kingjames1

Well, yes and no.

You have quoted scripture selectively. It is part of the narrative of a holy God working through an elect nation to establish righteousness in a chaotic world and within a perverse generation (including Israel's own rebellion). God is thus, to quote another text, "working all things for the good of those who love him," in the course of the history of redemption.

So yes, this is part of that narrative.

No, in that taken out of its historical and literary context, it is incoherent and potentially dangerous - as is any 'normative' text for a commmunity.


J.

kingjames1

In response to Daemon

If there is a causal structure to the natural universe, then that must mean that it is rational - at least to some extent. Don't you agree? How else can you account for the (at least partial) intelligibility of the physical universe?

Einstein once said, "the only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." That strikes me as a particulary profound insight.

J.

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: kingjames1 ]</p>

kingjames1

In response to BibleHumper:
"What do I care for my genes? Should I devote my life to doing everything I can on bahalf of evolution? Why?"


Fine...remain childless. But, the issue is morality - why be moral, especially if it increases my survival value to be immoral (i.e morality as traditionally conceived seems to work against the selfish gene in some scenarios).

You seem to go farther than others on this post, and admit that 'good' is an essentially empty notion. I admire your consistency in thought - most aren't nearly so bold!

And you're right, in my opinion, that there is a similarity between the christian theist and the naturalist atheist - we are 'good' according to innate 'instinct' or 'conscience', and can be 'bad', but it tends to run against our 'nature' - i.e. we feel bad, guilt, shame, etc.

However, there the similarity ends. You hold that we do 'good' and invent moral categories and ethics as a sort of catalogue to our evolved nature's inclinations -- a result of our given genetic coding w/regard to intra-personal behavior.
Christians however hold that 'good' is prior to both our natures and our behavior - not merely a human construct projected onto our instincts. That is, we reflect an eternal good Creator who created all things good.

(BTW, the question of nasty social animals is answered in the Christian framework via the Fall, which affected not only humanity but the entire creation.)

The question we should discuss then is this: if (as we both agree) humans find it intolerable to live (consistently) contrary to the dictates of 'good', or in your understanding, 'social instincts', then does that indicate that your evolutionary scheme for morality is a faulty understanding of the facts (or worldview), in that it is incapable of giving us a 'liveable' interpretation of reality? Or should it simply indicate that indeed evolution has given us an 'ethical apparatus' that renders us hopelessly deluded in thinking that there really is something 'good' about self-sacrifice, about being faithful to my wife, about fidelity to a community, about honoring all life, seeking justice for the oppressed, and caring for the poor? We know such endeavors are neither good nor bad - nevertheless, we humans are too much the puppets to ever be convinced that these things are not good and noble and to be commended to others. There always remains a huge rift then between what we know, and how we live. We 'know' that there is nothing truly noble or worthy in helping the homeless - just as we 'know' there is nothing really 'wrong' in the Nazi holocaust or the brutal massacres of Pol Pot. And yet we can not escape the notion that there really is!

You compared social instinct to sexual implulse - perhaps then there is a behavioral parallel to castration, whereby we could free ourselves from this arbitrary tyranny of conscience or social instinct? E.g. why be compelled to sacrifice one's precious and only life for the sake of the group? Let's be liberated from such blind 'moral' inclinations, in so far as it is possible!

BTW, this is basically what Nietzsche was advocating in his uberman - a man who has 'evolved' beyond the baseless notions of good and evil (and it is what Hitler read to his troops).

J.

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: kingjames1 ]</p>

jlowder

That's a pretty sweeping claim, one which you provide absolutely no evidence for. On the face of it, it smacks of a complete ignorance of the last century of work in moral philosophy. I recommend an introductory course in ethics or reading some of the literature in moral philosophy. Here are some books describing secular approaches to ethics, approaches that do not borrow anything from Christianity or any other form of theism:

• Larry Arnhart, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0791436942/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Darwinian Natural Right</a> (State University of New York Press, 1998)
• Paul Bloomfield, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195137132/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Moral Reality</a> (Oxford University Press, 2002)
• David O. Brink, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521350808/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Moral Realism and the Foundations of Ethics</a> (Cambridge University Press, 1989)
• Michael Martin, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1573929875/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Atheism, Morality, and Meaning</a> (Prometheus Books, 2002)
• William A. Rottschaefer, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521592658/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">The Biology and Psychology of Moral Agency</a> (Cambridge University Press, 1998)
• Quentin Smith, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0300062125/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Ethical and Religious Thought in Analytic Philosophy</a> (Yale University Press, 1998)
• Tara Smith, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0847697614/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality</a> (Rowman & Littlefield, 2000)

Jeffery Jay Lowder

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: jlowder ]</p>

KnightWhoSaysNi

I think this is circular reasoning. When I asked you what "good" is, you pointed me to a holy book. And according to you, this holy book describes a "God working through an elect nation to establish righteousness in a chaotic world and within a perverse generation."

This begs the question: what does "righteousness" and "perverse" mean?

Therefore, in the "historical and literary context" of those Deut. verses I quoted, you're saying that genocide, extreme religious xenophobia and intolerance, and cruelty to women is "good"?

jlowder

Talon,

What exactly do you mean when you use the word "morality"? I think it is crucial that you define the key terms of your argument, so that the rest of us can make sense of your argument.

</strong>

A couple of points:

1. On the assumption that morality is a human construct, wouldn't it still be the case that morality exists in some sense? My question is an example of why I believe you need to clearly define your terms.

2. Do you merely lack the belief that morality exists outside of the mind? Or do you hold the 'positive' belief that morality does not exist outside of the mind? If the latter, could you please provide your reasons for holding that belief?

What is your argument for the claim that there is "no objective or ultimate standard to base morality on"?

Putting aside the question of what you would do to a man who raped your daughter, why do you believe that disagreement "lends credence to (your) theory"?

Then why bother arguing for your position? From your perspective, wouldn't it be better if everyone else were "wrong," so that they would be more likely to be moral (and hence not harm you or your family), while you could (secretly) commit acts that others would disagree with? I don't share your views on morality, but if I did I wouldn't want to try to persuade others to hold the same beliefs about morality.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: jlowder ]</p>

jlowder

Dangin,

I'm going to ask you the same question I just asked Talon: what exactly do you mean when you say "our morality"? Do you mean people's feelings or intuitions that certain acts are right while others are wrong? Or do you mean morality in a cultural sense, i.e., the rules and taboos different societies have to encourage certain types of behavior and discourage others? Or do you have something else in mind? Clarification is needed.

How, then, do you respond to the evidence from biology, sociobiology, and other fields that directly contradicts your view? Unless you reject evolution, I think there are fairly strong Darwinian reasons for believing that virtually all humans are born with a "moral sense" that exists independently of environment but can be shaped by environment. (See, e.g., Larry Arnhart's book, Darwinian Natural Right.)

No doubt that did have some impact on what kind of behavior they will and will not engage in, but exactly how does that story refute the Darwinian claim that virtually all humans are born with a moral sense?

I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Your position contradicts well-documented evidence in the fields of biology, sociobiology, and other fields.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

jlowder

If I cheat while playing cards without getting caught, the fact that I did not get caught does NOT mean that I was playing according to the rules. Similarly, fron the fact that person P may not "get caught" committing some act like murder, it does not follow either that murder is morally okay for P, or that murder is morally okay for all persons. All that follows is that person P may not get caught.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

jlowder

I don't understand your point. What do you believe is the difference between morals and ethics?

Jeffery Jay Lowder

jlowder

This is simply the old question, "Why should I be moral when the demands of morality conflict with my perceived self-interest?" Assuming for the sake of argument that the demands of morality can conflict with self-interest--apologies to any ethical egoists on this board--that question is a meaningful one that deserves to be answered. In my opinion, Tara Smith's book Viable Values has one of the best discussions of this question I have seen. I'm not sure there is any reason to be moral when it conflicts with self-interest, and I believe that to be the case even on the assumption that theism is true. As Smith argues, one could try to argue, as ethical rationalists do, that one should be moral because it is rational. But that begs the question, "Why should I be rational when it conflicts with my self-interest?"

Unless you are an ethical egoist, in the situation you describe it wouldn't follow that there "there is no reason (morally) why I should not" murder. That is a non sequitur. Rather, what would follow would be that murder (or, more precisely, that particular act of murder) is rational.

Who said anything about morality being based on whatever actions promote survival value? Unless one holds to some form of evolutionary ethics, just because an act increases survival value doesn't mean the act is morally right.

By definition, true sociopaths cannot be argued with. The only way that sociopaths can be dealt with is through fear and force. Larry Arnhart has an excellent discussion of sociopaths in his book, Darwinian Natural Right.

What about them? They were examples of theists who believed it was in their self-interest to commit mass murder. What's your point?

I completely agree with you that there appears to be something wrong with sociopaths. Specifically, as Arnhart argues, there appears to be something wrong with the physical wiring and chemistry of their brains, a condition which is not a result of any choices which they have made. But that is a problem for theism, not naturalism. Theists need to explain why, on the assumption God exists, God would create human sociopaths who lacked the necessary brain structure that makes moral behavior possible. Naturalists, on the other hand, have no problem explaining the existence of sociopaths. Hence, I think sociopaths provide some evidence for naturalism and against theism.

But why should a person behave "in gratitude in response (to God's) love," unless such behavior were in a person's self-interest? You haven't shown how Christianity provides a reason to act morally when it conflicts with a Christian's perceived self-interest.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: jlowder ]</p>