1

Joe:

Interesting series.

I find the moral argument to God the one that most tellingly cuts across our proud sense of autonomy: we in praxis agree that we are bound to do the right,and we confess that as soon as we quarrel, as C S Lewis so often pointed out. [Note, those who wish to assert that Joe et al are ignorant, stupid, mentally defective or deceptive to make such an argument, are doing just what CSL pointed out!]

So, what does that mean . . .?

BTW, Greg Koukl has an interesting argument that uses this to turn the usual argument from evil on its head. In effect, we acknowledge a lot by making the objection to evil -- inter alia that a non-physical entity is real,and that it expresses an obligation, raising the further question: to Whom?

Then, on a comparative difficulties basis, we should consider: what worldview live option makes the best sense of that?

That means we need to address:

a] factual adequacy [NB here the fact of quarrelling and how we quarrel]

b] coherence

c] explanatory power: where we fall on the spectrum form an ad hoc patchwork to a simple elegant explanation to a simplistic pat answer.

So, anyone willing to step up tot he plate and address this on a comparative difficulties, inference to best explanation basis? [Red herrings leading out to strawmen that are triumphalistically burned will not do.]
Grace

Gordon

2

Sorry Joe, for a second bite:

I think I need to add this; from where John Locke begins his main argument in his Essay on Human Understanding:

>>Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says [NB: i.e. 2 Pet 1:2 - 4]) pana pros zoen kaieusebeian, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments [Prov 1: 1 - 7], that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties [cf Rom 1 - 2, Ac 17, etc, etc]. Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight, and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp everything . . . It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant [Matt 24:42 - 51], who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us [Prov 20:27] shines bright enough for all our purposes . . . If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly.{Intro Section 5]>>

In that light, let us reflect on his foundational citation of Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity [1594 +] in his 2nd Essay on Civil Govt, Ch 2 Section 5:

>>. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant.>>

This is where Locke takes that, i.e. to the foundation of his discussion on Liberty and the Law of Nature:

>>The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions . . . . so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another . . . . In transgressing the law of Nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men for their mutual security [i.e. we see here the right to self-defense for the community, and also the individual, as is discussed at length in the work], and so he becomes dangerous to mankind . . . . [Ch III, S 17] he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power [i.e. to tyrannise upon another, by force, fraud, usurpation or invasion] does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life. For I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power without my consent would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it.>>

So, this argument is of great relevance to our much treasured liberty.

Grace to all as the new year dawns

Gordon

PS I would give links but I am afraid this would just get the comment eaten. [Has that bug/feature been fixed yet?]

3

"Denying the reality of God is, I've often claimed, more a matter of the will and passions than of reason and intellect. "

Well then, Joe, you claim wrong.

If you're talking about "the reality of God," then you are asserting that such a thing as "God" exists. Yet, if I ask you to define, clearly, what you mean by "God" so that I can understand you and that we're both discussing the same thing, you are unable to do so.

But you say this thing is "real," so you should be able to describe it in clear terms. And if God or Jesus - some kind of tripartite thing with multiple aspects that are all-in-one - is, as claimed, the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Host of Hosts, Holiest of Holies, etc., then one should expect that something so ineffably powerful and grand and omnipresent should be identifiable in some way.

How about you take an apple and show it to me. You can say, "Here, this apple exists." Were I to deny that, then yes, it would take an effort of will and passion to execute that denial. But when you claim that God exists, only reason is necessary to dispute the point. The sum total of evidence you have for your belief is precisely equivalent to that sustained by a child who believes in his or her imaginary friend. If you have more evidence than that, you are welcome to present it.

Thus far, we have the jejune and hoary primum mobile argument. Useful for bamboozling trailer park trash. Now we get the "objective moral law" argument, which is just plain silly. Remember that the word "moral" is only shorthand for a much more complex thing, namely, the process of arriving at a judgement. The concern we have as social creatures for arriving at generally agreeable decisions leads us to posit various maxims and rules of thumb, and we generally do agree on a basic set of such rules for living in an orderly society.

It's probably been like that since the days we were hominids foraging in small bands. It was necessary, from day one, to agree that stealing from others was wrong, that killing indiscriminately was wrong, and so on. Eventually, by the time somebody got around to writing this all down, these norms were invested with religious import, but the essential process of judging something to be correct or incorrect remains a personal action. Morals, ultimately, are distinguishable from etiquette only in degree.

4

If objective immorality exists, then God does not exist.
Objective immorality exists.
Therefore God does not exist.

5

It seems to me that the objective morality argument is actually an argument against the existence of the Christian God. As an atheist, I firmly believe that morality can be objectively and universally determined through the use of reason and experience. Thus, people of all religions and no religion can come together to establish the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Through the use our minds, we can all agree that things such as slavery, torture and murder are always wrong.

On the other hand, a believer in the Bible must accept that slavery and murder are ok when commanded by God. At some points, the God of the Bible even commands slavery and murder. Under God's command, the Israelites were ordered to butcher with the sword all the Canaanites, including women, children and the unborn. Was this morally right? According to the Bible, those who believe the wrong things will be tortured eternally for no reason.

6

ex-preacher:

if we make use of the human mind (through reason and experience)to collectively agree on the wrongness of particular actions (murder, slavery, torture)
then how do we account for those members of mankind who think slavery (for example) is right and good?

we can find throughout human history entire civilizations who made extensive use of slavery which begs the question if they thought it to be good and right or were they simply acting contrary to what they 'actually' felt regarding slavery.
did these civilizations (and consequently the ruling members) know slavery to be wrong and simply acted against what they 'knew to be right' in the pursuit of a goal such as a nice palace, cheap labor,... if that is the case, then what caused them to recognize slavery as wrong?

7

Excellent questions, I think.

To some extent, I think people in past civilizations were ignorant in terms of understanding and applying the "do unto others" ethic. Christians immediately recognize this as the golden rule of Matthew 7:12, but are sometimes unaware that this principle is found in many cultures predating Jesus. Among those who stated variations of the golden rule prior to Jesus were Confucius, Buddha, Rabbi Hillel, Greek philosophers, and Native Americans.

Others, and perhaps the greater part, knew that slavery, murder and torture were wrong, but practiced them anyway for various reasons. Thomas Jefferson is a good example of someone who knew that slavery was wrong, but practiced it anyway. He said that "we have the wolf by the ears and can neither stay on nor safely let it go." What convinced American southerners around 1865 that slavery was wrong? It certainly wasn't the Bible. Southern denominations disagreed on many points od doctrine, but they agreed that slavery was biblical. Thus, the creation of denominations such as the Southern Baptist Convention. Fortunately, they apologized for slavery a few years ago.

As I heard Bill Clinton state in a speech, the history of humanity is one of us versus them. It is our task to expand the circle that we consider "us" and to shrink the circle of "them." Over the millennia, humans have gradually expanded the circle of those we consider worthy of the same rights we think we are entitled to. It has sometimes been a messy process and it certainly hasn't always inevitably improved.

8

For Raven:

"these norms were invested with religious import"

But why? If these "morals" were acheived without the aid of religion, but by some lucky arrangement of atoms, why would humans then need to invent a God to invest them into our actions?

"Morals, ultimately, are distinguishable from etiquette only in degree."

And that is precisely why atheism is so backward and evil.

For ex-preacher:

I don't think you are answering the question or that you don't understand the argument. What makes "do unto others" preferable to you? Why should it be that way for anyone else? When it becomes necessary for me, an atheist, to kill or destory for your survival, what happens to "do unto others"? It sounds nice now, but what about then? Isn't that the point of the moral argument? You, an atheist, can throw away that moral when it no longer satisfies your need to exist or procreate. A Christian may do so, but would be working against his or her faith. Your faith allows you to do anything when it suits you.

The good thing about an atheist is that an atheist can't be a hypocrite, and even if he or she could be, it wouldn't be wrong.

9

Raven: Nice shot about trailer trash. Very broadminded and tolerant of you.

ex-: Interesting you bring up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Aren't the very people charged with upholding that declaration (the folks in the blue helmets) also the people we hear about raping young girls in Angola and standing by while Hezbollah lobs rockets at Israeli civilians (you know, women and children and all that)? And why aren't these people doing anything about Darfur? I suppose if we wait long enough the humanitarian crisis will be over because everyone the Islamists want dead there will be dead.

10

ex-preacher:

"I firmly believe that morality can be objectively and universally determined through the use of reason and experience."
followed by
"To some extent, I think people in past civilizations were ignorant in terms of understanding and applying the "do unto others" ethic."

please elucidate for me the origin of this "ethic".

11

Hi Anthony:

"But why? If these "morals" were acheived without the aid of religion, but by some lucky arrangement of atoms, why would humans then need to invent a God to invest them into our actions?"

The point I was making is that the way most people talk about "morals" is a mistake. It's an error you make yourself in the phrasing of your question. You're talking as if there were a concrete, specific thing called a "moral." But there is no such thing. To test whether this is correct or not, simply enumerate to yourself the number of morals you possess.

As you'll discover immediately, morals are not countable because they are not "things," in and of themselves. Morality is a convenient shorthand we use to describe a process of making judgements and decisions. Since we don't normally analyze language at this level, it is common to hear such phrases as the following in regular discourse:

It was the moral thing to do.

He has good morals.

And the moral of this story is...

I learned my morals in church.

These are four different things, yet, collectively, they describe a general process of arriving at evaluations of particular sorts of conduct. For instance, "the moral thing" in the first case would define an action that accords with some form of recipricalism, or altruistic behavior that is good for the group. Returning a found wallet would be an example.

To say that someone has "good morals" probably indicates that the person in question exemplifies piety, charity, generosity, and so forth, such that we describe the person's general pattern of behavior as being in accord with religious teaching as well as trustworthiness, self-discipline, etc.

When we say that a story has a "moral," we're really talking about aphorisms, or rules of thumb as I mentioned above. Aesop's fables - along with Grimms' fairy tales - are fancifully constructed illustrations of general principles that we hope will be of use to children later in life. This is probably the most important kind of teaching we impart, because we don't know what challenges a child will face in life, but we hope that, armed with good maxims for decent behavior, he or she will be able to evaluate novel circumstances.

And to speak of morals has having been "learned" is a tremendous error. As shown in developmental psychology, children go through distinct phases in moral reasoning, testing and integrating the principals of reciprocalism until they reach later adolescence, at which point we hope they arrive at a general form of Kant's categorical imperative. This is seen to occur in all cultures, at all times and in all places. Moreover, it is observed in the animal kingdom, such that one could hypothesize that moral reasoning is a product of natural selection - n.b. most definitely not "a random collection of atoms."

When a Christian talks about didactic moral instruction, he's not talking about a "set" of morals, not the 10 Commandments, not any particular credos, rather, he's thinking about the formal inculcation of the idea of heaven and hell, God's judgement, such that any particular decision about any human conduct, should be viewed as leading either toward heaven or toward hell.

Atheists do pretty much the same thing, though, inasmuch as we weigh actions in terms of whether they are virtuous or base. Nobody wants to die an evil, corrupted bag of skin and bones, loathed by all and loved by none.

The last point you missed was that when we make judgements about behaviors, when we agree together about the sorts of things we'd prefer, the social consensus is often quite arbitrary. Rape, for example, is considered wrong in our culture, but it is part of the justice system in Pakistan. Eating beef is a matter of preference for Americans, but it's a moral issue for Hindus. Because I personally believe that it is good to alleviate suffering, I don't equivocate and deem Pakistani elder-sanctioned gang rapes to be culturally relativistic. It causes greater suffering and I can make a moral decision to condemn the behavior and exhort Pakistanis to cease and desist from the practice. When it comes to vegetarianism, I'm more likely to view the matter as a cultural norm and consider it moral-neutral.

I'll leave you with a test case from real life. In my neighborhood - a quiet district in which most of us know one another - there are a couple of young boys (age 12 or so) whom I see occasionally walking about with a BB gun. I've seen them shooting at birds and squirrels, and a neighbor's child told me in confidence that the little bastards are known to shoot at younger children on occasion as a sort of sadistic prank.

This presents me with a moral conundrum. I believe the children's behavior to be immoral and in need of correction. Do I a) leap out of my car and snatch the gun away from them? b) Go to their home and exhort their parents to discipline their children? Or, c) Call the police and report "a couple of kids with a rifle" and ask them to send a car over?

There are moral ramifications to each course of action, as well as to the act of doing nothing whatsoever. In making a decision, would a religious or Bible-informed course of action be superior to one that is arrived at by the process of reason alone? If there is a "Christian" approach to this problem, and if it is identical to the one I select on the basis of my own sense of virtuous conduct, is one approach more "moral" than the other?

12

falennman writes: "please elucidate for me the origin of this 'ethic'."

A big question. Ultimately, I would say that it emerged from reason and experience as the best way to conduct one's life and order a society that benefits everyone to the maximum degree.

If you are really interested, I would highly recommend the articles at wikipedia on "ethic of reciprocity" and "reciprocal altruism." Beyond that, there are some good books on the subject.

13

The Raven,

Regarding your test case, I remember being a sadistic young boy and easily dismissing the "moral" advice suggested to me. Even if whatever approach you take seems to work (boys get sufficiently threatened and stop plinking other children), you will not have addressed the real issue, which is that these boys get pleasure from hurting others.

"I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

--Paul in his letter to the church in Rome

14

ex-preacher:

the idea of undertaking actions for the benefit of others is precisely what i question. actions for the sole benefit of another, at sacrifice to one's self is utterly contrary to the only alternative to God, namely that we 'evolved' by natural processes tending over time to magnify those traits favorable to individual survival.
i stress individual survival because the alternative is a process favoring the survival of a group - which would mandate a thought process guiding the affect upon individuals toward a purposeful end (long term group survival) all of which points to a creator.

15

"i stress individual survival because the alternative is a process favoring the survival of a group - which would mandate a thought process guiding the affect upon individuals toward a purposeful end (long term group survival) all of which points to a creator."

I disagree with both the either/or alternative and the inevitability of the conclusion drawn.

I see confirmed atheists who love their children--and who would sacrifice their lives to save the lives of their chidren.

There is nothing at all inherently contradictory in atheism and love of your children to the extent you would sacrifice yourself for them. This same conduct has been known to occur in the animal kingdom. Are aniumals religious?

The atheist motivated to save his children is not at all driven by any need for a purposeful end other than the good of his own children.

Once you get beyond individual survival tot he extent that progeny must be considered, then you can see that there is no sharp distinction between "individual" and "group."

It's all on a continuum. Some peopel are not even willing to sacrifice their lives for those of their own chidren. Some are unwilling to sacrificie their lives for other people's children, but many are. Fewer still are willing to sacrifice their lives to save the life of a pet animal, but some people are. Religion doesn't necessarily drive or require this altruism.

Saying that does not diminish the altruism of many poeple that is explicilty part of their religious beliefs. I am merely saying that it's easy to be altrusitic in the absence of religion.

16

I am not saying that all acts of altruism are rational. Some acts are downright irrational, such as a kindhearted firefighter who dies saving an arsonist who will go on to kill others. Some altruistic acts are done spontaneously without much thought of whether they make any sense.

What I am saying is that a rational argument exists for altruism. Even acts that may seem completely selfless can be motivated by reasons that give satisfaction to the individual making the sacrifice. I gain joy every day from the selfless acts I do for my wife and children. Am I selfish to do these things that make me happy? Someone could even give their life for another happily knowing that they are doing a good thing. They might also realize they would be forever haunted by shame and guilt if they did not make the sacrifice. Abraham Lincoln is credited with saying, "When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That is my religion."

BTW, I believe it is Alan Dershowitz who makes the case that only atheists are capable of purely altruistic acts, since virtually all theists act in the belief that they will be rewarded in the afterlife for their sacrifices.

17

Fallenman makes an excellent point about the ontology of altruism. Under an athiestistic model of reality, where exactly could it come from?

Joe Mc F merely disagrees with the inevitability of the conclusion Fallenman makes without explaining why his reasoning is not as tight as it appears. The appeal to doing things for one's children is, from an evolutionary standpoint, exactly what must happen to ensure the survival and propagation of one's DNA--which is pretty much the point of evolution. ex-preacher pleads the irrationality of some acts of altruism while missing the point that irrational acts of altruism, over time, will weed out those who engage in them in favor of a more robust population of those who engage only in protecting their own interests. So far Fallenman's point stands unrebutted.

18

The appeal to doing things for one's children is, from an evolutionary standpoint, exactly what must happen to ensure the survival and propagation of one's DNA--which is pretty much the point of evolution.

Maybe. Natural selection explains how DNA changes. That is, genes survive or perish in the great calculus of reproductive competition. The hosts of the DNA - mammals, in our case - are only the phenotype. Whatever behaviors the phenotype engages in will either improve or reduce the chances for the genotype to survive. If selection for altruism is a good strategy, those genes - that bit of code - will endure.

19

I can see how in some situations, such as the battlefield, highly altruistic individuals would be the least likely to survive. (This is similar to the way in which the celibate priesthood has helped stamp out fanaticism in the Catholic church.)

Fortunately, altruism in everyday life doesn't usually involve giving up one's life. In most all human societies, altruism is a highly valued quality. A man who is brave, compassionate, committed, generous, and selfless will be an attractive mate for most women. By the same token, a man will value a woman who is kind-hearted and nurturing. Thus, altruism will be rewarded with sex and offspring. Altruism will then be passed on, whether through biology or socialization. Maybe nice guys don't always finish last!

20

"...the idea of undertaking actions for the benefit of others is precisely what i question. actions for the sole benefit of another, at sacrifice to one's self is utterly contrary to the only alternative to God, namely that we 'evolved' by natural processes tending over time to magnify those traits favorable to individual survival."

Tell that to the bees, fallenman. The animal world is full of examples of animals that instinctively sacrifice themselves to ward off threats to the collective. Even inter-species altruism is documented. Dolphins have been known to drive off sharks to protect divers. I once had a dachshund who would face down a bear to protect its "family". That dogs are bred for these qualities merely reinforces the fact that such behavior is not inconsistent with evolutionary processes, whether guided by selective breeding or by the demands of the environment.

21

Raven: Your comment appears to be a tautology. That which survives is beneficial; that which is beneficial survives.

ex-: Just because our experiences have been blessedly free of involvement in warfare doesn't mean that warfare is enough of a limited circumstance to rule it out of the evolutionary calculus of the survival of altruism. Warfare is more or less a permanent feature of the human race throughout history. Throw in various epidemic diseases which will disproportionately kill those who venture out to help their neighbors rather than stay home and tend to themselves and famines which will also strike hardest at the most altruistic and there is very potent natural selection against altruism.

To counter that with the anecdotal assertion that sensitive, 90's kind of guys and their female counterparts will attract more sexual attention and thus make up for it seems to fairly fly in the face of another, albeit more supportable, anecdotal assertion that females will be drawn to strong, dominant men for breeding and seek out the sensitive types more to be cuckolded after the breeding is done; and for males to seek out the most physically attractive, well-endowed females, giving virtually no consideration to whether they are altruistic. (You never run into an unhappily divorced man who laments,"I was taken in by her kind-hearted, nurturing personality, and only later woke up to the truth that she is ugly as a mud fence!" The inverse is always the case.)

22

RR: The existence of the examples you cite does not "reinforce the fact that such behavior is not inconsistent with evolutionary processes," rather it presents a challenge to the evolutionary paradigm. A dolphin warding off sharks to protect a diver confers no survival advantage to the dolphin who does so--in fact it impairs it. The dolphin who swims away and leaves the diver to his fate has a much better chance of surviving and passing along his genes than the one who sticks around and messes with the sharks only to end up in a can of tuna for all his pains.

The fact that something happens in nature does not automatically butress the theory of evolution. But materialistic orthodoxy does not allow any admission that there is data out there that can be fit into evolutionary theory only with great difficulty or not at all.

23

What about the bees, Cheese? How does that not support the fact that individual sacrifice is not inconsistent with evolutionary processes? It's hard for me to believe you still think it is. Evolution is about survival of species, not individual members of that species. Usually what is good for the individual is good for the species, but that does not mean that is true in every case. As in the case of the bees, the willingness (or instinct) of individuals to sacrifice themselves for the good of the species pays off in enhanced chances of species survival. If you think my examples present a challenge to the evolutionary paradigm, you really need to study evolutionary theory a bit more. Instead of AnswersinGenesis, you should try TalkOrigins.

24

Your comment appears to be a tautology. That which survives is beneficial; that which is beneficial survives.

Not exactly. The idea is that it is the genes that play out the fight for survival. As the gene hosts, we as individuals express the nature of those genes. It wasn't clear from your post that I responded to whether or not you grasped this point. Altruism is not necessarily a genetic trait, but it can be.

A nice illustration I recently encountered concerns a custom maintained by several tribes in New Guinea. What happens is that every now and then the tribes have a sort of dinner contest. Tribe A puts on a great feast for the members of Tribe B. Then, after everyone recovers, Tribe B puts out a lavish affair for Tribe A. And this goes on, back and forth, sometimes until both tribes are nearly ruined.

The anthropologists who discovered this behavior explain that each of the tribes wishes to impress upon the others how wealthy it is. The feast is a symbolic way of saying, "I have extra, and you don't. So I'm gonna be all nice 'n' generous and share with you, because I can afford to do that." Thus, it is a form of competition for dominance and status.

Now, look here in our country. I would argue that many examples of charity and volunteer work - what we might call forms of altruism, work in the same way. The giver is demonstrating to other competitors that he or she is possessed of excess (time, money, etc.) and can donate it to the less capable, thus distinguishing the giver as being "more capable." Nota bene I am not asserting that all charitable and volunteer work is done for this reason, but the underlying genetic mechanism that supports it may stem in part from these kinds of considerations.

Normally, genetic traits that demonstrate sexual suitability, good breeding potential, and strong, dominant characteristics tend to be the ones that stay around in the gene pool - and natural selection engages at this level; yet, individuals who elect to volunteer, donate their goods, and so forth, aren't directly participating in the process of genetic success. It is only if they successfully reproduce that they do, and in that case the mechanism and the result can be (as we see here) somewhat difficult to discern directly.

25

RR: "What about the bees, Cheese?"

I will cede your point about the bees to this extent: the behavior of bees is not inconsistent with your favored interpretation of evolutionary theory. It certainly does not rise to the level of proof, but is at least consistent with the theory. Of course the very nature of bees is that an individual bee cannot survive and reproduce without the hive, so it is questionable that the individual bee's behavior could truly rise to what we could fairly call altruism, but there certainly is a faint analogy that can be drawn here.

Now that I've ceded that point, WHAT ABOUT THE DOLPHINS ROB?!? They were your example, for goodness sake. Can you bring yourself to admit that their behavior presents a challenge to your interpretation of evolution as you presented it above.

"Evolution is about survival of species, not individual members of that species."

No Rob, evolution is about presenting the evolutionary model of origins in whatever terms are most favorable to upholding the view that it is an airtight, unchallengable explanation of everything biological at the point of discussion at the moment. Remember, never cede an inch of ground to those crazy creationists or you will have them setting up a theocracy.

"Instead of AnswersinGenesis, you should try TalkOrigins."

I read both. The fact that I find AIG more convincing must just mean I'm scientifically illiterate and lacking in intelligence I suppose. Let me tell you, it's not easy always have sore knuckles from dragging them on the ground. BTW, how much hard science and math education does an English teacher receive?

Raven: I think you have fairly summarized the state of the argument. Of course it is not merely the genes within a species that compete for survival; it is also the genes of one species that compete with all the others.

Since we have not demonstrated an altruism gene we cannot demonstrate any selection mechanism for that gene.

As a Christian I believe that we are far more than a complex set of deterministically derived genetic expressions. I believe that altruism is a product of moral sense which defines much of what it means to be created in the image of God. It will appear in people across all cultures and all times because all of us retain that image of God, marred by sin though it is. It is not something which can be reduced to a particular sequence of genetic code--it is part of our moral nature. That is why it is not selected against.

I know this is not an argument you will accept, and I'm sorry that on a Christian blog you will have to run up against people who will see issues like altruism as ultimately moral and not genetically predetermined.

The point of bringing up the evolutionary argument is that using its assumptions it certainly appears to many thoughtful people that altruism is inimical to evolutionary theory as a "beneficial trait."

26

Your argument is logically valid, but I disagree with both of your premises.

1. I think objective morality does not necessarily indicate the existence of God. It is possible that objective morality may be discerned through a number of non-divine sources - logic, nature, ethics.
2. I don't believe objective morality exists. Trueblood assumes there is agreement on moral law - there isn't, or trolley dilemmas wouldn't be dilemmas and everyone would believe in the same religion. Being in conflict with, or being unable to fully grasp morality is due to being unable to fully grasp all of human history - as morality is a changing aspect of culture. Consensus on moral issues has changed - homosexuality, slavery, racism. This does not reflect an objective morality, but rather different cultural trends.

In my life, I recognise that I make moral decisions using the same kind of processes that I use to make other decisions; I use my feelings and my reason. For example, I might feel sympathy and fear for a badly injured friend; I use my cognitive powers to reason that calling an ambulance will result in my friend being assisted, I therefore decide that calling an ambulance is the right/moral thing to do. There is no "legislation", nor is there the Kantian "greatest good" and this is in no way absolute.

27

"WHAT ABOUT THE DOLPHINS ROB?!?"

What about them? I've never heard of a healthy dolphin being killed by a shark. Dolphins are such superior swimmers that sharks are no match for them. Whether dolphins attack sharks for fun or defense doesn't matter. It is apparently not a risky endeavor for them, so it has no negative impact on their survival as a species. You might as well say the mongoose presents a challenge to the evolutionary paradigm because it voluntarily engages a deadly foe.

"No Rob, evolution is about presenting the evolutionary model of origins in whatever terms are most favorable to upholding the view that it is an airtight, unchallengable explanation of everything biological at the point of discussion at the moment."

Here you respond to my valid point with a flippant remark. Typical. Do you really doubt that evolution is about the survival of species, or are you merely practicing repartee?

"The fact that I find AIG more convincing must just mean I'm scientifically illiterate and lacking in intelligence I suppose."

Just the first, I suspect.

"BTW, how much hard science and math education does an English teacher receive?"

As much as he wants. Those silly universities aren't very selective when ready money is flashed before them. My first degree was in Business Administration: not Education. Math was involved in finance, accounting, and statistics, much more than I wanted. Science (mostly biology, anthropology) I took as electives, since it interests me. I don't think you really wanted an answer, though; you are simply trying to impugn my credibility on this subject. The best way to do that would be to point out logical and factual errors, but that would require more effort than insult, innuendo, and one-liners.

28

RR: "Here you respond to my valid point with a flippant remark." It wasn't flippant and I stand by it.

"I don't think you really wanted an answer, though; you are simply trying to impugn my credibility on this subject."

Pot, meet kettle. You throw out an impugning remark to the effect that anyone who questions your preferred theory of origins is obviously scientifically illiterate and then assume the posture of offended victim when it is turned back on you.

Questions Rob: Is being scientifically illiterate a prerequisite for accepting a creationist model of origins? Or are there scientifically literate individuals who reject evolutionary models in favor of creationist ones?

Follow-up question: If you answered yes to the first and no to the second, why does a smart guy like you spend time slogging about amongst the ignoramuses you find at a blog like this?

29

"Is being scientifically illiterate a prerequisite for accepting a creationist model of origins?"

Yes.

"Or are there scientifically literate individuals who reject evolutionary models in favor of creationist ones?"

No.

"If you answered yes to the first and no to the second, why does a smart guy like you spend time slogging about amongst the ignoramuses you find at a blog like this?"

We are all ingorant, just on different subjects. I wouldn't want to enter into a Bible trivia contest with most commenters here. Perhaps I can learn something about biblical interpretaiton or Chrisitanity in genereal that I didn't know before.

I don't come here to learn anything about science. The level of scientific knowledge here approaches zero. I don't go to Panda's Thumb to learn about Christianity, either. I can learn things at both places--just on different subjects.

30

1. one need look no further than the morning paper to know mankind in general continually acts contrary to what they feel is right and good. (however they come to the decision of what 'right and good' is.)

2. if the notion of 'right and good' is the moral law given to us by a Creator/God - something is working against that moral law and hence against both us and the Creator/God.

3. if the notion of 'right and good' is the result of eons of evolutionary progress - something within us is working against that progress...

31

Objective moral values do not exist and never have. Each culture has a different set of morals. For instance, in some cultures it is wiser to eat an old woman than a dog because a dog can help hunt for food for the tribe; whereas an old woman is a burden and a threat to the very survival of that tribe.
In many countries there is homosexual marriage because it is beleived that gays should be afforded the same civil rights as hetrosexuals.
In the Middle-East women are not allowed to vote.
In America, we execute children. The U.S. and Somalia are the only countries in the world that sentences children (those under 18) to death. And the U.S. is the only Western society that still has capital punishment.

There no objective moral value.

32

"Is being scientifically illiterate a prerequisite for accepting a creationist model of origins?"

No, but I think it helps. I suspect that tha more scientifically literate one is, the less likely one is to be a creationist. I'm sure, however, that some people are capable of understanding the science, seeing the evidence, and still concluding that the evidence has been faked as some sort of conspiracy among scientists or that God has designed a clever illusion to avoid detection.

33

I'm sure, however, that some people are capable of understanding the science, seeing the evidence, and still concluding that the evidence has been faked as some sort of conspiracy among scientists or that God has designed a clever illusion to avoid detection.

Or maybe, just maybe they are capable of understanding the science and have seen the evidence and just come to a different conclusion than you.

34

In reply to Cheesehead's comments on post #21:

Either you've been watching "Sex and the City" too much or you and I run in very different circles. Certainly men and women are drawn to each other for physical/biological reasons, but both my experience and the evidence I can find suggest that it is much more complicated than that. I was initially attracted to my wife by her stunning good looks, but I kept dating her and eventually married and had children with her for her many other good qualities, most of which good be classified as altruistic. I'm probably average looking and not especially strong, so why did she choose me? I'll never know for sure, but she says that she liked my sense of humor, and sense of kindness and honesty. As I think about other family members and friends who have had children, I think nearly all of them made their final decision on a mate on qualities other than physical attractiveness or strength.

Even your example of the divorced man reinforces my point that we are ultimately repelled by non-altruistic people, even if we were initially attracted by their physical qualities. And I think most people discover that about a potential mate long before they have had children with that person. Maybe if there were no birth control and we didn't live in societies, your theory would hold water.

It's hard to determine the real reasons that people choose their mates, but a Harris poll from 2005 found that women named the #1 quality they sought in a mate as "dependability" (92% named this). That's a pretty altruistic quality, I'd say.

With regard to war and disease weeding out the most altruistic, I would agree that in the past, that certainly played a role. Some historians even believe that the exceptional greed and corruption of the post-Civil War era (the Gilded Age) can be accounted for in part by the deaths of so many good men in the war. Certainly, many good priests died in the plague, a key factor in the decreased quality of the clergy that eventually led Martin Luther to post his 95 Theses. Fortunately, very few deaths today in the U.S. are the direct result of highly altruistic people giving their lives for others in the face of war or epidemic disease. Even if we assume that all 3,000 of the American service people killed in Iraq in the last 4 years were exceptionally altruistic people, that is only 1/1000 of 1% of the US population. And even many of them had lived long enough to have children who may emulate their altruism.

35

Rob and Joe Mc F both are guilty of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy here. Rob tries to be slightly diplomatic about it; Joe comes out with both guns blazing. On style points we have to give the nod to Joe Mc F. His premise is insulting, but at least he does not add insult to injury with condescension about how creationists arrive at their beliefs.

Just to wax a little autobiographical here...I am amused at an English teacher and a Puddle Pirate lawyer telling me that creationists pretty much need to be scientifically illiterate to hold their views on origins. Starting out be an engineer and ending up as a dairy science guy I think I probably have more college level credits in physics, engineering, math, chemistry (inorganic and organic), biology and microbiology than about 90% of the population, including them. All 100+ of these credit hours come from the University of Wisconsin. Now all I possess is a lowly bachelor's degree and have no published literature to my credit. However, the creationist I know best is my father--a man with an advanced degree in bio-chemistry, published in peer-reviewed literature, and inventor of a test to predict rancidity in raw milk which was published for over twenty years in Standard Methods for the Examination of Dairy Products. The article was eventually removed when improvements in pipeline milking technology rendered the potential milk defect moot. I would say that this octegenarian creationist (my father, not me) has forgotten more science than Rob and Joe Mc F ever knew and is still possessed of more nimble of a scientific mind at this point than the two of them combined.

This is why (as Sternberg learned) it is futile to debate evolutionary materialists. They are so insecure in their own beliefs that they cannot allow for the possibility that there are people with intelligence and knowledge equal to or superior to their own who hold to a different theory of origins.

I think they have once again shown that evolutionary dogma is more religion than science.

36

Cheesehead, I'd compare undergraduate scientific course transcripts with you, since I also attended a fairly rigorous undergraduate engineering institution that required chemistry, marine biology, oceanography and physics.

But the question of comparative qualifications, as between you me and your father is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. You have made this same argument inferentially a couple of times. It doesn't matter who is more "qualified."

What matters is the truthfulness of a particular proposition. Your inflammatory language indicates that mistake my position. I do not equate creationism with stupidity, lack of intelligence or immorality.

As I said above we are all ignorant, just on different subjects. That statement specifically included you, by the way. It also includes me and your father, since you chose to bring him into this for some reason. Your father appears to be a highly intelligent man--but ignorant on a few subjects, evolution and theology to name two. Creationism is incompatible with both.

Also, let me point out that I did not say that thoswe who accept scientific models of evolution are more intelligent, more moral, more handsome, have whiter teeth and better sex lives that creationists. Many of those who accept the scientifc models of evolution are completely ignorant on cattle breeding, milk production, cheese processing and markting. They are also ingnorant on a wide variety of subjects. Ignorance is no flaw.

I do not underestimate the significance of the dairy industry to either the U.S. ecomony or our standard of living. Infact, I would not be surprised if, someday, members of the dairy industry may find that they require the services of a "puddle pirate lawyer" (nice!) such as myself to enforce international contracts.

Nevertheless, you can be scientifically illiterate either because you can't comprehend the science or becasue you won't make the effort to comprehend the science.

By your question (Is being scientifically illiterate a prerequisite for accepting a creationist model of origins?), you've figurativley put a "kick me" sign on your back. Now, you complain when somebody accepts the invitation.

So consider your self kicked. I think creationism is poor science and, furthermore, it is very poor theology and evidence of poor religious training, too.

St. Augustine on Interpretation of Genesis:
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/religiousstudies/alaffey/Augustine-Genesis.htm

Here is St Augustine on creationists:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

37

Cheesehead: "Just to wax a little autobiographical here...I am amused at an English teacher and a Puddle Pirate lawyer telling me that creationists pretty much need to be scientifically illiterate to hold their views on origins."

This snide comment and the appeal to authority that follows it are pretty amusing as well. Cheesehead's creationist daddy is a scientist and he has forgotten more science than I will ever know; I am convinced! The Grand Canyon was formed by Noah's flood! If the universe were billions of years old we would be buried under hundreds of feet of space dust!

Seriously, if authority is to have weight in this debate, shouldn't minor league scientists like Cheesehead, his father, and me yield to the big boys?

Oh, wait...the big boys have arrived at a consensus that Cheesehead and his creationist ilk can't yet seem to get their brains around.

By the way, I'm "udderly" impressed that you are a dairy science guy, but I'll try not to be "cowed" by your awesome scientific prowess. I hope you don't have a "beef" with that.

I guess I've milked the dairy puns for all they are worth; feel free to horn in.

38

Rob, that was a great and funny exposition.

39

Do we moo-ve on to the next topic now?

40

Yes, I think we'd butter; that is, it would behoove us to do so. I think everyone has herd enough.

41

RR: What a refreshing change of pace to see you actually approach something with humor. Well done! We'll overlook the fact that in dairy circles all your puns are quite shopworn--how could you know that your the millionth guy to use them? Anyway I'll just invite you to Wisconsin sometime to enjoy our dairy air. ;)

Joe Mc F: I doubt not that your scientific education may surpass mine. As I said before I possess only a lowly bachelor degree. Also I agree that it is not important to the discussion who among the various particiapants is the most qualified; the truth is what matters. However your appeal to the truth being the determining factor on any given matter does not settle the question. We both agree that the true answer is the correct one; we just disagree on what is admissible in determining the truth.

You make several statements in post #29 and #36 which seem to be totally inconsistent. If you can square the statement,"I do not equate creationism with stupidity, lack of intelligence or immorality," with the statements,"'Is being scientifically illiterate a prerequisite for accepting a creationist model of origins?'

"Yes.

"'Or are there scientifically literate individuals who reject evolutionary models in favor of creationist ones?'

"No."

and,"Nevertheless, you can be scientifically illiterate either because you can't comprehend the science or becasue you won't make the effort to comprehend the science," then you will receive much adulation from me for your skills as a lawyer.

The crux of the matter, as I said before, is that evolutionary materialists define scientific literacy such that anyone who questions their evolutionary dogmas is scientifically illiterate, never mind what other evidence can be adduced to demonstrate a grasp of scientific method or what other attainments they may have. You and RR have just proven that in spades. This is the essence of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Obviously then, Sir Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, etc., etc., etc. are also scientifically illiterate.

"I think creationism is poor science and, furthermore, it is very poor theology and evidence of poor religious training, too."

Here you prove yourself to be an encephalaphonic pudit with views on everything save your own limitations, in the immortal words of WFB. After this sweeping putdown you follow up with a quote from Augustine. This may come as a surprise to you, but Augustine is not universally considered the final arbiter of what is good theology and what is poor theology. While Augustine was a great and godly man, his writings range from the sublime to the ridiculous.

The quote from Augustine you trotted out likely is the most reproduced snippet of Augustine's work available on the Internet. However if you think about that quote, the science of the 4C to which he urged Christians defer in interpreting Genesis has been completely abandoned. If all our understanding of the Bible had to harmonize with scientific knowledge of the 4C Christians would hardly be any less of a laughing stock among evolutionists than they are now. Also, when Augustine appealed to those who tried to force their understanding of Scripture into neo-Platonist modes as being the "wise brethern" he seems to have run afoul of the message of I Cor. 2. In a debate between Paul and Augustine, I go with Paul every time.

Characterizing any theology which is not Augustinian neo-Platonist as evidence of poor religious training is consistent with characterizing anyone who questions evolutionary dogma as scientifically illiterate. Kinda arrogant, but at least it allows you to draw a bright line between those whose ideas you need to consider and those you can dismiss as ignorant a priori.

42

CH: "We'll overlook the fact that in dairy circles all your puns are quite shopworn--how could you know that your the millionth guy to use them?"

Dang! I thought they were the cream of the crop.

"Anyway I'll just invite you to Wisconsin sometime to enjoy our dairy air. ;)"

Very clever, Cheese. There is a dairy a couple of miles down the road from here. Seems closer when the wind is right. I may take you up on it anyway; I've always wanted to see Brookfield. ;-)

43

RR: I used to manage a cheese factory called Brookside Cheese. Trust me, it was a far cry from Brookfield. Us cheeseheads couldn't afford Brookfield.

44

RR: I used to manage a cheese factory called Brookside Cheese. Trust me, it was a far cry from Brookfield. Us cheeseheads couldn't afford Brookfield.

45

Not bad cheesehead,

To suport creationism you must shoot down the best of science and the best of the eary church fathers--demostratiing why creationism is a backwater both scientifically and theologically.

Creationism--worship of the Bible--is a violation of the First Commandment.

46

Once we concede that morality is, in some sense, objective, we have to ponder where this objective standard emanates from.

From common biology?

47

Joe Mc F: I've shot down no science at all. Could you point to me to any empirical data demonstrating anything to do with evolution?

No actual science is dependent upon an evolutionary framwork to achieve empirical results.

As to your strident claims about Christianity, I'll be happy to enter into any substanitive discussion about that anytime you care to present propositions rather than spew invective.

Meanwhile the examples of a priori dismissal of anyone who disagrees with you which you have so graciously supplied us with are getting a tad redundant at this point. Sort of like breeding rabbits...