[_ Old Earth _] The disconnect between morality, religions, and evolution.

[Jayls5]

First off, don't bring your "evolutionist darwinism academic suppression" spam in here. This is a fairly simple discussion, so cut down on the rhetoric.

Why is someone who bases his morals on personal conceptions of what is most beneficial for the species worse than someone who has morals based on "faith?" At least with the former, you can discuss the issue on a practical, rational, and empirical level and effectively argue how your position might be better over all. On the side of Christianity, we are instructed (by religious people I might add) to respect morality based on faith. We cannot rationally discuss these morals beyond arguments involving interpretation of the religion's holy text. I'm not implying that morals from Christianity are bad. I'm arguing that basing one's morals in something that cannot be argued isn't inherently better than one that can change.

Let's face it. Even if you have absolute morals, there are difficult moral dilemmas we are put in with no clear cut answers. For the sake of argument: Do we kill one person to save the human race? What about 10? What about 100? Where do we draw the line, or do we let the human race die? We are constantly at odds with different ideas of morality. We can try to limit suffering, and this requires causing a bit of suffering. Here's a scenario for you, one that has real bearing on world politics. Let's say there's a famine going on in a country, they have no significant natural resources, and there is no way they will ever keep themselves afloat economically. If we send food, we relieve momentary suffering, and people continue to breed in that area (increasing the need for more food). If we do not send food, they cannot reproduce while people starve, and the population levels out. Based on initial view, sending food was the moral thing to do. However, when analyzing the facts, we see that not sending food starved LESS people than sending food. If letting people starve was immoral, then BOTH choices were wrong. However, one was inherently a better choice in the scheme of things. Ironically, sending food starved more people.

We all feel we want to do the "right" thing in life whether we are Christian, atheists, evolutionary moralists, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. People under all these groups (some more than others) vary their views widely.

I think that saying society is in danger because of a belief in evolution is absolutely laughable. First of all, not all evolutionists pull their morality from a belief in evolution. Secondly, even if they did, they are subject to argumentation and discussion of their morals on a practical level. One can convince another why something should or shouldn't be done under evolution. I find less room for this in religions, which is arguably more dangerous. Religions have been a dominant force in society for ages. If you want religion to take credit for progress, you must also take credit for the dark ages and other terrible parts of history. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Religion, like any tool, can be used to benefit or hurt society. Now, why would evolution based morality necessarily be bad for society? (hint: I'm arguing it can be either, just like religion.)

 

[Paidion]

Jayls, you seem to be making quite a few presuppositions in your post. What basis do you have for supposing that the people in this forum are going to "bring our evolutionist darwinism academic suppression spam in here"?

Secondly, on what basis do you presume that Christians are absolutists with regards to morality?

Thirdly, on what basis do you assume that the morality of Christians is faith-based?

Why don't you first engage us in a moral discussion in order to find out what be believe about morality instead of beginning discussion with a statement of your pre-judgments?

Meanwhile, why don't you tell us your basis for morality?

 

[Snidey]

Jayls, you seem to be making quite a few presuppositions in your post. What basis do you have for supposing that the people in this forum are going to "bring our evolutionist darwinism academic suppression spam in here"?

I believe this is addressed toward one poster.

 

[Jayls5]

Jayls, you seem to be making quite a few presuppositions in your post. What basis do you have for supposing that the people in this forum are going to "bring our evolutionist darwinism academic suppression spam in here"?

Secondly, on what basis do you presume that Christians are absolutists with regards to morality?

Thirdly, on what basis do you assume that the morality of Christians is faith-based?

Why don't you first engage us in a moral discussion in order to find out what be believe about morality instead of beginning discussion with a statement of your pre-judgments?

Meanwhile, why don't you tell us your basis for morality?

1) I directed the initial comment toward BobRyan.

2) Most Christians are absolutists, based on experience.

3) If you base your morality on religious text, it is faith based. It is dependent on faith, not on evidence. This thread isn't about my personal moral whims. Feel free to PM me if you're that interested.

 

[Rick W]

Bob can post as he chooses as long as he remains within the Terms of Service.

 

[BobRyan]

First off, don't bring your "evolutionist darwinism academic suppression" spam in here. This is a fairly simple discussion, so cut down on the rhetoric.

Why is someone who bases his morals on personal conceptions of what is most beneficial for the species worse than someone who has morals based on "faith?"
...
I'm not implying that morals from Christianity are bad. I'm arguing that basing one's morals in something that cannot be argued isn't inherently better than one that can change.

This is a comparison of the morality found in paganism vs the morality found in Christianity.

You are looking for a Christian "answer" - and so that is what you shall have.

In Christianity the starting point is Rom 3 where we are told "There is none righteous no not one" (actually Rom 3 is quoting the OT) this speaks to the depravity of the sinful nature found in all humanity since the fall of man when Adam and Eve rebelled against God and were kicked out of the Garden of Eden -- deprived access to the Tree of Life etc.

Rom 3

The Sinful nature of all mankind –

9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
10 as it is written, "" THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;

12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.''
13 "" THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,'' "" THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS'';
14 "" WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS'';
15 "" THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN.''
18 "" THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.''


The WORLD condemned under the Authority of the Law that continues to define sin –

19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;
20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

The only way out of that mess is the Gospel which provides not only "forgiveness of sins" through the substitutionary atoning death of Christ -- but also "the New Birth" whereby the person who HAS the depraved sinful nature (by definition since the fall of man) is given "a New Heart" as the bible calls it "A new Creation".


How then is a pagan - a godless person (from the standpoint of the Word of God) able to do anything moral or just or to appreciate right-vs-wrong?

This is what the Bible says -- and it turns out that it has everything to do with ID.

Rom 1
Unbelief and Its Consequences

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress
the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen,
being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations,
and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed
animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator,
who is blessed forever. Amen.

The argument God makes is that even pagans who have no access at all to the Word of God see clearly the invisible attributes of God by seeing the things HE has MADE.

Hint: They do not look at nature and SEE the text of Gen 1 -- they SEE ID admitting that it "was MADE"!

The result is that when they continue in sin - they are "without excuse".

But there is another result as we see in Romans 2 which is that there are those with no access to the Word of God who "Do instinctively the things of the law showing the works of the law written on the heart"

Rom 2
11 For there is no partiality with God.
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

-- this is possible because as we find in John 16 God sends the "Holy Spirit of Truth" to "Convict the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgement" -- not just sent "to Christians".

Bob

 

[Orion]

You cannot use Romans 1:19 as all encompasing for every culture who has never had access to jewish/christian literature. It is completely ridiculous to hold people to what they seen in nature as their evidence of a Hebrew god who sent his son to die for them, and refusing to believe it constitutes death for them. Cultures and religions DO view nature as sacred, but if they have a "moon god", you would automatically pass judgement on them that they "reject the one true God". Utter riduculousness!

As to the topic, there are places in the bible that I would never get my morals from! The one that I would, is "doing to others as you would have them do to you". That is a fairly immune (to evil) moral that I see as a good one.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I do not think you will find any civilization or culture that has truly practiced absolute morals. Maybe alot of talk about it, but none practice it truly.

Morals are relative to each society. Always have been, always will be. Study a history book if you think otherwise.

 

[BobRyan]

You cannot use Romans 1:19 as all encompasing for every culture who has never had access to jewish/christian literature.

Romans 1 and 2 are specifically identifying those wihtout any access at all to the Bible.

Rom 1
Unbelief and Its Consequences


14 I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish.
15 So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.
...
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress
the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen,
being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations,
and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed
animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Which brings us Back to the point.

It is completely ridiculous to hold people to what they seen in nature as their evidence of a Hebrew god

As I stated -- the evidence is not in the form "you are reading Genesis 1 as you view nature" rather the evidence is of the form "you SEE that this has been MADE and in the MAKING of it - you SEE the invisible attributes of the MAKER".

That is what Romans 1 says is available to Pagans -- not limited to Christians or to Jews.

And this is obviously the case since both Christians and Jews would have the actual BIBLE to tell them about the invisible attributes of God hence no need for them to deduce it from what they see in nature. But the "Greeks and Barbarians" WOULD have to rely on what they SEE in nature as their only source of information as the text clearly states.

THIS is the significant point in Romans 1 that darwinist Christians so desperately try to side step - namely that the Romans 1 "ID fact" is one that God declares is easily seen by pagans so much so that "they (pagans) are without excuse"!

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

Now that 90% of the thread is devoted to BobRyan's two posts (again), perhaps we can get back to the topic.

We aren't trying to discuss vague bible quotes justifying why you can do bad things and still be forgiven, or how people who aren't christians are held accountable. That's totally off topic.

I'm really discussing practical application of morality here, so perhaps we can have some down to earth discussion without referencing the bible constantly. Or are you not capable of speaking your mind without throwing a bible quote behind it?

 

[BobRyan]

you have asked Christians for a comparison of pagan morality to Christian morality -- and I gave you the Christian perspective on it.

The fact that this is not already your POV should not be the basis for not listening.

If you did not want a Christian POV - - you did not have to frame the OP as you did.

Hint: It turns out -- this is a good way to ask Christians for a Christian POV on the subject of moral behavior in pagans vs Christians.

First off, don't bring your "evolutionist darwinism academic suppression" spam in here. This is a fairly simple discussion, so cut down on the rhetoric.

Why is someone who bases his morals on personal conceptions of what is most beneficial for the species worse than someone who has morals based on "faith?"
...
I'm not implying that morals from Christianity are bad. I'm arguing that basing one's morals in something that cannot be argued isn't inherently better than one that can change.

Think about it.

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

you have asked Christians for a comparison of pagan morality to Christian morality -- and I gave you the Christian perspective on it.

The fact that this is not already your POV should not be the basis for not listening.

If you did not want a Christian POV - - you did not have to frame the OP as you did.

Hint: It turns out -- this is a good way to ask Christians for a Christian POV on the subject of moral behavior in pagans vs Christians.

First off, don't bring your "evolutionist darwinism academic suppression" spam in here. This is a fairly simple discussion, so cut down on the rhetoric.

Why is someone who bases his morals on personal conceptions of what is most beneficial for the species worse than someone who has morals based on "faith?"
...
I'm not implying that morals from Christianity are bad. I'm arguing that basing one's morals in something that cannot be argued isn't inherently better than one that can change.

Think about it.

Bob

Think about what? You didn't even begin to respond to what you just quoted from me, anywhere in this thread.

Btw, "pagan" is a terrible description of moral beliefs because it's got so many meanings. It's like me saying you have "illogical morals." Try a bit more accurate phrase, like "relativistic morality."

By the way, asking for a christian point of view is not synonymous with "spam me with bible quotes while only vaguely responding to the things I say."

 

[BobRyan]

I suppose if you sufficient gloss over every detail in the post given by way of "response" you can simply wave it off as "spam". Interesting "Harrumph!" solution!

I notice that in your harrumph-solutions we get lots of smoke sound and furry but no substance.

Since you asked for the anwswer and it has been given -- how about addressing the points in the post other than trying to edit terms. (Note the Bible text actually uses the terms "Greek and barbarian" - I use the term "pagan" short for "all non-Bible POV" -- perhaps I should have used "non-bible POV's" to be more politcally correct than the Bible?)

Click this link to read the response where you glossed over the "detail" of the Bible using the term "Greek and barbarian".

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33008&p=391709#p391664

Click this link to read the full response to your post -- the one where you simply skimmed past the points raised as "not yours".

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33008&p=391709#p391587

If one reads them in-depth the texts in those posts address the heart of the point raised.

If ignored we simply have "making stuff up".

Here is an example.

Let's face it. Even if you have absolute morals, there are difficult moral dilemmas we are put in with no clear cut answers. For the sake of argument: Do we kill one person to save the human race? What about 10? What about 100? Where do we draw the line, or do we let the human race die? We are constantly at odds with different ideas of morality. We can try to limit suffering, and this requires causing a bit of suffering. Here's a scenario for you, one that has real bearing on world politics. Let's say there's a famine going on in a country, they have no significant natural resources, and there is no way they will ever keep themselves afloat economically. If we send food, we relieve momentary suffering, and people continue to breed in that area (increasing the need for more food). If we do not send food, they cannot reproduce while people starve,

So are you looking for the Bible answer of Matt 7 "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" since this is posed to Christians?

Are you looking to "discuss" the Bible answer of Gen 7 where God destroys all of mankind in a world wide flood to save 8 - since you are asking Christians about God and the survival of humanity?

Is it your intent to discuss the Bible solution for moral problems? Or are you asking Christians if they have non-Bible solutions that they just "make up" as being "just as good"?

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

Is it your intent to discuss the Bible solution for moral problems? Or are you asking Christians if they have non-Bible solutions that they just "make up" as being "just as good"?

Bob

Yes to all the above, and notice that all of the stuff you reposted really didn't address the OP. Reading it a second time yielded no discussion about the complex moral situations. You merely used it to justify your use of the word pagan and retribution for non-christians. Yes, I get it. You meant non-Christian by pagan.

Just like I can call your morals "illogical." Notice "illogical" has a negative and even misleading connotation, even if I only meant "faith based." Paganism often means polytheistic, and it's frankly just a terrible description what we're talking about here. And the whole point anyway is that we ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT PAGANISM, your highly disagreeable interpretation of god's law being written on our heart, or retribution for not being Christian. You put that into the discussion, where I'm trying to talk about moral dilemmas. The only part you even began to "address it" vaguely said you would be forgiven. Now that we had to sift through your garbage again, i'd really just appreciate it if you stopped posting here. I'm not saying you "can't" post here. I'm just saying "don't" because most of us don't really want to read it anymore. You beat around the bush, give half answers (i'm being generous), and we have to show you exactly how you do this every time in just about every thread. So just do us all a favor. Spare us from having to read your posts.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob
So are you looking for the Bible answer of Matt 7 "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" since this is posed to Christians?

Are you looking to "discuss" the Bible answer of Gen 7 where God destroys all of mankind in a world wide flood to save 8 - since you are asking Christians about God and the survival of humanity?

Is it your intent to discuss the Bible solution for moral problems? Or are you asking Christians if they have non-Bible solutions that they just "make up" as being "just as good"?

Yes to all the above

Ok .. one more time... slowly

If you read the entire post above you see the either-or nature of the questions. Regarding "Bible answers" vs "just making stuff up".

Innexplicably -- you have already whined about finding the Bible used in the "Christian" response.

And now -- innexplicably again - you say you are looking for us to "make stuff up" and to use the Bible.

Yes, I get it. You meant non-Christian by pagan.

Ok that's great - but that is simply a side trail in the post addressing a point you raise that has almost nothing to do with the topic.

The key was to notice the subject matter in the post.

Just like I can call your morals "illogical."

True -- you can easily say those words.

Now back to the actual points raised in the post.

As I said - if you prefer "Greeks and Barbarians" as the text of Romans 1 uses - I am good with that as well.

So... now to the main points actually RAISED in my response -- (any time now)

And the whole point anyway is that we ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT PAGANISM, your highly disagreeable interpretation of god's law being written on our heart, or retribution for not being Christian. You put that into the discussion, where I'm trying to talk about moral dilemmas.

Ok -- going very slowly here.

The reason for pointing out that some of those "Barbarians" (as the text uses the term) show the law of God written in the heart is that the DIFFERENCE between the two groups has EVERYTHING to do with one group NOT having access to the Word of God and the other group HAVING it (obviously).

The text shows the empty reasoning leading to corrupt morals of those without the text -- but it also shows that some of them ARE being reached with light and truth and showing the works of the Law written on the heart in Romans 2 is in fact an argument FOR good moral decisions among those "barbarians" (easily seen for the reader that took the time to read the point carefully.)

Now that we had to sift through your garbage again... <obligatory ranting and whining deleted here>

While your constant reference to a POV that is "not yours" is in the typical low-brow ad hominem -- my point has been repeatedly that there is no substance in your obligatory ranting... clearly not nearly the substance you seem to "imagine" that it has. If one visits a pre-school environment you might find some of the less disciplined attendees there exhibiting that uncontrolled behavior -- but the day comes when it is wise to leave that behind you.

Try answering the points raised instead.

Make a compelling substantive argument in your favor and then see if it holds up.

You need to seriously consider the idea of at least TRYING that approach otherwise your subject threads serve no purpose.

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

Ok Bob, very simply, you STILL HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THE MORAL DILEMMAS AT ALL.

The law being written on a christian or non-christian's heart has almost nothing to do with the original post, once again.

I'm drawing attention to situations that have NO clear cut moral answer, regardless of whether or not you believe "the law is written on our hearts." It's quite simple. You haven't talked about them once. You just keep saying "we know what is good and it's written on our hearts." Yeah, we get it already. We got it the first time you said it. By your argument, nobody could be a Christian and they would all still have morality written on their hearts through God. Great. This tells me nothing. It's like saying vague cryptic things in any religion that applies to everyone. We're also ignoring the fact that TONS OF PEOPLE TOTALLY DISAGREE ON ISSUES DESPITE HAVING THE LAW "WRITTEN ON OUR HEARTS." Now tell me how a Christian chooses his action in the dilemma. Is there no wrong answer? Are both wrong? How do you justify yourself?

 

[BobRyan]

Ok Bob, very simply, you STILL HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THE MORAL DILEMMAS AT ALL.

Just the moral issue of killing some -- sparing others.

Just the moral issue of serving, saving and helping others "as you would have them do for you".

By continually "glossing over the details in the posts" that are not "posts of your own POV over and over again" - you seem to miss the entire benefit of the exchange.

The law being written on a christian or non-christian's heart has almost nothing to do with the original post,

ONLY if you ignore the "inconvenient detail" of the DIFFERENCE between Christian and non-Christian moral codes -- moral guides -- moral values.

If you are willing to wash the salient point of the contrast down the drain as "so much -- not-my-idea-stuff" then I suppose you could end up with your statement above.

. By your argument, nobody could be a Christian and they would all still have morality written on their hearts through God. Great.

Well - by my argument - at least SOMEBODY who is a non-Christian COULD still have a Christian "moral guide" through the work of the Holy Spirit described in Romans 2 for those having NO access to scripture.

Which means the pagan that does not have access to the Bible may well indeed be found "Treating others as he would have them treating him" - the Matt 7 solution you are so happy to ignore and villify.

This tells me nothing. It's like saying vague cryptic things in any religion that applies to everyone. We're also ignoring the fact that TONS OF PEOPLE TOTALLY DISAGREE ON ISSUES DESPITE HAVING THE LAW "WRITTEN ON OUR HEARTS." Now tell me how a Christian chooses his action in the dilemma. Is there no wrong answer? Are both wrong? How do you justify yourself?

Again the Christian source of moral values - moral code - moral Guide is the Romans 2 "Spirit of Truth" and that SAME Spirit is the one that authored the text of scripture. It is that SAME Spirit of Truth that is available for the pagan to write the Law of God (the moral code) on the heart according to Romans 2.

You keep wanting to ignore this solution as if ignoring the points raised is "the answer".

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

Wow Bob, Strike three.

Stop wasting me time now. ARGGG!

 

[Gabe]

One problem i have with morals based on evolution and the view that we are animals evolved is
If we are simply animals then should we not ignore morals as our actions have no final consequence, no God to punish the evil. In the animal kingdom all that matters is suvival. Many animals kill each other fight over territory, have sex with or eat their young
Many humans do this but if God does not exist or you think he does not exist then how do you seriously not condone these acts?
Someones child has just been raped, who cares? Its a dog eat dog world aint it?

 

[BobRyan]

One problem i have with morals based on evolution and the view that we are animals evolved is
If we are simply animals then should we not ignore morals as our actions have no final consequence, no God to punish the evil.

Indeed Huxley argued that this is one of the primary effects of Darwinism on those who choose that as their religion

I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption ... For myself, as no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneous liberation from a certain political and economic system, and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."
- Aldous Huxley (REPORT, June 1966. "Confession of Professed Atheist," A. Huxley)

Bob