I don’t think this is true. I’ve been thinking about ontologically real platonic forms a lot lately, (particularly as a solution to the thornier metaphysical problems) and I just cannot accept that they can exist. The primary problem is that “platonic forms” are usually appealled to as a justification for some abstraction: morality, mathematics, etc. But an abstraction, by definition, is the construct of a mind. A mind is the only conceivable locus for an abstraction. The more I read on this, the more I agree with Whitehead who became convinced that a universal psyche is the only conceivable explanation for our notions of concrete, ontologically real abstractions.

Your two posts seem to me to contradict each other.

In one post, you wrote:
>To me, an atheist, in all sincerity and respect, has nothing upon which to ultimately base his idea that he may not initiate violence. If, as an atheist says, there is no God, and that right and wrong are simply inherent in human nature (or individual and subjective, as some hold) there is no point in being a good person, there is no point in not initiating aggression, so long as A) you don’t get caught by earthly powers or B) you have so much power that no one poses a threat to your will.
[snip]
> The point is, if there is such a thing as a universal moral law, then there must be some universal moral lawgiver, and one who enforces it. If there is any justice, there must be perfect justice.

Here, you seem to say that there can be no morality without God.

But, in your other post, you wrote out the basic view of us atheists towards morality:
>Certainly: my self-interest is intrinsic to my nature as a human being. That does not mean I created my nature!
[snip]
>I am not human nature, though I share human nature. Human nature is not identified with me, but I try to fully participate in it. I try to conform my actions (as one’s actions, in part, make one what one is) to human nature. I try to be fully human.
[snip]
> If my morality is internally derived, then I can change my morality whenever I feel like it.

Yes, you, even as a Christian, can indeed change your morality if you feel like it. You have free will. We and you are in the same boat here. It is the blessing or the curse of being human – even if you believe in God, you need not follow His commands.

And, conversely, we atheists can recognize human nature just as well as you can. Perhaps, God created human nature. Perhaps, He created the sun, moon, and stars.

Regardless, all of those things are now actually there, and their nature can be investigated by both atheists and theists alike.

Humans are the rational animal. We cannot run as fast as a cheetah, we cannot fly like an eagle by flapping our limbs. We survive because of our rational faculty, because we are smarter than any other animal.

That is just a fact, the basic fact of human nature observable by theist and atheist alike.

So, we both get the same basic input to morality – the reality of human nature.

And, because of free will, we both get to choose what to do with that input: we can act in such a way as to allow ourselves and others to realize fully our potential as rational beings.

Or we can choose not to.

You may believe that God wishes you to behave in this way, and that may help motivate you. But it does not force you.

This is not just academic: as a child, I thought that God did exist, but I found the morality that I was taught in the name of God to be a hateful morality. So I rejected it. I refused to be baptized, to join the church we attended (I was listed on Sunday-school attendance rolls, but never as a church member), I refused to “accept Jesus as Lord and Savior,” etc.

So, the existence of God does not simply mean that moral justification is settled because you simply accept the will of God. I chose, with excellent reason given the supposed “morality of God” I was offered, to reject God’s will. I thought I was going to Hell, of course. That was a choice I was willing to make, in order to reject the hateful morality taught in our church.

Of course, when I reached my mid-teens, I came to realize that there were other views of God and His morality, and also to realize that God might not exist at all. So, I realized that the morality I myself had always endorsed was based on human nature anyway, independent of the existence of God.

And, that is, after all, why you and I have similar views of morality: human nature is its basis. We do not need God for morality.

Incidentally, this is simply the traditional Christian view. Both Aquinas and St. Paul insisted, quite rightly, that morality could be ascertained by natural reason independent of one’s religious beliefs, and that non-believers were therefore subject to the same moral rules as believers.

And, of course, given the fact of free will, believers are just as free to reject morality as non-believers are, as is born out by experience: those who claim to believe in religion do not seem to be more moral on average than those of us who are not believers.

So, your argument in your second post contradicts your first: Aquinas and St. Paul were right on this. Morality can, does, and should exist independent of religious belief. That is just as true for traditional Christians as for us non-believers.

Dave Miller in Sacramento

I noticed as a very young child, before I entered kindergarten, that adults systematically lied about everything from Santa Claus to morality to recreational drugs to religion and politics.

When I got old enough to ask about this, early in grade school, I was told that society as we know it simply cannot exist without such lies.

No doubt that is true.

So, ever since I learned the word “society,” as a young child, I have hated the concept of society.

Society = lies.

The day will come, Sam, when people will view “society” as they now view accusations of witchcraft, as a dangerous and evil delusion used to destroy actual human beings.

The same thing is true of “authorities.” If “authority” means simply someone who knows a great deal more about some factual subject than most people know, then, of course, there will always be “authorities.”

But if “authorities” means simply some poor, ignorant human beings who, we pretend, have some right to lord it over and order about their fellow human beings, even though they really have no special factual knowledge or skill, well, I do not doubt that such “authorities” are indeed necessary to society as we know it.

“Authority” in that sense is simply a synonym for “bully” when the bully’s actions are condoned by most of the people in the area, in the name of preserving “society.”

Yes, “society” must indeed die so that free human beings can live.

Perhaps some of you will not be able to stand life without the existence of society.

Then, you will have suicide as an option. No one will stop you.

Dave Miller in Sacramento