Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Naturalistic Evolution is not a scientific theory, it is a Philosophy. The same with Creationism/ID. Both are still Philosophies.
I'm simply asking what is the basis for your morality. I would actually agree with your statement about innate morality.If your theory that God is the only source of morality is true then it should hold that Christian societies are moral and non-christian societies are not, is that right? Or at least more moral.
I'm simply asking what is the basis for your morality. I would actually agree with your statement about innate morality.
However, in your random chance world, how do you account for the vast majority of people throughout history being born with the same sense of right and wrong?
I don't know what that sentence means
Well, you can't defeat hard facts. Geocentrism, a solid firmament holding back 'the waters above', bats being birds and the existence of unicorns all proved to be embarrassing problems that required re-interpretations of parts of the bible, which in turn reduces credibility.
The creation story of Genesis is just the lastest example, by stating that it is literal you are forcing people to chose between scientific facts and biblical 'facts' which have been knocked down, one-by-one as scientific knowledge has increased.
Evolution is proven, with hard, testable evidence, there for all to try and disprove. It takes ignorance or denial to not accept it.
I know how science works. I use these principles often in my studies in psychology, although some don't consider psychology a science.Pushing Creationism as a scientific fact will result in intelligent, educated people losing respect for religious teaching and will ultimately weaken Christianity.
Science teaches scientific theories, there is a strict set of criteria that allow a body of knowledge to be considered a theory. It has to make testable predictions, it has to be supported by repeated experiments and observation etc, as below:
- It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
- It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.
- It is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results. (Its predictions may differ slightly from pre-existing theories in cases where they are more accurate than before.)
- It can be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.
- It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations.
The Biblical Creation story does not fit these criteria. It is not a scientific theory therefore it can't be taught in science classes, period.
We had to evolve it so that we would not wipe ourselves out? Seems as though we would have wiped ourselves out while waiting for those chemical processes to evolve.Human morality is a process. In a way, it has evolved along with us. In this day and age we are all born (with few exceptions) with a similar sense of right and wrong because if this was not the case, we would not exist, as a species.
Are you saying that those things are wrong? On what basis?A community that holds activities such as rape, theft, and murder up as praiseworthy, or even acceptable, will not be with us for very long.
What has random chance got to do with it?I'm simply asking what is the basis for your morality. I would actually agree with your statement about innate morality.
However, in your random chance world, how do you account for the vast majority of people throughout history being born with the same sense of right and wrong?
Exactly! Science is about facts and faith is about belief. Their is no measure because we would be comparing apples and oranges. That is exactly why Creationism/ID has no place in a science class.What is the common objective variable that we can use to pit faith and science together? What is the measuring stick that can be applied to both fairly? In my view, no such measure exists, so it's fallacious to claim that science will always win against faith. You're measuring faith by the standards of science, which is based on hard facts, but the value of faith is not measured by solid evidence.
Ok, lets let the unicorns go. What about the firmament? That is one of the first scientific absurdities that strikes someone who reads the bible for the first time. No scientific evidence has ever been found to show that there was once a solid firmament or that the 'waters above' have ever existed. The idea seems absurd and unless you are perpared to see Genesis as allegorical your faith in the bible will be shaken.Woah, woah. Hold it. These "problems" were not in the Bible. Unicorns exist only in the King James Version, which is a translation of the Bible, and it is what took liberties to change certain details like that. We do not reinterpret the Bible to remove unicorns because unicorns were never in there until we put it there.
I was talking about falsifiable predictions. For example the theory predicted that if chimps, gorillas and humans had come from a common ancestor we should share much of our DNA. That prediction was falsifiable becuase we could test the DNA and prove the prediction to be false. In the end it proved to be true.Evolution is not falsifiable. It's self-proving. We can't travel back in time and show whether or not life did, in fact, originate from a single-celled organism. Same with evolutionary behavioral study. When we claim that a certain behavior is good for a species, how do we justify that claim?
We basically agree. I am repeating what I said because the same assertions come up again and again from different people.Well, if it must have been good for their species, otherwise the behavior would have died out through natural selection.
It uses itself as proof for itself.
I do not deny that evolution exists. However, I am currently neutral when it comes to the claim that humans evolved from lower species.
I know how science works. I use these principles often in my studies in psychology, although some don't consider psychology a science.
You just pretty much reworded the main point of the post you're replying to. The creation story does not fit the criteria because it was never meant to be used for scientific purposes. The Christians of today have started interpreting it that way, but this says nothing about the original intent of the author.
And in which age are you directing your inquiry? 3,000 B.C.? The Dark Ages? Right at this very moment?
Obviously we are not all born with the same sense of right and wrong. Human morality is a process. In a way, it has evolved along with us. In this day and age we are all born (with few exceptions) with a similar sense of right and wrong because if this was not the case, we would not exist, as a species. A community that holds activities such as rape, theft, and murder up as praiseworthy, or even acceptable, will not be with us for very long.
Natural selection in another form.
Rape is a very effective genetic strategy, particularly against outside communities.
Thinking about genes in black and white is sort of counterproductive. From an evolutionary perspective, you have a sliding scale of genetic similiarity. Obviously, you want higher empathy with your progeny, less with than your ethny, less still with other ethnys, etc. So strategies like perpetual war against "nice" neighbors, soft polygamy (like the moderns) or hard polygamy (like the ancients), slavery and rape are all very effective strategies, provided you use them against other ethnys.
As I've said on other occasions, even atheists don't want to think too seriously about the implications of evolution.
Exactly the point I made earlier. The downside to our evolved morality is that it is often limited to those we see as within our group. Those outside our group are simply seen as rivals. This can happen between racial, cultural and religious groups. A good example would be the Spanish Inquisition. Tomas Torquemada, your namesake, tortured and murdered thousands for what they believed, he felt justified in that because they were not Christians, therefore killing them was not murder, but in fact his moral duty.Rape is a very effective genetic strategy, particularly against outside communities.
Thinking about genes in black and white is sort of counterproductive. From an evolutionary perspective, you have a sliding scale of genetic similiarity. Obviously, you want higher empathy with your progeny, less with than your ethny, less still with other ethnys, etc. So strategies like perpetual war against "nice" neighbors, soft polygamy (like the moderns) or hard polygamy (like the ancients), slavery and rape are all very effective strategies, provided you use them against other ethnys..
You have said it, but you haven't backed it up. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that any respectable evolutionary biologists avoiding thinking seriously about the downsides to an evolved morality.As I've said on other occasions, even atheists don't want to think too seriously about the implications of evolution.
Exactly the point I made earlier. The downside to our evolved morality is that it is often limited to those we see as within our group. Those outside our group are simply seen as rivals. This can happen between racial, cultural and religious groups. A good example would be the Spanish Inquisition. Tomas Torquemada, your namesake, tortured and murdered thousands for what they believed, he felt justified in that because they were not Christians, therefore killing them was not murder, but in fact his moral duty.
This is exactly the same concept I mentioned a few posts back and it is an acknowledged flaw in human morality - outside of your group your moral code doesn't apply. We see the same thing again and again through human history, in the OT we see the treatment of Egyptians, Midianites, Amalekites etc. In more recent history we have the Spanish Inquisition, the Rape of Nanking and the Holocaust. Always the same moral flaw, they are not of us they are the other, so the same rules of morality don't apply. Religion helps to perpetuate those divisions. It makes it easier for us to kill each other and justify it, as do racial, cultural and political differences.
You have said it, but you haven't backed it up. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that any respectable evolutionary biologists avoiding thinking seriously about the downsides to an evolved morality.
The evolutionary implications of rape and war have been extensively studied by evolutionary biologists and anthropologists, they don't state that they are atheists, as that is a private matter, but they certainly aren't creationists and there is no sign of them 'not wanting to think about the implications'. Craig Palmer and Randy Thornhill are good examples.
Mutually beneficial isn't maximally beneficial. Genes are selfish. Rape and pillage, so long as its outside of your ethny, is genetically maximizing. Especially if you couple it with polygamy.
It doesn't take much imagination or any particular research to infer that people eventually realized that they were just as susceptible to being raped and pillaged by their neighbors as the other way around
Only someone not familiar with the scientific method would draw that incorrect assumption.
Very comprehensive Wikipedia article of the topic:
Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evolution is both a theory and a fact. A theory is the highest acclimation an idea in science can earn. Evolution is a fact in the sense that it is overwhelmingly validated by the evidence.
That simply isn't true. Power is not equitably distributed amongst ethnys, and there are always groups weaker that you can inflict violence upon, with little prospect of being retaliated back. Rome was able to rape the sabine women, and then defeat their retaliation. The Apache and the Hopi, so on so forth.
"Excessively literalistic"? There is nothing excessive about understanding that when the Bible speaks of six days of Creation it means six actual 24-hour periods. This view is easily defended from Scripture. It is when Christians allow human philosophy to stand as an authority over God's Word that such Christians must behave excessively in contorting the plain meaning of Scripture so that it conforms to naturalistic interpretations of science.Excessively literalistic interpretations of Genesis inevitably pit faith against science, in regard to scientific questions.
Hardly. This statement is mere propaganda for the Theory of Evolution. The fact is, creationists have pointed out a great many problems with the theory, not least of which is that a molecules-to-man process of development requires the regular addition of huge amounts of brand-new genetic information that the ToE has no means of supplying or accounting for.This is a battle that faith can't win and the result is lost credibility, especially among the more educated sections of the population who would be an asset to Christianity.
Well of course it has. Teaching Creationism threatens the massive influence of the Theory of Evolution upon society that these "eloquent scientists" have invested their lives in establishing.Moreover the attempt to force Creationism into science classes has aroused the anger of some of the world's most eloquent scientists.
No, not really. These sorts of critics serve in the end only to strengthen the faith.I am thinking of Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. Surely your faith would be better off without such powerful detractors?
Why should faith and science exist separately? In fact, science cannot even get off the ground without the exercise of a certain amount of faith. There are many unproveable assumptions upon which science rests that scientists must take on faith as being true.Would it not be a better strategy to keep faith and science separate? To say nothing of faith and politics.
The creationists I know do not make this sort of separation. In fact, they are avidly interested in the relationship between their faith and science. What the creationists I know oppose is the interpretation that is given to the facts of science by scientists who adhere to a naturalistic/atheistic philosophy.In addition these groups often present Christianity and science as mutually exclusive. Do you really want young Christians to have to make that choice?
They are only "radical" to those with an opposing veiwpoint.The ID movement and the vocal anti-evolutionary stance of some sections of Evangelical Christianity seems to me to be a terrible miscalculation, that is damaging to all of Christianity. The press focuses on this radical fringe, making it loom much larger than it really is.
What you call the "more reasonable voice of Christianity" seems to me to be the voice of those who have severely compromised their faith.Do mainstream Christians see this? If they do why don't they do more to make the more reasonable voice of Christianity heard?
I'll try to make my point more comprehensively:
I wasn't suggesting that power is or has ever been equally distributed- history clearly attests to the fact that stronger groups have exploited weaker groups for millennia. However, history demonstrates just as clearly that the balance of power can shift dramatically given enough time. Even the Roman Empire throughout its history was not immune to fluctuations of power and its position in the world hierarchy- its hegemony lasted nearly 500 years before falling at the hands of the barbarians (reemerging as a shadow of its former self). Groups once at the bottom of the world strata can easily find themselves on top for a variety of reasons- people eventually took this as a lesson.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?