youngterrier wrote:
Point 2
1) To be virtuous is the most rational course of action to evolve and thrive as a human being (unless you want to argue with the likes of Aristotle, Seneca, and Socrates)
2) Rationality is natural, seeded in biology
Be careful lumping Aristotle in so quickly with Socrates (or Plato).
Socrates believed in a reincarnation of the eternal soul which would possess complete knowledge. Plato believed in virtue and rationality as tools for man to transcend his physical experience. Plato believed that our physical experience was limited to perception of shadows of those true, non-material "Forms" -- which were the higher and more material form of reality. These Forms were not accessible to us through the senses, but a sense of the Forms could be gained through application of reason. Aristotle was more of an empiricist and rejected/modified aspects of Plato's ideas.
(In some ways, I think Plato's metaphysics anticipated modern quantum physics, but that's a discussion for another day, and modern scientists would hate to have to admit that).
You made a distinction above between biology and "man's biology." Plato would argue, I believe, that what separates "man's biology" from other animals is man's reason -- man alone possesses the reason to intuit the existence of the "Forms," i.e., true reality.
I think you are being selective in how you are using Plato/Socrates/Aristotle. I doubt any one of them would believe that virtue and reason are dictated by biology. I think they would all hold that virtue and reason is how we transcend our biology.
When I was your age, I was a lot like you. I grew up in a religious family but, as a grew older, I felt detached from religion/faith/God. To the extent I gave it much thought, I doubted any of it was true. When I was a teenager, however, I became a leader in a church-based social group for teenagers which assisted with activities for mentally challenged youth. I was even given an award for Christian youth at my graduation by the archdiocese for my service -- which we chuckled about since I really had no belief. Why did I participate in this group? Because there were a lot of cute girls involved. How's that for a biologically-based reason for "doing good?"
My perspective began to change in college, especially after studying classical metaphysics. At the beginning of my freshman year, I complained to one of my roommates about having to study philosophy and metaphysics, telling him, "Philosophy is nonsense." But the more I studied it, the more it intrigued me. It was irrational to believe we could know all that was true through sensory perception and our ability to reasons. In fact, there were certainly a whole treasure trove of scientific truths that were not known, and will NEVER be known to us. So I also came to understand that there were other physical truths which existed and yet we would never know. I also came to understand that persons of faith seemed to have a greater sense of purpose, identity, and happiness. The non-theists I experienced (many my professors) lacked that spark. Many of them were fine people, and I liked them (like D1B), but I had a prevailing sense that their lack of belief made them less happy because they had a lesser sense of purpose (like D1B).
So, in order to appeal to you, I would offer we have a biological reason to choose to be happy. I say this because of recent scientific advances demonstrating that there is a specific place in the brain which seems pre-disposed to belief in God and that, in fact, it is a higher level area of brain function which deals with higher level, abstract thought.
Now, if we are simply the most evolved and rational of the animals, I question why this irrational brain function, what a non-believer would call a remnant of our less knowledgeable, superstitious past, has not gone extinct due to evolution. And yet thoughts of God still ignite higher-level, abstract human thought.
