The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

In other words, it appears we are arguing about two things here, one of which is a logical extension of evolutionary theory, the other of which is not. It is certainly logical to propose that selective pressures and competition for resources will drive social change just as they drive genetic change in organisms - it's an analogy, but will bear weight.

Racism, and eugenics, are not logical extensions of evolutionary theory - they are examples of 'scientific racism', a broad movement that started before Darwin and continued well after. If you study any racist, you will see that anything that sounds even slightly like it justifies the racist is pressed into service, whether it really does so or not. Racists are enormously keen to point out any genetic differences between themselves and their chosen bete noirs, ignoring the larger picture that genetic differences within 'races' are everywhere much larger than differences between 'races'.

Maybe they are just being selective about what differences matter to them. I agree that it is all baloney, for we are all one race. But the evolutionist can decide what aspects of man’s differences they want to propagate and what to extinguish. Believing that all evolution occurred by incremental changes, they can hope to steer evolution to the survival of their particular preferences.

If you believe that the observation logically promotes the action, then the following are also true:

1. you will die some day, so you should commit suicide now

No, quite logically I might wish to enjoy the intervening time.

2. everyone will die some day, so murder is logical

No, murder may not serve my purposes. It will however not be immoral.

3. at some point you will probably have a car accident, so you should drive as recklessly as possible to promote this

No, I would only be adding to the likelihood of my suffering, increasing the chances of one accident and also of many subsequent ones.

...and so on. You are welcome to agree that the above are perfectly logical, but it's frankly silly.

I agree, they are frankly silly.

Er, yes - and kindness to apes is a logical extension of that.

You mean, it is illogical to kill apes for food or money? Or to kill cattle for the same?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So evolution shows us that we got here by kindness toward our competitors? That it was only enviroment that selected, not individual and social strength?

Pretty much. There is no 'struggle' between red and grey squirrels. There is competition for food and nesting sites, but there is no violence, no way in which the grey squirrel is 'better' or 'dominant'. It just happens to be able to eat acorns, which the red can't, it is resistant to (but carries) a particular disease, and is more tolerant of disruption of its environment.

Man is a reflective and rational agent. He observes nature and figures out how to further his own ends. Where others get in the way, he ‘struggles’ with them.
Wolves in the British Isles.
Indians in America.
Jews in Germany.

Morality is not a 'group concept' in an evolutionary sense, it is literally built in to nearly everyone (the exception being psychopaths). It is similarly built in to monkeys.

Yes, that’s what I’m saying - if you are right about man’s origins, then any morality one senses internally or by the society is just a feeling. It is not an objective standard that one must observe. Man is able to reflect on his feelings and to rationally decide what is a mere chemical heritage/social conditioning and what is a real moral standard.

Morality is not a choice. You're born with it, and culture and religion add frills - but they wouldn't even be able to do that if you didn't have the necessary capacity to learn added morality. It takes work to be immoral, even if you're a materialist.

I agree, we all have an inbuilt morality. But as rational beings we can assess whether the morality is real or imagined. If the latter, then we can - rationally - find no reason to observe it if it does not suit our purposes. If, on the other hand, we believe it to be real, then we have every rational reason to observe it, whether it suits us or not.

Of course, that's impossible for you to accept, because a morality not backed by God is not really a morality, is it? It's just a set of convenient social conventions - even if they're exactly the same as the Biblical morality, they remain arbitrary conventions as far as you're concerned.

Correct.

I'm afraid that tells me more about you than it does about the nature of morality (no offence is intended by that, but I don't seem to be able to rewrite it in such a way that it doesn't sound snide).

No offence taken.:) I still do not see your rational problem with this.

Hmm. If you were on the Western Front, a burned hand could be a Blighty wound, in which case it's a perfectly logical course of action to stick your hand in a fire. If something immensely valuable is in the fire, and your only option is to snatch it out, you're going to get a burned hand.

OK, there certainly are exceptions to the rule that it is best not to put one’s hand in the fire. You are suggesting there is no such rule!!!

Logic suggests nothing at all. There are people who suffer from a mental condition that makes them completely logical and emotionless. Left to their own devices, they do nothing whatsoever. They don't even eat, because you have to want to live in order to want to eat, and "want" is not part of logic.

What can I say to that?! Logic does not tell you to avoid harm? To want food and clothing? How then do you make these simple decisions daily? Spin a coin - cross the road without looking/looking?

Science is exactly the same. It can throw light on things, but that's all. It doesn't tell you to go to the shed - you provide that bit.

That’s what I said: we deduce the best course of action from our knowledge of the ‘facts’.

There is an enormous assumption built in to what you've said here - and that assumption is that only a 'God-backed' morality is real morality, and only 'God-given' significance is real significance.

Yes.

You have already decided that humans cannot meaningfully set their own morality or significance - so your discovery that there is no real morality without God is not a deduction at all, but simply a mirror image of your original decision.

If, instead, I decide arbitrarily that humans are the best judge and source of human significance and morality, then I will deduce that in the absence of God we have real morality and real significance - again, it's just mirroring my original decision.

It is not a matter of our deciding making it so - it either is or is not. If I’m right about how we came to be, then God’s morality is the only true morality. If you are right about evolution, then any morality must be just subjective - there can be no objective, true morality. Ditto for significance.

Not at all. That's like saying that because a diamond is made of carbon, it's no more valuable than graphite.

It is your system that makes no ‘significant’ difference between man and molecules. Your making him more significant is merely an exercise of your preferences, not a recognition of objective truth.

Sometimes, but some probably died out by themselves (and in many places, certainly did, because they were gone before humans got there - H. florensis is a good example). In other places, there was no similar organism to replace.

Once again, you're falling into the "evolution as struggle" fallacy. Most of the time, humans were simply able to survive in environments that their predecessors weren't. We didn't replace anything.

OK, some supposed competitors met their ends unrelated to us. But the seizure of territory and resources plays its part too.

No. Come on, this is getting tedious - we don't have to dominate or exterminate the competition, because that's not what competition means in an evolutionary sense. Let me give you a simplified example:

1. take two populations of rabbits - one eats mostly fescue, and a bit of mat grass (Pop I), the other (Pop II) does the reverse.
2. the two populations are initially equal in numbers, and occupy the same meadows
3. the fescue gets a mosaic virus, and mostly dies out
4. Pop II does just fine, but Pop I goes to the wall. While they do eat a little mat grass, it's not enough to keep them alive. Their population crashes, and the few remaining weak rabbits fall prey to disease and predators.

Where exactly is the 'struggle'? What 'competition'? Are Pop II really 'competitors' of Pop I? In what way did they 'dominate/exterminate' Pop I?

OK for those that eat different foods. What of those that don’t? Do they agree not to hog it all for themselves? Is that what we see in nature? Do not those with the means not only eat all the food but also eat the opposition?

You have to stop projecting the active conception of "struggle" onto evolution - the correct version is as in "struggling to survive", or "my life is a daily struggle", which don't mean you literally have to fight your way out your front door every morning.

So you are telling me evolution does not involve the active conception of struggle? That the stronger will not take resources from the weaker, even directly killing the weaker to ensure they use none of the resources?

That, at least, is true. There are times when an amoral action can lead to increased future happiness - voting FF because they have promised a tax break that directly and greatly benefits you, for example.

However, most of the more serious immoral actions (murder, for example) do not increase the perpetrator's happiness, because of the unpleasantness of guilt. Empathy makes it difficult for most of us to avoid feeling bad about actions which harm another, although we can make ourselves deliberately callous by learning to suppress our empathy (which is also what allows doctors to deal with patients in pain).

But guilt is only a feeling inherited by genes and re-inforced by society (according to the naturalist explanation). Now that man has evolved sufficiently so that he can reflect on his feelings and his origins, he can rationally conclude that he need not bother with conscience - providing he is careful society does not catch him. Morality can be left to the little people, those still shackled with their imaginary origins or unable to face reality.

Faulty premises lead to faulty logic...

No, the logic may be flawless. It is just the conclusions that will be rubbish. Seems to me you naturalists desperately struggle to avoid the conclusion logic demands of your system. Wouldn’t it be better to accept your premise is wrong, no matter how difficult it is to think about the alternative? You will then truly be a man of reason.

wolfsbane

daithifleming said:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So you think Monod's quotes are...?

Maybe it is your personal beliefs that are getting in the way of honest thinking.

Are what?

That's what I'm asking you. You dismissed my post as rubbish - so I'm asking what about Monod's quotes do you find so unworthy.

When i see a property developer on the news in Ireland, saying that the housing market is fine and that there is nothing to worry about i always think: 'Well you would say that wouldn't you?'

Indeed.

When people research a topic which clash with their own personal/vested interests they tend to fall victim to making the facts fit the frames. And if the facts don't fit the frames, the facts are kept and the frames are ignored. Personal beliefs get in the way of good research, and generally lead a person to bending the truth to suit their own agenda.

Yes, that is a great weakness inhuman nature, one we all must guard against.

Thats why i cant take what you are saying seriously.

Have you considered you may be the victim of the above malady?

I doubt that you understand any of the science behind evolutionary theory, but that doesn't matter does it?

It would if I did not grasp enough to engage in rational debate.

All that matters is that in flies in the face of your beliefs so that means it MUST be wrong.

So you don't believe Creationism MUST be wrong, because it flies in the face of your beliefs?

Otherwise your whole life to date would count for nothing.

Well, it would then count for exactly what yours counts for. If you persuaded me of your beliefs, I assume I could live as happily with it as you do. My life to date has been happy in many respects, and sad in others. If God is a delusion, I have missed out on a lot of fornicating, drunkeness and vengeance. But I have had a lot of loving relationships with my fellow Christians. I would have to lose that.

It must be terrible to deal with, living in such denial.

Yes, I can imagine your problem. Saul of Tarsus had it too:
Acts 9:3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”
5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?”
Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”

I must ask, what other areas of science are you so passionately opposed to? Are they exclusive to areas that contradict what the bible says?

I'm happy about all real science. I'm unhappy with false interpretations drawn from science. And also the sinful use of science - involuntary human experimentation, for example.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

daithifleming said:

That's what I'm asking you. You dismissed my post as rubbish - so I'm asking what about Monod's quotes do you find so unworthy.


Indeed.


Yes, that is a great weakness inhuman nature, one we all must guard against.


Have you considered you may be the victim of the above malady?


It would if I did not grasp enough to engage in rational debate.


So you don't believe Creationism MUST be wrong, because it flies in the face of your beliefs?


Well, it would then count for exactly what yours counts for. If you persuaded me of your beliefs, I assume I could live as happily with it as you do. My life to date has been happy in many respects, and sad in others. If God is a delusion, I have missed out on a lot of fornicating, drunkeness and vengeance. But I have had a lot of loving relationships with my fellow Christians. I would have to lose that.


Yes, I can imagine your problem. Saul of Tarsus had it too:
Acts 9:3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”
5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?”
Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”


I'm happy about all real science. I'm unhappy with false interpretations drawn from science. And also the sinful use of science - involuntary human experimentation, for example.

I couldnt be arsed multi-quoting this, and im at work, hence i am busy. However, i must quickly address you belief that i believe in evolution.

I dont believe in evolution, i just think it is a logical explanation for how life is so diverse. Note that i said i think and not believe. You see, evolution doesnt require belief because belief in science is irrelavent, science is merely an explanation of what we observe. It isnt a God that cannot be seen and requires all of us to close our eyes and wish for him to exist so we dont have to face the reality of death. So before i get back to work i must address that one issue you creationists have. Evolution is NOT a belief, it is a science. Christianity is a belief, NOT a science. Understand? You got that kid?

BTW, the fact that you believe in talking snakes makes it hard for me to take your points seriously.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

I couldnt be arsed multi-quoting this, and im at work, hence i am busy. However, i must quickly address you belief that i believe in evolution.

I dont believe in evolution, i just think it is a logical explanation for how life is so diverse. Note that i said i think and not believe. You see, evolution doesnt require belief because belief in science is irrelavent, science is merely an explanation of what we observe. It isnt a God that cannot be seen and requires all of us to close our eyes and wish for him to exist so we dont have to face the reality of death. So before i get back to work i must address that one issue you creationists have. Evolution is NOT a belief, it is a science. Christianity is a belief, NOT a science. Understand? You got that kid?

BTW, the fact that you believe in talking snakes makes it hard for me to take your points seriously.

I appreciate you taking the time to post, as I too know the pressures on one's time.

Belief: you mistake my use of the term. I'm using it in the sense of the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law a degree of conviction of the truth of something esp. based on a consideration or examination of the evidence and the Concise Oxford Dictionary acceptance as true. In those terms you do believe in evolution.

Evolution is a scientific theory: you believe it to be true, I don't. There are other scientific theories that are disputed. One assesses the evidence and argument, and believes it or not. Sometimes that belief is informed soley by scientific considerations; often it also includes spiritual/philosophical considerations.

The Christian, for example, may well find that he cannot reconcile evolution with any sensible understanding of Biblical revelation, and rejects it even without investigating scientifically. Other Christians also reject it as a possibility, but inform themselves about the detailed nature of the theory and seek to show how it fails and that the Biblical account makes more sense.

Conversely, the unbelieving evolutionist often knows that to admit evolution is very unlikey is to open the door to accountability to God. They wish for Him not to exist so they dont have to face the reality of eternal death.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

I appreciate you taking the time to post, as I too know the pressures on one's time.

Belief: you mistake my use of the term. I'm using it in the sense of the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law a degree of conviction of the truth of something esp. based on a consideration or examination of the evidence and the Concise Oxford Dictionary acceptance as true. In those terms you do believe in evolution.

Evolution is a scientific theory: you believe it to be true, I don't. There are other scientific theories that are disputed. One assesses the evidence and argument, and believes it or not. Sometimes that belief is informed soley by scientific considerations; often it also includes spiritual/philosophical considerations.

The Christian, for example, may well find that he cannot reconcile evolution with any sensible understanding of Biblical revelation, and rejects it even without investigating scientifically. Other Christians also reject it as a possibility, but inform themselves about the detailed nature of the theory and seek to show how it fails and that the Biblical account makes more sense.

Conversely, the unbelieving evolutionist often knows that to admit evolution is very unlikey is to open the door to accountability to God. They wish for Him not to exist so they dont have to face the reality of eternal death.

You know its not the same, you could say that i believe that the theory of gravity is the reason why i am held firmly to the ground, but is that the same as your belief in God? Because according to what you said, they are one and the same. Silliness.

If people dont believe in God he ceases to exist in any form. If people stop 'believing' in evolution it wont go away, whether you like it or not. To be quite honest, i am astonished that there are people who think that evolution is a hoax, or a belief system, given the amount of progress it has brought about, especially in modern medicine. That level of ignorance worries me, it really does.

I will put a question to you.

A friend of mine is a microbiologist who is studying alternatives to antibiotics for use against bacteria. (Bacteria which happened to EVOLVE to resist antibiotics, remember that?) If they came up with an alternative that was effective, i presume you would deny yourself and your family this treatment out of principle? Seeing as the whole reason for this research was based on evolutionary theory in one way or another? I could apply this also to the new range of medicines that will greatly extend human life that will be coming out over the next 50 years. All of which have their origins in evolutionary theory to some extent, i suppose you and yoru family shall not be availing of these treatments on principle?


Answer honestly. Remember, God is watching.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said (7577):

But that is the point, God's law is not objective, it is subjective to God's opinion.

For morality to be truly objective it would have to be universal, even beyond God himself.

God's opinion that something is immoral is just as subjective as my opinion that something is immoral. You may hold his opinion in much higher respect that the opinion of any human, but that isn't the point.

Not if God is who He claims to be. His Law is as objective as Himself. If He is who he says He is, my respect or disrespect neither adds nor subtracts from Him or His Law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I did specify that the perp was in a position to be not detected/punished by society. That being the case, he logically can have no reason not to do as he pleases.

Agreed, but then I don't see the point of your example. If he is not aware of your religion, or doesn't believe in it, he also has no logical reason to not do as he pleases either.

My point is that all who do believe have a logical reason to not do as they please. Christian morality is therefore logical: atheistic morality is illogical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If the intending perp reflects on the morality of his action and believes there is a God to whom he must answer, then it may well cause him to refrain.

True, but then he will only do this if he understands that what he is doing is considered wrong in the first place. And that that can happen from reflecting that society views it as wrong as much as it can from reflecting that Christianity views it as wrong.

Most perps know what they are doing is considered wrong by society. They have no logical reason to desist, if they can be reasonably sure of society being unable to punish them. But if they believe God is real, they know they cannot escape Him.

But the most likely outcome is that the perp will simply not reflect on this either way.

I’ve never heard of it. Any that I have known always knew society disapproved and they tried to avoid discovery.

History is littered with Christians who have obviously managed to rationalise the most horrific crimes to themselves. If your premise holds then the only logical conclusion is that they did not really believe in God, because if they did they would be too scared to do what they did.

That seems an unsupported conclusion.

A far more rational conclusion, based on how people compartmentalize their actions, is that they did believe in God but rationalised to themselves that what they were doing was not wrong from that standard.

Yes, and my premise holds true. True Christians (as distinct from pretend ones) have indeed done some evil things. They did so not because they believed God did not exist, but for two possible reasons:
1. They thought that their actions were in line with His law. They failed to interpret the Scriptures correctly, allowing human reasoning/tradition to set aside the teaching of the Word.

2. They succumbed to temptation, taking the immediate pleasure instead of doing things God’s way. It involves a blanking out of tomorrow from our thinking. This is the sort of behaviour that is no longer the norm for the Christian, but something he can fall into from time to time, if he is unwary. Normally, the love of God and the fear of God are sufficient deterrence.

The classic example is the "God is on our side" argument for war.

That is not a Christian concept. Even in a Just War scenario, the question must be Are we on God’s side?

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If he believes man is just a super complex collection of chemicals, then he will see the logic of treating him any way that suits, even if that is like the dog-dirt on his shoe.

You keep saying that Wolfsbane and people here keep trying to explain to you that that not the only deduction

You only view humanity as having value because God has informed you that humanity has value. Therefore you seem to have a very hard problem understand how a human can view humanity as having value without this proclamation from God.

I understand you are having trouble with that, I'm not sure why exactly, but I can assure you that one can rationally conclude that human life has value independent of any proclamation from a deity.

Spell it out then, as I’ve never heard a logical defence of the value of human life from an atheist.

I would point out that religion throughout history (including your Bible) have committed terrible crimes because they have concluded the exact opposite, that God has decided that certain groups of humans don't have value. This is has lead to war and genocide.

The Bible sets all men as made in God’s image and their life sacred. Only God has the right to determine when anyone’s life ends. So murder is forbidden. But God delegates that right of execution to the State, so that they may lawfully execute those worthy of death. War - including the mandated genocide of God’s enemies in the Old Testament times - is an operation of that.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm using the evolutionary theory in the wider sense, the sense most evolutionists use when they trace man's origin.

There is no "wider sense" of evolutionary theory. That is simply Creationist nonsense.

Planets and stars didn't evolve, the universe didn't evolve, evolution theory doesn't apply to them.

NASA needs to know about this stunning discovery of yours: http://astrophysics.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Darwinian evolutionary theory is applied to very little other than the processes of life (you can find it in cultural studies and computer programming).

If I had said Darwinian, you might be forgiven - but I said evolutionary theory.

Again the term "Evolutionist" as applied to everyone who does science is a nonsense term that Creationists invented.

You well know biological evolution has as its presupposition the evolution of the universe over billions of years. Why are you trying to hide from that fact?

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So again I say, your evolutionary view has amorality as its logical outcome.

You can say that all you like Wolfsbane and I will simply try to explain to you that the two are not connected. It is possible to view evolution as the way morality developed and still subscribe to the idea of universal morality. I know people who do. You might not understand that, but then I don't think they would particularly care TBH.

I know many people do believe morality evolved with man, and still hold to a universal morality to which they believe we must conform. It is just that they have no LOGICAL reason to do so.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The point is that no one can logically feel obliged to keep them.

That holds no more in your system of morality defined by God.

You seem to be getting rather muddled.

If someone doesn't agree with a moral decision taken by someone else, be it me or God, they won't agree with it. No one, not even God, can force someone to agree with a moral decision. They either agree or they don't. How obliged they feel to keep a decision they don't agree with is up to them, influenced by threat of hell or prison, it doesn't really matter.

But either way they won't be keeping it because they agree with it.

You are still missing the point:

If my God is real, then it is LOGICAL to keep to His morality. Of course, one may ignore the logic and disobey God.

If there is no such God and materialist evolution is true, then it is NOT LOGICAL for you to believe in an objective morality. Of course, one may ignore logic and insist there is such a morality.

All I’m trying to show you is that objective morality is ILLOGICAL for the atheist.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The rapist's morality is just as valid as the aid-worker's.

Valid to who? The rapist? It isn't as valid to me because I don't agree with it.

Valid to the logical atheist observer. It may not be his morality, but he will acknowledge each man may have his own.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If He is the God of the Bible, then what He says is the real truth, what He commands is the only right way.

That doesn't make sense. It is the right way because he has decided it is the right way. He could decide otherwise, if he wanted to. To say that his decision is a universal truth is a paradox, because it means God could not decide otherwise, which clearly isn't true.

No, God could not decide otherwise, for His nature is holy and He cannot do evil things.

Who he is is ultimately irrelevant. What he is supposed to have done is what matters. In my system of morality there are not two standards of morality, one for man and one for gods, because it doesn't actually matter what someone is, what matters is the consequences of their actions.

I doubt you believe this. For example, I assume you believe it moral for the State to arrest and imprison a thief/rapist/murderer. Would it be moral for you to do so? Would you build a cellar for that purpose? Just so God may do things we may not.

If God kills a child that is exactly the same for the child as if Satan killed the child. The child is dead, and that is the crime The child has the right to life. That right is independent to anything, including God.

That is where you err. The life of the child was given by God and always belongs to Him. It is His prerogative when it is taken back.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But as God He has every right to order our affairs as He in His holiness sees fit. He gives us life, and it is His to take.

No he doesn't. "Rights" (at least in my wacky version of morality) don't work like that. If they did they wouldn't be "rights" in the first place.

Hmm. Do you have rights to drive a hire car, but still agree the company has the right to take it back on the agreed date, or before it if you abuse the contract? How much more God who gives us life itself and all we need to sustain it.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Sure, that is the essence of subjective morality. But the rapist can just as logically say the same.

He can. But I'm still going to throw him in jail.

Good. But you can’t say he has done objective evil, only what you and I consider evil.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Again, I'm asking you to say why your morality is superior to the rapist's, not to God's.

But that is the point. "Superior" doesn't apply because what does one measure it against. The opinion that my morality is better than the rapists morality is my opinion. There is no universal gauge to measure it upon, but I don't care.

Exactly. I’m glad you have got this at last. No universal morality in your system.

Your question is that if there is no universal gauge to measure my morality upon then how do I know I am "right" in any universal sense. I don't because it doesn't apply since there is no universal "right"

Excellent.

But then does that actually matter? I'm not trying to justify myself to anyone except other humans, who can decide they agree with me or not.

It matters in so far as you must concede that there is no such thing as universal morality, and that any punishment you mete out for offences are solely due to your preferences, not to any real evil one has done.

I can logically say Himmler was "immoral"

But since there is no universal standard of morality Himmler is only immoral in the opinion of those who subscribe to my values of morality. Himmler no doubt didn't consider himself immoral at all. But I don't care, because I don't agree with his concepts of morality to start with. To me Himmler is immoral.

I think your problem Wolfsbane is that you keep swapping in and out of frameworks where there is or isn't universal morality. I can say Himmler was immoral because in my system there is no universal morality. You then switch back into a framework where there is universal morality and say how can I say that because i don't know if my morality matches this universal morality. This ignores that I'm not working within a system of universal morality to begin with so the question doesn't apply.

I could only not say Himmler was immoral if I first accepted that there was a universal standard of morality, because I would have to recognize that I don't know if my morality matches that. But I'm not working in that system in the first place.

Truly a breakthrough in your understanding. Your morality is entirely subjective. Himmler was not an evil man objectively, just in your opinion.

No its not "usually better" because there is no such thing as "usually", even leaving out the fact that "better" is not defined either.


There are examples where such actions resulted in what you would consider a favorable outcome for the species as a whole, and there are examples where it didn't. It all depends on the specific set of circumstances of the environment.

Time is also a major factor as well, where you pick the point to measure if some evolutionary change was "better" or "worse" for a species.

For example, was it "better" for the human species that we developed our highly complex brains some 100,000 years ago, if we end up destroying the planet in the next 50,000 years? It was certainly good in terms of survivability of individuals in the short term, but in the long term we end up genociding ourselves. Which wouldn't be good for the species. So it comes back to how one defines "better" in the first place.

Do you understand the point I'm making?

Yes, I understand. It might be better if I looked before driving across the road. But it might not, for an accident here might be minor, whereas had I not crashed here I could have been wiped out by the guy who drove through the lights a block away. So I cannot say it is better to look before driving across the road.

That cover it?

No offense Wolfsbane but from a biological point of view that is nonsense. Man doesn't prey on everything else, nor is he waging the more "successful" war.

There are more bacteria in you than there are humans on the face of the Earth. They are doing much better than we are in terms of numbers on the planet.

And we make war on the unhelpful ones daily. As well as on our larger pests and opponents. We can be thankful we have kept down so many. But it is an ongoing conflict.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As I explained, a better outcome certainly applies to the desires and needs of the subjects of evolution.

That is meaningless from an evolutionary point of view since organisms don't evolve while alive. If I desire something during my life evolution isn't going to do anything, because evolution already did what ever it was going to do the moment I was conceived.

Hmm. Survival seems to figure big in the evolution texts I have read. That comes under the heading of better for me.

Under what "logic"? You are asserting that the logical course of action to take is the one that produces the better evolutionary out come. But you haven't explained why that is the logical course of action in the first place. Logical towards what purpose or goal?

Survival.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said (7577):
Not if God is who He claims to be. His Law is as objective as Himself. If He is who he says He is, my respect or disrespect neither adds nor subtracts from Him or His Law.

My point is that all who do believe have a logical reason to not do as they please. Christian morality is therefore logical: atheistic morality is illogical.

Most perps know what they are doing is considered wrong by society. They have no logical reason to desist, if they can be reasonably sure of society being unable to punish them. But if they believe God is real, they know they cannot escape Him.

I’ve never heard of it. Any that I have known always knew society disapproved and they tried to avoid discovery.


Yes, and my premise holds true. True Christians (as distinct from pretend ones) have indeed done some evil things. They did so not because they believed God did not exist, but for two possible reasons:
1. They thought that their actions were in line with His law. They failed to interpret the Scriptures correctly, allowing human reasoning/tradition to set aside the teaching of the Word.

2. They succumbed to temptation, taking the immediate pleasure instead of doing things God’s way. It involves a blanking out of tomorrow from our thinking. This is the sort of behaviour that is no longer the norm for the Christian, but something he can fall into from time to time, if he is unwary. Normally, the love of God and the fear of God are sufficient deterrence.

That is not a Christian concept. Even in a Just War scenario, the question must be Are we on God’s side?

Spell it out then, as I’ve never heard a logical defence of the value of human life from an atheist.

The Bible sets all men as made in God’s image and their life sacred. Only God has the right to determine when anyone’s life ends. So murder is forbidden. But God delegates that right of execution to the State, so that they may lawfully execute those worthy of death. War - including the mandated genocide of God’s enemies in the Old Testament times - is an operation of that.

NASA needs to know about this stunning discovery of yours: http://astrophysics.gsfc.nasa.gov/

If I had said Darwinian, you might be forgiven - but I said evolutionary theory.


You well know biological evolution has as its presupposition the evolution of the universe over billions of years. Why are you trying to hide from that fact?

I know many people do believe morality evolved with man, and still hold to a universal morality to which they believe we must conform. It is just that they have no LOGICAL reason to do so.

You are still missing the point:

If my God is real, then it is LOGICAL to keep to His morality. Of course, one may ignore the logic and disobey God.

If there is no such God and materialist evolution is true, then it is NOT LOGICAL for you to believe in an objective morality. Of course, one may ignore logic and insist there is such a morality.

All I’m trying to show you is that objective morality is ILLOGICAL for the atheist.


Valid to the logical atheist observer. It may not be his morality, but he will acknowledge each man may have his own.

No, God could not decide otherwise, for His nature is holy and He cannot do evil things.


I doubt you believe this. For example, I assume you believe it moral for the State to arrest and imprison a thief/rapist/murderer. Would it be moral for you to do so? Would you build a cellar for that purpose? Just so God may do things we may not.


That is where you err. The life of the child was given by God and always belongs to Him. It is His prerogative when it is taken back.


Hmm. Do you have rights to drive a hire car, but still agree the company has the right to take it back on the agreed date, or before it if you abuse the contract? How much more God who gives us life itself and all we need to sustain it.


Good. But you can’t say he has done objective evil, only what you and I consider evil.

Exactly. I’m glad you have got this at last. No universal morality in your system.


Excellent.

It matters in so far as you must concede that there is no such thing as universal morality, and that any punishment you mete out for offences are solely due to your preferences, not to any real evil one has done.


Truly a breakthrough in your understanding. Your morality is entirely subjective. Himmler was not an evil man objectively, just in your opinion.


Yes, I understand. It might be better if I looked before driving across the road. But it might not, for an accident here might be minor, whereas had I not crashed here I could have been wiped out by the guy who drove through the lights a block away. So I cannot say it is better to look before driving across the road.

That cover it?



And we make war on the unhelpful ones daily. As well as on our larger pests and opponents. We can be thankful we have kept down so many. But it is an ongoing conflict.


Hmm. Survival seems to figure big in the evolution texts I have read. That comes under the heading of better for me.


Survival.

Wow, you know you are rapidly becoming as ignorant as JC is.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote:

Most perps know what they are doing is considered wrong by society. They have no logical reason to desist, if they can be reasonably sure of society being unable to punish them.

The situation you describe has been exhaustively studied in (non-creationist) biology for many years and while you describe the logical course of action in this situation, in reality, of course, no society operates like that. Every thief has some chance of being caught, especially if they're a repeat offender, as I suspect you know. And your conclusion is therefore, understandably, exactly wrong.

wolfsbane wrote:

My point is that all who do believe have a logical reason to not do as they please. Christian morality is therefore logical: atheistic morality is illogical.

Wrong again. You believe that you are a christian because you believe that your interpretation of the bible happens to be true and everybody else's is, in varying degrees, wrong.

Your morality is defined, therefore, by the specifics of what you believe. If your belief turns out to be wrong then your morality becomes meaningless immediately. Your own personal biblical interpretation of morality could be like Fred Phelps' and you could be an unpleasant bigot, or your interpretation could be like some of the monks I know/knew, and you could be an open-minded, liberal and decent guy, or you could be somewhere in between. I simply have no idea what you're like, because I don't know what parts of the bible you take to be instructions and which you ignore (well, that's not quite true at this stage of the thread, but bear with me).

The point remains that your belief about morality is your own personal belief, although your belief tells you that it's actually provided by a deity (as does Fred Phelps + the monks). But your morality remains yours alone.

And that's what makes christians like yourself, the real moral relativists.

wolfsbane

daithifleming said:

You know its not the same, you could say that i believe that the theory of gravity is the reason why i am held firmly to the ground, but is that the same as your belief in God? Because according to what you said, they are one and the same. Silliness.

It only appears silly to you because of your presupposition: that God is not real, therefore I can have no evidence to support my belief in Him.

But the reality is both that He is real and I do have evidence of His existence. Therefore my belief in Him is exactly the same as your's in evolution. You have evidence that you believe establishes that theory. I have evidence that I believe establishes God's existence.

If people dont believe in God he ceases to exist in any form.

Now that is logically very silly. It would only be true if God did not exist.

If people stop 'believing' in evolution it wont go away, whether you like it or not.

Again, that would be true if evolution was real. We of course have our opinion on both these things, but it does not permit one to say that the other's belief is a different kind than one's own.

To be quite honest, i am astonished that there are people who think that evolution is a hoax, or a belief system, given the amount of progress it has brought about, especially in modern medicine. That level of ignorance worries me, it really does.

I will put a question to you.

A friend of mine is a microbiologist who is studying alternatives to antibiotics for use against bacteria. (Bacteria which happened to EVOLVE to resist antibiotics, remember that?) If they came up with an alternative that was effective, i presume you would deny yourself and your family this treatment out of principle? Seeing as the whole reason for this research was based on evolutionary theory in one way or another? I could apply this also to the new range of medicines that will greatly extend human life that will be coming out over the next 50 years. All of which have their origins in evolutionary theory to some extent, i suppose you and yoru family shall not be availing of these treatments on principle?

You seem not to be familiar with what Creationism teaches. The small changes we observe in an organism - antibiotic resistance, for example - is not disputed. The bacteria did not evolve into a non-bacteria, as evolution demands of all life: molecules to man, via many stages. The bacteria remained a bacteria. Some humans have resistance to maleria, by way of inheriting sickle cell anemia - are they no longer humans?

Often this change within kind is called microevolution and change to a new kind is called macroevolution. Creationists are unhappy with the term, for it may cause the unwary to think it is all one process. But it is not: the former we have observed, the latter we haven't. The former depends on sorting of present information, and loss. The latter depends on an increase of information continuing over billions of years.

Answer honestly. Remember, God is watching.

He is indeed:
Hebrews 4:13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Most perps know what they are doing is considered wrong by society. They have no logical reason to desist, if they can be reasonably sure of society being unable to punish them.

The situation you describe has been exhaustively studied in (non-creationist) biology for many years and while you describe the logical course of action in this situation, in reality, of course, no society operates like that. Every thief has some chance of being caught, especially if they're a repeat offender, as I suspect you know. And your conclusion is therefore, understandably, exactly wrong.

I do know that many crimes are very unlikely to result in the capture or punishment of the offender. Rape, for example. Now the offender must calculate his chances, determining if the prize is worth the likelihood of being punished. Many are able to reckon that it is unlikely they will be caught, let alone punished. If they have no deterent other than society's punishment, then logically they have no reason not to offend. Maybe you live in a different society than the British Isles. Perhaps things are different in Saudi Arabia or strict regimes like that.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
My point is that all who do believe have a logical reason to not do as they please. Christian morality is therefore logical: atheistic morality is illogical.

Wrong again. You believe that you are a christian because you believe that your interpretation of the bible happens to be true and everybody else's is, in varying degrees, wrong.

Your morality is defined, therefore, by the specifics of what you believe. If your belief turns out to be wrong then your morality becomes meaningless immediately. Your own personal biblical interpretation of morality could be like Fred Phelps' and you could be an unpleasant bigot, or your interpretation could be like some of the monks I know/knew, and you could be an open-minded, liberal and decent guy, or you could be somewhere in between. I simply have no idea what you're like, because I don't know what parts of the bible you take to be instructions and which you ignore (well, that's not quite true at this stage of the thread, but bear with me).

The point remains that your belief about morality is your own personal belief, although your belief tells you that it's actually provided by a deity (as does Fred Phelps + the monks). But your morality remains yours alone.

And that's what makes christians like yourself, the real moral relativists.

I of course accept that, from your viewpoint, my morality is no more objective than anyone else's. You are missing my point: Christian morality - or indeed any Theistic morality - is logical, because it is self-consistent. If God truly exists and has revealed His will to us, it is logical for us to obey it, even if it doesn't suit.

However, if there is no God/gods and morality is only what the individual has dreamed up, it is illogical for us to obey it if it doesn't suit.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

daithifleming said:

It only appears silly to you because of your presupposition: that God is not real, therefore I can have no evidence to support my belief in Him.

But the reality is both that He is real and I do have evidence of His existence. Therefore my belief in Him is exactly the same as your's in evolution. You have evidence that you believe establishes that theory. I have evidence that I believe establishes God's existence.

So your belief in God is the same as my 'belief' in gravity? Because i would very willingly give up my 'belief' in gravity if someone came up with a better explanation discovered through observable evidence. By the way, could you provide this type of evidence for Gods existence, because if you could, i would gladly start attending mass.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Now that is logically very silly. It would only be true if God did not exist.

But he/she/it doesnt.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Again, that would be true if evolution was real. We of course have our opinion on both these things, but it does not permit one to say that the other's belief is a different kind than one's own.

Evolution is real, you just said it was below.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You seem not to be familiar with what Creationism teaches. The small changes we observe in an organism - antibiotic resistance, for example - is not disputed. The bacteria did not evolve into a non-bacteria, as evolution demands of all life: molecules to man, via many stages. The bacteria remained a bacteria. Some humans have resistance to maleria, by way of inheriting sickle cell anemia - are they no longer humans?

Often this change within kind is called microevolution and change to a new kind is called macroevolution. Creationists are unhappy with the term, for it may cause the unwary to think it is all one process. But it is not: the former we have observed, the latter we haven't. The former depends on sorting of present information, and loss. The latter depends on an increase of information continuing over billions of years.

I apologise, it seems i grossly underestimated the creationist ignorance of modern science.

J C

Did nobody miss me at all during the week.....while I was away????

.....I see that Wolfsbane has been the 'bane' your lives .......with his ever insightful comments on your postings!!!!!:D

.....anyway......I'm BACK (again)....and rearing to GO!!!!!:D

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Evidence of evolution in spelling perhaps? After all, commonly accepted spelling now is just due to generations of spelling mistakes.

Mayhap Jay See woulde preferre if we spake et writ thusly?

Please note that ALL language is a result of applied intelligence.......and the application of intelligence DOES increase semantic information.....and it allows language to evolve in increasingly sophisticated ways!!!!:D

Equally, please bear in mind that spontaneous processes, devoid of any ultimate intelligent input, are only able to 'devolve' into ever more disorganised and chaotic states.....and they are not capable of evolving into ever more organised and complex states, as materialistic evolutionists would have us believe!!:)

....and speaking of Intelligent Design.....a new film featuring 'The Big Science Acadamy' will be released next February...the movie is called 'Expelled' ......
......and you can read about it here
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/bigscienceacademy.php

....and you can meet 'all' of the 'The Big Science Acadamy' Faculty Members here:-
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/bigscienceacademy_faculty.php

.....The idea that "No Intelligence is Allowed" in Evolution, is somewhat ironic.....although, in fairness, the Evolutionists do seem to fully accept that Intelligence can be mentioned and invoked in all other subjects, except Evolution!!!:eek:

.....and I'm beginning to AGREE with Evolutionists that intelligence isn't to be found in the concept of Evolution either!!!:D

With loving (Intelligently Designed) thoughts!!

J C

J C

5uspect wrote: »

Apologies I inserted the incorrect link, here it is:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54104481&postcount=7248

All of the papers that I looked at were examples of observed evolution/NS/speciation within Kinds.....using pre-existing genetic diversity and mechanisms......with which Creationists have no scientific issues .......
......it is ONLY the unwarranted extra-scientific extrapolation by some Evolutionists, that 'Primordial Pondslime somehow evolved into Man' which Creation Scientists reject as not scientifically based!!:D:)

J C

kingdomofgod123 wrote: »

Creationism comes in several forms, including Young Earth Creationism, Old earth Creationism, and Progressive Creationism. Many confuse Intelligent Design with Creationism and while they certainly have many parallels, they are not the same thing.

You are correct that there is a very wide diversity of THEOLOGICAL opinion encompassed across the spectrum from Young Earth Creationism to Theistic Evolutionism.......but ALL of these THEOLOGICAL positions are SCIENTIFICALLY underpinned by the emerging new discipline of Intelligent Design......

......and THAT is why Materialistic Evolutionists are RELIGIOUSLY opposed to the SCIENCE of Intelligent Design!!!! :eek::D

J C

Originally posted by JC
...."you only 'start taking flack'....when you are directly over the target......and hitting it" ......

Scofflaw wrote: »

Flak is from the German Flugabwehrkanone, aircraft defence cannon, which contains no 'c', so I can't really see any justification for 'flack' except as a misspelling, ...

...OK ....so you only 'start taking Flugabwehrkanone'....when you are directly over the target......and hitting it!!.

......and boy has the Evolutionist 'Flugabwehrkanone' been flying on this thread recently!!!!:eek::):D

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

......no-one asserts that "primordial molecules spontaneously evolved into mammals". Well, except you, obviously - but you're on your own there.

So ARE you saying that you accept that "primordial molecules DIDN'T spontaneously evolve into mammals" then??

.....because IF you are you saying that Evolutionary changes are confined within Created Kinds (roughly corresponding to the Family/Genus levels in taxonomic nomenclature).......then I am in agreement with you ........and I would like to welcome you as an honourary Creation Scientist !!!!:eek::D

Nerin

Originally Posted by Scofflaw
......no-one asserts that "primordial molecules spontaneously evolved into mammals". Well, except you, obviously - but you're on your own there.

i believe what he is saying is that they became bacteria,fish,lizards,bugs,etc etc and then people.
to put it very simply.
whereas what you are saying is that you do not believe that "muck" turned into people.

Originally posted by JC
...."you only 'start taking flack'....when you are directly over the target......and hitting it" ......

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scofflaw
Flak is from the German Flugabwehrkanone, aircraft defence cannon, which contains no 'c', so I can't really see any justification for 'flack' except as a misspelling, ...

...OK ....so you only really 'start taking Flugabwehrkanone'....when you are directly over the target......and hitting it!!.

......and boy has the Evolutionist 'Flugabwehrkanone' been flying on this thread recently!!!!

what ive seen recently is your posts.
are you an evolutionist??!!:D:eek:;)

J C

robindch wrote: »

......what's the connection between PC and Green Valley Evangelical Lutheran Church?

......and I would like to know too!!:eek::):D

J C

Originally Posted by JC
So ARE you saying that you accept that "primordial molecules DIDN'T spontaneously evolve into mammals" then??

nerin wrote: »

i believe what he is saying is that they became bacteria,fish,lizards,bugs,etc etc and then people.
to put it very simply.
whereas what you are saying is that you do not believe that "muck" turned into people.

What I meant by the phrase that "primordial molecules didn't spontaneously evolve into mammals"........included the idea that "primordial molecules didn't spontaneously evolve via the Zoo into people" as well.......
......because this idea is just as 'logically and observationally challenged' as any claim of direct spontanous metamorphosis from slime into Man!!!!:eek::D

nerin wrote: »

what ive seen recently is your posts.
are you an evolutionist??!!:D:eek:;)

......used be an Evolutionist......but not any more......:D

Nerin

......used be an Evolutionist......but not any more......:D

im sure they miss ya :rolleyes::D;)
why cant we all get along!
its not impossible for one to be religious but also be open to science.
god creating the world. thats one theory. you believe it?fine. evolutionary theories. im religious. im open to em. thats fine.
just because i believe in different Deities and accept (alot of) evolution, doesnt make me feel that evolution is taking the supernatural out with a sniper rifle propped up on a retort stand.:eek::(:D

i never understood why christians get so pee'd off over science.:rolleyes:

but then again i guess im comfortable with my beliefs and dont feel they are threatened when science steps in the room.

different strokes i guess.

as for the rapture, if it does happen, i wont be answering my postings either, ill be up having a chat with god going "wow,so this is heaven, you sure u aint pissed i wasnt a christian?"
to which he'll reply "hey,its cool,now go chat to hendrix";)

i can only guess your reaction if you found out there was a goddess..;):cool:

pH

nerin wrote: »

just because i believe in different Deities and accept (alot of) evolution, doesnt make me feel that evolution is taking the supernatural out with a sniper rifle propped up on a retort stand.:eek::(:D

What bit(s) of evolution to you not accept?

Nerin

so far (and im not a scientist,nor do i do science in college) from what ive come across i accept it all. it seems logical and well thought out.
but if i do find myself in a situation were i learn a new theory (what an odd situation for a humanities student;)) that i dont agree with,i will not agree with it out of logic,not because its at odds with my religious beliefs.

J C

nerin wrote: »

im sure they miss ya
why cant we all get along!
its not impossible for one to be religious but also be open to science.
god creating the world. thats one theory. you believe it?fine. evolutionary theories. im religious. im open to em. thats fine.

No problem with other faiths.....like Evolution......live and let live, I say......so will Evolutionists treat Creation Scientists with respect?......just like Creationists respect the right of Evolutionists to be wrong!!!:eek::D

nerin wrote: »

just because i believe in different Deities and accept (alot of) evolution, doesnt make me feel that evolution is taking the supernatural out with a sniper rifle propped up on a retort stand.:eek::(:D

Fair enough!!!

nerin wrote: »

i never understood why christians get so pee'd off over science.:rolleyes:

but then again i guess im comfortable with my beliefs and dont feel they are threatened when science steps in the room.

......but (most) Christians don't reject science ......for example, I'm a Christian and I don't reject science!!!:D

nerin wrote: »

different strokes i guess.

as for the rapture, if it does happen, i wont be answering my postings either, ill be up having a chat with god going "wow,so this is heaven, you sure u aint pissed i wasnt a christian?"
to which he'll reply "hey,its cool,now go chat to hendrix";)

i can only guess your reaction if you found out there was a goddess..;):cool:

......something like your surprise, upon finding out that there is a God.......I guess!!!:eek::D:)

Nerin

No problem with other faiths.....like Evolution......live and let live, I say......so treat Creation Scientists with respect......just like Creationists respect the right of Evolutionists to be wrong!!!:eek::D

1.if only all christians had your live and let live approach.
2. i do treat creationists with as much respect as they give me.
3. its the end of this sentence and others like it that makes you come off as annoying,im sure its not your intention :eek::D

J C

nerin wrote: »

1.if only all christians had your live and let live approach.
2. i do treat creationists with as much respect as they give me.
3. its the end of this sentence and others like it that makes you come off as annoying,im sure its not your intention :eek::D

1. All Christians SHOULD have a (loving) live and let live approach.....most do....and the ones who don't aren't living in accord with Jesus Christ's command to love one's neighbour.

2. I have found your posts to be respectful, thoughful and insightful.

3. My posting was 'tongue in cheek'!!!!:eek::D

With loving thoughts

J C

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said (7577):
Not if God is who He claims to be. His Law is as objective as Himself.

Yes, but we aren't talking about his law. We are talking about universal moral standards. If moral standards are based on God's opinion of what is or is not moral then the standards are as subjective as anyone else's moral standards.

By definition universal moral standards would be independent of any opinion, even Gods, in the way that not even God can change a value like pi, because it is a universal property of the relationship between a circles radius and its outer edge. Pi is Pi.

You may respect them more because they come from God, you may think that God's moral opinion is always the "correct" opinion, but that is a different issue. It is only correct as far as God is concerned.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, and my premise holds true. True Christians (as distinct from pretend ones) have indeed done some evil things.

Well your premise appears to be that belief in God will deter people from being immoral by God's standards, as they cannot escape God's judgement.

As you say yourself, that doesn't appear to hold.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Spell it out then, as I’ve never heard a logical defence of the value of human life from an atheist.

Certain.

- I don't want to die. I like living, I do not want to be killed. The idea of someone killing me upsets me greatly. I do not like being upset nor do I like dying (I imagine). It is not pleasant.

- I can observe in other humans a similar reaction. It is logical to conclude that they feel the same, that this is not an emotional response that I have alone, that it is a property of being a human.

- I do not want to die, and I do not want others to kill me. I would like to be protected from threat of someone killing me with a "right". From the above I can conclude that others would like the same right.

- There is no reason why I alone should have this right, as other humans have the same fear of this as I do. If the right is mine then it should also be everyone elses.

Obviously things can get a lot more detailed than that. Also our evolutionary emotions, particularly empathy, come into play in various areas (such as why is it worse to kill a baby than an adult, which is more of an emotional decision than a logical one)

But I hope I've demonstrated that there is a little more to the logic of morality than "because they sky god says so"

wolfsbane wrote: »

War - including the mandated genocide of God’s enemies in the Old Testament times - is an operation of that.

Which again goes back to the idea that humans only have value if God decides they do. Which is not a moral system I would like to base my morality on. In fact I find it very disturbing.

wolfsbane wrote: »

NASA needs to know about this stunning discovery of yours: http://astrophysics.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Groan ..

"Evolve" in the (very) general sense means "to gradually change". The clutter on my desk evolves from day to day. So does my hair style and my bank balance.

Judging by the title of this thread I think you could have figured out that we were talking about "evolution" as taken to mean the process of change over time in replicating units.

If this is too confusing I can simply say "Darwinian evolution" (a specific type of change) instead of "evolution" (any type of gradual change) so you know we are talking about a specific type of change, not something that simply changes.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If I had said Darwinian, you might be forgiven - but I said evolutionary theory.

Well then I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. There is no theory of "gradual change" in such a general sense. There are lots and lots of different theories covering different processes of change. The way a star "evolves" (ie gradually changes) is nothing like the way a comet changes, nor how an atom changes, nor how a zebra changes.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You well know biological evolution has as its presupposition the evolution of the universe over billions of years. Why are you trying to hide from that fact?

It is not a question of hiding from anything. It is a question of understand what the heck you are talking about.

There is no "presupposition" in neo-Darwinian evolution that the universe is required to be a billion years old. It is actually irrelevant.

Darwinian evolution models how complex replicating molecules replicate and change over time. What created these molecules or where they came from (stars) is irrelevant.

This is how there can be such a thing as theistic old earth creationism, because it actually doesn't matter if the molecules were created in a star or by God in a puff of magic.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I know many people do believe morality evolved with man, and still hold to a universal morality to which they believe we must conform. It is just that they have no LOGICAL reason to do so.

I would imagine they would disagree with you.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If my God is real, then it is LOGICAL to keep to His morality.

Well you say it is, but I'm starting to wonder what exactly you mean by "LOGICAL"

It is only logical if you either agree with his morality and therefore would be following it anyway, or if you don't but do not want his punishment.

If someone doesn't agree with his morality, and feels so strongly about this disagreement that they on principle take a stand even if they are punished, then it is LOGICAL to not keep to his morality.

You argument that it is logical therefore depends on what the person wants to achieve.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If there is no such God and materialist evolution is true, then it is NOT LOGICAL for you to believe in an objective morality.

But as I have explained God's morality is subjective to God.

You seem to be working on the assumption that if God has morality this is by default universal morality. That assumption is itself illogical, because having universal morality and God is illogical, it would confine God to accepting this universal morality standard.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It may not be his morality, but he will acknowledge each man may have his own.

That doesn't make the morality "valid"

Everyone has an opinion about the Spice Girls. That doesn't make the opinion that they are the greatest musical performers of all time "valid"

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, God could not decide otherwise, for His nature is holy and He cannot do evil things.

Yes Wolfsbane but you get around that by saying anything he does isn't "evil". God can do what ever he wants, but when he does it, what ever it is, it isn't (according to you) evil.

God has done plenty of things I would consider very immoral ("evil" as it where). But you simply say that my opinion is irrelevant because God decides what is evil or not.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I doubt you believe this. For example, I assume you believe it moral for the State to arrest and imprison a thief/rapist/murderer. Would it be moral for you to do so? Would you build a cellar for that purpose?

Do you understand why it is moral for the State to arrest and imprison a thief/rapist/murderer? It is moral to do this because they have been given authorization from society as a whole to do this to people who threaten the rights of others.

If I was a prison officer I could imprison someone in the way I have been given authorization to do so by society.

It doesn't actually matter who I am. Anyone can be a prison officer if they match the requirements to be one.

It isn't who they are, its whether or not they have the authorization from society.

And before you say it, no God doesn't have the authorization to genocide.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That is where you err. The life of the child was given by God and always belongs to Him. It is His prerogative when it is taken back.

Well you can certainly think that if you like Wolfsbane. I don't

wolfsbane wrote: »

How much more God who gives us life itself and all we need to sustain it.

To believe that you have to believe that God owns you. But you are also forgetting that the reason you can't kill me isn't that you don't own me. It is that I have a right to life. Even if you did own me (which itself would be immoral) you still wouldn't have the right to kill me.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Good. But you can’t say he has done objective evil, only what you and I consider evil.

That is enough.

Objective evil is ultimately pointless. Say there was an objective evil, and say that what someone did was objectively evil. What happens? Nothing. The person can still not agree, in which case their morality doesn't match the objective evil.

At the end of the day it still comes down to what you think morality is.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Exactly. I’m glad you have got this at last. No universal morality in your system.

Nor in yours.

Remember universal morality is not the same as God's morality, they are independent. God's morality is the morality he imposes on the universe. The morality does not exist independently and therefore cannot be said to be objective morality. It is God's subjective morality.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It matters in so far as you must concede that there is no such thing as universal morality, and that any punishment you mete out for offences are solely due to your preferences, not to any real evil one has done.

I agree, but I don't consider there is such as thing as "real evil"

Evil is simply an opinion. One persons "evil" is another persons "holy book", as is often demonstrated on this forum.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Truly a breakthrough in your understanding. Your morality is entirely subjective. Himmler was not an evil man objectively, just in your opinion.

Don't you understand a "breakthrough in my (ie your) understand"

My morality has always been subjective because all morality is subjective, and always has been. Universal moral judgments don't exist.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, I understand. It might be better if I looked before driving across the road. But it might not, for an accident here might be minor, whereas had I not crashed here I could have been wiped out by the guy who drove through the lights a block away. So I cannot say it is better to look before driving across the road.

That cover it?

Pretty much.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hmm. Survival seems to figure big in the evolution texts I have read. That comes under the heading of better for me.

Yes but as I've tried to explain your survival is only "better" for you. From an evolutionary point of view that might not be better for anyone else.

You might accidentally kill 10 people.

The bacteria in your mouth might be sneezed on to a burger that then gives someone meningitis.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Not if God is who He claims to be. His Law is as objective as Himself.

Yes, but we aren't talking about his law. We are talking about universal moral standards. If moral standards are based on God's opinion of what is or is not moral then the standards are as subjective as anyone else's moral standards.

By definition universal moral standards would be independent of any opinion, even Gods, in the way that not even God can change a value like pi, because it is a universal property of the relationship between a circles radius and its outer edge. Pi is Pi.

It may be true for any god of your imagination, but it is not true of the God as revealed in the Bible. By definition, He is the source of morality. One may of course deny He exists and thus claim a universal morality that is outside of any deity; or one may take your view and say there is no universal morality. I'm comparing the Biblical version to yours.

Well your premise appears to be that belief in God will deter people from being immoral by God's standards, as they cannot escape God's judgement.

As you say yourself, that doesn't appear to hold.

I never said it absolutely deterred immorality, only that it is a powerful deterrent. Society's punishment of rape is a real deterrent, but not absolute. God's threat works at an even deeper, more powerful level, but it too may be ignored.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Spell it out then, as I’ve never heard a logical defence of the value of human life from an atheist.

Certain.

- I don't want to die. I like living, I do not want to be killed. The idea of someone killing me upsets me greatly. I do not like being upset nor do I like dying (I imagine). It is not pleasant.

- I can observe in other humans a similar reaction. It is logical to conclude that they feel the same, that this is not an emotional response that I have alone, that it is a property of being a human.

- I do not want to die, and I do not want others to kill me. I would like to be protected from threat of someone killing me with a "right". From the above I can conclude that others would like the same right.

- There is no reason why I alone should have this right, as other humans have the same fear of this as I do.

No problem with that so far. It's the next bit that derails the logic:

If the right is mine then it should also be everyone elses.

In the naturalistic view of the universe, neither you nor they have any rights. Things just are. As that great atheist put it:

Define
And thus expunge
The ought
The should
***
Truth's to be sought
In Does and Doesn't

B. F. Skinner

Obviously things can get a lot more detailed than that. Also our evolutionary emotions, particularly empathy, come into play in various areas (such as why is it worse to kill a baby than an adult, which is more of an emotional decision than a logical one)

It is indeed more of an emotional decision than a logical one, for our evolutionary emotions are just that - feelings - not objective truths. If one feels it good to kill the babies, that is no more or less than if he feels it good to save them. It just is. No ought or should.

But I hope I've demonstrated that there is a little more to the logic of morality than "because they sky god says so"

You have demonstrated the absence of any logic in atheistic morality. Theistic morality is at least self-consistent (logical), whether one holds it to be true or not.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
War - including the mandated genocide of God’s enemies in the Old Testament times - is an operation of that.

Which again goes back to the idea that humans only have value if God decides they do. Which is not a moral system I would like to base my morality on. In fact I find it very disturbing.

Even those whom He destroyed had value from our perspective. We are/were just like them. God decides when their time ends and how, as they are His creation.

Groan ..

"Evolve" in the (very) general sense means "to gradually change". The clutter on my desk evolves from day to day. So does my hair style and my bank balance.

Judging by the title of this thread I think you could have figured out that we were talking about "evolution" as taken to mean the process of change over time in replicating units.

From my involvement in it, we have certainly been ranging over everything from the supposed Big Bang. There is a necessary line between that and the first molecules that replicated.

If this is too confusing I can simply say "Darwinian evolution" (a specific type of change) instead of "evolution" (any type of gradual change) so you know we are talking about a specific type of change, not something that simply changes.

If you find it keeps you clear - I'm managing OK with the context as guide.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If I had said Darwinian, you might be forgiven - but I said evolutionary theory.

Well then I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. There is no theory of "gradual change" in such a general sense. There are lots and lots of different theories covering different processes of change. The way a star "evolves" (ie gradually changes) is nothing like the way a comet changes, nor how an atom changes, nor how a zebra changes.

No problem with that, if we are into specifics like adaption.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You well know biological evolution has as its presupposition the evolution of the universe over billions of years. Why are you trying to hide from that fact?

It is not a question of hiding from anything. It is a question of understand what the heck you are talking about.

There is no "presupposition" in neo-Darwinian evolution that the universe is required to be a billion years old. It is actually irrelevant.

Darwinian evolution models how complex replicating molecules replicate and change over time. What created these molecules or where they came from (stars) is irrelevant.

This is how there can be such a thing as theistic old earth creationism, because it actually doesn't matter if the molecules were created in a star or by God in a puff of magic.

It doesn't matter? Then how come you reject Creationism on the basis that its origins are supernatural? Sure, we can focus the debate to include only processes following the first self-replicating molecule or the mature creation of all life - if you want to ignore the obvious questions about origins.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If my God is real, then it is LOGICAL to keep to His morality.

Well you say it is, but I'm starting to wonder what exactly you mean by "LOGICAL"

It is only logical if you either agree with his morality and therefore would be following it anyway, or if you don't but do not want his punishment.

If someone doesn't agree with his morality, and feels so strongly about this disagreement that they on principle take a stand even if they are punished, then it is LOGICAL to not keep to his morality.

You argument that it is logical therefore depends on what the person wants to achieve.

I was using logical here to refer to self-consistency. My system is self-consistent, your's is not. If you want to include the concept of deliberately self-harming as a logical choice, then I can use self-consistency as a separate term from logical.

You seem to be working on the assumption that if God has morality this is by default universal morality. That assumption is itself illogical, because having universal morality and God is illogical, it would confine God to accepting this universal morality standard.

As I explained above, the Biblical view of God has all morality coming from Him.

Everyone has an opinion about the Spice Girls. That doesn't make the opinion that they are the greatest musical performers of all time "valid"

Yes, but if there is no universal standard then no one's opinion carries any more weight than another's, ie, they are just as valid. But like with morality, there is a universal standard (at least a basic one) in music. Just where it puts the Spice Girls, I would not like to assess.:D

God has done plenty of things I would consider very immoral ("evil" as it where). But you simply say that my opinion is irrelevant because God decides what is evil or not.

Indeed. You and God differ on what is immoral. The rest of us may choose which (if either) of you we believe is right.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I doubt you believe this. For example, I assume you believe it moral for the State to arrest and imprison a thief/rapist/murderer. Would it be moral for you to do so? Would you build a cellar for that purpose?

Do you understand why it is moral for the State to arrest and imprison a thief/rapist/murderer? It is moral to do this because they have been given authorization from society as a whole to do this to people who threaten the rights of others.

If I was a prison officer I could imprison someone in the way I have been given authorization to do so by society.

It doesn't actually matter who I am. Anyone can be a prison officer if they match the requirements to be one.

It isn't who they are, its whether or not they have the authorization from society.

The point was that different rights to punish apply to different persons. You have conceded that.

And before you say it, no God doesn't have the authorization to genocide.

Why not? Because it would be immoral for you to do so? You are not God, the one Who owns all things and gives life to all. He has the right to take it at anytime, and especially in punishment.

To believe that you have to believe that God owns you. But you are also forgetting that the reason you can't kill me isn't that you don't own me. It is that I have a right to life. Even if you did own me (which itself would be immoral) you still wouldn't have the right to kill me.

God not only owns in the sense we may own something, He owns because He is the creator of it all. Our rights are only in respect to our fellowman. We have no rights with respect to Him.

That is enough.

Objective evil is ultimately pointless. Say there was an objective evil, and say that what someone did was objectively evil. What happens? Nothing. The person can still not agree, in which case their morality doesn't match the objective evil.

At the end of the day it still comes down to what you think morality is.

Yes, both objective morality and subjective morality can exert restraint on man's evil - or fail to influence enough to deter. If you are right and there is only subjective evil, many evil people will entirely escape the consequences. If I am right, and there is objective evil, no one will escape the most awful consequences:
Matthew 12:36 But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment.

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It matters in so far as you must concede that there is no such thing as universal morality, and that any punishment you mete out for offences are solely due to your preferences, not to any real evil one has done.

I agree, but I don't consider there is such as thing as "real evil"

Evil is simply an opinion. One persons "evil" is another persons "holy book", as is often demonstrated on this forum.

I appreciate your honesty in openly stating this.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, I understand. It might be better if I looked before driving across the road. But it might not, for an accident here might be minor, whereas had I not crashed here I could have been wiped out by the guy who drove through the lights a block away. So I cannot say it is better to look before driving across the road.

That cover it?

Pretty much.

Amazing! Again, thanks for the honesty.

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Hmm. Survival seems to figure big in the evolution texts I have read. That comes under the heading of better for me.

Yes but as I've tried to explain your survival is only "better" for you. From an evolutionary point of view that might not be better for anyone else.

You might accidentally kill 10 people.

The bacteria in your mouth might be sneezed on to a burger that then gives someone meningitis.

If I believed in evolution, I would just be like the male lion: when it takes over a pride it kills all the cubs. Only its genes are going to be passed on.

So what would I care about any other than my mutual defence group (nation) - and even then, if I could get through life without them, they could be ignored too.

Such is the advantage of reaching a level of evolution that one is able to reflect on who one is - and be able to overide any evolutionary 'feelings' one has inherited. :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Define
And thus expunge
The ought
The should
***
Truth's to be sought
In Does and Doesn't

B. F. Skinner

Rather more importantly, Skinner was also a Behaviourist, who believed that everything was purely a matter of reflex, learned or instinctive. Much of what he thought true has been found experimentally not to be the case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote: »

Rather more importantly, Skinner was also a Behaviourist, who believed that everything was purely a matter of reflex, learned or instinctive. Much of what he thought true has been found experimentally not to be the case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes, I knew he was a Behaviourist. I'm interested to hear that much of what he thought true has been found experimentally not to be the case. I'd appreciate any refs.

Thanks

wolfsbane

A couple of book reviews you all may find interesting:
http://www.cincinnatiskeptics.org/newsletter/vol6/n4/books.html

Following on from that, have any of you access to Bainbridge's article. I believe the full title is:

Bainbridge and Stark, Superstitions: Old and New, The Skeptical Inquirer, pp. 18–31, Summer 1980.