Evolution and Morality just isn't logical

[dóxatotheó]

I'd argue that Frans de Waal's observations and experimentation with other primates (chimpanzees, bonobs and macaques) as well as other social mammals (elephants, dogs and rats) show there is definitely a logic to the evolutionary development of moral concepts and moral reasoning in social creatures.

Here's a nice summary on the current state of knowledge on the evolutionary origins of morality:

Evolutionary Origins of Morality: Insights From Non-human Primates

For those that want a TL;DR: "We propose that the ultimate function of human morality is best understood as a straightforward adaptation that enabled the fundamentally interdependent lifestyle of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Even though full-blown morality is most likely unique to humans, several of its key elements can be found in non-human primates and some other animals."

I will check it out

 

[Trusting in Him]

If we as Christians reject Gods account of creation, what is that telling those who are not currently Christians? If we appear not to believe the bible, why should they believe it either! My bible tells me that judgement begins at the house of God. It's not that surprising, when we are supposed to be His witnesses to an unbelieving generation and we are not even sure that we believe His account of creation. Surely the mystery of creation is supposed to show all mankind that God really exists.

 

[Occams Barber]

If we as Christians reject Gods account of creation, what is that telling those who are not currently Christians? If we appear not to believe the bible, why should they believe it either! My bible tells me that judgement begins at the house of God. It's not that surprising, when we are supposed to be His witnesses to an unbelieving generation and we are not even sure that we believe His account of creation. Surely the mystery of creation is supposed to show all mankind that God really exists.

Perhaps this is something you should take up with your fellow Christians?

By the way - you're belief in the Bible does nothing to convince me that i should accept God.

OB

 

[Trusting in Him]

That's your choice not to believe. I have experienced enough of the goodness of God in my life to know that God is real and his word is true.

(1 Corinthians 1:27) But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

Do you think that you have made an informed choice, not to believe in God? He is your maker and you are His workmanship, yet you choose to deny His existence. Be carefully, your choice has consequences!

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Correct, but doesn't negate the possibility of moral absolutes existence because human's themselves have awareness of good and bad explicitly because of our nature which isn't answerable through genetic fitness but through mystery itself.

I agree, I just said there

How so?

By thinking, debating etc. what the basis of morality should be? Most people will land on some type of well being or happiness or something like that. Once that objective is determined then we can objectively compare actions to that moral objective.

Interesting the Euthypro Dilemma. But if you really wanna answer here.
P1: God is Absolutely Independent
P2: God is All Knowing
P3: If he is All Knowing than he doesn't have the process to change
P4: Morals exist cause God
P5: God doesn't do the opposite of himself because he's absolute and All knowing
Conclusion: God's morality can't be subjective of himself because he's absolute and all knowing.

What does P4 mean?

 

[dóxatotheó]

What does P4 mean?

if we are debating moral absolutes than P4 is correct that morals come from God energies

By thinking, debating etc. what the basis of morality should be?

Doesn't answer origin that's a more ethical point. I guess ethics can be used deciding morals also.

Once that objective is determined then we can objectively compare actions to that moral objective.

Morals don't exist if that's the case.

 

[dóxatotheó]

That's your choice not to believe. I have experienced enough of the goodness of God in my life to know that God is real and his word is true.

Im Christian?

 

[Trusting in Him]

Im Christian?

Sorry, I was responding to Occhams barber.

 

[dóxatotheó]

If we as Christians reject Gods account of creation, what is that telling those who are not currently Christians?

Creation story isn't dismissed if evolution is true have you studied evolution before?

why should they believe it either!

Because its a legit fact. Natural Selection and fossils excavations prove its true, only thing that isn true is neo-darwinian theory and darwin theory of how we came to existence.

My bible tells me that judgement begins at the house of God. It's not that surprising, when we are supposed to be His witnesses to an unbelieving generation and we are not even sure that we believe His account of creation.

I Do Evolution is more than just monkeys and humans, also humans are caused by God and not steadily processes of change. See even though I accept evolution, I still also accept God creation story.

Surely the mystery of creation is supposed to show all mankind that God really exists.

That is very much the case, there are many mysteries that are far from answered at this very moment.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

if we are debating moral absolutes than P4 is correct that morals come from God energies

Then God did not decide what is moral. You seem to be saying whatever is right or wrong just is and since God is all knowing He knows what those morals are and relays them to us. So God is not the author of morality. He did not think about what is right or wrong he just relays what the morals are.

Doesn't answer origin that's a more ethical point. I guess ethics can be used deciding morals also.
Morals don't exist if that's the case.

My morals exist because I choose what they are. I have a moral system that is objective with the overall goal being subjective.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

This is about origin not about what we know about human awareness in philosophy.

That's what my first two sentences were about. The origin of morality is a mind discovering the facts relevant to life. Moral principles do not exist in the mind apart from reality(subjective) nor do they exist in reality apart from the mind (intrinsic) but rather in the relationship between reality and the mind. They are conceptual. They are a product of the mind but they reference and identify facts of reality, they are objective. They do not come from evolution but neither do they come from a supernatural mind. They are no different from any other kind of knowledge that man obtains.

Reality existence has the same amount of proof as the position absolute moral existence exist from a diety.

I don't know what you mean by "absolute moral existence exist from a deity" but the idea that we have to prove that reality exists is absurd. Knowledge of existence is available in direct perception. It's not inferred from prior premises. Indeed, what could those prior premises reference except something that exists?

OP is targeting moral realism for Evolution Objectivist.

Yes and I'm agreeing with you that it's absurd.

Interesting so Objective morality is where you hold so moral relativism isn't your position even as an atheist.

I'm an Objectivist so yes. Most atheists are skeptics so they deny that objectivity is possible to man. That's their problem, not mine.

Absolute morality isn't a disprovable case but this isn't what the OP is about, also I understand morality to be a set of principles but those principles aren't originating from events through our course of being but rather from our pure awareness of the sort.

I'm not sure what you mean by "pure awareness of the sort" so I can't comment. But I absolutely disagree that moral principles come from anywhere but our perceptions of reality. All valid concepts can be traced back to the things we perceive in our course of being. If they can't then they are meaningless.

Than how do we know if something is detrimental in our society?
I mean this position is quite interesting.

By means of reason. Reason is our only means of knowledge. It's the human means of knowledge. We know it by judging actions against an objective standard. The standard is your life and its requirements or to put it more abstractly man's life and its requirements.

 

[Occams Barber]

That's your choice not to believe. I have experienced enough of the goodness of God in my life to know that God is real and his word is true.

My lack of belief is based on the absence of evidence for the existence of gods. I'm aware of nothing which would lead me to believe that gods exist. The fact that you believe in a particular God has no bearing on my views.

Do you think that you have made an informed choice, not to believe in God? He is your maker and you are His workmanship, yet you choose to deny His existence. Be carefully, your choice has consequences!

Unbelief/belief is not a matter of choice. I can no more decide to believe in your God than you can decide to believe in Thor or Vishnu or any one of the thousands of deities invented by humans.

The threat of consequences is meaningless if you lack belief in the consequences. It's also a tired old argument (Pascal's wager - Wikipedia).

OB

 

[dóxatotheó]

By means of reason. Reason is our only means of knowledge. It's the human means of knowledge. We know it by judging actions against an objective standard. The standard is your life and its requirements or to put it more abstractly man's life and its requirements.

We cannot resonate moral ideals from nothing, something from nothing is literally always gonna be illogical friend, I mean moral absolutes seem to be a reconcile for our nature for moral awareness don you agree?.

I'm not sure what you mean by "pure awareness of the sort" so I can't comment.

That we always had awareness of right and wrong.

But I absolutely disagree that moral principles come from anywhere but our perceptions of reality.

How does reality create a code of conduct, reality is means of existence, it cannot make rules and guidelines for an ethical standpoint from nothing. What do you define reality as?

All valid concepts can be traced back to the things we perceive in our course of being. If they can't then they are meaningless.

I mean all modern day philosophies on morals and ethics all seem to come to the conclusion that man moral awareness are not subjective.

I don't know what you mean by "absolute moral existence exist from a deity"

Moral absolute philosophy is what I mean.

but the idea that we have to prove that reality exists is absurd. Knowledge of existence is available in direct perception. It's not inferred from prior premises. Indeed, what could those prior premises reference except something that exists?

perceivable reality is mere knowledge of ones own existence not others or all in existence, objective reality isn't possible in the quantum realm.

That's what my first two sentences were about. The origin of morality is a mind discovering the facts relevant to life. Moral principles do not exist in the mind apart from reality(subjective) nor do they exist in reality apart from the mind (intrinsic) but rather in the relationship between reality and the mind. They are conceptual. They are a product of the mind but they reference and identify facts of reality, they are objective. They do not come from evolution but neither do they come from a supernatural mind. They are no different from any other kind of knowledge that man obtains.

Personal Opinions on issues would never make an answer any less disingenuous, you know that moral absolutes is as possible as personal perception of good and bad.

 

[dóxatotheó]

Then God did not decide what is moral. You seem to be saying whatever is right or wrong just is and since God is all knowing He knows what those morals are and relays them to us. So God is not the author of morality. He did not think about what is right or wrong he just relays what the morals are.

In Christian Theology the core belief is God is Light, and anything the opposite of it is sin, which is how he doesn't think morals. They just always been existent.

My morals exist because I choose what they are.

Not possible humans awareness of right and wrong proves morals existed before there existence because human consciences doesn't act before the brain that lacks logical sense so that would mean that once a human is aware of its surroundings than it would only follow that these core ideals would always seen as detrimental, similarly I would make an ex: Murder of toddlers always was seen as wrong in society. Is why laws were given to keep society from doing such atrocities do you have any proof that morals isn't caused from human awareness and not just personal opinion if you can reconcile phenomenology than I would accept such an absurdity. Also, who gave you the right to have your own factors of morals and where does it come from?

I have a moral system that is objective with the overall goal being subjective.

Explain more clearly what this means?

 

[dóxatotheó]

@The happy Objectivist do you affrim ayn rand philosophy?

 

[gaara4158]

In Christian Theology the core belief is God is Light, and anything the opposite of it is sin, which is how he doesn't think morals. They just always been existent.

Right, but this just shifts the problem to what determines what God/Light is. If it’s naturally determined, then God is superfluous to the moral basis. If it’s determined by God’s decisions, then it is not objective but rather subject to God’s will.

 

[dóxatotheó]

Right, but this just shifts the problem to what determines what God/Light is.

In Christian theology its not comprehensible.

If it’s naturally determined, then God is superfluous to the moral basis

wouldnt say so.

s. If it’s determined by God’s decisions, then it is not objective but rather subject to God’s will.

its not determined by God decisions though

 

[gaara4158]

In Christian theology its not comprehensible.
wouldnt say so.

its not determined by God decisions though

God either decides how he’s going to be or he doesn’t. If he does, that makes it subjective. If he doesn’t, then whatever does is the true basis for morality and is necessarily independent from God.

 

[dóxatotheó]

If he doesn’t, then whatever does is the true basis for morality and is necessarily independent from God.

God essence is what he is if anything the opposite than that would be the wrong from right this is needed for God it isnt a deciding factor as these principles was always for God since time came.

 

[gaara4158]

God essence is what he is if anything the opposite than that would be the wrong from right this is needed for God it isnt a deciding factor as these principles was always for God since time came.

You can call it his essence, his nature, Light, or anything else, but the problem still applies no matter what name you use for it. God either does as he sees fit and morality is defined accordingly, making it subjective, or God is appealing to principles that exist outside of himself, making morality objective but non-dependent on God.