientific "laws", ..."
It's unreasonable because there is no evidence to suggest that this being exists. We don't know everything, but that doesn't mean it's reasonable to believe that fairies and unicorns are real either. This is just argument from ignorance/god of the gaps type thinking.
@Cryo: " It's unreasonable because there is no evidence to suggest that this being exists."
You mean, other than that none of our scientific laws make the origin of the matter in the universe possible??? What other option is there. Either our laws are wrong, or something not bound by those laws influenced its origin. There isn't another option. It's like you walked into a room with a light on. Someone tells you that someone turned the light on, and you argue that there is no evidence of that. Either the light has always been on, or someone turned it on. There is no 3rd option.
"All animals have morality, all bacteria and viruses have morality, all things alive or not have morality."
uh...No they don't. What evidence do you have of that statement? Animals will do what they need to get what they need. Domesticated animals obey man because we have taken over the alpha position, not because they think it's wrong to disobey. Leave food on the table, and leave the room and they will take the food...Unless you've trained them otherwise, not because they recognize that the food isn't theirs to take. There is no right/wrong in nature...Period. Darwin said that himself.
@KidMedic: Nothing you said counters my point. You have no positive evidence to support the claim that a supernatural being exists. Is it possible that such a being exists? I guess it's possible, since I'm not omniscient and cannot claim to have that knowledge. But just because something is possible, doesn't mean it's reasonable to believe in, especially when there is no positive evidence to support the claim. Every argument from design boils down to "Science can't tell us, so it must be God!" God of the gaps/argument from ignorance.
Please provide some evidence/study/source that can support a claim that animals have morals. I actually did give Darwin's opinion that it not intelligence, but morality that separates us from the other animals. I also supplied the definition of "supernatural", which is the crux of this particular debate. Merriam Webster's defines it as "departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature". There is no evolutionary explanation or benefit of morality. Since there is no agreed upon scientific explanation for morality, it is, by definition, supernatural.
I can't find it online, but I remember distinctly a documentary where monkeys had to hand in a rock. One would get cucumber. One would get a much preferred grape. With some particular species of monkeys, even the one who gets the grape is outraged by this and throws it away, refusing to accept them unless their fellow monkey also receives some.
Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and
All consequences have a cause.
Some other primates also feel bad when given unfair advantage. So it's not just a one off thing, it's happened multiple times. It's not just some immortal bestowing it on us.
as if anything that exists could be anything but natural.
Benevolence, righteousness, propriety and wisdom were bestowed upon us by Nature.
Rudimentary forms of morality are seen among animals, especially the "higher" primates like chimpanzees. This suggests that morality in humans is not unique and can be explained by the natural process of evolution without appeal to a divine Lawgiver.
A moral lawgiver is no more necessary for morality than a scientific lawgiver is necessary for the laws of nature.
We all agree on what morality is. We differ on the application of it.
The existence of moral laws presumes a moral lawgiver.
Well, who is the foremost source for natural development (aka Evolution)? Charles Darwin, who said that it is not intelligence, but morality that separates humanity from the other animals, and had no evolutionary explanation for morality. It serves no evolutionary purpose, and has no natural reason to have been passed down. There is no morality gene, yet it has endured.