NOVA - Intelligent Design On Trial

[peter12]

Originally Posted by jammies

Are you saying that evil is not a "human" construct? That there could be evil in a universe devoid of intelligent life to commit it? A morality without moral agents to express it?

I'm not sure I follow your logic either. Posit some kind of God, and you can have Evil and Morality defined by that God in the universe; otherwise you are incarnating abstract qualities into physical reality, like some new-skool Plato. As you say you are Xian, there is nothing wrong with saying God is the source of these ideas, but your argument should really just explicitly say so, whereas it seems to be saying something else - I'm just not sure what.

I would place God as the cause of both morality and evil in the universe sure.

But what I meant when I said that evil is not a human construct is that humans are cognitive beings that operate within a mainly reciprocal framework. There are certain modes of behavior that are simply unacceptable or even evil, stealing, murder, genocide etc... I could accept that these certain actions could be construed as being viewed under a human construct of good/evil. However, these rules are so ingrained in each of us, in every human culture, that I would argue they are at the least genetically ingrained or natural.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by peter12

I would place God as the cause of both morality and evil in the universe sure.

But what I meant when I said that evil is not a human construct is that humans are cognitive beings that operate within a mainly reciprocal framework. There are certain modes of behavior that are simply unacceptable or even evil, stealing, murder, genocide etc... I could accept that these certain actions could be construed as being viewed under a human construct of good/evil. However, these rules are so ingrained in each of us, in every human culture, that I would argue they are at the least genetically ingrained or natural.

More like much of morality and societal norms formed quite naturally as civilization evolved into agricultural tribes. Its necessary for the survival of the tribe to punish murder, theft, etc..

The Egyptians Book of the dead contained the early version of the 10 Commandments and I'm certain they got such things from even earlier civilizations.

Morality takes shape as a group grows or joins into larger one, and as civilizations grew law/order naturally evolved into codes, ethics, laws, etc.. Those who had power were very much aware of the need for order so that their masses could be kept placated.

The idea that if you broke such morals/laws and would goto a hellfire certainly helped later on for keeping people in line, well at least some.

But for anyone who still believes that morals are something you can only learn IF you believe in a monotheistic god; well I'm sorry to be the one to burst the bubble

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thor

More like much of morality and societal norms formed quite naturally as civilization evolved into agricultural tribes. Its necessary for the survival of the tribe to punish murder, theft, etc..

The Egyptians Book of the dead contained the early version of the 10 Commandments and I'm certain they got such things from even earlier civilizations.

Morality takes shape as a group grows or joins into larger one, and as civilizations grew law/order naturally evolved into codes, ethics, laws, etc.. Those who had power were very much aware of the need for order so that their masses could be kept placated.

The idea that if you broke such morals/laws and would goto a hellfire certainly helped later on for keeping people in line, well at least some.

But for anyone who still believes that morals are something you can only learn IF you believe in a monotheistic god; well I'm sorry to be the one to burst the bubble

That's a theory of morality based on a lot of what Dawkins and others have been saying. It's called Veneer Theory, self-interested human surrounded by a small layer of cultural "altruism". I think it's BS personally, I fall in line alot more with what some primatologists, such as Frans De Waall, think. That is, morality is part of the genetic package.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

That is, morality is part of the genetic package.

But we evolved from sponges. Do sponges have morality?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by troutman

But we evolved from sponges. Do sponges have morality?

There's a chapter in Dawkins' book where he explains in detail how morality (that is, treating other beings with kindness and generosity) can provide an evolutionary advantage to organisms that exhibit that behaviour. Obviously, something like a sponge isn't a high enough lifeform to have a sense of morality, but other non-human creatures certainly can. Dawkins cites the behavious of several animals that exhibit "morality" in an argument to show that religion is not its basis.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

But we evolved from sponges. Do sponges have morality?

Somewhere along the line, probably when we diverged from our common ancestor, morality became part of the genetic package. Monkeys, lesser primates, and chimpanzees/bonobos/gorillas all exhibit signs of pure morality without any reciprocal advantage being given.

As stated, by another poster, Dawkins has taken a crack at this. As going with the selfish gene thesis, he believes that almost all morality/altruism is self-interested to some extent. That is, there is some future reciprocal advantage to be gained. Like vampire bats sharing blood with those who were not successful in acquiring a meal in the knowledge that the group will take care of their needs when they did not acquire blood.

It makes sense for a lot of things. It doesn't cover a lot of morality, however. What about people who run into burning buildings to save a stranger? We tend not to do things that cause total strangers undeserved pain, at least in a personal setting.

As for God, of course He isn't explicitly part of this moral structure. However, I do see the Moral Law and I believe that for me, it's personal evidence of a kind for me.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

There's a chapter in Dawkins' book where he explains in detail how morality (that is, treating other beings with kindness and generosity) can provide an evolutionary advantage to organisms that exhibit that behaviour. Obviously, something like a sponge isn't a high enough lifeform to have a sense of morality, but other non-human creatures certainly can. Dawkins cites the behavious of several animals that exhibit "morality" in an argument to show that religion is not its basis.

I guess a example of that would be the transition of Wolf to Dog maybe? The theory being and i will just make this as simple and quick as possible was that when the wolf realized that it was easier to raid human camps for food then hunt it's own - this required a level of I guess less fear or tameness from the wolf to approach human habitats..and over thousands of the years the tamer the wolf became the better advantage it had..has eventaully they were welcomed as domesticated pets and the more usefull it became the more food it received from humans...if that made any sense...I am sure something like that happened in Human evolution where it became more advantage to work together for a comon cause than to fight or not have a sense or morality and of course things complicated from there.....

hope that made sense!

[troutman]

[quote=peter12;1072067]Somewhere along the line, probably when we diverged from our common ancestor, morality became part of the genetic package.[ /quote]

Right. So what does a God have to do with it.

[peter12]

[QUOTE=troutman;1072910]

Originally Posted by peter12

Somewhere along the line, probably when we diverged from our common ancestor, morality became part of the genetic package.[ /quote]

Right. So what does a God have to do with it.

Hey, that's personal. I'm not trying to preach. I'm just saying certain things have meaning to me.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by troutman

But we evolved from sponges. Do sponges have morality?

Where to begin.

1st. Sponges are intellectual creatures? No.
2nd. Sponges develop into more advanced creatures, yes.

Do Flowers Reason? Do flowers debate the theory of gravity? Me thinks not.

If you study ancient history you at best learn that hunter/gatherer is one of the most ancient form of human co-existence. Hunt/kill and eat food.

As very ancient humans developed to agricultural societies which eventually was the spark of civilization; it was all simply about learning to exist and survive in very small groups (10-100ish).

Once it was no longer about transient groups of hunter/gatherer societies which were tiny; we developed into small agricultural societies. Say there was 50 of us living in this group; it was benefitial to benefit the group as a whole in order to survive. So killing each other = bad, raping = bad, murder = bad..

This predates modern Christianity by thousands of years.

The ancient world was all about the harvest. The ancient world was all about respecting the zodiac.

So do Sponges learn morality, wow. I have not seen a more ridiculous question in my time.

Sorry Trout, I cannot for the life of me Fathom your comment and I would love to hear what you truly meant by it.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by troutman

[quote
Right. So what does a God have to do with it.

For most people it answers the question Why? And gives their life meaning and purpose. Why would you want to take that away from them?

Sure religion and science don't mix, however it doesn't take an atheist to recognize this.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

For most people it answers the question Why? And gives their life meaning and purpose.

I find it sad and feel genuine pity for people whose life is only meaningful because they have an irrational belief in a magical space fairy. I feel even worse if those same people don't live their lives to their absolute fullest because they believe they'll be rewarded with an eternity in paradise after death.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I find it sad and feel genuine pity for people whose life is only meaningful because they have an irrational belief in a magical space fairy. I feel even worse if those same people don't live their lives to their absolute fullest because they believe they'll be rewarded with an eternity in paradise after death.

It's statements like the above that really bother me. Who are you to claim as an outsider, that a religious person is living a shallow or pitiful life? I certainly count myself as a believer and I can guarantee you I don't find my own life lacking for any sort of meaning.

As for the reconciliation of science and religion being impossible, I think that's a sophist point made by atheists without any quantitative backup. Dr. Francis Collins, one of the foremost American scientists, is a dedicated Christian.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I find it sad and feel genuine pity for people whose life is only meaningful because they have an irrational belief in a magical space fairy. I feel even worse if those same people don't live their lives to their absolute fullest because they believe they'll be rewarded with an eternity in paradise after death.

I don't believe being an atheist correlates with how a person lives their life to the fullest. Perhaps you have access to studies that we should know about.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I don't believe being an atheist correlates with how a person lives their life to the fullest. Perhaps you have access to studies that we should know about.

More-so, perhaps he could define what exactly "living life to the fullest" means.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I find it sad and feel genuine pity for people whose life is only meaningful because they have an irrational belief in a magical space fairy. I feel even worse if those same people don't live their lives to their absolute fullest because they believe they'll be rewarded with an eternity in paradise after death.

Is your life that insecure that you feel the need to mock and ridicule people for their beliefs in a effort to make yourself look superior?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Thor

Where to begin.

1st. Sponges are intellectual creatures? No.
2nd. Sponges develop into more advanced creatures, yes.

Do Flowers Reason? Do flowers debate the theory of gravity? Me thinks not.

If you study ancient history you at best learn that hunter/gatherer is one of the most ancient form of human co-existence. Hunt/kill and eat food.

As very ancient humans developed to agricultural societies which eventually was the spark of civilization; it was all simply about learning to exist and survive in very small groups (10-100ish).

Once it was no longer about transient groups of hunter/gatherer societies which were tiny; we developed into small agricultural societies. Say there was 50 of us living in this group; it was benefitial to benefit the group as a whole in order to survive. So killing each other = bad, raping = bad, murder = bad..

This predates modern Christianity by thousands of years.

The ancient world was all about the harvest. The ancient world was all about respecting the zodiac.

So do Sponges learn morality, wow. I have not seen a more ridiculous question in my time.

Sorry Trout, I cannot for the life of me Fathom your comment and I would love to hear what you truly meant by it.

Sorry, you really misunderstood me. When did I say sponges have morality? If morality is in our genes, how can this be so if we evolved from sponges? Did a designer intervene in evolution between our divergence from sponges and make this so? Or was it naturalistic?

If it was by design, why would the designer only intervene at this relatively late stage in earth's natural history, if the designer could make fully moral beings from the beginning?

[MarchHare]

It's statements like the above that really bother me. Who are you to claim as an outsider, that a religious person is living a shallow or pitiful life? I certainly count myself as a believer and I can guarantee you I don't find my own life lacking for any sort of meaning.

My statement was a direct response to flamesfever, who made the remark that I quoted in my previous post, stating that people find meaning and purpose in their life through a belief in God. I was not stating that all religious people live shallow lives, just people whose life would be meaningless if not for their faith, as per flamesfever's post.

Is your life that insecure that you feel the need to mock and ridicule people for their beliefs in a effort to make yourself look superior?

Please point out where I was mocking or ridiculing anyone in this thread, least of all in an effort to make myself feel superior.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Please point out where I was mocking or ridiculing anyone in this thread, least of all in an effort to make myself feel superior.

Did I say you were mocking anyone in this thread?

My post was in reagrds to you mocking and ridiculing people who believe in religion. My question stands and I'd love to hear your response.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Dion

Did I say you were mocking anyone in this thread?

My post was in reagrds to you mocking and ridiculing people who believe in religion.

Please cite a specific example from this or any other thread where I've mocked and ridiculed anyone. Looking through my own posting history, the closest you will find is this below comment, which was neither mocking nor ridiculing anyone. Rather, I was pointing out that belief in an all-powerful supernatural entity is a viewpoint that should not be automatically worthy of respect, as many religious people claim (i.e. "You must respect my religious beliefs!").

I don't understand why religion is a sacred cow (pun intended) that cannot be criticized and mocked like (to use the previous example) one's preferred sports team.

If an educated adult were to claim that he truly, genuinely believed in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, people would question that person's sanity, and rightly so. Yet if someone claims to truly, genuinely believe in an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent magical space fairy who created everything in the universe, why must we show respect for that viewpoint?

My question stands and I'd love to hear your response.

Which question is that? The one where you accused me of living such an insecure life (which I don't) so that I most mock and ridicule religious people (which I haven't done) in order to feel better about myself?