The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

postcynical wrote: »

Darjeeling, Wicknight, Atomic Horror: Would it be fair to summarize (simplify) your viewpoint about human morals thus:

Sort of, though the details are slightly off. If you don't mind I will correct some of it

postcynical wrote: »

Humans are a distinct species from other animals. They are not objectively special.

I wouldn't phrase it like that, though I know what you mean. I would say that from a biological, natural point of view, we are not a special form of biological life.

postcynical wrote: »

That we belong to this species means we have great empathy for other humans, as other species have empathy for their kin.

We have great empathy for other humans, but this doesn't really work on a species level. We don't switch off our instincts when we look at a horse instead of a human. Nature isn't that precise.

Remember "species" is simply a human concept, a human classification. We invented it based on a set of characteristics of biological life, such as chromosome size, physical structure. We have evolved emotional instincts that mostly apply to other humans, but not always. Nature itself is not aware of "species" line.

This leads to some interesting natural phenomena. For example, there is strong support for the idea that dogs have evolved along side us to take advantage of the instincts we were evolved to feel empathy to each other. There is a reason why a cute dog melts the heart strings in a very similar way a new born baby does. We evolved instincts to feel the need to protect our children (for obvious reasons) that trigger based on certain visual stimulus, such as big eyes and certain shape of facial features, but those visual instincts have lead to us favouring dogs that look similar to babies.

The dogs aren't aware of how cute they look, but their fitness (how likely they are to survive to reproduce) is being effected by how cute they seem to us because we are more likely to protect those that trigger this response. This leads to dogs with these traits being selected by us subconsciously. While we domesticated the dog, there is strong evidence they manipulated us into doing that

The point is that we (and any species) do not evolve in isolation and that species line is not something that nature is aware of.

postcynical wrote: »

Our moral system evolved because it was to our species' advantage, both in survival terms and in terms of pleasure; humans being social animals.

It was to our genes advantage. Evolution happens at the genetic level. As I mentioned above, species is really a concept that nature is aware of. It is replicating units (genes) that drive evolution, one way of thinking about us is simply vassals for these genes.

Any phenotype (resulting characteristics of these vassals that result from the information in the gene, such as blonde hair, black skin, white finger nails, a brain with the instinct to avoid fire, a brain with the instinct to avoid height etc etc) that protects the genes long enough to reproduce will be selected simply by the fact that it survives along with the genes.

Interesting you mention pleasure. Pleasure is an instinct like fear or disgust, that has evolved to regulate our behaviour. We find sex pleasurable because it is in the interests of our genes to want to have sex. We find sugars (sugar, starch, bread, pasta etc) pleasurable because sugar is energy and energy is valuable to keeping us alive (in modern existence that has gone too far and we are all getting fatter now as we have too much sugar in our diet but our brains are still in the evolved mode that was useful 10,000 years ago telling us to consume as much sugar as we can)

So pleasure is not distinct from survival. We find the things that may increase our odds of reproducing pleasurable. That is what "pleasure" is, instincts to do things that evolution has found to be beneficial to fitness.

postcynical wrote: »

People follow this moral system irrationally through habitual behaviour but also rationally as people can see that these systems are for their benefit in the long run.

Yes, there is something to be said for that. The goals of rational morality will more often than not line up with our irrational instincts because our irrational instincts have been developed by a trail and error process over the last few million years to produce successful happy and reproducing societies.

It is like when engineers are trying to design a new way for a machine to do something, like hover over buildings for something like earthquake rescue. More often than not they turn to look at how animals do it, because evolution has been working for the last billion years working out good ways of doing things. They are often far from perfect, and often humans once pointed in the right direction develop ways that are far better than nature (which makes intelligent design some what of a laughable concept) but you can bet that if a concept is new to us nature already has a head start on how to pull it off.

postcynical wrote: »

If this is fair, where does individual choice enter? For me morality is about constantly making choices.

You can't control your emotions. If you do something "bad" you have very little control over if you feel guilty about it or not. These emotional responses are triggered subconsciously. If you steal something from a shop you can't help the feeling of guilty that over comes you when you see the disappointment in your mothers face.

How one deals with that is of course a choice. Often it is not very well. A lot of people don't like feeling bad, and this feeling can trigger resentment and anger in them. I remember a kid in school who broke a window with a football. One of the teachers when they came over said something like "Oh, Johnny" (or what ever his name was) "What did you do" in a really disappointed manner. The kid went nuts and started swinging at the teacher. He did this, I imagine, because guilt and embrassement kicked in, and he really didn't like that feeling. He got angry at it and lashed out at the person who had made him feel that way.

So it isn't a perfect system. We feel emotions but we don't always act the way the emotions are trying to get us to act. What the guilt was trying to get Johnny to do was to not do what he did again, by making him feel bad now. But this can back fire on evolution and just produce someone who is angry and aggressive.

postcynical wrote: »

The choice is usually to follow God's way (which is often hazy to me) or another way.

The problem with "God's way" is that from my point of view it isn't God's way at all, it is the way of a group of men living between 4,000 and 2,000 years ago who either manipulated people around them or themselves were manipulated, into believing their ideas on morality were coming from a higher power.

There is so much of the Bible, such as ideas on homosexuality, that seem (to me at least) so obviously the result of evolutionary instincts, rather than coming from an higher authority.

postcynical wrote: »

Sometimes the right thing also obviously overlaps with what I think will be best for me, but frequently these are at odds. How can an evolved model of morality capture the abruptness and subtlety of making the choice to follow an objective goodness?

It doesn't. It is more a rough attempt at apply general rules to our behaviour. Rational morality extend upon this.

For example most heterosexuals are disgusted by the idea of intimate relations with a member of the same sex. There is a pretty obvious evolutionary reason for this, spending time in romantic relations with the same sex doesn't increase the chances of you passing on your genes.

This repulsion has been incorporated into a lot of cultures ideas of morality. Because we were disgusted by it we figured it was wrong to do, and this is reflected in doctrines such as the Bible. The men who wrote the Bible were disgusted by homosexuality and assumed that God was also

Thankfully (for homosexuals) in resent times our rational morality has over come this some what through the realisation that just because a heterosexual is disgusted by it doesn't mean a homosexual is, and it doesn't mean it is inherently wrong.

So most people still find homosexuality disgusting, but they don't determine simply from that that it is immoral.

There is a lot to be said for a our higher brain when dealing with morality. Replying solely on our instincts would not only be impossible (our instincts are often so subconscious that the person doesn't understand the instinct properly) but also not a good idea.

darjeeling

postcynical wrote: »

Darjeeling, Wicknight, Atomic Horror: Would it be fair to summarize (simplify) your viewpoint about human morals thus:

Humans are a distinct species from other animals. They are not objectively special. That we belong to this species means we have great empathy for other humans, as other species have empathy for their kin. Our moral system evolved because it was to our species' advantage, both in survival terms and in terms of pleasure; humans being social animals. People follow this moral system irrationally through habitual behaviour but also rationally as people can see that these systems are for their benefit in the long run.

I could quibble over some points: I wouldn't see 'empathy' as universal, or even remotely common in other species; pleasure and survival are closely linked in our evolution; evolution selects that which advantages the individual (and kin) rather than the species. I'd also say that what evolution has done is to give a basic outline to our behaviour towards each other, rather than equip us with a 'moral system'.

postcynical wrote: »

If this is fair, where does individual choice enter? For me morality is about constantly making choices. The choice is usually to follow God's way (which is often hazy to me) or another way. Sometimes the right thing also obviously overlaps with what I think will be best for me, but frequently these are at odds. How can an evolved model of morality capture the abruptness and subtlety of making the choice to follow an objective goodness?

Choice comes in all the time. As I said above, evolution may have given us a basic framework for choosing how to behave, but that still leaves us to figure out the detail for ourselves. We live at a far remove from the world in which we evolved, in crowded, interconnected and often impersonal societies, with ever-developing technologies, and steeped in culture and history. This complex world constantly throws up new and difficult moral questions for which there is no pre-prepared answer in our genes. Instead, we have to take responsibility - individually and collectively - for deciding on the right course, that which we think brings about the greatest good - however we define it.

Have a look at this at work: in the religions that we have created, we have exercised our moral choice in coming up with quite varying ideas of what constitutes good. Believers in each religion tell themselves that theirs is the true objective good, but as someone who doesn't follow any, I can't see it that way. And when you say that you are trying to follow God's way, but find it unclear - is that so different from saying that the responsibility for deciding what is moral comes down to us?

.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffX9msPCwZk

Just for yucks.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by postcynical
Sometimes the right thing also obviously overlaps with what I think will be best for me, but frequently these are at odds. How can an evolved model of morality capture the abruptness and subtlety of making the choice to follow an objective goodness?
It doesn't. It is more a rough attempt at apply general rules to our behaviour. Rational morality extend upon this.

For example most heterosexuals are disgusted by the idea of intimate relations with a member of the same sex. There is a pretty obvious evolutionary reason for this, spending time in romantic relations with the same sex doesn't increase the chances of you passing on your genes.

This repulsion has been incorporated into a lot of cultures ideas of morality. Because we were disgusted by it we figured it was wrong to do, and this is reflected in doctrines such as the Bible. The men who wrote the Bible were disgusted by homosexuality and assumed that God was also

Thankfully (for homosexuals) in resent times our rational morality has over come this some what through the realisation that just because a heterosexual is disgusted by it doesn't mean a homosexual is, and it doesn't mean it is inherently wrong.

So most people still find homosexuality disgusting, but they don't determine simply from that that it is immoral. There is a lot to be said for a our higher brain when dealing with morality. Replying solely on our instincts would not only be impossible (our instincts are often so subconscious that the person doesn't understand the instinct properly) but also not a good idea.

Thanks for that helpful insight into a materialist morality.

So we have an instinctive morality, modified at times by our higher brain . Homosexuality is instinctively immoral, but when we apply reason to that feeling, we realise it is just a different preference from the norm.

That, however, must be true of all instinctive morality. Murder, rape, theft, paedophilia, when examined by reason, will be seen to be merely acts of a different preference. We may feel threatened by those who do these things, and therefore apply sanctions - but we cannot say they are truly immoral.

You may say the difference is in the harm done. By why should harming anyone be immoral? It is certainly instinctively immoral (if they are of our group or tribe), but reason tells us our existence is for some 70 years and if we can survive better by murder, rape and pillage we are free to do so.

Instinctively we feel there is an after-life in which we may have to answer for our actions here - but reason tells us that is merely an evolutionary invention.

Of course, if we are not in the best position to benefit from a free-for-all, in would be reasonable for us to pretend to believe in a true morality, a morality that condemns murder, rape and pillage as evil. We might even argue that case on internet discussion lists.

But if we prefer the truth to pretence, we would admit there is no real morality.

That leaves the materialist in the uncomfortable position of either:
1. Believing there is no morality but pretending there is.
2. Believing there is no morality and boldly saying so; or
3. Believing there is an objective morality but - irrationally - holding on to his materialism.

Much better to abandon the illusion of materialism for the truth of God, and to seek to live by the morality He reveals.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Our model says that there is no objective goodness, just a (relatively) common value system as selected by evolution, normalised by society and made relevant to us by emotion.

That's right: murder is only immoral for those who feel it is; and even then it is only their view, not an objective reality. The sooner we stop branding Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot as evil, the sooner we will have matured as rational materialists. :rolleyes:

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

AtomicHorror said:

That's right: murder is only immoral for those who feel it is;

Which would be the majority of humans.

wolfsbane wrote: »

and even then it is only their view, not an objective reality.

More "our view", as a species.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The sooner we stop branding Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot as evil, the sooner we will have matured as rational materialists. :rolleyes:

Don't be silly. Do you need God to tell you these people were evil?

MatthewVII

wolfsbane wrote: »

[
Homosexuality is instinctively immoral, but when we apply reason to that feeling, we realise it is just a different preference from the norm.

No, homosexuality is not instinctively immoral, it is instinctively unattractive to heterosexual people for evolution reasons. That is completely different. Society hasn't rejected homosexuals in the past because they felt it was immoral, it's because they found it unsettling, deviant etc. Religions are what called it immoral. There's nothing wrong with it per se, it's just either for you or not.

wolfsbane wrote:

That, however, must be true of all instinctive morality. Murder, rape, theft, paedophilia, when examined by reason, will be seen to be merely acts of a different preference. We may feel threatened by those who do these things, and therefore apply sanctions - but we cannot say they are truly immoral.

Of course we can. Anything that negatively impacts on another either directly or indirectly from an objective standpoint is immoral whether it benefits us to do it or not. That's why the concepts of morality are ingrained in us, to protect societies from detrimental acts.

wolfsbane wrote:

You may say the difference is in the harm done. By why should harming anyone be immoral? It is certainly instinctively immoral (if they are of our group or tribe), but reason tells us our existence is for some 70 years and if we can survive better by murder, rape and pillage we are free to do so.

Harming someone can be seen as immoral from an evolution standpoint as it damages that persons chances of survival, procreation etc, meaning the group as a whole will fare worse.

wolfsbane wrote:

Instinctively we feel there is an after-life in which we may have to answer for our actions here

I would love to know where this idea came from. Am I missing something? I sure as hell didn't think there was an afterlife when I was young.

wolfsbane wrote:

But if we prefer the truth to pretence, we would admit there is no real morality.

If we prefer the truth to pretence, we would admit there is no real God. But that's another discussion

wolfsbane wrote:

That leaves the materialist in the uncomfortable position of either:
1. Believing there is no morality but pretending there is.
2. Believing there is no morality and boldly saying so; or
3. Believing there is an objective morality but - irrationally - holding on to his materialism.

Much better to abandon the illusion of materialism for the truth of God, and to seek to live by the morality He reveals.

One would be forgiven for thinking you hadn't read the opinions of the posters above, had just taken what you wanted from it and twisted it to suit your own agenda.

MatthewVII

Flamed Diving wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffX9msPCwZk

Just for yucks.

It would have made my day if instead of showing the surgeons at the end, the kids from the school grew up to be J C and posted endlessly on message boards. A chilling view of the future indeed

postcynical

Thank you for the reply. I have a clear understanding of a simplified version of your position from it.

Wicknight wrote: »

It was to our genes advantage. Evolution happens at the genetic level. As I mentioned above, species is really a concept that nature is aware of. It is replicating units (genes) that drive evolution, one way of thinking about us is simply vassals for these genes.

This is interesting. How much of our genetic material is common with other life (plant or animal)? From a genetic point of view, if these same genes are reposed in other species, would that mean that mankind's conquering of the planet (and reduction of biodiversity) is effectively hindering the propogation of this gene?

Of course if the gene is different between humans and other 'species' this question is void. I'm wondering what is the constituency for a gene (ie which lifeforms would "like" to see our genes propogate?)

Yes, there is something to be said for that. The goals of rational morality will more often than not line up with our irrational instincts because our irrational instincts have been developed by a trail and error process over the last few million years to produce successful happy and reproducing societies.

This seems reasonable. Would you say that the evolution of our irrational instincts is a separate process to our biological evolution? I'd suspect these irrational instincts evolve as social situations evolve rather than the physical environmental changes which "induce" biological evolution.

You can't control your emotions. If you do something "bad" you have very little control over if you feel guilty about it or not. These emotional responses are triggered subconsciously. If you steal something from a shop you can't help the feeling of guilty that over comes you when you see the disappointment in your mothers face.

I disagree with this. I believe it is possible to inform your conscience. Indeed that is part of a Catholic's duty. I think other Christians would also adapt their morality as they grow closer to God. From experience I know there were actions that I enjoyed guilt-free when I was younger but which I now feel are very "bad". And vice-versa, many people have had to work hard psychologically to shake off the guilt associated with actions they were brought up to believe were wrong. This is evident in small details but I believe this could be taken to extremes with sociopaths.

I agree though that if you do something against your conscience that you cannot mask this feeling of guilt. But this conscience can be formed with effort. I hope I haven't attacked a strawman here but that you were implying that our morality was something that had evolved and thus was something that we could not really control.

postcynical

darjeeling wrote: »

evolution selects that which advantages the individual (and kin) rather than the species. I'd also say that what evolution has done is to give a basic outline to our behaviour towards each other, rather than equip us with a 'moral system'.

Okay, sorry I hadn't read this before replying to Wicknight but your positions are slightly different. Even fundamentally different in your account of how the natural selection works. Is it about the gene or the individual?

I'd go along with your hunch about the moral system; I'd be highly surprised if such a thing had evolved in us. However my own viewpoint is that we do have a 'moral system' encoded within us (God's laws are written in our hearts) but I don't see this as being allied with our biological evolution (yet!!! my own understanding of these things is evolving...slowly)

And when you say that you are trying to follow God's way, but find it unclear - is that so different from saying that the responsibility for deciding what is moral comes down to us?

Not so different at all. We're all fumbling about in the dark to some extent:) Where we might differ fundamentally is that I believe in an objective morality. Even if we agreed on that we might differ in that I believe this morality is expressed in holy scripture. And where we could diverge further (as I would with many fellow Christians) is that I believe that this morality is expounded correctly by the Catholic Church. Where we'd all agree though is that I don't understand the laws of nature, the meaning of the scriptures, or the teachings of my church. But that (or a subset thereof) is what all lovers of truth want to discover.

darjeeling

postcynical wrote: »

Okay, sorry I hadn't read this before replying to Wicknight but your positions are slightly different. Even fundamentally different in your account of how the natural selection works. Is it about the gene or the individual?

That's me being imprecise. Evolution, we reckon, works at the level of the gene. In this understanding, a mutation that increases a gene's chance of being passed on to future generations will see the new version of the gene come to replace previous ones over time. Moving up from the gene to the animal level, these mutations would mean that the carrier would either itself have more offspring over time, or act to ensure its close relatives and fellow carriers would do so. What you shouldn't see - and what I was getting at - is evolution selecting for a mutation that makes all the carriers sacrifice themselves for the good of unrelated, non-carriers in the population.

Anyway, enough lecturing. It always seems a bit jarring when we set scientific discoveries about our origins and place in the physical universe along side religious, or philosophical ideas on life's meaning. The timescales and distances of the universe don't seem to bear much relation to our daily existence, and it's that human scale that religion and philosophy address. Understanding evolution can give an insight into how we came to be here, and help us see why we are driven to behave as we do, but it doesn't tell us how to lead a worthwhile life.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

So we have an instinctive morality, modified at times by our higher brain . Homosexuality is instinctively immoral, but when we apply reason to that feeling, we realise it is just a different preference from the norm.

No not exactly, when we apply reason to that feeling we realise that just because it is disgusting to me doesn't mean it is disgusting to others, and that something being disgusting to me is not a good enough reason to say others shouldn't do it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That, however, must be true of all instinctive morality.

It is true of all instinctive morality that we should think rationally about it rather than simply accept the feelings at face value. Which is why I get annoyed at people who say things like killing humans is wrong just because it is

What they mean is killing humans feels wrong but I don't understand why.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Murder, rape, theft, paedophilia, when examined by reason, will be seen to be merely acts of a different preference.

True, but as I hope I explained above, it is more complicated than that.

It is not good enough to say that you shouldn't kill people simply because I feel that I don't want to. There has to be more than that, but that isn't the same as saying that there are no reasons to say you shouldn't kill people.

wolfsbane wrote: »

We may feel threatened by those who do these things, and therefore apply sanctions - but we cannot say they are truly immoral.

We can, because what is immoral or not is ultimately decided by us anyway. They might disagree, but that doesn't change that. If I say killing people is immoral and you say it isn't I simply respond that I don't care what you think, it is immoral as far as I'm concerned.

wolfsbane wrote: »

By why should harming anyone be immoral?

You are falling into the trap of being unable to think of subjective morality without an objective, universal, frame work. Harming someone is immoral because I say it is. If someone else doesn't agree I don't care. I am not wondering if my moral judgement is correct, if it matches some universal standard, because I don't believe such a thing exists in the first place.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is certainly instinctively immoral (if they are of our group or tribe), but reason tells us our existence is for some 70 years and if we can survive better by murder, rape and pillage we are free to do so.

No our reason doesn't, at least mine doesn't.

And nature backs this up some what, people who go around killing others are likely to wind up dead themselves. It is a bad idea for our fitness. Which is why we feel guilt over such actions, nature is telling us that it is not a good idea. And nature only cares about reproduction.

Even if we didn't feel guilt, even if we were all psychopaths, even from a selfish point of view murdering people isn't a good idea. If you look at it purely as a numbers game, the odds of you lasting longer than if you did something else, it is not a good idea.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But if we prefer the truth to pretence, we would admit there is no real morality.

We must admit there is no morality external to what humans come up with, if that is what you mean.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That leaves the materialist in the uncomfortable position of either:
1. Believing there is no morality but pretending there is.
2. Believing there is no morality and boldly saying so; or
3. Believing there is an objective morality but - irrationally - holding on to his materialism.

Or 4. Believing in subjective morality, a morality formed by co-operation between people for common goals and success. You don't kill me and I won't kill you.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Much better to abandon the illusion of materialism for the truth of God, and to seek to live by the morality He reveals.

The problem with abandoning the material, the here and now, the people around you, is that people get stuck in dogma that doesn't work, and this leads to conflict between peoples and disharmony.

Instead of a heterosexual and a homosexual agreeing that neither sexual action harms on the other so they can both live in peace, you get the case where people fall back on more primitive instincts, justified by a claim to higher authority (it is wrong, the Bible says so!) and this leads to unnecessary conflict and tension between these groups.

It is far better to rationally think about issues of morality and ethics than to subscribe to dogmas thought up by people no better than us hundreds of years ago claiming to represent higher authorities that no one can demonstrate even exist in the first place.

Zombrex

postcynical wrote: »

This is interesting. How much of our genetic material is common with other life (plant or animal)?

We share 97% of our genes with other Great Apes, last I heard.

postcynical wrote: »

From a genetic point of view, if these same genes are reposed in other species, would that mean that mankind's conquering of the planet (and reduction of biodiversity) is effectively hindering the propogation of this gene?

Not quite sure what you mean by that?

postcynical wrote: »

Of course if the gene is different between humans and other 'species' this question is void. I'm wondering what is the constituency for a gene (ie which lifeforms would "like" to see our genes propogate?)

Genes like to see themselves propogate. LIfe forms are simply a way for this to happen. We are, at a fundamental level, carriers for these genes. We are a complicated and fascinating machine who's purpose, from a biological point of view, is to ensure the successful reproduction of our genetic material.

postcynical wrote: »

This seems reasonable. Would you say that the evolution of our irrational instincts is a separate process to our biological evolution?

No. Our instincts come from the way our brain develops, and this is controlled by the genes that blue print the make up of the brain. The evolution of our instincts is simply a part of our evolution, in the same way skin colour or hair colour or arm length is.

postcynical wrote: »

I'd suspect these irrational instincts evolve as social situations evolve rather than the physical environmental changes which "induce" biological evolution.

It is actually the other way around. Social structures develop as a product of the evolution of our emotional instincts.

postcynical wrote: »

I disagree with this. I believe it is possible to inform your conscience. Indeed that is part of a Catholic's duty. I think other Christians would also adapt their morality as they grow closer to God.

Well yes but I said subconscious. Our emotions are subconscious, you don't control when you feel guilt or happiness or sad (without artificial drugs of some sort). These emotions are the result of chemical reactions in the brain and without physically manipulating this chemistry control them is out of our hands.

That doesn't mean we can't rationalise higher morality though. You can tell yourself you have nothing to feel guilty about, say for example if a friend of ours kills herself. You may feel very guilty about it, something you can't simply turn off, but you can rationalise that there was nothing more you could have done, and therefore conclude that you did nothing wrong and didn't cause that terrible thing to happen.

postcynical wrote: »

I agree though that if you do something against your conscience that you cannot mask this feeling of guilt. But this conscience can be formed with effort. I hope I haven't attacked a strawman here but that you were implying that our morality was something that had evolved and thus was something that we could not really control.

No. Our emotions have evolved, and are beyond our control. And our emotions shape a lot of our morality (hiting your sister makes you feel bad, and you can also rationalise that it is also wrong)

But as I was trying to explain to Wolfsbane, that doesn't imply that the only morality we have is our emotions. We have a brain that can rationalise things logically, and we may not always reach the same conclusion as our emotions are pointing us towards

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....MOST Eugenecists justify Eugenics as being the best and most sympathetic way of dealing with people with genetic problems!!!

....Darwin expressed agreement with sympathy being shown to the 'weak and helpless' allright .... but he didn't specify how that sympathy should manifest itself ... but his statement that "excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed" ... would indicate that his sympathy DIDN'T extend to allowing the 'worst men' (however defined) to breed!!

AtomicHorror
No, that doesn't make sense. If "sympathy" refers to eugenics then why does Darwin say it cannot be allowed to be countered by "hard reason"? Clearly he is saying that our sympathy for the weak, the vaccinations and poor laws which he refers to before, cannot be dismissed on the basis of "hard reason" which would be the eugenic extension of evolution.

I mean, are you seriously suggesting that "sympathy" means eugenics and the "hard reason" means human kindness? Come on.

...'hard reason' which Darwin deplored, would allow people to die lingering deaths from starvation or disease without medical attention. Sympathy is not doing so...
.....but the clear import of the REST of the quote is that Darwin supported the controlled breeding of Humans in similar fashion to the existing practice with the controlled breeding of animals!!!


Let's look at the full quote again:
Quote:
What Darwin Actually Wrote
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.
It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. "

....so Darwin , set the scene so to speak by referring to 'Savages' ... by which he meant people that don't look like him!!!!
.... a racist term if ever I saw one... then he goes on to make the UNFOUNDED claim that these so-called 'savages' eliminate the "weak in body or mind"!!!!

There is no evidence that other peoples are any less caring for 'the weak and helpless' than people like Darwin... and the experience with the Social Darwinism would indicate that, if anything, the reverse may actually be the case!!!

He then makes the UNFOUNDED claim that "those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health." A vigorous state of health is PRIMARILY the result of good food and water, good housing and sanitation as well as a good health service ... and Eugenics contributes nothing to any of these issues ... and therfore nothing to population health!!!

Darwin then goes on to say:-
"We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox.

...the 'clincher' on whether I am correct, is the above statement that modern medicine and hospital care allows the so-called 'weak' to survive and he expresses the following ultra-Eugenic opinion on this out-turn:-
"Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man." ... so his 'sympathy' logically DOES NOT extend to encouraging, possibly even allowing, "the weak members of civilized societies (to) propagate their kind"!!!!

Although Darwin claims that our 'better instincts' propel so-called 'Civilised Man' to check what he calls 'the process of elimination' ... and he lists some ways that this is done...he THEN states that this "must be highly injurious to the race of man" ... something that every Eugenecist has used to JUSTIFY sterilisation (and sometimes worse) for those deemed to be potentially "injurious to the race of man" ... as Darwin ERRONEOUSLY described these fabulous PEOPLE!!!!


...and to remove all doubt about his Eugenicist credentials, Darwin then goes on to say:-
"It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

.....the EXCEPTION that is clearly in Darwin's mind, is the supposed 'ignorance' of allowing uncontrolled 'breeding' by Man...rather than Mankind being excepted from such controls!!

Darwin's basic position is that Man is JUST another animal....and he calls the 'intentional neglect' of the 'weak and helpless' to be "an overwhelming present evil"...just like the 'intentional neglect' of ANY animal (or Human) is morally wrong!!!!
Controlled breeding as well as the neutering and euthenasing of 'weak and helpless' animals is accepted as morally correct behaviour in relation to animals ... and it is therefore by implication, ALSO acceptable for Humans IF one considers them to be 'just another animal'!!!!

The Eugenics Movement has had a fair few disasters to it's name. One of it's more 'hare-brained' schemes from the 1930's was the storage of semen from men considered to be of 'exceptional talent' in order impregnate as many (willing) women as possible, thereby spreading the supposedly 'good' genes of these supposedly 'exceptional men' around the general population.

Eugenics wasn't without it's funny side. Nobel prizewinner George Bernard Shaw is reputed to have been approached by a Eugenecist woman, who asked him if he would be willing to father a child by her .... she said "with my 'good' looks and your 'good' brains our child would be exceptionally talented"....
George is said to have replied that he could think of a much more terrible outcome from such a mating .... the misfortunate child might have George's less-than-beautiful looks ... and her lack of brains!!!!!:pac::):D


...and like I have already said, AH, the first rule when you are in a hole ... is to stop digging!!!!!

....but so far, the clay is furiously eminating in copious quantities, from your direction!!!!:pac::D:):eek:

J C

Flamed Diving wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffX9msPCwZk

Just for yucks.

....an interesting insight into the mindset of Materialist Evolutionists!!!

.....a few gratuituous (and unfounded) insults to Christianity in GENERAL and God in PARTICULAR.... and NO Creation SCIENCE
... WHY am I NOT surprised!!!!:eek::(

......it starts with the amazing FACT that after 150 years of promoting Evolution, only 28% of Americans believe in Evolution and 62% want Creation Science taught along with Evolution in school ...
.... with these figures, ... you MIGHT think that Creation Science WOULD be taught in American schools ... BUT you would be WRONG ... it is COMPLETELY BANNED from schools instead!!!

...so here we have a law imposed by a 28% MINORITY of Evolutionists...who dismiss the wishes of a 62% MAJORITY of the population!!!!

.....strange but TRUE!!!!:pac::):eek:


....and when you look at the scene in the operating theatre towards the end of the video clip, DO bear in mind that it pure unadulterated Evolutionist baloney!!!!

Prof. Philip Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University & Member of the US National Academy of Sciences has said:_
“None of the great discoveries in biology and medicine over the past century depended on guidance from Darwinian evolution - it provided no support.”

....and the great Louis Pasteur ... whose contribution to modern medicine WASN'T in the least hampered by NOT believing in Materialist Evolution ....has said "The more I study nature, the more I am amazed at the Creator"!!!

Mickeroo

J C wrote: »

...so here we have a law imposed by a 28% MINORITY of Evolutionists...who dismiss the wishes of a 62% MAJORITY of the population!!!!

These are the same people who voted in George Bush Jr TWICE!

J C

Mickeroo wrote: »

These are the same people who voted in George Bush Jr TWICE!

....did THEY REALLY????

....then tell me what DID George DO about having Creation Science (or even ID) taught in school???

....answer, precisely NOTHING!!!!:pac::):D

....WHY am I NOT surprised??!!!:pac::):D:eek:

Mickeroo

J C wrote: »

....did THEY REALLY????

....then tell me what DID George DO about having Creation Science (or even ID) taught in school???

....answer, precisely NOTHING!!!!:pac::):D

....WHY am I NOT surprised??!!!:pac::):D:eek:

George Bush is a devout christian but he knows,or at least his advisors know, political suicide when they see it. Most of the schools in the states are very multi-cultural too so teaching one ideology(not science) over another wouldn't be realisitic.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Which would be the majority of humans.



More "our view", as a species.



Don't be silly. Do you need God to tell you these people were evil?

Well, I'm still waiting for any other rational explanation. I hear plenty of emotional appeals, plenty of appeals to consensus opinion, plenty of evolutionary reasons for us thinking/feeling they are evil - but no non-theistic reason why they actually were evil.

You even admitted there is no objective morality. Which seems to me to say Hitler was only immoral in the minds of those who thought he was. He was perfectly moral in others' eyes.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Well, I'm still waiting for any other rational explanation.

Good and evil aren't purely rational. If we had no emotions, we would have no values. On what basis do we value a thing if not emotionally? The rational explanation is that emotions (and thus morals) are irrational. But what would be the point of dismissing their relevance on that basis? We throw out morals and emotion... for what? A life of pure rationalism? Why would we bother to do anything with such a life?

Is that the world you think we are striving for? Purely rational? Rationally, we know humans cannot function that way.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I hear plenty of emotional appeals, plenty of appeals to consensus opinion, plenty of evolutionary reasons for us thinking/feeling they are evil - but no non-theistic reason why they actually were evil.

They are labelled "evil" by us because we collectively value human life. We feel negative emotions when lives are lost. Is there some evidence that we're missing some some piece of the puzzle here? Does the labelling of a thing as "evil" defy explanation in these terms?

wolfsbane wrote: »

You even admitted there is no objective morality. Which seems to me to say Hitler was only immoral in the minds of those who thought he was.

In the eye of the beholder. Yes.

wolfsbane wrote: »

He was perfectly moral in others' eyes.

Of course. I'm sure some people, who did not value the lives of the Jews or Poles, might well have held that view. I suspect they were in the minority. Of course others merely bent to peer pressure and still others were too terrified to defy him. What's your explanation for the millions who followed Hitler?

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

It is true of all instinctive morality that we should think rationally about it rather than simply accept the feelings at face value. Which is why I get annoyed at people who say things like killing humans is wrong just because it is

What they mean is killing humans feels wrong but I don't understand why.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Murder, rape, theft, paedophilia, when examined by reason, will be seen to be merely acts of a different preference.

True, but as I hope I explained above, it is more complicated than that.

It is not good enough to say that you shouldn't kill people simply because I feel that I don't want to. There has to be more than that, but that isn't the same as saying that there are no reasons to say you shouldn't kill people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
We may feel threatened by those who do these things, and therefore apply sanctions - but we cannot say they are truly immoral.
We can, because what is immoral or not is ultimately decided by us anyway. They might disagree, but that doesn't change that. If I say killing people is immoral and you say it isn't I simply respond that I don't care what you think, it is immoral as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
By why should harming anyone be immoral?

You are falling into the trap of being unable to think of subjective morality without an objective, universal, frame work. Harming someone is immoral because I say it is. If someone else doesn't agree I don't care. I am not wondering if my moral judgement is correct, if it matches some universal standard, because I don't believe such a thing exists in the first place.

Thank you, that establishes my point - by your definition of morality, you and Hitler would view each other as immoral, but neither of you would be so objectively. Your morality is that which you approve - it may be shared to some extent by others or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It is certainly instinctively immoral (if they are of our group or tribe), but reason tells us our existence is for some 70 years and if we can survive better by murder, rape and pillage we are free to do so.
No our reason doesn't, at least mine doesn't.

And nature backs this up some what, people who go around killing others are likely to wind up dead themselves. It is a bad idea for our fitness. Which is why we feel guilt over such actions, nature is telling us that it is not a good idea. And nature only cares about reproduction.

Even if we didn't feel guilt, even if we were all psychopaths, even from a selfish point of view murdering people isn't a good idea. If you look at it purely as a numbers game, the odds of you lasting longer than if you did something else, it is not a good idea.

I said it was only sensible for those who were in a good position to benefit from it. You must admit many of the powerful of this world got there by such immoral means, and some of them stepped into that power without too much risk. For them at least murder and exploitation were a rational course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But if we prefer the truth to pretence, we would admit there is no real morality.

We must admit there is no morality external to what humans come up with, if that is what you mean.

Excellent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That leaves the materialist in the uncomfortable position of either:
1. Believing there is no morality but pretending there is.
2. Believing there is no morality and boldly saying so; or
3. Believing there is an objective morality but - irrationally - holding on to his materialism.

Or 4. Believing in subjective morality, a morality formed by co-operation between people for common goals and success. You don't kill me and I won't kill you.

Yes, all the world's dictators can agree with that. Live and let live with those they like for common goals and success. Exterminate or enslave the rest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Much better to abandon the illusion of materialism for the truth of God, and to seek to live by the morality He reveals.
The problem with abandoning the material, the here and now, the people around you, is that people get stuck in dogma that doesn't work, and this leads to conflict between peoples and disharmony.

I said abandon materialism, the philosophy, not the material world and the people in it.

I find my dogma works much better than the materialism around me - at least as far as helping my fellowman.

Instead of a heterosexual and a homosexual agreeing that neither sexual action harms on the other so they can both live in peace, you get the case where people fall back on more primitive instincts, justified by a claim to higher authority (it is wrong, the Bible says so!) and this leads to unnecessary conflict and tension between these groups.

The only tension between me and my homosexual fellowcountrymen occurs when they seek to make me say homosexuality is morally fine. If they want to practice their perversion, I'm not stopping them. I can live in peace with them - but are they willing to do so with me?

It is far better to rationally think about issues of morality and ethics than to subscribe to dogmas thought up by people no better than us hundreds of years ago claiming to represent higher authorities that no one can demonstrate even exist in the first place.

It is always good to think rationally about things. Sometimes that rationality leads one to the conclusion that there is a spirit world of which we are a part, and that we should seek to know the truth about it.

That's what led me to think there must be a Creator of such a magnificant universe, and when I was seeking Him, He let me find Him.

The demonstration of His existence will be made known in each person's heart/mind. Reason and conscience will confirm it - but that does not mean the sinner will accept such an unwelcome fact.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Well, I'm still waiting for any other rational explanation.

Yes but it is you making a judgement call that "God says so" is a rational explanation, but "I say so" (or anyone else) isn't.

That is purely down to your opinion on the matter. Some one else could very well ask why is it rational to accept God's judgement on the matter?

wolfsbane wrote: »

I hear plenty of emotional appeals, plenty of appeals to consensus opinion, plenty of evolutionary reasons for us thinking/feeling they are evil - but no non-theistic reason why they actually were evil.

"Evil" is simply a human classification, one we apply to things, like saying that food was horrible or the day was lovely.

It doesn't mean anything external to our judgement (or God's judgement if you want introduce God as the thing that has the last say on the matter).

The theist reason why they are evil is because God says so.
The non-theistic reason why they are evil is because we say so.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You even admitted there is no objective morality. Which seems to me to say Hitler was only immoral in the minds of those who thought he was. He was perfectly moral in others' eyes.

Yes. But you apply the same standard. Hitler was only immoral in the minds of those who thought he was, including God (assuming God actually disapproved of Hitler)

You simply assign greater weight to God's opinion than to the opinion of others. You simply say that God's opinion is the standard everything else should follow. But I could equally say that about anyone else. Atomic's opinion is the standard all should follow.

darjeeling

wolfsbane wrote: »

Well, I'm still waiting for any other rational explanation. I hear plenty of emotional appeals, plenty of appeals to consensus opinion, plenty of evolutionary reasons for us thinking/feeling they are evil - but no non-theistic reason why they actually were evil.

You even admitted there is no objective morality. Which seems to me to say Hitler was only immoral in the minds of those who thought he was. He was perfectly moral in others' eyes.

Rephrased, what you're saying is:
You don't believe in objective, all-time standards of good and evil. Ok. So why can't you give me a non-religious reason why there are objective, all-time standards of good and evil?

There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. Evil is evil because most of us think it is - for emotional and cultural reasons, allied to the legacy of our evolution. And at root, almost all of us think it wrong when people deliberately subject others to treatment that we wouldn't want meted out to ourselves.

What kind of answer did you expect?

J C

Mickeroo wrote: »

George Bush is a devout christian but he knows,or at least his advisors know, political suicide when they see it. Most of the schools in the states are very multi-cultural too so teaching one ideology(not science) over another wouldn't be realisitic.

....BUT Evolution IS the ideology of Atheistic Humanism masquerading as 'Science' ...

....and because there is actually NO scientific evidence favouring the spontaneous evolution of ANYTHING .... these Atheistic Humanists and their 'fellow travellers' are denying ALL of the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE in relation to the origin of life!!!!

Could I remind you again, that this law (banning Creation Science and insisting on Evolution only being taught) is being imposed by a 28% MINORITY of Evolutionists...who dismiss the wishes of a 62% MAJORITY of the population!!!!
According to the 'logic' of your argument , NOT doing what 62% of the electorate are asking for, isn't political suicide????

....but it is somehow a good idea to not grant the deeply held wishes of 62% of the people... even in regard to THEIR OWN children's schooling!!!!:(

....and in a 'multi-cultural society' do you REALLY THINK that teaching the unfounded ideas of a SMALL MINORITY of militant ATHEISTS as 'scientific' fact to ALL children of EVERY faith is some kind of 'multiculturalism'????!!!!:(

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thank you, that establishes my point - by your definition of morality, you and Hitler would view each other as immoral, but neither of you would be so objectively. Your morality is that which you approve - it may be shared to some extent by others or not.

Ok, if that was your point I agree. There is no objective morality. Morality is simply judgement calls, be it me, you, or God. It is not a property of nature that exists independently, like size or width or weight. If I think something is immoral and someone disagrees with me I don't care that much but I can't deny they disagree with me. Equally if God says Hitler was wrong for killing millions of Jews Hitler can disagree with God, but I doubt you would care.

Ultimately it isn't a question of a universal right or wrong, such a thing doesn't exist. It is simply a case of which judgement of right or wrong we agree with and accept.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I said it was only sensible for those who were in a good position to benefit from it. You must admit many of the powerful of this world got there by such immoral means, and some of them stepped into that power without too much risk. For them at least murder and exploitation were a rational course.

Depends on how you define rational course. A lot of the most powerful people in the world, particularly ones that get their through violent means, end up dying by the same violence they use. They get short term gain (money, power) but live short violent lives.

Plus for every 1 that manages to get power and money there are 100 who wind up shot and dumped in a canal while still low level thugs. Look at the recent drug executions in Dublin. The life expectancy of someone working in the drug trade is drastically less than the average population.

So I guess it depends on one's priorities. That doesn't appeal to me. And from an evolutionary point of view these people are greatly decreasing the chances of surviving long enough to have children.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, all the world's dictators can agree with that. Live and let live with those they like for common goals and success. Exterminate or enslave the rest.

You are being some what silly now.

A dictator by definition does not agree to give the same rights and respect to others as he expects for himself. That is what being a dictator means. One rule for me, a different rule for the rest of you. And it is why the majority of dictators meet messy ends by the people they oppress.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I said abandon materialism, the philosophy, not the material world and the people in it.

The philosophy of materialism is the material world, and the people in it. You cannot abandon that without abandoning them.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I find my dogma works much better than the materialism around me

But you only find that by defining it as such. That is what a dogma is. You have already decided that your religious dogma must be the best way, and you fit reality around that.

The example that keeps coming up is homosexuality. Your dogma says that the best thing for a homosexual to do is to follow your dogma on sexual relations. You therefore conclude that the best thing for a homosexual to do is to follow your dogma, irrespective of the material evidence that this is actually true or not.

So it becomes self fulfilling and cyclical.

You can't do anything but conclude that your dogma works better because it is the dogma itself that is telling you it should work better and you have already accepted the dogma.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The only tension between me and my homosexual fellowcountrymen occurs when they seek to make me say homosexuality is morally fine. If they want to practice their perversion, I'm not stopping them. I can live in peace with them - but are they willing to do so with me?

To live "in peace" with you means they have to agree with you that homosexuality is immoral?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sometimes that rationality leads one to the conclusion that there is a spirit world of which we are a part, and that we should seek to know the truth about it.

I have yet to see the rational argument for that. If I recall your argument was that you "just knew" this was true. Which to be honest doesn't impress me with its logic.

It is a sentiment that is often repeated by believers, particular Christians. When you dig a little with them into the rational reasons they believe what they believe it nearly always comes down to some what blind emotion and faith. Comments like yours that they just feel it is true abound in these types of discussions.

Rationality seems to have very little to do with it. It seems purely the realm of emotion and desire, people longing for something to be true to provide comfort to them to the point that they start imagining that it is true.

wolfsbane

MatthewVII said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Homosexuality is instinctively immoral, but when we apply reason to that feeling, we realise it is just a different preference from the norm.
No, homosexuality is not instinctively immoral, it is instinctively unattractive to heterosexual people for evolution reasons. That is completely different. Society hasn't rejected homosexuals in the past because they felt it was immoral, it's because they found it unsettling, deviant etc. Religions are what called it immoral. There's nothing wrong with it per se, it's just either for you or not.

I see where you make the difference. Ok, then, Homosexuality is instinctively disgusting but when we apply reason to that feeling, we realise it is just a different preference from the norm, not immoral.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That, however, must be true of all instinctive morality. Murder, rape, theft, paedophilia, when examined by reason, will be seen to be merely acts of a different preference. We may feel threatened by those who do these things, and therefore apply sanctions - but we cannot say they are truly immoral.
Of course we can. Anything that negatively impacts on another either directly or indirectly from an objective standpoint is immoral whether it benefits us to do it or not. That's why the concepts of morality are ingrained in us, to protect societies from detrimental acts.

Homosexuality negatively impacts on society by its dangerous sexual practices - as does heterosexual promiscuity. You agree then that these are immoral?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You may say the difference is in the harm done. By why should harming anyone be immoral? It is certainly instinctively immoral (if they are of our group or tribe), but reason tells us our existence is for some 70 years and if we can survive better by murder, rape and pillage we are free to do so.
Harming someone can be seen as immoral from an evolution standpoint as it damages that persons chances of survival, procreation etc, meaning the group as a whole will fare worse.

In the evolutionary model, if the earliest type of ape had cared for all of his fellows as we aspire to today, would homo sapiens have arisen? Does struggle within species not form a big part of the necessary evolutionary process?

Would looking after the healthy and euthanizing the feeble not be better for the group as a whole? Was not Hitler then acting nobly by gassing the mentally unfit and forcibly sterilizing many other types? He had to supress his natural feelings in the cause of the higher good.

I can see why Christians thought it immoral, but are materialists not getting carried away emotionally in coming to the same conclusion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Instinctively we feel there is an after-life in which we may have to answer for our actions here
I would love to know where this idea came from. Am I missing something? I sure as hell didn't think there was an afterlife when I was young.

You never felt guilt?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But if we prefer the truth to pretence, we would admit there is no real morality.
If we prefer the truth to pretence, we would admit there is no real God. But that's another discussion

Well it would be a logical conclusion for a materialist - which is why I ask you to admit there is no real morality, and wonder why you balk at it.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Homosexuality negatively impacts on society by its dangerous sexual practices - as does heterosexual promiscuity. You agree then that these are immoral?

Homosexuality by itself does not negatively impact anyone.

You slipped "promiscuity" in after heterosexuality with the suggestion that homosexuality is always promiscuous and risky, which is not true at all.

So you are actually arguing a different thing, that risky irresponsible sexual behaviour is dangerous and therefore immoral (and I would agree to a point), not homosexuality itself, though the suggestion is that all homosexuality is always risky and dangerous which would be more a reflection on your ignorance on the matter than reality.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Does struggle within species not form a big part of the necessary evolutionary process?

No. Species do not struggle against each other, they struggle against the environment, they struggle to reproduce.

A species working together to over come the environment ensures the most replication, which is the ultimate key to evolution.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Would looking after the healthy and euthanizing the feeble not be better for the group as a whole?

The "group as a whole" is largely irrelevant to evolution. It is the individual genes that are the central players in evolution and how likely they are to continue to reproduce. I'm not sure how gassing thousands of mentally ill people helps me reproduce?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Was not Hitler then acting nobly by gassing the mentally unfit and forcibly sterilizing many other types? He had to supress his natural feelings in the cause of the higher good.

From an evolutionary point of view the "greater good" would have been for Hitler to have children, and to help everyone else have children. Needless to say he didn't do that.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

There is no objective morality. Morality is simply judgement calls, be it me, you, or God. It is not a property of nature that exists independently, like size or width or weight.

....such is the ultimate moral 'dilemma' of a society 'without God'!!!!

....it can only depend upon some type of consensus whipped up by the vageries of the popular sentiment of the day .... and moral relatavism is the best 'moral compass' that can be hoped for in such circumstances!!!!

....so, for example, in a society overwhelmed by sexual perversion ... even Paedophilia COULD be 'morally' countenanced (if nearly everybody were engaging in it) ... and hetrosexual marriage COULD be morally 'outlawed' (if nearly nobody wanted to be married)!!!! :eek::)

....and if you don't believe that this could occur, do bear in mind that some societies have had no legally enforced 'age of consent' nor any social taboos to protect children from perverts ....and (adult) hetrosexual marriage is regarded as a form of sexual slavery by some people!!!:eek:

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

....and if you don't believe that this could occur, do bear in mind that some societies have had no legally enforced 'age of consent' nor any social taboos to protect children from perverts

Like early Christianity, you mean?

Just taking an example.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Like early Christianity, you mean?

Just taking an example.

....early Christianity inherited the Jewish moral framework in relation to sex and Marriage ... so there was a moral imperative protecting children from sexual predation in these societies.