Need help in responding!

[lemonbeam]

Hello, I was discussing the distinction between animals and humans, and objective morality with an atheist, citing these two articles:

Number 5 on this list - catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0501fea1.asp

Paragraph 15 - leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-curley02.html

He responded with the following:

*I accept completely that our brains are different from those of primates, but I fail to see the relevance of the Bonobo’s conditioning on morals. The child understands that the keys do not go in the fridge because he understands the meaning of each word. The bonobo does not have the same understanding of the individual objects, but understands that it needs to put object A(keys) in object B(fridge).

Animals do not posess the understanding to act in a moral way within our society, they are tamed creatures that we condition to act in a(usually) acceptable way. In the wild though, animals behave in a way which is complimentary with the greater good of the race and their own survival. Sometimes these two priorities collide when there is a lack of resources or when there is competition for the alpha position.
But obviously a brain is not so easily predicted and we cannot perfectly predict what any creature will do.

I understand the horror at horrible actions such as rape or child abuse, but I don’t think we should so quickly jump to the conclusion that a person that commits these crimes is “evil”. Certainly they have commited a horrible act, but it’s the circumstances of such a horrible act that revile us. We seek to protect children for the preservation of the species and we have an automatic reaction against anyone that would harm a child.

It’s a tough one comparing us to animals, because in one sense we have very comparitive behavioural “morals”. And in another sense we are much more advanced and we are able to transcend our basic human needs. In short, morals are complicated by our own complex society.

If killing someone is wrong, then why does the bible repeatedly use murder as a punishment? Is that not a little contradictory?*

–

Could I please have some help in responding?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Re execution as a response to murder, the antagonist did not state his case strong enough – the Bible even commands that someone be executed for picking up sticks on the sabbath. See Numbers 15:32-36.

Bible literalists cause great dificulty when they “literalize” the Bible, and learn from it only literal-level lessons.

In fact, the Holy Spirit was taking advantage of an absurdly brutal ancient rule to forshadow the death of Christ – death following “picking up a stick” – the cross!

 

[ljubim]

Perhaps you should tell him that evolution has never been proven as creating a new species EVER. Only in the adaptation of one individual species. And as in the entire world there is not one piece of evidence of humans descending from animals, how is his theory any more than mindless speculation, while yours upholds all the scientific, religious, and common sense logic of the entire history of mankind?

Tell him you have no reason to have to prove yourself, while instead his baseless claims require more proof than all of his philosophical jibberish.

 

[ljubim]

Also mention that if evolution is ever proven, then you’ll be the first to accept. (For moral reassurances when you say this, I once read in an older Catholic book that evolution could be possible because neither bible nor tradition describe HOW God created man. Just as we know that seven days isn’t seven days, we know that God works in mysterious ways that we can never know. But still, evolution and the science of creation - such as the search for the so-called “god particle” - are only a sad way that mankind follows the seed planted in their hearts… to find God.)

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hello, I was discussing the distinction between animals and humans, and objective morality with an atheist, citing these two articles:

Number 5 on this list - catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0501fea1.asp

Paragraph 15 - leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-curley02.html

He responded with the following:

*I accept completely that our brains are different from those of primates, but I fail to see the relevance of the Bonobo’s conditioning on morals. The child understands that the keys do not go in the fridge because he understands the meaning of each word. The bonobo does not have the same understanding of the individual objects, but understands that it needs to put object A(keys) in object B(fridge).

Animals do not posess the understanding to act in a moral way within our society, they are tamed creatures that we condition to act in a(usually) acceptable way. In the wild though, animals behave in a way which is complimentary with the greater good of the race and their own survival. Sometimes these two priorities collide when there is a lack of resources or when there is competition for the alpha position.
But obviously a brain is not so easily predicted and we cannot perfectly predict what any creature will do.

I understand the horror at horrible actions such as rape or child abuse, but I don’t think we should so quickly jump to the conclusion that a person that commits these crimes is “evil”. Certainly they have commited a horrible act, but it’s the circumstances of such a horrible act that revile us. We seek to protect children for the preservation of the species and we have an automatic reaction against anyone that would harm a child.

It’s a tough one comparing us to animals, because in one sense we have very comparitive behavioural “morals”. And in another sense we are much more advanced and we are able to transcend our basic human needs. In short, morals are complicated by our own complex society.

If killing someone is wrong, then why does the bible repeatedly use murder as a punishment? Is that not a little contradictory?*

–

Could I please have some help in responding?

its not contradictory at all, the punishment fits the crime, if he is complaining that G-d killed the midianites, then ask him why he isnt complaining that the midianites killed the israelite children? be creative, turn it back on him at every point, G-d does nothing unjust. i dont know what specific action he is referincing, but in the case of the midianites, they drew the israelites away from G-d with idol worship, destroying their souls and condemning them, something far worse than mere pohysical murderlike i said be creative and turn the tables, you can also go with info-gap decision theory, i can provide the links, which says that there is always a possible justification for any action, and the atheist is just giving you unsupportable opinion. and i can hook you up with some folks who do nicely on the less rationalist and more ethics based approaches. the POE (problem of evil) is a weak argument that plays on a theists emotions. let me know if you need further resources with a PM. good luck

 

[DOShea]

Just my opinion, but I think you are giving him control of the discussion by allowing him to limit the comparison to humans being only as “moral” or “good” as animals. Comparison is a two-way affair, and if the goal is to equate A to B, reason tells us that we should be able to equally relate B to A.

Now the English translation of what I just said.

It’s easy to say we are like animals in that we are concerned for the survival of our respective species. Sure animals protect their young, sure we protect our young, but there are dimensions to that behavior that humans have and animals do not. A mother human will defend her baby against a perceived threat and limit the response to that which will make the threat go away, either by fight or flight. As soon as the perceived threat has ended, her focus is on the baby. An animal doesn’t follow that pattern; a mother bear in the wild will kill anything around its cub, even if the threat is retreating. There is no stopping the attack unless some distance is put between them that makes it dangerous for the bear to go that far away from the cub.

Then there is the behavior we never observe in the animal kingdom… sacrifice of life for a complete stranger. You never see a wildebeest on the Serengeti plains leap between an attacking lion and a helpless or younger wildebeest not its own out of some sense of nobility or moral righteousness. But you see that in human behavior, and it has nothing to do with ensuring survival of a species because one will die and the other won’t, either way. You don’t see animals risking their life to go support another animal’s emotional and spiritual needs, but we’ve seen military Chaplains dodge bullets for precisely that very reason.

Your opponent may say, “Well that’s not a fair comparison, because humans have emotional and spiritual needs animals do not.” I would answer that with, “Precisely, that is why you are trying to compare an apple to an orange and claim similarity only on the basis that both are fruit.” There IS a difference; we are different than animals in that we have abilities they don’t. We can reason and produce new concepts; they can reason out existing concepts (is it safe for me to go to the watering hole when lions are about?). Animals can use rudimentary intellect to produce simple tools; we can figure out the requirements for mass production, marketing, sales, and customer relations and build all those things.

We are not the same.

In the wild though, animals behave in a way which is complimentary with the greater good of the race and their own survival.

Yes they do. We call that instinct, or moral sense, which is distinct from morality. As an illustration, our sense of morality tells us what is right or wrong. I shouldn’t steal the television, or I should steal the television. A moral sense does not guide that kind of decision, it deals with personal impact. Minimizing risk, or trying to insure survival. The illustration for this is, "If I steal the TV, should I walk down the street with it, or put it in my car and drive away? Which will bring less harm to me? What best insures my “survival?”