I'm wary of your usuage of "worldview" i think that i'm built by my genes, and the reason why my genes 'bother' building me is because i allow them to replicate, but that doesn't matter to me, the process is stochastic and blind. Knowledge of our "purpose" from an evolutionary stance need not affect the way we live our lives.I did not mean to put across that there was not ethics in atheism and looking back it seemed that my analogy seemed rather week and confusing but merely that if someone took evolution as a worldview he would then have to adopt a purpose that is associated with that world view.
Well, I know of atheists who agree with the concept of justice (though i do not). But, do you not think it very strange that by inlarge well educated theists and atheists have extremely similar concepts of morality?In Atheism that would be that there is no grand spiritual purpose. This idea of no cosmic purpose would then have to controll his morals (not that he has none, but rather that they must fit into his worldview. I.E. one cannot adopt pantheistic ideas of justice for all... for where does this idea of justice come from.) An Atheistic worldview mandates true relatavism or an idea of "eveolved" ethics created by and independant of different society
If morality were really determined by one's view of purpose, does it not strike you that two people who have diametrically opposed views with regards to this purpose should have very different ethics? And yet, they don't.
I do think "how does this affect humanity" but i don't think that involves purpose at all, the question "Does humanity have a higher purpose?" is a factual question which is in principle answerable by science, and not answerable using anything but reason. What one chooses to do with the answer is up to us and science is not involved.In every way the question of purpose is relevant. It merely says "What does this mean I should do" or "how does this affect humanity" When I said evolution had a purpose I simply meant that the question still could be and did have to be answered.
Compassion, empathy, intuition, law.And I would say that ethics is a very important part of our society, and should be. I think we do need an ethical system. But if science doesn;t touch ethics, how then are we to know how to act?
How do you think other social animals know how to act within their social hierachy?
We can develop a more theoretical treatment through the various branches of Utilitarianism, but finding a consistent but complete ethical system is very hard to do, it may not even be possible. That's because evolution doesn't care about whether we can construct sensible frameworks, as an example there was an experiment done with a cat which when given the choice between two of three foods made choices that were somewhat incomprehensible: It chose food A over food B, food B over food C, but food C over food A.
I agree with that.All I was trying ot get across is that even though science is very useful, there are contingencies on the way we live that exist outside the scope of science.
Well ok but surely if a "world view" is founded on statements regarding the real world _out there_ then that world view can be accepted or rejected on rational scientific grounds.That I have seen a very strong slant towards a certain worldview with that sciece, both from atheistic and theistic viewpoints and I was irritated that people would follow blindly in both scenarious.