<p>
</p>
<p>Arguable, but for the sake of your point I’ll accept this claim. Note that it is not empirically justified in any way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have not seen an explicit link between duty and the process of natural selection, so this is yet another assertion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>NO. You are not very perceptive.</p>
<p>A religious person could argue that religion is “not necessary” for moral behavior because of natural law, i.e. a recognition in an innate manner of the benevolent reality of certain actions because of the command of a particular divine being. So although the religion itself may not be present, the tenets of that religion still are, at least in the mind of that particular adherent. So even people who are seemingly operating without that religion are NOT operating in a vacuum, they are merely operating in the same framework, albeit unwittingly.</p>
<p>And this is all irrelevant – I only care about the ability to justify a consistent moral system on the basis of empiricism (and without gaping holes).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What moral tendencies? Murder, for example? Why is murder wrong? Why is your answer to that question correct? And the next answer? etc. You are either missing my point or choosing to ignore it. As usual, I’ll let you pick the option you like. Again, you are assuming the false nature of religion when discounting natural law, something that you are not able to do unless you are willing to prove your own framework.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, what compunction do I have on a moral level to do these things?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Assertion, assertion, assertion. You are simply ignoring what I am asking and substituting your own drivel for a potentially interesting answer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And what would that basis be? What morality would it dictate?</p>
<p>Prove it. And I will concede. You haven’t even STARTED. All you’ve explained is how religion is seemingly not necessary for morality to exist.</p>
<p>But you have fallen into the trap you so despised and asserted without proof.</p>
<p>So, let’s start again. Perhaps your reading comprehension has improved.</p>
<p>Prove murder is wrong using empiricism with the following assumptions allowed:</p>
<p>1) The world is “real” in that it exists
2) Scientific is correct but only descriptive</p>
<p>You do not have to use either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are conflating reality with empirical reality. They are different.</p>