If Good and Evil Exist then God Exists

[wittgenstein]

A biologist ( It is my understanding that the official Catholic position is not anti-evolution) would say that altruism evolved because it facilitated the survival of species. A species that did not cooperate, make individual sacrifices for the common good, defend its young etc has less of a chance of survival and passing on its genes."Goodness " has a practical value.

 

[PRmerger]

A biologist ( It is my understanding that the official Catholic position is not anti-evolution) would say that altruism evolved because it facilitated the survival of species. A species that did not cooperate, make individual sacrifices for the common good, defend its young etc has less of a chance of survival and passing on its genes."Goodness " has a practical value.

How is it that this gene is passed on if the individual sacrifices his life for love of another?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I could say exactly the same to you. Doesn’t get either of us anywhere. Anyone could say it to everyone who disagrees with them.

In other words it’s fallacious reasoning.

My hypothesis is that we have a cognitive bias towards authority figures giving conclusions which confirm our beliefs, and this can blind us to their faulty reasoning. If my hypothesis is correct, fans of Kreeft won’t tend to see the holes in his argument while others will.

To put it more simply, we’re most likely to get fooled by someone who is preaching to our choir.

Then how would answer these comments?

Won’t wash XXXXX. We all can point to a time when " conscience " told us that something was good or bad before which we had not been " coached " in any way. I think in particular of the first awakening of sexual activity., when our conscience warned us that to do this or that or to consent to this or that thought or act was bad and to be avoided. I think we can all think of such moments beginning when we were about 7 or 8. It was so in my case and I can assure you neither my parents nor anyone else had ever mentioned these topics. So how did I know they were wrong? How did the mere thought of them prick my conscience?

Futher, your objection does not account for the feeling of guilt when we act against such warnings. Society, government has set up all sorts of laws and violating one or the other does not prick my conscience. So the " environmental " argument accomplishes no more than to show me the " stop " and " go " signs. I obey them to avoid legal trouble, not because to ignore them would make me feel guilty. Of course some of these rules do coinside to the dictates of my conscience. The point is, no social rule can account for the feeling of guilt.

It is absolutely gratuitous to say that concepts of certain categories of good and evil either evolved or are determined by society. I will admit that society attempts to empose its categories of good and evil but it only succeeds where the categories conform to a universal good or evil commanded or taught from an ultimate authority who has " written " these categories on our souls.

 

[wittgenstein]

Response to post 60. If a mother ( for example) sacrifices her life for her child, the mother’s genes will be perpetuated in her child. Considering that on average a child will have a longer life span then the mother,that will give the mother’s genes an even greater probability of being passed onto future generations.

 

[PRmerger]

Response to post 60. If a mother ( for example) sacrifices her life for her child, the mother’s genes will be perpetuated in her child. Considering that on average a child will have a longer life span then the mother,that will give the mother’s genes an even greater probability of being passed onto future generations.

What about unmarried celibate men who give their lives for others?

 

[EricFilmer]

wittgenstein;10149858:

Response to post 60. If a mother ( for example) sacrifices her life for her child, the mother’s genes will be perpetuated in her child. Considering that on average a child will have a longer life span then the mother,that will give the mother’s genes an even greater probability of being passed onto future generations.

What about unmarried celibate men who give their lives for others?

To elaborate on PRmerger’s concept a step further, there are many people (married and unmarried) who risk their lives for others, and many do so on a regular basis for the sake of total strangers. For example, one of the most dangerous occupations in the world is that of fire-fighters. Their paychecks can’t be the incentive, because there are plenty of safer jobs that pay more. As a matter-of-fact, fire-fighters are notoriously underpaid (when one considers the risks involved).

And, of course, there are many examples of people (not professional fire-fighters or other kind of emergency responders) who risked their lives, and even gave their lives, to save total strangers without the benefit of either special training or a paycheck.

 

[zro_x]

To elaborate on PRmerger’s concept a step further, there are many people (married and unmarried) who risk their lives for others, and many do so on a regular basis for the sake of total strangers. For example, one of the most dangerous occupations in the world is that of fire-fighters. Their paychecks can’t be the incentive, because there are plenty of safer jobs that pay more. As a matter-of-fact, fire-fighters are notoriously underpaid (when one considers the risks involved).

And, of course, there are many examples of people (not professional fire-fighters or other kind of emergency responders) who risked their lives, and even gave their lives, to save total strangers without the benefit of either special training or a paycheck.

Yes, but these examples of morality could have evolved. It is benificial to the individual when a society survives, so traits that help society at large could develop in individuals.

Consider two different scenarios.

scenario #1: In a small tribal community, a mutation causes a gene alteration that makes a person more likely to sacrifice themselves for the sake of someone else. No circumstance arises in which this is necessary for that person to do so. This person grows up and has children. Both of his children have this gene. One day, Son A and Son B are out hunting, and they enter a cave. It turns out that this cave is inhabbited by a bear. When they hear the bear returning, Son A tells son B to run away. Son A attacks the bear to buy time and is killed, while son B makes his getaway. son B survives to pass on his altruistic genes.

scenario #2: The same thing happens, only this time, there is no altruistic genetic mutation. In this case, both son A and son B are trapped and killed by the bear.

One can see this even more clearly at the societal level. Suppose tribe A has people who are willing to go to war and die for the sake of the community. When something happens which threatens the tribe, some of the people within it are willing to die to end the threat, so some people in the society live on. In tribe B, no one is willing to die to end the threat, so everyone in the tribe dies.

 

[zro_x]

interesting video, but I think that Kreeft attacks a straw man. I agree, athiests have no reason to believe in an unchanging, objective code of morality, but in my little experience with atheists, few actually take this approach. Most that I’ve come across prefer to use utilitarianism or the idea of an evolved conscience… and accept the full consequenses of either appoach. Those who take the approach of the evolved conscience typically do agree that morality does and must evolve over time, and those who operate under utilitarianism would say that if you could actually increase the overall happiness of a nation by adopting slavery, then it would be morally obligatory to adopt slavery. Of course, most know that this possibility is rediculous.

The other approach atheists seem to take is that of moral relativism, and the belief that there is no standard of morality at all.

 

[wittgenstein]

First let me say that I am not saying that God does not exist. I am answering the implied conclusion , if God did not exist morality would be impossible.
So let us provisionally accept the proposition that God does not exist. I would say that we would still be moral because we are genetically programed to be moral. Similarily, we are programed to eat. However, there is not a Platonic ideal form called “the moral goodness of eating”. True, one can choose not to eat and thereby starve to death,but that is the exception that proves the rule,as that person is being inauthentic to their true self. Of course, one could starve oneself and be true to oneself if done for the higher evolutionary ideal of altruism. Evolution does not care about individuals ( unless caring for individuals facilitates the survival of the species) because evolution works on the gene level.

 

[inocente]

Except “acceptable” and “accepted” apply to society and not just him. Thus, it is not a personal statement, it is a societal one.

…as I’ve been saying that all along. But the opinion of today’s society on what is acceptable isn’t an argument, it’s an opinion. If society decided it was unacceptable that pi is irrational, and henceforth its value should be set at 42, that would not make it objectively true. If society decided that abortion on demand is acceptable, that would not make it objectively moral.

My beef is that Kreeft makes out he’s proving an objective morality, yet offers no argument, just a relativist opinion.

 

[inocente]

Inocente, before I present my responses …]

Eric, I just got in and only have an hour before going off again, things are a bit hectic. Thanks for your responses, I don’t have time to read them today and to do them justice won’t rush anyway, so hopefully tomorrow.

 

[PRmerger]

interesting video, but I think that Kreeft attacks a straw man. I agree, athiests have no reason to believe in an unchanging, objective code of morality, but in my little experience with atheists, few actually take this approach.

His point is that while they claim to not believe in an unchanging, objective code of morality, they actually do believe in one.

That is, no (moral) atheist would ever proclaim that racial slavery may be permissible in some cases.

No (moral) atheist proclaims that it is ever okay to cheat on your wife.

No (moral) atheist proclaims that injustice is good.

IOW: they do believe in an objective morality.

The question is: where does this morality come from?

Most that I’ve come across prefer to use utilitarianism or the idea of an evolved conscience…

Then ask this atheist if he believes that if 90% of humanity would benefit from the slavery of 10%, would they believe that this is moral?

If he is a thinking atheist, he will, naturally, be repelled by that thought.
Therefore, he is not a utilitarian.

 

[inocente]

Rather, it builds upon some common ground which the vast majority of the current human population already embraces.

Yes, but please see my post #68 to Alberti - popular opinion is not a logical argument. By omitting any argument, Kreeft puts himself on shakier ground than the supposed atheists he talks of, who at least have arguments.

And now I will go over your recent round of material that was addressed to me. There is a lot to examine, so I’m afraid it will result in a string of posts. Nevertheless, I believe all the points I will make will be entirely relevant to the discussion at hand.

Yes, it’s a bit scary to see all that we’ve written!

Yes, I see that now. You were quite clear about that and I have no idea how I initially misread it. You have my apologies concerning my misrepresentation and I retract my earlier criticism in this regard.

No problema.

I am merely using them as emphasis. But if you have an aversion to underlines then I will use italics. Unlike Kreet’s video, I am using text and therefore cannot rely upon verbal cues to emphasize certain points.

It could be I’m overly sensitive of course.

Oh, come on inocente! I already transcribed it for you, at least the portion of the video that you chose to examine in detail. This isn’t about potential lying and cheating, this is about us taking a look at the merits of what Kreeft actually said. So far all you’ve elected to do is provide your interpretation of what he said without providing the quotes which your interpretations are based upon. This is exactly how straw men get developed in a debate, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

I need to be firm on this, neither of us have more than an interpretation. Kreeft elected to make a video knowing that videos are watched once. If his argument is so subtle that I as a Christian can’t see it after watching twice then I think he has little chance of winning over non-Christians.

 

[inocente]

This Bible passage refers to forced labor which is not, in and of itself, immoral. For example, in my home state (Georgia) prison inmates engage in forced labor all the time.

Forced labor is moral? Yikes! To me it’s slavery without the inconvenient responsibilities that come with ownership.

globalresearch.ca/the-pentagon-and-slave-labor-in-u-s-prisons/25376

Nevertheless, I will not sugar-coat the fact that the ancient Hebrews did have people considered to be types of slaves, but it was a notably different situation from the slavery practiced by other ancient civilizations, and that practiced in the U.S.’ pre-Civil War south.

On this and your other comments about Deuteronomy 20, I don’t believe we should make excuses. It doesn’t say combatants, it says all the people shall be subject to forced labor, which would include women, children, the infirm. It then goes on to say that for any city which refuses to surrender, all the men are to be massacred and then there is the very dark phrase “as for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves”. That is slavery or worse.

Having said all this, I think it is safe to say that the forced labor described in the passage you posted from Deut 20 would not be considered morally permissible by Christians today. But this does not undermine the point Kreeft was making. Because God gradually revealed his will to the Jews and Christians over time, we can see that the laws of morality developed over time as well. Certain practices which were present in human societies around the world were initially tolerated to a degree although within certain constraints (which were still progressive when compared to other societies).

To me, you just said morality evolves.

Christians, however, believe that we have now received the fullness of God’s revelation. Therefore, whatever provisions Deuteronomy made for the ancient Israelites concerning slavery were made according to a limited understanding of God’s moral law. Today Christians can conclude that slavery is universally evil, it’s just that the ancient Israelites were not culpable for it at the time they practiced it (assuming that they still obeyed the aspects of the Law which addressed it).

But the non-Christian will say how do you know public revelation is ended, and where does Jesus say slavery is never acceptable (I’m not even sure if there’s anything at all in scripture that says slavery is never acceptable).

Moreover, because Christians believe that we have the fullness of God’s revelation, neither we nor future generations can try to impose slavery simply because the Old Testament made allowances for it. Simply put, we know better and there is no ignorance to excuse us from culpability.

The non-Christian can say the same.

This is not the same thing as a system of morality which solely appeals to evolution. If evolution is the only standard, and evolution represents a constantly changing environment, then who’s to say that slavery may not be considered morally permissible again with future generations? This is the exact point that Kreeft made. People who believe that evolution is the only basis for morality cannot reasonably make emphatic statements such as “Slavery is never acceptable.”

I’m not sure if there are people who believe evolution is the sole basis, but in any case Kreeft gives no argument for why they can’t say “Slavery is never acceptable” with just as much force as him.

 

[inocente]

And Kreeft said the same thing: “For most of human history more powerful societies enslaved weaker societies, and prospered. That’s just the way it was, and no one questioned it." So you’ll need to clarify your point here and explain exactly how it has a bearing on Kreeft’s conclusions.

I’m surprised it wasn’t clear. If slavery was moral for most of history, how do we know the ancients weren’t right? Kreeft’s only reason is we know better, he gives no reason other than we just do. That’s not philosophy, it’s playing to the gallery.

You’re argument has gone off the rails here. Kreeft acknowledges two different perspectives when comparing ancient outlooks on slavery and modern day ones:

Perspective #1: Slavery was accepted in the ancient world (this is a historical fact). Slavery is not accepted in today’s world (this is a modern day fact).

Slavery was accepted in parts of the ancient world. Arguably perhaps, slavery is accepted in today’s world - e.g. see money.cnn.es/2011/09/21/smallbusiness/app_forced_labor/index.htm

You didn’t seem to give perspective #2, so I got a bit lost after that.

*According to someone who embraces Perspective #1, all that we can say about the morality of slavery is that it is a strictly social phenomenon: We cannot impose our modern standard (i.e., “slavery is not accepted”) upon ancient people and make moral conclusions as a result. Therefore, we are not supposed to say that the ancient slave owners were evil. But if we can’t say that slavery was evil in the ancient world then we really aren’t in a position to criticize the institution of slavery as a whole.
*

Well no, obviously we can’t impose our standards on other cultures. I don’t see why that stops us saying slavery is wrong.

All this is summed up in Kreeft’s statement: ”If you can’t make that distinction between accepted and acceptable, you can’t criticize slavery”. But, as I’ve stated before, Kreeft’s video is aimed at people who already do criticize slavery and share the common ground that slavery is never acceptable (which, incidentally, is perspective #2). Recall what I stated in Notable Point #2.

As I said, he’s preaching to a choir, he’s just reading back what we already believe, there’s no logical argument.

*I don’t see your point here, so you’ll need to clarify it. If this stems from my comments concerning civil law then let me point out that I only brought up ancient and civil law as an objective way of demonstrating social outlooks concerning slavery.
*

What’s legal may not be moral. Abortion on demand may be legal but it doesn’t make it moral.

But Kreeft has to address evolution for the simple fact that many people cite evolution as the sole basis for morality. See Notable Point #1.

Correct or not, evolution of morality is a sophisticated argument based on evidence. Kreeft does nothing to dismiss it, e.g. see:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-biology/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

Then explain why. What exactly was “thought about” that led to the conclusion that slavery is “immoral”?

For me it would be the Golden Rule, which appeared in various forms in many cultures, coupled with the modern understanding that there are no “races” and all humans are equal, as UDHR Article 1 puts it:

*All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
*

I admit that I am a big fan of Kreeft, and I admit that I am a big fan of sarcasm and hyperbole. But exactly what are you implying with this statement? Are you suggesting that my comments in this thread are emotional and irrational as opposed to objective and rationale? If so, then kindly cite the comments I made where I displayed such “fawning” behavior. Do I have to consider Kreeft’s words to be “holy” in order to believe that they should first be actually demonstrated to be fallacious before being branded as such?

No I wasn’t implying that . I’m just uneasy that we’ve probably spent longer discussing the video than Kreeft took to make it. It’s just one of billions of videos, is it really worth all this analysis?

 

[inocente]

If we say that the morality of slavery “simply varies by culture” then consider the ramifications with this example:
In the U.S. prior to the Civil War, the north was a culture where slavery was considered immoral.
At the same time, the south was a culture were some people considered slavery to be moral (i.e., the white population). But also in the south there were other people who considered slavery to be immoral (i.e., the slaves themselves).
So, based on your “society decides morality” theory, answer this question: Was slavery moral or immoral in the United States prior to the Civil War?
Both, depending on who you asked.

As Kreeft pointed out, if evolution is the sole basis for morality then we are not in a position to criticize slavery as a whole, nor are we in a position to reasonably state that it is never acceptable. All we can say is, “My particular country does not want it today, so it is not morally permissible, but if we changed our minds tomorrow and legalized it, it would be permissible”. Is the concept of morality really only a matter of current whims, like what brand of jeans are in fashion? I don’t even think atheists hold to such a notion, do they?

 

[inocente]

Clearly demonstrate in this forum that Kreeft committed just one logical fallacy (while naming the exact fallacy involved and giving him the courtesy of illustrating this with actual quotes he made) and I will concede the point. And more than that, I will agree with you that Kreeft “crashed and burned” and that his video is a “flop.”

If any atheist posts that he/she was converted by the video then you might have a better case for saying his argument is perfect and flawless.

 

[inocente]

Then how would answer these comments?

Won’t wash XXXXX. We all can point to a time when " conscience " told us that something was good or bad before which we had not been " coached " in any way. I think in particular of the first awakening of sexual activity., when our conscience warned us that to do this or that or to consent to this or that thought or act was bad and to be avoided. I think we can all think of such moments beginning when we were about 7 or 8. It was so in my case and I can assure you neither my parents nor anyone else had ever mentioned these topics. So how did I know they were wrong? How did the mere thought of them prick my conscience?

So you’re saying your conscience is an evolved trait, an instinct?

Futher, your objection does not account for the feeling of guilt when we act against such warnings. Society, government has set up all sorts of laws and violating one or the other does not prick my conscience. So the " environmental " argument accomplishes no more than to show me the " stop " and " go " signs. I obey them to avoid legal trouble, not because to ignore them would make me feel guilty. Of course some of these rules do coinside to the dictates of my conscience. The point is, no social rule can account for the feeling of guilt.

Yes, there’s a difference between legal imperatives and moral imperatives. I’ve been critiquing Kreeft’s argument, not claiming an alternative.

It is absolutely gratuitous to say that concepts of certain categories of good and evil either evolved or are determined by society. I will admit that society attempts to empose its categories of good and evil but it only succeeds where the categories conform to a universal good or evil commanded or taught from an ultimate authority who has " written " these categories on our souls.

Sorry, but that’s an opinion from faith, not a logical argument for objective morality.

 

[PRmerger]

So let us provisionally accept the proposition that God does not exist. I would say that we would still be moral because we are genetically programed to be moral.

Any cursory reading of a newspaper will prove that to be false.

If we are “genetically programmed” to be moral, then why are we immoral??

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So you’re saying your conscience is an evolved trait, an instinct?

Not in the least. I merely state a fact or two from my personal life. I think most people can point to similar experiences. I know that Blessed John Henry Newman had similar experiences ( though I admit he carried the argument too far) and so have many others. The point is that a conscious awarness that a certain act or thought is good or bad arises early in life before anyone has had a chance to instruct them.

Yes, there’s a difference between legal imperatives and moral imperatives. I’ve been critiquing Kreeft’s argument, not claiming an alternative.

But your critique is wrong. The point he makes and that I make is that we generally make our judgments of what is good or evil based on political, social, or cultural norms. There are exceptions and errors of course, as I pointed out. For example there are hundreds of " public " norms held out to us as good or evil. Some of these I accept, some I do not. But in each case I judge them on a higher authority. I may obey them at the " point of a gun, " but in this case my conscience does not bother me if I disobey them. Nor does it warm my heart if I obey them.

Sorry, but that’s an opinion from faith, not a logical argument for objective morality.

It is not an argument from faith. Natural law is open to all. Natural law is an objective norm of morality. My faith merely reinforces that norm. But I don’t believe I said that.

My point, Kreeft’s point, is that objective norms of morality demand an ultimate authority which we call God. Read my argument again.

By the way. As a Baptist the Scriptures will support my view. The ten commandments are nothing but natural law.