Is the Evolutionary Process as a Theory Problematic?

[JTownsend]

Successful living in groups, packs, tribes, villages, cities requires that individuals follow some consistent rules or behaviors to minimize conflict and maintain some minimum group cohesion.

Keith,
Although your words do hold some truth - you are not support the idea of an absolute standard of morality.

If you want to say that morality is simply whatever the people decide is acceptable then would you also support child molestation if there was a group of people who seemed to think it was right? What if most people thought it was acceptable - would you support child molestation then?

I wouldn't - but that's because I believe in absolute standards in morality.

What if the people decide to change their minds - that something was "morally right", and then later becomes "morally wrong"? How can you justify that dualistic viewpoint?

[symmetry]

Successful living in groups, packs, tribes, villages, cities requires that individuals follow some consistent rules or behaviors to minimize conflict and maintain some minimum group cohesion.

Keith,
Although your words do hold some truth - you are not support the idea of an absolute standard of morality.

If you want to say that morality is simply whatever the people decide is acceptable then would you also support child molestation if there was a group of people who seemed to think it was right? What if most people thought it was acceptable - would you support child molestation then?

I wouldn't - but that's because I believe in absolute standards in morality.

What if the people decide to change their minds - that something was "morally right", and then later becomes "morally wrong"? How can you justify that dualistic viewpoint?

This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

[UbiDubium]

If you want to say that morality is simply whatever the people decide is acceptable then would you also support child molestation if there was a group of people who seemed to think it was right? What if most people thought it was acceptable - would you support child molestation then?

I wouldn't - but that's because I believe in absolute standards in morality.

What if the people decide to change their minds - that something was "morally right", and then later becomes "morally wrong"? How can you justify that dualistic viewpoint?

This is a classic example of a logical fallacy known as Appeal to Consequences, which is related to Wishful Thinking.

JTownsend is claiming that morality must be based on absolute standards because he doesn't like the consequences if that's not true. That is fallacious.

A logical argument is not rendered valid of invalid based on the desirability of its conclusions.

[Keith C]

Although your words do hold some truth - you are not support the idea of an absolute standard of morality.

I think the 'absolute standard of morality' is one of those fictions which some Christians accept without thinking.
I think it is obvious that our ideas as to what is acceptable behavior has improved with time - rather slowly, and with some occasional setbacks.
For example, do you advocate stoning those who collect firewood on the sabath? (Numbers, 15 32-36)
How about stoning stubborn and rebellious sons? Deut 21 18-21.
Even if you think this does not apply to Christians, do you think Jews should keep up this tradition?

If you want to say that morality is simply whatever the people decide is acceptable then would you also support child molestation if there was a group of people who seemed to think it was right? What if most people thought it was acceptable - would you support child molestation then?

What if the people decide to change their minds - that something was "morally right", and then later becomes "morally wrong"? How can you justify that dualistic viewpoint?

Morality is not what people always do. It is what thinking people feel is the right choice - and this can and should change with time.

On child molestation, it is obviously wrong for an adult to take advantage of a younger person in any way.
It is also obviously good for children to grow up so that as adults they will enjoy sex without problems due to having being molested etc.
On abortion, I think it is never desirable, but the consequences if society outlaws it are also very undesirable. This is one of those issues which should be decided by the potential parents, and as quickly as possible.
Do you think God would have created man and woman so that they became sexually mature before having the mental and moral ability to handle their hormones?

Perhaps you could consult your bible and find the definitive ruling for this problem:-
'When the Mind Falters, Is Sex a Choice?'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091801144.html

[Aduro]

Why don't you tell us, since you seem to have set yourself up as an authority? Isn't that the role of God? What do you think of calling yourself a God, or are you too modest, despite taking up the duties?

Keith C., part of your question is made out of ignorance or outright denial of some facts. The Jews had a covenant with God, which demanded that they observe certain standards in order to maintain it. Christians have a new covenant, which does not require them to observe the Law. Christians, like the Jews, please God through obedience (belief == works), which includes following Christ's law of love. Your citing of the Law in an attempt to point out inconsistency only has any effect if Christians pick and choose what parts of the Law to follow. As I have shown, this is not the case.

Morality is not what people always do. It is what thinking people feel is the right choice - and this can and should change with time.

Nicely done. Spoken much like our ancestors, who set themselves up as Gods. You say this, but someone else might reject it. It is only acceptable so long as other people are willing to bend themselves to your standard. A standard must be used, so someone has to be made as an authority. That authority takes the place of God, if it is another; thus, you are basically appealing to everyone's inner Godhood, and saying they should freely exercise their knowledge, as they please. Does it please you to take that position in your life?

Of course, this thinking is due to your apparent presuppositions, which reduce God's role to nothing or exclude Him entirely. I'm led to believe it is the latter.

[Keith C]

The Jews had a covenant with God, which demanded that they observe certain standards in order to maintain it. Christians have a new covenant, which does not require them to observe the Law. Christians, like the Jews, please God through obedience (belief == works), which includes following Christ's law of love. Your citing of the Law in an attempt to point out inconsistency only has any effect if Christians pick and choose what parts of the Law to follow. As I have shown, this is not the case.

If we are operating under a 'new covenant' why do so many preachers quote so many of the OT condemnations of specific sins?

Nicely done. Spoken much like our ancestors, who set themselves up as Gods. You say this, but someone else might reject it. It is only acceptable so long as other people are willing to bend themselves to your standard. A standard must be used, so someone has to be made as an authority. That authority takes the place of God, if it is another; thus, you are basically appealing to everyone's inner Godhood, and saying they should freely exercise their knowledge, as they please. Does it please you to take that position in your life?

Your reply seems to assume that I stated that each individual could choose his own standard or alternatively, that I would try to impose my standards on everyone.
WRONG, what I said was that the moral standard is determined by the opinions of the more responsible and thoughtful individuals.
For instance, we are seeing changed attitudes to the death penalty in most states and even in Texas execution might eventually be limited to those actually guilty.

[JTownsend]

Keith,

To answer your questions, I have no problem with stoning people who collect wood on the Sabbath or with stoning children who show themselves to be in constant rebellion. These things are part of God's law and in principle, they still apply today.

I am not trying to prove morality by appealing to your conscience. What I am pointing out is that everyone likes to have some level of "morality" but only so much as suits their purposes.

If morality is only decided by the opinions of "those who are more thoughtful or responsible" - why do their opinions matter more than anothers? You still only have 2 opinions. Who decides who is more thoughtful? Who decides who is more responsible? Now lets say you have a group of people who are equally thoughtful and responsible but they come to different conclusions - which group is actually right?

Take for example the issue of abortion. People who support abortion are unwilling to take responsibility for their actions - according to your logic they are wrong and the pro-lifers would be right. And yet there are other relatively responsible people who agree to abortion. So which one is right?

Morality must be absolute or it has no value whatsoever. Evolution cannot explain morality. They can not give any evidence for where it came from... just like they have no definitive evidence for evolution itself. One of the problems with evolution as a theory is that to suppose evolution you have to destroy the basis of morality.

[UbiDubium]

Keith,

To answer your questions, I have no problem with stoning people who collect wood on the Sabbath or with stoning children who show themselves to be in constant rebellion. These things are part of God's law and in principle, they still apply today.

Remind me to never go camping with you on the weekend.

If morality is only decided by the opinions of "those who are more thoughtful or responsible" - why do their opinions matter more than anothers? You still only have 2 opinions. Who decides who is more thoughtful? Who decides who is more responsible? Now lets say you have a group of people who are equally thoughtful and responsible but they come to different conclusions - which group is actually right?

You are now compounding the fallacy of Appeal to Consequences with the fallacy of False Dilemma. You seem to think that Morality must either be from God or from human opinion, and therefore no other options are available. However, it is possible that morality comes from another source, such as Rationality or Culture. In fact, Culture is a fairly compelling choice because Morality varies somewhat between different cultures. The big ticket items, like prohibitions on theft and murder, are found among all cultures, but idiotic stuff like stoning people for collecting wood on the Sabbath are, thankfully, not universal.

Take for example the issue of abortion. People who support abortion are unwilling to take responsibility for their actions - according to your logic they are wrong and the pro-lifers would be right. And yet there are other relatively responsible people who agree to abortion. So which one is right?

The claim that people who support abortion must be unwilling to take responsibility for their actions is false. People who support abortions have a wide range of reasons for their views. And there are some people who don't "support" abortion, but who don't think it's wise to criminalize it.

Morality must be absolute or it has no value whatsoever. Evolution cannot explain morality. They can not give any evidence for where it came from... just like they have no definitive evidence for evolution itself. One of the problems with evolution as a theory is that to suppose evolution you have to destroy the basis of morality.

Evolution might be able to provide an explanation for moral behavior. Humans are social beings, and so moral behavior could have evolved as a way to strengthen societal bonds.

[JTownsend]

Ubi
If you understood the proper application and issues of authority for stoning of those collecting firewood or for children who are in constant rebellion you would not make such a simple comment like you did. The Bible never teaches that just anyone can stone their children or someone collecting firewood on the Sabbath.
Like you have said - just because we don't like the consequences doesn't make something right or wrong.

You say that morality doesn't need to comes from either man or God but "However, it is possible that morality comes from another source, such as Rationality or Culture." Don't you see that if it comes from "rationality" that just means it's whatever the person thinks is rational. That is the definition of opinion. Don't you see that if it is cultural that just means it's whatever a group of people have come to accept. This is just the opinion of a group of people. Opinions change and are from man, ergo morality must come from God or man.

You can't get any more "not responsible" than to be willing to kill so that you don't have to live with the consequences of your actions. Abortion is people killing their babies because they aren't responsible enough to live with the consequences of their actions. Maybe you are right and that we shouldn't criminalize murder, even if we have a wide range of reasons for it. Just remember that if someone wants to break into your house and murder you and your family... according to your thinking if they have a reason for it then they wouldn't be wrong.

Quit picking and choosing the morals you want to live with and be consistent. Accept evolution and all that comes with it, including no actual basis for morality and no constant form of morality - or accept God.

Morality must be absolute or it is worthless. Thankfully morality IS absolute AND unchanging since it comes from God.

[lizzyd]

To answer your questions, I have no problem with stoning people who collect wood on the Sabbath or with stoning children who show themselves to be in constant rebellion. These things are part of God's law and in principle, they still apply today.

What a bummer, my husband definitely wouldn't be alive today. Pretty sure you could find him guilty on both accounts, probably multiple times too.

I usually let him collect the wood, so I would be ok I guess.

[JTownsend]

Lizzy
What were the principles behind those two commandments of not collecting wood on the sabbath and stoning children in constant rebellion? Who was to fulfill the punishment? Who was to judge in these matters? Were the parents to stone their own family members?

I am sure many of us would be killed if we actually followed God's laws today. That should point us to how far we have fallen from God - not how wrong God's laws are.

[Aduro]

If we are operating under a 'new covenant' why do so many preachers quote so many of the OT condemnations of specific sins?

It depends on what they are referring to. Some things are cultural and ceremonial universal laws, while others were not. To put it succintly, some things were put purely on Israel to separate them from the other nations and keep them holy, while the rest were universal moral laws that still have effect today. For a Christian, the Law still points out what pleases and displeases God, but has no bearing on him as a man in Christ.

Your reply seems to assume that I stated that each individual could choose his own standard or alternatively, that I would try to impose my standards on everyone.
WRONG, what I said was that the moral standard is determined by the opinions of the more responsible and thoughtful individuals.
For instance, we are seeing changed attitudes to the death penalty in most states and even in Texas execution might eventually be limited to those actually guilty.

See, you and Ubidubium just don't get it. When you hold someone to the letter of the law, you are putting them to a system of morality. You are ensuring that what society finds acceptable remains so, and that those that stray outside of those lines are punished --- by death, or rehabilitation. When people make laws without God, they are the standard and take God's place as the Ultimate Lawgiver. This is not to say they couldn't get it right, but that what they correctly apply is borrowed from God's morality. This is because good and evil are revealed in nature to people, while they often pick and choose according to their own beliefs outside of a godly system.

You have no way to authoritatively state this something is right or wrong. With God, there are none who can go against Him, and there is no evil in Him; however, a human has such a limited perspective and such a corrupted nature that there can be no comparison. Further, God owns His creation and through His nature as God, knows best for all. To say that a human can accurately set himself up as a judge of truth and justice is a riot. The only way to ensure that morality is good is to set up God over it, otherwise you risk losing even that. It depends on shifting human opinion, which really does not look good before Christianity enveloped the world.

Be thankful you live in the world we do, as corrupted as it is. You wouldn't have wanted the world without God that you envision as better.