Good Without God? | Boundless Line

Good Without God?
by Tom Neven on 12/02/2009 at 6:55 AM

They're at it again. The American Humanist Association is launching a holiday campaign to try to convince Americans that they don't need God to be good. It's akin to the British Humanist Association's drive last year that plastered London buses and Underground tunnels with the message, "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." (I really like that probably part.)

The American Humanists' promotion says, "No god? ... No problem! Be good for goodness' sake."

They need to explain, however, where the moral impulse comes from. Why do we feel the need to be good and not bad? The usual answer is that the moral impulse evolved in humans over many years. Or they'll say that morality rises out of empathy. But these are little more than dodgy just-so stories that take what is—people have a sense of right and wrong—and come up with a fantastical explanation for how this came to be. But even if for the sake of argument we grant the point, this explanation still has a problem. It might describe what is, but it has no power to prescribe or proscribe certain behaviors. It's the classic is/ought problem: You can't get an ought from an is. You can't go from "people have a moral impulse" to "you ought to act morally."

Second, if our moral impulses are just a result of biology, can you even call them moral? They're just behaviors, no different from the biological urge to sneeze or cough. If our genes made us do it, how can we condemn a Stalin or praise a Mother Teresa? They just did what their genes made them do. If morality is just a product of genetics, it would be akin to condemning one for having allergies and praising another for fast reflexes.

But all this misses the larger question: Good as compared to what? What is "good" if there's no standard to measure it against?

Now the Humanist can rightly ask, "Well, isn't your explanation of a god also a just-so story?" And it would be if there were not plenty of historical, archeological, and documentary evidence to support the claims of Christianity.* We at least have evidence to point to. They have ... what? Speculation.

They Humanist might then ask, "From where does God get his (or her) moral values? If God gets them from a still higher source, the buck hasn't stopped. [Where did that source get them?] ... If they originate with God, then God's morals are made up and hence arbitrary."

This is similar to the question Socrates asks in the Euthyphro: "Is an act right because God wills it, or does God will it because he knows it is right?"

The answer is "none of the above."

Morality is rooted in God's nature. He did not just make it up or get it from somewhere else. The good is what comports with God's nature; evil is what goes against it. God cannot sin, not because He has superior willpower, but because it would violate His nature and He would then cease to be God. Being created in God's image, we share this understanding. God's law is indeed written on our hearts.

So I would say to the Humanist that not only can you not be good without God--you can have no concept of good without God.

*I suggest books such as Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator or The Case for Christ and Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict as good starting points for the historical evidence for Christianity.

Worldview | Mail This | Share on Facebook

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. Sarah said the following at 8:02 AM on Dec 2:

Another fantastic book relating to this topic is Ravi Zacharias' "Can Man Live without God."

I remember reading it back in high school, and I had to read out loud to myself at first in order to follow and comprehend what I was reading! But once my mind adjusted to the style and scholarly approach, I found brilliance between the pages and gained an much better understanding of God's existence beyond "the Bible says so."

2. Kimberly Eddy said the following at 8:10 AM on Dec 2:

I look at it as an awesome open door for witnessing, particularly talking about the ten commandments and God's standard of righteousness, and how we all fall short...Sometimes it's hard to find an ice breaker, but here the American Humanist Society is giving us one. Thanks guys.

3. rushncap said the following at 8:46 AM on Dec 2:

Wow, Tom. Did you do this on purpose? Are you just teeing this up for me to hit out of the park? It almost feels wrong to...

4. Mike Toreno said the following at 9:27 AM on Dec 2:

"Morality is rooted in God's nature. He did not just make it up or get it from somewhere else. The good is what comports with God's nature; evil is what goes against it. God cannot sin, not because He has superior willpower, but because it would violate His nature and He would then cease to be God."

So what you're saying is that God is bound by the laws of karma, is that it?

"I suggest books such as Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator or The Case for Christ and Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict as good starting points for the historical evidence for Christianity."

Yes, if you want to use a couple of dishonest, poorly written books as a foundation for your faith, be my guest.

5. Chris said the following at 9:49 AM on Dec 2:

It's not the Christmas season until Christians start complaining about something.....;^)

Let the flame wars begin.

6. Tom Neven said the following at 10:02 AM on Dec 2:

rushncap #3

So what's holding you back?

7. Tom Neven said the following at 10:21 AM on Dec 2:

Mike Toreno #4

I'm not following the karma angle. What do you mean?

And instead of telling us the recommended books are dishonest and poorly written, please give specific examples and explain what's dishonest or poorly written about them.

8. D said the following at 10:59 AM on Dec 2:

Tom -

Thanks, I really enjoy your posts. Another book (this one humerous) that I would suggest on this topic is ND Wilson's "Notes from the tilt o whirl". One of the funniest books I've ever read. Here is an excerpt from the book on the problem of 'Goodness without God'.

Start with the paragraph 'Of course, the nonexistence' ...

Here's another one. Start with 'In the halls of graduate school' ...

Mike (#4) - What Tom is saying is that God is not bound by anything outside of his character. There is no ethical standard that exists outside of God that he consults to determine what is right. Additionally, it isn't right 'just because God does it'. That would mean might makes right... which is obvously not true So, the ultimate answer to the Euthrephro dillema is 'Yes'.

Also, if you have a differing opinion on the subject please post it. Otherwise your comments aren't helpful to solve a problem that has been thrown in the face of Christians for centuries.

9. Texas Craig said the following at 11:04 AM on Dec 2:

Although I personally do not agree with them, I do find that there are reasonable arguments for the basis of morality without God. The principle one is that morality actually is simply the development of "rules" for living that will provide a benefit to us. Thus, simplistically, it is part of the survival instinct.

For example, if I do not do violence to you, then maybe you will not do violence to me, and we both can enjoy some level of security. If I do not steal from you, then maybe you will not steal from me, and we both can have our goods without fear of loss by theft. Thus, these are self-serving, and not motivated by some innate moral system put in place by God.

While I disagree with this belief system--because I staunchly am convinced of God's existence--I also see some truth in it because I do believe that God's ways are the best ways for us and do often result in a tangible benefit beyond just "peace with God" or a "clear conscience." So, even in the humanistic view, I see an element of God's truth.

10. Andrea-Elena said the following at 11:06 AM on Dec 2:

Reminds me of the roundtable discussion on PBS after a segment of the profile series on C. S. Lewis and Freud -- the humanists' arguments collapsed b/c they had no firm basis for their claims.

The concept of a God who has always been in existence and who will always be, may be hard for our brains to wrap around; ut He is definitely not a flimsy argument as the humanists' position was (and is) ---> "good is good... just... 'cause." (Yes, that's an oversimplification, but that's what the argument reduces to.)

The humanists kept saying that we humans find to be good that which we label good b/c these good things are good for us.

Urm. 'K.

Give me Jesus, over that. Definitely!

11. Mark W said the following at 2:09 PM on Dec 2:

Good article.

I'd also like to see rushncap "hit it out of the park" and I'm confused as to how Mike Toreno thinks "karma" fits into God's character defining what morality is.

Personally though, I do have to agree with Mike about the books recommended. In my experience, Strobel and McDowell have a lot of holes in their arguments and the integrity of some of their sources is questionable - some interesting info for someone who's already a Christian but it certainly won't convince a skeptic. I think a much better starting point would be Tim Keller's The Reason for God.

12. Nate said the following at 2:38 PM on Dec 2:

Ha, I saw this post and guessed rushncap would be drooling over it.

Ignore him. He's just fishing for an argument.

13. Jethro said the following at 3:24 PM on Dec 2:

Tom,

What you are doing here is preaching to the choir. Christians think this is a knock down argument, and I suppose it is in a way - easily knocked down for the straw man that it is.

Re the books you recommend, here's a simple example: In the Case for Christ, Strobel says that one of the reasons we should believe in Jesus is because the Apostles were willing to sacrifice their lives for him. Ok, I guess we should believe in Allah too, because there are plenty of nice suicide bombers being a witness for him.

14. Louise from Chicago said the following at 3:32 PM on Dec 2:

Maybe rushcap just feels, as I do, that one can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar!

Definitely something to consider when attempting to find coverts...

15. Emily said the following at 4:49 PM on Dec 2:

14 - Louise. I'm confused as to why you say this? Why would you consider this "vinegar"? What is so wrong about an honest use of our intellects?

16. Emily said the following at 4:51 PM on Dec 2:

P.S. I'm impressed with the number of non-christians that regularly read (and comment) on this blog. I must confess that I'm confused as well as pleased.

That being said - it would be good for all of us to remember that the world is watching, and we should conduct ourselves with a sense of Christian love and respect :)

17. Emily said the following at 4:56 PM on Dec 2:

#13, Jethro - The example you sight of Muslims dying for Allah is not comparable to the Apostles. Muslim terrorists kill themselves, as well as *others* as a violent act of terrorism. Yes, they may be willing to die for it, but their actions are evil and suggest that the motivation behind it is false (the Bible tells us that we can tell who is true and who is false by the fruit they bear, aka their actions. A bad action cannot come from a good teaching, just as dirty water can't come from a clean well)

The apostles, however, were murdered. They died at the hands of others. They did not take anyone else's lives in a final act of violence. They gave their lives up for the truths that they had seen with their very own eyes. They were often given chances to recant and therefore save themselves. But they never did. That is what Strobel is citing.

The martyrdom of terrorism is vastly different from the humble, gentle martyrdom of the early Christians.

18. Tom Neven said the following at 5:06 PM on Dec 2:

Jethro #13

Well, if it's an easily knocked-down straw man, why didn't you do so?

But speaking of straw men, you misrepresented Strobel's argument. (It's not original to Strobel, by the way.)

People say Christ was not resurrected. But Strobel's point is that if that were true, the Apostles surely would have known it and known that their preaching was a lie. But while people (including Muslims) have been dying for a lie for millennia, it beggars the imagination to think that they would die for a lie knowing it was a lie. Maybe one person would, but would 11 die for a knowing lie?

That is his point, and it's quite different from your counter-example.

19. rushncap said the following at 5:22 PM on Dec 2:

I was trying to be nice, Tom. But OK, here goes. I don't think I have the time to dissect all your errors, so I'll tackle a few of them.

The usual answer is that the moral impulse evolved in humans over many years. Or they'll say that morality rises out of empathy. But these are little more than dodgy just-so stories
If you choose to dismiss scientific explanations as "just-so stories" that is your prerogative. But you're not going to get far with that. An alternate, scientific explanation of a phenomenon is no more a "just-so story" than the idea that rain comes from condensation of atmospheric water vapor is a "just-so story" to contradict the idea that god is crying.

It's the classic is/ought problem: You can't get an ought from an is. You can't go from "people have a moral impulse" to "you ought to act morally."
Yes you can. The "ought" comes from the impulse of the survival of the species. We *ought* to act in such a way as to maximize the probability of our own survival.

Second, if our moral impulses are just a result of biology, can you even call them moral? They're just behaviors, no different from the biological urge to sneeze or cough.
You can, and we do. And they're different from sneezing or coughing: it's quite obvious that while we can choose to act morally or not to, we cannot choose to sneeze.

But all this misses the larger question: Good as compared to what? What is "good" if there's no standard to measure it against?
Good compared to things which make the survival of our species less likely. It's quite simple: morally speaking whichever action leads to greater chance of homo sapiens surviving is the morally superior one.

Morality is rooted in God's nature. He did not just make it up or get it from somewhere else.
All pure conjecture. An invented character can be endowed with any characteristics the inventor chooses, of course, but that's hardly reflective of reality.

So I would say to the Humanist that not only can you not be good without God--you can have no concept of good without God.
You would. You would be wrong, of course, but you would. And you ARE wrong. There is no actual argument about that point. We could (and do) argue where morals originally came from, which are superior, etc etc etc. But you cannot argue that you NEED god in order to have a concept of good. There are millions of atheists all over the world who have that very concept without deity. This is not an argument, this is a fact. I don't believe in god - at all - and I have a rather clear concept of good. You may not agree with it, you may debate until cows come home, but the bottom line is that the vast majority of my moral code got taught to me before I even realized that religion actually still existed in this world. I did not realize that in this day and age people actually believed in god and practiced it until I was 12. Until then I treated all religion the same way you treat Greek mythology: as a fun by-product of a less advanced time. And yet I still had a moral code, and I did not get it from any gods.

I'll do more later, time permitting.

20. rushncap said the following at 5:32 PM on Dec 2:

Emily -- whether or not they take out others with them, willingness to die for a cause is not an argument for the correctness of that cause. Heaven's Gate cult killed no one, they died for their beliefs. So what? Buddhist monks have as well. Dying for a cause is not a measure of anything other than the ability of human being to convince themselves of things.

Tom -- why do you think the Apostles knew it was a hoax? Even assuming that the majority of the Gospels is historical to some degree, how hard was it to fool them? Jesus predicts that he would come back to life. His body is stolen after the crucifixion. Apostles, already a gullible bunch, as all followers of charismatic cult leaders are (and that's what Jesus was, at the time), believe he went to heaven. As far as trickery goes, this is simple as pie.

By the way, I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily what happened. I'm merely saying there are a ton of scenarios in which Apostles would become convinced of Jesus' divinity without it being actually true. Smarter, more educated people have been lead to believe far crazier things by far less skilled leaders thousands of times over since Jesus' times. Fooling a few Mideast fishermen is not, as it goes, the hardest of feats.

21. Kevin said the following at 6:01 PM on Dec 2:

Can someone be good without God?

Depends on how you define good.

22. Rachael said the following at 6:18 PM on Dec 2:

I've heard of the thought of bringing up guilt...and what's the standard of right/wrong or something....

But...if I were agnostic/an athiest I'm not sure I'd buy that as evidence for there being a greater moral being that implanted that in us. If I were them I might not put much deep thought into how we get our conscience...

But who knows...

23. Mariano said the following at 7:29 PM on Dec 2:

Indeed, the ads are mere propaganda that answers to an argument that no one has made. The claim is not that atheists lack of morals but lack of moral premise, lack of ethos.
It is also a reprinting of their ads from last year: http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2008/11/another-atheist-charity-huge-success.html

Yet again, during a time of the year when people are generally more inclined towards charity—peace on earth and good will towards non-gender specific personages—atheists are busily collecting hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars during a time of recession not in order to help anyone in real material need but in order to purchase bill boards and bus ads whereby they seek to demonstrate, to themselves, just how clever they are—need any more be said?

24. Katie G said the following at 8:29 PM on Dec 2:

I find the explanation "God dictates what is good simply by existing" to be much more fantastical than an evolutionary perspective that is based on evidence and logic.

We know evolution happens. It makes sense to deduce that we will evolve in ways that benefit us, and that actions which facilitate procreation (i.e. goodness) will trump actions that do not. Therefore, goodness is relative, and we are somewhat constrained to the human perspective.

25. Adam said the following at 9:03 PM on Dec 2:

Rushncap,

So, what about the Harris and Klebold at Columbine who believed that they were killing off the weaker children so that the human race could survive? What about Adolf Hitler who believed he was killing off lesser races so that humanity would have a better chance of survival?

What you are presenting, Rushncap, is the death blow to morality, and the death blow to philanthropy. If it is all about survival, then people can even kill other weaker human beings as long as it means their survival.

I also think the issue of human dignity has to be brought into this. Why is it that we can eat a beef cheeseburger, but not a human cheeseburger? Why was it wrong for Mike Tyson to eat some of Evander Holyfield, but it is okay for us to eat a cheeseburger?

God Bless,
Adam

26. Sheridan said the following at 9:07 PM on Dec 2:

rushncap:

No doubt your moral code was largely shaped by your parents...whose moral code was shaped by their parents, and so on and so forth. Trace your geneology far enough back, and you will find some God-fearing ancestor who shaped their morality based on the Bible as the majority of society did back then. That ancestor passed that moral code down your family line, which eventually reached you... (sadly someone dropped God out of the picture on the way.) So although you would rather credit your own superior self for your sense of morality, perhaps you should thank those ancestors of yours.

27. Louise from Chicago said the following at 9:33 PM on Dec 2:

Comment 15, as a secular humanist I found this post to be personally insulting to those with my worldview.

If you want to convert people to your own worldview don't insult those people.

It's that simple, honey!

I do believe in a Higher Power.

I'm just absolutely convinced that someone could be "good" without It!

28. Kathleen said the following at 10:17 PM on Dec 2:

Is the author claiming that the only people who do good or who know right from wrong are believers in the Christian God? That's a fairly bizarre claim that I doubt even the most militant zealot would embrace.

Among the numerous problems with the original post, one of the most obvius is the misunderstanding about how genes work. The author seems to believe that genes determine behavior the same way genes determine hair color or height. It doesn't work that way. Physical traits are very different from chosen actions and behaviors. At most, genes can only carry a predisposition toward behaviors. Genes can't *make* anyone do anything, thus its a rather absurd notion that genes can make a Russian male become or act like a dictator.

Finally, if you're looking for 'just-so' stories, it's hard to beat the one that goes: "Right and wrong are decided by my god -- because my holy book said so."

29. not like rushy said the following at 10:44 PM on Dec 2:

It's quite simple: morally speaking whichever action leads to greater chance of homo sapiens surviving is the morally superior one.

Au contraire rushy, since if survival of the fittest is the only criteria for determining good, all men should attempt to impregnate every single female on the planet, by force if necessary, (rape for people like rushy), since that would ensure continued propagation of the species

Of course theft from those with means and giving to those who "need" would also be acceptable.

You know the old saying,

"From each according to ability, to each according to need."

Stealing isn't wrong in rushys world. When someone has more than he does, he needs it.

Using the above statement by rushy, abortion would always be wrong without exception, because the propagation of the
species would require the protection of unborn life, but rushy doesn't want to preserve life, he just wants to have sex. Murdering 50 million unborn babies is not wrong since it is far to important that young women be able to get a college education, enter the work force, and engage in copious amounts of promiscuous sexual activity, so that males of the species can get their sexual desires fulfilled.

And sodomy is ok, since it really is an advancement of the species, if rushy wants to have sex with a man.

BTW, I checked a website called Intro to Gay and Bisexual Issues, and they said,
"The life expectancy of a gay man is currently under 50,"

Now if survival of the species is really the ultimate good, two men engaging in sodomy is clearly not conducive to prolonging the lives of male members of the species.

Instead, name any perversity you can think of and rushy will call it good, since if he enjoys it, then that must be good for the species.

30. Sheridan said the following at 12:12 AM on Dec 3:

Louise:

I know Tom had no intention of insulting anybody. But neither does he feel the need to honey dress Christianity, thank goodness!!!
Vinegar might sting and taste disgusting, but its good for you. As the grandmothers say, hold your breath, swallow, and it will clean your insides out! :)

By the way, we all know ol' rushncap thinks we conservative, creationist God-followers are a bunch of misguided fools...but as Ernie off sesame street once said:

I don't mind if your feeling that way Bert! You can feel that way if you want to!! Coz your my friend :)
Cue the sentimental music please.

31. Tom Neven said the following at 4:41 AM on Dec 3:

rushncap #19

Well, you never fail to disappoint. But your analogies fail. The testable, repeatable, and falsifiable physics of cloud formation make it science. The untestable, unrepeatable, and unfalsifiable statement that morality is an evolutionary trait make it just what I said it is: speculation. To be unable to see the distinction is ... well, I'll let you draw the conclusion.

To define morality as that which maximizes the possibility of our own survival is too glib by half. There are all sorts of things we judge to be morally wrong that have minimal if any effect on either our own survival or the survival of the species: lying to a friend, cheating, stealing, to name a few. Moreover, many things that would maximize the possibility of our genes' survival are morally horrible: harvesting organs from condemned prisoners without their consent; impregnating every woman possible; killing the weak, the infirm, and the mentally handicapped as drains on species. (Darwin wondered about precisely this in The Descent of Man, and his explanation for why we don't do these things was quite weak.)

And, you say,

There are millions of atheists all over the world who have that very concept without deity. This is not an argument, this is a fact. I don't believe in god - at all - and I have a rather clear concept of good.

But you're answering a question no one asked. (You have a tendency to do this.) I didn't say you don't or can't be good or even have an understanding of good. I said you cannot account for it in a world in which all that exists is matter and energy. And in such a world, Stalin is no different from Mother Teresa, or indeed I can argue that Stalin was moral since he helped the species by eliminating mouths competing for scarce resources while Mother Teresa was evil because she tried to help the survival of the weak and infirm who were a drain on scarce resources. See, in your world, I can say anything I want because there's no objective standard to judge against.

But, in the end, I find having discussions with your reductionist worldview to be ultimately an exercise in futility.

32. Tom Neven said the following at 4:50 AM on Dec 3:

rushncap #20

why do you think the Apostles knew it was a hoax? Even assuming that the majority of the Gospels is historical to some degree, how hard was it to fool them? Jesus predicts that he would come back to life. His body is stolen after the crucifixion. Apostles, already a gullible bunch, as all followers of charismatic cult leaders are (and that's what Jesus was, at the time), believe he went to heaven. As far as trickery goes, this is simple as pie.

You've never actually read that which you critique, have you? The Apostles (as well as hundreds of others) knew that Christ was resurrected, not because someone told them, but because they saw and interacted with the risen Christ--for 40 days.

As for someone's "stealing" the body, that's accounted for, too. The Jewish authorities worried about this and asked the Roman governor to put a Roman guard on the tomb to prevent this. And by "guard" that does not mean a single soldier; it is a platoon-sized unit. (Even today's military uses the term in both the singular and plural sense, depending on context.) To believe that your "gullible fishermen" could overcome a unit of well-armed, battle-hardened soldiers, roll away a huge stone, steal a body and manage to hide it somewhere, then go around telling everyone he was resurrected, and then going on to die horrible deaths by torture knowing that what they preached was a hoax requires more faith than even I have.

But you'll go on believing it, not because of facts or plausibility, but because it simply make you comfortable.

33. Tom Neven said the following at 4:56 AM on Dec 3:

Louise #27

But I don't see where the insult is, even unintentional. I never said you cannot do good things without God; I said you cannot account for why we should be good and how you account for the concept in the first place.

Everyone, atheists and Christians alike, can do good things as well as bad things.

34. Emily said the following at 5:59 AM on Dec 3:

#27, Louise

With all due respect, Louise, I don't understand how this post is offensive, other than the fact that it does not agree with your worldview.

Nowhere in the post does it use derogatory terms or resort to offensive language or tone. It simply states the case that the author believes to be true.

Just because something does not fit with your worldview does not automatically make it offensive. I am an evangelical Christian. An article making a case for atheism, if well written and well-thought out, is not offensive to me. Do I agree with it? No. Do I like it? No. But it's not offensive.

Tom has proven with this very article that he understands your point of view on being "good without God". He just doesn't agree with it, and he uses this article to state his cause for it.

We shouldn't be offended by opposing worldviews. We all need to open to honest discourse and debate. If anything anyone says has been in any way derogatory (note derogatory or insulting, not just disagreement), please, tell us so. Most of here are Christians and I, at least, would like to know when I have offended, so that I may correct it.

Do I wish to convert you to my worldview? Of course I do! I would that the whole world know the surpassing joy of Christ!! However, I would never, ever sacrifice the truth in pursuit of that goal. That would be dishonest and unfair. This is part of that truth. I'm sorry that you do not agree, but I hope our honest, civil and fair discussion will give you some insight as to why we believe this.

35. Susan H. said the following at 7:49 AM on Dec 3:

"Morality is rooted in God's nature" doesn't seem to me to have any more explanatory power for the origins of morality than "morality is rooted in human nature."

36. Katrece said the following at 8:50 AM on Dec 3:

#8: I just read one of the sections from that book and laughed; I'm definitely going to read it.

37. Louise from Chicago said the following at 9:01 AM on Dec 3:

Comment 30, I am not your "friend."

Comment 29 is nasty and unneccessarily insulting to rushcap, making wild assumptions about his/her beliefs that may not even be remotely accurate.

Comment 34, feel free to disagree with me or indeed with anyone else, that is certainly your right.

Comment 34, also Mr. Neven hasn't "proven" anything with his OP or any of his comments, but then again neither has anyone else, including yours truly.

And comment 34, if I were to list all the instances in which someone on here has been derogatory and insulting to the secular humanists my monitor would explode...read comment 29 on this thread, please ma'am...that one is a pretty good example.

Comment 35 is right on I think.

38. rushncap said the following at 9:11 AM on Dec 3:

Adam:

So, what about the Harris and Klebold at Columbine who believed that they were killing off the weaker children so that the human race could survive?
What about them? What about that lady in Texas who drowned her kids because "god told her to"? These people are called "crazy". Klebold's insanity has no more to do with evolution than the guy who shot Reagan has to do with Jodie Foster.

What about Adolf Hitler who believed he was killing off lesser races so that humanity would have a better chance of survival?
You mean the guy who put the Nazi Army slogan of "Gott Mit Uns" on their logo?

If it is all about survival, then people can even kill other weaker human beings as long as it means their survival.
No, that's social Darwinism. It has nothing to do with evolution. Do you see animals killing off other, weaker members of their own species? No, Adam. You simply don't understand evolution. Killing off the weak is not evolutionarily sound. The weak might die, but a species always has to do what it can to ensure every individual survives. Genetic diversity is the single greatest strength of a species.

Not only that, but you have many people who follow the impulse to murder and destroy the species rather than the impulse to preserve the species. Why do you rank the following of one impulse over the following of another impulse?
I already explained. Impulse to destroy the species is counter to evolution. Therefore it is wrong. Simple.

Why is it that we can eat a beef cheeseburger, but not a human cheeseburger?
Cannibalism is an "ick" factor, not a moral factor. And if your choices are to starve to death or commit cannibalism, you're going to take a bite of little Timmy, as would we all.

39. rushncap said the following at 9:22 AM on Dec 3:

Sheridan:

So although you would rather credit your own superior self for your sense of morality, perhaps you should thank those ancestors of yours.
Well, as long as we're tracing, let's keep going, shall we? Back to the pagans, back before Christianity was even invented... Or is that too far? Are we only tracing as far as it's convenient for you?

As America was founded by Christians and was built into a largely Christian society whose motto was 'In God we Trust' it is almost impossible to have ancestors whose moral code was not built on this in some way.
I was not even born in America, to say nothing of my parents. And "In God We Trust" was not the motto of American society. It was adopted as the national motto in 1956. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust#Adoption_as_national_motto

40. Chris said the following at 9:59 AM on Dec 3:

The simple fact of the matter is that every selection of a basis for moral behavior is arbitrary* in that there is no one standard everyone can agree on for judging those moral codes.

To refer to arguments for the divinity of Christ (and thus God as inherently good and thus an absolute yardstick) as "evidence" is not very useful. The Gospels were written well after the time of Christ, permitting oral tradition, biases of the story tellers, and simple mistakes to create significant doubt as to the "proof" of such things as miracles and Jesus as the son of God.** To jump from what Jesus (and the rest of the Bible) taught as a moral basis to belief that it's the right basis because it's from God, requires a leap of faith. By definition, faith is belief of something beyond what we can all see/feel/hear/etc.

You either believe in the miracles/divinity of Jesus or you don't. And that choice of yours is, at its core, just as "arbitrary" to the atheist (from the Christian's point of view) as it is to the Christian (from the atheist's point of view).

(* Note that by arbitrary, I'm referring to the selection of the moral basis, not the moral basis itself. Please don't retort with a "well your moral code says you can do anything you want". That's not what I'm talking about.)

(** Note that I am not disputing the existence of Jesus, which is generally accepted. I'm talking about the issue of did miracles really happen and was Jesus divine.)

41. Adam said the following at 10:16 AM on Dec 3:

Susan H,

"Morality is rooted in God's nature" doesn't seem to me to have any more explanatory power for the origins of morality than "morality is rooted in human nature."

Ethics, by the very nature of the term, must be universal and unchanging. Human nature is not universal, nor is it unchanging. There is only one God who is eternal, and his nature and character are unchanging. That provides us with the foundation for ethics.

God Bless,
Adam

42. rushncap said the following at 10:41 AM on Dec 3:

Adam -- do you have even a smidgen of evidence that "Ethics... must be universal and unchanging"? I would dearly love to see you try to prove that. In fact, I'll tell you what: why don't you provide the readers on thisw board a single example of a never-changing ethical law. I'll bet you good money it'll take me under 60 seconds to come up with a scenario where this ethical law should be violated.

43. Tom Neven said the following at 10:52 AM on Dec 3:

rushncap #38

Do you see animals killing off other, weaker members of their own species? No, Adam. You simply don't understand evolution. Killing off the weak is not evolutionarily sound. The weak might die, but a species always has to do what it can to ensure every individual survives.

Proof positive you have no idea what you're talking about and just making it up as you go.

You've obviously never seen a mother cat force the runt of the litter out to fend for itself and starve. Dogs do it too, as do wolves. It seems to be common behavior among mammals.

So much for that theory.

44. BI said the following at 10:59 AM on Dec 3:

rushncap,38

> It has nothing to do with evolution. Do you see animals killing off other, weaker members of their own species? No, Adam. You simply don't understand evolution. Killing off the weak is not evolutionarily sound. The weak might die, but a species always has to do what it can to ensure every individual survives. Genetic diversity is the single greatest strength of a species. <

Please explain to us does genetic diversity increase or decrease over time and how this is related to evolution? Please support your argument with data and facts.

45. rushncap said the following at 11:25 AM on Dec 3:

You've obviously never seen a mother cat force the runt of the litter out to fend for itself and starve.
No, Tom, those are the exception, rather than the rule. Every species has "anti-social" behavior, for whatever reason. The overwhelming majority of animals, every type of animal, do not do this. In fact for every example of a mother abandoning her litter there is an example of someone else adopting that littler, sometimes even animals of a different species. If you were right, then this behavior of killing the weak would be not just found, but would be the dominant behavioral trait in all mammals. That is simply not so.

So much for your attempt.

46. Adam said the following at 11:50 AM on Dec 3:

Rushncap,

What about them? What about that lady in Texas who drowned her kids because "god told her to"? These people are called "crazy". Klebold's insanity has no more to do with evolution than the guy who shot Reagan has to do with Jodie Foster..

Rushncap, Christians believe that revelation has ceased. No one receives revelation from God according to the Christian. The lady in Texas was inconsistent. My point is that Klebold was operating under principles of natural selection when he did what he did. He was being consistent with his principle of Darwinism; you are not.

No, that's social Darwinism. It has nothing to do with evolution. Do you see animals killing off other, weaker members of their own species? No, Adam. You simply don't understand evolution. Killing off the weak is not evolutionarily sound. The weak might die, but a species always has to do what it can to ensure every individual survives. Genetic diversity is the single greatest strength of a species

Yes, and social Darwinism is the consistent outworking of Darwinism. How many species were there at first? Only one, derived from one single cell organism, according to evolution. Hence, given your position, evolution should have never gotten started in the first place, since both of them should have fought for each other's survival.

Death is the way in which evolution moves forward, is it is the way the weak are eliminated, and the strong survive. That is why Darwinism can never be used for ethics.

I already explained. Impulse to destroy the species is counter to evolution. Therefore it is wrong. Simple.

My point is that you have ranked running with evolution over running counter to evolution, and I would like to know why. Are these just arbitrary standards you are setting up?

I think I should address these next two things together, because this is, I believe, the logical conclusion of atheism:

Cannibalism is an "ick" factor, not a moral factor. And if your choices are to starve to death or commit cannibalism, you're going to take a bite of little Timmy, as would we all.

Yes, the evidence is that you cannot live on the idea that ethics are not universal. Apparently, according to you, even though it might be wrong for someone to murder you today, it could be perfectly fine for someone to murder you tomorrow.

Finally, I think you have proven my point. Cannibalism is not wrong according to you, it is just yuk. It is even morally acceptable to eat your best friend if it means your own survival. There you go; this is the logical conclusion of atheism. Human beings have no more dignity than a cow.

I would again point out, Rushncap, that you don't live like this. You might argue that cannibalism is "yuk," but what about the person who does not think it is "yuk?" What about the guy who sold this cannibal his body so that, after he was dead, the cannibal could eat him? Even the atheists were morally outraged at this, and rightfully so. However, given their worldview, apparently, as you have just admitted to me, there is nothing wrong with this. Thank you for being consistent. Of course, one wonders if you really would allow someone dig up one of your dead family members who you love, and start eating them.

God Bless,
Adam

47. D said the following at 12:11 PM on Dec 3:

rushncap -

Thanks for the time you've put into your responses. Can you answer a question for me? All of your arguments for the existence of good apart from God find their base, as you put it, in 'the survival of the human species'. The question I have is this - Why is it morally good that humans survive? What is it 'morally' better for humans to survive than for them not to survive?

I am not being glib here, this is a serious question. If everything that is was created by chance, and there is not God, then why is it morally superior for humans to survive rather than the north american bison? Than the dodo? Than the panda? Why is it better (morally) for someone to be survive than to not survive?

You seem to be basing your argument for the existence of good/evil on the continuation of the human species, but never answer the question as to why (or how) the continuation of the human species is inherently good in the first place. You can use this argument, but in your own worldview it is a completely arbitrary starting point which has no basis in itself. The point that Tom is making is that, in your worldview, you can create a standard for goodness/badness, but that standard itself is arbitrarily determined.

Hopefully you'll be able to take the time to answer this question. I've never got a real answer to this from people that I've talked with.

God bless.

48. Chris said the following at 12:17 PM on Dec 3:

A thought for those who want to engage in an argument about an evolutionary basis for ethics/morality:

Traits and adaptations do not apply to all species in all situations. To use examples of how animals behave to argue for/against such a position is rather pointless. IIRC, in at least one species of shark, a fetus will eat other fetuses. That trait has no bearing on an argument for evolutionary ethics just as human's (and other species') predisposition to like "cute babies" has no bearing on the morality of the shark's behavior.

If you're going to argue about evolutionary ethics, you need to think about the human species (and maybe some of our primate relatives or other higher order animals that engage in complex social behavior).

Also, bear in mind that a genetic argument does not mean that everyone will behave the same way or have the same predisposition. Being tall and strong lends many advantages, but not everyone is tall and strong. The fact that murder exists does not disprove an evolutionary explanation for ethics nor make the case for a "well anything goes" argument.

49. Benjmain said the following at 1:00 PM on Dec 3:

"not like rushy" (29) - Farmer Tom, we dismiss your comments because of their content, not because of your name.

50. Jim H said the following at 1:09 PM on Dec 3:

Rushncap # 38
"Killing off the weak is not evolutionarily sound. The weak might die, but a species always has to do what it can to ensure every individual survives."

It seems to me that it should be beneficial for a species to kill off the weaker offspring so their inferior genes don't get passed on to the next generation. Without this proactive approach, a weaker member of the species could possibly survive predation from other species and pass along its inferior genes, thus hurting the species.

Tom already mentioned some examples and I saw a special on grizzly bears this past weekend where mama bear killed and ate her crippled cub while nurturing the 2 healthy ones.

51. Sarah P. said the following at 1:56 PM on Dec 3:

Sweet, a nice philosophical debate! I love it! Although I notice that #29 sounds rather like Farmer Tom, and is extremely insulting, especially considering that rushncap has posted on here many times in the past that he has a single girlfriend, whom he certainly seems to believe that he loves.

I think Tom N. has made an excellent post, and I am so glad to see the people who disagree stating their opinions. It is far better to be arguing about these things than to be silently complacent.

It's also interesting to be able to step into rushncap's mind and see some of where he's coming from. Your posts remind me of John Stuart Mill and the concept of utilitarianism -- that people are motivated for their own highest good, which is also by definition the "common good," and that it is possible to know what that is without reference to God.

But I see a disconnect in that argument. What if the highest good for everyone was that you, yourself should die? It seems impossible that ending your own life could be your personal highest good as well, unless there was a happy afterlife to follow. The only rational reason to give something up now is for a later reward. So it seems that much self-sacrifice pre-supposes an afterlife of some sort.

What do you think?

52. Emily said the following at 2:31 PM on Dec 3:

#37, Louise. Comment #29 had not been approved and therefore was not up when I posted that response. I agree, it was not the most loving response, and it was in all honesty poor debate skills.

I apologize. We Christians are not perfect - on the contrary, we're ready to admit that we're actually rather bad ;)

And I don't know why you have "proven" in quotes, because I never, ever once used that word. I never said that he had proven anything. I said he stated his case.

And to be honest, I hope this doesn't come off as rude or arrogant but - this is a Christian website. We don't hold secular humanist views. I don't know why you are looking for them here. I hope you understand what I am trying to say, I am struggling for the words to express what's in my head. ;)

53. Kevin said the following at 2:35 PM on Dec 3:

good (gŏŏd)
adj. bet·ter (bět'ər), best (běst)

1. Being positive or desirable in nature; not bad or poor:
a good experience; good news from the hospital.

So according to definition (from the American Heritage Dictionary), deciding if something is good depends on the desire of the person. If someone does something that is desirable to someone, then it is good to that person. So it seems good is relative and not necessarily absolute.

So, if a non-theist does something that is desirable to someone, it is good to that someone. And since they did it without God, they are good without God.

So, ultimately, deciding if someone can be good without God depends on how you define good. Since good is defined by desires, and since everyone has different desires, everyone has different ideas of what good is. By definition, there is no absolute good. The only way good could be absolute is if every being in the universe had the same exact desires.........by definition.

54. Louise from Chicago said the following at 3:40 PM on Dec 3:

Comment 52, your comment 34 uses the word "proven."

Go back and read it please, ma'am.

Maybe the moderators edited your comment though; it is possible.

Comment 29 is just ONE example of rude comments on this blog directed at those of us with a secular worldview.

And...we secular humanists aren't going away, and I assure everyone one here and we are as good as you are, and that one does not have to hold a biblical worldview in order to make a positive contribution to the Earth.

55. rushncap said the following at 3:46 PM on Dec 3:

BI - #44:
Please explain to us does genetic diversity increase or decrease over time and how this is related to evolution?
Mixing genes of 2 individuals who have distinct genetic codes produces a third individual with a genetic code which is distinct from those of the other 2. It's not that hard. Think of it like mixing colors: if you mix blue and yellow you get green. Green is neither all blue nor all yellow. Etc.

Adam -- #46:

Rushncap, Christians believe that revelation has ceased.
No, SOME Christians believe that. Don't for one instant delude yourself with the grandeur that your theology is the same as that of the other billion + Christians on this planet.

My point is that Klebold was operating under principles of natural selection when he did what he did.
I understand your point. It's simply wrong. Social Darwinism has nothing to do with evolution. No matter how often you click your heels together that will not come true. Klebold was operating under principles of insanity, that is all.

How many species were there at first? Only one, derived from one single cell organism, according to evolution. Hence, given your position, evolution should have never gotten started in the first place, since both of them should have fought for each other's survival.
I'm sorry, Adam, this makes no sense. I have no idea what you're trying to prove, and you have no idea how to prove whatever you're trying to.

Death is the way in which evolution moves forward, is it is the way the weak are eliminated, and the strong survive.
Not at all. "Strong" and "weak" are irrelevant to evolution. "Fit" and "unfit" are the key. Fitness and strength rarely coincide.

My point is that you have ranked running with evolution over running counter to evolution, and I would like to know why. Are these just arbitrary standards you are setting up?
No, these are the standards from which our morality is derived, that is all. The question was asked where non-theistic morality comes from. I answered it.

Secondly, you have already given us a universal law by which you have been working: evolution. Can you find me an instance of where this "law" can be violated? So, which do you want to give up? The idea that ethics are not universal, or the idea that evolution is a universal standard of ethics?
Depends on how one defines "ethics". No, the underlying evolutionary commandment cannot be violated by ethics simply because all ethics arise from it. However, everything else is a superstructure, and, therefore, changes depending on circumstances.

Cannibalism is not wrong according to you, it is just yuk. It is even morally acceptable to eat your best friend if it means your own survival.
Yes. And you'd do it too. You talk a big game, but if you were a member of that rugby team in the Andes you too would have eaten your friends. Your self-grandiosity derives from the fact that you get to sit in a comfy chair and eat prepared food.

I would again point out, Rushncap, that you don't live like this.
I would point out that you have no idea how I live. However, since you insist on playing the expert on things you don't have even a rudimentary understanding of, this is par for the course.

What about the guy who sold this cannibal his body so that, after he was dead, the cannibal could eat him? Even the atheists were morally outraged at this, and rightfully so.
Speak for yourself. I would not be outraged. Disgusted - yes. Outraged... why?

Adam - let's make a deal. Why don't you stick to speaking for yourself, and let me do the same? As amusing as it is to see you style yourself an expert on my life, it's detracting from your already flimsy understanding and arguments. If I think something, I will tell you. I'm sure we all can be spared your wild guesses about me and my understanding. And if you're trying to use that as a technique to distract everyone from the fact that you really don't have any grasp on what you're arguing for, I'm pretty sure it's not working.

56. Tom Neven said the following at 3:47 PM on Dec 3:

rushncap #45

No, Tom, those are the exception, rather than the rule. Every species has "anti-social" behavior, for whatever reason. The overwhelming majority of animals, every type of animal, do not do this. In fact for every example of a mother abandoning her litter there is an example of someone else adopting that littler, sometimes even animals of a different species.

First, please cite some evidence for this. You're great at making bold assertions of fact that are remarkably thin on actual supportable evidence.

Second, you said we don't see animals killing off the weak of their own species. I provided counterexamples. (More, by the way: birds routinely force a weak chick out of the nest.) You then say (without supporting evidence) that, well, those are exceptions and for every (your word) runt kicked out of the litter or bird forced out of the next there's another adopted, sometimes by another species. Wow. Every one? Proof, please.

And it's not always the weak, by the way. Some sharks eat their young. Female preying mantises and black widow spiders kill the males who have just mated with them.

Yet you quite confidently said that we never see animals killing their own because that would violate the "laws" of evolution.

I linked to that Monty Python skit for a reason. You simply gainsay anything that someone says, always repeating the same thing, changing only when it becomes tactically necessary or convenient.

It's actually quite comical, although not as funny as Monty Python.

57. rushncap said the following at 4:20 PM on Dec 3:

D (#47) - thank you for your questions.

Why is it morally good that humans survive? What is it 'morally' better for humans to survive than for them not to survive?
The answer is not fully intuitive. The question, without meaning to be, assumes something that cannot be assumed. You assume that "morality" somehow supersedes evolution, has its own realm, so to speak. It does not. What we call "morality" IS the drive to survive. It's not that morality's goal can be something other than the survival of the species. It's that the survival of the species, in a species with a written language, came to have the name "morality". In "lower" animals morality exists as well, we simply don't call it that. Does this make sense? I may not have explained it as well as I could.

You seem to be basing your argument for the existence of good/evil on the continuation of the human species, but never answer the question as to why (or how) the continuation of the human species is inherently good in the first place.
Again, it's the inverse. You assume that there is a universal standard of "good" to which I'm comparing survival of our species. In reality anything we call "good" we perceive to further our survival. There is no more universal standard, just the narrow, species-centric one forced upon us by evolution. The bison, the wolves, the ring worms all have similar "morality" for their own species, even if we, or they, don't call it that. And their morality is no more universally right than ours.

The point that Tom is making is that, in your worldview, you can create a standard for goodness/badness, but that standard itself is arbitrarily determined.
I sure can, but human (and other species') nature is such that if this standard does not comport with the evolutionary one, sooner or later it will be rejected by the society.

So let me ask you a question: if morality comes from god, why does it keep changing? Specifically, why are things that Christian societies of a thousand years ago found to be moral are no longer viewed as such in modern Christian societies? There are examples a-plenty, such as slavery, capital punishment for relatively minor crimes (like adultery, theft, prostitution, blasphemy), divorce, conversion at gun/knife/spearpoint, etc.

JimH - (#50)
It seems to me that it should be beneficial for a species to kill off the weaker offspring so their inferior genes don't get passed on to the next generation. Without this proactive approach, a weaker member of the species could possibly survive predation from other species and pass along its inferior genes, thus hurting the species.
Ah, common misconception. Let me ask you: who, exactly determined what an "inferior" gene is, and how does one go about determining relative inferiority of these genes? Who is "superior": a strong man or a weak one with an immunity to a disease? Passing down ALL genes is the optimal thing for evolution, because you never know what will be needed when and why. Only when selection pressure is applied on a population do less fit individuals die out. And whether the selection pressure is a tiger or an epidemic will determine who is more fit.

58. rushncap said the following at 4:53 PM on Dec 3:

First, please cite some evidence for this.
Of what? This? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17168222/ Wow, all it took was 15 sec on Google.

Wow. Every one? Proof, please.
THIS is what you're carping about? OK, not every one. Many. Often. Whatever. As if your argument makes any more sense if the percentage is 50 rather than 100.

And it's not always the weak, by the way. Some sharks eat their young. Female preying mantises and black widow spiders kill the males who have just mated with them.
Sure. Again, maybe I was not clear enough: *exceptions*, not rules. We know this about praying mantises precisely because it's so unusual. If your theory was correct, however, we would see this in every species, all the time. Some dogs kill their puppies. So do some humans with their children. The vast majority do not.

Yet you quite confidently said that we never see animals killing their own because that would violate the "laws" of evolution.
Fine, since semantics is taking the place of an actual argument. We *rarely* see animals kill their own species, but we routinely see in every species cooperative behavior. Any more semantic arguments I need to re-digest?

59. Adam said the following at 5:07 PM on Dec 3:

Rushncap,

No, SOME Christians believe that. Don't for one instant delude yourself with the grandeur that your theology is the same as that of the other billion + Christians on this planet.

My point was that the ones who don't believe revelation has ceased are inconsistent. The woman in Texas was not acting inconsistently with her worldview, but I have not been able to find any inconsistencies in the worldview of Harris and Klebold between their evolutionary theory and what they did at Columbine.

I understand your point. It's simply wrong. Social Darwinism has nothing to do with evolution. No matter how often you click your heels together that will not come true. Klebold was operating under principles of insanity, that is all.

Actually, that is somewhat dishonest as I argued from the point of natural selection that it is the logical conclusion of Darwinism. Again, if the less fit in the human race are preventing the human race from surviving, it is perfectly logical, given a Darwinian worldview, to kill them off, and I have found no logical inconsistency in this system.

I'm sorry, Adam, this makes no sense. I have no idea what you're trying to prove, and you have no idea how to prove whatever you're trying to.

Simple. Keep in mind that Darwinism argues that all life came from one place. If there is one species, then natural selection cannot occur, period, unless you allow for species to take the lives of the "less fit" members of the species.

Not at all. "Strong" and "weak" are irrelevant to evolution. "Fit" and "unfit" are the key. Fitness and strength rarely coincide.

Okay, then is it morally acceptable to kill those who are less fit among us?

No, these are the standards from which our morality is derived, that is all. The question was asked where non-theistic morality comes from. I answered it.

However, you have not shown the *universal* nature of it. That is the problem.

Also, I would point out that you haven't answered the teleology problem either. If you are arguing that what is right is what moves evolution forward, the natural question is, "How do you know what could move evolution forward?" You would have to be omniscient to answer that question, because something may initially have a good effect on someone, but might end up, in the end, harming them.

And, BTW, with the consistency of your position with Cannibalism, I certainly would not go saying that you have found any universal standard of morality.

Depends on how one defines "ethics". No, the underlying evolutionary commandment cannot be violated by ethics simply because all ethics arise from it. However, everything else is a superstructure, and, therefore, changes depending on circumstances.

And, of course, what I am arguing is, because of your finitude, you cannot even know that this is universal, simply because you cannot get from a finite mind to universal standards. If it is moral to violate this principle of evolution on the backside of the fourth moon of Jupiter, and you haven't checked the backside the fourth moon of Jupiter, you cannot know that this alleged universal "commandment" is really a law at all. In essence, your entire foundation for ethics is entirely arbitrary.

Yes. And you'd do it too. You talk a big game, but if you were a member of that rugby team in the Andes you too would have eaten your friends. Your self-grandiosity derives from the fact that you get to sit in a comfy chair and eat prepared food.

I am not talking about what I would do, as I don't know what I would do. I pray that I would be able to fight temptation, but that is not what I am talking about; I am talking about what is right and wrong that is independent of anything I would do or have done, something that atheists cannot account for. I can account for why it is wrong to eat someone else simply for survival, you cannot.

I would point out that you have no idea how I live. However, since you insist on playing the expert on things you don't have even a rudimentary understanding of, this is par for the course.

Well, are you then saying that you would allow someone else to dig up your loved one who has died, and eat their flesh? If you really lived consistently with your atheism, you would have no problems with that.

Speak for yourself. I would not be outraged. Disgusted - yes. Outraged... why?

Then, all I can say Rushncap is, if you live consistently with this system, you are one of the most immoral people I have ever run into. I pray that, for your own sake, you will say that I am right that you would believe that it would be wrong for someone to dig up my best friend who just died last February, and start eating her. I can only wonder what you would think of someone who would dig up your corpse and start eating you after you were dead! Again, if you say these things are right, then you are a very, very immoral person.

BTW, as far as a "flimsy" understanding of the arguments, I find it funny that a person who has a system that has to say that cannibalism is moral is in a position to say I have a flimsy understanding of the arguments! It is more like, you have a very selfish and self-centered worldview that can be used to justify Columbine, Nazi Germany, and yes, even the cannibal who ate this man who sold him his body. That is not an ethical system; it is what ethical systems are designed to prevent.

BTW, philosophers recognize that the problems I am raising are major league problems for "science" based ethical systems. The fact that you have ignored problems like teleology, universality, and the classic philosophical problems with Darwinian evolution are masking the fact that, in reality, it is you who have never thought through your worldview.

God Bless,
Adam

60. Sheridan said the following at 5:34 PM on Dec 3:

Ok Louise, we get the point, you are insulted by comment #29.

I don't really mind if rushncap and others want to argue and debate till the cows come home, even though its slightly amusing for them to come on a Christian site and Darwin-bash people(I mean whose trying to convert who here?)...but can we all have a good debate without some silly person crying boohoo every five seconds??

I guess I should be glad that athiests and agnostics are reading boundless, but I am beginning to wonder why they bother. Seriously...what are you hoping to achieve from all this arguing and whinging? You come to a Christian site, and then argue that we should throw our Christian beliefs out the window because they don't agree with yours!!
Whose really insulting who here????

61. Chris said the following at 5:51 PM on Dec 3:

Adam writes (#46):

Death is the way in which evolution moves forward, is it is the way the weak are eliminated, and the strong survive. That is why Darwinism can never be used for ethics.

I would suggest that you read some material that explains how the theory of evolution works. It's much more complicated (and, in a way, much simpler) than what you are arguing.

62. Chris said the following at 5:54 PM on Dec 3:

Adam writes (#46):

And I would also suggest that you read some things on what atheism is (and isn't). You're making a straw man argument and arguing with non sequiturs.

63. farmer Tom said the following at 6:44 PM on Dec 3:

I see rushcap is showing his superior intelligence again.
Interesting that each time morality comes up in discussion here rushcap is quick to jump in and assert his evolving morality. I wonder, does this morality ever evolve toward the laws of nature and Nature's God or is it only a spiral toward total depravity.

rushcap is their any action which is always morally wrong?

say sending 6 million Jews to the gas chamber or committing adultery or flying an airplane into the towers

What moral act is always absolutely wrong for all of mankind all the time?

And on what basis did you determine that this particular act is always wrong?

My guess is you will refuse to answer those questions. And if you do attempt to answer them, you will obfuscate, dither, give vague generalities or most likely appeal to some form of evolutionary theory, while ignoring the fact the Darwin's Book on evolution, which is the holy grail of evolutionary thought, is entitled,

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

Say rushcap, are you from one of the favored races, or should your type be eliminated to help in the "survival of the fittest"?

64. anna said the following at 8:39 PM on Dec 3:

@ Tom #31, NLR #29

"...lying to a friend, cheating, stealing, to name a few. Moreover, many things that would maximize the possibility of our genes' survival are morally horrible: ...impregnating every woman possible;

There's some validity to that point though. The behavioral things that we're encouraged to do or not do are a reflection on our desire to form societies, which is a tradeoff of our own individual needs for the protection from the group against outsiders. Being lied to makes us antagonistic towards our neighbors, and less likely to willingly share resources with them when times are rough.

We're probably hard-wired to be social beings, because we lack natural defenses like claws or fangs. We need each other to survive.

This relates to the rape example, which doesn't work as a method to ensure genetic survival: it ignores that humans have a social bond to mates, and that women also have a desire to ensure their genes are paired to the fittest mate. Fitness: a comparison of one male against other males.

A male may wish to impregnate many females, but has to compete against other males to do so: either directly against another males so he will allow access to the female, or indirectly so the female permits access to herself.

His ability to rape her doesn't make him fittest by her choice.

Rape as a method to guarantee species survival is questionable because human women and men have sex drives. Given the space and access, they have willing intercourse.

Also, the violence that can accompany rape can cause fertility-damaging injuries.

Unless the individual male can secure and restrain access to female, there's no guarantee that the rape by X will father a child, instead of the rape by Y or Z.

And the woman affects the survival of the child, during pregnancy and immediately afterwards. Neglect by an injured or stressed mother can have long term effects on the child that limits his ability to mate.

The social bonds formed when the male mates means he may be less likely to share the female. If X is the mate, and Y is the rapist who fathers a child, X often withdraws protection from the mother and the child, limiting her defenses and resources.

If X is vastly different from Y, like from another tribe, then there is an increased chance that not only X, but the X's society will ostracize the child and the mother. This makes it harder for the mother to have her genes advance, and it limits the ability for the child to make it to sexual maturity himself.

Genetic survival means a baby is born AND it reaches sexual maturity. It doesn't have to live to old age to be successful.

The Tutsi-Hutu and Serbian-Bosnian children borne from war rape give a good example. Many of the S-B children were ostracized by the families, or were abandoned at infancy. The T-H children were kept by the mothers, who were themselves ostracized, and sent from their homes.

Now we have hospitals, adoptive centers, laws against infanticide, and at least rudimentary efforts to provide for those who cannot do so for themselves. But imagine a similar scenario without the social infrastructure: these children might well have been left to die.

There are non-religious questions as to why we have rape. But there is an argument that the social feelings we have towards it are a reflection of how it may not be in our best biological interest.

I belabor this because sometimes people use the idea that rape is effective in advancing the species as an explanation as to why it it's a natural urge and it shouldn't be as abhorrent as we make it.

I'd like people to be able to understand why the concept that rape makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint needs to be carefully thought through before it's deployed, not just tossed into the argument as game-set-match.

65. Adam said the following at 8:43 AM on Dec 4:

I think another thing worth pointing out is, if you are going to say that it is wrong to kill within the species, we have to ask the simple question of "What is a species?" We just don't know. That is one of the reasons why, as David Berlinski likes to say, Darwinian theory is so unclear so as to be looking into a room full of smoke. Hence, who is part of your species and who is not is anyone's guess, as is those who are fit among you, and those who are not fit among you.

Again, I have to ask why anyone would want their ethical system based in this philosophy,

God Bless,
Adam

66. Louise from Chicago said the following at 9:53 AM on Dec 4:

Comment 60, I am not a "silly person" and I am not "crying boo-hoo."

And what is "whringing?"

And where did I say people should throw "their Christian beliefs out the window?"

Do you know how to read?

67. Adam said the following at 10:16 AM on Dec 4:

Chris,

And I would also suggest that you read some things on what atheism is (and isn't). You're making a straw man argument and arguing with non sequiturs.

Chris, first of all, just because Atheists think they can escape this problem does not mean they can. I would suggest that you read some literature like David Berlinski's The Devil's Delusion, Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions to see some of the things I am saying coming out of the mouth of a secular Jew! For example:

I am under most circumstances the last person on earth to think of Richard Dawkins a Pollyanna, but in this case I defer to his description. Shy should people remain good when unobserved and unpoliced by a God? Do people remain good when unpoliced by the police? If Dawkins believes that they do, he must explain the existence he must explain the existence of the criminal law, and if he believes that they do not, then he must explain why moral enforcement is not needed at the place where law enforcement ends.

To scientific atheists, the ancient idea that homo homini lupus-man is a wolf to man-leaves them shaking their heads in poodle like perplexity [Berlinski, David. The Devil's Delusion. Basic Books. New York, NY. 2009 p.34].

Nothing in moral philosophy has a familiar face. It is the position expounded both by freshmen in philosophy classes and all the enemies of humanity. We do not believe in any absolute truths, my students have always told me, although truths about grading seem a remarkable curious exception. Who could fail to hear the inner voice connecting this form of moral relativism to Himmler's? He, too, was a great believer in nothing, and nothing is just what so many scientific atheists believe as well. What else is left? [ibid. p.39].

I know that internet atheists have tried reworking evolution, and trying to make it fit ideas of morality, universality, meaning, etc. Most professional philosophers [believers and unbelievers] know this too, and think that their attempts are pathetic. The issue is not whether these reworkings are out there, but whether they can escape the problems that have so plagued secularism from the very beginning. How can you get universal morality from a finite mind that is not universal?

So, yes, I realize people have tried, but I believe their attempts have failed and failed miserably. If you think they have not, then please tell me why so we can discuss it, rather then worrying about whether either side has the exact same reading list.

God Bless,
Adam

68. Jim H said the following at 10:22 AM on Dec 4:

Rushncap,
It is NOT beneficial for genes from all members of a species to be passed down, especially in the case of visually obvious flaws such as physical deformities. For example, it would never be the case that a deformed foot trait, which reduces run speed and ability to kill prey, would some day and in some environmental circumstance be beneficial to the gene pool. In many cases of inter-species killing, it is the clearly weak/deformed that are killed, as in the mama bear example I gave.

BTW, one other example of pervasive interspecies killing among adults members is chimpanzee wars. This is well documented and is not a rare behavior.

69. Chris said the following at 11:10 AM on Dec 4:

Adam writes (#59):

Are you assuming a the less fit to be a food source? If so, photosynthesis (and chemical synthesis such as that seen at heat plumes of the bottom of the ocean) permit a species to grow without the need for taking the lives of the less fit members.

If you're talking about another restriction (raw materials, space, etc.) then natural selection can work perfectly if some members of the species develop an ability to utilize a heretofore unusable resource.

70. rushncap said the following at 11:48 AM on Dec 4:

JimH:

It is NOT beneficial for genes from all members of a species to be passed down, especially in the case of visually obvious flaws such as physical deformities.
It most certainly is. If (and this is a big if) you can pass down ALL genes, you must, because who knows what will come in handy when? What if the gene that causes deformity also has the side effect of allowing the person with that gene to survive lower oxygen content? What happens if 500 years hence a natural catastrophe significantly reduces the oxygen content of our planet? The point is: you don't know, nor does anyone else. If there is no selection pressure whatsoever, evolution mandates that the entire genome must be passed down. Once selective pressure is applied on a population, some of the less fit genes will be weeded out naturally. But no one can predict what selective pressures the future will bring.

For example, it would never be the case that a deformed foot trait, which reduces run speed and ability to kill prey, would some day and in some environmental circumstance be beneficial to the gene pool.
Oh? And what if there's significant flooding, and the "deformed foot" suddenly turns out to be very useful as a proto-flipper? Why claim omniscience? Fact is, you don't know, and neither does anyone else.

In many cases of inter-species killing, it is the clearly weak/deformed that are killed, as in the mama bear example I gave.
Sure. And that naturally weeds out the less fit, as far as that particular selective pressure is concerned. But why should we randomly guess what the next pressure is going to look like, and why should be hasten it? What benefit is served by killing off the deformed if their existence does not hinder the existence of the non-deformed?

BTW, one other example of pervasive interspecies killing among adults members is chimpanzee wars. This is well documented and is not a rare behavior.
I assume you meant "intra-species", but I get your point. Sure. Chimps, which are very close to humans in every way, have societies. Just like humans. In such a case their "species-centric" ethos morphs into "society-centric" one. They are competing for limited resources within their own species, and thus need to pick allegiances within it. However, they would not have these wars if resources were unlimited. Also, I guarantee you that chimps would help their own, regardless of which chimp society they're from, against an external predator. You would only negate my point about evolutionary origin of ethics if you could find a species (A) where members of A routinely join forces with another species (B) to help B kill members of A. Or you would have to find an example of a species where members routinely kill each other even when resources available to them are unlimited (or much greater than necessary for survival, at the very least).

71. Sarah P. said the following at 12:15 PM on Dec 4:

If there is no God, humans exist because of some other reason. If there is no God, evolution or some other form of spontaneous generation has to occur.

But the fact is that there is no evidence that one species can change into another. Inside a species, you can breed characteristics, but dogs don't change into cats. And even inside a species, the changes result from losses in genetic data. Poodles, for example, are often fretful and frail, because they've had lots of genetic diversity bred out. Mutts are the sturdiest.

So, if there isn't evidence on earth for human development without God, perhaps aliens seeded the planet. But then, where did aliens come from?

Conclusion: There is some kind of God.

---

In reference to the rushncap argument, obviously, you can derive a morality from any worldview. You can define "good" as "what God wills" or as "whatever advances my species."

What you can't explain is why there is an idea of "good" at all. I challenge you to explain that without reference to God. :)

72. Mike Toreno said the following at 12:26 PM on Dec 4:

Rushncap has the evolution-morality relation sort of garbled. Natural selection works on individuals, not species, and the "goal" is not for the species to survive, it is for the individual to survive. Morality seems to me to derive in large part from the need to have a cohesive social structure. The survival rate of individual humans is a lot greater if they are members of a society working together and protecting one another, and the rules of morality to which people adhere tend to maintain a social structure in which people don't need to be looking over their shoulders and fending off threats from others all the time. Violation of rules of morality tends to deprive one of the trust, and therefore the help, of the other members of the society.

The analysis given by Anna at 64 is pretty much spot on.

Evolution of morality and its origin in social structure is something that can be observed. The idea that God is necessary for morality is not even real; it's nothing but a verbal construct. The statement that God's nature defines what is good and what is evil doesn't even mean anything. Saying something is good or evil doesn't even tell us anything about the act; it only tells how we feel about it. Saying "John committed a good act" tells us nothing; saying "John rescued a kitten off the street" tells us something real about the act.

That's why the argument that God's nature will not permit him to do evil just means that God is bound to the laws of karma. Karma relates to the nature of acts, so that good will be returned for good and evil for evil. Karma evidently binds God more tightly than it does humans, because God is supposedly not able to do evil, while humans are able to do evil but will reap the karmic consequences.

Acts are good or evil based on their own nature, not on the existence of some outside entity giving a classification to the acts. Don't tell me whether an act is good or evil, just tell me what the act is.

McDowell's book is dishonest and poorly written because it is nothing but a jumble of arguments that basically consist of nothing but the argument from ignorance and from begging the question. Strobel's books is dishonest because it consists of interviews with a bunch of scientists of dubious credentials picked to give the answers Strobel wanted them to give, and because it contains numerous false statements. It is poorly written because it is padded and plodding, consisting of statements such as "We had just settled into our chairs when I unleashed my first question."

73. Adam said the following at 12:48 PM on Dec 4:

Chris,

Chris, we are talking about philanthropy. Do plants help each other when they start dying? No, in fact, if you plant two plants next to each other, they will compete for sunlight, nutrients, and other things necessary for photosynthesis to take place. If what you are saying is correct, you would have to say, "That's immoral." However, I don't see anyone even beginning to make that argument.

As one person has rightly said, "There is no free lunch." Even if food is processed and made within the cell itself, it still requires external resources to make it, and cells are going to compete for those external resources. According to you, that should be wrong.

God Bless,
Adam

74. BI said the following at 1:45 PM on Dec 4:

Mike Toreno, 72

Since, you use the word Karma, you should know that in Hinduism unlike Christianity God encompasses both good and evil as there is no devil.

Also, certainly when you were a child your parents treated you well and lovingly at times, and they punished you at other times. This is true due to their character and not an intellectual idea that you just made up. The same is with God and his holy character.

75. twilley said the following at 1:52 PM on Dec 4:

Honestly, I really don't understand why this debate interests people so much. Recently in Cincinnati, a billboard by an atheist group was taken down after threats made to the owner of the property on which the billboard stood.

I mean... who cares if these people want to put up billboards? How does that even matter to me as a Christian? My job is to love and help and witness to the people in my life, not to bother with things like this.

And why do people feel the need to prove that they can out-logic the other ones on this issue? Maybe it's because this is the one issue you're never going to have a final answer on 'til you die. Endless source of argument to be had.

And comment #29, your statistic on the life span of gay men is incorrect, and promotes a stereotype.

76. Jethro said the following at 2:08 PM on Dec 4:

Farmer Tom (#63),

If you took half a second to look into things you would know that 'races' in the title of Darwin's work refers to varieties of species, not intra-human ethnic designations. In fact, Darwin was avowedly anti-slavery. Something one cannot say for his Christian contemporaries.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your straw man.

77. Chris said the following at 3:10 PM on Dec 4:

Sarah P. writes (#71):

But the fact is that there is no evidence that one species can change into another. Inside a species, you can breed characteristics, but dogs don't change into cats.

Evolutionary theory does not predict that dogs will change into cats. Your argument is a non sequitur.

I highly recommend "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne. Coyne does a very good job explaining what evolutionary theory is, how it works, how it has predictive powers (that have actually worked), and what it is not. It also presents evidence for species evolving over time. The section on biogeography is particularly interesting.

You can also check out the Becoming Human series that NOVA did that looks at the development of the human species. It's very fascinating.

And even inside a species, the changes result from losses in genetic data. Poodles, for example, are often fretful and frail, because they've had lots of genetic diversity bred out. Mutts are the sturdiest.

The specialization of dogs is an excellent example of evolution in action as animals with certain traits are "selected", as it were. If we look at poodles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poodle), we see that they have better traits for what humans want compared to mutts.

If, for some reason, there was a natural scenario where poodle qualities lent an advantage, we would see poodles evolve over time.

Of course, in nature, poodleness is not very advantageous, so we don't see them running in packs in the wild. (That would be funny, though.)

Also, evolutionary theory explains why we have so much "junk", as it were, in our DNA.

So, if there isn't evidence on earth for human development without God, perhaps aliens seeded the planet. But then, where did aliens come from?

Conclusion: There is some kind of God.

And we're back to the prime mover problem. You're assuming an untestable position and trying to use that to argue against evolutionary theory which is testable.

78. Al said the following at 5:44 PM on Dec 4:

Anna does make good arguments that rape is not always a good reproductive tactic. But what makes it reprehensible? What gives us the right or authority to tell others that they shouldn't attempt rape, other than that it is probably an unwise attempt to propogate their genes?

Obviously most of us prefer that rape not occur. But if our preferences are just societal, cultural, and genetic, what makes that sort of preference any different than other preferences, like say, for a salad over caramel flan (preferences which may also be formed by genetics and cultural exposure)? Why does it deserve it's own category, especially when many are arguing that morality is relative and shifts with culture as much as our clothing styles do? Why *should* anyone heed societal mores so long as he is smart, able, (and twisted) enough to get away with enacting his own will?

We are horrified by rape not because it is ineffective at propigating genes, but because it shouldn't be done. We would be even *more* horrified if certain individuals were somehow able to get away with it and make it an effective method of reproduction by their cunning and sociopathy.

It seems that we are to have intellectual integrity, we should either be impassive about such heinous acts such as rape-- or admit to ourselves that our most cherished values and strongest reactions are rather silly and arbitrary-- and we are not the thoughtful, rational creatures we thought ourselves to be.

79. Chris said the following at 7:43 PM on Dec 4:

rushncap writes (#70):

I assume you meant "intra-species", but I get your point. Sure. Chimps, which are very close to humans in every way, have societies. Just like humans. In such a case their "species-centric" ethos morphs into "society-centric" one. They are competing for limited resources within their own species, and thus need to pick allegiances within it. However, they would not have these wars if resources were unlimited. Also, I guarantee you that chimps would help their own, regardless of which chimp society they're from, against an external predator.

No, I think interspecies was the correct term since both man and chimps display this behavior.

Now, a chimp helping another chimp from another family group against an external predator is rather contrived. Under what set of circumstances would they be together like this? Any chimp that wanders into an "enemy" camp is going to be beaten to death; I doubt the others would help if they saw a lion chomping on it.

Chimp behavior, however, does bring up an interesting point that I'd like to see anti-evolution proponents address. Chimps behavior is almost human behavior when it comes to combat. They walk single file and quietly....like no radio contact. Males who may normally fight with each other groom each other before one of these patrols....building comaraderie. They tend not to attack an outsider unless they have about a 3:1 force ratio....a number that humans also like. When they attack another male, a few will hold him down while others take turns jumping on him....much like gang fighting. And they'll often rip off genitals...much like humans do to humiliate and send a message.

So here's the question. Isn't it interesting that we share very similar behaviors with an animal with which we share, what, 96+%, of our DNA? Do chimps act like humans....do humans act like chimps.....or do we act like a common, unknown ancestor that we share?

This is a case where evolutionary theory can do a pretty good job explaining why we see such similar behavior....or one can go for the fantastical explanation of a man eating an apple suddenly made not only man, but chimps, act this way.

80. Chris said the following at 9:22 PM on Dec 4:

Adam writes (#73):

Please do not put words into my mouth. I did not understand where you were coming from and posited an explanation/response to what I *thought* you were arguing. That's why I asked at the beginning.

81. Sarah P. said the following at 9:49 PM on Dec 4:

Chris (#77): Evolutionary theory does not predict that dogs will change into cats. Your argument is a non sequitur.

Well, no. It predicts that primordial slime changed into everything. So it is no more dramatic to say that dogs might as well change into cats, or into kangaroos.

Dog specialization is a kind of evolution -- microevolution. I don't argue with that. It exists. Within species, you select for various genes.

What I'm saying is that you don't ever see new genes added when creatures breed. Mutations are typically a lack of some important piece of genetic information, not the addition of anything new. Some humans consider poodles valuable for some odd reason, but those critters have been so overbred that they are no longer excessively healthy. It's the same reason that humans start behaving and looking weird when they marry people who are too closely related to them.

Between chimps and humans, that seems to be a crucial 4% of missing DNA.

82. Adam said the following at 9:50 PM on Dec 4:

Chris,

I would say that evolutionary theory can't explain sight at all. I would say that Richard Taylor's argument shows that.

For those who have never read Taylor, Taylor begins his discussion with a scenario. Let us say that you are taking a train trip from London to Wales, and during the trip, your train passes by a hill, and on that hill are rocks that are arranged in a formation so as to appear to convey the message, "The British Railway Welcomes you to Wales." Now, there are one of two possible rational interpretations of this data:

1. Someone went up on the hill, and arranged the rocks in such a formation that they spell out the letters, and thus convey the message, "The British Railway Welcomes you to Wales."

2. The rock formation was formed naturally, by weathering, wind, and rain, which all broke the rocks off of the side of the hill, and, naturally the rocks came into the position that they appear to spell out the letters, and thus, appear to convey the message, "The British Railway Welcomes you to Wales." In fact, you might even be able to theorize the place where each rock broke off of the hill, and exactly how it rolled down the hill, and into its place in the formation.

Now, while #2 is not the most likely explanation, it is still rational. However, what would not be a rational, is to conclude, given the truth of #2, that you have information you are entering Wales from the rock patterns themselves.

This Taylor now applies to our senses. Darwinists believe that our senses evolved by naturalistic processes. While we can look at evidence for design, and see the complexity of our organs, it is still *logically* [although not probabilistically] rational to conclude that they evolved by naturalistic processes. However, what would not be rational, given that supposition, is to assume that your senses are giving you information about the external world. Indeed, because they were allegedly naturalistically formed, one must leave open the possibility that, just like the rock formations, your senses do not serve any function. This destroys what is called "Epistemological Realism," that is, the idea that physical objects, such as chimps, exist independently of your mind. Because a Darwinist believes his senses evolved by naturalistic processes, he has no rational reason to believe that his senses are functioning to give him accurate information about the external world, and thus, must conclude that is possible that chimps only exist in his own mind, and not in the external world.

Richard Creel, who wrote a follow-up article to Taylor, summarizes Taylor in this way:

A person's assertion of epistemological realism is rational if and only if there is a designer who designed our senses to function to give us information about the external world.

Hence, I would say, in terms of nature, Darwinian evolution can't explain anything. It totally destroys the foundation of science and reasoning altogether, because it totally destroys epistemological realism.

God Bless,
Adam

83. anna said the following at 9:55 PM on Dec 4:

@AI:

"But what makes it reprehensible? What gives us the right or authority to tell others that they shouldn't attempt rape...."

Because of the effect that it has on the victims.

Making a self-defined choice of what tastes or looks good is a different category, because the person making that choice is not directly acting on another person.

If we are talking about genes, then the actions between individuals that share genes are the actions that matter most.

Forcing or coercing someone to do something against their choosing has effects on the victim. Forget it's rape for a second, just consider any kind of situation where one person is compelled by another to do an action they don't want to do.

For the worst case scenario: a loss of trust in the perpetrator, and those similar to the perpetrator. Loss of trust in the group, for failing to keep the individual safe. There's the individual loss of a person's feelings that they can protect themselves. Even if this is temporary, it has an impact.

In the instance that the person's coercion can be seen by others in the group, there's an additional destabilizing influence: the group has a reason to think that they can't trust each other, or that they may not be safe.

It's like knowing there's a robbery in your neighborhood. It wasn't your house, but you feel threatened, by proximity.

All of these things go strongly against the social order, and disrupt the ability of a group to consistently rely upon another in a functional way. It's inefficient to be in an environment where people can not trust each other.

If you consider that each person has the tendency for self-preservation, then the imposition of culture and laws (I think) is a natural consequence of this: it's a big disadvantage to have to be entirely self-sufficient. So there needs to be a systematic way to interact with other people, in a way the group can simulataneously understand.

Morality is like a crib-sheet for laws. You don't need to know exactly what the laws are, when you have a general idea of how to act towards each other.

And one thing that humans do intuitively understand is the integrity of the body: the ability of a person to grant or withhold access to their personhood is something that we do very early. Babies start to do it as soon as they get coordinated. If they don't want to eat peas, they turn their heads away. If they don't want to wear shirts, they twist away from you. And when you use your strength to force them, they protest.

Rape violates the integrity of the body, by subverting the person's ability to grant consent to their own person. Not to mention the violation that occurs when one person causes another physical pain.

I'm not making this argument to deny the existence of God (I believe in God.)

I think that we are endowed by God with instincts that promote our survival, and I think that some of our concepts (not all) of morality are a reflection of these instincts that we have.

My inexpert opinion is that our genes give us an innate ability to form cultures with rules and a rudimentary sense of morality that informs those rules. This protects us from danger, and enables us to advance our genes to see our offspring to maturity. But this is just the basics, like a seed. We know right and wrong, but perhaps not why.

Out of the cultures we create, we develop that morality, which enables us to have larger cultures and societies. That's the dirt we plant the seed in.

We can take the gut feelings we have, put them into words, develop reasons to rationalize our feelings and share those reasons with each other. And our morality then becomes a stronger reinforcement on our actions.

And hopefully, as the culture develops, we discover how our morality interacts with our rules and how this affects the people in our societies.

And as I mentioned, I don't like rape examples specifically because they're often badly done, and they get misused in ways that do rape victims a grave disservice. In fact, I was actually struggling with this post, because there are some points that I'm not sure I'm able to make without being harmful to those people who have been affected by it.

But I think I've explained that as completely as I am able, and further explanation may go beyond the question of the original post (which can be answered w/o the rape examples.)

Bringing the discussion back on track: I don't think that people w/o God are denied morality. I think that God wanted us to be here and to function in societies, and we were given attributes that permitted us to do so, even before people were aware of God's existence, because we were given the knowledge of God as a gift.

There is no biblical indication that everyone saw or spoke to God. And for those few who did, how they were told to act had to be understood by everyone else. So the ability had to be there first, before the knowledge could be spread.

Definitely an understanding and knowledge of God has changed aspects of our morality. Some changes in behavior (no sacrificing animals) and others in motivation (so for the glory of one God rather than the pantheon). But we had to be capable of it before that knowledge, and I believe that capacity is innate.

Innately endowed by God, but innate.

84. Mike Toreno said the following at 10:22 PM on Dec 4:

BI, karma exists outside the gods and binds the gods and everybody. The karma of an act lies in the nature of an act, not in its classification by a human, a god, or anybody else.

The issue isn't God's character, it is the necessity of God as a source of morality. The argument is that you can't tell if an act is good or evil unless it's classified by God, and God is incapable of doing evil. As I said above, though, the nature of an act is the nature of an act, it has the same nature whether you classify it or not. And again, if God is incapable of doing evil, it just means that God is bound by karma. The acts that God does or doesn't do, can or can't do, have the same nature whether God classifies them or not. Postulating some kind of requirement for God to classify acts is just a verbal construct, and then when you go on to say that God can't do evil you start talking in a circle.

85. not like rushy said the following at 10:58 PM on Dec 4:

And comment #29, your statistic on the life span of gay men is incorrect, and promotes a stereotype.

Ok, fine, give a "correct number" and give us the exact source you quote it from. Otherwise we will assume that the number given by the "Intro to Gay and Bisexual Issues" is correct and you're just making it up.

BTW, just because something is stereotypical, does not make that information incorrect.

What do women generally wear at the beach? Is is stereotypical to say a woman at the beach is wearing a swimsuit? Yes, it is, and generally it is also a true statement.

86. Al said the following at 11:59 PM on Dec 4:

I know evolution explains altruism towards others like us as caused by kin selection-- if we're good to our families, the likelihood increases for genes similar to ours to be passed on, and I suppose that can explain the affection we have for our familiy, our neighborhoods, our country, and other humans, roughly in that order. It can even explain how we might develop a moral code that favors those closest and most similar to us at the expense of those most different from us.

The truth is, that isn't the moral code that we have. That may be how we often *behave*, but neoptism, favoritism, racism, and aggressive nationalism are actually things we frown upon. In most of these cases, we consider the kin selection instinct in many of its forms to be morally distasteful or at least deficient on some level. And I don't think anyone here would argue racism is fine and acceptable in some societies that practice it because it helps the majority of that population survive.

Instead, we uphold examples of forgiveness, reconciliation, and kindness between people of completely different cultures, ethnicities, and social economic position as an ideal-- often over and above the convenient kindness displayed between similar individuals. We applaud those that can see past kin selection and are able to treat others fairly and impartially. And it's not just our modern sensibilities that lead us to value altruism between genetically different individuals, as even Jesus made a point to contrast the convenient kindness towards those our families and those who show us love versus a higher, more difficult love for those on the fringes of society such as beggars, cripples, and lepers (who may likely have genetic deficiencies that would be somewhat counterproductive to nuture).

I just find it curious that so often our moral systems are at complete odds with our instincts and actual behaviors, even, and sometimes especially those behaviors that aid in the survial of our own genes.

87. anna said the following at 5:38 PM on Dec 5:

@AI

"The truth is, that isn't the moral code that we have. That may be how we often *behave*, but neoptism, favoritism, racism, and aggressive nationalism are actually things we frown upon."

I disagree. We flatter ourselves that we frown upon these things. We may actually disapprove of explicit violence that goes along with enforcing those things, but we do not consistently act in ways that stop these things.

There is a world of difference between what we idealize and what we act to support, especially when it relates to non-kin. We often attribute characteristics of kin to those who are not related, but are close to us. We self-assemble into groups based on interest, expected amity, as well as proximity and blood.

We do this from very early on as well. There's an article from this summer's Newsweek: "See baby discriminate"

It takes remarkably little for children to develop in-group preferences. Vittrup's mentor at the University of Texas, Rebecca Bigler, ran an experiment in three preschool classrooms, where 4- and 5-year-olds were lined up and given T shirts. Half the kids were randomly given blue T shirts, half red. The children wore the shirts for three weeks. During that time, the teachers never mentioned their colors and never grouped the kids by shirt color.

The kids didn't segregate in their behavior. They played with each other freely at recess. But when asked which color team was better to belong to, or which team might win a race, they chose their own color. They believed they were smarter than the other color. "The Reds never showed hatred for Blues," Bigler observed. "It was more like, 'Blues are fine, but not as good as us.' " When Reds were asked how many Reds were nice, they'd answer, "All of us." Asked how many Blues were nice, they'd answer, "Some." Some of the Blues were mean, and some were dumb—but not the Reds.

Bigler's experiment seems to show how children will use whatever you give them to create divisions"

I would also draw the distinction here between individual acts of classism, racism and nepotism, and the institutional cases of these actions. We very often support the latter. A causal look at racism and classicism in the media will explain this.

Regardless of what we say, we absolutely value nepotism: consider the way that we use social networks to "groom" each other for advancement. We have an idea of what kind of person fits in our world, and we put our resources into him. There's info out there that talks about this when it comes to hiring, etc.

And kin selection as far as mating is considered distasteful here in the US, and now in this age and time. But that wasn't always so.
Look at monarchies: they are nearly always kin related.

We may applaud someone for doing an act that we value, but does it mean that we follow that example? Or do we use the idea of identification with others to make us feel, by proxy, the virtues that they have displayed?

I feel sad when I hear a sad story about you, because I care for you. I will also feel sad when you tell a story about someone whom you care for. But by the same token, when you have done something good, I may feel happy that the world is better, but still not be compelled to help you make it so.

The one thing where our moral standards goes against what you'd expect is our tendency to put ourselves in immediate danger to help another adult. However, we don't do that all the time.

88. BI said the following at 2:00 AM on Dec 6:

Mike Toreno, 84 – you wrote >The acts that God does or doesn't do, can or can't do, have the same nature whether God classifies them or not. Postulating some kind of requirement for God to classify acts is just a verbal construct, and then when you go on to say that God can't do evil you start talking in a circle.<

Hinduism and all its branches of religions were invented when people observed nature and the many cycles found in nature. Hence, you see circles and cycles in my arguments as you do not know and understand the nature of the Christian God and Christianity as a whole. In Christianity, God is holy and there is no evil in Him, in fact if there is only God, there will be no evil at all, this world will not even exist. However, God has created beings – human and not human alike – who have free will to do God’s will or not to do God’s will. Since we, human beings, can be influenced both by God and by evil spirits, we can choose either to do good and follow God’s will or do evil in defiance of God’s will. Why would a holy God create beings that can choose freely and rebel against His will? Well, the Christians God is love itself and in love there is freedom to choose – to be loved or not to be loved because one does not like the object of the affection even if His nature is perfect and holy and because one does not want to love back as one has to give up something else like selfishness. More importantly, love requires self-sacrifice and it involves redemption, forgiveness, and grace which are all undeserved and completely contrary to the idea of Karma in Hinduism and its derivative branches. That’s the central theme of Christianity – God coming in the flesh of His Son, Jesus Christ, and dying for our sins so that we can come close and enter into His grace of undeserved love in the Kingdom of Heaven. Of course, if one does not care about such things as one does not want to believe in them, you will miss out on the greatest love of all and the greatest redemptions of all. Christianity is something so outrageous and revolutionary (love even for your enemies) that only a holy and a true loving God (who is ready to die even on the cross out of love for you and me) can come up with something so crazy.

Hence, in Christianity when we talk about this world and human beings, the idea of doing good is preposterous, as this world and all human beings are sinful and more or less evil in comparison with God’s perfect goodness. However, we can come with boldness and without fear to the throne of God because of the redeeming work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Then, God promises to recognize us as His own and welcomes us back into His kingdom of heaven not because of our own goodness (which is not good at all and actually exists only in our twisted minds who do not know God’s holy goodness) but because of the love, mercy and forgiveness of God Himself. However, this requires giving up something else – one of these things is our own understanding of what good and evil is at first place, especially without knowing our Creator’s perfect goodness and His Holy standards by which we all will be judged one day. Of course, if we do not want to believe in such a Creator and if we do not want to feel sorry for our own ways (i.e. we do not want to recognize ourselves as sinful), we are given the free will not to come to Him and not to trust in Him, and continue living on our own as we have been living this way since our birth.

89. Kathleen said the following at 2:32 AM on Dec 6:

not like rushy writes: "Otherwise we will assume that the number given by the "Intro to Gay and Bisexual Issues" is correct and you're just making it up."

Sorry, but I'm not assuming that just because you read it on a Website it's true. Provide a credible link to your claim about gay men ... or we'll have to conclude that your rather bizarre assertion is baseless. And by credible, I don't mean an anti-gay religious site, but a reputable medical one.

90. BI said the following at 3:46 AM on Dec 6:

Mike Toreno, 84

One more thing,

Even in Hinduism and all its branches, including Buddhism, there is a distinction between right and wrong, as people are encouraged by a Higher Power to pursue after goodness. In this way, they are the same with Christianity as Christians are also encouraged to do good and avoid evil, even to do good to those who would hurt them and not revenge. However, as I mentioned in my previous post, in Christianity there is also the idea that all human beings are sinful and really fall short of God’s perfect goodness and holiness. And the only way for us to come close to God and restore our broken relationship with Him is if God shows us undeserved mercy and forgiveness which He did through the death on the cross of His Son, Jesus Christ. In other words, God out of love for the whole humanity initiated our redemption, because on our own by our own good deeds we could have never made it. This namely is the stumbling block for so many people to try and come to the Christian God – first, they do not want to believe that they are sinful from the moment of their conception and thus need repentance and forgiveness for the evil they have done and thought, and second, they do not want to forgive those who have hurt them the most, and thus they cannot accept that God would forgive their offenders if they repent of their sins. Hence, unlike Karma we all get a second chance through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ – we have the freedom to choose God’s love, mercy and forgiveness at any point of life regardless of what we have done and change and seek to pursue good from now on. It is an either-or choice – we either turn to God with the right attitude or we turn away from Him trusting in our own goodness, we either believe in His redemption or do not, we either accept God’s will for us and this world or rebel against it. There is no road in between and no Karma and no other god that can save us from ourselves.

91. twilley said the following at 10:03 AM on Dec 6:

not like rushy, #85:

1) When I google "Intro to Gay and Bisexual Issues," there is only one hit, and it is your post in this forum. Therefore, I have to assume that this is not the name of the website you got your statistic from. If you provide the source, we might be able to discuss the issue more clearly.

2) I am not interested in giving you a correct number on the average life span of gay men, or a link. You made the claim that they die young, and the burden of proof is on you. If you are interested in trying to prove your claim with credible research, I will counter with better studies, and show any who care to look into the matter that the life expectancy of gay men is equal to that of straight men, if both are in the same life situation. Straight men with AIDS die just as quick as gay men with AIDS. And healthy, happily partnered gay men live just as long as healthy, happily partnered straight men.

3) Saying that women wear bathing suits on the beach is generally value-neutral... and besides that is scientifically verifiable. Saying that gay men only live to fifty is a stereotype which is not only a poor scholarly claim, but one which is calculated to bring harm to the greatest number of people possible.

You brought this up because you wanted to use gay people as a whipping boy in order to insult a straight man. I find this immoral. In the name of my people, I ask you to stop.

Kathleen, #89: thanks for the backup.

92. JB said the following at 1:18 PM on Dec 6:

Kathleen #89,

I'm not following this discussion, but I saw your comment and I thought it was an interesting question, so I looked up some data. The only recent paper I could find on life expectancy for gay men was:

Frisch, Morten, Bronnum-Hansen, Henrik. Mortality Among Men and Women in Same-Sex Marriage: A National Cohort Study of 8333 Danes. Am J Public Health 2009 99: 133-137.

This paper compared the mortality rates of married heterosexual and homosexual couples in Denmark between 1989 and 2004. They found that men in same sex marriages had greatly increased mortality rates over their straight counterparts before 1995, when HAART therapy became widely used for HIV/AIDS. After that, the mortality rate decreased significantly. The mortality rate for gay men is still somewhat increased over that for straight men for unclear reasons, but it doesn't come to anything like a life expectancy of 50 years (that number may be a result derived from old data before HAART, or it could just be bad science). Increased rates of smoking and alcohol use may play a role.

Anyway, that 50 years figure is clearly absurd, as the life expectancy for people with newly diagnosed HIV exceeds that, and HIV has been by far the largest factor affecting the difference between gay and straight men's life expectancy. Just thought you might be interested.

On the other hand, if the issue here is reproductive fitness, rather than life expectancy, it's worth mentioning that gay men reproduce at significantly lower rates than straight men, for obvious reasons.

93. BI said the following at 3:09 AM on Dec 8:

Mathematics and Physics are often called exact sciences as both of them are assumed to deal with exact numbers and calculations. The developments of Mathematics and Physics are also at the core of the advancements in all the other natural sciences. However, it is a general misconception that there exists such a thing as an exact science, and while Mathematics and Physics are both very accurate and specific in observing the reality around us, they are not exact, but only very good approximations. What do I mean by saying this? The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (FTC), which is at the basis of all current Mathematics and Physics theory, is exactly the proof that a very good approximation is almost as good as the absolute truth, especially when one is trying to calculate how the change in a given quantity of a thing will result in the change of the quantity of something else (i.e. the so-called derivatives, and the things that follow from this).

The very proof that FTC holds includes the assumption of a number called epsilon which is larger than 0 but is so extraordinarily small that is almost insignificant. In the proof the same epsilon is once assumed to be different than 0, i.e. because it is not 0, and then, later on, to be virtually 0 because it is insignificant to the other numbers/quantities surrounding it. Hence, the proof involves a number which we assume to be simultaneously 0 and different than 0, which is a very neat proof that has revolutionized Mathematics, Physics and science in general ever since it was first introduced. Hence, using a great trick of approximation, we can use freely derivatives and integrals, and find very exact solutions to complicated problems. And if you look further, the reason why we need approximation and such tricks in using epsilon is that there is a world of infinities between any two given numbers, no matter how small they are. In other words, there is always an infinity separating even the two closest numbers. There is also an inability to measure the smallest particles of the earth as well as to measure the vastness of the Universe. This will explain perhaps why some of the greatest mathematicians of our time who have attempted to gain deeper understandings of infinities and have laid the foundations of set theory, have all literally gone crazy at some point in their lifetime. Besides, as a side note, most of the greatest mathematicians were deeply religious themselves and they did what they did in order to glorify God.

In a similar regard, the Quantum theory has recently revolutionized the world of Physics and how we think about matter and the Universe as a whole. The string theory involves talking about other dimensions, invisible to the human eyes. Some atheists laugh at Christians over their faith in an invisible God, but they seem not to have seen or understood many of the findings in Quantum theory, where there are so many invisible things for the human eyes that we can only think about them in order to explain the strange relationship that exists between space, matter and time. Questions like what caused the energy that had created the Universe with a Big Bang which is now dissipating away and will soon at some point die off (increasing entropy), and how a nonliving matter that is about to die will give life under the proper conditions to living beings who can reproduce unlike anything around them, remain also unanswered.

I am asking all these questions because human beings have to understand that despite all the technological and other progress in our society they are infinities away from completely grasping through the lenses of scientific observation the complexities of life and death, the stars and the Universe and everything in it.

I used to tease people in college once I became a Christian and even wrote a poem about it with this question: “Imagine someone coming around 2000 years ago and telling us that the table we see which is perfectly stable and solid, is actually made of billions of small particles constantly changing their positions (I mean the electrons), and only our eyes perceive this system as solid and stable but actually is an illusion. So imagine that and what people will do to such a person?” Naturalists trust only what they see and they can touch, but what is it that they can actually see and they can touch, is it what they think it is or something else that they have no idea of, especially when it comes to human beings and spirituality?

Contributors

About Us

Relevant Boundless Articles

SUBSCRIBE VIA EMAIL

Newer Post | Older Post