chrstphr

I'm quoting this statement from a creationist -- and because I've personally been through a little witchtrial (in real life) for being an amoral, someday-to-be murderous psychopathic atheistic "evolutionist", the topic is of some significance to me. I know it's impossible to sway a creationist toward reason, but I want insights from others to add to my own to examine his ideas and possibly help reassure that no one else reading his statements can mistake that evolution creates psychopaths.

His main thrust is that evolution's necessary consequence is that humans are only collections of chemicals that cannot determine truth or right/wrong, because how can chemical animals know anything? Since all thought is nothing but a byproduct of neurochemical reactions, therefore none of it can be relied on as being "absolutely true." Evolution therefore leaves us in a moral vacuum where anything goes; and only morals given by religion can alleviate this. All insights will be greatly appreciated, so please respond. Thanks.

The quote begins:
"I know that belief in a deity is a presupposition. Just as no scientist knows the complete scope of known scientific knowledge, I don't know it, nor do I know the complete scope of defined philosophy, history, etc. I took what I have known and studied (which, tangentially, comes from no creationist/preacher websites) and was left with the question, "Does there seem to be sufficient evidence for a deity?" I walked away with an affirmative. YMMV.

"One problem that we the general public face when studying the rudiments of scientific knowledge is heavy reliance upon popular science and its espousers - the Goulds, Sagans, Dawkinses, etc. Guys like these, who have a popular audience, seem to disavow even the slightest hint of a designer or a deity. Of course, it's understandable that they're forced to because of the closed-system approach to research. Yet, the problem that I still have (Call me dense, chrstphr, but please, nothing worse)." [Note: I had called him obstinate for being over-repetitive, and his ideas "preconceptions", to which he reacted with many whinings about ad hominem attacks; are attacks on ideas disallowed in debate? or even a person's obvious obstinance, so long as the attack is explained?] "is that they extend the closed system idea to all of life, rather than just confining it to the laboratory. When one does so, one has wiped out any kind of possibility for an objective standard, for absolute truth, for any inherent "rightness" or "wrongness."

"You're bright enough to know ... that doing so has some pretty serious rational conclusions. For example, suppose that I decide that my children shouldn't have right arms or legs, so I take it upon myself to remove the appendages, and, by so doing, I find truth and meaning. Well, according to our society's laws, I am worthy of punishment, and that's well and good.

"However, no one can fault me for my actions. I say the actions are absolutely good. Who can argue with me? How can anyone disagree with me concerning the morality of my actions? In fact, no one can.

"That's the whole point I wanted to make. That's why I say the tenets are impossible to live with. Perhaps I should have stressed more vehemently the fact that the logical extremes of the tenets are impossible to live with (Forgive the hanging preposition.)."
End quote.

Dr.GH

I started a reply for you, but a Window's lock up lost it.

So, as I am somewhat pressed for time:

Do a search on "Priest Child Abuse," and "Christian Child Abuse," and "Exorcism Death." Drop the Satanist sites. Post a half dozen of the results.

Ask: is this that Christian moarlity you prattel on about??

This particularly gives lie to the moron's statement that, ""You're bright enough to know ... that doing so has some pretty serious rational conclusions. For example, suppose that I decide that my children shouldn't have right arms or legs, so I take it upon myself to remove the appendages, and, by so doing, I find truth and meaning. Well, according to our society's laws, I am worthy of punishment, and that's well and good. "

Only Christians claim the right to mutilate, and murder their children for "religious reasons." Then they do it. And then, they get away with it. Christians live on the extremes.

Dr.GH

...

JamesKrieger

I think the guy will reply, though, that those aren't "true" Christians.

Taffer

I'm sort of new at this, but I figured I'd give it a go anyway. Please feel free to brutally rip any faulty arguments to shreds so I can hang my head in shame and learn from my mistakes.

Skimming through that post again, his main point seems to be that our reality -and, consequently, our morals- are subjective.

First off, if God is not a given in this argument, then it falls apart by itself. If there is no evidence for a completely objective source passing judgement, then of course, that "objective" judgement comes from the church. And since the church consists of self-centered, subjectively-thinking people like you and me, well . . .

Let's assume, then, that God does exist and influences this world. People who believe completely nutty stuff still exist. Tragedies perpetrated in the name of God occur throughout history. These believed as well that they were drawing wisdom from a completely objective source.

If the nutters based their actions upon God, who are you to say that their actions are wrong? (You obviously conclude they are wrong since the actions break commandments and whatnot.) I don't recall any line in the Bible saying our perceptions are perfect. The nutters obviously have a warped perception of God, so that is definitely possible. What speaks against this theist having a shaky grasp of God's will as well?

Our decisions are based almost entirely upon our perceptions. We gather information, think, decide, and act. Obviously we cannot know anything without any doubt whatsoever since we think subjectively, but we can gather enough information to conclude on an action with some confidence. I think the most basic conclusion on morals is that if you don't want something done to you, don't do it to others. Isn't this an acceptable view from an ethical standpoint? I must admit my Bible savviness is shaky, but there must be something along those lines in there too.

You can claim, of course, that our perceptions may be completely warped and that we hurt something without knowing it everytime we take a step or draw in a breath. But in that case, you'd be paralyzed to act entirely. Every action -or indeed inaction- you take is a potential risk. There is no way out of such a conflict, so we have no choice but to trust our perceptions to a degree and act on them.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Asked, and therefore recieved as follows:
Religion has no absoulte morality--no matter how loud he shouts.
Take the Following construct:
God determines morality, and it is absolute.
God writes it down for man to read.
The written word is then interpretted by man.

He should agree that this is the way that morality from God flows--God no longer dictates to people indiviually what is good, he has the bible to do so.

The Bible may be infallible, but MAN IS NOT. Since it is up to man to interpret morality, it is possible, and indeed likely, that two people reading the same book at different times will draw different conclusions about the moral values espoused within. Because of this fact, man cannot discern absolute morality, as the arbiter of absolute morality does not directly give it to man.

Actually, if he reasons that there is sufficient evidence for a diety, he must be convinced upon evidential grounds that evolution is fact--deities have scant evidence in favor of them.
Actually, there is no closed-system approach. It is a naturalistic approach to the world, and there still is room for a deity. It happens that these men (like many scientists) see little evidence for a deity, and thus discount existence.
He has made a grievous error here: confusing science with philosophy, branches that deal with entirely different things. Science makes no judgement as to whether or not something is right or wrong morally, only that it is or is not real.
Philosophy can make the judgement of right or wrong.
Example:
Science makes no distinction as to whether or not atomic bombs are "right" or "wrong"--science only tells how much energy is released, and how to release that energy, and the consequences of doing so.
Philosophy tells us that unleashing such energy, and the consequences of doing so, is morally wrong.

His argument then is spurious, and does not actually address the issue of evolution.
Actually, people CAN argue with you for the morality of your actions--visit your local university's philosophy department. Ask them what they think.
First of all, there is no LOGICAL EXTREME with any tenet of evolution. None whatsoever. Further, applying this concept to his system of morality, we find that , from the bible, it is perfectly acceptable to slay those who fail to meet your moral standards (re: Leviticus and Deuteronomy), as well as discriminate against those who were deformed at birth or later through accident. God has given but one source of morality, and it is quite stark about killing those who fail to meet certain standards.

He's arguing apples against oranges in the context of typewriters.

Jobar

One problem that we the general public face when studying the rudiments of scientific knowledge is heavy reliance upon popular science and its espousers - the Goulds, Sagans, Dawkinses, etc. Guys like these, who have a popular audience, seem to disavow even the slightest hint of a designer or a deity. Of course, it's understandable that they're forced to because of the closed-system approach to research.

Scientists, tens or hundreds of thousands of them, contribute to the intellectual edifice which is science, every day. In fact, there was for many years a certain onus which was placed on those who tried to write science for the masses, by the bulk of professional scientists. And they are not 'forced' to do anything! Your creationist does not seem to understand that science actually encourages the rebels and iconoclasts if they can carry off their rebellion in a scientific way. The reason that the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution is because none of the presented alternatives, particularly creationism or ID, have any power to explain the brute and voiceless observations of nature we can all observe, if we care to look.

Vorkosigan

Don't bother with the tenets of his post, because you would have to educate yourself first in fields like human behavior, evolutionary psychology and so on. Instead go straight for his assumption about morals. Point out that the less religious countries like Japan, Europe, etc have lower crime rates than the US, and the most religious areas of the US tend to have higher crime rates, suicide rates, more pollution, lower teacher pay -- practically any social issue you care to name. Ask him why religious war is unknown in the East, where Christianity does not hold sway. Etc.

Move on. Ask him why Evangelical Christians have the highest divorce rates (see www.barna.org, the Christian survey company, for lots of damning info). Ask him why, if evolution is so devastating, there are so few biology PHDs involved in criminal acts. Ask why child abuse is more common in religiously conservative families. Remember, the Christianity of nitwits like this is smug and superior. Puncture that.

There's no way you can convince him, but you can send up so shit he'll recognize that this heathen is out of his leagure.

Good luck. And read everything in our library here. Or send him here. We'll straighten him out in no time.

djmullen

Your creationist friend is missing an important point: if there is no God, He didn't disappear recently, there has NEVER been a God. That means that all religions, and their associated systems of morality, are the works of man and of course it is the absolute height of immorality to give men's work the authority of God. (Ask any Christian.) So help your friend examine his religion to see if it bears the mark of man.

Ask your friend if it's moral to own slaves. If he says it is, get a new friend because his morals are hopelessly corrupt. If he says it's immoral, have him open his Bible to Leviticus 44:44-46:

Leviticus 44:
44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

So, regardless of how he feels about it, his religion says that he CAN have slaves, that they are his property, and that he can will them to his descendants. They can be purchased from foreign nations or from foreigners living in his country.

Ask him how he feels slaves should be treated and then have him open his Bible to Exodus 21:20-21:

20 "If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished.
21 "If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

So he can beat his slaves to death, so long as they live for a day or two after the beating - after all, they're his property.

How about Christian family values? Have him open his Bible to Exodus 21:2-7:

2 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
5 "But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' 6 then his master must take him before the judges. [1] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.

So if you have a slave and give him a wife, then later decide to release him, you still get to keep the wife (after all, she's YOUR property, not his) and any children who are born to the couple. If he wants his freedom, he has to give up his wife and children. Other verses say that you can't keep a countryman a slave for more than seven years, but verse 7 above says you can buy a female countryman and keep her a slave forever. (Or until you beat her to death.)

None of the above is just academic, either. One of the main reasons we fought our Civil War instead of ending slavery peacefully is because the Southern states knew damn well that their slaveholding was one hundred percent Biblical and that they thus had God's permission to own their slaves. They were ready and willing to fight for Biblical slavery and they did. (It should be noted that more Americans died in the Civil War than in ALL of our other wars put together.)

Now, since your friend is a Christian and a Creationist, he's undoubtedly developed strong defenses against the most elementary truth and morality, so this argument might not sway him. As a last resort, try having him turn to Exodus 11:4-6:

Exodus 11:
4 So Moses said, "This is what the LORD says: 'About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. 5 Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. 6 There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt-worse than there has ever been or ever will be again.

and ask him just why God had to kill every firstborn son of every slave in Egypt. A female slave living in a monarchy certainly wasn't responsible for holding the Israelites in bondage and couldn't possibly free them, so why kill her infant son? For that matter, ordinary Egyptians had no influence over Pharaoh either, so why murder their sons? And why the hell did God murder the firstborn sons of the cattle?

In closing, tell your friend that if he ever comes across an actual example of an absolute morality, you'd like to see it, but this Bible crap doesn't cut the mustard and he should be ashamed of himself for believing it. Tell him that if there IS a God, then he's a blasphemer for believing what the Bible says about Him.

NEVER let a Christian lecture you on morality, especially a Bible Believing Christian.

djmullen

Dr. GH said:

Only Christians claim the right to mutilate, and murder their children for "religious reasons."

Jews and Muslims too - circumcision is certainly mutilation.