O
o_mlly
Guest
Close. He was re-emphasizing what He had already told others but they didn’t listen. Know anyone like that? All truths come from Him.
- Status
A
AlNg
Guest
I am not so sure that the law of the jungle has not existed in recent times.
G
goout
Guest
Good observation.Cruciferi:
I am not so sure that the law of the jungle has not existed in recent times.
Positing that evolution has brought forth a more ethical human being is patently nonsense.
Count the bodies.
Since the beginning of the human race, human beings have intuited that some reference point exists beyond themselves. Human beings intuit that a self-warped sense of ethics leads to…self warped ethics. And that is not ethics, it’s simply self interest in a jungle.
And self interest doesn’t feed the hungry, or clothe the naked, or house the homeless. It serves the self. Material processes like evolution cannot further morality. Morality by nature serves a higher purpose and being that goes beyond materialism.
The attempt to make a material process like evolution responsible for morality is nonsensical, and makes a god out of nature, and that is strange position for atheists to be in, who want to exalt reason and do it without a god.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
Yes, as one of my favorite philosophers, G. Larson, graphically demonstrated:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
All animate objects seek salvation, a contented co-existence with their environment consistent with the plan of their Creator. The non-human animal is content if its physiological needs—its hunger, thirst and its sexual needs—are satisfied. Since we are animals, we also have these needs and seek to satisfy them. But, inasmuch as we are human, the satisfaction of these instinctual needs is not sufficient to make us content; they are not even sufficient to make us sane.
Born into this world at a time and place not of our choosing, we realize we will leave in much the same manner. The animal “is lived” through the biological laws of nature and is in harmony with the world, never needing to transcend it. Humans, “life aware of itself”, know themselves to be in the world but not of the world; partly divine, partly animal; partly infinite, partly finite. The contradictions and contingency of our existence cause us anxiety and create our need to find ever-higher forms of unity with the world, with others, and with our Creator.
Humans are in this personified dogs’ dilemma: inexorably but futilely drawn to discover the deep mystery that will make us free. Like Larson’s dogs, we struggle in this life to understand the plan of an intelligence beyond our own, a plan that deeply affects our lives. Salvation to us, like the doorknob to the dog, is the idea in the mind of a higher being.
Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, is our goal. Jesus Christ, as Son of Man, is also our instrument. Only such a person, human and divine in nature, could constitute the principle and pattern for the transformation and fulfillment of every human person who has ever lived. Because of Jesus, the revealer par excellence of God’s plan, I believe I have a far better chance than Larson’s dogs of discovering the truth that will set me free.
A
Anrakyr
Guest
A few weeks ago I went on a road trip with my very devote Catholic mother. She of all people was itching for a chance to address this exact point as I’m an atheist. Conversation goes as follows after I get annoyed at her kibosh a scientific article about lengthening human life indefinitely.
Mom “So… you don’t want to talk about religion.”
Anrakyr “I don’t have a problem discussing religion, I take issue that I bring up a subject and you dismiss it out of hand with what amounts to ‘because Jesus’”
M “I didn’t say that, I said ‘we are already are immortal.’”
A “That still kills any discussion into the morality, ethics, logistics, societal impact. Anything really when you throw out lines like that. If you don’t want to talk about the experiment, fine.”
M “Then what do you believe?”
A “I don’t know.”
M “Then how to do check your moral compass?”
A “With logic and compassion.”
M “That won’t mean anything if life has no meaning.”
A “Life has as much meaning as you ascribe to it. You want to be the best farmer, go, that is your destiny.”
Humans are weird but we are still a collective. We thrive better in proximity and while there will always be out laying cases in the end we always are drawn to each other.
Part of the largest problems in history were that resources are finite. You can’t grow more food unless you had a really good year without taking someones else’s land.
In short the pie was fixed.
Then the industrial revolution happened, now with machines and better technology its more practical to trade what you can now make in abundance you never could before. Resources like metals and fuel can be refined more efficiently. You stand a better chance of surviving now in this new world by uplifting as many people as you can to your status. more educated individuals means more doctors, scientist and thinkers.
Civilization creates civility and as much as God may or may not be real the truth is cities were built when His word isn’t preached and the more tame the land becomes the more the urgency of what you’d call animal instincts relaxes.
A world without God is not without morals just not all the same ones.
B
Bradskii
Guest
He was re-emphasising what was already known. You can quote Jesus if you like and we can discuss it.Bradskii:
Close. He was re-emphasizing what He had already told others but they didn’t listen. Know anyone like that? All truths come from Him.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Evolution creates the inherent requirement in social species for some sorts of rules. At that point, at least so far as many primates go (and probably some other animals like cetaceans and elephants), there is the cultural element.
It’s even more complex than that, of course. One area of interest to biologists is why humans have largely concealed ovulation. It’s pretty obvious when females in the other great apes are ovulating, whereas in humans with, um, close inspection, it’s difficult. And yet that concealed ovulation may go some way to explaining monogamy, requiring males to spend much more time around a female, to prevent being cuckolded. We’re complex organisms, and there’s likely a considerable number of variables to any given behavior. Further, we have to weed out which behaviors (including morals and ethics) appear to be universal from those that are purely cultural, and human cultures have varied very widely in time and space.
It’s even more complex than that, of course. One area of interest to biologists is why humans have largely concealed ovulation. It’s pretty obvious when females in the other great apes are ovulating, whereas in humans with, um, close inspection, it’s difficult. And yet that concealed ovulation may go some way to explaining monogamy, requiring males to spend much more time around a female, to prevent being cuckolded. We’re complex organisms, and there’s likely a considerable number of variables to any given behavior. Further, we have to weed out which behaviors (including morals and ethics) appear to be universal from those that are purely cultural, and human cultures have varied very widely in time and space.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Perhaps the issue here is that is a strawman. No one thinks that all are morals are selected by evolution.
E
edwest211
Guest
A very good point. What god were atheist Communists dying for in World War II? Stalin had no problem with killing whoever. “It is in your nature to destroy yourselves.” Terminator 2. Sadly, that does appear to be the case.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Well almost no one. Hey Brad, you there …
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
I haven’t read the whole topic, but on the original question.
Human biology and evolution can be studied to learn more about human nature, and this can be used to inform us on ethics and morality. However, I would not say it’s sufficient by itself, and certainly people can go wrong looking at evolution alone as the source of morality.
Human biology and evolution can be studied to learn more about human nature, and this can be used to inform us on ethics and morality. However, I would not say it’s sufficient by itself, and certainly people can go wrong looking at evolution alone as the source of morality.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Shall we count him as MIA?No one thinks that all are morals are selected by evolution
o_mlly:
B
Bradskii
Guest
It seems no-one is reading what I am writing. I get this a lot. It seems classifying oneself as an atheist makes people read what they want to see rather than what I am saying.niceatheist:
Shall we count him as MIA?No one thinks that all are morals are selected by evolution
o_mlly:
Following are snippets from most of my previous posts:
"So all in all, it’s a complex mixture of evolved characteristics and learned behaviour. Sorting the one from the other can be quite an excercise.
The sense of what is right and wrong and therefore why we do what is considered to be right and wrong is an evolutionary product. It enabled us to get where we are now. But having reached a point where groups eventually formed societies, other forces come into play. The old instincts are still there but they have to compete against different forces. Different values.
Don’t confuse what brought us to this point in regard to morality and what we consciously decide what is right or wrong.
We have inherited our forefathers instincts. We need not be controlled by them. We are now masters of our own destiny.
It isn’t soley responsible. But it’s the basis. Other pressures come to bear. Inter group rivalry, the stratification of societies, politics, religion etc.
Go back to the basics and you’ll find that evolution laid the groundwork. Look at individual cases and there will be multiple factors determining the outcome.
You’re right. Evolution doesn’t explain it all. It’s the basis for ethics. Reciprocal altruism is exceptionally common in nature. It’s the basis for moral behaviour. Societies, once formed, brought different pressures to bear."
Now if anyone thinks that any of that in any way suggests that I am claiming ‘that all morals are selected by evolution’ then their comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired. In fact, I totally endorse what Wes said on the matter, which is nothing less that a summation of the quotes above:
And anyone have any quotes by Jesus abour morality? So we can see if He had any original ideas?
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
Thank you for the summary.
It’s either “all in all” or “not solely” but it cannot be both. (Some do read what you write.) Learned behaviors as in “monkey see, monkey do” remain in the realm of evolution. Or did you mean something else?
As your “not solely” post is the latter of the two, I presume you have learned from reading what other posters offered on the thread and modified your position. Just wanted to know if that was your final answer.
Last edited:
D
Darryl_B
Guest
That makes next to no sense. Men have been raping women even murdering them for thousands of years, when has it stopped?
N
niceatheist
Guest
A kind of rape was long entrenched in Western society (and in other cultures as well). The whole notion of “marital debt” was behind the long-standing rejection of the very notion that a husband could rape his wife. You don’t have to search very far even CAF to see people who seem to believe sex is something that a spouse must deliver save in rare circumstances like illness, and it’s a short hop from that to rejecting the notion that forced sexual encounters between spouses are in fact rape. That rape was discouraged even in many pagan lands hardly prevented its occurrence, or prevented societies from creating all sorts of mitigating circumstances; like spousal rape, or raping of women as part of the spoils of war. Often enough, and you see this repeatedly throughout cultures around the world, there was the notion that “men will be men”, that rape can be overlooked because somehow we’re incapable of controlling our lusts in certain circumstances.
E
edwest211
Guest
Please don’t paint with a broad brush. Not all men are like that. Not all men behave that way. Anyone looking at this should see a balanced picture. The Church is not obsessed about sex but some members of society are. This is not good for individuals or society.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Where did I ever paint with a broad brush. The majority of men throughout history likely weren’t rapists, and wouldn’t have contemplated it. But the fact remains that for a very long time there were legitimized forms of rape. It’s some small credit that the rules of war evolved in the early Modern period so that civilian populations, were as much as possible, to be protected from violent acts like rape and other acts of retribution, but sadly it was not always so.
B
Bradskii
Guest
If you think that those two posts contradict each other, then as I say, comprehension skills are sorely lacking.Bradskii:
Thank you for the summary.
It’s either “all in all” or “not solely” but it cannot be both. (Some do read what you write.) Learned behaviors as in “monkey see, monkey do” remain in the realm of evolution. Or did you mean something else?
As your “not solely” post is the latter of the two, I presume you have learned from reading what other posters offered on the thread and modified your position. Just wanted to know if that was your final answer.
Consider ‘it’s a complex mixture of evolved characteristics and learned behaviour’ compared to what you quoted second: ‘It isn’t soley responsible. But it’s the basis. Other pressures come to bear.’
Read what you wish. It’s not what I write.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
Was legitimate rape before the rules of war evolved not an evil act?
If rape is always an evil act, why so?
- Status