The Evolution of Morality

[Oncedeceived]

Tell me the moral value that is found in a philosophy that says I can have perpetrated some of the worst imaginable wickedness, yet this will be set aside because of the sacrifice that someone else makes....!?

Not just anyone but God.

As Christopher Hitchens famously pointed out, whereas it is conceivable that someone else might volunteer to take my punishment for my actions, by what moral metric is it acceptable for them to shoulder my responsibility for my deeds...?

So he thinks it is a bad thing that Jesus took on the punishment for all sin?

 

[biggles53]

Not just anyone but God.

Who cares who it was......tell me where you get a moral value out of setting aside ANY EVIL ACTS that I might perform, if someone else sacrifices themselves...?

So he thinks it is a bad thing that Jesus took on the punishment for all sin?

Please read more carefully.....not just the punishment, but the responsibility for my bad deeds....

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why must morality be linked to intelligence...?

How could one be moral if intelligence did not exist? To act in a moral way one must be able to make a moral judgement.

Examples please...?

Lions killing other males and their offspring to take over their pride.

For the tribe...? How could this be...?

IF there is only food for a single individual or tribe and they make the choice to eat the food themselves and the others die from starvation.

For the tribe...?

It happens in nature repeatedly. In war as well.

Who says that the social values that have evolved are counter to survival...? Remember, we're saying that what benefits the tribe also benefits the individual...

I am saying that if survival is the only component in determining morality, then this is not satisfactory IMHO for the selflessness that morality requires.

Inheritance would be part of the answer, as would learned behaviours.....

I agree. But there have been studies that show situations that those who were not given moral guidance can be moral just the same.

Some if it can be explained by biological evolution, some by social evolution....

Some. However, I don't believe that morality arises from biological processes alone.

Yes it does.....those values are what we deem them to be. It has always been thus....

So a moral act is not moral it is just an act that we had to do.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Who cares who it was......tell me where you get a moral value out of setting aside ANY EVIL ACTS that I might perform, if someone else sacrifices themselves...?

We are judged even if we are saved. We do have consequences for our acts on earth. So someone that has spent their lives doing good like mother Theresa, will have great rewards and if Hitler did repent (again it is doubtful to me that he would) he would still reap what he sowed and would not be rewarded in heaven. He would not be separated from God but he would not enjoy the rewards that the others who did good all their lives will.

Please read more carefully.....not just the punishment, but the responsibility for my bad deeds...

Sorry still missing the point.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If that were the case, then it would, by definition, be socially acceptable. Doesn't mean I have to accept it however. In fact, it is through the actions of people disagreeing with the existing moral code that it changes....

So if the majority of people are immoral, the number of those in favor out number the ones that don't so change is unlikely.

 

[biggles53]

How could one be moral if intelligence did not exist?

There are many examples in the animal kingdom of altruistic behaviours among species that are substantially less intelligent than ourselves. Much of this can be explained by hard-wired evolutionarily developed behaviour.

I am saying that if survival is the only component in determining morality, then this is not satisfactory IMHO for the selflessness that morality requires.

Who said that survival was the ONLY factor involved. If you go back to my original assertion, part of it had to do with success for individuals in surviving to reproduce, but a large part was also devoted to the concept of empathising with others of our species. We recognise the pain (or joy) in others and are able to project that into our experience.

So a moral act is not moral it is just an act that we had to do.

Please don't put words in my mouth....it's a sign of desperation in your argument......

What I SAID was that 'moral acts' are what we deem them to be......we require no intervention by any claimed supernatural entities to do so.......this is the way we have ALWAYS determined what is acceptable and what is not...

 

[biggles53]

So if the majority of people are immoral, the number of those in favor out number the ones that don't so change is unlikely.

Huh...? By whose measure are they "immoral"...?

We used to regard slavery as acceptable. Many were able to justify it on the basis of your god's approval if it. So, it was quite "moral" to keep slaves.

A few people began to disagree with this practice. They challenged the prevailing morality and were eventually able to persuade a large number of their fellows to agree. We now no longer regard slavery as a "moral" behaviour....

What's so hard to understand about the way that morality can change with regard to the situations we find ourself in....? Are you suggesting that, because we've never had a retraction from your god about slavery, about killing witches, about stoning gays, about killing unruly children, that we should still regard these things as morally upright and should still carry them out...!?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Once wrote:

I based that on the fact that you seem to have no knowledge of the common mechanisms proposed, and that you have not stated that you have made yourself familiar with the body of evidence available, or even read a book on it. You don't seem to be familiar with the fact that there are whole journals publishing data on this every month, much less read them. How is it arrogant for me to accept your own description of your situation?​

So due to the fact that I didn't want to read a book that you said I should read you have determined that I have not researched the concepts of biological altruism. I actually have read some interesting studies on different projects that have used children and puppets to determine if children can comprehend and make value judgements if the puppets were presented as one being a good character and the other bad.

I've read studies that used experiments based on reflection rather than spur of the moment judgement calls in determining whether taking the time to think about an issue will make a difference in what a person first thinks is moral or immoral by giving one group time to reflect on the issue and the other group having to make snap judgements.

I've read studies that have experimented to see how much emotions have to do with morality. Whether emotions tend to make moral judgements more likely or not.

I've read studies that have presented ideas like telling one group about incest in a brother and sister and using the details of the situation to alter the judgement call of whether or not it is moral or not.

I've read about the concepts of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.

So please don't use your peer reviewed, I understand the issue better than you arguments. I disagree with many, I agree with some aspects of some concepts but I don't do so in ignorance.

Why? There is plenty of research in those sources and others, but it's not my job to walk you through your own investigation.

I said to provide a source. That is a big difference from walking me through my investigation.

If you were to state that electrons don't exist, prove me wrong, I would suggest you read what those familiar with physics have done as far as experiments go. This is a simple matter of personal responsibility - of taking responsibility for one's own knowledge and statements. The fact that many here are gracious enough to bring up evidence is nice, but not required.

To each their own.

I did. I not only linked to the book description more than once (there are extensive footnotes there), but also mentioned the peer-reviewed journals. I even went so far as to summarize some points in that 500 page book.

Peer-reviewed journals and articles are a good source which I use all the time.

Fair enough. How about this:

I, Papias, believe that God created. Not just that, but that God created everything. As stated in John 1, there is nothing created that God did not create.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear that up.

Good, I needed to hear that.​

We are only sort of disagreeing. We both say that they are from God, and that God created them. I further add that God did that creating using evolution, just as he created us using evolution as his method.

So are you a wind up and let it all go kind of guy or just what is your take on all that?

It's like, say, Mt. Vesuvius. I say that God created Mt. Vesuvius using plate tectonics, & volcanism. I hope you do too. I hope we agree that God created Mt. Vesuvius (see John 1).

I like you believe God created everything and that ToE is man's interpretation of that process.

I disagree. Even if God used evolution to make them, that doesn't change anything from the stand point of God doing the creating, and hence that they are from God.

OK.

No, we all have both free will, and the God-given, evolved morality that says that rape is wrong.

How do we have free will if are brains are just chemically wired to be what they are?

Morality is not simply doing whatever we need to help our genes. Our morality includes a wider circle of care than that, and if my genes don't like it, they can go jump in the lake.

If you look at evolution without God's input, I don't think that that is possible.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Golden Yak I am sorry I didn't get to your post tonight. I hope I can get to it soon. I just wanted to make sure that I had time to discuss your post, it was a good one. Thanks.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There are many examples in the animal kingdom of altruistic behaviours among species that are substantially less intelligent than ourselves. Much of this can be explained by hard-wired evolutionarily developed behaviour.

They still have intelligence.

Who said that survival was the ONLY factor involved. If you go back to my original assertion, part of it had to do with success for individuals in surviving to reproduce, but a large part was also devoted to the concept of empathising with others of our species. We recognise the pain (or joy) in others and are able to project that into our experience.

How did that develop? the empathy?

Please don't put words in my mouth....it's a sign of desperation in your argument......

I'm sorry, not my intent, I should have ended that with a question mark.

What I SAID was that 'moral acts' are what we deem them to be......we require no intervention by any claimed supernatural entities to do so.......this is the way we have ALWAYS determined what is acceptable and what is not...

How do you know that there is no intervention by God? How do you know that God did not instill moral instincts in us?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Huh...? By whose measure are they "immoral"...?

You don't think that it would be immoral?

We used to regard slavery as acceptable. Many were able to justify it on the basis of your god's approval if it. So, it was quite "moral" to keep slaves.

Was it? Or was it beneficial to those who did it so it was used to provide more for those who held them?

A few people began to disagree with this practice. They challenged the prevailing morality and were eventually able to persuade a large number of their fellows to agree. We now no longer regard slavery as a "moral" behaviour....

Do you think that those who held them thought they were being moral?

What's so hard to understand about the way that morality can change with regard to the situations we find ourself in....? Are you suggesting that, because we've never had a retraction from your god about slavery, about killing witches, about stoning gays, about killing unruly children, that we should still regard these things as morally upright and should still carry them out...!?

I don't have time to show you that God was not for slavery, that killing witches was mostly secular, The Bible I don't think ever said anything about stoning gays (which you claimed was not immoral in our discussion earlier) unruly children?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Good night all.

 

[biggles53]

Do you think that those who held them thought they were being moral?

Yes, particularly when they believed their actions were sanctioned by your god...

I don't have time to show you that God was not for slavery,

Except that he COMMANDED that it be done in many occasions....!

that killing witches was mostly secular,

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"......

The Bible I don't think ever said anything about stoning gays

Please take the time to read Leviticus (20:13 I think...)

unruly children?

"He that curseth father or mother shall be out to death"

Honestly, do you ever bother to read this thing that supposedly guides your life...!?

 

[juvenissun]

'Would you punish them both equally' seems a perfectly reasonable question, given the circumstances he's currently posing it under.

I mean, to me the answer is obviously 'no'. I mean, duh.

But, I'd still like to hear your answer.

Every human being would say no. That is why I call the question stupid.

 

[juvenissun]

Stop embarrassing yourself...!



Have you forgotten your own words already...!?

So, there is no comparison between one sin and another in your god's eyes...?

Of course there is. But that is on the second line. Beside, that is not a comparison. The degree of sin is also measured in an absolute scale. Human beings even know that. That is why we have different degree of punishment in our society.

But, the first line is: both are guilty.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, particularly when they believed their actions were sanctioned by your god...




Except that he COMMANDED that it be done in many occasions....!

If we are talking about OT laws.

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"......

In the original Hebrew text it is a sorceress. This was completely different in most cases as to what we see with witches and wiccan's in our times. This was a devil worshipping person that used drugs and sacrificed their children. You have to take things in context. Is it moral to drug others, cast spells of harm and to sacrifice their children to Molech? I think you would agree that in this case you can see that it even now would be considered immoral.

Please take the time to read Leviticus (20:13 I think...)

Right, OT law.

"He that curseth father or mother shall be out to death"

There are several mentions of this in OT times. The reason is complex and you can't take it out of the context of the Bible or OT time. Satan was working very hard to eliminate the Jews so that Jesus could not be born of a Jew. The work included causing trouble from the inside out...in the family. The harshness of the time was due to the extreme efforts of Satan to eliminate Jews and the fact that the Jews had to cover their own sin unlike today by Jesus and His death. That is why God used harsh methods to ensure that the Israeli people were kept on track and not lead astray by immoral practices of those around them.


I read it in context. When you said that about witches, I really had a disconnect since I read the Torah for OT passages.

 

[biggles53]

If we are talking about OT laws.

Right, OT law.

There are several mentions of this in OT times. The reason is complex and you can't take it out of the context of the Bible or OT time.

I am so disappointed. I would have thought someone with your displayed intelligence could have called upon a better argument than the tired old "Well, that was how people lived under the old laws...now we have new laws that we live by"...

My first response is....so what...!?

Was this not the same god that you would claim exists today? Don't the Christian faithful assert that your god's moral code is timeless, universal and absolute...? If that's so, why would your god need to resort to a "different times, different people" justification for a change in its moral code? Every era could be argued "different times, different people" and yet you would claim that for the last 2000 years, the code that your god presumably promotes has never needed 'tweeking'...?

In fact, you are arguing my case.....namely, that, as we have learnt more about the situations in which we have found ourselves and as we learn more about ourselves and our fellow men, we adjust our moral code accordingly...!

And, under those principles, the notion of gods becomes redundant.....we need look no further than our own judgement and solidarity of purpose to define what is 'good'...

In the original Hebrew text it is a sorceress. This was completely different in most cases as to what we see with witches and wiccan's in our times. This was a devil worshipping person that used drugs and sacrificed their children. You have to take things in context. Is it moral to drug others, cast spells of harm and to sacrifice their children to Molech? I think you would agree that in this case you can see that it even now would be considered immoral.

Please don't quibble......you want to call them "sorceresses" rather than "witches"...? Go ahead. How does it change the morality around calling for these people to be killed...? How does it change the situation that people believed such beings to exist and therefore were justified in seeking them out and hunting them down.....? Your "context" is nothing more than a very thin smoke screen......

Satan was working very hard to eliminate the Jews so that Jesus could not be born of a Jew. The work included causing trouble from the inside out...in the family. The harshness of the time was due to the extreme efforts of Satan to eliminate Jews and the fact that the Jews had to cover their own sin unlike today by Jesus and His death. That is why God used harsh methods to ensure that the Israeli people were kept on track and not lead astray by immoral practices of those around them.

So, the only way that your all-powerful, all-seeing, all-benevolent god could see to remedy this situation was to kill the kids who rebelled against their parents....!?

And you defend this barbarity....??

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am so disappointed. I would have thought someone with your displayed intelligence could have called upon a better argument than the tired old "Well, that was how people lived under the old laws...now we have new laws that we live by"...

My first response is....so what...!?

WEll biggles it is because the argument is true. You have to look at things like this through the context of the times and what was happening in relation to the future plan.

Was this not the same god that you would claim exists today? Don't the Christian faithful assert that your god's moral code is timeless, universal and absolute...? If that's so, why would your god need to resort to a "different times, different people" justification for a change in its moral code? Every era could be argued "different times, different people" and yet you would claim that for the last 2000 years, the code that your god presumably promotes has never needed 'tweeking'...?

Don't get me wrong, HE doesn't change. I am not claiming that at all. God will bring forth punishment on earth again as well. However, Satan has a hand in all this that you are not understanding. God had to take some things into His own hands to ensure the birth of Christ and our salvation.

In fact, you are arguing my case.....namely, that, as we have learnt more about the situations in which we have found ourselves and as we learn more about ourselves and our fellow men, we adjust our moral code accordingly...!

You see us viewing the objective principles staying the same but man can and does put subjective determinations upon them. Stealing is always wrong but some people believe that it is okay, but the principle stays the same. Rape is always wrong, but we see rapes recently in the war in Bosnia. Man can turn away from the principles of morality due to their own subjective reasons, but the principles stay the same.

And, under those principles, the notion of gods becomes redundant.....we need look no further than our own judgement and solidarity of purpose to define what is 'good'...

That is your subjective opinion and so you might believe that to be true but that doesn't mean it is. However, we see the principles and in fact, scientists have always looked to explain why we have these foundational principles.

Please don't quibble......you want to call them "sorceresses" rather than "witches"...? Go ahead. How does it change the morality around calling for these people to be killed...? How does it change the situation that people believed such beings to exist and therefore were justified in seeking them out and hunting them down.....? Your "context" is nothing more than a very thin smoke screen......

I just though it was important since it makes a difference in what is meant by the wording.

The burning of the witches you know was mainly done in secular courts and Christianity had very little to do with that.

So, the only way that your all-powerful, all-seeing, all-benevolent god could see to remedy this situation was to kill the kids who rebelled against their parents....!?

Ok, we have God here that has a full understanding of motivation, intent, the future and what happens surrounding someone's life. He does what he does knowing all there is to know about the situation, what that person is, will be and will do. So His actions are informed. However, there are people in the Atheistic worldview that claim that abortion is moral and that it is no worse than killing a rabbit. This person is not informed of all the circumstances of this childs life or how it will affect the people around it or the world.

So do I feel that God is harsh or immoral even though He knows all there is to know about the situation and on the other hand a person who believes it is like killing rabbits to abort children. Now this person is not on the same footing of God and I realize that but in our belief systems, there are things that we might personally feel personally are not right, but it is all about the whole system that counts.

And you defend this barbarity....

If morality is subjective then how do you claim it immoral or barbarity? That doesn't make sense. You can't claim that morality is subjective and then claim that God is objectively barbaric.

 

[biggles53]

[/B]WEll biggles it is because the argument is true. You have to look at things like this through the context of the times and what was happening in relation to the future plan.

If we were judging the morality of MEN....? Certainly. But, once again, you lot claim that the morality of your god is unchanging and universal...!

Don't get me wrong, HE doesn't change. I am not claiming that at all. God will bring forth punishment on earth again as well. However, Satan has a hand in all this that you are not understanding. God had to take some things into His own hands to ensure the birth of Christ and our salvation.

Stop making excuses for it...! Your god is supposed to be all powerful, but let's Satan get in the way of its plans...? Who are you kidding...?

And, there quite obviously HAS been a change...! Your god has a DIFFERENT set of rules that today's people are to live by than that of ancient Jews...That, by definition, is a change...!

You see us viewing the objective principles staying the same but man can and does put subjective determinations upon them. Stealing is always wrong but some people believe that it is okay, but the principle stays the same. Rape is always wrong, but we see rapes recently in the war in Bosnia. Man can turn away from the principles of morality due to their own subjective reasons, but the principles stay the same.

And so does your god...it once COMMANDED people to murder, rape, steal and enslave...! I can't think of better examples of a subjective form of morality....and this from a creature whose moral code is supposed to be unchanging...

That is your subjective opinion and so you might believe that to be true but that doesn't mean it is. However, we see the principles and in fact, scientists have always looked to explain why we have these foundational principles.

No it's not a subjective opinion. It's a logical conclusion drawn from evidence...

I just though it was important since it makes a difference in what is meant by the wording.

The burning of the witches you know was mainly done in secular courts and Christianity had very little to do with that.

You. Are. Joking.

Have you even studied the history of your religion...?

Those poor (largely) women (largely) were handed over to the authorities for execution AFTER they had been 'examined' by the clerics.....it was the priests who made the determination as to whether a woman was a witch....her fate was then sealed...

And, had that cruel verse NOT been in your book of horrors, it is arguable whether or not the whole ghastly process would ever have taken place....

Ok, we have God here that has a full understanding of motivation, intent, the future and what happens surrounding someone's life. He does what he does knowing all there is to know about the situation, what that person is, will be and will do. So His actions are informed. However, there are people in the Atheistic worldview that claim that abortion is moral and that it is no worse than killing a rabbit. This person is not informed of all the circumstances of this childs life or how it will affect the people around it or the world.

So do I feel that God is harsh or immoral even though He knows all there is to know about the situation and on the other hand a person who believes it is like killing rabbits to abort children. Now this person is not on the same footing of God and I realize that but in our belief systems, there are things that we might personally feel personally are not right, but it is all about the whole system that counts.

So, your god can be forgiven for demanding that children be murdered, because some human beings choose to have abortions...!?

That is so weak......I'll bet you felt uncomfortable typing it...

If morality is subjective then how do you claim it immoral or barbarity? That doesn't make sense. You can't claim that morality is subjective and then claim that God is objectively barbaric.

Quite easily.....at the outset, I spoke of "overarching principles".......surely one of those is the care and nurturing of children......I can see NO justification, under ANY circumstances, that that guiding principle could be overturned in favour of slaughtering youngsters because they were disobedient...If you can think of such a justification, if you can think of an instance whereby that WOULDN'T be described as "immoral", I'd be most interested to read it...!

 

[EternalDragon]

Stop embarrassing yourself...!



Have you forgotten your own words already...!?

So, there is no comparison between one sin and another in your god's eyes...?

To us there is. To God, no. Sin is just sin. If you stole someones iphone or you stole a diamond from a museum, are they not both theft? Both stealing?

Or a white lie. Is it not still a lie?

James 2:10 "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."

Isaiah 64:6 "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away."