K

kingjames1:

You haven't shown at all why this is inconsistent with the world we observe - only that you don't particularly like what it says about your drive for retribution.

But isn't justice supposed to be meted out by God Himself? I thought Christians believed that we were not to judge others. And if people really do have free will (they are not "programmed" by their genes and environment), rehabilitation makes no sense.

I think many Christians have no understanding of justice since they generally accept that it is just that someone should be tortured for all eternity simply for not believing in a God who never shows Himself.

I feel that same, almost palatable, longing for justice. Why does that somehow eliminate it from the list of human drives? My drives for food, sex, to communicate, and to protect my family are just as strong.

Here's a side question for you. Do you feel the same need for justice applied to the God of Christianity who tortures people far worse than the Nazis ever did? According to most Christian doctrine, this happens to people as innocent as the victims of the Holocaust and even includes most of those victims. Do you still stand by your statement that Christians understand justice?

Why does something have to exist beyond humanity in order for you to appreciate it from a human level? I find my life to be filled with many profoundly moving and beautiful experiences. I don't delude myself into thinking they have some objective meaning beyond humanity. They don't have to in order to be appreciated from a human level.

Who said anything about social Darwinism?

If you accept some degree of determinism in order to match your concept of reality with the observed world, why do you fault me for believing in a greater degree of determinism which matches very well with the observed world?

This was only presented to show that your brain was "programmed" and that you do not have the free will to choose your brain state. It is determined by your physiology and your past experiences. Any besides the fact that you don't like it, you've offered no evidence to suggest that it isn't true.

Again, all of this is perfectly compatible with determinism - not so with free will.

Where does the "free from external conditions" part fit in to any of the sciences? Where does determinism fail to explain our observations?

I assume you're talking about chaos theory here. Chaos theory does not say that chaotic systems are not deterministic. It does say that small changes in the inputs can lead to drastic changes in output and that it may be impossible for us to predict the exact output of a chaotic system without knowing the inputs and details of a system with infinite precision. But this doesn't undermine the determinist posistion in the slightest.

Another thing chaos theory doesn't say is that chaotic systems have a non-physical element that could be equated to a soul.

If this isn't what you are talking about, please elaborate.

You get no argument from me. Believing that outputs of the human brain are determined by its structure and the sum of its inputs and their effect on the structure doesn't isn't the same as saying that the brain is merely a complicated (classical) computer.

Norge

I have a couple of questions to pose to those who hold to either of the positions thus far presented. Either those who account for ethical naturalism on the basis of objectivism, but who deny the need for the divine as a basis or grounding.

Or for those who are still desperately clinging to the idea of morals on the basis of evolutionary development/behavioral/social determinism etc. (too numerous to mention).

So far, as far as I can tell, no one has managed to justify the leap from "the state of affairs" to the "ought" that compels behavior in a particular direction. Why "ought" we do anything apart from what we think is good for us and if so, how can we criticize those who state that their behavior is what is good for them.

Second, I wanted to introduce the idea of death as the reason why atheists are lost in hopelessness with regard to ethics. Even if there is "meaning," even "ethical meaningful behavior" it can only be temporary and limited. Indeed, when one dies, the atheist must admit that one's behavior is ultimately meaningless and the key word here is "ultimate." Since the world will end one day, whatever has been accomplished will have only temporary "meaning" and therefore it will be of no ultimate meaning. That means that my behavior has no eternal, longlasting consequences. You may not like what I do, but I can only pay here right now . . if I'm caught. On this account, why should I not steal, rape and go off to an island and spend all I have on pleasures for myself. Indeed, some have done this and lived very nicely, thank you. Atheists should applaud them, but curiously they don't. They start becoming all "moral" and criticizing their behavior.

For atheists, we're just matter in motion. There is no purpose. And without purpose, why act morally now that I have developed to the point where I now understand how things have come about?

K

Norge:

Have you even read through this thread? Some of your questions have been answered many times in previous posts. There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding of determinism in your post.

Desperately clinging? I haven't seen a single argument offered to nullify the position other than that some people don't like the implications.

That's because THERE IS NO "OUGHT". I've said this many times. People do what they do because they are programmed genetically and through their environments to do so. There is no escaping the program. EVERY SINGLE action is determined by the physical world. The "ought" you feel is a drive similar to the drives for food and sex. It's part of the program that's been developing for ages.

I think you're catching on. I can see why you're confused if you think that I would believe in an ultimate meaning.

But now you fall right back into the same confusion over my position. I don't do any of those things because it isn't in my program to do them. I find rape and stealing disgusting and I have no choice in that feeling. I'm built from genetics which carry the honing of millions of years of the evolution of social creatures. I also have a lifetime of experience in the culture of my community acting on my genetically derived brain. I could no more rape someone than I could pass up water when dying of thirst or saw off my own foot for entertainment.

It's curious that you think atheists should applaud anti-social individuals. Why should an atheists drive for a peaceful functioning society be any less than a theists? And by criticising immoral (anti-social) behavior, atheists are providing another external input to the offenders in hopes of changing that deterministic behavior.

Not for all atheists, but certainly for me. Again we act the way we do, because we have no choice. That is what determinism means. This is so basic that I don't know how to simplify it any more. Determinism means that every choice we make is determined - we can not just "decide" to do something else.

Norge

K,

You're right, I haven't read the whole thread, although I have read most of page 7. I apologise to those who think they have answered all my questions. I have a job, what can I say?

K, I have never met a full-blown determinist. That's quite a feat, I must say, to hold to such views.

1) How can you account for guilt, except as some sort of biologically determined sense that contains no inherent validity? When you act in a way that violates morality (for now, let's just choose the really obvious examples, such as stealing or adultery or lying), do you simply tell yourself that you are biologically determined and to hell with the feeling of guilt? I'd be interested to know?

2) How do you account for the fact that there is an innate sense of rightness and wrongness that contains a moral imperative. It comes before the behavior. Before you act, there is something bearing upon you to act in a particular way. If it is simply determinism, then it cannot contain within itself any rightness at all. It is simply "what is." So, one cannot criticize others' behavior at all. Right? Yet, you do,

It's curious that you think atheists should applaud anti-social individuals. Why should an atheists drive for a peaceful functioning society be any less than a theists? And by criticising immoral (anti-social) behavior, atheists are providing another external input to the offenders in hopes of changing that deterministic behavior.

But look at what you write. You simply describe it as "another external input." There is no justification here of the rightness for such correction. It has no moral grounding at all. Indeed, why should we have any "hopes of changing that deterministic behavior" at all? To live peaceably? Why? For survival? Whose survival? Certainly not mine. If war is "in my interests" and since I am biologically determined, how can you criticize my urge to go to war, for example? Why shouldn't I, in fact, include rape, as a method for ensuring "the survival of the fittest?"

The fact is that the most a determinist can say about anothers' behavior is that they don't particularly like it. There is no grounding for moral objections, nothing outside us that bears upon us to drive a moral imperative, and thus it leads to the inability to differentiate between behaviors based on anything but what is arbitrarily decided by the determinist.

You have already written that there is no "ought." Fine, please account for the fact that in some societies they sacrifice children, and further that you have no problem with this, apart from some nebulous belief that they aren't creating a peaceful society, something you happen to believe, but for which you have no real justification. When I disagree, my defense on your belief system is that I am biologically determined and therefore you cannot disagree with me. It becomes pure subjectivism.

Returning to child sacrifice, I presume you cannot criticize such actions. They carry no moral imperative. Their actions are simply biologically determined. You can say you don't like them, but if you stumble across a tribe engaged in such acts, you can hardly object. After all, you're in their territory! You have your son with you. He's one year old. It's his turn now. You have objections to their actions? Not on your scheme. I guess you were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Norge

Oops. I'm really sorry about that attempt to quote there. Any tips on being able to quote without going back and forwards on the browser would be appreciated. Again, sorry.

kingjames1

Response to Primal:

Your ad hominem arguments (or I should say assertions) here are strong! Let's see if you can substantiate what you have to say below...

Really? Actually I distinguish these two at the beginning of my discussion of cultural relativism. However, obviously, epistemic relativism necessarily entails ethical relativism (I cannot know what is absolutely good if I cannot know anything absolute). In arguing against cultural relativism, which is a form of epistemic relativism, I am responding not only to it's pecuilar form of relativism, but to many such forms (e.g. the argument of Socrates against the Sophists, etc.).
This is why my response to cultural relativism is relevant, I believe, to other ethical theories which reject any transcendent moral system. E.g. one might claim that a genetically determined ethic is objectively real, and therefore not an instance of ethical relativism, but when we understand that our evolution is a chance-based phenomenon with no teological or overarching purposes, then our ethical encoding is obviously arbitrary (by definition). Moreover, these 'moral truths' are only locally 'true' (per species or perhaps per kingdom or per ecosystem...e.g. some animals seem to have no group survival instinct).


Really? Are you sure this is a confusion or a grouping together of various views under a common rubric? If you read the beginning of the post, you know that I am summarizing the basic responses on the board to the question of this thread into two camps: those who hold to a transcendent basis for ethics and those who do not. Certainly you understand that cultural relativism, social darwinism, and pragmatism fit under the latter category. Why do i get the feeling that you are not a very sympathetic reader?.


Both...it is possible to group philosophical perspectives together. Many relativists are pragmatic and many pragmatists are relativistic.

These assertions are fascinating, but unsubstantiated. How have I cut the analytic from the synthetic? Moreover, I have made no case for Christianity or objectivism...my approach here was purely negative. Perhaps you are reading into my arguments?

Indeed! Because I do not argue this! You have placed this argument in my mouth (or my post). It is no wonder that you find it a mystery...so do I!


Talking about inserting ideas without making arguments!


You know, it almost hurts my feelings how much you have misconstrued me. To believe in "nothing" (which, btw I no where asserted relativists believe) and believe in what is pragamtic are two different species. The same can be said of genetic make-up and social constructs. You are oversimplifying the issues, and I believe you know it. You seem unable to distinguish different levels of causation...though I know you are able...I am under the impression that you are simply not willing to carefully read my post (with a sympathetic ear, rather than poised with razor in hand).


These two quotes belong to different referants in the post. The first is the summarization of the views on this thread, the second is the specific views of cultural relativists...who indeed would be inconsistent to want to root ethics in genetics (an argument implied in my previous criticism of cultural relativists).
I will qualify that in my post so as to make it clearer...

your ad hominem arguments here appeal to emotion...all good argments, btw, appeal to the emotions. All the good philosophers were passionate men and women, who made passionate arguments, appealing to both the passions and reasons of other men and women.

I believe that my arguments against cultural relativists have broader implications beyond cultural relativsim - BTW, let me deal explicitly with one worldview at a time - including those who would argue that ethics are rooted in biology.



First, evolution is by definition an arbitrary process: it is fundamentally random. If this is news to you, you my friend need to hit the biology books.

Secondly, genetics and social conditions are not one and the same. This is patently obvious: being genetically predisposed towards alcholism has one effect in a non-alcholic home, and quite another in an alcholic home. Perhaps these biological moralists believe that social conditions are reducible to genetically determined behaviors and hence to our genetic codes, but surely the distinction is meaningful and important!


Thank you for your generous patience!


Do you really think that I am 'forced' to obey all of my instincts so absolutely? Is this not a crass oversimplification of instinct and behavior, at least in application to humans (even dogs can be trained to ignore or suppress certain instinctual behaviors)? Surely the complexity of human behavior is more nuanced than this!

Instinct is a motivating force...my questions revolve whether that in itself is a sufficient ground for ethics.

Actually, you are the one who seems to be in error. Group survival instinct is not self-interested, it is group-interested, and ultimately, gene(type)-interested. Hence the instinct to put one's own life on the line for the pack...etc.

My employing the response of a hypothetical social darwinist does not imply that all who would respond similarly are necessarily social darwinist! There are many things social darwinists assert that I as a Christian would be able to affirm! I didn't realize that I needed to explicitly distinguish this for you.

I believe you are the one who is limiting my comments to 19th century social theories. Social darwinism is variously understood, and variously applied. In fact, in my readings, it has been generalized to mean any ethical system that self-consciously roots itself in the theory of evolution, and particularly the principle of "survival of the fittest." See the following website for a more nuanced definition of social darwinism: <a href="http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/ph2.shtml" target="_blank">http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/ph2.shtml</a>

I admit, when I use "social darwinism" I am using it in the broadest possible sense to include any view that (primarily) understands human behavior and ethical norms from the perspective of the theory of evolution (whether understood via neo-darwinism or punctuated equilibria). I do not necessarily mean the crass proposals of Herbert Spencer. Perhaps I should use the term "evolutionary ethics" instead? Would this be more to your liking?


It is quite clear to me that you don't care to take the time to understand what I am talking about. Hence, this is, most likely, a waste of time for the both of us.

I suppose I ought to thank you for responding to such a waste of time.

Your ad hominem arguments were dressed to kill, but you have failed to make your case...perhaps it is you how should read carefully before you challenge those you clearly have not taken the time to understand.

I wish I could say it was a pleasure...

J.

[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: kingjames1 ]</p>

K

Norge:

To quote, type &lt;left bracket&gt;QUOTE&lt;right bracket&gt; and end with &lt;left bracket&gt;/QUOTE&lt;right bracket&gt;.

It's validity is only in that it has helped social animals form cohesive groups which allowed them survival advantages. It works well in that regard. What other validity is necessary?

Absolutely not. The guilt is part of my being. I can't avoid it. Guilt is a check mechanism that guides my future actions just pain does. They both tell me to avoid the actions that caused the negative feedback.

For illustration, simply knowing that I have a biological drive for food doesn't allow me to to say, "to hell with the feeling of hunger."

You're right. I don't believe there is any inherent rightness contained in the human conscience. It is only a drive that has worked in allowing organisms to form social groups which provided a survivability advantage.

I certainly can criticize the behavior of others. By doing so, I provide another input to their decision making mechanism. This input has the potential to change that mechanism for future decisions.

The answer is the same as all of my answers. It may not have an objective "rightness" to it, but I and the rest of humanity have drives to create social groups. We have drives to change anti-social behavior we see in others - this would also be a mechanism for creating strong social groups.

You are free to act as you chose, but you will probably find yourself the undesirable target of others' drives to promote social behavior.


I don't see the problem with this. And I wouldn't call it arbitrary. Like I said, It's been honed by the millions of years of evolution of social creatures.

It's not some nebulous belief about them not creating a peaceful society. It is a drive that causes my aversion to the practice. A species that didn't have an aversion to the killing of its children would have a tough time surviving (except in species where the offspring are born basically able to take care of themselves). I would say that is much more concrete than a claim that it is wrong because some god arbitrarily called it wrong.

And I can certainly disagree with you. My calculator might be malfunctioning and alway return that 1+1 = 5. It may be determined, but I can disagree with it. Why should determinism ensure correctness? They seem completely unrelated to me.

Again, I can object all I want. Why do you keep insisting that I can't object or interfere just because someone elses choices are determine? There are many other things that are determined that you probably wouldn't have a problem with.

Here's a take off on your analogy. Your house catches on fire with your one year old son sleeping in his crib. You can't do anything to prevent the house burning him alive because the the fire is deterministic. I guess he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is obviously ridiculous as is the child sacrifice example. Determinism of peoples' actions is no reason to accept those actions.

In the end, I believe that everyone just acts on the drives they have. You seem to have a problem with the drive to criticize the behavior of others when their actions are determined. Why is this a problem?

kingjames1

Do you like it? Put yourself in the shoes of the man whose wife has been brutally raped and murdered? Is his desire for retribution purely revenge, that is, purely misdirected?

First of all, Christians do not believe that the judicial branch of the government should not judge and condemn the guilty. Read Romans 13, for example.

Secondly, why is determinism a necessary presupposition for rehabilitation? Do you hold to a strictly negative re-enforcement form of therapy? If so, you are among the few in the psychological world. If anything, rehabilitiation, true personal change, presupposes the ability to make morally significant choices.



Who says God never shows Himself? Read Romans 1:18ff. for a Christian understanding of general (i.e. universal) revelation. Secondly, I think your understanding of hell (tortured) may be more rooted in Medieval caricatures of hell than in actual Christian theology.

I do not argue that it eliminates for the list of human drives. But I do argue that it runs deeper than the desire to eat and the desire to have sex -- though all such can be strongly felt! It is of a different nature as well. Do I need justice for others in order to survive? Not necessarily so...

</strong>

Keeping the previous comments about hell as a torture-chamber in mind, the Christian doctrine of eternal punishment presumes that no one is innocent before God. There is a difference, as you might suspect, between innocence w/regard to a particular crime (harming or not harming someone or some institution), and absolute innocence before a holy God. Read Romans 3:9-20 for a Christian understanding of humanity's guilt before the Creator and Law-giver.

Because I cannot enjoy them without deluding myself! For example, if I am to enjoy the love I feel for my wife, I must presuppose that the love I have for her is more than my neurons firing in particular patterns, or the pH of my biochemistry, or whatever else love is supposedly 'made of'. If I am to believe that my love for her is what it seems, I must believe that it is something beyond my own hormonal intoxications. I.e. that it is real, real in the sense of the poets, not a biological virtual reality, not reducible to chemical reactions (though those may be the material cause, as it were, for such emotions). Indeed, I feel that my love for her is more than my emotions. That my devotion to her is more than a genetically pre-programmed response (though I do not doubt that we humans function better in sexually monogomous relationships) -- that it is a committment that transcends instinct, that sometimes may even contradict instinct/appetites (e.g. sexual fidelity). If however I come to grips with the supposed fact that I am a highly complicated sperm-dispenser and child-provider to the true god, that is, the guy who's really running the show -- the selfish gene -- then my marriage as I understand it is necessarily a delusion. I love her because I have been programmed to do so. It is a complicated program, and the right conditions had to be present (e.g. a proper proportion of phermones), but a program nevertheless. This destroys anything at "a human level" in reducing it all to the survival level. But is not true, this reduction, according to your system?


I did...it was an example, not a label i was necessarily applying to you...

Because I do not think that full-blown determinism does match the observed world. Consider the science of psychology -- few are cognitive psychologist of the deterministic bent. Most presuppose the reality of human freedom (though it is limited). In fact, you rejection of human freedom is incapable of matching my experience of the observed world. I experience free will. You may say it is a delusion, but so, it would seem, is every meaningful experience I have. I reject this as counter to commonsense...not to mention that most of the scientists I know reject full-blown determinism.

and again, your example is hardly sufficient to demonstrate your claim that human behavior is biologically determined. In some aspects, brain states apparently are subject to my whims...I can change ideas at will...I can perform actions at will, etc., etc. You must presuppose or demonstrate that all these actions are in turn predetermined by my biology.

Of course it is compatible with free will. Again, you seem to think that free will means I can will to do literally anything. But all the philosophers I have read regarding freedom of the will reject this sort of absolute freedom. I am free within limits.

quantum mechanics! what determines whether a nucleus will decay in beta-particle radiation? no one knows! hence the schrodinger cat thought experiment.


no, i mean complexity theory. for more search for the book of the same title on amazon -- i forgot the authors of the book at the moment. this was a sort of 'hot-topic' for a while in scientific circles. there are other books on the same idea too whose names elude me. moreover, i was not thinking about determinism per se, but how systems change drastically in behavior upon reaching a certain level of complexity: e.g. sufficiently complex neural networks, compared to an indivudal neuron...but it was an offshoot of the study of chaotic systems


of course not, but they do say that we cannot determine the final state of chaotic systems with arbitrary precision...in fact in some systems, we cannot know their final state with any significant precision at all (only that it will fall somewhere on the surface of a strange attractor in phase space). Hence, the universe is much more complicated than Lagrange (and the modernist scientists after him) thought!

It isn't? Are you arguing then that it is a sort of quantum computer ala Roger Penrose?

If the outputs of the brain are determined by the combination of internal states, and sum of its inputs, surely this can be expressed in an algorithm, and processed by a Turing Machine? What reason can you offer that this is theoretically impossible, as there is every reason to believe it is possible (given what you presuppose here)?

Have you read much on the AI debates? Some of them are fascinating!

J.

Dr. Retard

Quickly, what are the "crass proposals of Herbert Spencer"? I ask because I think people have a gross caricature of the man's thought.

Primal

I was puzzled by this at first but then looked on and discovered:


LOL. Cute. Basically he is saying that if you believe culture determined morality you are a "cultural relativist" which is true in a sense, but then confuses this notion of relativism with the official definition of cultural relativist as one who thinks all beliefs are equal in respect to culture. Kind of a bait and switch eh?

More equovocation, you are confusing the term "arbitrary" as in decided on for no solid reason with arbitrary= random. BTW evolution is not just chance. This ignores the fact that arbitrary in the second sense makes morality no less equal,illegitemate, randomly distributed, constructed etc. Which are all hallmarks of ethical relativism.


Ok, so? They are situational...that does not make them totally relative.


When you make such unwarranted generlizations is there really a difference?

If I am launching a criticism of Christian morality, group along with Islam and then declare that errors in the Koran help then refute Christianity or any cruel practices mentioned in the Koran make Christianity a cruel religion....is that ok since I'm just grouping under a common rubric?

Yeah ok, but "those who do not" comprise a very big group that aren't lumped together so easily. Also you say the relativist believes in what is expedient. You really failt to make necessary distinctions and you fail even more miserably in your defense of such failure.


Because I recognize and point out how much of a poor writer you are.

Yes they "fit under the latter category" but that doesn't make your blanket descriptions or criticisms any more legitimate.

Example: "There are two types of people, say I the Neo-Nazi...racists and nonracists.

Now nonracists are people like humanists,marxists and catholics.

And look at what Stalin did...so much for the nonracists. That's because without basing society on racial differences they resort to extreme views of equality."

Under a common rubric but way off the mark.


That may be true, they may be "pragmatic" or "relativistic" but that doesn't make either a pragmatist or a relativist. Christians can likewise be "pragmatic" and "relativistic".


Perhaps you are denying the obvious. It is quite clear with all your talk of the transcedent and creator and your treatement of the "atheistic worldview" and how it is soooo compatible with cultural relativism that you are a theist or have theist sentiments.

From your earlier post: Nothing like lying to dig yourself a deeper grave huh?

You find your own position to be a mystery? Fascinating.

You must be really thick-skulled if you think yourself that hard to figure out, mr.closet fundy.

Oh yes, I meant you said "nothing" verbatim, what I meant was "no ethical standards"...that better?

And no, don't feel hurt by my comments for my misconstruing, had I done so, I could only help your case more then harm it. If anything my misconstruing should bring a great big smile to your face. like this


Nah, I read your post. And that is about as sympathtic as a get with online garbage. Different levels of causation? What are you talking about?

Saying I am unable to distinguish just because I won't lump a group of very differing people together? LOL.


Ok, but then you cannot call the second relativist now can you? And also it not like you made the distinction very clear at all.


Well then I made good arguments.

Seems we have a different idea of what constitutes a good philosopher then. Perhaps though, they never substuted emotions for reason and only used it when appropriate though? To motivate instead of justify.

Ok, then deal with ONE worldview at a time instead of lumping them together.

Nope. Perhaps you shouldn't consult evolution deniers on the mechanics of evolution.


Books like "Evolution, the Fossils say "No!" kind of "biology books"? Perhaps you should get your science outside of sunday school. (Hint: These are creationist statements implying this person is a fundy, for all those who didn't see that....and I'm sure there's a lot. So good at hiding your bias James.)

I agree and so would most evolutionary psychologists. In fact I have yet to find one "biological moralist" who says enviroment plays no or a trivial role.

Oh my dear man! With the and patience the cupeth overfloeth.


Umm remove the "all" and "absolutely" part and, well, yeah. Is a dog able to avoid it biological predispositions?


Only by playing on other biological predispositions/instinctual behaviors. Are you suggesting dogs have some kind of "free will"?


Noppers. I eat, I sleep, I shit and unless given a good reason not to, why not? Am I randomnly gonna stop via free will? "Gee, just think I'll use my free will and starve to death for no reason."

Necessary? Yes. Sufficient? No. We need to examine enviroment too.

Nope, it is ultimatelty self-interested in three ways: 1) The gene is only helping out cause it helps out itself i.e. same genes. 2) Stronger group equals better benefits. 3) Group members are themselves agents of selection. If you are a lying,dirty,disloyal, backstabbing bastard then the group will be more likely to select you out then if you were an honest,warm-hearted,loyal, generous person.

You as a Christian eh? Say it ain't so. Thought you were just making a "purely negative" argument. I feel so suckered.

And you did imply this: as you made no distinction. Hence the word "imply" meaning you don't have to say it verbatim explicitly.


Well normally a person wouldn't; but with your manner of speaking James and your impeccable reasoning: I can't really assume too much.


You've got to be kidding me. What about all the nice comments about a "distinction" made above?

i.e. misleading my audience. In the sense that helps create the weakest straw man.


WTF? Yeah, cause whether they were neo-darwinists or believed in punctuated equilibria has such relevance. Totally different debate James.


Yeah, that would be more to my liking.


Time is not really what impeded my "understanding"(sympathies) here James.


But according to your transcendental morality you must try your darndest to help a poor soul like me "understand". To be SAVED! James, what does a transcendantal mission care for time? You're trying to save souls here. Don't give up on us James.


That'd be the polite thing to do.

You mean you're still alive?! *surprised look* Back to ye old drawing board.


Yes James, perhaps I have not mastered your art of doublethink and hence do not "understand". For example I don't understand how you are not defending the Christian position, but as a Christian must criticize evolutionary ethics from a Christian point of view.

James, its always a pleasure exchaning important ideas with you. Bless your heart James. For you bring much joy and understanding into my life.

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>