Well it seems like the creationism thread is close to an end(please start a new thread if you wish to keep discussing that topic) and I haven’t seen this topic discussed in a while. Anyways I am going to post an excerpt from Micheal Ruse to see if it stirs up discussion.
The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory. (Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269).
Well he is certainly is right from his godless perspective. I find his use of the word “aid” instructive. How is it possible to make such an assertion without instant circularity? “Aid” implies positive contribution, but “positive” is itself a value judgement which he has unwittingly included in his proclamation that such things are illusory. It’s illusory, but is required to demonstrate that it’s illusory.
In practice I’d say this is largely how most people operate. People tend to be only as moral as they need to be to escape censure. Most like to think they are a “good” person but with a fair examination I think most of us tend to be most moral when we operate with family, friends and associates and when away from them often behavior gets a lot less good. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas ya know.
This is kinda like thinking love is something more than some kind of biological adaptation to use his words. Certainly I’d say most who have kids would think it something more, but when we look at someone like say Casey Anthony that seems to be broken somehow it can certainly make you uneasy about thinking anything can be transcendent.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Well he is certainly is right from his godless perspective. I find his use of the word “aid” instructive. How is it possible to make such an assertion without instant circularity? “Aid” implies positive contribution, but “positive” is itself a value judgement which he has unwittingly included in his proclamation that such things are illusory. It’s illusory, but is required to demonstrate that it’s illusory. [/quote]
I’ve always seen this particular argument as a failing of language rather than one of logic.
We use the same value judgements to describe both the moral, absolute “good” that you as a Christian believe in, and also to describe Mariano Rivera’s cutter.
When something allows an organism to survive, an atheist calls that something “good” for that organism without meaning to imply that there exists some transcendent code of ethics. Water may be “good” for me, because without it I will die and the chemical reactions which have created within my mind the illusion that my own survival is “good” rather than meaningless. But in reality that language is inappropriate because there is no “good.” (to an atheist, this is not necessarily what I believe).
I don’t think this made sense haha, it’s been a long one. I’m gonna post it anyway and see if I can work it out better in the morning.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Well he is certainly is right from his godless perspective. I find his use of the word “aid” instructive. How is it possible to make such an assertion without instant circularity? “Aid” implies positive contribution, but “positive” is itself a value judgement which he has unwittingly included in his proclamation that such things are illusory. It’s illusory, but is required to demonstrate that it’s illusory. [/quote]
I’ve always seen this particular argument as a failing of language rather than one of logic.
We use the same value judgements to describe both the moral, absolute “good” that you as a Christian believe in, and also to describe Mariano Rivera’s cutter.
When something allows an organism to survive, an atheist calls that something “good” for that organism without meaning to imply that there exists some transcendent code of ethics. Water may be “good” for me, because without it I will die and the chemical reactions which have created within my mind the illusion that my own survival is “good” rather than meaningless. But in reality that language is inappropriate because there is no “good.” (to an atheist, this is not necessarily what I believe).
I don’t think this made sense haha, it’s been a long one. I’m gonna post it anyway and see if I can work it out better in the morning.
[/quote]
There very well may be no moral absolutes that exists to an atheist or someone who believes in a god. Some early philosophers did believe in moral absolutes existing separate from any conception of a god so its certainly logically possible. Equally possible to have a conception of a god that would be amoral(I’d argue that the Christian conception is largely this though many if not most of them would disagree).
Unless someone is being obtuse everyone is completely capable of discerning the difference of someone using good as a moral principle instead of good as healthy this type of conflation though is certainly sometimes used in religious and philosophical texts to try to create a strawman amongst other confusions.
Before we go any further let’s be clear that absolutely ANY ascription of anything other than pure blank meaningless void, which is itself inconceivable, by definition declares value and hence morality. smh23 is already neck deep in this conundrum.
Groo, for true Christians the most important aspect of morality is what nobody but God can see in full. The heart. We do however get a view of the heart because Jesus said a person’s words reveal their heart. The war is within. (Read the 7th chapter of Romans). What I think say and do in my heart, especially by myself when alone is my gauge of where I’m at with the Lord. If I’m being faithful there, the rest of my moral life in relation to others takes care of itself. I agree though. What you describe is indeed fallen human nature without Jesus. How well I know. THAT is what I’m at war with every day. (again, read the 7th chapter of Romans)
[quote]groo wrote:<<< Unless someone is being obtuse everyone is completely capable of discerning the difference of someone using good as a moral principle instead of good as healthy this type of conflation though is certainly sometimes used in religious and philosophical texts to try to create a strawman amongst other confusions.[/quote]Nonsense Groo. What is “healthy” or not and in that sense “good” or “bad” has everything to do with morality. We call actions that harm the health of another or ourselves “bad” all the time. We ven have laws. Even actions that don’t promote the heath of another where possible. My walking past smh23 pulling a cart full of water while he’s dying of thirst would be frowned upon as “bad” and “selfish” if not outright “evil” and “immoral”. Why? Because his heath is “good”, I posses the immediate nearly cost to me free means of critically improving it, but deem it “better” to keep all my water to myself.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Before we go any further let’s be clear that absolutely ANY ascription of anything other than pure blank meaningless void, which is itself inconceivable, by definition declares value and hence morality. smh23 is already neck deep in this conundrum.
Groo, for true Christians the most important aspect of morality is what nobody but God can see in full. The heart. We do however get a view of the heart because Jesus said a person’s words reveal their heart. The war is within. (Read the 7th chapter of Romans). What I think say and do in my heart, especially by myself when alone is my gauge of where I’m at with the Lord. If I’m being faithful there, the rest of my moral life in relation to others takes care of itself. I agree though. What you describe is indeed fallen human nature without Jesus. How well I know. THAT is what I’m at war with every day. (again, read the 7th chapter of Romans)[/quote]
I have no problem seeing Christians as moral people. I also think the vast majority if not all of us are fallible and even those who everyone would be in agreement have done great good likely also have some moral turpitude somewhere.
As well I just think that the conception of god particularly if we view much of the old testament as a literal narrative shows that the God of Christianity is amoral and not what I would call good. I don’t really have an issue with this though since I do think morality exists solely within human actions. I would say that things like good and love only exist in the human mind. That doesn’t make them any less real, but certainly would preclude any natural evil say.
[quote]groo wrote:<<< Unless someone is being obtuse everyone is completely capable of discerning the difference of someone using good as a moral principle instead of good as healthy this type of conflation though is certainly sometimes used in religious and philosophical texts to try to create a strawman amongst other confusions.[/quote]Nonsense Groo. What is “healthy” or not and in that sense “good” or “bad” has everything to do with morality. We call actions that harm the health of another or ourselves “bad” all the time. We ven have laws. Even actions that don’t promote the heath of another where possible. My walking past smh23 pulling a cart full of water while he’s dying of thirst would be frowned upon as “bad” and “selfish” if not outright “evil” and “immoral”. Why? Because his heath is “good”, I posses the immediate nearly cost to me free means of critically improving it, but deem it “better” to keep all my water to myself.
[/quote]
Don’t be obtuse. If someone eats egg whites for breakfast instead of a donut it is good for them in the sense that it promotes health. I will not entertain the moronic notion that this is a moral choice.
Also your libertarian brothers would think that there is no morality involved in not sharing your water. Or that your rational self interest is moral.
[quote]groo wrote:<<< I have no problem seeing Christians as moral people. I also think the vast majority if not all of us are fallible and even those who everyone would be in agreement have done great good likely also have some moral turpitude somewhere. >>>[/quote]Read Romans 7. Christians will not be free from the war with sin in this body until the final resurrection. I am susceptible to everything you are which is why I keep a strong life of prayer, time in the Word and fellowship with men who are stronger than I am. The difference between you and I is Jesus. I am no morally better in myself than any other child of Adam.[quote]groo wrote:<<< As well I just think that the conception of god particularly if we view much of the old testament as a literal narrative shows that the God of Christianity is amoral and not what I would call good. I don’t really have an issue with this though since I do think morality exists solely within human actions. I would say that things like good and love only exist in the human mind. That doesn’t make them any less real, but certainly would preclude any natural evil say. >>>[/quote]And we’re right back at epistemology which is not for this thread. [quote]groo wrote:<<< Don’t be obtuse. If someone eats egg whites for breakfast instead of a donut it is good for them in the sense that it promotes health. I will not entertain the moronic notion that this is a moral choice. >>>[/quote]But it is. There is a fine line between abhorrent legalism and godly self control, but life choices that knowingly degrade the health of the human body which is an integral component of man who is created in the image of God IS sin. A doughnut… sin? Of course not. It’s a blessing. Donuts and other sweets to the point of inducing heath issues? Yes, that is the abuse of God’s clothing for your soul. Big discussion and will take us off topic I think. [quote]groo wrote:<<< Also your libertarian brothers would think that there is no morality involved in not sharing your water. Or that your rational self interest is moral.[/quote]Libertarians are not my brothers.
The difference between you and I is Jesus. I am no morally better in myself than any other child of Adam.
This part I think is not exactly true say. You think this is correct and I suppose it may possibly be I find it unlikely. As well though you can see the other position certainly is logically possible…that there is no natural evil. We aren’t born with original sin staining our soul you don’t think this is the correct view, but its certainly a possibility.
I don’t think poor life choices are necessarily immoral. You talk about the fine line sometimes in discerning what is moral and I would certainly agree with this.
Take a moral absolute we can find large agreement on. “Promiscuous killing is wrong” In certain cases like say a serial killer we’d all be pretty much on board with saying yep evil bastard. But take a military sniper who has killed as many. Unless you are a Quaker seems like most people give the sniper a pass since they’d say the killing isn’t promiscuous during war. The act is the same the lens that we view it through is what makes it different. This lens is only in our mind.
Our views of morality are spawned from entirely different realms Groo. We don’t even agree on why promiscuous killing is evil and I would say promiscuous sex is a thousand times more evil because it defiles the covenant of the God who is the source everything including morality.
I told you in our very first dialog almost a year ago now found on this http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/free_will?id=4523136&pageNo=11 page that ethics and hence morality depends on epistemology (in essence) and I most definitely stand by that assertion. I’m not gonna start on that here in Joab’s thread though EVERYTHING goes back there. You begin with you and I begin with the God of historic Christianity and never the twain shall meet.
@groo
Do you hold that some things are really objectively wrong like the example you gave or if that wasn’t enough anything you can think of or hold something closer to Michael Ruse’s position?
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote: @groo
Do you hold that some things are really objectively wrong like the example you gave or if that wasn’t enough anything you can think of or hold something closer to Michael Ruse’s position?[/quote]
Yes I do thing some things are wrong no matter what. I think some of them are easy to see but many have a lot of shades of grey. I am no total utilitarian but things that increase the suffering of others I’d say are almost universally wrong. Including war in any situation other than a total last resort which I’d say for the US anyway hasn’t been in over 50 years. But even saying this I know that sometimes I am immoral and think killing someone solely for revenge is very understandable. I was just very general with promiscuous killing because its hard enough to come to agreement on what that exactly is.
A backward way of getting at it would be that I think anything that is evil is from humans. Terrible things can happen in nature or by accident but anything that would be a moral issue involves some type of human choice or action or inaction.
We might not be able to entirely discern what things are wrong if the issues are complex but some things are never moral however they are framed.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote: @groo
Do you hold that some things are really objectively wrong like the example you gave or if that wasn’t enough anything you can think of or hold something closer to Michael Ruse’s position?[/quote]
Yes I do thing some things are wrong no matter what. I think some of them are easy to see but many have a lot of shades of grey. I am no total utilitarian but things that increase the suffering of others I’d say are almost universally wrong. Including war in any situation other than a total last resort which I’d say for the US anyway hasn’t been in over 50 years. But even saying this I know that sometimes I am immoral and think killing someone solely for revenge is very understandable. I was just very general with promiscuous killing because its hard enough to come to agreement on what that exactly is.
A backward way of getting at it would be that I think anything that is evil is from humans. Terrible things can happen in nature or by accident but anything that would be a moral issue involves some type of human choice or action or inaction.
We might not be able to entirely discern what things are wrong if the issues are complex but some things are never moral however they are framed.
[/quote]
Even Michael Ruse who takes his premises to their logical conclusion also can’t deny that some things are really wrong and equates them to mathematical certainty here “The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says, 2+2=5.” Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended (London: Addison-Wesley, 1982), p. 275. Micheal Ruse himself recognizes that naturalism is no foundation for the objectivity of morals.
If one is a utilitarian or says that morals are grounded in men, that also seems to be no foundation for objective morality since what would be moral would be contingent on what evolution and social conditioning has produce.
Well, evolution would only provide the capacity to recognize moral and immoral (a brain), and carry either out or not. But it doesn’t define what is moral. Evolution has given man the capacity to rape a woman, ignore her as she is raped, or to defend the woman. Natural selection doesn’t care if a particularly successful dictator furnishes his many offspring with material wealth squeezed from impoverished subjects. In such a case, he is apparently well adapted…therefore, moral? Evolution loves variety, if anything. One of the necessary ingredients of natural selection.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, evolution would only provide the capacity to recognize moral and immoral (a brain), and carry either out or not. [/quote]
That’s spot on to how I feel about it. I see morality as something defined by the Greater Intellect that we have been blessed as at least being able to see a part of the laws of morality through the thoughts of individuals and collectives through space and time (places and history basically). Further blessedness is had by discovering more ultimate truths and obliging to the oughts brought on by them.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, evolution would only provide the capacity to recognize moral and immoral (a brain), and carry either out or not. But it doesn’t define what is moral. Evolution has given man the capacity to rape a woman, ignore her as she is raped, or to defend the woman. Natural selection doesn’t care if a particularly successful dictator furnishes his many offspring with material wealth squeezed from impoverished subjects. In such a case, he is apparently well adapted…therefore, moral? Evolution loves variety, if anything. One of the necessary ingredients of natural selection. [/quote]
Indeed correct, it may play a part in moral epistemology but anyone looking toward it as the foundation of moral values themselves hasn’t thought it through.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, evolution would only provide the capacity to recognize moral and immoral (a brain), and carry either out or not. [/quote]
That’s spot on to how I feel about it. I see morality as something defined by the Greater Intellect that we have been blessed as at least being able to see a part of the laws of morality through the thoughts of individuals and collectives through space and time (places and history basically). Further blessedness is had by discovering more ultimate truths and obliging to the oughts brought on by them. [/quote]
Hey man you make it sound as if this “greater intellect” arbitrarily decides what is moral.
You may like this article.
Well that would explain why treating women well has always been so important. Hurting someone who is carrying your child is extremely counter(re)productive. This also brings up the possibility that societies which abuse women are made up of less evolved individuals.