Arrest the Pope!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

I’ve got a little bit of time, here’s a quick reply.

[b]Precisely. I agree.

Now who gave humans that capacity? Ahhhh…yes…complex neurological impulses developed over millenia and millenia and millenia by chance. You betcha.[/b]

No, not by chance. Is it that hard to conceive that eusociality, and thus morality as we know it, has an evolutionary origin? Also, do you concede that the difference between humans’ and other animals’ capacity to make moral judgments is a biological rather than spiritual difference?

You are a YEC, correct? It is your position that humans were created as they are now 6,000 years ago by a Semetic Deity and that we did not evolve from nor share a common ancestor with any other animal, right?

If the above is correct, then do you consider humans animals? Do you think we are mammals (bodyhair, mammary glands, etc.)? Do you consider us primate or apes considering all the traits we share with them? If you negate the above, then are you not saying that the traits we share with other animals are just coincidence, the result of an uncreative creator using similar body plans? That it is a coincidence that the animal we share 98% of our DNA with, the chimpanzee, is a social animal and has relatively high intellectual functioning when compared to other animals?

I’m not the one saying the traits and behaviors we have are the result of chance or coincidence.

[b]Humans do not like pain and they do not like to suffer, they feel empathy for others, they can see the consequences of their actions, individuals form social contracts that become the “morality” of that group.

That could easily describe hundreds of different types of animals. Do I need to list a few?[/b]

How would that hurt my argument? Tell me, is the fact that animals can act “morally” (according to the predetermined social mores of the group) without the higher intellectual functioning found in humans weaken or strengthen my argument?

[b]While there are others who would argue that moral absolutes exist with or without a creator (Betrand Russell comes to mind), I’d argue that morality is inherently subjective, whether there is a creator or not.

Of course you can argue that. That’s why we’re here.[/b]

See edited post.

Edit: Also, interesting to note that you completely ignore the problem of moral absolutes for the theist, especially the Judeo-christian ie. how the existence of moral absolutes given by a moral lawgiver results in laws and practices that are morally repugnant today. Will you address that along with Euthyphros (massacred the spelling last time) dilemma with regard to monotheism?

Edit 2: I don’t know what happened to this post so I’ve bolded the quotes. Hopefully it’s easier to read now.

282

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:

…As to the Bible containing the oldest writings on Earth, you are mistaken. If you have a source for your statement I would like to read it. Also, when do you think the first chapters of the Bible (at least those that made the final cut) were written and we’ll see how that fits into the time-line of YEC…

[/quote]
And I would argue that it is you who are mistaken.

There are indications even in the first few chapters of Genesis that a book was being kept/written. If so, there simply are no other writings that could precede it. I realize this may be a surprise for many; not conclusive proof but Morris makes a very good case.

*Source: The Genesis Record by Dr. Henry Morris
[/quote]

“There are indications even in the first few chapters of Genesis that a book was being kept/written.” By whom? Adam and Eve? Noah? Tower of Babel construction workers? It is your position that the first chapters of Genesis in their present form predate the Vinca symbols, Egyptian hieroglyphs, and Harappa writings?

From what I gather, Henry Morris is a YEC and hydraulic engineer, not the most reliable of sources on biblical history. Still, I do not have the source in question on hand to critique it, so just state Morris’s case of how the writing of Genesis fits into the timeline for it.

Edit: One more thing before I leave, don’t you think that a deity using a book to spread its message is a crudely inefficient and suspiciously human mode of communication? Why didn’t it just reveal these moral laws and itself to everyone with the choice to obey him or not?

283

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
I’d argue that morality is inherently subjective, whether there is a creator or not.

Edit: Actually that last sentence was worded poorly. What I meant to say was I don’t find the arguments for moral absolutes convincing, whether from atheistic or theistic perspectives, but I haven’t collected my thoughts and formed a cogent argument against them yet. [/quote]

Would you say that what the Aztecs were doing until around 1521 was just an expression of their own particular brand of morality?[/quote]

Yep, that would be consistent. I don’t find the arguments for moral absolutes convincing, so I really can’t see it any other way. Moral absolutes are not like logical absolutes, which are objective. That is not to say that morality cannot be explained or that systems of morality cannot be judged as superior or inferior by some rubric, however, this does nothing to change how morality is still inherently subjective.

284

Ok, I hadn’t have time to read the entire thread, but I didn’t see this posted, and I think it provides a very interesting view on objective morality and how such morality could theoretically exist absent the presence of religious dogma.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html

285

[quote]anonfactor wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
I’d argue that morality is inherently subjective, whether there is a creator or not.

Edit: Actually that last sentence was worded poorly. What I meant to say was I don’t find the arguments for moral absolutes convincing, whether from atheistic or theistic perspectives, but I haven’t collected my thoughts and formed a cogent argument against them yet. [/quote]

Would you say that what the Aztecs were doing until around 1521 was just an expression of their own particular brand of morality?[/quote]

Yep, that would be consistent. I don’t find the arguments for moral absolutes convincing, so I really can’t see it any other way. Moral absolutes are not like logical absolutes, which are objective. That is not to say that morality cannot be explained or that systems of morality cannot be judged as superior or inferior by some rubric, however, this does nothing to change how morality is still inherently subjective.[/quote]

So you think what they were doing then, was excusable?

Also, I’d like to know how you conjecture that morality could possibly be judged by some rubric, yet remain subjective.

I’m not sure of your definition of the word “subjective” matches mine. From this post, I could almost take it to have the same meaning as the word “different,” rather than my interpretation of its meaning “existing only in the mind.”

286

[quote]ninjaboy wrote:
Ok, I hadn’t have time to read the entire thread, but I didn’t see this posted, and I think it provides a very interesting view on objective morality and how such morality could theoretically exist absent the presence of religious dogma.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html
[/quote]

Do you mind summarizing the guy’s point or presenting his main arguments? It’s a bit long. I’ll go back and watch it if seems he is saying something that isn’t the same stuff that gets repeated here over and over.

289

[quote]Cortes wrote:

I believe I remember your also mentioning your conscience. That’s all fine and good, but if you want to argue that you are relying upon an internal morality determining device, you are going to have to explain how it got there. And if you say, society, culture and upbringing, then you are further going to have to explain how that makes you any different from “us.”[/quote]

…good catch Cortes. First of all, i’m not making a distinction between the moral ones, and those who do not believe in god and thus are the immoral ones. Christians, especially those of the american variety, do and they are back-up by catholic church…

…so, now i’ve got time to think about it: there’s not a lot i can say to talk me out of this
corner. Morality is always adopted as a set of instructions, and does not come from within. So the distinction i made between ex- and internal is a false one. Sorry 'bout that!

292

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

…God doesn’t need to enter into the picture to tell humans that harming another human is not good for the society. We can also know that society is good for humans because those humans who developed societies flourished. These basic steps in logic are subliminal at this point due to the fact that we are oh say 100,000 + years out from when people had to make an active decision, be a part of society or go it alone…

V[/quote]

Then you need to deal with the Aztec question I posed above.[/quote]

You are assuming too much.

For consistencies sake Ephrem would only have to argue that the Azteks behavior was indeed moral because it evolved in their society and that way it was moral for them but would be immoral for others.

That would be a perfectly defendable position and I would even agree in some cases.

However, he will not do that because he secretly wants to believe in an absolute morality, namely his version of morality.

296

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

The bottom line though is that in the US our society HAS developed in such a way that each human has natural born rights, anyone who interferes with these rights, is in the wrong. And in a very general term, doing something to someone against thier will especially if it does damage to that person is a basic violation of these rights.

[/quote]
In order to advance your argument you would do well to steer well out of your way to avoid bringing up natural rights. Locke and the American founding fathers want nothing to do with your foolish notion that those rights have any origin other than God.

[/quote]

There would have been some who would have agreed.

You can believe that some laws are inherent in mans nature and leave the question where mans nature comes from wide open.

297

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

…God doesn’t need to enter into the picture to tell humans that harming another human is not good for the society. We can also know that society is good for humans because those humans who developed societies flourished. These basic steps in logic are subliminal at this point due to the fact that we are oh say 100,000 + years out from when people had to make an active decision, be a part of society or go it alone…

V[/quote]

Then you need to deal with the Aztec question I posed above.[/quote]

I wasn’t aware the Aztec society was still around and flourishing. Push, I’m not saying this is a quick process, quite the contrary, it is a decidedly slow process. Hell it took several hundred thousand years to get to the point we are, and there is still some pretty bad behavior going on in some circles around the globe. Now as I said, I think communication and travel are going to speed up the process, and whenever you speed up a process, the ride gets more bumpy. But regardless, the existance of the aztecs does not refute anything I said, in fact it only enhances it because thier society did not change how others behaved, thier society collapsed. Also much of thier practices were developed due to the lack of understanding of the unknown and an attempt to appease an unseen force or what you would call your god.

So in reality, you are exactly like them in that you allow other people to tell you how to behave based on thier hearing it from an unseen force. Whats even worse in your case is that the people who are telling you these things have been dead for a couple thousand years. You are reading translations of what they wrote with no ability to actually even read for yourself with all the intent they had in thier words, what they wrote. At least the aztecs had a shaman or a holy man who claimed communication with the beyond. I mean at the very least the person lying to thier face was doing it face to face in thier own toung and in thier own time.

V