So I've got this idea to challenge the Evolutionists with: evolved morality

[Gottservant]

The idea is pretty simple at this stage, which is why I wanted to flesh it out here first. I don't have a really good handle on it, but its simply this:

Morality evolves, if survival pressure exists, cooperation is possible, and the subject does not change

Allow me to unpack this. Morality evolves is the main part, the important thing here is that morality is first, I do not put evolution first (for reasons the are more subconscious at the moment).

The second part is standard to the theory of evolution that survival pressure has to exist for the necessary culling to take place, that pushes a group of creatures forward, towards the optimum for that survival pressure, what ever it is.

The third part is important, because it adds a humane aspect to the theory: cooperation being possible. Typically an evolutionist will take cooperation for granted, the whole time they are saying everything is survival of the fittest. But there isn't any point (aint any point) for something to attempt evolving if there is no resource to draw upon, for which you refer to the physical sciences outside of biology.

Now, unless you have corrected me on something up to this point, I assume you are up to part four, which is where the meat is "if the subject doesn't change" in other words morality applies to a certain subject, before moral law evolves. This is a selection pressure for coherence, since one creatures morality will out compete another's if its coherence, with the constancy of the requirement for morality, as a selection pressure, is greatest. If one animal is more moral, it wins.

It is basically the last part that I want to push. Saying so, I realize that there is a tentative nature to the proposition that for morality to be coherent it has to be able to stay on subject. The point being of course, that for morality to evolve, there has to be an evolved conscience and an evolved conscience does not appear unless it applies to all subjects. A breach in subject, being a breach in the conscience, and therefore a breach in morality, and therefore a breach in the creature's integrity.

Now I can see this rabbit trailing into all sorts of arguments about whether the conscience is actually a thing, and whether you need to be moral about everything in order to be moral just once, and whether you can change the subject of morality, be moral, and then go back to the old subject, but the point I want to make clear is that morality comes from somewhere, and if there is time in your theory for change, then there is time in your theory for morality to emerge. Keeping the subject the same is the key to proving that sooner or later you will face the question of morality, because of differences in behaviour being noticed from one iteration to the next (actually yes, that is the point, I realize).

And if you face the question of morality, then you face the question of whether or not there is a Moralizer, who we know to be the Holy Spirit...

What do you think?

 

[Assyrian]

I think everyone here recognise that the source of morality is God who created us in his image, your Moraliser, the issue is whether God could have created morality and conscience through natural process just as our physical bodies evolved.

I think your problem is thinking morality and conscience must have existed as a functioning morality and conscience from the beginning of its evolution. What you would have had were instincts and emotions, the instinct to work together and share, to fight off a common enemy together to defend, first your own young, then members of your group, and with that a growing emotional bond to other members of the group. But that is a long way from conscience and moral awareness. That needs more than instinct and emotion, it needs thought and awareness too. You need to be able to think about you choices, not just think about whether to risk your life or flee, but to think about the choice itself. You need to be self aware, like the elephant who can look in a mirror, and instead of greeting the reflection as another elephant, sees a dab of paint on the the side of the reflections face and and rubs it off their own face with their trunk, or the chimps who make faces at themselves in the mirror. But even more importantly, you need to be able to recognise that other members of your group are other selves just like you are, with feelings just like you, who will hurt if you mistreat them just like you would if you were treated that way.

 

[Gottservant]

Thanks for your reply.

You definitely gave me food for thought.

 

[Gottservant]

I have concluded that the path to morality is definitely a process (by definition of a path, naturally).

What you said makes sense in that light, although I wonder if you grasp what I am saying about morality developing by staying on the subject.

If you stay on the subject, then over time you notice differences between one attempt and another, and so you develop a sense of what is the optimum, the optimum then being what defines your morality.

 

[Assyrian]

I have concluded that the path to morality is definitely a process (by definition of a path, naturally).

What you said makes sense in that light, although I wonder if you grasp what I am saying about morality developing by staying on the subject.

If you stay on the subject, then over time you notice differences between one attempt and another, and so you develop a sense of what is the optimum, the optimum then being what defines your morality.

Can you be more clear about what you mean by:
'stay on the subject' (you are talking about staying on the subject of this discussion aren't you?)
'one attempt and another' ( one attempt at understanding the development of morality or one attempt at being moral?)
'the optimum' ( the optimum morality or the optimum understanding of moral development?)
Sorry

 

[Gottservant]

Can you be more clear about what you mean by:
'stay on the subject' (you are talking about staying on the subject of this discussion aren't you?)
'one attempt and another' ( one attempt at understanding the development of morality or one attempt at being moral?)
'the optimum' ( the optimum morality or the optimum understanding of moral development?)
Sorry

No problems. Every question is legitimate in some way.

"Stay on the subject" just means "create a selection pressure for some topic, morally, in some way"

in other words, the longer we stay on the subject of morality, the more likely one of us will notice what the optimum way of discussing morality is and so the more likely that one of us will be selected for our optimum sense of morality, socially. It could be any subject though...

"One attempt and another" refers to the sense of trial and error that Evolutionists have as scientists, so what I say may not be the definition of what is moral to you, but then you might come up with something and so I will select your version of morality because it is more optimum than mine

"the optimum" just refers to something for which you will never choose otherwise (from), simply because it is the best of all available alternatives. the idea in connection with morality is that you invoke the sense of what is optimum like "thou shalt not murder" for life and then you defend the optimum by saying, "if we did murder, then we wouldn't enjoy life as much, because it would be shorter", which is very hedonistic I know, but at least its a reason.

I think your questions have helped. I am still trying to work out how to argue about the significance of staying on the subject. For example, say the subject is humanity and someone says "well the optimum is to get rid of the weaker ones", well, the whole trick here is to say "no you are not staying on the subject, the subject is humanity, not individual members of humanity, that's a subject fallacy" or something like that. That's what I've been thinking, how do I call it a fallacy? Meaningfully?

But anyway, as you can see it is quite robust and it does force Evolutionists to think morally, because it fits their model. But enough of me, for now!

 

[Greg1234]

I think everyone here recognise that the source of morality is God who created us in his image, your Moraliser, the issue is whether God could have created morality and conscience through natural process just as our physical bodies evolved.

The morality you define is centered purely around the physical body's interests. It has no consideration for God.

I think your problem is thinking morality and conscience must have existed as a functioning morality and conscience from the beginning of its evolution.

Yet the spirit preceded the physical. The welfare of man preceded any physical components. I would be interested in hearing how fallen man came first and in what manner the sinful nature, in it's antagonistic warring with the spirit, produced the welfare of man.

What you would have had were instincts and emotions, the instinct to work together and share, to fight off a common enemy together to defend,

Work together and share what? Who is the common enemy? God has its adversary, but I don't even think that's what you're talking about.

 

[lesliedellow]

There are Christian biologists, who do not doubt that evolution happened, but who are nevertheless unpersuaded that it can account for morality. One such is Francis Collins.

 

[Assyrian]

No problems. Every question is legitimate in some way.

"Stay on the subject" just means "create a selection pressure for some topic, morally, in some way"

in other words, the longer we stay on the subject of morality, the more likely one of us will notice what the optimum way of discussing morality is and so the more likely that one of us will be selected for our optimum sense of morality, socially. It could be any subject though...

"One attempt and another" refers to the sense of trial and error that Evolutionists have as scientists, so what I say may not be the definition of what is moral to you, but then you might come up with something and so I will select your version of morality because it is more optimum than mine

"the optimum" just refers to something for which you will never choose otherwise (from), simply because it is the best of all available alternatives. the idea in connection with morality is that you invoke the sense of what is optimum like "thou shalt not murder" for life and then you defend the optimum by saying, "if we did murder, then we wouldn't enjoy life as much, because it would be shorter", which is very hedonistic I know, but at least its a reason.

I think we need to distinguish between the development of our scientifc understanding of morality and the evolution of morality itself. Both may be useful topics for discussion, but they would tend to confuse the issue if you mix them up. (Not that I know much about the history of the scientific understanding morality anyway )

There can be a strong carrot and stick when it comes to morality, especially we we are learning right from wrong. People angry enough to kill are probably past the stage of worrying about fine moral distinctions, but might stop to consider the consequences. Likewise societies where murderers are punished protect themselves in the process by discouraging other to murder them. Yet at the same time, we begin to think about people other than ourselves and how our actions affect them. And this understanding begins to extend beyond our own societies where there is a mutual benefit as we extend our duty of care to outcasts and enemies. Hence Jesus' explanation of being a neighbour featured the actions of a despised Samaritan.

Not all morality has an immediate hedonistic benefit. Sometimes doing what is right comes at great cost, people who give their lives for those they love, for family, friends or even just their neighbours. You can look at how that evolved with a great survival advantage for groups where members will die to defend their community (like ants and bees), but while ants operate by instinct, we have to balance fear and pain against the desire to protect others. That is a deeply moral decision, and one Jesus described as 'no greater love'.

I think your questions have helped. I am still trying to work out how to argue about the significance of staying on the subject. For example, say the subject is humanity and someone says "well the optimum is to get rid of the weaker ones", well, the whole trick here is to say "no you are not staying on the subject, the subject is humanity, not individual members of humanity, that's a subject fallacy" or something like that. That's what I've been thinking, how do I call it a fallacy? Meaningfully?

But anyway, as you can see it is quite robust and it does force Evolutionists to think morally, because it fits their model. But enough of me, for now!

Darwin tackled the issue of 'getting rid of the weaker ones' in Origin of Species. For Darwin the cost of any benefit to health would be the loss of our very humanity. I think he had the answer there. It is our care for our weak and the sick that is one of the greatest things about the human race.