http://www.carm.org/dictionary.htm (Theological terms)
http://www.carm.org/bibleonline.htm (Complete Bible online)
http://www.carm.org/doctrine.htm (Christian doctrine)
http://www.carm.org/doctrine/trinityplural.htm (trinity and plurality in the O.T.)
http://www.carm.org/doctrine/obj_Jesusdied.htm (dual nature of Jesus explained)
And now for your displeasure, my naturalist friends, I present a post from another board that debunks many of your notions. These are the same notions that you refuse to admit defeat on!
n response to In response to 0
Mon Jul-18-05 07:42 PM by J. Sloan
Rooting Morality in Evolution
In an attempt to ground morality, Chad has argued that morality is to be rooted in an evolutionary explanation:
"As our brains developed over countless generations we developed an increasingly sophisticated moral sense that built on previously-existing forms of altruism and reciprocity – and it developed because it was advantageous to our ancestors in their struggle to survive, compete for resources and to reproduce."
Basically Chad’s contention is this: That which maximizes fitness is where our moral sense can be rooted.
This has severe problems however because while it may,
…explain the agreement component to 'moral agreement,' it fails to account for the moral component. How? Morality is prescriptive, not descriptive. Entailed in the notion of morality is the concept of duty - 'oughtness'. Evolution cannot truly account for this. All evolution does is explain why I FEEL I OUGHT to do something - this moral sense was selected because it increased fitness. But it doesn't explain WHY I OUGHT to do something.<1>
Being able to explain why we feel that we ought to do something (such as we “ought” to tell the truth) is not the same thing as explaining why in fact we ought to do something. Most people feel that we ‘ought’ to be honest, that we ‘ought not’ hurt other people, that we ‘ought’ to treat people the way that we would like to be treated ourselves, and so forth. But how can an evolutionary explanation account for the crucial component of genuine "oughtness" to morality? According to atheism, evolution is not a process guided by intent or purpose. And without intent or purpose you have no “ought” component. To see more clearly exactly why the atheist has not given a coherent basis or accounting for morality and why the “ought” component cannot be explained in an atheistic universe, it is necessary to look at the nature of transcendental reasoning and what knowledge itself presupposes.
Transcendental Knowledge
Chad, in his opening statement, listed what he considers three possibilities for what he takes, “account for morality” to mean:
1) An atheistic worldview can account for the existence of our moral sense and the various codes, philosophies, etc. that follow from it.
2) An atheistic worldview can provide an adequate framework for acting on one’s moral beliefs.
3) An atheistic worldview can establish a moral code as an objective fact that exists independently of individual values, beliefs, etc.
Chad has stated that he will focus on the first point. I do not agree that any of the above points adequately describes what “accounting for” means. All three points fail to address the epistemological problem that atheism faces.
When dealing with epistemology (how we know what we know), it is important to examine the transcendental nature of knowledge itself. That is, when reasoning transcendentally, we are not asking what knowledge itself is (such as laws of logic, mathematics, ethics, induction, deduction, language, etc.); rather, we are asking what knowledge itself presupposes. What are the necessary preconditions, that “…must be fulfilled for any particular instance of knowledge to be possible”?<2>
A philosophical accounting must be given in order to justify knowledge (justified, true belief). So to state that one must give an “accounting” of morality is to ask an epistemological question (how we know what we know).
In the context of this debate the question could be asked, “How do you know that such and such is right or that such and such is wrong?” What preconditions does your stated worldview have that can give a basis for knowing that not telling the truth is wrong? An evolutionary explanation may tell us why we feel we should not lie, but I am asking for more than that. How does the atheist know that lying is wrong and how is such knowledge possible given the ontology of atheism? In order to ground such instances of knowledge, necessary preconditions must exist for that knowledge to be possible at all.
For example, if all that existed in the universe was rock, would this be a precondition for wood existing? Likewise, if all that existed in the universe were irrational states such as chance, would this be a precondition for rational, invariant, abstract laws of logic? No! The necessary preconditions are not there.
In the case of atheism, no metaphysical groundwork exists that has the necessary preconditions to account for morality when we lay bare the ontology of an atheistic worldview. At its basic core, atheistic worldviews consist of time, chance, and matter. Matter is not moral or immoral, chance is not rational (it is irrational), and it is these preconditions from which I am attacking Chad’s worldview because it is these preconditions that cannot ground knowledge of any kind, much less moral right and wrong. How is the rational possible is all that exists is chance and time? Matter itself does not account for or ground moral right and wrong, so Chad has an epistemological dilemma on his hands. He must explain how we derive the moral from the non-moral. Chad wants to move beyond the preconditions of his worldview without an explanation of how these preconditions make knowledge (in this case ethics) possible at all. I am asking Chad to dig deeper here and explain his epistemological foundations which are derived from one’s ontology and “account” for moral right and wrong.
Further, an atheistic ontology has a striking anomaly; namely, can the irrational be reduced to the rational? That is, chance is irrational (it has no rhyme or reason), and it is from this irrational state of affairs from which a rational state of affairs must be derived (in this case, ethics). So the question is asked, if the rational in this case (ethics) is reduced to the irrational (chance), can the irrational be reduced to the rational? If not, then how is it that the rational is derived from the irrational? What grounds the irrational (time and chance)? The atheist would have to admit that nothing grounds the irrational, that is their starting point (brute fact).<3>
There is a complete failure on the atheist’s part to account for morality at all. Even if we move beyond the epistemological troubles that atheist runs into with their ontology, an evolutionary explanation cannot explain the “ought” component to morality; it can only explain why we feel we ought to do something. Even this has trouble however. Michael Bumbulis noted several problems<4> with rooting morality with evolution. I will give three:
1. “The moral urge is no different from an urge to do violence. Both urges stem from our evolutionary history. So why follow the moral urge instead of the violent urge?”
Why choose the moral urge as compared to the urge to do violence if both urges are rooted in our evolutionary past? Why not kill off those who are weak, sick, or mentally or physically challenged and choose this urge as opposed to the moral urge to spare them, treat them fairly, and give them equal rights with regards to their personhood?
2. “There are many immoral choices that would not threaten my survival or decrease my chances to contribute offspring to the gene pool. So why not choose the immoral act?”
Here again, we must ask the question of why we should not choose one moral act over an immoral act?
Chad stated that,
"As our brains developed over countless generations we developed an increasingly sophisticated moral sense that built on previously-existing forms of altruism and reciprocity – and it developed because it was advantageous to our ancestors in their struggle to survive, compete for resources and to reproduce."
Many examples can be given that contradict this claim. For example, given a morality rooted in our evolutionary past, what is wrong with cheating on my wife and lying to her about it?
4. “There is a phenomenon in evolution known as vestigialism.
These are non-functional traits that served a purpose in the past,
but not in the present. How do you know the moral urge is not
vestigial? Or maybe certain aspects of the moral urge are
vestigial?”
Perhaps morality is no longer needed, nor will one day no longer be needed. Fast forward a few billion years and explain why truth is advantageous over telling lying (generally speaking), why a woman’s virtue is important, why should we value family and friends? The facts are that today we could do away with many values that are considered morally virtuous and it would make no difference if we chose the moral choice or the immoral choice.
So while evolution may have some explanatory power with certain traits or behaviors; it cannot explain the actual moral component, the “ought” and the “ought not” and it cannot explain the many immoral choices such as rape, killing the weak, etc. that in no way effect (and in some case help) increased fitness.
In the end, an atheistic accounting of morality fails on both epistemological grounds (having no ontology to ground morality), and even when an explanation moves beyond epistemology (evolutionary explanations), we see failure to rationally account for morality.
Naturalistic Fallacy
Chad stated that,
"The objection is often presented that I have no objective basis for claiming that my morality is superior to that of a child molester and thus if I am logically consistent with my beliefs (i.e. my belief that morality is subjective) I will allow him to follow his own moral code."
Chad thinks that this is nonsense, and claimed that this objection depends on the assumption that if no objective values exist with which to make judgments that one’s own moral values are “trivial” and can be ignored if they conflict with another person’s moral values. Chad then stated that, “If a person wishes to commit rape or murder my moral code places a much higher value on his victims than on his wish to harm them.” But Chad gives no reasons why his moral opinion does hold more authority than anyone else’s or why it is anything but trivial.
In fact, assuming that atheism is true, then moral right and wrong are subjective in their very nature so one’s moral opinions are trivial because they are rooted solely in our subjective thoughts. There is no reason why one moral value is better than another or why one moral value is worse than another. Chad has his moral opinion, and the rapist has his. Of course these may conflict, but on principle, they are equal. Chad has attempted to give his moral opinion more weight and authority because he personally values a woman’s right over that of her attackers. But perhaps the attacker values shooting people who interfere with his actions. In the end, we still have one moral opinion here and another moral opinion there. Sentiments of one person, verses the sentiments of another person.
Chad claims that our moral values are the “ought.” But this makes no sense because it then looks like this:
(i) Ought
(ii) Therefore, ought.
This leaves open the question, what makes the value a value?
Strangely Chad argues that values are the foundation themselves, but given an atheistic ontology; how is it that value just “is” a foundation? There is no meaning or purpose in an atheistic universe, so why posit values as a brute fact? The brute fact for atheism is that there are no values, no foundations, no moral right and no moral wrong. There are personal sentiments that sometimes conflict with other personal sentiments; all of which are equal for the very reason that there is no objective foundation that one can ground values. Chad has just arbitrarily posited value as a foundation, and the example that he gave was a non-moral example that is not related to the moral “is” “ought” problem.
If I cheat on my wife and she asks me if I cheated on her; why, in an atheistic universe “ought” I to tell her the truth? This is not to ask what implications might follow if I do lie and get caught or if I do lie and don’t get caught, but why should I tell my wife the truth given a fact that lying is neither right or wrong, but rather just a personal sentiment?
The atheistic worldview simply fails to account for, ground, and provide a basis for morality. The Christian worldview can, and as I will explain in my first rejoinder, the atheist does indeed borrow capital from my worldview in order to make sense of moral right and wrong.
Sources
<1>Bumbulis. Michael J. soc.religion.christian Thread[br />
<2>Bahnsen, Greg L. Van Til’s Apologetic Readings and Analysis p. 178
<3>Van Til, Cornelius Defense of The Faith p.142
<4>Bumbulis, Michael J. soc.religion.christian
~ J. Sloan
Dictionary of Theology:more links for 'Seekers'
by Shining One 10 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Shining One
-
Satanus
It is time that you transcended all this copy and paste blather. Transcendent can only be experienced. It is also beyond faith
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=transcendent
transcendent
adj 1: beyond and outside the ordinary range of human experience or understanding; "philosophers...often explicitly reject the notion of any transcendent reality beyond thought...and claim to be concerned only with thought itself..."- W.P.Alston; "the unknowable mysteries of lifer" [syn: unknowable] 2: exceeding or surpassing usual limits especially in excellence [syn: surpassing]
- Surpassing others; preeminent or supreme.
- Lying beyond the ordinary range of perception: “fails to achieve a transcendent significance in suffering and squalor” (National Review).
- Philosophy.
- Transcending the Aristotelian categories.
- In Kant's theory of knowledge, being beyond the limits of experience and hence unknowable.
- Being above and independent of the material universe. Used of the Deity.
S
-
peacefulpete
The bonobo chimps while very closely related to chimpanzees have very different sexual stategies and system. This change was not made overnight, therefore logically there were conflicting strategies at work within a population and individuals until a new generally concensual system emerged as most advantageous for the species at the given time. All complex behavior are emergent qualities brought throught the interaction of many often conflicting stategies. In other words there is no single instinct for parenting skills and yet another single instinct for pack hunting.
The sense of 'ought' is not unique to us, anyone with a dog can relate how slyly they do things they know they 'ought ' not do. Or guilt for doing what ought not to have been done. Humans are certainly unique in the complexity of our oughts. This likely because not only are we the most highly developed socially (from mates to global concerns) but we have changed our environment so dramatically and quickly that some of the behaviors thats served as legitamate stategies just a few centuries ago are now deemed inappropriate in the new environment. Modern humans are so morally conflicted because their world has changed faster than they evolved. We are somewhat like the population of chimps that eventually became bonobos. Our higher intelligence and self awareness make us specially capable to adapt and excell at complex social interaction, but it does and always will involve a certain inner struggle between 'ought' and 'ought nots'. Our morality is actually a conditional selection process arrived at through through the instinctual being filterd through the rational. We ask ourselves questions like, What will happen if I...? Or, Is it ok to do this If....? to sort the oughts from the ought nots. This process is no better at producing 100% consensus than the instinctual alone. And similarly it evolves as time and environment changes. This leaves some bemoaning moral collapse, while others are rejoicing over the progressive insight into human present.
-
Terry
Altruism is idiocy and braindeath.
T.
-
peacefulpete
The article uses the same old rhetorical trick used by Creationists when arguing against strictly physical evolution. "Yes it's true that survival of the fittest may sort out the best adaptations but it doesn't explain where the adaptations come from! Therefore evolution can not be true!" In reality that's just a word game. The selection processes (such as survival of the fittest) are not of course the same mechanism as genetic and memenic decent with variation. The article here seems to be implying that behavioral instinct is not genetically derivative while at the same time accepting it is genetically inheritable. The key to both physical and behavioral evolution (not mutually exclusive) is variation. Not all members of a society share the exact same balance of strategies. Some instincts favor individual survival over kin survival for instance. I'm not sure if the author has confused the matter in his own mind or is deliberately doing it for the confusion of his audience.
Altruism needs a definition before it can be discussed. The article used the term in a biological sense of self sacrifice instinctively driven for the benefit of the clan. Humans have a capacity for much more complex behavior as I tried to outline in my previous post and so the definition requires some refining when dealing with humans.
-
Terry
I'm in danger of thread-hijacking here, so, I'll post this neutral definition:
ALTRUISM
the view that the well-being of others should have as much importance for us as the well-being of ourselves. Some argue that altruism, even if it is desirable, is not possible, and that our ethics must be based on egoism.
For mankind, Altruism is a red herring. Philosophy of the evil kind uses Altrusim to empty people of their healthy self-interest so as to use them for other purposes than their own self-maintainence and improvement.
Think of the Military. Why do young people sign up? Is it to die? No, it is for the healthy prospect of getting an education paid for by the government. The idea that they are "serving" their country and fellow citizens is the frosting on the cake. However, once in the military, they are stripped of their self-ownership. Subtituted is the esprit de corps: one for all and all for one. This consists of OBEYING. Also, they are never FREE to leave whenever they so choose. They are OWNED like a commodity.
The philosophy of Hegel and Kant was contagion among the Germans and paved the way for Nazi propaganda to work on them. The Germans of the Third Reich OBEYED and did their DUTY no matter how horrifying it was.
T.
-
peacefulpete
definition is everything. When viewed strictly pragmatically, childbearing is altruistic. The very real health risks and the sacrifice of 1/3 of a person's life to make a new person would be enough to prevent anyone from having children if it were not for the instincts that compel them. I think feel that altruism is universal. For instance nearly all creatures assume personal risk so as to better the clan's survival chances or to propagate genes. Think of the animals that expose themselves to predators or engage in violent combat so as to produce fit offspring. This selfless behavior often has no reward to the individual as such but his gene pool does benefit. The fact that humans have become so self aware has complicated things. They no longer simply act out without anticipation/anxiety of consequences. They question why. This ability can produce both more and less altruism. Because they are better able to forsee and predict they are in a position to worry about matters apes do not and therefore may make very different choices than an ape in the same situation, but the instincts that inspire altruism are just as real. I disagree with those that claim that altruism is therefore an unreal illusion. Or perhaps 'self delusion' would better describe the argument. Some argue that if there are benefits (even if only for the genes of the individual and his kin) to acting altruistically then altruism doesn't exist. IMO just because altruism has genetic roots and strategic value does not negate the real choices people make to listen to these impulses. Two indivuals faced with the same choices will not always make the same one. Likewise an individual faced with a choice at different times in his life may make different choices because of personal growth and increased awareness. Individuals who act altruistically should be valued and honored, if for no other reason then to stimulate and foster those instincts in others who will face choices in the near future.
-
Terry
definition is everything. When viewed strictly pragmatically, childbearing is altruistic. The very real health risks and the sacrifice of 1/3 of a person's life to make a new person would be enough to prevent anyone from having children if it were not for the instincts that compel them. I think feel that altruism is universal. For instance nearly all creatures assume personal risk so as to better the clan's survival chances or to propagate genes. Think of the animals that expose themselves to predators or engage in violent combat so as to produce fit offspring. This selfless behavior often has no reward to the individual as such but his gene pool does benefit. The fact that humans have become so self aware has complicated things
Framing the issue is everything.
CHOICE!
An individual who values family invests in expanding the family. INVESTMENT entails RISK.
The risk is for the purpose of gaining the profit of the thing valued and desired.
Farmers produce children for selfish reasons; to have more hands on the plow! There are many reasons to choose to invest the time, money, health-risks in increasing one's family size.
The gene pool can be said to be protected by fighting off wolves, etc. But, the bottom line is that a species which is threatened by a predator is threatened one and all. It is self-beneficial for the membership of a unit to go balls-out in defending each other against attack.
It comes down to what an individual values. Rational creatures have rational reasons for investing and taking on risks. To say these are "instinctive" is to gloss over the values and reasons.
Humans don't appear to actually have instincts. It is a kind of metaphor when compared to animal species that aren't sapient.
T.
-
peacefulpete
Humans don't appear to actually have instincts. It is a kind of metaphor when compared to animal species that aren't sapient.
I know your a thinking man so I suggest some research into the biology of human nature. But for know just reflect upon one word, SEX
btw where is the quotation bubble icon?
-
Terry
The Casper the friendly ghost icon is the Quote icon. See it up there? It is next to Mr. Smiley.
Is SEX an instinct?
Sex is mighty mysterious, my man; mighty mysterious.
T.