Moral absolutism as compared to the advancement of technology

[Bradskii]

I have heard scientists bemoan the fact that we really cannot define what a species is so I seem to know more about this and looked into deeper than you have who could only google an incorrect description. I did not merely look it on wiki.

Speciation I did look up and the written definition is this:
Speciation is how a new kind of plant or animal species is created. Speciation occurs when a group within a species separates from other members of its species and develops its own unique characteristics.

How can you say that this is not a part of the evolutionary theory? How can all life forms have evolved from one kind only and not see that speciation is the last link in new life forms evolving? It is not clear to me how you can believe all life forms developed from the same one and no new kings of plants or animals species were created. Do you think this does not happen?

Yes, there is a degree of difference as regards the definition of species. It's not like Pythagorus's Theorum. These things are not set in concrete. If you want to use that fact to argue against...whatever it is you want to argue against (it's quite a common tactic with those who feel the need to deny evolution) then feel free.

And you are not reading what I am writing. But I get this a lot. And I think it's because I class myself as an atheist. So some Christians seemingly skip over what I post (it can't be worth reading) and want to get to whatever they want to say without making any attempt to understand what I've said. It's quite frustrating because I put a reasonable amount of time in composing what I say so that it's as clear as I can make it. And one of the things I have said at least three times now is that speciation is not a requirememt for a process to be declared 'evolution'.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Yes, there is a degree of difference as regards the definition of species. It's not like Pythagorus's Theorum. These things are not set in concrete. If you want to use that fact to argue against...whatever it is you want to argue against (it's quite a common tactic with those who feel the need to deny evolution) then feel free.

That is not a point one can use to argue against the theory of evolution, that we cannot define what species is. There are a lot of words that we cannot define verbally with satisfaction and still the words are useful.

And you are not reading what I am writing. But I get this a lot. And I think it's because I class myself as an atheist. So some Christians seemingly skip over what I post (it can't be worth reading) and want to get to whatever they want to say without making any attempt to understand what I've said. It's quite frustrating because I put a reasonable amount of time in composing what I say so that it's as clear as I can make it. And one of the things I have said at least three times now is that speciation is not a requirememt for a process to be declared 'evolution'.

So for you the genetic changes that result in a offspring there is then so different from its ancestors as to warrant a new species name has nothing to do with evolution? Did I get it right? I am trying. Let me please ask for clarification. Maybe it would help if you would tell me what IS a requirement for a process to be declared evolution? Are you saying that the change need not be so great so to require new nomenclature? Is that it? You mean a genetic change can be an example of evolution but no new species name is applied? Can you please reword your thought instead of merely repeating it?

 

[Bradskii]

That is not a point one can use to argue against the theory of evolution, that we cannot define what species is. There are a lot of words that we cannot define verbally with satisfaction and still the words are useful.
So for you the genetic changes that result in a offspring there is then so different from its ancestors as to warrant a new species name has nothing to do with evolution? Did I get it right? I am trying. Let me please ask for clarification. Maybe it would help if you would tell me what IS a requirement for a process to be declared evolution? Are you saying that the change need not be so great so to require new nomenclature? Is that it? You mean a genetic change can be an example of evolution but no new species name is applied? Can you please reword your thought instead of merely repeating it?

From wiki: Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

That's the simple version, but it will do.

Does it mention that speciation is required? No. It doesn't. Because it isn't.
Can the process result in speciation? Yes. I think the title of Darwin's book mentioned it.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

From wiki: Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

That's the simple version, but it will do.

Does it mention that speciation is required? No. It doesn't. Because it isn't.
Can the process result in speciation? Yes. I think the title of Darwin's book mentioned it.

Did I ever say that deciding new nomenclature for a biological form is necessary?

Do you admit that this change in heritable characteristics of biological populations from the one in the beginning did result in new classes, families, orders, species and genus with time (not in that order?)

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Bradskii, one of the problems is when there are genetic changes, such as in Corona, the evolutionists shout essentially, “see, we (all life) all evolved from a common ancestor because a simple form, a virus mutated.” No followers of Christ say no mutations occur. But because simple genetic changes occur it doesn’t follow all life is the result of small genetic changes over time plus chance.

 

[Estrid]

Who is this "WE" that you speak of? It definitely isn't me. Anybody you know?

Seriously.
Our friend has a very bleak and lopsided view
of humanity, fueled perhaps by a one sided reading
of the Bible, or, who knows.
I'm sure we all hope he comes out of it, it sounds
so sad and depressing way to live.

 

[Estrid]

Yes, there is a degree of difference as regards the definition of species. It's not like Pythagorus's Theorum. These things are not set in concrete. If you want to use that fact to argue against...whatever it is you want to argue against (it's quite a common tactic with those who feel the need to deny evolution) then feel free.

And you are not reading what I am writing. But I get this a lot. And I think it's because I class myself as an atheist. So some Christians seemingly skip over what I post (it can't be worth reading) and want to get to whatever they want to say without making any attempt to understand what I've said. It's quite frustrating because I put a reasonable amount of time in composing what I say so that it's as clear as I can make it. And one of the things I have said at least three times now is that speciation is not a requirememt for a process to be declared 'evolution'.

A person who knows more about ToE than
the lies of a creationist site would recognize
that the fuzzy boundaries around the term of
convenience "species" is anything but a sign
that there is a problem with the theory.

Similarly a person with any inclination to
discussion in good faith would not, for example,
employ insulting falsehoods like that evolutionists
shout (shout, of course) common ancestor because
virus mutate.
Of course what you say is ignored. Ignore-ance
and falsehood are the sum of creoguments.
In a way it's good to see them in action, keeps
one reminded who is really on the " side of the angels "

 

[FredVB]

"(1) Moral law implies a Moral Lawgiver.
(2) There is an objective moral law.
(3) Therefore, there is an objective Moral Lawgiver."

Geisler, N. L. (2002). Systematic theology, volume one: introduction, Bible (p. 36). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.

Throughout human history, there have been advances in civilization, quality of life, technology, and probably morality. Most of these at least, especially technology, have come about by intellectual efforts. If technology can be advanced via intellectual creativity and effort, why does human morality rely on God to advance? Why can't humans via their own creativity have advanced morality like technology?

I am a Christian and believe in an absolute moral standard by God, but perhaps too the same is with technology, yet clearly technology has come from the workings of the human mind and not Holy writ.

If there is really what is right or wrong about anything, that makes sense. But without there being essential existence with that capacity, as God, to be source for the distinction of right from wrong, so that there is only physical things of the physical universe which is claimed by a number of those in communication, there is no right or wrong other than their own choices determining any such distinction, so it is mostly arbitrary and not any real distinction. That and other things I see of real value I agree are from necessary existence that is God being the source, and that always existed with God.

I don't associate technology advancing is any basis for associating with morality. Technology advances apart from morality and there were really bad things from it, which is with saying there is real distinction between real right and real wrong, with some technology used enslaving people, or being destructive to human lives, in addition to abuses to animals, and real destructiveness to this world, and it does not stop in that. Technology will not save us as critical issues come with the destructiveness from it that is not stopping, such that it is not good to continue depending so much on it for so much still.

 

[Torah Keeper]

Just because we can invent something, doesn't always mean we should.

There are certain technologies that we are better off without.

When morality is relative, it results in "my view" vs "your view". And our views can change. In the advancement of technology, this inevitably leads to conflicts and wars.

When morality is absolute, we can't argue with God. He does not change. He knows best. We trust Him.

 

[stevevw]

There is an itching question I need to ponder. I want to quote an argument from a cited source...
"
(1) Moral law implies a Moral Lawgiver.
(2) There is an objective moral law.
(3) Therefore, there is an objective Moral Lawgiver.
"

Geisler, N. L. (2002). Systematic theology, volume one: introduction, Bible (p. 36). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.

Throughout human history, there have been advances in civilization, quality of life, technology, and probably morality. Most of these at least, especially technology, have come about by intellectual efforts. If technology can be advanced via intellectual creativity and effort, why does human morality rely on God to advance? Why can't humans via their own creativity have advanced morality like technology?

I am a Christian and believe in an absolute moral standard by God, but perhaps too the same is with technology, yet clearly technology has come from the workings of the human mind and not Holy writ.

I look at morality being like a natural law similar to Math. There are moral truths that we can discover. Sometimes these truths like facts in science are beyond our understanding at the time. Sometimes they are obscured by misguided assumptions.

But as we gradually get a better understanding of what is happening with improving tech and knowledge this allows us to see things for what they are or not. The truth will always reveal itself in the end.

Humans are rational beings and morality is a rational enterprise. We have to consider the circumstances and the facts around the moral situation. What is factual can change and this needs to be taken into consideration when finding the moral truths.

 

[VCR-2000]

As someone who has a libertarian side, I have to admit that the absolutism of morality or any kind of absolutism sounds like a conflict of interest, especially since the absolutism overrides the reasoning and judgements of mankind. Or even of the idea of subsidiarity.

 

[FredVB]

A lot of things have been invented that contributed to harm, and plenty of things invented still do. Technology will not save us from things worsening from technology, that would be a false hope, when we should live with changed ways, with simplicity in our lives.

Though there is absolute morality from the source of morality, it is not for us to force it on others. Speaking of it is the right that we have, morality should have a voice, while it is not forcing anyone to anything, people are still responsible for their choices.

 

[stevevw]

There is an itching question I need to ponder. I want to quote an argument from a cited source...
"
(1) Moral law implies a Moral Lawgiver.
(2) There is an objective moral law.
(3) Therefore, there is an objective Moral Lawgiver.
"

Geisler, N. L. (2002). Systematic theology, volume one: introduction, Bible (p. 36). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.

Throughout human history, there have been advances in civilization, quality of life, technology, and probably morality. Most of these at least, especially technology, have come about by intellectual efforts. If technology can be advanced via intellectual creativity and effort, why does human morality rely on God to advance? Why can't humans via their own creativity have advanced morality like technology?

I am a Christian and believe in an absolute moral standard by God, but perhaps too the same is with technology, yet clearly technology has come from the workings of the human mind and not Holy writ.

If we consider that as we have advanced with technology this has brought up moral considerations as to how best to use that tech. This is where philosophy comes in. So humans are intelligent and have amassed great knowledge which allows us to do great things. But at the same time we are moral creatures who can rationalize what is the right and wrong thing to do.

Though seperate aspects of being human they are both needed. In fact I think our spiritual side is most needed as we are seeing how science and technology is not answering the important aspects of life meaning and how we treat each other. As we have seen with Indigenous peoples today as has been for all history it is the spiritual that harmonizes life and makes us one with nature and each other.

 

[Estrid]

A lot of things have been invented that contributed to harm, and plenty of things invented still do. Technology will not save us from things worsening from technology, that would be a false hope, when we should live with changed ways, with simplicity in our lives.

Though there is absolute morality from the source of morality, it is not for us to force it on others. Speaking of it is the right that we have, morality should have a voice, while it is not forcing anyone to anything, people are still responsible for their choices.

What do you mean by technology.

And

What is an example of absolute morality?
What does the term mean?

 

[zippy2006]

There is an itching question I need to ponder. I want to quote an argument from a cited source...
"
(1) Moral law implies a Moral Lawgiver.
(2) There is an objective moral law.
(3) Therefore, there is an objective Moral Lawgiver.
"

Geisler, N. L. (2002). Systematic theology, volume one: introduction, Bible (p. 36). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.

Throughout human history, there have been advances in civilization, quality of life, technology, and probably morality. Most of these at least, especially technology, have come about by intellectual efforts. If technology can be advanced via intellectual creativity and effort, why does human morality rely on God to advance? Why can't humans via their own creativity have advanced morality like technology?

I am a Christian and believe in an absolute moral standard by God, but perhaps too the same is with technology, yet clearly technology has come from the workings of the human mind and not Holy writ.

Why can't humans via their own creativity have advanced morality like technology?

Technology does not imply a technology-giver, but moral law implies a moral lawgiver (see premise 1).

Morality is not advanced in the same way as technology. We can decide on some goal and then develop technology to advance that goal. Morality is not something we just decide on our own. It is prescriptive, as Geisler aptly points out.

 

[Bradskii]

Technology does not imply a technology-giver, but moral law implies a moral lawgiver (see premise 1).

Morality is not advanced in the same way as technology. We can decide on some goal and then develop technology to advance that goal. Morality is not something we just decide on our own. It is prescriptive, as Geisler aptly points out.

Are you sayin that all acts have a moral prescription?

 

[Estrid]

Are you sayin that all acts have a moral prescription?

That is moral absolutism. Stand by.

 

[durangodawood]

... (1) Moral law implies a Moral Lawgiver....

What is "moral law"?

I dont even know what that means?

 

[Estrid]

What is "moral law"?

I dont even know what that means?

You will never find out

 

[stevevw]

I think the Moral Law is like the Natural Law and what Aristotal called the "Good". They are all saying the same thing that there is some moral law or truth we intuitively know of telling us what is morally right and wrong. Thats why we see the same basic moral laws that protect and respect humans around Human Rights or National conventions and treaties as we all know this truth through our experience.

Human Rights were born out of the horrors of war which killed many innocent humans. I think the fact that just about every major authority, religion, social sciences even biology converges in upholding and protecting the same basic human rights shows there must be some truth to there being absolute morals we appeal to.