Evolution Cannot Explain Morality
Some atheists, such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, insist that morality is simply the product of evolution. Common moral sensibilities (Don’t murder, rape, steal, etc.) help ensure our evolutionary survival. There are number of problems with this view:
-
Rape may enhance the survival of the species, but does that make rape good? Should we rape?
-
Killing the weak and handicapped may help improve the species and its survival (Hitler’s plan). Does that mean the Holocaust was a good thing?
-
Evolution provides no stable foundation for morality. If evolution is the source of morality, then what’s to stop morals from evolving (changing) to the point that one day rape, theft and murder are considered moral?
-
Dawkins and Hitchens confuse epistemology with ontology (how we know something exists with that and what exists). So even if natural selection or some other chemical process is responsible for us knowing right from wrong, that would not explain why something is right or wrong. How does a chemical process (natural selection) yield an immaterial moral law? And why does anyone have a moral obligation to obey a chemical process? You only have a moral obligation to obey an ultimate personal being (God) who has the authority to put moral obligations on you. You don’t have a moral obligation to chemistry.
As I mentioned in an earlier post (Atheists Have No Basis for Morality), several atheists at a recent I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist event at UNC Wilmington struggled greatly when I asked them to offer some objective basis for morality from their atheistic worldview. They kept trying to give tests for how we know something is moral rather than why something is moral. One atheist said “not harming people” is the standard. But why is harming people wrong if there is no God? And what if harming people enhances your survival and that of most others?
Another said, “happiness” is the basis for morality. After I asked him, “Happiness according to who, Mother Teresa or Hitler?,” he said, “I need to think about this more,” and then sat down. This says nothing about the intelligence of these people– there just is no good answer to the question. Without God there is no basis for objective morals. It’s just Mother Teresa’s opinion against Hitler’s.
See also Neil’s post: Does our Morality come from our DNA?
July 1st, 2008 at 11:46 am
“Rape may enhance the survival of the species, but does that make rape good? Should we rape? ”
Hi Frank. I have to ask how much you’ve actually read on the subject of evolution. You’re dealing in a straw man of the science. I also wonder how much direct writings of Dawkins you’ve read too, as your representation of his beliefs directly contradict his actual opinions.
Firstly, rape is bad for the human species. Which children have a better chance of survival - those produced in a loving relationship, where both parents bring up the children - or children produced through rape, where the man dashes off after the deed?
Secondly, Dawkins and Darwin BOTH countless times stated their opposition to ideas of social darwinism - a right-wing idea.
Thirdly, just because we evolved our ideas of morality, that doesn’t mean we can’t reason out the right moral course to take.
Fourth, if anything atheists are more moral by your logic, as they are being good for its own sake, rather than out of fear of punishment in the afterlife.
Lastly, I don’t understand why you keep bringing up Hitler. He practiced artificial selection, not natural selection. The former existed for thousands of years before Darwin. Hitler made it quite clear he was influenced by his religion, not science. He quotes liberally from the bible and Martin Luther in his speaches and writings. How many times does Mein Kampf mention ‘Survival of the fittest’, Darwin, evolution or ‘origin of species’?
Not once.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:48 am
Oh, have you read Hitchens’ book on Mother Theresa? It makes it quite clear she had no interest in increasing human happiness. For her, the suffering of the sick was part of the glory of God, and therefore not something to relieve.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:48 pm
“If evolution is the source of morality, then what’s to stop morals from evolving (changing) to the point that one day rape, theft and murder are considered moral? ”
I’m afraid it is religion that has the history of deciding that all kinds of horrible activities are permissable. Look at how many religions still think that removing foreskins of baby boys is ok. Look at how Christians used the bible to justify slavery for centuries. Look at the atrocities wrought by bible-justified anti-semitism. Look at the certainties of the Islamic terrorists - they KNOW they’re in the right because their book tells them so.
The atrocities are always perpetrated by the people who claim to have the ‘objective morality’. This can be through political idiology as well as religious - hence the horror from communism in the 20th Century. Once your opinions and morality is no longer up for debate, then anything is permissable.
That’s the danger. Honestly, I’m baffled to why you’re so worried about liberal atheists. They’re not going to be the ones deciding rape is OK.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Frank,
Fantastic article, it really hits core in the brings home the incomplete thought processes in the mind of those who equate epistemological
hypothesis with the chemicalogical as an answer for where we may derive morality from.
“Another said, “happiness” is the basis for morality. After I asked him, “Happiness according to who, Mother Teresa or Hitler?,” he said, “I need to think about this more,” and then sat down. This says nothing about the intelligence of these people– there just is no good answer to the question. Without God there is no basis for objective morals. It’s just Mother Teresa’s opinion against Hitler’s. ”
That was a great reply, I couldn’t have stated that more succinctly. Somehow the academic intelligentsia thinks this is a game, and we can discuss matter until blue in the face without actually identifying and applying a standard that preserves us as a people. They simply believe there is an answer our there other than what is plainly before them.
Great article…
July 1st, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Andrew,
“Hi Frank. I have to ask how much you’ve actually read on the subject of evolution. You’re dealing in a straw man of the science. I also wonder how much direct writings of Dawkins you’ve read too, as your representation of his beliefs directly contradict his actual opinions.”
Have you ever watched any of the debates Hitchens has had with Dinesh D’sousa? You might… his own arguments dont’ stand up very well in debate.
“I’m afraid it is religion that has the history of deciding that all kinds of horrible activities are permissable. Look at how many religions still think that removing foreskins of baby boys is ok. Look at how Christians used the bible to justify slavery for centuries. Look at the atrocities wrought by bible-justified anti-semitism. Look at the certainties of the Islamic terrorists - they KNOW they’re in the right because their book tells them so.”
That is a lazy cop out Mr. Ryan, come on… you are smarter than that. Religions as a whole has had better societal benefits than what secularists have brough to the table, when their agenda’s have been acted upon. Now, I am not arguing on behalf of the whole of religiosity as I am not particularly religious that way. What I am saying though, is look at the evidence. Those who were Godless have done more to impact the world negatively than those claiming to be any sort of religious affilation because of an internal set of guidelines expressed propagandistically and accepted as a whole by force.
The problem with secularism is there is no freedom to engage or disengage at will. There is a collectivism at play that mandates your participation - You are either down with the program or you’ll get run down by it, and that is a matter of historical fact not subject to interpretation. Why? because they know no one in their right mind is going to downplay [of their own free will] that basic innate system of self worth we were designed to have in favor of a contrived set of indoctrinated values good for nothing but a social agenda in favor of those perpetrating the change.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Also,
Scientists [so-called] that argue that morality is chemical - disregards agency as the initiator of the chemical response, in other words… something had to initiate the chemical response. It’s not a chicken or the egg argument.. it is rational. Since humans are sensory and response to what is in the environment.
That being true, would violate certain natural laws [entropy for one I believe] in the process - just thought I’d put that out there.
July 1st, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Also, please pardon the salutation mix up… I was adrressing Frank initially, I am just so used to responding to Andrew - see you have grown on us Drew!
July 1st, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Andrew,
The issue is not whether atheists are morally better than Christians or not. The issue is how do atheists ground their morality. if there is no God, why is rape or killing the weak wrong? Who sez rape is wrong if there is no God? If there is no God, then it’s just your opinion against the rapist’s opinion.
I know Dawkins is against social Darwinism, but on what grounds can he oppose it? And Hitler’s motivation is irrelevant to the question, but as a side note, he certainly wasn’t motivated by “love your neighbor as yourself.”
Blessings,
Frank
P.S. Congratulations on your new baby? Is this your first? If it is, get ready to be sleepless for a while!
July 1st, 2008 at 10:51 pm
“They kept trying to give tests for how we know something is moral rather than why something is moral.”
Makes sense to me of course. It gets back to the fundamental question - do you get all of your “absolute morality” out of some special “holy book” or do you determine a “relative morality” from your society?
“The issue is how do atheists ground their morality.”
Yes. Atheists, like virtually everyone else, ground their morality in the society around them. Of course this is not perfect, but it’s better than relying on the religious leaders (like the Taliban?) to hand down the “absolute morality”. So, do you want a “civil” society or a theocracy?
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:21 am
So I’m back from my long absence. Did you miss me? I was all ready for a giant response to one of Neil’s posts from like, two months back or something, and then promptly lost interest. Maybe I’ll give this another go and see how long before the mental gymnastics drive me nuts again.
Frank, it seems to me that your entire argument hinges on the idea that there is indeed a universal moral standard. You’ve been challenging everyone to defend a universal moral standard without religion, and for some reason everyone’s been taking for granted that there is a universal moral standard. It seems to me that you need to prove that first, and unless I’m mistaken I don’t think you ever have. So, demonstrate beyond a doubt that there is indeed a universal moral standard, and if you do that, without some sort of “because God said so” argument (which I don’t think you can) I’ll respond to your challenge.
Oh, and TDR, you just made up “chemicalogical,” didn’t you? If not, I’d be really interested to hear an actual definition.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:00 am
JJ,
“So, demonstrate beyond a doubt that there is indeed a universal moral standard, and if you do that, without some sort of “because God said so” argument (which I don’t think you can) I’ll respond to your challenge.”
Oh, joy here we go… If Christians had a buck for every time we’ve heard that one? Well I’ll tell you this - brash, elementary irreverence isn’t vilifying any points either. Frank doesn’t have to prove something that exists - it does, you have to justify your denial, ok? If you look in the mirror and deny the image your see, in favor of one your prefer to see, once could in fact call sanity into question - well, morals are the same way. Also, religion is not the topic, seculars love intentionally mixing the tow to support their arguments of “religion” being the issue society can use less of or be without, yet no one made religion the subject. Seculars ignore or side step a very basic element of their own individual character building everyday regimine… basic moral clarity.
God doesn’t have to tell us something that He’s encoded in us already. We either accept or reject what it presents to us - But there is no denying we know what is fundamentally right from wrong. It is only with by the strength of numbers that today’s moral dissenters seem to find comfort, as traditionally… misery has always seemed to love company. Without it… I doubt very seriously we’d be seeing the bold refutations of just common sense moral behavioral guidance they way we do today.
It’s like understanding vs.knowing that 1+1=2. Do we trust it because we read it first… or because someone told us? Or did we just come to understand it just it universally adds up? same thing. We call those laws, things that have consequences or ramifications in multiple planes of reality, whether physical, natural, or emotional. They impact us because they add up whether or not we see it or it makes sense to us, it is just a matter or personal choice that they are ignored. Thus it is the consensus of ignorance that is the social issue today.
“Oh, and TDR, you just made up “chemicalogical,” didn’t you? If not, I’d be really interested to hear an actual definition.”
Lol, it iwas an appropriate to context suffix… one of the beauties of the English language. Cheeky aren’t we?
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:02 am
“Frank doesn’t have to prove something that exists”
I’m afraid he does. It’s impossible to prove something DOESN’T exist. You can’t prove there aren’t invisible elephants on the moon.
“Have you ever watched any of the debates Hitchens has had with Dinesh D’sousa? ”
Yes, and Hitchens wipes the floor with D’Sousa. In fact, I would wipe the floor with D’Sousa. His technique is just to start shouting and screaching.
Frank: “I know Dawkins is against social Darwinism, but on what grounds can he oppose it?”
One can oppose it along the lines of the Golden Rule. Is YOUR only opposition to rape that God is against it? Really? So if you had been brought up without the bible, your common sense would not tell you that it was wrong? Frank, that’s a rather disturbing thought.
Out of interest, as a Republican (I’m guessing), does that mean that YOU broadly support social Darwinism - eg oppose universal healthcare, oppose minimum wage etc.
JJ: “Frank, it seems to me that your entire argument hinges on the idea that there is indeed a universal moral standard.”
I agree.
BTW, Baby still not here, any day now!
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:23 am
Andrew,
“I’m afraid he does. It’s impossible to prove something DOESN’T exist. You can’t prove there aren’t invisible elephants on the moon.”
No, you definitely wrong. Take your Zeus analogy, if we fabricated something - only the the myth of what we invented has impact, but nothing substantial ever existed. Example: the whole concept of numbers, has anyone ever seen a number? No, but we have seen symbols of what a number represents to us in written form, and can quantify a value for its expression in the natural. The same thing with faith and morals.
“Yes, and Hitchens wipes the floor with D’Sousa. In fact, I would wipe the floor with D’Sousa. His technique is just to start shouting and screaching.”
No, “shouting and screaming” are we watching the same debates> I think not. Hitchens isn’t that bright and was picked apart rather easily. Just because he engages in poetic subterfuge doesn’t grant him brownie points, OK, well maybe to you. D’ Sousa’s style is a bit quirky but he get s the job done. As for you taking D’Souza on… no doubt are smart guy. But I wouldn’t go breaking your arm patting yourself on the back, you are barley keeping your nose above water in this forum. I would LOVE to debate Hitchens, but I wouldn’t make such claims.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:32 am
Andrew,
Blessings on the arrival of you new baby boy… There is nothing more beautiful. I wish you all my best.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:09 am
TDR, it’s an ‘unfalsifiable’ claim. Look the word up before you respond to this statement. There’s no way to test it.
As for my Zeus analogy, he was a God worshipped for centuries just as your own, with acompanying statues, holy literature etc.
Are we watching the same debates? I don’t know. From where I sit, D’Souza shouts whenever he’s engaging with particularly flawed logic. Hitchens is an alcoholic, but you’re the first person I’ve ever heard denying his considerable learning and intellect.
I guess it’s a matter of opinion who wins in their debates.
Thanks for best wishes on forthcoming child (gender as yet unknown). Due next week.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:59 am
Anyway TDR, isn’t Frank trying to show that the ‘evolution’ argument has some logical fallacy, or that it leads to immorality in some way? The logical fallacy seems to depend on a Christian claim - that there is objective morality. This doesn’t show an INTERNAL fallacy in the evolution argument. All it shows is that it may disagree with Frank’s view.
At any rate, millions of Christians accept evolution. They could believe that we’ve evolved the ability to see the objective morality, in the same way that we’ve evolved the ability to see objects that exist in the real world.
Apart from that, Frank’s first two points rest on fallacies - rape isn’t good for humans, and neither is wiping out huge numbers of other humans.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Frank, it seems to me that your entire argument hinges on the idea that there is indeed a universal moral standard. You’ve been challenging everyone to defend a universal moral standard without religion, and for some reason everyone’s been taking for granted that there is a universal moral standard.
Actually, no. Frank has just been asking people to defend positions they take for granted, things like “rape is bad, consensual sex is good,” and “Hitler is bad, Mother Teresa is good” (substitute Schweitzer if you’re buying Hitchens’ smear of Mother Teresa). It would be perfectly reasonable for you to answer “I think there’s no moral difference between rape and consensual sex,” or “I think there’s no moral difference between Hitler and [Mother Teresa|Albert Schweitzer],” if that’s what you believe, and that would suffice to answer Frank’s question.
Of course, the point is that nobody who wants to be considered sane and moral will say such a thing. It becomes immediately evident that civilization is not possible without some sort of generally accepted moral standard. The question then follows: “Where did that standard come from?”
So, JJ — do you think rape is morally wrong? And if so, what would be the basis of of saying so, without invoking an already-existing universal moral standard?
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Oh, and by the way: yeah, we did miss you, JJ.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Andrew,
“TDR, it’s an ‘unfalsifiable’ claim. Look the word up before you respond to this statement. There’s no way to test it. ”
I don’t need a lesson in debate Andrew, but thank you though.. and this isn’t a science lab. Keep those straight my friend, now to test [as you claim] is only valid if you apply it. You only apply it if you have need to… now apply that [no pun] to our context, if you don’t believe in the basis for Christian morals and ehtics… you have no impetus to, therefore the process of validating [testing] becomes moot. Thus it not being real to you - even though you may be the transient beneficiary of it being in practice around you, thatis a point you are faling to get.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Andrew,
“Are we watching the same debates? I don’t know. From where I sit, D’Souza shouts whenever he’s engaging with particularly flawed logic. Hitchens is an alcoholic, but you’re the first person I’ve ever heard denying his considerable learning and intellect.”
The guy writes for a fashion/culture magazine… what take away points should I be aware of?
“Apart from that, Frank’s first two points rest on fallacies - rape isn’t good for humans, and neither is wiping out huge numbers of other humans.”
But you are walking through that back door on this one with a sell all/tell all. But you have not resolved the moral argument underneath. That is the issue - Why is rape not good for humans? If you say it is not - then what is the process you come to that conclusion with? Is it internal or external? if it is internal… what is it based on, if it is external it is moot because it is subjective in nature. That is what he is driving at I believe [in so many words]. Again, you’ve basically in so many words… said nothing.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Andrew,
“As for my Zeus analogy, he was a god worshipped for centuries just as your own, with acompanying statues, holy literature etc. ”
So is Mormanism… and you point is?
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Evolution cannot explain morality because it cannot even explain itself. There are an almost infinite number of transitional species that the evolutionists have not evidenced. Geologic time is something one cannot grasp intuitively. It is a mathematical construct, and mathematics has not produced a solution.
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:00 am
Interesting analysis.
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:57 am
Plumb Bob,
Let me put it this way:
Yes, I consider rape morally wrong, but I think my definition of moral is different from yours. It seems to me that your definition of moral is such that it presupposes the very standard you claim to base it on.
I believe morality is a human construct. To paraphrase an anonymous commenter i once read, (who could name the “parts of the brain” i reference) morality is a story one part of the brain tells another so that it can live with itself. Is it any wonder that nearly anyone in the world who you could ask would likely consider themselves exceptionally moral compared to those around them. (I tried to find any statistics on this, but couldn’t. Seems like a really good polling idea to me, but I suppose most probably consider the outcome too obvious to bother) Why is it that it is morally reprehensible to intentionally and consciously go out and kill another human being in cold blood, but people barley bat an eye at the fact that their tax dollars have been spent on missions that have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians (not by intent mind you, but nonetheless in such a way that we are aware that our dollars are causing it). Is it any wonder that people’s morals change greatly over the course of their life, that tons of 14 to 15 year old teens every year condemn alcohol, tobacco, marijuana usage, and premarital sex and that by the time they’re 18 or 19 they don’t seem to have a problem with them? (at least that’s what I’ve observed, so I guess I’m citing anecdotal evidence, but it’s the best I’ve got, as they never do any polling on the really interesting stuff) We rewrite our moral code all the time to accommodate for new actions we take that violated our old ones. Humans are natural born hypocrites in that respect.
Now, I know I’ve left myself wide open for the “GASP!!!! So according to you there is no between Hitler and Mother Teresa” response, and I would preemptively defend against it, but alas, I’m out of time for the night. I’ll be back to offer that up tomorrow (hopefully, I’m pretty scrunched for time tomorrow, but I’ll do my best). Hopefully I won’t disappear for two months after promising a response this time.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:15 am
Ok, so I lied. I saw Paul’s post and had to respond.
Geological time is something one cannot grasp intuitively, therefore it’s made up? Are you kidding? Why don’t you add General relativity and quantum mechanics to that list. By your reasoning those don’t work either.
Infinite transitional species we haven’t evidenced? Actually no. There is no such thing as a transitional species. Or, in another light, every species currently alive is a transitional species. Species are in a constant state of change over the span of geological time, but no species is “in transition” to something else. There is nothing they are transitioning to. They simply change based on natural, environmental pressures.
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:40 am
PLumb Bob: “The question then follows: “Where did that standard come from?” ”
Well the debate is about whether it evolved, isn’t it?
TDR: “But you have not resolved the moral argument underneath. That is the issue - Why is rape not good for humans?”
I answered that in my first post.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:18 am
Saying that morality evolved doesn’t mean that Hitler is no worse than Theresa. That’s like saying that because we evolved to find strawberries more appealing to eat than excrement, that means we should all go out and eat excrement.
JJ Berg, out of interest, did you give up posting here because every single thread almost immediately turned into another forum for creationists to post long-ago debunked misunderstandings about evolution?
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:06 am
Hi JJ,
Welcome back. Allow me to ask the questions from the post in another way. Maybe then someone with an atheistic perspective can provide a direct answer.
If morality is merely “a human construct,” whose construct– Mother Teresa’s or Hitlers? If you don’t like Mother Teresa, how about you vs. Hitler. If humans make it up, how can your construct of morality be any better than Hitler’s? And why should I adhere to yours rather than Hitler’s? Saying that yours is better begs the question. Why is yours better? Who sez?
Does that construct exist outside of you or is it just your opinion? If it exists outside of you, where did it come from in an atheistic materialistic universe? What gives it moral authority?
One more note: We DON’T NEED THE BIBLE TO KNOW BASIC RIGHT FROM WRONG. The Bible even teaches this– the moral law is written on our hearts (Romans 2). The question is, who wrote it there?
I’ll be on the road, so it make take me a while to respond. Thanks for your posts.
Blessings,
Frank
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:26 am
“How can your construct of morality be any better than Hitler’s?”
How can your interpretation of the bible be any better than Hitler’s? It’s the same argument.
Again Frank, are you saying that you are incapable of constructing an argument to condemn Hitler without reference to the bible? My argument against Hitler would start with talking about the huge amount of unhappiness he caused. Does that mean NOTHING to you?
Do you retract what you said about rape being ‘good for humans’?
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:42 am
Andrew,
“Again Frank, are you saying that you are incapable of constructing an argument to condemn Hitler without reference to the bible? My argument against Hitler would start with talking about the huge amount of unhappiness he caused. Does that mean NOTHING to you?”
I don’t propose to speak for Frank, but simply… the answer for that question is innate in us. The answers for that are in God’s Word…. you can accept it or reject it. Now, the question of the whole thread is - if we know the answer in us, being wrong [rape, murder, incest… etc.] it is how we come to the answers. Either the question is answered and accepted through scripture or it is rationalized my man. Either way we see that bore out in society today with secular idealism, Eastern philosophy, religion and Christian world views. Even more simply put, we take what occurs naturally in us to explain why we know certain things are no-no’s and seek to answer it with God’s Word or our own word.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:06 am
“I don’t propose to speak for Frank, but simply… the answer for that question is innate in us.”
Right. So we’re all in agreement on that. Some people believe we evolved to the state that it’s innate, other people think that it has a supernatural origin. But we all agree that it’s innate either way, so why does it matter where it came from?
“We take what occurs naturally in us to explain why we know certain things are no-no’s”
I don’t think that’s what Frank is saying. Frank says that if your natural conscience and common sense tells you that something is wrong, but that feeling contradicts with HIS interpretation of the bible, then you should ignore your conscience and common sense.
Here’s is my point of view: We live in an imperfect world. We can only interpret the real world through our senses and our rational minds, and even they can sometimes play us false.
However, while using our conscience and our common sense might be fallible methods to do the right moral thing, it’s about as good as we can manage. How do I know that my common sense is the best? I don’t. But it’s the best I’ve got.
It does NOT strike me as a better option to ignore my conscience AND my common sense and replace both to adopt someone else’s interpretation of a book they claim will give me objective morality. That is exactly what Hitler did. Replacing one set of dogmas (his) with another (yours) is not the answer either. If your conscience roughly corresponds with your own interpretation of the bible, then that’s hardly a coincidence. You interpret the bible to fit the opinions you already have on subjects like gays, death penalty, abortion etc. That’s why opinions on these subjects are mainly geographic - they depend on where you were brought up as much as anything. [My Christian parents brought me up to question, and to make up my own mind. Most of their values are mine too, but not all.]
Personally, I recommend a questioning attitude, an open mind, and eternal vigilance.
Andy
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Andrew,
“Right. So we’re all in agreement on that. Some people believe we evolved to the state that it’s innate, other people think that it has a supernatural origin. But we all agree that it’s innate either way, so why does it matter where it came from?”
Well, wait - this is very careful wording from you here. I don’t know who the people are who believe some people evolved to a state of innate[ness]. The word Innate implies something was always there. Evolution espouses that environmental needs induced adaptation. Those are two very different arguments right there. However, I do agree you are right in how you broke it down. But you ask one of the smartest questions I have heard you ask in this thread which deserves due credit. Why does it matter where it came from?
Well, it matters because if it came from external sources, man created it and is a matter of orientation; that is subjective - because he doesn’t have to engage or acknowledge it. However, if it is truly an innate feature exclusive to humans. It is not only evidence of an intelligent design,and we have to deal with it - it cannot be ignored, therefore effects how we live. And clearly shows there was purpose behind the design, and that designed was intended to guide us in a manner that is not self destructive therefore collectively lends itself to cohesivity. Thus, there must be an Intelligent Designer who must have a set of intelligent guidelines to live? That is the whole of the issue, whether man made morays are equally as valid and beneficial to those innately carried within us.
Excellent questions and comments from you… Blessing
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:10 pm
“Well, it matters because if it came from external sources, man created it and is a matter of orientation; that is subjective.”
Not necessarily. We evolved sight - but that doesn’t mean that the things we see aren’t really there. So us evolving our conscience still allows for the possibility of an ‘objective morality’, just one that evolution allowed us to understand. I’m not convinced that there IS such a thing, but it’s not actually ruled out by evolution.
“However, if it is truly an innate feature exclusive to humans….”
That’s a big ‘IF’. Yes, if humans didn’t evolve then we were designed. But that’s like saying ‘If it wasn’t gravity that made the rock fall to the ground then it was something supernatural”.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Andrew,
“Not necessarily. We evolved sight - but that doesn’t mean that the things we see aren’t really there. ”
How did we “evolve” sight? I am just curious about that statement.
““However, if it is truly an innate feature exclusive to humans….”
That’s a big ‘IF’. Yes, if humans didn’t evolve then we were designed. But that’s like saying ‘If it wasn’t gravity that made the rock fall to the ground then it was something supernatural”.
Well, it is not nearly as big an if as you may feel. The evidence is discarding the subjective valuation that we are the result of specialized adaptations through mutations that randomly came into existence then chose what route in life we wanted to live pursue then adaptation came to the rescue again to piece-mail us what we need to be who we want to be. It is interesteng that mathematicians have recently argued that the statistical chance that mutations regardless of how specific, would be infinitely impossible to calculate what it would take to create who we are as a person. A living soul, with the ability to understand, reason.. act on that reason and question the reason why we do what we do - including the innate understanding of what is right and what is fundementally wrong. That [they said] is incalculable, not virtually incalculable… but incalculable.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
“How did we “evolve” sight? I am just curious about that statement.”
Of course it is natural to be interested in how we came to be the way we are. There are plenty of books on evolution you can read if you are curious. If you don’t have a good local library, (or you’re just a bit impatient!) then the talkorigins website is probably a good resource online. I’m pretty sure it’s got some good pieces on the evolution of the eye.
Have fun, and good luck.
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:27 pm
A few quick things:
Andrew - “JJ Berg, out of interest, did you give up posting here because every single thread almost immediately turned into another forum for creationists to post long-ago debunked misunderstandings about evolution?”
Combination of that, and the fact that when school ended i started a full time summer job that’s been a bit like trying to take a drink out of a firehouse that’s turned up all the way.
TDR - ‘How did we “evolve” sight? I am just curious about that statement.’
a few minutes of googling produced this and this. I skimmed the powerpoint, seems accurate as far as i understand the topic, and i know i watched that video ages ago and thought it informative.
I’ll hopefully be back later tonight for something more substantive.
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:29 pm
ah shoot, first link doesn’t work. i typed “how to evolve an eye” in on google, and clicked on the 6th link down
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:11 pm
JJ –
First of all, I think what you’re describing should not be described as “morality,” but rather “rationalization.” Yes, this is very much a human characteristic, but the consequences of ignoring societal moral codes by rationalizing immoral behavior are pretty well documented. If you saw the movie, “The Shawshank Redemption,” you may remember how all the inmates in the prison declared themselves innocent when you asked them. They even made jokes about it. Of course, when they discovered that the main character, Andy Dufresne, had actually not committed any crime, it became obvious that they all really knew they were guilty: “You mean, Andy’s innocent? I mean, FOR REAL innocent? and he’s been in here — how many years now?”
The point is that while we all rationalize to some extent, what it illustrates is that we all know the same moral code innately, and feel obligated to stick to it. Otherwise, why are we rationalizing? Who are we trying to convince that it’s really ok to break the code? Who’s our judge?
Secondly, let me echo and amplify Frank’s objection. Some human constructs are arbitrary: we may as well drive on the left side of the road as the right, for example, and so long as we all agree to the convention (and auto manufacturers go along), it’ll work. Some human constructs, though, are concessions to physics: for example, the rules that prohibit children shorter than a certain height from taking certain rides at the amusement park. The safety restraints on the ride would not protect kids that are too small. This is not an arbitrary construct, but a nod in the direction of physical reality.
If moral constructs were of the first sort, we should expect no uniformity in human social rules; different cultures would have moral rules all over the map. We would also expect no difference in the results as these rules change arbitrarily, since the construct itself doesn’t matter so long as everybody agrees.
What we see in human societies, though, is remarkable uniformity in moral rules throughout human history. Furthermore, in those human backwaters where the moral rules have significantly broken down — I’m thinking for example of the Waudani tribesmen in Ecuador, who had elevated murder and retribution to an art form, or the remarkably similar Hatfield-McCoy feud in Appalachia — the tale of human misery arising from the pattern of murder and retribution is as predictable as it is destructive. This is not the mark of an arbitrary construct, but of adherence (or lack thereof) to an existing reality outside of ourselves.
So, yes, there may be societies where Hitler would be regarded as a remarkably adept fellow — but such societies won’t prosper, and that tells us something about Hitler’s morals, namely that they’re the wrong ones. And if there’s a wrong morality, there has to be a right one. And if there’s a right one, it can’t be merely a human construct.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Andrew Ryan quoted me and responded:
PLumb Bob: “The question then follows: “Where did that standard come from?” ”
Andrew Ryan: Well the debate is about whether it evolved, isn’t it?
Yes, but that doesn’t answer the question at all. In fact, it illustrates how atheists use evolution as a God-of-the-Gaps fallacy. They posit “It evolved” as though that actually explains something, whereas all that’s really being said is “It happened without intention,” without the slightest attempt to answer the question “How?”
If morality evolved, Andrew, are you saying there’s a set of morality GENES? Talk to any human psychologist you like, or any researcher in that field, they’ll tell you that some percentage of human behavior is innate, but some is socialized. How does evolution explain the socialized parts?
Furthermore, read my answer to JJ Berg in the previous post, regarding arbitrary constructs versus constructs that respond to some external reality. The uniformity of moral rules, and the predictable results of ignoring those rules, suggests morals are existing, external rules that inhere to human society, and exist as a part of our universe. That would mean they’re external to humans, and cannot evolve. It would be like saying “gravity evolved.” Gravity didn’t evolve; various species evolved survival mechanisms that adjusted in various ways to gravity (birds one way, monkeys another), but gravity is a characteristic of our universe that exists outside of any species.
Finally, please recognize the inherent contradiction between rules that adhere to natural selection and human moral rules. You can talk all you like about how modern atheists have rejected social Darwinism, but the fact remains that social Darwinism follows logically from applying survival of the fittest to the human species, and when atheists reject it (as most do) they’re actually refuting their own beliefs. In a population ruled by natural selection, for example, the species is weakened by the survival of mutants or weak offspring. Species in nature deliberately shove the runts aside to die. Human societies, however, turn this on its head, and judge a civilization by how WELL it treats the weakest members. Thus, human kindness refutes natural selection — but how could that happen if human morality evolved by natural selection?
Gotta run. Enjoy.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:32 pm
How To Evolve An Eye
I’m not sure who’s discussing this — I haven’t read all the posts, I’m just skimming — but unless I’m mistaken, you’re looking for Nilsson and Pelger’s research that posits a simulation in which a smooth surface changed into lens-like formation over a remarkably small number of generations.
The problem with that research is the same problem Darwin had — it does not address cellular structure or function at all, it just posits a number of changes in appearance, that lead from a smooth-LOOKING surface to an eye-LIKE structure. The reason this is meaningless is addressed in the introduction of Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box. Simply put, it’s easy to imagine a wing morphing into a leg or an arm if all you have to go by is the physical structure, because they look similar. However, if you begin to understand the cellular and genetic functions involved in producing a leg or a wing, it becomes obvious that morphing from one to the other requires a great deal of change at a level where things don’t look at all the same. Nilsson and Pelger’s paper addressed phenotype only, and that doesn’t provide any understanding — or explanation — of genotype.
I’m afraid the eye evolution model is just another instance of evolution’s fans blowing their horn about something that’s been “proved,” when in fact all they’ve done is draw an interesting picture.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:25 am
“the fact remains that social Darwinism follows logically from applying survival of the fittest to the human species”
So why is it that it’s the right-wingers who endorse Social Darwinism? You’re turning an ‘is’ into an ‘ought’. That evolution happens is a fact. It says nothing about how we should act as human beings.
“The uniformity of moral rules, and the predictable results of ignoring those rules, suggests morals are existing, external rules that inhere to human society, and exist as a part of our universe. ”
I’m sorry, but that doesn’t follow at all. The fact that ignoring moral rules leads to bad consequences is exactly what we would expect from evolved morals. If ignoring them didn’t lead to bad consequences then we wouldn’t have evolved them!
July 4th, 2008 at 6:22 am
Bob, perhaps you are summarising Behe badly, but your argument seems to be that the explanation falls down if a structure is evolving into a structure that ‘looks a bit different’. That makes no sense.
At any rate, Behe is an odd kind of poster boy for creationism – he’s said that he believes man is descended from apes. Furthermore, he’s failed to make any of his ideas stick. You can google for excerpts from his book, we can google the many debunkings of said book. But at the end of the day, he’s failed to submit any scientific, peer-reviewed papers on his ideas.
In the Dover trial Behe conceded that “there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred”.
He also admitted that the definition of ‘theory’ as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well. He’s ideas carry no weight. You don’t advance your cause by citing him.
July 4th, 2008 at 7:03 am
“Species in nature deliberately shove the runts aside to die. Human societies, however, turn this on its head, and judge a civilization by how WELL it treats the weakest members. Thus, human kindness refutes natural selection”
Bob, take a few moments to think this through. The phenomenon of casting aside the runt is found amoung litter-bearing animals - where a mother may produce 5 or 6 offspring every few months. They don’t have the resources to care for every one, therefore only the strongest get to suckle the mother.
Humans by contrast have a far longer gestation period and tend to produce one child at a time. So every one counts. Just like in other animals with longer gestation periods and smaller litters, all of which have far greater ‘mothering instincts’. The explanation is as simple as that - nothing’s been refuted, there is no contradiction. Does that make sense?
July 4th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Andrew,
You may try reading GE Moore, he has a unique way of making quite clear the difference between moral character being inevitable in humans by the natural order of our design in how we carry our moral judgments and ethics that perpetuate and sustain humanity than tend to be the glazed over postulations of scientific lifestyle speculators. They some how interject that natural selection is nothing more than just a survival instinct carried out without prejudice by cyclical creatures to advance the best of their kind. In humans [I had earlier conceded] that Intelligent Design [by the way… not to be confused with Creationism] utilizes the dynamic of natural selection to illustrate man’s development, but does not discard mans fallen nature in it’s hypothesis on how we developed to who we are now.
Which [for all intensive purposes] hasn’t changed from day one. I am personally interested in these finds in microbiology - they are discovering a level of organization at the sub-cellular and subatomic level, these has huge implications in showing there is another part of man, organized that we cannot see, but has mass [though very light], has organization, therefore must have purpose. If all of that is true [which I firmly stand on God’s Word… being just that, science is just catching up], we need to take a deeper look into the claim[s] of those who say there is no “other” purpose in life other than what we create for ourself now other than the shallow self indulgent, self serving existence the secular mind has projected as highest order of focus in one’s life. Contrasted with a designed organization with our personal best in mind.
One thing to remember is that God is spirit, and that spirit is a organized form of mass. These are obviously building blocks, layer after layer until material until something physical is made plain to the eye. Think of it as the reverse of breaking down a cell. We see a cell until we keep looking closer to smaller and smaller elements of itself that are not visible to the eye - those smaller elements are still mass.
Knowing this; we now have to accept that some things may never be designed to have more that just a “barely there” presence in our lives. And maybe I am not articulating this the best but if we cannot see spirit - it is clear it was designed that way. Like air, we breathe it but we cannot touch it, but we can feel it blow past us in a gentle breeze - yet cannot live without it. Man was created a living soul - The Bible tells us apart from our spirit the flesh [our bodies] cannot survive.
This is huge! We are created with something that is part of us, that reflects who we are… that can relate context & meaning. Judge an discern. Emote and project what is felt internally and have the innate ability to translate that for others to understand. All this being said - with an innate system of moral guidance designed to preserve the self. If all “selfs” acted on it, there is a universal respect that results, we call this order… morality.
All this to say the same spiritually - if there is a part of me that lends weight to the decisions I make by having the ability [in me] to parse the ramifications of engaging in some of those choices I make - We have to rethink what we claim man isn’t - that being a biproduct of random chance. Random chance doesn’t make decisions… so following that thought to its conclusion: chaos or ramdom events cannot purpose what they cannot consider, because there is no thought in it. Basically the “you cannot have something from nothing argument” - We are complex beings and have to be endowed with the ability to think as sentient and conscionable beings. We as created beings make decisions and take chances… the branch of science that you favor cannot answer this very simple question, and should raise a lot questions in the minds of those that say this cannot exist. They now have to prove how it cannot… it is that they have not done a very convincing job thus far of doing.
Blessings my friend.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:40 am
“Species in nature deliberately shove the runts aside to die. Human societies, however, turn this on its head, and judge a civilization by how WELL it treats the weakest members. Thus, human kindness refutes natural selection”
Andrew covered this pretty well above, but I just wanted to add something. This represents, first off, someone arguing with only a partial understanding of natural selection. And I really don’t mean that as an insult, the process is immensely complicated, with millions and millions of caveats. There are tons of situations in which natural selection, properly examined and thought through, will produce results directly the opposite of what one might initially expect.
Furthermore I’d like to add though, that the truth of Andrew’s argument becomes even more obvious when you look at natural selection from a gene centered point of view. I might add that the gene centered theory automatically pokes holes in the “well then, why shouldn’t we kill all the weak ones to help ensure the survival of the species” argument, because, actually, natural selection (according to the gene centered theory) has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with ensuring the survival of the species, and everything to do with ensuring survival of genes, all of which compete (and sometimes cooperate) with other genes in their environment.
I know however, that I haven’t really explained the gene centered theory very well, but alas, it simply can’t be done in a paragraph or two. You really need a whole book for that. (for which, of course, I can’t recommend highly enough Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene)
maybe get around to constructs later today, if the discussion hasn’t moved on too much
July 4th, 2008 at 11:08 am
JJ
“Andrew covered this pretty well above, but I just wanted to add something. This represents, first off, someone arguing with only a partial understanding of natural selection. And I really don’t mean that as an insult, the process is immensely complicated, with millions and millions of caveats. There are tons of situations in which natural selection, properly examined and thought through, will produce results directly the opposite of what one might initially expect. ”
No insult taken… but we have all read, and read. There is no partial understanding to take. There is only the reality of parsing going on by the groups that elect to engage natural select or any of its standard deviations, they take what they can use… and that is evident. I just made a concession in earlier posts… that is not an open advocation. The points in my previous post were quite clear - in addition to what Drew was saying.
thank you and blessings…
July 4th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
a few bones to pick TDR:
“They some how interject that natural selection is nothing more than just a survival instinct carried out without prejudice by cyclical creatures to advance the best of their kind.”
Honestly, that whole post was really confusing and hard to follow, but in the above statement, who’s “they”? Because the only people I have ever heard express natural selection in that manner are creationists and ID proponents (feel as if I’m being redundant, but if you insist they’re different I’ll humor you). natural selection isn’t a “survival instinct,” it’s just a simple fact that those individuals whose genes make them better suited to their environment will tend to have a better chance of surviving long enough to produce offspring, or at least more offspring than others whose genes are not so suited to their environment. - “to advance the best of their kind” - there is no intent to the process whatsoever, unless you count kin relationship, like parent - child and such, but the answer to that is quite obvious, children (referring to all creatures, not just humans) whose parents take care of them will tend to survive more often than those who don’t (again, caveats, like the runt scenario above or species that have found ways to ensure survival by sheer number, such as many aquatic animals), and thus, the genes responsible for such behavior are preserved and passed down, ensuring that the children will do so as well. there is intent in that way, but certainly not in that individuals are actively trying to make their species more fit.
again, i couldn’t tell from you post exactly who you were attributing that belief to, but the statement demonstrates a misunderstanding of natural selection and how biologists understand its occurance
“has organization, therefore must have purpose.”
our solar system, our milky way galaxy, and our local galctic cluster all have organization. what is their purpose?
July 4th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Andrew,
“Honestly, that whole post was really confusing and hard to follow, but in the above statement, who’s “they”?”
It was pretty straight forward… “they” are advocates of scientistism- being scientists more interested in the social impact of their research that the applied scientific value, and is highly subjective.
“Because the only people I have ever heard express natural selection in that manner are creationists and ID proponents (feel as if I’m being redundant, but if you insist they’re different I’ll humor you).”
You could at least bow and curtsy being that patronising… your comments. I didn’t invent the fields I just understand what they are. It makes more sense that you being on the otherwise [not agreeing in principle with either] would group anything espousing Divine inspiration in our creation as one argument, but just as there are big-bang folks an Darwinian naturalists - apparently there are two camps of thought here as well. You may do yourself a favor and educate your self on them before passing glaring dismissals next time.
July 4th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
The lkatter parr of that post was for JJ… sorry I forgot that!
July 4th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
This is why I hate being rushed by the Mrs. on the way out to the market… my aplogies all. I meant to say:
That latter portion of the above post was for JJ…
July 5th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
I wrote:
“Species in nature deliberately shove the runts aside to die. Human societies, however, turn this on its head, and judge a civilization by how WELL it treats the weakest members. Thus, human kindness refutes natural selection”
Andrew Ryan wrote:
Bob, take a few moments to think this through. The phenomenon of casting aside the runt is found amoung litter-bearing animals - where a mother may produce 5 or 6 offspring every few months. They don’t have the resources to care for every one, therefore only the strongest get to suckle the mother.
That would be convenient for the theory, Andrew, but it’s simply and completely false. Pandas, who barely bear offspring at all, routinely bear twins, but allow only one to live. Chimpanzees and various monkeys do not bear litters, they bear offspring one at a time and at long intervals, but are famous for not only abandoning weak offspring, but for abandoning HEALTHY offspring when they find a more desirable mate. Royal Penguins will lay a pair of eggs, and if one is significantly larger than the other, will roll the smaller egg right out of the nest. And on and on.
Nature behaves as I described — and the problem of natural selection leading logically to social Darwinism remains. You don’t have your facts straight.
“Right-wingers” was a red herring. If you’re talking about right-wing social Darwinists, you’re talking about devotees of Ayn Rand, who are Objectivists. You won’t find any of those here. I suggest you ask an Objectivist that question.
JJ Berg added to this discussion:
This represents, first off, someone arguing with only a partial understanding of natural selection. And I really don’t mean that as an insult, the process is immensely complicated, with millions and millions of caveats.
I’ll admit that I don’t completely understand natural selection — I’m a bright guy, I’ve got an open mind (really, I do), and try as I might, cannot imagine how natural selection can produce anything remotely like the variety we have in the biosphere. However, I don’t think it’s because I’m dense or ignorant. I think it’s because it’s a bogus theory, a God-of-the-Gaps fallacy thrown around to avoid having to admit “we just really don’t understand the biosphere at all.”
The millions and millions of caveats are the clue to me. You need to convince me, JJ, that what’s being done with natural selection is not the reverse of how science is supposed to work. We’re supposed to be examining the natural world and coming up with hypotheses that explain what we see, then testing the hypotheses to see if they hold water, and DISCARDING the ones that don’t make the cut. What appears to be happening, instead, is that for every situation that doesn’t fit the model, we create another caveat to explain how natural selection can explain this, too. What would it take to actually falsify natural selection, if the response to every instance that appears contrary to natural selection can be explained by adding another caveat? And what are we to make of this theory which cannot, under any circumstances, be falsified?
Short version, it seems to me that as currently held, “natural selection” is not really science, if we’re applying the test routinely applied to ID theorists.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Regarding the Nilsson/Pelger simulation, Andrew Ryan basically punts, probably because he didn’t understand the objection.
A) Behe had nothing to do with the argument, I just observed that the problem with the Pelger simulation is similar to a problem Behe pointed out about Darwin. I didn’t attempt to summarize Behe at all. The entire discussion of Behe is irrelevant.
B) The objection, Andrew, is that describing the evolution of how a structure LOOKS does not begin to describe how a structure could have EVOLVED, because the form of the structure is determined by things that occur way beneath the appearance of the object. Go read JJ Berg’s comment about genes competing — he’s explained the problem better than I did. All that Nillson and Pelger accomplished is to write a simulation in which an object that LOOKS LIKE a light-sensitive patch changes into something that LOOKS LIKE an eyeball; this means nothing to real evolution, though, because the changes have to take place at the genetic level, not just at the level of surface appearance. Hence my comment about their simulation not addressing genotype — what the genes produce — rather than phenotype — what appears to be on the surface.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Andrew Ryan just conceded the debate.
He wrote:
That evolution happens is a fact. It says nothing about how we should act as human beings.
This is exactly the point being made in this thread. Evolution cannot, and does not, account for how we should act as human beings.
I suspect you’ll want to rethink what you meant, and say it another way.
July 6th, 2008 at 4:19 am
“This is exactly the point being made in this thread.”
But I don’t know any atheist who claims that evolution tells us how we should act as human beings. So, are you saying Frank’s whole argument is based on a straw man? This is very interesting Bob!
July 6th, 2008 at 4:25 am
Evolution explains WHY we act as we do, not how we SHOULD act.
BTW, interesting subject:
“A new report in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology shows how the tendency of parents to abandon their offspring can be understood using the sometimes-harsh logic of natural selection. It seems the penduline tit (Remiz pendulinus), a species native to Hungary, will frequently abandon up to one-third of their eggs if they can gain greater reproductive success elsewhere. As reviewed in Science Daily:
In an intensive battle of the sexes, male penduline tits often flee the nest before egg-laying is complete, whilst females sometimes hide their eggs from the males so she can leave before he notices how many eggs have been laid. When this happens, males left caring for the eggs frequently flee the nest.
As the currency of natural selection, any trait that increases reproductive success will perpetuate and thrive. While it seems counter-intuitive that abandoning a third of their eggs could result in a larger number of chicks, the birds unconsciously interpret their environment to determine if it’s more cost effective to raise their current brood or to move on and try again under better circumstances. This involves shifting strategies based on the perceived help, or lack thereof, of the bird’s partner.
Humans operate in the same fashion and interpret their environmental cues in order to determine if their present child is evolutionarily viable. As biologist David Sloan Wilson writes in his book Evolution for Everyone:
The three major adaptive contexts of infanticide [are] lack of resources, poor offspring quality, and uncertain paternity.
The first two contexts are relatively straight forward. If the parents are unable to raise their child given their poverty, or if their existing children won’t be able to survive with the extra mouth to feed, the tragic decision becomes understandable. Likewise is the decision if the child is sickly and is unlikely to live. The third context, uncertain paternity, has an amusing consequence with which I’ll end this discussion.
The evidence for an increased rate of neglect, child abuse and infanticide by step-fathers, up to one hundred times more likely than among biological fathers, is by now well established (this doesn’t mean, of course, that all step-fathers behave this way). This is an unfortunate legacy of our evolutionary history as, in many primate species, immigrant males that push out the previous alpha male opt to kill the existing infants rather than use up resources on offspring that aren’t his.”
July 6th, 2008 at 8:07 am
Bob, counter-intuitive doesn’t mean ‘unscientific’. It means the obvious answer - or what seems like the obvious answer to our limited brains - isn’t always the correct one. This is true even in subjects like maths. Google ‘monty hall dilemma’ for a good example of counter-intuitive maths. Luckily, we aren’t restricted to our intuition to reach the truth. For example, intuitively we find if hard to grasp large numbers. This is because for the majority of our species’ existance we haven’t needed to.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Boy, I was gone for a day and didn’t see any additions to the thread… and then wake up this morning before my usual Sunday routine and - BLAMO! Andrew and JJ seemed to have stepped into a hornets nest with Bob… lol! Blessing all, what did I miss?
July 6th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Hi TDR, basically, Bob is trying to understand evolution. We’re slowly explaining it to him. He was interested in why humans have a much stronger parent/child bond than other animals. The most interest quote I found to post here is that infanticide is a hundred times more common among step parents than from natural parents. Isn’t that fascinating? And yet it’s kind of what you’d expect from an evolutionary perspective. A hornet’s nest of a statistic indeed!
Have you had a good read of the evolution of the eye yet? I hope so. As for what you missed - go ahead and read the posts!
July 6th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Drew,
Thank for the update, and I’ll offer this for a perspective on the step-parent infanticide argument your pose. Could it be set of ulterior mitigating factors such as compensation being the only real reason why they even ask to raise foster children. I know people here in California that make an industry out of it. They have no more attachment to the child than they do the money they spend when they receive it. Sad, but that is one reality pill we all have to reluctantly swallow. Secondly, they are not their birth children - they are not their birth children - they don’t have the biological bond that birth parents have to their children. not saying one cannot live and provide for a healthy relationship over time, that clearly has majority position. But is perspective deserves consideration and thought I would bring that to your attention.
I read the posts - I just chuckled a bit at the suddenness of the volleys in the thread after a couple of days with no visible activity… lol! Thank you.
July 6th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
“They are not their birth children - they don’t have the biological bond that birth parents have to their children. ”
Precisely - you’ve got it.
“Could it be set of ulterior mitigating factors such as compensation being the only real reason why they even ask to raise foster children. ”
We’re talking step dads, not foster dads. In other words, children of their partners from a previous relationship.
If Plumb Bob checks back in, I’d be interested if he’d respond to my post on the ‘Gay Albatross’ thread.
July 6th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Drew,
I was looking at the 50,000 foot level at non parental fostering being impeded by [perhaps] not being the biological parent being the mitigating factor.
July 6th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
TDR, I don’t understand that sentence. Might you try re-writing it with clearer syntax?
At any rate, as I said before, I wasn’t talking about fostering. The stats referred to step-fathers, not fostering.
For Bob, further on the parent-child bond in primates, I found this. [I’m sure that googling a line from it will bring you the original link]:
“Van Schaik now suspects that the ever–present threat of infanticide has a similar effect on all primates. Among mammals, primate males and females are far and away the most likely to form a long-term bond.
“That raises the issue: Why primates?” says Van Schaik. The answer, he thinks, is that primate babies are particularly vulnerable to infanticide. They take a long time to mature, and compared with other young mammals, they are defenseless and exposed, more often than not clinging to their mother. Female primates also tend to stay in a given territory, thereby giving males an added incentive for disposing of unrelated infants. “If you do commit infanticide, there is a good probability that you will have a future opportunity for mating,” says Van Schaik. Thus the incentive and opportunity for infanticide have driven primates more than other mammals into long-term bonds, in order that males can defend their young.”
Again, all fascinating stuff.
July 6th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Drew, don’t quite know if syntax [precisely] had anything tho do with maybe understanding the context. Which the words were still appropriate. Fostering [raising - nurture] not foster as in foster parent, lol! at any rate it is lost in translation ad nauseum at this point. However, I don’t know what animal behavior has to do with this thread, animals are cyclical creatures that have behaviors that compliment their existence, species perpetuation etc. So I don’t understand the need to deviate further into other arguments. Albeit perhaps initiated by Bob maybe in analogy to prove a point, but… that’s cool, it’s your business.
July 7th, 2008 at 4:42 am
“However, I don’t know what animal behavior has to do with this thread”
As you say, you’d have to ask Plumb Bob as it was him who brought it up. Obliging chap that I am, I answered his enquiry. You know what they say: no good deed goes unpunished!
July 7th, 2008 at 8:34 am
“I was looking at the 50,000 foot level at non parental fostering being impeded by [perhaps] not being the biological parent being the mitigating factor.”
OK, I was confused by the phrase ‘50,000 foot level’, which I’ve never heard before. The sentence was made harder to parse by the use of three separate clauses beginning with ‘being’, without punctuation. Plus the tautology of ‘non parental fostering’. Plus I wasn’t sure what you meant by ‘impeded’ in this context - more likely to kill the kids? find it harder to foster? Doing less of a good job in general as a parent?
Like I said, I’ve got no problem with spelling errors or whatever, and I wasn’t having a go or being snotty - but I genuinely couldn’t understand that sentence.
You mean that foster parents are ‘impeded’ by the fact that they’re not the biological parents?
At any rate, as I said, the stats related to step-dads, not foster dads.
July 7th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Drew… it is an euphemism for “birds eye view”
July 7th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
I’ve learned something new today!
July 7th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Drew, you are truly an open-minded soul.
July 9th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Sorry about the long absence, I’ve just had to rebuild my web server twice in the last week, 1st due to a hardware failure, and 2nd due to Fedora 9’s squirrelly installation script.
The ground is littered with unanswered objections here, so let me summarize them:
1) When atheists say “morality evolved,” they’re just asserting a verbal marker for “I don’t think God was involved.” The statement has no meaning of its own, since atheists cannot begin to explain HOW morals evolved.
2) If morality evolved, there must be morality genes. There aren’t; psychologists will agree that much moral behavior is socialized, not innate. That’s pretty clear. Ergo, morality cannot have evolved. No genes = no evolution.
3) Even if morality evolved, what it means is that moral behavior has innate survival benefit — like wings have the benefit of taking advantage of gravity. Thus, even if morals evolved, that means that moral behavior is innate to the universe, not some arbitrary construct (else why would they have survival benefit?) And thus those claiming that morals evolved still have to explain a purposeless, undirected universe with innate morals built into them. (Saying “morals evolved” is as sensible as saying “Gravity evolved.” Evolution, if it takes place, adjusts the organism to existing physical laws, like gravity; and also adjusts the organism to existing moral laws, like “Thou shalt not kill.” The laws — gravity and “don’t murder” — are part of the environment being adjusted to.)
Now, those are the arguments I’ve made to which there has been no response. If this were a college debate, I’d simply declare victory at this point and sit down. But Andrew Ryan did deign to answer my 4th point, albeit in completely contradictory ways:
4) What we call “moral” is in fact the NEGATION of the behavior natural selection would recommend — therefore morals cannot be the result of evolution. I used the example of natural selection requiring parents to abandon weak offspring, which human morality regards as evil.
Ryan began by trying to argue that the behavior of abandoning weak offspring was limited to those species which were litter-bearing, and had plenty of offspring. So. I did about 3 minutes of research and came up with a handful of instances in nature where species with smaller numbers of offspring behaved in the same manner.
Now, Ryan has completely reversed his position (without admitting that his first argument was in error), saying that the abandonment of weak offspring is natural in humans as well as lesser offspring — thus conceding the argument. Because, Andrew, we don’t consider a stepfather abandoning his stepchildren moral; we find it deeply IMmoral, and even more so if they hurt them. We JAIL guys who do that. But, yes, natural selection in the natural world would suggest that a stepfather will not protect his stepchildren the way he would his own. This illustrates my point nicely: what natural selection would produce, human societies call immoral.
If morality rewards the OPPOSITE of the behavior natural selection produces, then one of two things must be true: either natural selection is not the mechanism involved in evolution, or morals cannot have evolved.
As to “Plumb Bob is trying to understand evolution and we’re explaining it to him,” Andrew, it’s generally true that I’m trying to understand the mechanisms at work in the natural universe. However, you haven’t demonstrated even the minimal ability to respond in a cogent manner to a simple argument. That’s why you haven’t responded to three of my arguments, and on the fourth, you’ve contradicted yourself and conceded the point. So, I think what’s going on here is the reverse of what you posit: I’m trying to explain moral reasoning to you, and you’re not even listening. Son, I don’t think there’s a doggone thing YOU can teach me about evolution, I think I understand it a lot better than you do; that’s why I question it, while you keep chanting “evolution” like a mantra, without the first clue what the implications of your chants are.
I’ll check back at the albatross discussion and see what it is you wanted me to respond to.
July 9th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
One topic remains, and that’s Andrew Ryan’s cryptic distinction, saying “Evolution explains WHY we act as we do, not how we SHOULD act.”
This struck me as admitting Frank’s original thesis — namely, that evolution cannot explain the existence of morals. So I observed:
“This is exactly the point being made in this thread.”
And Andrew replied:
But I don’t know any atheist who claims that evolution tells us how we should act as human beings. So, are you saying Frank’s whole argument is based on a straw man?
Clearly not: Hitchens, in his debate with Douglas Wilson, stated very simply “I believe morals evolved.” So, no, Frank’s not raising a straw man, he’s directly addressing something major atheists claim.
But I’m intrigued, Andrew: if evolution cannot speak to how humans should act, how could morals have evolved? Doesn’t “evolved” imply survival value to the behavior? And if morals are those behaviors that impart survival value (which, by the way, I don’t believe is true), then the study of human evolution should reveal how we ought to act.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:04 am
“There aren’t; psychologists will agree that much moral behavior is socialized, not innate.”
My partner’s a psychologist - she says this is false.
“Clearly not: Hitchens, in his debate with Douglas Wilson, stated very simply “I believe morals evolved.”
Right, and he DIDN’T say “evolution tells us how we should act as human beings. ”
So my point stands.
“Tthe study of human evolution should reveal how we ought to act.”
Not at all.
“Andrew Ryan’s cryptic distinction”
I don’t see what’s cryptic about it at all Bob.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:09 am
“I used the example of natural selection requiring parents to abandon weak offspring”
Yes, it’s a very bad example, which we’ve dealt with already. What’s good for one species is not necessarily good for another.
July 10th, 2008 at 5:06 am
“Some atheists, such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, insist that morality is simply the product of evolution.”
In fact the very first line in this article ignores the fact that Dawkins has discussed at length how culture and the ‘zeitgeist’ plays a huge factor in our moral values. This is pretty self-evident.
July 10th, 2008 at 5:34 am
“1) When atheists say “morality evolved,” they’re just asserting a verbal marker for “I don’t think God was involved.” The statement has no meaning of its own, since atheists cannot begin to explain HOW morals evolved.”
No, they’re just not assigning the supernatural to explain something when a natural one explains it. That’s how science works - that’s why we don’t still assume that planets are moved by the Gods.
“2) If morality evolved, there must be morality genes.”
It’s simplification to say any one gene or even set of genes is responsible for any particular behaviour. At any rate, we’re a long way from completely mapping human genes to the point that we could explain what every one does.
“I think I understand it a lot better than you do”
We’ll agree to disagree on that one! Do you think you understand it better than the scientists who’ve spent their lives studying it? I envy your confidence!
July 10th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Andrew or any atheist,
Sorry I’ve been out of this for a while. On the road doing a seminar with Josh McDowell– I’m sure he’s one of your heros :-). Bob Plumb has been carrying the water.
Since we all seem to agree that there is an objective morality (i.e. killing babies for fun is objectively wrong), will some atheist on this site please directly answer the question: what natural law can put a moral ought on you?
Blessings,
Frank
July 11th, 2008 at 12:22 am
“No, they’re just not assigning the supernatural to explain something when a natural one explains it. That’s how science works - that’s why we don’t still assume that planets are moved by the Gods.”
But there is no natural explanation for morality that you atheists can come up with–and believe me, I have seen attempts to explain morality within an atheistic framework. As Frank said, there is no “ought” in natural law. The “Counter-Creationist Handbook” answers the claim that atheistic evolution supports immorality by saying that this is a false assumption: that creationists are assuming what -is- is what -should- be. But in atheism, there is no “should.” If a natural explanation will not work to explain something (as it does not with morality), then it seems to me that the scientific way of doing things would be to look at the supernatural explanations proposed by theists.
“It’s simplification to say any one gene or even set of genes is responsible for any particular behavior. At any rate, we’re a long way from completely mapping human genes to the point that we could explain what every one does.”
I think we’re all aware of this, but the point is that if morality evolved, then it must lie somewhere in our genes. If morality is only part of our genes, then it is a way we are trained instinctively to act, but it still can’t equate with actual moral laws that we “should” obey, anymore than our instinctive desire for water means that it would be “wrong” not to drink water. If atheism is true, it’s all basically just cells floating around in various combinations. There is no morality in that.
“We’ll agree to disagree on that one! Do you think you understand it better than the scientists who’ve spent their lives studying it? I envy your confidence!”
Scientists who have spent their lives studying this issue do not seem to have produced a satisfactory answer. But that’s not really the issue here. What do you say accounts for our morality?
Grace and peace,
Jeremiah
July 11th, 2008 at 7:27 am
“What natural law can put a moral ought on you?”
Can you rephrase that please? I don’t understand the question.
“Since we all seem to agree that there is an objective morality (i.e. killing babies for fun is objectively wrong)”
Just because we all agree on it, doesn’t make it objectively so.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Andrew,
What don’t you understand about “What natural law can put a moral ought on you?”?
Are you being immoral if you defy the law of gravity? If not, how can it be immoral to defy any other natural law that atheists say is responsible for morality? Natural laws have no moral authority.
Are you saying there is no objective morality– that there is nothing objectively morally wrong with torturing babies or killing six million Jews?
Blessings,
Frank
July 11th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
I’ve never come accross the phrase ‘put an ought on you’. I’m guessing you mean that it puts an obligation on you?
“any other natural law that atheists say is responsible for morality?”
I’m not aware of any atheists claiming there is a natural moral law.
“that there is nothing objectively morally wrong with torturing babies or killing six million Jews? ”
I don’t even make this distinction you make about ‘objectively wrong’ and ’subjectively wrong’. It makes no sense to me. You can say it’s ‘just my opinion’ that murder is wrong, but it’s an opinion I can back up with good reasoning. It remains an opinion, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that it’s a well-reasoned opinion.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Jeremiah: “If morality is only part of our genes, then it is a way we are trained instinctively to act, but it still can’t equate with actual moral laws that we “should” obey”
Quite correct. But I’m not aware of anyone claiming that it does.
“Scientists who have spent their lives studying this issue do not seem to have produced a satisfactory answer. ”
You just mean that it doesn’t satisfy you, because it conflicts with your beliefs.
“What do you say accounts for our morality?”
What morality? The human race doesn’t strike me as particularly moral, least of all those who claim religious access to ‘objective morality’.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
“If morality is only part of our genes, then it is a way we are trained instinctively to act”
But who ever claimed that humans only act on instinct? We can also REASON out the best course of action, which may often be the complete opposite of our instincts.
“…but it still can’t equate with actual moral laws that we “should” obey”"
And no-one claims that it does. For working out the best moral course of action our instincts work best for avoiding the most harmful actions - murder, incest, rape. However, again, instincts are like a blind set of ‘dogma’ rules that developed over millions of years to benefit the genes (not necessarily the human carriers of those genes), of our species when living in small tribes in Africa.
These ‘moral instincts’ aren’t necessarily the same as what our reason can tell us is the best moral course of action. In these small tribes we learned to avoid deformed members, as they might contain parasites, disease etc. Nowadays, while we might instinctively recoil at a severely deformed person, we tend to overcome that and see the human being instead. That said, books and movies still often give the villain a deformity or disfigurement to ensure we don’t trust them.
So where SHOULD we get our morality from? I’ve answered this several times already. We can use our brains! Do as you would be done by, the Golden Rule, etc. It’s not that hard. If religion was the best path then we wouldn’t have so many immoral religious people - there wouldn’t be correlation between how religious a country is and how many murders its people commit.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
By the way, my baby arrived last night. 7 pounds, 6 ounces.
Now, if you think that ID better explains the horribly complicated, dangerous, bloody and painfully drawn out process of my daughter’s arrival in this world than the patchwork path of evolution, then I’d like to hear that theory justified!
July 12th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
“But who ever claimed that humans only act on instinct? We can also REASON out the best course of action, which may often be the complete opposite of our instincts.”
Andrew, if we’re only evolved pond scum, none of our reason is any more significant than our instincts. Both are written in our DNA, and if what you say is true, both are arbitrary movements of chemicals. For all we know, all of our “reason” could be illusory, and indeed there is no free will if the universe is entirely mechanical. There’s only the movements and arrangements of chemicals.
“And no-one claims that it does. For working out the best moral course of action our instincts work best for avoiding the most harmful actions - murder, incest, rape. However, again, instincts are like a blind set of ‘dogma’ rules that developed over millions of years to benefit the genes (not necessarily the human carriers of those genes), of our species when living in small tribes in Africa.”
So you’re saying that there is no “should” morality, only some invisible “dogma” that’s been naturally selected (in our “memes,” no doubt!) to produce favorable results. If that is true, then there would be nothing wrong: and in fact, you could only say that Hitler had merely caused the extinction of a whole lot of people–not that he had done wrong. In that case, of course, you’ve only denied morality.
“These ‘moral instincts’ aren’t necessarily the same as what our reason can tell us is the best moral course of action. In these small tribes we learned to avoid deformed members, as they might contain parasites, disease etc. Nowadays, while we might instinctively recoil at a severely deformed person, we tend to overcome that and see the human being instead. That said, books and movies still often give the villain a deformity or disfigurement to ensure we don’t trust them.
So where SHOULD we get our morality from? I’ve answered this several times already. We can use our brains! Do as you would be done by, the Golden Rule, etc. It’s not that hard. If religion was the best path then we wouldn’t have so many immoral religious people - there wouldn’t be correlation between how religious a country is and how many murders its people commit.”
How are you defining morality, then? Are you saying there’s a difference between the “blind dogma” that’s naturally selected and some sort of “should” morality? And if so, how do you account for that second, higher morality?
There are plenty of immoral people, whether religious or non-religious. Nor am I saying that “religion” is the answer. As Doug Wilson once said, if you give sinners religion, you get religious sinners. I believe that Christ is the answer, but that’s another discussion. The point here is not “if you believe in God you’ll probably be more moral.” The point is that if there is no God, there is no morality at all.
As for your baby’s birth being bloody (a little alliteration there ;)), ID can’t really account for that, but the Bible can. I am a young-earth creationist who approaches things directly from the biblical perspective, not just from scientific evidence. Thus, I believe that the Fall is the result of that. After all, part of the Curse was increased pain in childbearing.
Congratulations on the baby, by the way…is it a boy or a girl?
July 13th, 2008 at 5:40 am
“If we’re only evolved pond scum, none of our reason is any more significant than our instincts.”
Nonsense. That doesn’t follow at all. 13 is a prime number. It would be a prime number whether we existed or not. Our reason tells us it is a prime number - we can prove it mathmatically.
“After all, part of the Curse was increased pain in childbearing.”
I thought someone might say that. It’s an utterly repulsive, mysogynistic idea. Who would want to worship a God who would do something so petty?
“The point is that if there is no God, there is no morality at all.”
Again, nonsense. I’m just as moral as you. For a start, I’d never say that women deserve the agony of child birth.
“How are you defining morality, then? ”
Why not read a book on ethics? There are plenty of famous athiests who’ve written acclaimed books on the subject. Bertrand Russell, Roger Scruton etc.
“you could only say that Hitler had merely caused the extinction of a whole lot of people–not that he had done wrong.”
So the suffering he caused is irrelevant to you? It isn’t to me.
BTW, it’s a beautiful baby girl. 7 pounds, 6 ounces.
July 13th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Our of interest:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/itn/2.....a1618.html
“The scientists believe empathy programming is “hard-wired” into the brains of normal children and is not entirely the product of parental guidance or other nurturing.”
July 13th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
“Are you saying there’s a difference between the “blind dogma” that’s naturally selected and some sort of “should” morality?”
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. You seem to be the first person here who has grasped that.
“And if so, how do you account for that second, higher morality?”
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘account for’ it. How do I define it? Here’s a good place to start: causing suffering to others is immoral. And the type of person who questions THAT as a starting point would question it whether there was a God or not.
July 21st, 2008 at 9:26 am
“I’m not sure what you mean by ‘account for’ it. How do I define it? Here’s a good place to start: causing suffering to others is immoral. And the type of person who questions THAT as a starting point would question it whether there was a God or not.”
What I mean is how do you justify this “real” morality’s authority and prove that it is more than your own opinion? Is the “should” morality actually something that everyone is obligated to obey, or is it just your own idea about what people should and shouldn’t do?
Obviously we know that causing suffering to other people without cause* is immoral, and I can say this within my own worldview, because I believe the moral law is based on the attributes of God, and that it has authority because He is the one Who has set it up and He alone has authority over the universe –simply because He created it. But you can’t prove, within atheism, that causing suffering to other people is immoral, and ultimately you are being inconsistent to call anything moral or immoral in the framework of atheism.
*By “without cause,” I am of course excluding (for example) a judge “causing suffering to” a criminal by sentencing him to a lifetime of prison labor. Just punishments don’t fall under the category of merely “causing suffering,” they are things that happen to people for the wrong they’ve done. Thus, God sending people to Hell because of their sins is not just “causing suffering” to people, it is justly punishing them and is not wrong.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:40 am
“But you can’t prove, within atheism, that causing suffering to other people is immoral”
Causing suffering to other people is by definition immoral. Look it up in the dictionary.
July 21st, 2008 at 12:22 pm
By the way Jeremiah, I posted this on the other thread here. See if you can answer it:
If utilitarianism is bunk, then how do YOU determine any kind of heirarchy of immorality? Does it say in the bible that baby torture is more immoral than stealing a postage stamp?
Do you have to check the bible before making such a pronouncement? Or do you feel that you don’t need to - that baby torture is quite evidently the worse crime? If so, then I suspect you have another method of judgement, possibly an instinctive one, to determine that say, mass murder is worse than spitting in someone’s beer.
July 21st, 2008 at 12:31 pm
“ultimately you are being inconsistent to call anything moral or immoral in the framework of atheism.”
I can only imagine that Christians such as you lack any kind of empathy for human beings, that you can only show compassion because you feel obligated to by your God.
July 24th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Umm, isn’t it the Bible that says “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth?” The punishment should fit the crime?
If so, then sending someone to Hell is never just, because it’s an infinite punishment for a finite crime. No matter how great the damage caused by the crime, it was ultimately finite, and the infinity of this supposed “Hell” would surpass the gravity of the crime, thus rendering it “harsh” or “extreme” punishment.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:31 pm
“Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant.”
–H.L. Mencken
August 2nd, 2008 at 7:36 am
Andrew,
Sorry I’ve been away for a while. Hope you are getting some sleep with your new baby.
Looking at your Mencken quote above, do you recognize it’s self-defeating nature? Mencken is certain about the moral absolute of tolerance. According to his own standard, that makes him most uncivilized.
Blessings,
Frank
August 4th, 2008 at 6:56 am
No, that’s the same fallacy that a true liberal will be ‘tolerant’ of racism, homophobia etc. And skepticism is the key word here.
I’m amazed there are 90 odd posts here. You never addressed my first, which to my eyes completely destroys your argument anyway. Here it is again:
“Rape may enhance the survival of the species, but does that make rape good? Should we rape? ”
Hi Frank. I have to ask how much you’ve actually read on the subject of evolution. You’re dealing in a straw man of the science. I also wonder how much direct writings of Dawkins you’ve read too, as your representation of his beliefs directly contradict his actual opinions.
Firstly, rape is bad for the human species. Which children have a better chance of survival - those produced in a loving relationship, where both parents bring up the children - or children produced through rape, where the man dashes off after the deed?
Secondly, Dawkins and Darwin BOTH countless times stated their opposition to ideas of social darwinism - a right-wing idea.
Thirdly, just because we evolved our ideas of morality, that doesn’t mean we can’t reason out the right moral course to take.
Fourth, if anything atheists are more moral by your logic, as they are being good for its own sake, rather than out of fear of punishment in the afterlife.
Lastly, I don’t understand why you keep bringing up Hitler. He practiced artificial selection, not natural selection. The former existed for thousands of years before Darwin. Hitler made it quite clear he was influenced by his religion, not science. He quotes liberally from the bible and Martin Luther in his speaches and writings. How many times does Mein Kampf mention ‘Survival of the fittest’, Darwin, evolution or ‘origin of species’?
Not once.
ps: I’m getting SOME sleep, more than mummy, but still not enough!
August 6th, 2008 at 6:36 am
Out of interest Frank, what moral lesson do you take from this biblical passage:
“So, now kill every male among the little ones and every woman who has known man, lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” Moses
Numbers 31:18
Was that just Moses, not God? Well, it clearly says:
31:7 “And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. ”
I should start my own show. I’ll call it:
“I’m not immoral enough to be a Christian”!
August 6th, 2008 at 10:28 am
“Mencken is certain about the moral absolute of tolerance. According to his own standard, that makes him most uncivilized.”
It’s a bit of a semantic stretch to say that ‘take a skeptical and tolerant attitude to morality’ is itself a moral absolute.
Imagine you knew someone who made sure they always took a flexible, open-minded approach to dealing with situations. Would you describe them as being flexible, or would you say that this flexibility was so CONSISTENT that they were in effect guilty of being ‘rigid and inflexible’?
I would call the latter disengenuous sophistry, not to mention inaccurate. Similarly, I don’t see anything inconsistent about saying that a skeptical, tolerant approach to morality is better than a dogmatic one. You can say you disagree, but it’s not ’self-defeating’.
And I also notice you don’t address Mencken’s point - every step towards a more moral society has been made by people who question, who ‘doubted the current moral values’. If morals had been ’set in stone’ 500 years ago, we’d still have slavery today.
August 6th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Hi Andrew,
Moral progress assumes an objective moral standard. Again, there is no foundation for that standard in atheism. It we are just chemicals, there is no immaterial, objective moral law. There is nothing wrong with murder, rape, slavery, or taking money from atheists and giving it to Christians.
Why are skeptics skeptical about everything but skepticism? There are some things we are not to be skeptical about, such as whether it is wrong to murder. It is only when you depart from holding firm to what is right that you can fall into trouble, both for society and yourself.
Regarding your question on so-called OT atrocities: If there is a God, does he have the right to usher you into eternity at any age (whether it be 2 or 82)? And does he have the right to let the women and children live?
What is immoral for us is not necessarily immoral for God. If he exists, then he is the author of life and has the right to take it (or change its state/location) anytime in accordance with his just nature and purposes. So there are two real questions here, 1) Does God exist? and 2) Does he reveal his will in the Bible?
BTW, William Lane Craig gives a more complete answer to the OT atrocity question here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org.....38;id=5767
Thanks for being so faithful with your responses. I apologize for my inability to stay current sometimes. I have a lot going on. Will you be in America anytime soon?
Blessings,
Frank
August 6th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
“It we are just chemicals, there is no immaterial, objective moral law.”
Whether or not we are ‘just chemicals’ is irrelevant. Either way, we are sentient beings, capable of suffering. From there you can proceed to establish morality. I’ve spoke to some Christians who believe animals have souls, and others who don’t. However, all agree that it’s wrong to cause animals unnecessary suffering, regardless of whether or not they have souls. Again, the key points are sentience and the ability to feel pain - so too for humans.
And you haven’t answered how, if you claim to reject utilitarianism, you can argue from the bible that raping and murdering is a WORSE crime than stealing a loaf of bread. How do you establish a heirarchy?
“then he is the author of life and has the right to take it ”
This sounds close to nutters like Josef Fritzl and Fred West who maintain that they have the right to kill their own children.
“And does he have the right to let the women and children live? ”
The point was that the women were being kept back to be used sexually by the human victors… See also Judges 19:23-4, for another example of women being offered up as sexual objects to rape by men. There’s another in Lot, and again in that Leviticus story about the two angels against the mob (”Don’t rape the angels, take our daughters instead…”)
“Will you be in America anytime soon?”
Last trip stateside was the 7 weeks we spent there in 2005. With the baby, another trip will be a long way off!
August 6th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
OK, I read that link from Mr Craig. It boils down to this: ‘no matter how immoral God’s actions seem to us, the fact that it’s God saying it means that it’s no immoral.’
It begs the question, if you were in a parallel universe where God was IMMORAL, how would you know the difference?
As for this:
“1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.”
…If you were in a parallel universe where NO God existed, how would you know the difference?
I would say the answer to both questions is that you wouldn’t.
August 6th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Andrew:
Why is it wrong to suffer? Something painful is not necessarily immoral. If it was, your wife was immoral for giving birth. You seem to be equating morality and feelings. There is no objective morality if there is no objective reality outside of human opinion. What is your basis for objective morality in an atheistic universe?
Jesus spoke of a heirarchy– the greatest commandment (Mt. 22:37). The weighter matters of the law (Mt. 23:23); the greater sin (Jn. 19:11). The greater virtue (Jn. 15:13). Paul speaks of the greatest virtue (1 Cor. 13:13).
Have you read anything on Christian ethics? You pose a good question. Geisler has addressed it calling a heirarchy system Graded Absolutism (See Geisler “Christian Ethics”). This is not utilitarianism. GA is duty centered, U is end centered. The “greater good” in the GA system does not mean greater results, but the greater rule or duty. Therefore, under the GA system it is wrong to hang an innocent man if it will appease an angry mob. The U system would say hang him if it will lead to better result for most. We obey the rule or duty and leave the results to God.
If you ever get here, let me know and we’ll get a meal together.
Blessings,
Frank
August 6th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
“Something painful is not necessarily immoral. If it was, your wife was immoral for giving birth. ”
It was her choice to give birth. She put up with the pain to produce a child. It would be immoral for her to force someone else to take the pain on her behalf against their will.
It’s immoral to torture someone by the very definition of the word immoral. Why? Well…
…You can play the ‘why’ game until everything becomes meaningless, with or without the existance of God. Why do you have a duty? Because God created you. But why does that mean I have a duty? Because God loves you. But why does that mean I have a duty? Because… But why?
No matter what answer either of us give, the other can keep saying ‘why’. It doesn’t get us far!
You come to London, I’ll do you roast beef with all the trimmings. Or I’ll order us all a chicken tikka masala!
August 7th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Frank: “There are some things we are not to be skeptical about, such as whether it is wrong to murder.”
I think murder is practically defined as ‘wrong killing’, so that would be like asking a mathmetician to be skeptical about the value of PI. No, the argument is in the slippery zone of when ‘kill’ becomes ‘murder’. And here, yes, one should be ‘tolerant and skeptical’. Because it is in this slippery zone that the KKK lynched blacks, Abu Graib tortured and murdered ’suspected’ criminals, handicapped criminals are executed, etc. These atrocities are committed by people with ‘God on their side’, sure of their ‘moral absolutes.
Menken’s quote certainly applies here.
Let’s return once again to William Lane Craig’s bizarre essay, stating that no matter the atrocity committed, if it comes from God’s instruction then by definition it isn’t immoral. I call it the ‘do as I say, not do as I do’ God. If someone raped and killed a family, then called you as an expert witness in court to defend the idea that God might have told them to do it, would you take the stand?
Now, most Christians would dismiss the idea that God would instruct something so terrible - it would after all be immoral. But presumably WL Craig would have no problem that God MIGHT have asked them to do it because by definition it wouldn’t have been immoral if He had made the instruction.
By the way, I believe you misrepresent utilitarianism by saying that it requires the sacrifice of an innocent to please an angry mob.
“Geisler has addressed it calling a heirarchy system Graded Absolutism ”
It doesn’t matter what system you use - the point is that Jesus and God never pin down that rape is worse than stealing bread. In fact, as I point out, rape isn’t even criticised that much in the bible. So when you and I agree that rape is worse than stealing bread, we are doing so without reference to the bible. And once we agree on that, and do so without biblical reference, then you can see that one can completely rationally have morals without being a Christian.
By the way, don’t you find it odd telling an atheist that he has no rational basis for his morality? You’re not an atheist, so how do you know? It’s a bit of a presumptious statement. I’m rational, and moral.
You yourself have made a claim defending the war on Iraq. I defended the same war. But we both knew before the war that it would cause loss of innocent life. This is viewed as collatoral damage, a ‘necessary evil’. However, the fact remains that they died, and they had no choice in the matter. This ‘best of a bad bunch of choices’ belongs in a world of moral grey areas, where once again we have to debate the morality, reason it through, rather than pick up our book of ‘moral absolutes’.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Frank:
How would you reply if I admit that I actually do only believe in subjective morality? That it is just my opinion against Hitler’s, for example, and there is no reason at all for you to believe that mine or anyone else’s set of moral standards is better than your own.
If you wish to listen anyway to my opinion on this matter then I will offer it now:
Though I know you did not ask for the origin of morality (where/how we learn it)… Morality can come from social learning (or any other kind of learning that will fill our blank slates as Aristotle and Locke suggest - i.e. classical or operant conditioning, observational learning, etc., etc.) or morality could be innate (as Socrates, Plato, and Descartes suggest when they talk of preexisting knowledge) (that’s one of psychology’s biggest debates, BTW, - nature vs. nurture), or because of evolution and genes, or it can come from logic and reason. Or it could come from something totally different or even a mixture of all of the above. I really don’t know. But, like JJ, I don’t see the proof yet that there is a universal moral standard. If there was objective morality, how do you account for the variances in belief systems of what is right or wrong, even if there were only few differences or they were small? Does rationalization really account for all of them? There are several people out there (like Hitler for example - Hitler obviously had a very different set of morals guiding him then the majority of humanity) that have polar-opposite views even on what is considered obviously morally wrong or right to most of us, and, as far as I know, they actually believe, think, and feel that they are right (granted, most of that minority are considered to have major psychological diseases or what not, but still, who can say they are really wrong?) The similarities in social morality across the globe occur because of consensus - for whatever reason that humans in general are similar (I have already described several options above). I don’t know, though. Those are just some things that I think I believe.
Also, I used to really think that if I ever believed in God, I would then also believe in objective morality. Though I’m not sure that I would believe in God if I believed in objective morality. I don’t why that is, though. I really don’t know what to think anymore. My logic is getting all twisted up and I can’t even keep up with my own thoughts, let alone someone else’s. Oh well, I’ll bore you with my random, confusing thoughts anyway.
And I don’t see exactly how it would relate to this particular issue, but I do think it would at least personally help me get rid of some confusion to understand why God and Christ can live a different moral standard then the one they apparently “are” by nature. And I also would still like to hear the response to Andrew about what Christians say about instinct/intuition/moral feeling (obviously Christians have it as well because they are also able to make judgements (such as with moral hierarchies) that are not found in the Bible (though, as a side note, I guess Christians also have the addition of conventional morality to “God’s” laws because of the standard of morality that “God” says is and they accept as the correct standard - though, I guess I could just as reasonably say that we ALL exhibit postconventional morality because we’re all thinking for ourselves - even theists do when they decide how to interpret the Bible to fit their own subjective morals)).
Wow. I’m totally confusing myself. I can’t prove anything, so maybe I should just abstain from believing anything as well. Or at least try to begin by making more sense of it all first in my own head.
Sorry to add more confusing ideas to this website.
August 13th, 2008 at 6:32 am
“And I also would still like to hear the response to Andrew about what Christians say about instinct/intuition/moral feeling (obviously Christians have it as well because they are also able to make judgements (such as with moral hierarchies) that are not found in the Bible”
You won’t get an answer to that, as it undermine’s Frank’s whole argument!
August 13th, 2008 at 8:20 am
I’m new at this and haven’t yet really gotten to know Frank, so I really have no clue what he will end up saying, but I still assume he will at least try to respond, though.
Anyway, Andrew, so are you saying that if Frank were to attempt to give logical evidence (as he does for theism) for why intuition (or whatever it is that we each personally feel when we make moral decisions) is objective, then he would just be providing the same answers that an atheist would provide, and so therefore wouldn’t be making his initial point that atheists cannot reasonably believe in objective morality? I’m sorry - I really am trying to keep up.
So yeah. I really don’t know what he will say. Will he say that he and other Christians believe that intuition (or whatever is the correct term) is objective? If that is the case, then he must differentiate between an atheist’s and a theist’s intuition (because as we said before - he cannot admit an atheist’s intuition to be objective without his logical argument getting totally messed up), and he must also provide evidence for something like modern revelation or something - for how can he know that intuition is objective when it is not in the Bible? (Then again, I actually have no clue whether or not it really is or isn’t in the Bible - I think I do remember hearing Frank talk about somewhere in the Bible it saying something about some thing (was it our conscious or “the light of Christ” - I can’t remember) being “written on our hearts”. Maybe he will reference that again for me, so I can more fully understand each side’s argument.) Of course, he could also end up saying that intuition is subjective as I, and perhaps a number of other agnostic atheists, believe. Or, he could even try to argue that atheists do not use intuition or perhaps do not even have access to it. I honestly really don’t know what he will say. Like, he could even say nothing at all because he might think this post has nothing at all to do with him defining what Christians believe about instinct/intuition/moral feeling.
So I guess all I can do is patiently await his response.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:09 am
My point is that Frank claims that ALL morality must come from the bible, and therefore atheists cannot have any rational basis for their morality. All it would take to falsify this is to show ONE moral idea Christians subscribe to that doesn’t have its basis in the bible.
Now, for a start most Christians nowadays believe that slavery is wrong, and yet it is blatantly condoned in the bible. But more than that, as you point out, there isn’t a specific heirarchy in the bible that explains why rape is a worse crime than stealing a loaf of bread. So any Christians who believes that the former is worse than the latter, is using some other method than the bible to come to a moral decision. If a non-bible method exists, then it is accessible to atheists. Therefore it is false to say that atheists cannot have a rational morality.
BTW, when I pointed out to Frank that rape is ALSO in fact condoned many times in the bible, he pointed me to a link that explained that rape is not immoral if God commands you to do it. Which shoots down the idea that it’s objectively wrong, not to mention the idea of an all-good God.
But Frank is apparently pretty busy, so probably doesn’t have time to respond to any of this anyway.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Neat!
I totally agree with you! At least on the first two paragraphs, you make complete sense to me (I was confused about Frank’s claim and thought he was only talking about objective morality, rather than ALL morality. All the subjective and objective stuff was getting really confusing to me.).
On your BTW statement though, I’m sorry, but I got a little lost and need you to spell it out for me I guess. As you can see by my previous statement, I also saw some incongruities between God and what His supposed moral laws were, and I said I wanted to “understand why God and Christ can live a different moral standard then the one they apparently “are” by nature (apparently God IS good by his own nature according to Christians, though that still doesn’t make a ton of sense to me either). But anyway, yeah, sorry for making you go so slow with your logical arguments/explanations, but I don’t fully comprehend how you reached your two conclusions.
Hmm… you’re also right about Frank. Well too bad for him I guess. If there isn’t any available and logical theist to counter our arguments (well, your arguments mostly - I basically only have questions) then his CrossExamined purpose isn’t going to go too well. I’m ironically even one of those “exodus youth” Frank talks about.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:57 am
“I wanted to “understand why God and Christ can live a different moral standard then the one they apparently “are” by nature ”
You’re right: it makes no sense, it isn’t consistent.
August 26th, 2008 at 6:03 am
I believe Frank Turek applies sound reasoning in his arguments and makes a forceful case for his view; particularly in his criticims of the multi-universe explanation of fine tuning. However, from the argument that our universe is fine tuned and thus implies a Fine Tuner, it does not follow that there exists a personal deity who plays an active role in human history in the manner Christianity claims. A gentlemen philosopher who posts videos on youtube lays out a sound case against theistic morality. I’d like to read your thoughts on the argument he makes here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGx8qHdxcpE
the video is less than three minutes. Thank you and look forward to hearing from you all.
August 26th, 2008 at 8:54 am
If God is holy and moral, can you think of a single hyperthetical act that he could perform that would mean he WASN’T holy and moral? If not then it’s meaningless to call him holy and moral. Thus Frank’s entire argument falls apart.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:55 am
David,
I saw the video. Thanks for posting it. The dilemma fails because God’s nature is the standard of good. His nature is not arbitrary because it is the foundation of all that exists. Every worldview must have a foundation point behind which you cannot go– “the buck stops here” so to speak.
If you want to read a lot more on this, see Dr. Craig’s Q&A page here http://www.reasonablefaith.org.....8;id=6087.
BTW, Andrew, I don’t believe that you need the Bible to know right from wrong. There is a moral law that is the expression of God’s nature that everyone understands. In fact, the Bible even teaches that (Romans 2). The Bible amplifies and adds some additional specificity to aspects of the moral law, but all people know basic right and wrong. Of course, as we have discussed before, there is no objective right or wrong without God.
Blessings,
Frank
August 26th, 2008 at 10:34 am
“Andrew, I don’t believe that you need the Bible to know right from wrong.”
OK, I thought that your position before was that you needed the bible to know right from wrong. Thanks for clarifying.
“Of course, as we have discussed before, there is no objective right or wrong without God.”
Frank, we’ve already seen that the bible’s ‘objective morality’ is far from moral: slavery, genocide, rape - all condoned. Your only defence was that if God ordered it then by definition it is moral. But that’s not objective morality!
August 26th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Frank, I admit that the dilemma you posed gave me much to think about. But I believe your argument to be flawed nonetheless. It’s logical sophistry.
The first problem is that it’s argumentum ad consequentiam - an argument from consequences. You’re saying that if there is no God then we have no way of preventing moral anarchy. In other words, you don’t like the consequences of the opposition’s position. That doesn’t give evidence for your side.
Second, if it’s the consequences for morality in a Godless world that you don’t like, then you’re stuck have to explain WHY you don’t like it. For example, you said that it’s a bad thing if we can’t call Hitler worse than Ghandi. Now, I would argue that we CAN call him worse due to the consequences of his actions. If you say that even THAT is a meaningless statement without God, then it’s just as meaningless to say that it’s a bad thing that we can’t condemn Hitler. Invoking God may allow you to condemn Hitler, but according to you, you need God to even explain why you NEED to condemn Hitler. Thus a circular argument.
The third problem is that you have to define what you even mean by ‘moral’. What does it even mean if a ‘supreme being’ says an action is immoral or moral? If the 10 commandments had been replaced with another list that WASN’T moral, then how would you know the difference?
Say that instead of ‘Do not worship graven images’ it told you to worship lions.
Instead of ‘Do not steal’, it said ‘Do not eat the meat of the chicken’. Etc
If you say you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference – if God commanded it then these are all objective morals – then that means it’s meaningless to describe them as moral. You’d call them moral whatever they were.
If however, you think you’d spot these as false commandments, then why do you need them in the first place?
Again: If God is holy and moral, can you think of a single hypothetical act that he could perform that would mean he WASN’T holy and moral? If not then it’s meaningless to call him holy and moral. And therefore he is not a source of objective morality.
Secular blessings again Frank!
October 30th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Atheists generally believe that morality evolved. They generally state it that way, in the past tense but it should be said to “evolve and or be still “evolving.” If they were as logical as they claim themselves to be the only things that they could really state with regards to the Old Testament or “Christian atrocities” is something to the likes of, “While today such actions are condemnable, that was the morality back then—the end.”
Yet, this would rob many atheists of their favorite past time—condemning the Bible and Christianity. The New Atheists in particular have made quite a few shekels engaging in such illogicality.
But to what do such condemnations amounts? They do not discredit the Bible but discredit the atheists by making it very clear that they are illogical, cognitively dissonant, incapable of discerning the contents of a written text (at least the particular one known as the Bible), and lacking in particular knowledge of the Bible’s contents.
And so, why should I reject God (or Judaism, or Christianity, or the Bible) because of actions performed by God or in His name based on the condemnations of atheist who cannot even justify their condemnation?
Atheism discredits condemnation and condemnation discredits atheism.
aDios,
Mariano
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:14 am
Frank, I would like to first tell you that I appreciate your work in apologetics. I sincerely value the scientific approach of defending Christian faith, the existance of God and the Truth of the Bible. Still, I do have some complaints. I’m afraid that you go too far in some of your political and social arguements. I often watch you on NRB and most times I’m impressed. Other times, you dissapoint. I was watching tonight and you implied that a college professor advocated beastiality with dogs. Then the quote that you offered as proof clearly failed to support that acusation. The quote seemed to suggest that the “love” of dogs was so nice precisely because of the lack of sexuality. Doesn’t that mean that sex is not involved? I think it’s very clear that she was implying that the “love” she shares with her dogs is purely asexual. Why do you feel the need to push too far? It takes so much away from your credibiltiy. It’s not necessary. Also, you seem to have devoted much of your bloging on this site to attacking Obama. What is to be gained from this? I commented in more detail about this on the Obama - pro-abortion blog chain. Look, you would be much more effective in leading people to the truth if you would just focus on that…The Truth. If you would leave out your inflamatory opinions and far flung accusations you would give God the glory. I’m sure you mean well. I’m a very passionate person as well and have zealously stated my opinions in the past only to later be convicted by the Holy Spirit of my foolishness and pride. I’m telling you this out of love. I sincerely wish you nothing but success in leading people to Christ. Your personal thoughts / opinions are not appropriate nor helpful in this mission. I’ve been telling my husband about your show for sometime now and tonight he finally sat down to watch with me. He left after 5 minutes because of your over-the-top accusations about the professor and your disproportionate ranting about GLBT influences on campuses. Yes, they are there. Yes, it goes against the Bible to be GLBT. Still, when you focus so much on that, it comes across as hate and bigotry. Please try to focus on the real issue…Christ. Thank you. God Bless You.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:30 pm
R. Sweet: The accusations about Alice Kunzair are not over the top, they are accurate. Check them for yourself. What is not accurate in what I’ve said about Obama? You can read for yourself what he said about abortion and other issues here: http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
BTW, it is not my “personal thoughts/opinions”– they are his. You should be offended by his positions, not by me stating them.
Glad you like the show…. sometimes
Blessings,
Frank Turek
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Evolution is proven to be false, because of two reasons. Number one if we evolved from a grain of sand, who made the grain of sand you say you evolved from. God made everything. Number two if we did evolve from a grain of sand, how can we know right from wrong, when a grain of sand doesn’ t have a brain. We have a moral law written on our hearts, that God gave us when he created us.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Evolution is proven to be false, because of two reasons. Number one if we evolved from a grain of sand, who made the grain of sand you say you evolved from.
(1) I have no idea who told you we evolved from a grain of sand….I’ve never heard that one, myself 0_0
(2) Even if that was entirely true….what you say here doesn’t “disprove evolution” at all. It simply means it doesn’t explain everything that happens before evolution began to take place. Which of course makes sense, once one realizes that evolution does not task itself with explaining the beginning of life, only how life progresses and changes. In my mind, that’s a lot like criticizing a book that tells you how to make pancakes for not telling you where to buy the ingredients….
Number two if we did evolve from a grain of sand, how can we know right from wrong, when a grain of sand doesn’ t have a brain.
Again, assuming we did “evolve from a grain of sand” (which I doubt)….if we evolved from it, clearly that means we are not a grain of sand anymore. We’re human now. And so we have concepts of “right and wrong,” although I’d argue that nobody can truly understand “right and wrong” because they’re not real concepts, just inventions of human society.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Evolution is false. The Bible has all the answers about where we came from. God made everything. Evolution is a lie. I always tell the truth especaily when it deals with Religion.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Evolution is false.
How so?
The Bible has all the answers about where we came from. God made everything. Evolution is a lie.
Assertions, assertions….do you always do this when faced with actual debate?
I always tell the truth especaily when it deals with Religion.
I don’t believe you.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I always tell the truth unless it’s a life or death situation. I believe lying is a sin, so I do not lie. You should believe me.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Evolution is peer-reviewed science. It is observable and testable. It is backed by 150 years of evidence, hundreds or thousands or peer-reviewed scientific papers. Calling it a lie is like saying gravity is a lie, or a spherical earth is a lie. If you subscribe to a religion that depends on the earth being flat, or evolution being false, or gravity to be caused by angels pulling objects to earth - then I’m afraid that’s just too bad for your religion.
You may not lie, but you don’t seem to have a problem making broad statements on subjects about which you know very little.
December 5th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Andrew,
I think you are correct for microevolution– that is an empirical science that you can observe. But I think you are overstating the case for macroevolution. The study of origins– be it creation or macroevolution– is a forensic science that cannot be observed directly but only by looking at clues and drawing inferences, much like detectives do when investigating a crime.
Detectives can’t observe a past crime directly, but can only piece together clues and arrive at a hypothesis based on the principle of uniformity (causes in the past must have been like those in the present). Neither macroevolution nor creation has been observed directly, hence they are not like studying gravity (physics), nor are we as certain about them. We are making probability arguments.
Blessings,
Frank
December 5th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
I always tell the truth unless it’s a life or death situation.
A claim with no weight; Christians (especially those on this board) have proven to me that they are capable of rationalizing anything into a “life-or-death situation,” so long as it suits their personal feelings and agendas. For example, how easily you can convince yourself that allowing gays to marry will lead to the destruction of mankind. If we were to assume that this is true based on the “reasoning” given by the extreme right (and play “the sky is falling” and freak out about it in the way that the extreme right so often does), as indirect as such “reasoning” is, then our brains would almost have to explode just to comprehend the very direct threat to life that a cause like war or the death penalty causes. Such things would be thousands upon thousands of times more important than things like homosexuality.
I believe lying is a sin, so I do not lie. You should believe me.
Why should I? Because you say you don’t? Do you know any liars who would admit to lying?
Nah, just kidding. I couldn’t care less if you’re a liar or not.
December 5th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
I think you are correct for microevolution– that is an empirical science that you can observe. But I think you are overstating the case for macroevolution. The study of origins– be it creation or macroevolution– is a forensic science that cannot be observed directly but only by looking at clues and drawing inferences, much like detectives do when investigating a crime.
Detectives can’t observe a past crime directly, but can only piece together clues and arrive at a hypothesis based on the principle of uniformity (causes in the past must have been like those in the present). Neither macroevolution nor creation has been observed directly, hence they are not like studying gravity (physics), nor are we as certain about them. We are making probability arguments.
And in that vein, it seems odd to call evolution “a lie,” does it not?
December 5th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Tim,
Yes, i agree. Using the term “evolution” is too broad for a precise discussion. That’s why we need to specifiy between micro and macro and then present the evidence for each.
If you want to see the evidence why same-sex marriage is a problem for society, look for my previous post “Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It’s Bad” here: http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=63
Blessings,
Frank
December 5th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
If you want to see the evidence why same-sex marriage is a problem for society, look for my previous post “Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It’s Bad” here: http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=63
(1) Already been there~
(2) Would you say that gay marriage is more dangerous/causes more damage than, say, war? Or poverty? Or inability to get proper health care?
December 6th, 2008 at 7:03 am
I’ve just looked:
“illegitimacy leads to poverty, crime, and higher welfare costs which lead to bigger government, higher taxes, and a slower economy.”
Okay… Next step:
“Norway, for example, has had de-facto same-sex marriage since the early nineties.” and then “Across all of Norway, illegitimacy rose from 39 percent to 50 percent in the first decade of same-sex marriage.”
…But you don’t go the next step and say whether this has led to higher poverty and crime in Norway! Without stats on that you are not proving anything.
In fact Norway’s crime and poverty levels are far lower than America’s. The same goes for the other Scandinavian countries with liberal policies towards gays and marriage.
This cuts the legs out from your argument Frank.
Furthermore, it could be that people who get married are just less likely to be criminals in the first place. People called Nathaniel are less likely to be working class. It doesn’t mean that calling your child Nathaniel will make him more likely to become a white-collar worker.
December 6th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Andrew,
Norway was already a welfare state when this all began. The legs of the argument are illegitimacy’s effects on the U.S. As I mentioned in the article, in the United States “family disintegration destroys lives and now costs tax payers $112 billion per year!.” That is the largely the fault of no-fault divorce laws (yes, you can blame hetero’s for that one; and it shows you how important the law is to the family and the country). The main issue is the negative effects that illegitimacy has on kids. Nearly all studies show that kids brought up with their biological parents, fare far better than other kids on every factor. I would have to write several articles to deal with that but have done so in the new book.
That’s one of the problems with writing 800 word columns on a complex social issue like SSM– it’s impossible to cover all the issue and objections adequately. I’ve written a few more on Townhall.com on the topic if you’re interested.
Blessings,
Frank
December 6th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Nearly all studies show that kids brought up with their biological parents, fare far better than other kids on every factor.
Okay, now that’s simply not true. I’ve been doing a lot of research in the area of child adoption in preparation for some of my future college courses, and while it is ideal for children to be raised with their biological parents, children who are raised by adoptive parents (straight or gay) don’t statistically fare any worse than those raised by their biological parents. The differences and difficulties most often arise when there are misleading statements made by the caretakers (such as orphanages) as to children who have physical or mental ailments, or have suffered abuse that has left them in a damaged mental state, and such things are not made entirely clear to the adoptive parents before the adoption is resolved. Thus, the parents are getting themselves into something they might not be ready to handle; thus, problems.
Other factors that lead to “parenting problems” are not unique to adoptive children, but can be applied to any parent — things like “simply not being ready to be a parent,” or abusive behavior; these are things that parents from all blocks — biological or not — are both capable, and in many cases likely, to do.
And on a closing note, I want to know how you justify this statement:
“family disintegration destroys lives and now costs tax payers $112 billion per year!”
Where do you get that $112 billion dollar amount?
December 6th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Tim,
There’s a long report on the $112 billion findings, but you can find an exec. summary here: http://www.americanvalues.org/coff/factsheet.pdf. If you google “$112 billion” you will find many stories on it.
Tim, we’re not talking just about adoptive parents. We are talking about the fact that the best home for kids is the biological 2-parent home. That is not controversial at all. This is indeed true: “Nearly all studies show that kids brought up with their biological parents, fare far better than other kids on every factor.” In fact, the link above confirms it.
Blessings,
Frank
December 6th, 2008 at 11:08 am
“We are talking about the fact that the best home for kids is the biological 2-parent home.”
Frank, I’m willing to accept that that might be the case. I argue for allowing gay marriage, but I don’t necessarily agree that gays should be allowed to adopt. I could be persuaded that allowing this would not be in the best interests of the child. Just so you know the limits of my liberalism! That said, I don’t see that this is an argument against gay marriage.
“The legs of the argument are illegitimacy’s effects on the U.S…”
My point is that you can’t compare the two countries. Saying that after gay marriage was allowed in Norway, illegimitacy increased, doesn’t mean the same correlation would occur in the US. We both agree that Norway and the US are very different nations.
I’d also point out that most (all?) Scandinavian countries, and indeed many Western European countries, have far better infant mortality rates than the US, better child health in general, lower teen pregnancy rates etc. So it’s not necessarily true to say that higher welfare costs is to the detriment of child health, which is surely the aim of your argument.
Finally, I don’t see why allowing gays to marry makes straight couples with children more likely to split up.
December 6th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Andrew,
I agree that cause and effect is not guaranteed. It is social science, and we are dealing with complex cause and effect relationships. We are making probability arguments. However, as I pointed out, “it’s not just Norway. Blankenhorn reports this same trend in other countries. International surveys show that same-sex marriage and the erosion of traditional marriage tend to go together. Traditional marriage is weakest and illegitimacy strongest wherever same-sex marriage is legal.”
I think we have some common ground since we both agree that the biological 2-parent family is best. So we should both be able to agree that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are not the same with respect to children. My point is that if there is one institution that must be concerned with children, it is marriage. That’s one reason why– regardless of any of the other issues– no society should legally equate homosexual and heterosexual relationships. They are not the same and can never be the same, so there’s no point pretending that they are the same.
The law is a great teacher. It helps mould the opinions and, of course, behaviors of its citizens (I have many examples of this, but little room here). So establishing government-backed same-sex marriage (gays can already commit themselves “till death do them part” without the government getting involved), helps teach people that marriage is about coupling and not children. Hence, there’s no need to get married to have children. So straight couples will split up more because fewer of them will get married in the first place. That’s a problem because couples who do not get married and have children split up at rates 2-3 times higher than those that do get married. Hence the problem for children.
If you’re really interested in this subject, I’ll send you an e-book copy of my new book. There’s a lot of moving parts to this issue, so, as I mentioned, it is impossible to deal with all of the issues and objections in short blog posts.
Blessings,
Frank
December 6th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Tim, we’re not talking just about adoptive parents. We are talking about the fact that the best home for kids is the biological 2-parent home.
Yes, we are talking about adoptive parents. Gay parents cannot reproduce, so if they have children at all, it’s because they are adopted.
That is not controversial at all.
Do you mean to imply that an adoptive parent — i.e. “not a biological parent” — is somehow incapable of becoming as good of a parent as a biological parent? How so?
This is indeed true:
In a perfect world, nobody would ever have to give their children up for adoption, yes; and so there would be no need for such services to exist, and all families would be centered around the parents that created them — and the parents would, of course, do so willingly, not “by accident” or because they weren’t educated enough to understand what they were getting themselves into.
But unfortunately, it’s not a perfect world, and there are circumstances — sometimes beyond our control, other times the result of simple poor decision-making or misinformation/uneducation — that cause parents to give their children up for adoption. Yes, it would be benificial to construct a society where these factors did not exist….but if you mean to imply that this is the reason you do not think gays should be allowed to, say, adopt children, then I’d contend with you on that. According to such studies, adoptive parents (of any stretch) are essentially “not as capable” as the original biological parents. If that’s the case, and if we are using the sheer capability potential referenced by such studies to decide who should and shouldn’t be able to adopt kids, then we’d have to say that any couple that does not consist of the child’s biological parents is “unfit” to be a parent.
However, as I pointed out, “it’s not just Norway. Blankenhorn reports this same trend in other countries. International surveys show that same-sex marriage and the erosion of traditional marriage tend to go together. Traditional marriage is weakest and illegitimacy strongest wherever same-sex marriage is legal.”
As the law in California has clearly been amended to show, it’s entirely possible to form a stable two-person “couple” without being married. I don’t see how the presence of “traditional (i.e. Christian) marriage” has any bearing on the presence of “unmarried” couples that (a) adopt children, or (b) choose to have their own children. And I think this is a bit of a liberal application of the term “illegitimacy,” as it refers to any relationship that is not “traditionally Christian.”
(gays can already commit themselves “till death do them part” without the government getting involved),
So can straight couples. So why do we need state-governed straight marriages?
Hence, there’s no need to get married to have children. So straight couples will split up more because fewer of them will get married in the first place.
I don’t see how getting married is, in your mind, a guarantee that a couple will stay together. Clearly it’s a display of intent to stay together, but that is not always what happens; getting married is no more a guarantee that a couple will stay together than not getting married is a guarantee that they will break apart. And I also don’t see how “not getting married in the first place” is going to cause couples to break apart more easily; if a couple wants to be together (or to break up), they’re going to do so regardless of whether or not they’re “married.”
December 6th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
But unfortunately, it’s not a perfect world, and there are circumstances — sometimes beyond our control, other times the result of simple poor decision-making or misinformation/uneducation — that cause parents to give their children up for adoption. Yes, it would be benificial to construct a society where these factors did not exist….but if you mean to imply that this is the reason you do not think gays should be allowed to, say, adopt children, then I’d contend with you on that. According to such studies, adoptive parents (of any stretch) are essentially “not as capable” as the original biological parents. If that’s the case, and if we are using the sheer capability potential referenced by such studies to decide who should and shouldn’t be able to adopt kids, then we’d have to say that any couple that does not consist of the child’s biological parents is “unfit” to be a parent.
P.S.
Allow me to clarify; you are arguing that certain kinds of couples should not be allowed to adopt because it’s not the “ideal” environment for children, i.e. they do not provide the optimum, most prevalent circumstances in which to raise children. Am I to understand that this is your premise? If so — if the simple idea that it’s “not as good as having two original biological parents” is considered a strong enough factor to invalidate one’s ability to adopt — then you would have to make that same argument of any straight couple that came along. Sure, you could argue that they’re “more preferable” to a gay couple, but it’s still not the most ideal. And we could easily make that same argument about gay couples — one might say they’re “more preferable” than, say, a violent cult-worshipping couple, or a convicted pedophile or child abuser/couple. So where, exactly, do you draw the line on this?
December 6th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
“it’s not just Norway. Blankenhorn reports this same trend in other countries. International surveys show that same-sex marriage and the erosion of traditional marriage tend to go together. Traditional marriage is weakest and illegitimacy strongest wherever same-sex marriage is legal.”
But I’m not convinced that in those liberal countries there exists a correlation between illegitmacy and harm to children. The type of liberal countries that allow gay marriage are also the type of countries where it is socially acceptable to produce children out of wedlock. I place value on whether the parents are raising the child together, regardless of whether they are married or not. Frank, surely the bottom line is whether this harms the children? Are there more SINGLE PARENT families in these nations than in the US, or is it just children born out of wedlock?
I’ve said that I’ve seen no evidence of cause and effect between illegitimacy in these liberal countries and social problems. Now in America you have stats that show social problems in parents often accompany a failure to marry before children are born. But the fact they are correlated does not necessarily mean such problems would be affected by increasing or decreasing marriage among those couples.
1) For example, it’s hardly a stretch that richer couples are more likely to be able to AFFORD marriage, and are also less likely to steal food.
2) Perhaps the people who go through with marriage are merely the ones who are more devoted and therefore more likely to stay together anyway. They’d have stayed together even if circumstances had prevented them tying the knot.
As a side point, I find the very word ‘illegitemacy’ quite distasteful when applied to a child. I remember hearing Ann Coulter talking on the TV about “all the little b&stard children being born, oh sorry I’m supposed to call them illegitamate - why can’t I just call them what they are?”
I thought, “why not just call them children? Why define them by whether or not their parents have gone through with a legal/religious ceremony prior to their conception?” Not to undermine marriage at all. Coulter hasn’t been married at all. That means that technically she is either a virgin or a fornicator - but I’m sure she wouldn’t thank anyone for defining her as such.
December 7th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Andrew,
You don’t need to be convinced, but the evidence shows a mutually reinforcing relationship between SSM and illegitimacy.
BTW, illegitimacy was a term used to indicate that a child had no legitimate rights to his father’s estate because his father could not be identified– the father was not married to the mother.
Now let’s go back to what we agree on. We both agree that the homosexual and heterosexual relationships are not the same with regard to children. So why should we call them the same legally?
Blessings,
Frank
December 7th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Tim,
If you want folks to respond to your posts, please try to keep them to a point or two. What is the main point of your last two posts? Is there a question or succinct point that you want me to respond to? Please state it in a sentence or two. (if you don’t want me to respond but you just want to state your opinion, that’s fine. I just want to honor the discussion here by responding if you expect it– I just don’t have time to untangle long posts that try to make multiple points on multiple subjects).
Thanks,
Frank
December 7th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
“BTW, illegitimacy was a term used to indicate that a child had no legitimate rights to his father’s estate because his father could not be identified”
I know that! I’m saying that today it’s an outmoded term.
“We both agree that the homosexual and heterosexual relationships are not the same with regard to children. So why should we call them the same legally?”
Allowing gays to marry doesn’t automatically give them the right to adopt. In most states, NOT being married doesn’t mean a straight couple can’t adopt. However, in the election, one of the states passed a law to say that no unmarried couple can adopt. I oppose this.
December 7th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
“You don’t need to be convinced, but the evidence shows a mutually reinforcing relationship between SSM and illegitimacy.”
I already answered this Frank. My post of 6:51 that begins: “But I’m not convinced that in those liberal countries there exists a correlation between illegitmacy and harm to children.”
I won’t be obnoxious and post the whole lot again, but please read it. These liberal Scandinavian countries don’t have those social problems to the same degree as the US. You can’t count illigitamacy alone as a ’social problem’, unless you can show that it directly harms the children in those countries.
December 7th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
If you want folks to respond to your posts, please try to keep them to a point or two. What is the main point of your last two posts? Is there a question or succinct point that you want me to respond to? Please state it in a sentence or two. (if you don’t want me to respond but you just want to state your opinion, that’s fine. I just want to honor the discussion here by responding if you expect it– I just don’t have time to untangle long posts that try to make multiple points on multiple subjects).
There are many succinct points to address; here’s the fine print:
(1) The argument of the “Most Ideal Parenthood.” You use this argument to say that certain kinds of families (in this case, homosexuals) should not be allowed to adopt or care for children because they are not the biological parents of the child; it’s common sense that the most beneficial environment for a child would be a loving home based around the two parents that conceived him or her, but that is not always possible. What I mean to ask of you is this: Do you believe that there are times when a child should be allowed to live with and be cared for by someone who is not his/her biological parent? If so, what circumstances would those be, and why?
(2) If we are to say in response to the above point that, say, a straight couple (that is nonetheless not biologically related to a child) should be allowed to adopt and care for a child in lieu of the biological parents….why is it that these parents are considered “fit” and gay parents are not? Is it because they are “less ideal” than the biological parents, or is it something else? The reason I ask is because, if you mean to say that it’s because they are “less ideal” than the biological parents, that muddies the argument; to allow a child to live with and be raised by a gay couple could be said to be “more ideal,” for example, than allowing the same child to be raised in the home of a convicted murderer or rapist or sex offender.
(3) All of this is summed up quite easily by saying that you seem to be unfavorable towards allowing gay couples to raise children together, under the pretense that it’s not the most beneficial environment for the child. Assuming that is true….do you think that we should not ever allow anyone except the biological parents (i.e. the most ideal parents) to raise a child? Or do you think having to “settle for second best” (i.e. adoptive parents, gay parents, etc.) is sometimes necessary and acceptable?
December 8th, 2008 at 4:11 am
Tim, I’m going to play devil’s advocate and say I believe that regardless of whether they’re biological parents or not, it’s possible that a child would benefit more from a being brought up by a man and a woman than from two people of the same gender. I’m saying for sure, I’m just saying that open to evidence to support it. I can imagine it being possible, I don’t reject the idea out of hand.
However, this is about having two genders bringing up a child, regardless of their sexual preference. It doesn’t mean I don’t think gays can’t be good parents. I know a gay man who is bringing up a child with a straight women and is doing a great job - the child is something of a prodgidy in fact. So a gay man and a lesbian woman might do a better job than, say, two straight sisters bringing up their neice together, or two straight men (a la ‘My Two Dads’).
However, I think this line of enquiry is a red herring - we’re discussing gay marriage, not gay adoption. The question is whether gays should be able to marry each other, a separate question to whether they should be able to adopt. Marriage shouldn’t be a requirement for adoption anyway, nor should it automatically allow it.
December 8th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Tim, I’m going to play devil’s advocate and say I believe that regardless of whether they’re biological parents or not, it’s possible that a child would benefit more from a being brought up by a man and a woman than from two people of the same gender. I’m saying for sure, I’m just saying that open to evidence to support it. I can imagine it being possible, I don’t reject the idea out of hand.
Perhaps that is the case. But by that same argument, a child would benefit more from being raised by the biological parents than by a straight couple that does not share the child’s DNA. So should we say that the non-biological parents should not be allowed to adopt based on that?
The point I was making was that sometimes it is necessary to “settle for less than ideal,” even if only slightly so — sometimes parents cannot care for their children, either because they die or because they give the child up for adoption. However it happens is ultimately irrelevant; the point being that it does from time to time; thus, orphanages exist. I would think it better to allow a child to be raised by, say, an adoptive homosexual couple (or an adoptive straight couple), than to be left to live in an orphanage until the age of 18. Thus, I don’t think it’s far out to say that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children. Or did you mean to say you believe that being raised in an orphanage by a non-parental unit is more ideal than being raised by a same-sex couple?
December 8th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
“Or did you mean to say you believe that being raised in an orphanage by a non-parental unit is more ideal than being raised by a same-sex couple?”
No. I don’t know what research has been done. I’m not saying two members of the same gender (or whatever sexual persuasion) can’t raise a child well. I was saying I don’t reject the notion out of hand than a man and a woman is the optimum, in that it gives the child variety or role models. eg, a boy being raised by two of his aunts might miss out on positive male role models. LIkewise a girl raised by her two grandfathers might miss out on a parent to talk girl-stuff with. The sexual orientation is irrelevant to my argument here by the way.
December 8th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
No. I don’t know what research has been done. I’m not saying two members of the same gender (or whatever sexual persuasion) can’t raise a child well. I was saying I don’t reject the notion out of hand than a man and a woman is the optimum, in that it gives the child variety or role models. eg, a boy being raised by two of his aunts might miss out on positive male role models. LIkewise a girl raised by her two grandfathers might miss out on a parent to talk girl-stuff with. The sexual orientation is irrelevant to my argument here by the way.
Ah. Well, neither do I reject that notion “out of hand”~
December 9th, 2008 at 5:18 am
And as I already said, the whole argument is irrelevant to gay marriage anyway. Laws on adoption should be separate to marriage laws.
December 9th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
The whole world exploded into life out of nothing. God created everything. The world is made with great precision. That said evolution could not have happened, because it is not logical, or possible. I encourage people who believe evolution is true to go to Church, read The Bible, and watch ” I Don’ t Have Enough Faith To be an Atheist. If you follow the teachings of these three things you will soon become, an intelligent Christain, who will go to Heaven. I am here to help all who are blind to themselves.
December 9th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
The whole world exploded into life out of nothing. God created everything. The world is made with great precision.
There’s a word for this type of sentencing. Where you have too many short sentences right next to each other that could be easily conjoined. I can’t remember for the life of me what it is. Though.
That said evolution could not have happened, because it is not logical, or possible.
Christianity couldn’t have happened. It’s impossible. It’s not logical. The Flying Spaghetti Monster made everything.
encourage people who believe evolution is true to go to Church, read The Bible, and watch ” I Don’ t Have Enough Faith To be an Atheist. If you follow the teachings of these three things you will soon become, an intelligent Christain, who will go to Heaven. I am here to help all who are blind to themselves.
I’ve read the Bible a couple of times, and I don’t recall anything about evolution being said in there one way or the other….was it before or after God told those guys to stab all the pregnant ladies to death?
December 11th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
The Bible doesn’ t specifically mention morality, but it teaches that God created everything. If you read the Bible, and don’ t get it, try to use your brain more. God never tells you to do anything immoral.
December 11th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
The Bible doesn’ t specifically mention morality, but it teaches that God created everything.
It also teaches how to obtain and take care of slaves:
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
^Taken from Leviticus 25:44-46.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.
Taken from Exodus 21:7-11.
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
Exodus 21:20-21.
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.
Ephesians 6:5.
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.
1 Timothy 6:1-2.
God never tells you to do anything immoral.
I’ll grant you that, in the aforementioned passages, it wasn’t actually God that told us how to obtain and take care of our slaves.Those are the words of the men who wrote those particular books of the Bible.
December 16th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
The Bible is the most important book you can read. It is all true facts, and most of what is taught in the Bible, you can learn from, and use in your everyday life. All in all if you can’ t go to school, but you do have a Bible, if you read it you will learn from it, and you will have a joyful life serving God. If you read the Bible and open your heart to what it has to say, follow what it says, except from the old testement about an eye for an eye, you will be living a moral life, that will help you and prepare you for when you meet God in Heaven. God Bless and good luck.
December 16th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
follow what it says, except from the old testement about an eye for an eye,
So, how do you decide what to “except” and what to “accept?”
In the meantime, I’ll have plenty of joy and fulfillment while I’m out here not owning slaves and not killing pregnant ladies, thanks~
December 17th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Tim you completly miss my point. It may seem like your living a happy life, but you would be much happier living, and knowing God. I always am happy, and I pray to God everyday. My mission in life is to help people come to know God any Religion or no Religion, and when I extend my hand out to someone I don’t want it to be slapped away. God Bless, and may you be guided into the light.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Tim you completly miss my point.
Then by all means, please explain it~ My ears are open.
It may seem like your living a happy life, but you would be much happier living, and knowing God.
With all due respect, you don’t know how I feel, and therefore it’s impossible to judge if changing my scientific beliefs would be “better” or “worse” than what I feel at this time.
My mission in life is to help people come to know God any Religion or no Religion, and when I extend my hand out to someone I don’t want it to be slapped away. God Bless, and may you be guided into the light.
What’s ironic is, I actually agree with a lot of the more metaphorical aspects of most religions, the lessons and whatnot….it’s when we start getting into the literal and specific aspects that I tend to “stray,” so to speak — all Bible stories aside.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Tim I can tell by what your saying how you feel. You are confused about what is right to believe, and what is wrong to believe. The right thing to believe is The Bible. It has all truth, and will guide you on your most important journey the journey of your life. Pray this prayer: “God please forgive my sins, please come into my heart and clense it from all the evil, I accept Jesus Christ as my savior, and I will live my life for God and look forward to seeing Him in Heaven, Amen”. Pray this prayer or a similar one to become a born again christian, and be able to live in Heaven when you die. Tim believe what I say I am speaking the truth, and I am just trying to help you so you can go to Heaven. May God bless you always, and I hope you go to Heaven. I will be praying for you. May you come out of the darkness, and see the bright light that is God.
December 18th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Tim I can tell by what your saying how you feel. You are confused about what is right to believe, and what is wrong to believe.
There is a fine line between “confused about how to feel” and “open to alternative ways of thinking.” If someone can convince me of a more preferable alternative, I’d gladly hear them out….though, for the most part, I find that people react less than pleasantly once they find out that I’m not easy to “win over” with tired cliche arguments.
im believe what I say I am speaking the truth, and I am just trying to help you so you can go to Heaven.
Well, thanks and all, but I don’t believe in Heaven, and thus getting there is not exactly a top priority for me~
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Heaven is real. I wouldn’ t try to help someone go to a place if it wasn’t real. Heaven is the greatest place in the world. When I die and go there and meet God, it will be the greatest day of my life. I’m trying to help people meet our heavenly father. It is my destiney. I want to help you Tim. What I am saying is all true. If you don’ t beleive me talk to God and he will answer through other people. God bless you and please open your heart and mind to what I have to say. Have a Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year.
January 28th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
The Bible explains what is evil and what is not, if you read it closely you will understand the truth. Start in Genesis. God Bless to all, and peace on earth.
January 28th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Heaven is real. I wouldn’ t try to help someone go to a place if it wasn’t real. Heaven is the greatest place in the world.
May I quote a song?
“There’s a place where everyone can be happy
It’s the most beautiful place in the whole ****ing world
It’s made of candy-canes and planes and bright red choo-choo trains
And the meanest little boys, most innocent little girls
And you know, I wish that I could go there
But it’s a road that I have not found
And I wish you all the best of luck, dear
Drop a card or letter to my side of town…”
It doesn’t really answer your assertion here, but then again….your assertion didn’t really answer mine either, now did it?
When I die and go there and meet God, it will be the greatest day of my life.
Good for you; I wish you all the best of luck, dear~
I’m trying to help people meet our heavenly father. It is my destiney. I want to help you Tim. What I am saying is all true. If you don’ t beleive me talk to God and he will answer through other people.
Other people aren’t God. Unless you mean “God is people?” In which case you worship people?
The Bible explains what is evil and what is not, if you read it closely you will understand the truth. Start in Genesis. God Bless to all, and peace on earth.
It’s not that I don’t know what the Bible considers “good” and “evil.” It’s that I think it’s incorrect. No matter how many times you tell me to read it, I will still feel the same way, unless something within it changes between now and the next time.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Evolution provides no stable foundation for morality. If evolution is the source of morality, then what’s to stop morals from evolving (changing) to the point that one day rape, theft and murder are considered moral?
Response: First of all evolution is not a religion or a philosophy. Biological evolution simply explains the diversity of life on earth. That’s all. It is a logical fallacy to claim that because evolution cannot explain everything that it is false. What IS false is creation magic believers claiming that evolution is a religion and therefore must explain anything religions are supposed to explain. Well social evolution, not biological evolution, does in fact explain in detail how we humans have taught ourselves morals and ethics just like we taught ourselves languages, math and everything else. The creation magician claim that one particular avenue of knowledge came from the Christian sky wizard is as indefensible as their claim that a 500 year old man built a ship the size of the Titanic out of wood and glue. Sorry but thinking people don’t have enough faith to believe those absurd superstitious contentions.