Cross Examiner

Ah. It seems the ante is upped; the line in the sand is drawn. You've sprinkled your "rebuttal" with 8 violin-playing disembodied heads, a new record I'd bet . This must be, personally, a very important subject for you Mr. Spenser to take such a hard-line stance. I'll contend seriously with you then, out of respect for your sincerity.
Yes you did. Unfortunately, my assertions are largely prima facie, self-evident, along the lines of: evil exists (I notice you avoided answering my question: does evil exist?). Why is this prima facie? As I've mentioned previously, "only the most contrary, rabid minority of the already small atheist cloister insist otherwise--which speaks volumes on the irresistibility of the existence of evil." The evidence for evil and our detection of it are no more in question than: the sky is blue. That is, even most dyed-in-the-wool atheist philosophers deal with the problem of evil, not whether evil exists or not but take it as granted (though I'd still like to get your response as a reference point). Or, as John Healy, the executive director of the non-religious Amnesty International, displayed in a recent newsletter. "I am writing you today because I think you share my profound belief that there are indeed some moral absolutes. When it comes to torture, to governement-sanctioned murder, to 'disappearances'—there are no 'lesser evils.' These are outrages against all of us."

You must accept deduction as demonstration because I could no more show you a moral standard than I can show you God himself. However, both can be deduced reasonably (and are especially persuasive when compared to the paltry alternatives). If this is insufficient for you then you need to ask yourself if asking loaded, insatiable questions is productive or not.
Will do. I'll even demonstrate that you cling to it too.
What, no burden for you at all? Prima facie (adopted from jurisprudence to facilitate philosophical discussion) is Latin for "at first appearance", meaning ostensibly, and in this application, common sense. While reading, keep in mind that such assertions, which are self-evident, need no further elucidation beyond the initial assertion itself. Overturning our collective common sense notions and long-held beliefs, like murder is inherently wrong or evil exists, becomes the chore of the contrarian (read: you). There is no "try to switch", no bait-and-switch tactic on my part. No illegal motion (burden switching) is happening here; this is all legitimized by the (absolute) rules of logic upon which you and I depend for orderly conversation.
When two people are talking past each other, as we were in my judgment, it is wise to stop, clarify in an attempt to regain frame of reference, which is what I did and why we are here. Hardly a retreat though I can understand why you'd allow yourself that.
Isn't that the basis of your argument, the natural selection of values? You’ve glossed over the idea; please explain it in depth and show why it is more reasonable than a universal, indwelling conscience as an explanation for the ubiquitous experience of shared guilt, shame, and general cognitive dissonance over certain behaviors. You've yet to do this demonstrably and, yes, it does matter. Or better yet, we can start here:

"Let us not confuse survival instincts (automata) with the conscious decision to do what we 'ought'--despite the danger to self. To "act" out of a sense of care and concern is uniquely different than to "react" instinctively. There are no conscious dilemmas or decisions within the corridors of instinct. Instinct is motivation apart from conscience--without much forethought concerning those around us. When one reacts instinctively, one is motivated by perceived necessity, not by way of some sense of obligation (or morality) towards others. Instinct is self-serving. Morality is altruism. Make no mistake about it. Any combat veteran can attest to this reality. Hence, it is impossible for morality to stem from that which cannot, nor ever has been, comprised of the same--a conscience centered on what we 'ought to do.' Just because these moral principles may be taught or passed down does not negate the possibility that they are objective in origin."

-R. Christopher

Beyond mere instinct lays morality, the realm of “ought”. Animals have instinct also, instinct only, which is why there is no reason, no fair deduction that "ought to's" exist outside of man. Show me otherwise if you are compelled to the contrary.
I fear you've missed my point. There is no belief system in existence now or at any time that justifiably legitimizes child rape (or, again, show me otherwise). Why? Because it is without advantage or because it is morally grotesque, to everyone, everywhere at every time? Some still do it, yes, but that demonstrates less the “truth” of moral relativity than total depravity of man. Besides, if child rape were relative, wouldn't it stand to reason that there'd be some exception to this universal consensus that it is wrong? If everyone (except the defendant and his lawyer, each with motivation aplenty to dissent) has the same personal reaction to child rape (or show me where they don't), including yourself, is it subjective? It'll be a big step for you personally to say: evil exists, some acts are inherently wrong. Feel comforted, most humans, even ardent atheists, don’t deny evil exists. Still insist there is no evil? Riddle me this:

"Shall we continue to bomb the innocent, rape the unsuspecting, deceive our children, be unfair to our neighbors or not protect the defenseless? Would you choose to do nothing in the event someone were raping your wife, your mother, or your sister? Would you nonchalantly pass by a lost, lonely, crying or starving child? Would you beat the elderly into submission? Would you help give rise to Nazi Germany (again) by idly watching the massacre of millions of our Jewish brothers and sisters? Then who and where are the self-seeking or insane that proclaim moral absolutes no longer exist? Who else is responsible for the carnage that has arrived? Again, only the immorally-educated, the hedonist, or the insane would make such a claim. Yes, there are "absolutes"--and they are God's. If this were not true, that a standard above man does exist, then our hearts would not cry out for justice in the midst of subjective, totally fallen "Man."

-Ron Gometz

Yet our hearts do cry out for justice. Would you not also seek justice if another wronged your wife, daughter or mother in a heinous way? Why? Because the perpetrator failed to act in a consensus-minded manner or because your sense of justice, of right and wrong, has been disturbed? Watch "The Pianist" and tell me truthfully if your sense of justice is not outraged. Evil exists. It’s tangible even--we sense it because our conscience exists. The question becomes, where did it come from?
Ever see a defendant try to argue that a murder he is alleged of committing is not really wrong? That wrong is in the eye of the beholder? Never! Why not? Because it would utterly insult the jurors conscience. It is unconscionable to say murder is not inherently wrong. Every juror, from every walk of life (universal) knows this. Bad defense. Bad philosophy. Moral relativity only exists in theory; it fails utterly in practical application, the litmus test of truth. Throw it out! Exchange it for a philosophy, a piece of the puzzle that you don’t have to force upon the jigsaw.
You've missed me again. Why does the criminal feel the need to rationalize his criminal behavior? Because he knows it's wrong and has to "overcome" his own inhibitions. Not my assertion, observable behavior. Deduction my good man, deduction.
I'll list one, apropos to our conversation, to demonstrate your uncooperative stance: morality. We have no reason to believe that animals have any notion of "ought to"--a definitively soul-like quality. Ball is in your court to show otherwise. Best of luck.
True. Conscience is obviously advantageous for the group but not necessarily for the individual. In fact, ruthless, self-regarding behavior helps the survival of the individual quite often. Yet this instinct is in conflict in our minds…I could have helped save him…I didn’t need to eat that last piece of pizza…I don’t need this change, I’ll give it to this homeless guy. Is all human behavior rooted in survivalist pragmatism? Obviously not. I’ll note here that your presupposition of ethics/individual conscience as an evolutionary byproduct requires some resolution of the problems with the theory of evolution before your argument will stand; namely: abiogenesis and macroevolution/punctuated equilibrium (among other insupportable notions).
Tell me more about these primitive murders...please supply specifics. When these times? Who were they? How do you know they did as you said?
When you have sex, are you concerned with spreading your genes or with the act itself? Why is it more advantageous to spread your genes? Do you actually think about spreading your genes like you would ponder whether or not to return another’s lost possession? Why care about your genes? What are "hunter gatherer times"?
Unthinking instinct. No evidence of contemplation whatsoever. How did matter/energy arrange itself such that it would ponder itself (self-aware)? Please tell me you see the difference between this instinct and moral philosophizing between greater goods etc...
Instincts vary depending upon the species. Good. We have established this.
When did it happen then? Did the conscience get carried in DNA? If so, where in the human genome is the conscience?
I understand the concept of evolution. It begs many questions that we can attend to another time. For the present, as stated prior, problems with abiogenisis and macroevolution (two of many problems) have yet to be resolved. Ergo, any premise, such as yours, cannot depend upon it until such problems are resolved.
More reasonable? How so?
No?
Boys and girls. Killing animals. Sometimes bad. Excellent. A real world example of a relative wrong. Some context for your example: Mature man. Torturing infant humans. Always bad, never good (show me otherwise).
To the practical implications you go! I'm willing to lay those issues aside frankly. You'll not have a change of heart on any of these issues before a complete renewing of your mind in Christ.
I use extreme examples to get some common ground between you and I (remember when you said you thought child rape was wrong for you? Me too! Common ground.) for the sake of discussion. Again, willing to lay the controversial issues aside for the present in order to advance the more black and white ideas first. Crawl before walk, walk before run. I’m all about building bridges .
Au contraire. There are greater parallels and more cooperation amongst the moral codes of the people of Earth than your paradigm allows:

"It is not the differences between cultures that are so mind-boggling but rather, our similarities. If this were not true the U. N. could not produce pacts that deal with human rights and morality for the entire world to sign. From the laws of Hammurabi to the U. N. Declaration, a synthesis of moral beliefs is what we record--not a diversity of interests. While there are exceptions, this does not rule-out the possibility that morality is objective. Objective morality is one thing, agreeing to it or obeying it is quite another. While some may still prescribe to a flat earth, this alone does not make it so. There is an objective truth that lies beyond, or juxtaposed, to those who believe that the earth is flat."

-R. Christopher

Mere dissent to an absolute does not make it relative.

Your assertion that there are no moral absolutes, no absolute truth is a truth claim itself! Is your claim that it's all a matter of opinion also just an opinion or do you believe that you are right? If it's just an opinion, why keep peppering me with it like you hold it as truth? Your insistence upon this "opinion" betrays the philosophy that needs it to not be an opinion. Or:
If all truth were relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false. The position that there is no truth is intellectually untenable and unlivable in practice (our basis for law, charity, ethics etc. will go away), though I can certainly understand the intrinsic importance of moral relativity to the philosophies of nihilism, naturalism, optimistic humanism etc. and the resulting lifestyles. No doubt you'll have your own motivation for declaring morality as relative.

Additionally, as promised, you do live by moral absolutes. Ever heard (or said, especially the last) any of these?
-"How'd you like it if someone did that to you?"
-"You can't do that, you promised!"
-"Leave him alone, he's not doing any harm!"
-"You have no right to tell people what is right and wrong. Who are you to say?"
Ah the common appeals to a moral standard in everyday speech...ever appealed to justice yourself? Hard to do without rights that can be overturned by a majority vote. Without absolute wrong, there is no absolute right. Without right and wrong together then one can never seek justice or recompense yet we (and you) seek both all the time. And about those inalienable rights endowed upon man by his Creator, are those also subjective? Can we really vote away the right to freedom of speech, of the press, of worship? Or are they really inalienable, absolute as suggested by our Founding Fathers?

More personal application; a question about giving to the needy: would you assert that I give because I actually think I might see some return, some time? Or did I have compassion, empathy that cannot be attributed merely to a survival instinct? Can you honestly say you've never refrained from a behavior, in part, because it was intrinsically wrong? Or you've never behaved in some way because it was intrinsically right? Ever felt guilt or shame? Would you actually attribute such cognitive dissonance to your offending the values of the majority? Of not seeking the greater good (didn’t communism fail already)? As a test, try living for a month with the following words/ideas: bad, good, better, worse, ought to, ought not, should etc. and let me know how that works out for you. You, I, we depend upon absolutes.

You've spent a good deal of effort trying to explain the development of conscience and moral relativism your own way, in purely natural, evolutionary terms. I have some hesitations.

So habits/ethics are passed like base-mutations in DNA?

"It is very likely that habits do produce certain modifications in the brain structure of an individual, but these changes occur only in the body or somatic cells, which, so far as present investigations can determine, seem to have no influence upon succeeding generations."

-William Quillian

The conscience as evolved instinct?

Julian Huxley concluded that instincts are certainly not inherited habits or sentiments; that conscience is not an instinct in any sense in which that word can be used. In fact, today, your notion of the evolution of ethics as survival (natural selection) is largely discredited: "..The evolution of ethics as portrayed by modem psychologists and social scientists, therefore, had little in common with the specifically Darwinian concept of evolution through natural selection." (Daiches Raphael). This from McCampbell's analysis of British philosopher Anthony Flew's work, Evolutionary Ethics:
"Further, Flew regards the term "natural selection" as misleading, for selection implies choice or purpose. Such a phrase contributed to the ready acceptance of "natural selection" as a surrogate for divine providence. Flew sees the danger here of misleading people to overlook the fact that natural selection is blind and nonrational. The dominant view, therefore, of current philosophy is that evolution offers no assurance either of continued progress or of any certain ethical guidance."How does natural selection, a blind and nonrational force govern the very intellectual process of deciding between greater goods? To even begin to answer this you'll need to define good according to a materialistic philosohpy, if there is no God.

Evolution does not explain the observable phenomena of conscience. You'll need another approach. That approach is intuitive. You have a natural revulsion to child-rape. Good for you! So does everyone else (no need for Mr. Gallup or Zogby on this one). Resultantly, we all punish this sort of thing but we couldn't legitimately if baby rape didn't really exist or wasn't inherently evil (without plausible excuse). Ergo, evil exists. If evil exists, so does the absolute law that naturally recognizes evil and demands justice. Absolute law requires an absolute lawgiver. The Bible fervently declares God as this source. I and countless others have found the Bible quite credible. I am willing to stick with you if you really care to seek the truth on this matter (I highly recommend The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel as a starter book for the seeker, I am more than willing to participate in your search). More importantly, God is willing that you find him if you actually look sincerely, lay aside your qualms and dive right in.

And if you call out for insight and cry aloud for understanding, and if you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure, then you will understand the fear of the LORD and find the knowledge of God. Proverbs 2: 3-5.

You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. Jeremiah 29:13

Respectfully,
BGiC

rainbow walking

mike: We are apparently defining competition differently. How do you equate work with competition? I'm simply talking about competition as the idea that your life or freedom is a threat to mine, and we must compete for limited resources to live and be free.

rw: Yes, I suspected as much and should have made the effort to define my position on this concept…sorry. I’m defining competition from a philosophical perspective such that even moving a muscle requires competition with gravity. Keep in mind that my arguments are based on a view of the paradox of man’s survival, such that every breath of air, every morsel of food, every thought is a reaction to the paradox.

Not that we’re always consciously aware of it, only that our lives are defined by this struggle and we’ve developed sophisticated responses to allow us the freedom of existence under the pressure. Thus we enjoy good movies and music and throwing ourselves into a project or losing ourselves in a good novel, family outings and hobbies...like these discussions. These are all escape mechanisms that take us out of the loop momentarily. We also embrace worldviews that satisfy our questioning of this underlying pressure thereby allowing us to enter into the sophistication of our cultures without having to constantly focus on the angst. After awhile we learn to repress it and this too is a survival mechanism.

From here on I will use the term “paradox” to describe this angst underlying all men’s lives. By that term I mean to include every aspect that the “two sides of the same coin” analogy would fit. Things like competition/cooperation, maximum freedom/maximum control, good/evil, love/hate, peace/war, life/death.

I view the paradox, along with the resulting angst, as the driving force behind all worldviews and ideologies developed in response to it. That’s why I can’t reject your spirituality or another man’s atheism or another’s political position out of hand. I want to examine each for several reasons. In the case of the spiritual worldview I must admit it affords man a pressure relief valve that can work…the “letting go” you speak of, is the walking away from the angst by accepting a tenet that this life is not the do-all-end-all of your existence. It’s a way out from under the pressure. But it’s also a way into greater pressure as I will demonstrate and this is not unique to theism but is true of all ideologies.

I’m faced with a world history telling me that none of these worldviews allow man to live in peace, either with himself or his neighbor. You seem to feel this is a result of competition and that those who claim to embrace your worldview and violate its basic tenets are practicing false theology. I happen to think the problem runs much deeper and is related to the paradox.
I see all ideologies as pressure relief valves that fail to function as effectively as men like to believe. I see the ideologies as leading to complexities and sophistications that gravitate towards more and more freedom restrictive controls until men are forced to introduce new ideologies to compete with these controlling factors and it all takes on the appearance of a “dance with the devil in the pale moonlight” never ending struggle. And it often leads to bloodletting in the larger ideological strains as they reach a crescendo of inner competitiveness.

What you call “false theology” is nothing more than a reaction to the tendency towards this phenomenon of controls. The “false theologians” who take these ideologies down a path of confrontation that leads to bloodletting are men who view this inner turmoil as being a result of pressure from other ideologies that are competing with their own. They allow themselves to be deceived into believing that if only these other ideologies were silenced ours would work the way it’s suppose to. Only problem is, constituents of the other ideologies are feeling the same way towards his ideology. And the reality is, the ideology itself has failed to deliver the goods, not because it is a bad ideology, but because it is driven by the same paradox that forces man to complexity and ultimate control and ultimate revolt against such control. Every ideology is a ticking time bomb. It’s inescapable. Some go out with a fizzle and some with a bang and man gathers up the pieces and trudges on.

All ideologies begin with good intentions and then gravitate, inevitably, towards less and less freedom. With each new convert comes the potential need for more and more controls. The need for education arises to ensure each convert understands all the basic tenets of the ideology. The need of regulating all the facets of the ideology in practice arises to ensure the best teachers and practitioners are in positions that best reflect their talents and the process can’t escape the political expression. All through this process complexity leads to control and control leads to the re-surfacing of the angst and dissent rears its ugly head. Then methods of preservation are introduced along with rules and disciplinary procedures and greater complexity leads to greater controls. And the dance grows more feverish.

The paradox is inescapable even in the midst of ideological repression. I think you used Cain as an example in one of our previous discussions, so let’s look at Cain’s example again. (Ever wonder why man chose to call a drug that energizes the human body “cocaine”?) Here’s a man who decides to enter into competition with God’s curse against the ground and produces a crop in spite of this curse. Now the time comes to secure God’s approval, only God shows more respect for Abel’s labors than Cain’s. Cain has, no doubt, had to work much longer and harder than Abel to secure his victory over the curse, yet Abel gets all the glory. Why? Because Abel displayed an amazing degree of creativity in electing not to compete against the curse. He goes into animal husbandry and God honors, not his efforts, but his creativeness. The message should be clear: Controls, (the curse), are best addressed by creativity which, when you follow the text, inevitably leads to confrontation and bloodletting and Abel’s murder. Yet the murder led to Cain’s excommunication that led to a new tribe and the paradox marches on. Good-evil-good-evil-good-evil.

The moral of the story: Ideology leads to controls that leads to more creative ideologies to avoid the controls that leads to confrontation between ideologies and bloodletting ensues, (or factions splitting off to form new ideologies that follow the same path), that leads to new tribes and ideologies that lead to controls that lead to more creativity and more competition and the never ending dance with the paradox.



Because these ideologies are tied to our means of repressing the angst we become endeared to them and view them as more crucial to our existence than our existence itself. We simply couldn’t go on living at peace within ourselves without them. That’s why we embrace them in the first place. They do work to a certain degree, but they also lead to complexity and control and then the angst surfaces in another form. The angst is created by our survival need to repress the fear that arises from our understanding of our mortality. Our mortality is that one uncontrollable restriction to that “ideal freedom” you make reference to. Thus we often find ourselves in a catch-22 position. People react to this in different ways but they always resist the controls if those controls aren’t in their hands or range of influence. The control and the controller is another facet of the paradox. Inescapable and inevitable.

Now, you may disagree with my assessment of this phenomenon, (and likely will), but you should now be able to understand where I’m coming from. I am getting the impression that you view my replies as a direct assault against your personal interpretation of your spiritual based ideology, and in one respect it is, but not personally addressed at you in any specific way and not intended to tear down your beliefs but to dissect them in search of the control mechanisms that lead to the schisms that lead to pressures that lead to bloodletting.

I suppose I could conduct this examination using some other ideological expression but I am most familiar with theism so that familiarity affords me the best view. But the levers are present in all ideologies and the effects are the same across the board. This too is inescapable.

The fact that many men, such as yourself, are able to function smoothly within your respective ideologies does not negate history. It proves that many more men are not able to function so smoothly and I am curious as to why you choose to label them as false religionists or equate them with “wolves” rather than realizing they are men who have not found the peace you have, even though they have embraced the same ideology as you have. Don’t you ever wonder about this, or is it just easier to write them off by inserting them into these ready-made pigeon holes? Perhaps, within your group, you are one of the fortunate who get to handle the controls?

I have also observed that the men in control are quite content with the status quo, until the pressure of competition reaches an untenable level. It’s most likely true that the man with the controls feels more insulated from the paradox than the man under control. I would venture a guess that this is the driving force behind the control tendency within all ideologies. This is also why the “letting go” only lets go so far and then finds itself compelled to “take control”. It’s another integrated aspect of the paradox.

Perhaps we can make more progress if we take a philosophical view of this discussion. I often view these message board discussions as our ancestors likely viewed their fireside chats out under the stars, long before modern technology made it more a matter of preference than necessity. These cyber-fires can actually be quite productive for everyone warming their feet by the shimmering coals of men’s minds. You have to wonder how many ideologies were formed and deconstructed sitting around such fires, later to surface as guiding lights for a season until someone somewhere, sitting around another such fire, devised a brighter one.

Now I fully realize that every time I introduce another lever of manipulation or controlling aspect of a theistic ideology you’re liable to claim it’s just an example of the “wolves” among the sheep and this dance can go on ad naseum. We’ve got to get beyond this “demonizing” and divisive defense mechanism if we’re going to make any progress. I also understand your “Father” theology and its myriad applications to every situation and I’m not trying to deconstruct your personal interpretation of your faith, so continuing to refer to these interpretations also doesn’t gain us much real estate in finding a way to transform the “wolves” back into sheep. I think we both agree that theism can be an effective means of transforming wolves into sheep but where we seem to be talking past one another is on the subject of preventing the sheep from transforming back into wolves.

We can’t afford to allow ourselves to pretend that the sheep, who display characteristics of the wolf, weren’t ever really sheep to begin with, especially if you believe theism is natural. If it’s natural that means that all men begin as sheep. The reality is likely much different. I am of the opinion that all men are both sheep and wolf rolled into one and it doesn’t take as much to bring out the wolf as it does to bring out the sheep.

If, as you say, this is the result of “under-development’”, then it aught not be difficult to expose the areas of under-development. But this isn’t as easy to do if you feel you are on the defensive and I wonder why you feel this way at all? Perhaps a self-examination of the ideological repressors isn’t such an easy task.

I would gladly invite you to examine my atheism if it were a positive ideology but it’s really just a rejection of theistic ideologies, so there’s not much there to examine. I do, however, hold to a naturalistic ideology for the moment but may even reject this ideology if, and or when, I discover its control mechanisms.

To make a long story even longer, feel free to ask me any question you think may be relevant to this fire-side discussion, if knowing more about me will help ease your anxieties in this discussion. I’m not afraid, (or at least I don’t think I am) to discuss my worldview, such as it is, to see if the same discrepancies arise, which they likely do.

I have examined a great many ideologies and found none of them exempt from these pressures. They are all designed by men looking for a viable repressor of the angst of his mortality…the paradox of his existence…every single one. I embrace science because it has been successful in beating back this paradox to some degree, but I also cannot deny that its successes can have a debilitating effect on man’s psychology as well as provide “wolves” with the tools to destroy all of humanity…so it isn’t exempt from criticism at all. I could take the route of Camus and move to the check out line at Wal-mart, but this to me is just a cop-out. Entering into a competition with my survival instinct is a no win situation. If I win I lose.

Ultimately I have all but concluded that there is no ideal repressor of the paradox…that it must be defeated else man will be. So I offer this as a means to get us back on track rather than continuing the cat-and-mouse game our discussion has appeared to have devolved into. I turn the floor back over to you and await your response.

Spenser

Wow! You wrote a lot. Let's dissect it:

Unfortunately, my assertions are largely prima facie

So basically you concede that they are nothing more than assertions;

--------------------------------------------------------
pri·ma fa·cie (prm fsh -sh, -sh-)
adv.
1. At first sight; before closer inspection: They had, prima facie, a legitimate complaint.

adj.
1. True, authentic, or adequate at first sight; ostensible: prima facie credibility.
2. Evident without proof or reasoning; obvious: a prima facie violation of the treaty.
--------------------------------------------------------

At first sight it may seem self evident, but even your own definition suggests 'evident without proof or reasoning.' This is why it is simply an assertion, nothing more.

does evil exist?

I thought my view was pretty clear. I believe evil is purely subjective. I believe what you are trying to ask is 'does absolute evil exist.' to which I say no. This would bear the burden of proof once again. The fact that we disagree on this issue only helps represent the fact that it is subjective.

Your next bit is overly assertive. Detection of evil is quite different from the sky being blue. Quoting others proves nothing, and just saying existence of evil is evident does not make it so. 'Truth' as you like to label it is not a democracy, everyone in the world can know in their heart that the earth is flat and be wrong.

I could no more show you a moral standard than I can show you God himself.

No kidding, your argument sinks.

However, both can be deduced reasonably.

If that were the case, what would be the point of this forum? Why would we even need to debate logically or reasonably about God and why do arguments for God come and go as they are shown to hold no weight. I doubt you support the on going debate between McHuge and Krueger on this site. The theistic argument there is garbage.

Will do. I'll even demonstrate that you cling to it too.

Really???

keep in mind that such assertions, which are self-evident, need no further elucidation beyond the initial assertion itself.

Cop-out. Strangely enough, this is nothing but an assertion itself and per the definition above it appears evident without proof or reasoning. But without proof or reasoning, it really says nothing.

collective common sense notions and long-held beliefs

Thank you, evidence of subjectively.

Isn't that the basis of your argument, the natural selection of values? You’ve glossed over the idea; please explain it in depth and show why it is more reasonable than a universal, indwelling conscience as an explanation for the ubiquitous experience of shared guilt, shame, and general cognitive dissonance over certain behaviors. You've yet to do this demonstrably and, yes, it does matter. Or better yet, we can start here:

My intention here was what did it matter to your particular statement. Also note, my argument, per the OP, is:

"What basis does anyone have to say that "Absolute" Morality exists?... ...There is not one shred of evidence that there is Absolute Morality and I challenge anyone to show that there is. If evidence of absolute morality cannot be provided then it cannot be used to prove the existence of God."

My coverage of the natural selection of morals was an example of how morals CHANGE with time and societies. What I have 'glossed over' is adequate to explain my beliefs, as we're not here to prove alternates but argue about absolute morality I'm not going to go into details. Even if I had no alternatives, this would not make the concept of absolute morality true. I hope you are not relying on an argument from incredulity. But if you are interested in reading more try:

Here

here
here
here
here
here
OR
here


Child rape! Another appeal to the emotions. Anything can be shown to be justifiable under circumstances and if just one case of child rape can be seen as justifiable, then your "absolute" standard is a farce. Below I will quote Zaketh from Theologyonline.com from his debate on the existence of absolute morality:

Tada! Sick as that story may seem, it would be more than justifiable for Ted to kidnap, rape and murder that child to save the lives of millions of New Yorkers. Had the bomb gone off, the child would have died anyway. One hypothetical scenario just killed your 'abslolute' standard of morality.

if child rape were relative, wouldn't it stand to reason that there'd be some exception to this universal consensus that it is wrong?

Perhaps you are unaware that people who do it don't seem to think it is wrong, plus have you any idea how much child pornography there is out there and the demand for such things? If there were such an in-born revulsion to it why would it happen at all?

Ever see a defendant try to argue that a murder he is alleged of committing is not really wrong? That wrong is in the eye of the beholder? Never! Why not? Because it would utterly insult the jurors conscience. It is unconscionable to say murder is not inherently wrong. Every juror, from every walk of life (universal) knows this. Bad defense. Bad philosophy. Moral relativity only exists in theory; it fails utterly in practical application, the litmus test of truth. Throw it out! Exchange it for a philosophy, a piece of the puzzle that you don’t have to force upon the jigsaw.

What? Is this another 'because you say so' argument or what? If there were such an absolute standard of morality why would we need 12 jurors? Oh yeah, there subjective views to ones actions in accordance with written law. Saying that every juror from every walk of life knows 'this' has got to be the largest assertion you made so far. You attempt to dictate what other people think and feel with nothing more than your own opinion, that is why your argument is so incredibly weak.

Why does the criminal feel the need to rationalize his criminal behavior?

Not all of them do.

I'll list one, apropos to our conversation, to demonstrate your uncooperative stance: morality. We have no reason to believe that animals have any notion of "ought to"--a definitively soul-like quality. Ball is in your court to show otherwise. Best of luck.

Really? You've never seen a dog look guilty when it's been caught doing something 'wrong'? Please. I suppose that killer whales are only using instinct when they beach themselves to catch a seal, pull it out to deep water the smack it around, belly flop onto it, bat it into the air and then not even eat it. Or how about monkeys that take care of their old and crippled, animals that would normally not survive without the help? Instinct you say?

Check this

Didn't I mention something about human arrogance?

Tell me more about these primitive murders...please supply specifics. When these times? Who were they? How do you know they did as you said?

Pick up a copy of Guns, Germs and Steal. This book adequately destroys the idea of a 6-10 thousand year old world as well as going much over hunter gather - early food production societies and their actions and spreading.

When you have sex, are you concerned with spreading your genes or with the act itself? Why is it more advantageous to spread your genes? Do you actually think about spreading your genes like you would ponder whether or not to return another’s lost possession? Why care about your genes?

Do you really not think that procreation is the point of your existence? Oh that's right, you don't. Um, survival of the species. Even if you don't agree with evolution, you really must know something about it? I'm not here to reinvent the wheel, nor does any of this truly address the OP.

I think many of the above links explain a good amount of your questions, so as to not make this excessively long (too late) I'll try and hit some main points:

It is far more reasonable than an 'in-born' revulsion to gratuitous evil.

More reasonable? How so?

Please. It is an observable scientific hypothesis and not just an untestable unfalsifiable assertion which lacks evidence of any kind. Even if it were incorrect, its more reasonable than the 'just because you said so' idea.

Ever notice how many murders and rapists were beaten as children, then grow up to not see the wrong in what they do. They were conditioned. If they had an in-born revulsion to it, one would think it couldn't even be beaten out of them.

You still haven't even offered up any evidence that 'gratuitous' evil exists.

no?

No.

Furthermore, how come you nor any other theist will attempt to push the moral standard on subjects like abortion, euthanasia, prostitution, drug use, pornography????

To the practical implications you go! I'm willing to lay those issues aside frankly. You'll not have a change of heart on any of these issues before a complete renewing of your mind in Christ.

Yup, that's what I thought. You are willing to lay them aside frankly because there is no evidence of an absolute standard to apply to them. Either they are right or they are wrong if your absolute standard exists, but because you can't get an overwhelming consensus, you like my theists are unwilling to go there.

Most of the rest of your read, much like your entire argument, is compiled of assertions. :boohoo: You've tried to attack my hypothesis on natural selection rather than actually demonstrate this absolute standard of morality which only seems to apply for murder and rape. As if attempting to eliminate competition offers up credible evidence. Your argument fails with your own concession:

I could no more show you a moral standard than I can show you God himself. :notworthy

Exactly. You can't and if you can't then my argument from the OP stands. Absolute morality cannot be used as evidence of God's existence because it cannot be shown to exist itself.

Cheers

PS For reasons of keeping interest, please try and keep it a bit shorter and maybe we can tackle a few issues at a time. Due to the incredible length of RW and Mikes postings I stopped reading them long ago...

Spenser

Dear moderators,

I'm thinking this should go back into the EoG forum as both my and BGiC arguments are on track. Perhaps RW and Mike could create a new thread here...

Spenser

The Other Michael

I think I will move it back to EoG, though I find myself wondering if maybe GRD might be better, as even the posts with a lot of MF&P content still have noticeable GRD content.

I think that it might be best for those who have drifted from the OP split off their discussion, though I'll leave it up to them to decide which forum they feel is going to be best for the direction they'd like to take in their new thread.

Perhaps the main participants might take a bit of a time out and converse among themselves via PM and figure out a good way to either bring future discussions in line with the OP, or decide to split the thread(s). If you do start a new thread you can always post a note in the original with a link to the new thread.

You do have a bit of a snarled thread, and a Gordian knot solution seems appropriate.

Actually, that may be best. Since the large portion of this discussion is EoG material (and it spent most of the time in that forum, I'm going to move it back to EoG. BUT, I'm also going to close the thread before it gets even more snarled, and invite people to open a continuation thread or threads as they see fit.

cheers,
Michael
MF&P Moderator (Maximus)

(edited to add that if you need a link added to this thread pointing to a new thread contact me or an EoG moderator)