The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

[Ken-1122]

What do you mean by true or false? You mean whether something objectively exists? How about whether we landed on the moon, some people believe we never landed on the moon. But there is strong evidence that we did, but it cannot be proven with absolute certainty unless you take the doubters to the moon and show them the footprints. There will always be doubters about objective facts. And I explained in my post why morality has even more doubters because of all the emotional baggage associated with it.

Yes! You can take the doubters to the moon and show them the footprints. This would prove man went to the moon. Care to try again?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I am referring to the general public's understanding of evolution
efm: I don't care about 'the general public's understanding of evolution'. I don't defer to their understanding of any scientific field.

I was using their definition to make Ken and any lurkers understand what I am referring to. Not everyone knows what the difference between micro and macro evolution is, also it is just faster to type evolution.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
IOW Macro-evolution. Microevolution is not in dispute.

efm: Neither are in dispute within the scientific community, except by a minuscule fringe. Each rely on exactly the same mechanisms. One is just the cumulative effect of the other.

Geocentricism used to be the majority view too. The cumulative effects coming into existence have never been empirically observed and there is no evidence that time magically solves all the problems with it.

efm: This is just as absurd as saying dialects can emerge through linguistic evolution, but languages can't.

Actually language is the perfect example, so-called "primitive languages" are more complex than modern languages. How is that possible according to evolution? Also, according to Noam Chomsky the great linguist expert says that our brains have a built in grammar that all languages share, providing evidence that there once was a single original language just as the Bible teaches.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Also, there is not enough time for the beneficial mutations to make major changes in morphology. Mathematicians at Cornell recently determined how hard it is to get a binding site in DNA. They determined that it would take 60,000 years for a mutation to arise, and 6 million years for it to become general in the population to go from an apelike ancestor to humans. And that is just one mutation, if you need two coordinated mutations it would take 216 million years. So that makes it basically impossible to go from australopithecine to human since you need a lot more coordinated mutations than that.

efm: You copied this from here, almost word for word,

Science vs. Darwinism - WORLD

You should at least cite your crappy sources.

Unsurprisingly, I have not found a single reference to this study - if it even is a study - in any primary scientific material I am aware of, nor in anything popular-level. If it is an actual peer-reviewed study, I suspect, as is always the case, that creationist propagandists have gotten a hold of it and misconstrued for their own purposes, and it doesn't say anything like what is being asserted here. Again, that's assuming it's anything like an actual study at all.

But here's the nice thing about living in 2019 - I can just e-mail the math department at Cornell, with a link to this interview, and ask them if they have any awareness of such a thing, and if it actually says what is claimed. So, I did.

**********************

To whom it may concern,

I came across an article claiming that mathematicians at Cornell had determined that the number and frequency of genetic mutations needed for the evolution of humans from their ape ancestors was problematic for the Theory of Evolution. The article is here,

Science vs. Darwinism - WORLD

Assuming this is referring to an actual academic study in the first place, I am wondering if you are aware of any such study, and where I might read the source material myself (the article has no citations).

Thank you for your time and consideration,

XXXXXXXX

***********************

I have done this sort of thing many times before, when creationists make such citation-free claims as you've made here. In every single case the claim has turned out to be, at the very best, only partially true, and usually completely false. I am not exactly shaking in my boots that this time, it will somehow turn out that you were correct.

You are right I should have referenced it. But this woman is hardly a fundie, she has PhD in zoology from a secular university. I would never expect a place like Cornell to agree with her interpretation of the data. As I have explained to Ken, the theory of macroevolution is unfalsifiable. So there is always an evolutionary explanation for any data discovered. I am in the process of trying to find out the original study also. But there are multiple similar studies that I can give the references for.

 

[Ed1wolf]

And here's the follow up. The following was forwarded to me by the Assistant to the Chair of Mathematics at Cornell. It was written by Steven Strogatz, a Professor of Applied Mathematics there.

**********************

I have no idea what article is being referred to. Honestly, though, the person being interviewed in the article is saying a lot of unreliable and false things that no reputable biologist would agree with. So I wouldn’t expect that there is an actual reference for the “Cornell mathematician who did a study of DNA binding” – or if there is, I imagine that she is misinterpreting the results of that article.

Feel free to pass my remarks along to the person who made the inquiry.

Best,

Steve

*********************

There you have it. Neither the Assistant to the Chair nor the Professor of Applied Mathematics at Cornell have even heard of any such thing. Furthermore, the professor agrees with me that if it exists at all, it is being misconstrued.

I think I'll make a thread about this over on the Creationism vs Evolution board, in case anyone else is tempted to cite this load of horse crap.

Thanks for making an example of yourself.

See my response above. I can see how objective this person is when he says that she is saying things "that no reputable biologist would agree with". That is a pretty arrogant and in fact false statement. Dr. Gauger has published in reputable journals like Nature and the Journal of Biological Chemistry. If she is irreputable then how did that happen?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Just to ask. Is "are morals subjective" the right question or "are morals circumstantial"?

I, myself, think that what defines evil and good is all about the intention and the circumstances behind it.

Take a look at murder for example. No matter what religious or non-religious views you have, we all agree that initially, murder is wrong. However i think we all can imagine circumstances in where it is necessary (self-defense, justice...). Abortion is in majority condemned by christianity, however there are circumstances in where it can be understandable (the fetus is a danger to the woman's health). Everything depends on the circumstances.

Killing in self defense is not murder and is not condemned by the ten commandments. Murder is a planned killing of a innocent person. If someone is trying to kill you then they are not innocent and you are justfied in killing them. And no, intention means nothing. Lenin and Stalin thought they were saving Russia when he ordered the murders of thousands. If you make morals circumstantial and based on intentions you can justify anything. That was Hitlers view of morality too. Only God's unchanging objective moral law is what is best for humanity and the most rational basis for morality.

 

[Cis.jd]

Only God's unchanging objective moral law is what is best for humanity and the most rational basis for morality.

Maybe.. but i think you need to go around the theology boards and just read the views of people over here on regards to what/who goes to heaven and hell. Many here have indirectly spelled out how morality is only "accepting christ" because good deeds are meaningless and you are still going to burn forever.
There are various things that people here have considered immoral/hell worthy such as tattoos, drinking beer, listening/watching random non-christian entertainment, etc etc. It gets rather hard to continue believing in an God who set objective moral laws when many followers here have the most immoral and lunatic like views of evil.

 

[Ken-1122]

Killing in self defense is not murder and is not condemned by the ten commandments. Murder is a planned killing of a innocent person. If someone is trying to kill you then they are not innocent and you are justfied in killing them.

Murder is a legal term. In a country where everybody is innocent until PROVEN guilty, if the person trying to kill you has not yet been proven guilty, he is still innocent; so if you kill him, you have killed a legally innocent person

And no, intention means nothing. Lenin and Stalin thought they were saving Russia when he ordered the murders of thousands. If you make morals circumstantial and based on intentions you can justify anything. That was Hitlers view of morality too. Only God's unchanging objective moral law is what is best for humanity and the most rational basis for morality.

Hitler claimed to be doing God’s work by killing the Jews. The problem with God’s laws is he doesn’t speak for himself; he depends on flawed humans to speak for him so when mad man like Hitler speaks for God, some may consider Hitler’s claim as equal to Moses or others who have spoken for God

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
That was just a hypothetical future I proposed that even if possible, that God knew would never happen.

ken; Ahh so you're changing it now; I don't blame ya

Huh? I didn't change a thing, I told you when I first posted it, it was hypothetical. I said if we had not sinned then such a thing would be possible but of course we DID sin so it HAD to be hypothetical.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Feel free to bring it to the table.

Look up the Anthropic Principle.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Just because a moral standard is proposed to come from God does not make it objective. That proposed derivation does not make it demonstrable to me.

Its more correct to call scriptural divine commandments "absolute" morality rather than "objective".

No, God's moral laws are based on His objectively existing moral character. If something exists outside human minds, then it objectively exists, so it is with God's moral character which is the foundation of His moral law.

 

[quatona]

Look up the Anthropic Principle.

Look up the refutations of the use of the Anthropic Principle as evidence for God.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I see you've opted to keep making an example of yourself. Very well.

Not everyone knows what the difference between micro and macro evolution is

Including you.

Geocentricism used to be the majority view too.

And was discredited by a body of critically robust evidence. Which you don't have.

The cumulative effects coming into existence have never been empirically observed

Speciation has been observed, as anyone with access to a search engine can see for themselves with a few seconds worth of research.

and there is no evidence that time magically solves all the problems with it.

You're confused. Magic is what you believe in. And you have yet to identify a single 'problem'.

Actually language is the perfect example, so-called "primitive languages" are more complex than modern languages. How is that possible according to evolution?

Firstly, that's not true. Languages that have existed longer can be more complex than younger ones, but not necessarily, and not in their classic forms.

Secondly, evolution does not necessitate things becoming more 'complex'.

Also, according to Noam Chomsky the great linguist expert says that our brains have a built in grammar that all languages share, providing evidence that there once was a single original language just as the Bible teaches.

The word for that is common ancestry. That proves my point about gradualism, not yours.

You will find some linguists who believe in a single common point of origin, some who do not, who will point to the fact that there are living languages today with no known relative languages. Basque, Ainu, Sumerian and (possibly) Korean, for example, which suggests language may have developed independently among disparate groups. To the point, none of them use the fairy tale of the Tower of Babel as a literal basis of understanding.

For what it's worth, I've met Professor Chomsky a few times. He is absolutely not on your side, with regard to anything pertinent to this thread. I wouldn't invoke him if I were you.

As I have explained to Ken, the theory of macroevolution is unfalsifiable.

When is your Nobel prize speech?

So there is always an evolutionary explanation for any data discovered. I am in the process of trying to find out the original study also.

The math department at which the 'study' supposedly took place, can't find it. You will fail.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Look up the Anthropic Principle.

I did so much better than that. I married a Junior Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics. She says people who use the anthropic principle as evidence for 'gods' have no clue what they're talking about. Her own words,

The anthropic principle refers to the fact that certain cosmological constants, like gravity being as strong as it is, the speed of light being what it is, the electromagnetic strength of atoms holding themselves together being what it is... etc... All the laws of physics are such that living organisms like us can evolve into existence (because if we're here, clearly that's evidence that the universe allows for it!). If gravity were too strong or electromagnetism too weak, or even if any other physical constant were a little bit different, matter as we know it probably wouldn't exist and living creatures certainly wouldn't.

So in many modern interpretations of cosmology, there is the "multiverse", which means that there's an infinite (or at least, functionally infinite) number of universes that are created, each with their own unique laws of physics because the initial conditions during their Big Bangs would be ever so slightly different. Think of it this way: if you could explode a firecracker a million different times, you'd get a million different arrangements of shrapnel because the chaotic effects on the explosion would yield a different situation each time. In this way, the multiverse must contain all possible universes with every possible different configuration of physical laws.

So, with an infinite number of possible universes, all with possible different configurations of physical laws, the logic is that the VAST VAST majority of these universes would have a physics such that matter as we know it could not form, and that life as we know it therefore could not evolve. There would only be a tiny fraction of universes that actually have the proper initial conditions to precipitate matter and eventually evolve life.

The thing is, this is absolutely NOT evidence for a supernatural creator. We happen to live in a universe that is conducive to life because *you can't live in a universe that isn't!*.

All the other questions about "something coming from nothing" are also entirely [expletive deleted] because it precludes our knowledge of Emergence and the very clear, real science that COMPLEXITY DOES IN FACT EMERGE FROM SIMPLER SYSTEMS. Period. There is no need for an intelligent designer.

Is it any wonder that people in physics and astronomy are the least likely to be theistic, of all scientific fields? Only to creationists, I suppose.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
So what? The Nazis used evolution to justify their behavior does that prove evolution false? So it is with the bible, just because some Christians use it to justify bad behavior does not prove the bible is false or that it actually contains teachings they claim it does.

ken: If the claim of Evolution was about morality,

If there is no God, then that is where morality comes from since that is where you come from. Right?

ken: it would prove evolution false. But that's not the claim of evolution so your argument fails.

If we are a product of evolution then everything about us is a product of evolution including morality.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
That doesn't prove that they are objective realities, it could just be a consistent hallucination or consistent dream.
ken: Hallucinations and dreams work only on an individual level; not a world wide level.

If everything you are experiencing right now is a realistic dream including the entire outside world then there is no objective reality. So how do you or any atheist know that there is an objective reality and everything is not just a realistic dream you are having?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
You just contradicted yourself again. You said that they can be consistently demonstrated, something can only be consistently demonstrated if it is orderly and intelligible. You do know the difference btw intelligent and intelligible dont you?

ken: Obviously I misunderstood what you said.

So you concede the point?

 

[Strathos]

So, with an infinite number of possible universes, all with possible different configurations of physical laws, the logic is that the VAST VAST majority of these universes would have a physics such that matter as we know it could not form, and that life as we know it therefore could not evolve.

What about life as we don't know it?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

What about life as we don't know it?

Precisely. There very well could be life as we don't know it, in other universes where the physics are different from ours. That's another reason why invoking the anthropic principle in this way is wrongheaded.

 

[Ed1wolf]

IIRC Hitler had a very distorted view of evolution and creationism (he believed that 'Aryans' were divinely created by God and 'lesser races' evolved from other animals).

Scholars who have studied his beliefs in depth, believe he was a evolutionary pantheist who pretended to be a Christian creationist. I highly recommend the book "Hitler's Religion" by Dr. Richard Weikert.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Read up, the majority in this thread supported the murder of babies in the OT. The arguments from the majority were: "well if God said so,then it's not evil..." post #82 can be a good example, but yes there is a lot you can read here.

The violence in the OT

When God commanded ancient Israel to kill the babies of the tribes inhabiting the Promised Land, He was executing capital punishment, NOT murder. Remember the "wages of sin is death". Even infants are not sinless. But this was a unique period in history, no other nation has had this special duty placed upon them by God in the past or the future. After the coming of Christ, any nation that kills non-combatants especially young children IS guilty of murder.

 

[Ed1wolf]

This is true, (not that there is anyone good but God, as Jesus stated),
and I'm not really sure about the actual 'scientific method' since
so many errors have resulted in the last 200 years or more,
but
nothing in nature is opposed to God nor to His Word -
it is Written that HIS WORD holds the entire Universe together .

As the song goes (I have no idea what year or who) (or even the exact words):

"honesty" is so far away.... or so hard to find....

and as
frequently reported by lawyers : nothing is as it seems. No one tells the truth.

But, thankfully, just like there are a few true believers,

there are a few true believers who are also scientists (or were).

And they tell and publish the truth as God directs and when He opens the door,
contrary to most public knowledge and
contrary to their unfaithful peers and colleagues.

I am not referring to spiritual goodness, but many scientists even ones that are not Christian are basically honest. Most of their errors get corrected over time, that is how good science works. But some scientific THEORIES not FACTS, get influenced by the scientists philosophical beliefs, this is what has happened with the theory of Evolution. Evolution touches on ultimate issues, such as the existence of God and the meaning of life, so people's emotions and biases get involved and distort their scientific work. Because all humans are created in the image of God, they have a moral conscience and generally try to tell the truth especially in societies founded on Christian principles, like most western nations. But of course, there is also a significant percentage that dont tell the truth because we are all sinners. Especially we have a tendency to lie if the truth will totally turn your life upside down and that is part of why people do not want to accept the existence of the Christian God. All other gods or being an atheist, dont really change your life in any significant way and dont hold you accountable for things you do and how you spend your time.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I don't think they're 'making them out of bounds', they just haven't discovered the answers yet.

The majority of scientists are committed to the philosophy of methodological naturalism, by making that commitment it makes those things out of bounds.