If morality originates from evolution, is flying immoral?

[Sair]

If we are falsely assuming that all morals come from evolution, then it’s a good thing. Taking stuff from someone else without getting caught provides an evolutionary advantage because it gives us resources without having to waste time working for them.

But that conveniently ignores the fact that one of the evolutionary pressures acting upon humans is the existence and necessity of human communities. Whilst one individual is harnessing the ability to deceive, others are more than likely harnessing the ability to detect deception, ultimately resulting in a sticky end for the former…

 

[Sair]

A basic principle of morality that we have “evolved” is the principle of non-exploitation of others. Flying passes that test with…well, flying colors. It is a neutral application of our intelligence, as it is not directly victimizing another human being. In and of itself, it is not tantamount to intending harm to one’s neighbor.

Stealing is directly victimizing another human being (as, in most but not all cases, lying).

“Don’t kill; don’t steal; don’t rape; don’t torture or abuse” – those are the basics, which have evolved in a social context. They are the ground-rules for living in a community. Those who commit these acts are “anathema” in a community; they are imprisoned (and, in the past, were often hung or otherwise executed). No society has ever tolerated thieves.

So part of living in a society is that the “selfish” interest of the individual is compromised for the sake of the interest of the greater good, and we are socialized to feel “guilt” (not mere fear of punishment) at stealing (which is not to say that there many who feel no guilt at all, only the fear of punishment). But there is a trade-off to giving up one’s “selfish” interest in stealing – if I am expected not to steal someone’s stuff, they are expected not to steal mine.

That’s not to say that other forms of stealing are not more subtle – white collar crime, for example. A lot of white collar criminals have played that game of being ahead of the law, and have lost. Not quite in their self-interest, I would say. Others have stayed ahead of the law, but have sacrificed peace of mind (always fearing discovery). On the other hand, others have made it a rule of stealing and manipulating, and otherwise exploiting, in their interpersonal relationships (using people, treating them badly). I’ve observed that these people either end up lonely and without friends–sooner or later–or perpetually required to watch their backs, because they can’t trust anyone at all, as they tend to assume that the rest of the world is as predatory as they themselves are.

There is a reason the philosophes used the expression “enlightened self-interest.”

Even Epicurus, reviled though he is by orthodox Christian thinkers, understood that exposing onesself to the stress of possible - even probable - discovery and sanction rendered deceptive, exploitative and abusive behaviours undesirable from a personal, not just a community, perspective.

 

[Portofino]

And where is the evidence that we evolved a morality that causes us to avoid harming not just those in our immediate family or clan, but even those half way around the world? How did evolution “know” about people on other continents, and program us to treat them exactly the same as “locals”?

You’re right, Snarlemike. Tribal warfare and clannish thinking, even xenophobia (a root of racism), served a survival purpose at one time. Modern Europeans thought they were really ahead of the curve, at the time that World War I broke out; they could wage war more intelligently than their opponent, with all of their new technologies (e.g., machine guns, mustard gas). Not only did they create destruction on an unprecedented scale but, 30-35 years later, found themselves in a world in which two hostile enemies possess nuclear warheads. From that point onwards, it became obvious that, if evolution exists – natural or social – the United Nations was probably one of its greatest gifts, since nothing but peace of earth could ensure the survival of the species.

Here’s how filmmaker Stanley Kubrick put it, vis-a-vis our instincts for aggression and even our hostility towards what is “foreign, other” (from his Interview for Full Metal Jacket with critic Penelope Gilliat):

“Probably way back they did serve a survival purpose. One way to improve the survival of the hunting band is to hate and suspect outsiders. Nationalism is, I suppose, the equivalent of what held the hunting band together. But with atomic weapons the evolutionary programming that served Cro-Magnon man now threatens our existence…International Law still offers little in resolving conflict between nation states but fighting, certainly between nuclear powers, offers only the possibility of extinction.”

Unfortunately, we can’t give what we don’t have… If it’s rationally in our interest to live peacefully with each other, we can’t give it if (emotionally) if are only wired for hatred and suspicion. Thankfully, we also are wired for love and trust. Humans are not dogs, but even dogs can be trained not to bark at strangers and to consider them part of its extended clan.

 

[Portofino]

Even Epicurus, reviled though he is by orthodox Christian thinkers, understood that exposing onesself to the stress of possible - even probable - discovery and sanction rendered deceptive, exploitative and abusive behaviours undesirable from a personal, not just a community, perspective.

Hi there Sair,

Yes, I was thinking of Epicurus when I wrote about “fearing discovery.” Tyrants usually have made so many enemies that they seemingly do not have a moment of peace; they often become paranoid and will kill anyone who even looked at them wrong, on one occasion. They need people to taste their food, before every meal. They have bodyguards that watch over them; and the bodyguards need to watched by other bodyguards.

Your post also reminded me of a personal testimony by Seventh Day Adventist Doug Batchelor, who–as a young man–had been on his way to becoming a career criminal. This is from his talk “The Richest Cavemen”:

The principle of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is true, because it usually works that way. I said, “oh, come on… I stole that television set and I got rid of it; nothing happened. And a little while after that, I woke up in myapartment in Boston, and my TV was gone. And my radio. And I was mad, too; I called the police right away. I wanted them to find those thieves and track them down. They “violated my home”; I was really upset. And I was watching, and everything I’d do would backfire. I’d steal something and, you, know, all of my friends were thieves; they’d steal it from me.” “I don’t know where the stereo went, Doug.” And then I’d steal something, usually while I was high or drunk, and then I’d hide it, and forget where I hid it. I said, “I know I went out last night; where’s the stuff?” Or I would steal something, get back to my place, huffing and puffing; I’d steal a stereo, plug it in – it’s broken. Didn’t even work. Risked my life."

 

[spockrates]

After all, we didn’t evolve to fly.

I’m trying to understand, if morality originates from evolution, why we should be punished for any transgression of that morality.

If morality originates from the originator–the one we call God–then would there still be no reason for those who violate the originator’s morality to suffer the consequences for such violation?

 

[Portofino]

Again, a very sensible post.

Thank you, Sair, for your kind words

 

[lerapt78]

I’m a bit confused by your question OP, because I’m not making a connection between flying and morality - the two seem like separate issues, unrelated up to the point in which one’s motivations coincide with the act of flying. I view morality in the context of how one person’s thoughts/actions relate to *another *person, not to just the action itself. Therefore, in my mind flying is morally neutral, until the act of flying affects another.

I don’t know - I’m writing this without having pondered the question for long, so maybe I’m just not understanding the analogy?

If we are falsely assuming that all morals come from evolution, then it’s a good thing. Taking stuff from someone else without getting caught provides an evolutionary advantage because it gives us resources without having to waste time working for them.

But that conveniently ignores the fact that one of the evolutionary pressures acting upon humans is the existence and necessity of human communities. Whilst one individual is harnessing the ability to deceive, others are more than likely harnessing the ability to detect deception, ultimately resulting in a sticky end for the former…

While you are indeed correct that the human need for community requires a set code of conduct among members of that community, Bill Martin’s post did not specify morality within the context of community/kinship only. If the immorality of stealing arose from only the natural evolution of group behavior, it would likewise not be applicable to those who lie *outside *said community. Therefore, what is deemed to be moral among one group of people might not be applied equally when a different group is factored into the mix. Or, to elaborate on his post, I would say that the concept of theft is never *always *immoral if we were to determine that morality stems from natural evolution and not God. According to evolutionary behavior (absent God), it would be quite moral (and evolutionarily wise) for Group A to steal from Group B, because Group A would be interested only in its own survival and would be relatively unconcerned with the well-being of Group B. In my mind, that is why an atheist’s argument that there can be a natural agreed-upon morality cannot convince me.

 

[Julia_Mae]

While you are indeed correct that the human need for community requires a set code of conduct among members of that community, Bill Martin’s post did not specify morality within the context of community/kinship only. If the immorality of stealing arose from only the natural evolution of group behavior, it would likewise not be applicable to those who lie *outside *said community. Therefore, what is deemed to be moral among one group of people might not be applied equally when a different group is factored into the mix. Or, to elaborate on his post, I would say that the concept of theft is never *always *immoral if we were to determine that morality stems from natural evolution and not God. According to evolutionary behavior (absent God), it would be quite moral (and evolutionarily wise) for Group A to steal from Group B, because Group A would be interested only in its own survival and would be relatively unconcerned with the well-being of Group B. In my mind, that is why an atheist’s argument that there can be a natural agreed-upon morality cannot convince me.

Very insightful. Our close relatives, the chimpanzee (not bonobo, the larger ones) have been known to make war on other troops of chimps and kill the adult males and the babies and take the adult females and the territory. I bet that sounds familiar.

We seem to think it’s wrong, although we have been doing the same throughout human history. So, we justify it. Doesn’t seem to bother the chimps at all. Or some people.

 

[prodigalson2011]

What is a more pertinent question in this regard is why is artificial contraception, for example, denounced on the basis of violating natural law when so many other human activities violate natural law at least as much, if not more, and are not roundly condemned by the Church?

It would be helpful if you would provide examples of which particular activities you find contrary to natural law.

 

[snarflemike]

Even Epicurus, reviled though he is by orthodox Christian thinkers, understood that exposing onesself to the stress of possible - even probable - discovery and sanction rendered deceptive, exploitative and abusive behaviours undesirable from a personal, not just a community, perspective.

But we do not punish all behaviors that are undesirable from a personal perspective. We do not imprison people for eating too many cheeseburgers and not enough carrots, even though that also may have personal and communal impact.

 

[snarflemike]

I’m a bit confused by your question OP, because I’m not making a connection between flying and morality - the two seem like separate issues, unrelated up to the point in which one’s motivations coincide with the act of flying. I view morality in the context of how one person’s thoughts/actions relate to *another *person, not to just the action itself. Therefore, in my mind flying is morally neutral, until the act of flying affects another.

If morality and the inability to fly are both part of our evolutionary “package”, why are we punished when we violate the former, but not punished when we violate the latter?

To put it in a different form, if it’s OK that we use our intellect to “violate” our evolutionary inability to fly, why is it not OK that we use our intellect to “violate” our evolutionary prohibition (as asserted by many) to steal or kill or rape?

 

[snarflemike]

While you are indeed correct that the human need for community requires a set code of conduct among members of that community, Bill Martin’s post did not specify morality within the context of community/kinship only. If the immorality of stealing arose from only the natural evolution of group behavior, it would likewise not be applicable to those who lie *outside *said community. Therefore, what is deemed to be moral among one group of people might not be applied equally when a different group is factored into the mix. Or, to elaborate on his post, I would say that the concept of theft is never *always *immoral if we were to determine that morality stems from natural evolution and not God. According to evolutionary behavior (absent God), it would be quite moral (and evolutionarily wise) for Group A to steal from Group B, because Group A would be interested only in its own survival and would be relatively unconcerned with the well-being of Group B. In my mind, that is why an atheist’s argument that there can be a natural agreed-upon morality cannot convince me.

Yes, I agree that (if I am paraphrasing you correctly) that the morality we seem to have doesn’t seem to be the morality that evolution would have given us.

 

[snarflemike]

Even Epicurus, reviled though he is by orthodox Christian thinkers, understood that exposing onesself to the stress of possible - even probable - discovery and sanction rendered deceptive, exploitative and abusive behaviours undesirable from a personal, not just a community, perspective.

And you don’t think that the first to fly felt enormous stress? Doesn’t that make what the Wright brothers did incredibly immoral?

I recently saw a documentary about a guy who free-climbs (?) (no safety ropes, ect) straight vertical cliffs. I can’t imagine how stressful that must be, and he’s not doing it for food or shelter or to mate. So isn’t his behavior highly immoral?

 

[Portofino]

And you don’t think that the first to fly felt enormous stress? Doesn’t that make what the Wright brothers did incredibly immoral?

I recently saw a documentary about a guy who free-climbs (?) (no safety ropes, ect) straight vertical cliffs. I can’t imagine how stressful that must be, and he’s not doing it for food or shelter or to mate. So isn’t his behavior highly immoral?

I believe that Sair is talking about wisdom, not about morality per se. To give another example – if I eat food that I know will give me indigestion (and the pain of having eaten it far outweighs the momentary pleasure) then I am not being immoral. I am being foolish, unwise.
This is a Buddhist understanding of things, as well – overindulgence of any kind is not immoral, but it is unwise.

In the case of the Wright brothers, if they were passionate about what they did – and I believe they were – then that stress and even danger was far outweighed by a deep and lasting joy and satisfaction in their work. It is the same for someone like Gandhi, who died for his ideal of non-violence – and would be, I’m sure, for the mountain-climber who risks his life doing what he loves (but who takes reasonable precautions, through training and the acquirement of expertise).

I don’t see that same joy in your typical sociopath or serial killer, or even career criminal. What I see, instead, are individuals who are in pain and who are vainly trying to anesthetizethemselves by latching onto the thrill of stealing, or the thrill of violence. This is not to say that humans aren’t thrill-seeking creatures – driving fast is a thrill, for many–but *recklessly *endangering one’s own life is foolish, assuming one doesn’t have a death-wish. Endangering the lives of others is foolish as well; if you have a modicum of compassion or empathy, you will feel guilt and remorse about the child you killed with your car; and, if you don’t, you will be reviled by your neighbor, imprisoned, will lose your driving privileges, your freedom, etc.

Incidentally, Epicurus stated that the wise man will have friends (in the long-haul, friends are necessary for happiness; and I agree, observing, “even bad men have friends”); and that the wise man would be willing to die for a true friend. He says this because, where there is true friendship, there is trust and loyalty. If I left my friend in the lurch, and he survived, the bond of friendship would be broken. If he died, I would live with the guilt and remorse of having been capable of saving him. If I’m the sort of person who has no sense of guilt and remorse over the death of my friend, then I never had a friend to begin with.

To give an Epicurean example, who was the true friend and companion of the Aurora shooter? This was a lone wolf, someone who was alone in the world. And few would say that this individual was not already in pain, already “in hell.” The logic of such a shooter is analogous to that of a Patrick Bateman in American Psycho: “my pain is deep and constant, and I do not hope for a better world for anyone. Instead, I want to inflict my pain on others; I want no one to escape.”

That is not wisdom; it is not the eudaimonia of which the Greeks spoke. That is not true individual happiness or a lasting, enduring pleasure in life, but the lack thereof.

 

[Bill_Martin]

But that conveniently ignores the fact that one of the evolutionary pressures acting upon humans is the existence and necessity of human communities. Whilst one individual is harnessing the ability to deceive, others are more than likely harnessing the ability to detect deception, ultimately resulting in a sticky end for the former…

The post I was responding included getting away with the theft as part of the act. From an evolutionary standpoint, the community is only necessary because it helps me. I don’t care about anyone else in the community. If I can get away with stealing from someone else, I am served because I get whatever it was I stole easily and I don’t harm my relationship with that person if I am not caught.

 

[Portofino]

After all, we didn’t evolve to fly.

I’m trying to understand, if morality originates from evolution, why we should be punished for any transgression of that morality.

Getting back to the original topic, it ironically is a belief in God that could more easily justify a prohibition against flying, if it is understood as an example of human beings having overstepped the place in nature that God assigned them.

For the religiously-minded ancient Greeks, the attempt at flight would have been a form of human hubris.. The stories of Icarus and of Phaeton–flying too close to the sun, on wax wings – were cautionary tales, letting human beings know that they should not attempt to become gods. Human beings should know “their place” and not usurp on domains that properly belong to the gods alone.

I honestly believe, if flying had been invented in Europe in 1300, say, that the man who invented it would have been denounced as an agent of the devil. I don’t mean to minimize the relevance of these questions, either; human cloning is a more contemporary example of a perceived “overstepping human boundaries” and encroaching on a domain belonging only to God.

The Tower of Babel story also leads me to conclude that the Hebrews of the Old Testament would have looked askance at our skyscrapers. Christians built cathedrals to the glory of God, and religious structures were once the tallest in the city; today, the tallest structures in the city are devoted to trade and commerce.

I think Sair makes a point that evolution is, by definition, dynamic. We can evolve the ability to fly, through the application of our intelligence. Natural law, as I understand its traditional application, is more static; we were assigned a place in the cosmos, and we need to remain in that place, and not stray. There have been natural law arguments against the ordination of women (“women need to stay in the place that God fixed for them, when He ordered nature”) and natural law arguments against the validity of homosexual contact (“men and women need to stay in the place that God fixed for them, when He ordered nature”).

It seemingly is no coincidence that “natural law” theory was posited centuries before the theory of evolution. At that time, our model of nature was indeed of something much more static and stable. From an evolutionary standpoint vis-a-vis natural law, who is not to say that the nature of women–or the nature of human sexuality–is not evolving under our very noses?

 

[prodigalson2011]

Getting back to the original topic, it ironically is a belief in God that could more easily justify a prohibition against flying, if it is understood as an example of human beings having overstepped the place in nature that God assigned them.

And what was that place? “Fill the earth and subdue it.” In other words, God put the material of the world here for us to manipulate and form. He gave us the ability to discover and create. We are expected to apply our moral knowledge to our endeavors therein. What you fail to see, or at least acknowledge, is that a lack of belief in God has led quite predictably to the spread of moral relativism. And it is not at all ironic that belief in moral relativism has led to a lack of prohibition on unethical developments in science, the arts and society as a whole.

For the religiously-minded ancient Greeks, the attempt at flight would have been a form of human hubris.. The stories of Icarus and of Phaeton–flying too close to the sun, on wax wings – were cautionary tales, letting human beings know that they should not attempt to become gods. Human beings should know “their place” and not usurp on domains that properly belong to the gods alone.

As you are not speaking to pagans here, the myths of the ancient Greeks do not serve as fitting examples of Judeo-Christian moral/ethical principles. In fact, in direct contrast to your examples, the Bible tells of a man being swept up into heaven by God himself. Further, Christians believe that man is made in the image and likeness of God and destined for hypostatic union with Him. You are, I assume, unfamiliar, with the Biblical verse that says, “Have I not told you you are gods?”

I honestly believe, if flying had been invented in Europe in 1300, say, that the man who invented it would have been denounced as an agent of the devil. I don’t mean to minimize the relevance of these questions, either; human cloning is a more contemporary example of a perceived “overstepping human boundaries” and encroaching on a domain belonging only to God.

More of that mythological “Dark Ages” nonsense. You may honestly believe it, but it doesn’t make it so. I assume undergirding this irrational superstition is the ever present ghost of Galileo. How many times must that molehill be taken down from the mountain? It bears repeating, however, that Galileo was not tried for his scientific theory. In fact, his theory was not even original. Copernicus put it forth before he did and remained well respected within the Church. The circumstances surrounding Galileo’s “persecution” had little to do with science and more to do with practical defiance. Curiously, no one can seem to cite a single other example of the Church “stifling” or “persecuting” scientists or scientific progress.

That you think human cloning is simply “perceived” overstepping of human boundaries (funny how we “quote” the opposite parts of that phrase, isn’t it?) stems back to my suggestion that moral relativism has led to a loss of ethics in the sciences. The layers of ethical problems involved in such a practice do, indeed, include for many of us the role of God and man but there are numerous other moral considerations to be made there as well; it is not surprising that a materialist would not make these considerations, committed as he must inherently be to a worldview that denies moral absolutes.

The Tower of Babel story also leads me to conclude that the Hebrews of the Old Testament would have looked askance at our skyscrapers. Christians built cathedrals to the glory of God, and religious structures were once the tallest in the city; today, the tallest structures in the city are devoted to trade and commerce.

Context, context, context. The intent of the builders of the Tower of Babel was the important thing; not the height of the structure. And people say Christians take the Bible too literally!

 

[prodigalson2011]

I think Sair makes a point that evolution is, by definition, dynamic. We can evolve the ability to fly, through the application of our intelligence. Natural law, as I understand its traditional application, is more static; we were assigned a place in the cosmos, and we need to remain in that place, and not stray. There have been natural law arguments against the ordination of women (“women need to stay in the place that God fixed for them, when He ordered nature”) and natural law arguments against the validity of homosexual contact (“men and women need to stay in the place that God fixed for them, when He ordered nature”).

Evolution is indeed dynamic. And natural law is indeed static. This does not mean that the two are contradictory. The former relates to the material world, the latter to the spiritual world. One to the temporal, one to the eternal. The rest of this segment is full of equally fallacious ideas, fueled by a complete lack of understanding of natural law. Let’s address them each:

a) Natural law has nothing to do with us “staying in place.” It has everything to do with us “staying on the right path.” That which is static needs no law. Natural law pertains to morality, not to “temporal-ity.”

b) The prohibition of ordination of women has nothing to do with natural law. It has to do with the structure instituted by Christ Himself (all of the apostles, the original bishops, were men; their successors were men; their appointed elders [priests] were men.) The reason for this is that the priest acts “in persona Christi” (in the person of Christ). He is an icon of Christ in the Mass and the Sacraments. This has nothing to do with natural law or “keeping women in their place.”

c) the natural law argument against homosexuality is that sex itself is intrinsically ordered towards procreation. Its other properties (pleasure, emotional bonding) are secondary. It is beyond self-evident that the primary purpose of sex is procreation. Therefore, divorcing the sexual act from that end is seen as an abuse of the faculty and an inherent evil. It extends much further than that, but that’s the bare bones of it and I do not feel inclined to delve further into it at the moment. But I would add that, in light of what I have just said, your perception of it boiling down to “men and women needing to stay in the place that God put them,” is meaningless. Try all they like, homosexuals will never be able to procreate.

It seemingly is no coincidence that “natural law” theory was posited centuries before the theory of evolution. At that time, our model of nature was indeed of something much more static and stable. From an evolutionary standpoint vis-a-vis natural law, who is not to say that the nature of women–or the nature of human sexuality–is not evolving under our very noses?

The idea of evolution is alot older than Darwin. It’s actually as old as mankind, though not in a scientific form. All this babble about the changing nature of women is senseless. The idea of women’s inferiority is not an idea that has ever EVER been part of true Christian doctrine, held as it has been by many Christians/religious people (and, I would add, an equal number of atheists. Misogyny in the atheist community has been called by many in its own ranks something approaching a pandemic.) The only “nature of women” is their potential for motherhood. If that disappears, so does the human race. Women can be mothers, men can be fathers. Simple as that. Women, as mothers, have a bond with children that fathers do not. So long as women bear children, that’s not going to change either. Much like fundamentalists who rely on the Bible for everything and answer everything with God did it, it seems many materialists want to answer every objection to their own ideas with “evolution.” It’s carrying one idea too far. I would love to hear, though, your ideas of how human sexuality might be “evolving.” The only possible “evolution” it could undergo without our becoming extinct would be for us all to become potent hermaphrodites. I’ve yet to see the first shred of evidence for that, though. Although, given enough plastic surgery and genetic engineering I’m sure our crack team of unscrupulous scientists could get that underway promptly.

 

[Portofino]

And what was that place? “Fill the earth and subdue it.”

I wasn’t speaking of any religious tradition in particular, and very consciously used the conditional “if.” *If * flying is perceived as overstepping humankind’s proper boundaries vis-a-vis one’s conception of God, then it will be considered immoral.

I accept your point that Christianity does not have a problem with human flight, though I have met Christians who discern a certain sin of pride in secular attitudes towards modern technology.

What you fail to see, or at least acknowledge, is that a lack of belief in God has led quite predictably to the spread of moral relativism.

The problem is much bigger than that; it is the problem of pluralism. You, as a Christian, believe in moral absolutes; Judaism believes in moral absolutes, but different than those of the Christian; Islam believes in moral absolutes, but different from those of the Jew. This is de facto moral relativism, because it means that morality is relative to the religion that you profess.

If you believe in the necessity of moral absolutes, then the existence of multiple conceptions of absolute morality is a problem, and undermines the credibility of the very concept.

As you are not speaking to pagans here, the myths of the ancient Greeks do not serve as fitting examples of Judeo-Christian moral/ethical principles.

I wasn’t seeking to adduce the myths of the ancient Greeks as examples of Judeo-Christian ethical principles. These are different forms of theism. What I am treating of are theistic conceptions of the world–namely, including the concept of God–versus non-theistic conceptions of the world; and I am observing that, whenever there is a theistic conception of the world, there tends to be a concern with ensuring that humanity “knows its place” vis-a-vis God.

You are, I assume, unfamiliar, with the Biblical verse that says, “Have I not told you you are gods?”

I’m familiar with the quote, yes. I personally know Christians who are uncomfortable with invoking it, lest it be a temptation to pride.

More of that mythological “Dark Ages” nonsense. You may honestly believe it, but it doesn’t make it so. I assume undergirding this irrational superstition is the ever present ghost of Galileo.

The biggest historical impediment I’ve observed in the culture of Christendom, as it relates to the pursuit of human knowledge, has been the invoking of existing written texts as the final authority. This was not only done for the Bible; it was also done for Aristotle and Ptolemy. Galileo contradicted Scripture, relative to how Scripture was understood at that time (in the book of Joshua, it was written that the sun stood still; and it cannot stand still if it does not normally move across the sky).

The other observation I’ve made is that the study of human anatomy was impeded by the culture of Christendom, for many centuries. There was a taboo against dissecting the human body. Between Galen and Vesalius, by way of Leonardo da Vinci, many centuries transpired.

The circumstances surrounding Galileo’s “persecution” had little to do with science and more to do with practical defiance.

So you seem to grant that there was limited freedom of inquiry, at that time. There certainly wasn’t freedom of speech or of the press. Assuming we like these things, it would seem that the rise of secularism was good for something

 

[Portofino]

Evolution is indeed dynamic. And natural law is indeed static. This does not mean that the two are contradictory. The former relates to the material world, the latter to the spiritual world. One to the temporal, one to the eternal.

Curious – so the nature of “natural law” is ultimately spiritual, even though it is discernible–presumably–by reason and not by revelation.

This speaks volumes to me of why Catholic arguments as to what constitutes natural law do not tend to convince non-Catholics; namely, because there is a spiritual dimension to that natural law, which means that–at some point–reason is being supplemented with faith or moral conviction.

The prohibition of ordination of women has nothing to do with natural law. It has to do with the structure instituted by Christ Himself (all of the apostles, the original bishops, were men; their successors were men; their appointed elders [priests] were men.)

I could be cheeky myself, and say, “how literal-minded” All of Christ’s apostles were Palestinians, as Christ himself was (in body); so why ought a non-Palestinian man be permitted to serve Christ? The early Christians went beyond such literal-mindedness; not only Jews, but also uncircumcised Gentiles could become priests and bishops, *even though * Christ was a Jew, and all of his apostles were Jews. Progressive Christians are simply using the same argument in the vindication of the rights of woman, as regards equal participation in the life of the church (beyond “separate but equal,” which is the prevailing view).

the natural law argument against homosexuality is that sex itself is intrinsically ordered towards procreation.

Now this is true; when it is between a man and a woman of fertile age (and no impediments are applied towards fertilization) it tends towards procreation. When it is between two partners of the same gender, it does not.

For a non-believer, this simply means, “not all forms of sexual activity result in procreation,” and nothing more.

Its other properties (pleasure, emotional bonding) are secondary. It is beyond self-evident that the primary purpose of sex is procreation.

From an evolutionary perspective, there is truth in this. If no humans procreated, ever, the human race would become extinct. But the be-all-and-end-all of human life, as it is actually experienced, is not procreation. Religion, of all domains, knows this well. If it were otherwise, there would not be so many celibate monks, nuns, and ordained priests, who seemingly are “thwarting” the goal of nature in dying without progeny.

Therefore, divorcing the sexual act from that end is seen as an abuse of the faculty and an inherent evil.

Again, with all due respect to Catholic belief, this logic is not compelling to a great many non-believers. It requires conviction, based on belief in a moral law that is inherent in nature and that, ultimately, is inscribed by God. There are non-believers who find non-procreative sex to be no more compellingly harmful than (pardon the analogy) the sticking of a toothbrush in one’s mouth. Normally, the things one sticks in one’s mouth are for nourishment only, a toothbrush being an exception.

The idea of women’s inferiority is not an idea that has ever EVER been part of true Christian doctrine."

1 Corinthians 14: 34-38: “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Or did the word of God originate with you?”

Most Christians have made considerable “progress” in this domain

would love to hear, though, your ideas of how human sexuality might be “evolving.”

Who can predict the future? Culturally, our women are becoming more in touch with a stereotypically “masculine” side; our men, more in touch with a stereotypically “feminine” side. Mr. Mom may have been anathema, to an ancient Hebrew

As regards homosexuality, it looks as if–for much longer than we’ve realized–a minority (seemingly less than 10%) are primarily oriented towards their own gender.

I can see the presence of acknowledged homosexual males helping to curb that tendency of testosterone-laden and physically strong men not only competing and fighting with each other (over women, or otherwise) but also killing each other.

As for an evolutionary benefit (per se) to homosexuality in women, I am not sure what it would be. What would stand to reason is that bi-sexuality in woman would tend to be comparatively more common, because (sad to say) a woman who absolutely refused to lie with a man–under any circumstances whatsoever–could have lost her life for that refusal.

I also turn it around and question why homosexuality in men, for example, did not die out. It seems to be because human beings are conscious creatures and can–if they choose–override their sexual wiring, and have intercourse with those to whom they are not physically attracted (ironically, this contributed to the preservation of “homosexual genes”). Thus, where procreation was not an act of desire, it became an act of will or social conformity. The difference today is that there is a massively larger number of homosexual individuals who are no longer willing to accept this lot in life, and who want to live their lives more fully in alignment with their orientation. More and more of their heterosexual brethren support them in this.