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.
The fact we have people on the planet that are not civilized and that do tremendously immoral things amongst themselves and others yet if you took a child from one of these tribes and raised it in a moral civilized society it would function about the same. This in itself says that morality is not necessarily evolved but taught to those who don't know it.Good points. Evolution I feel is not satisfactory to explain a concept that puts selflessness and others before ourselves. It doesn't fit the naturalistic evolutionary model.
The fact there are societies that don't decide to is proof morality is not a part of evolution. We have had throughout history the most civilized nation do the most immoral acts and some of the least civilized nations do moral acts surpassing those nations and yet you want to say... it is part of evolution?When we, as a society, decide to.
.yet if you took a child from one of these tribes and raised it in a moral civilized society it would function about the same. This in itself says that morality is not necessarily evolved but taught to those who don't know it
I don't buy it myself. Scientists make a rule and then change it when it makes evolution look evil. At what point does a species hit a level in evolution where is must adhere to a different moral code?
...Evolution I feel is not satisfactory to explain a concept that puts selflessness and others before ourselves. It doesn't fit the naturalistic evolutionary model.
Once wrote:
I was joking. By including a subjective term in your claimed "objective" principle, it makes it subjective, just as including "legal" in your definition made it subjective by country or time.
It has great explanatory power, because it makes many specific claims (often wildly counterintuitive) that can be tested by experiment. Hundreds of experiments have been done that confirm those claims.
That's covered in great detail in the Moral Animal.
The Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology: Robert Wright: 9780679763994: Amazon.com: Books
The tribe is made up of those who matter to you.
Interestingly, as we've developed over time, we've expanded our "tribe". The tribe was at first just the family, then the extended family, then the literal tribe, then the city-state, then the country/religion/race, and now, for many (but not the racists, nationalists, religious bigots nor zionists), the whole of humanity. I see this expansion of "who we care about" as a very good thing.
Good points. Evolution I feel is not satisfactory to explain a concept that puts selflessness and others before ourselves. It doesn't fit the naturalistic evolutionary model.
Organisms don't exist in a vacuum with only themselves. Sacrificing yourself may limit your reproductive success yes - but if someone else sacrifices for you, it can be immensely beneficial. It's also good if someone sacrifices themselves to save your children, since they are the future of your genetic lineage.
Therefore it is beneficial if over-all a species has members who are prepared to sacrifice their lives for others, so such behavior can become widespread. It's not the only survival strategy, but its not a bad one either.
The fact we have people on the planet that are not civilized and that do tremendously immoral things amongst themselves and others yet if you took a child from one of these tribes and raised it in a moral civilized society it would function about the same. This in itself says that morality is not necessarily evolved but taught to those who don't know it.
didn't use legal in my definition. I used unlawful.
The justified is what takes on subjective elements. Justified is different in different societies but the objective element stays the same.
Linking books does nothing in the way of a debate. If you can't summarize or argue the premise it is a mute point.
If you can show how morality can and has been tested to prove that there is no objective morality then by all means present it.
So if only your family matters to you...what then?The tribe is made up of those who matter to you.
Which we do not see worldwide.I see this expansion of "who we care about" as a very good thing.
The fact there are societies that don't decide to is proof morality is not a part of evolution. We have had throughout history the most civilized nation do the most immoral acts and some of the least civilized nations do moral acts surpassing those nations and yet you want to say... it is part of evolution?
Sophrosyne wrote:
.
Research has shown that other primates have many components of our morality, and they weren't raised in a civilized society. Just google "ape morality research" or some such. Evolution has indeed equipped us and other primates with the framework of a moral code.
+ Soph & Once wrote:
Both these statements are spoken out of ignorance of the research done in these areas. Statements that ignore the vast work in a field make us Christians look willfully ignorant, and give support to views that Christians are gullible ignoramuses, which hinders our attempts to spread the gospel.
The research is available with a little looking. To make it even easier, it has been summarized in a book. To make that even easier for you, here is a link for that book. It makes a good Christmas gift if asked for. It will help you witness to know something before voicing an opinion on it.
The Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology: Robert Wright: 9780679763994: Amazon.com: Books
In Christ-
Papias
I don't need to google anything, My point is still valid trying and framework of a moral code is nonsense because we still have tribes out there that kill each other (murder) and that framework does nothing to stop it just as it does nothing to stop dogs from killing other dogs and other animals and even humans. ALL must be "taught" to not do things but they can still be taught to do immoral things so the framework does NOTHING either way.Sophrosyne wrote:
.
Research has shown that other primates have many components of our morality, and they weren't raised in a civilized society. Just google "ape morality research" or some such. Evolution has indeed equipped us and other primates with the framework of a moral code.
I don't need to be insulted to know that the "field" of science that is dealing with evolution is always going to try and prove evolution. It is biased from the start and evolution trying to equate morality flies in contrast to the Biblical stories of evil that men do without a moral guide OTHER than men. Noah is a classic example of immorality that evolution failed to inspire with its so called framework. I take it pretty much literally as far as all but a very few were so evil God wanted to wipe them out (and did). Evolution would have us believe that the Noah tale was 100% false including the absolute LACK of morality amongst all but Noah and his family.+ Soph & Once wrote:
Both these statements are spoken out of ignorance of the research done in these areas. Statements that ignore the vast work in a field make us Christians look willfully ignorant, and give support to views that Christians are gullible ignoramuses, which hinders our attempts to spread the gospel.
I'm sorry butThe research is available with a little looking. To make it even easier, it has been summarized in a book. To make that even easier for you, here is a link for that book. It makes a good Christmas gift if asked for. It will help you witness to know something before voicing an opinion on it.
The Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology: Robert Wright: 9780679763994: Amazon.com: Books
In Christ-
Papias
Once wrote:
That's what "unlawful" means - that it is against the law, which is the same as illegal. We are entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own definitions. Thanks for the clarification, however.
Yes, the "objective element", as in "don't do bad things". It looks like we've said all we can on this one.
I did summarize it, several pages ago. And "mute" is not the same as "moot".
Fair enough. I simply don't have the time or enthusiasm right now, so I won't defend the point besides pointing out resources. Here is one more.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-nature-nurture-nietzsche-blog/201005/did-morality-evolve
However, the bottom line is still the same - if we, as Christians, are to honor the name of Jesus, we need to show society that we are informed, responsible and reasonable.
If we come across is too lazy to do some looking and learning ourselves, ask others to do the work to teach us, and spout claims and ask others to disprove them, we can rightly expect them to wonder what kind of religion would teach us to be intellectually stunted, and we'll have to explain to Jesus one day why we spent our lives besmirching his Holy Name.
Then you act like our paleolithic ancestors did, and you have no place in our modern society.
Not yet, of course. But for 100,000 years, we've been expanding our circles of care, especially in the last three centuries.
Papias
I don't need to google anything, My point is still valid trying and framework of a moral code is nonsense because we still have tribes out there that kill each other (murder) and that framework does nothing to stop it just as it does nothing to stop dogs from killing other dogs and other animals and even humans. ALL must be "taught" to not do things but they can still be taught to do immoral things so the framework does NOTHING either way.
I don't need to be insulted to know that the "field" of science that is dealing with evolution is always going to try and prove evolution. It is biased from the start and evolution trying to equate morality flies in contrast to the Biblical stories of evil that men do without a moral guide OTHER than men. Noah is a classic example of immorality that evolution failed to inspire with its so called framework. I take it pretty much literally as far as all but a very few were so evil God wanted to wipe them out (and did). Evolution would have us believe that the Noah tale was 100% false including the absolute LACK of morality amongst all but Noah and his family.
I'm sorry but
The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology? That title alone says it all to me...... hogwash.
My point is still valid trying and framework of a moral code is nonsense because we still have tribes out there that kill each other (murder) and that framework does nothing to stop it just as it does nothing to stop dogs from killing other dogs and other animals and even humans.
If you are discussing morality relative to evolution then the US tribe has every right to wipe out the Afghan tribe, as survival of the fittest is the morality of evolution.Sorry, but your apparent understanding of morality comes across as uninformed opinion.
What of the US tribe murdering the Afghanistan tribe? Is that moral? Under what framework would this fall?
If you are discussing morality relative to evolution then the US tribe has every right to wipe out the Afghan tribe, as survival of the fittest is the morality of evolution.
So if two male animals fight over a female animal and one is killed by the other and the one that survives mates with the female that isn't survival of the fittest? In the case of the two tribes we have two fighting over resources and safety of their people if one kills the other off then their offspring survive and carry on while the other... doesn't.That is not what "survival of the fittest" means. The fitness of an organism refers to the health of a genome and what advantages it confers upon it.
Either you're putting me on, or I'm right about your opinions as uninformed.
So if two male animals fight over a female animal and one is killed by the other and the one that survives mates with the female that isn't survival of the fittest? In the case of the two tribes we have two fighting over resources and safety of their people if one kills the other off then their offspring survive and carry on while the other... doesn't.
If you are discussing morality relative to evolution then the US tribe has every right to wipe out the Afghan tribe, as survival of the fittest is the morality of evolution.
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?