Tuesday, October 28, 2008

The Moral Argument for God's Existence

Below is an interactive flash presentation from the Apologetics Study Bible on the Moral argument for God's Existence. To go onto the next slide, click the arrow on the bottom right hand side of the screen.

It may take a few moments for the presentation to load (743KB file).

The moral argument not only proves God's existence, but it also proves that God is good.

27 comments:

  1. Ok, interesting one, but I can see a few fairly gaping holes in it.

    The existence of objective morals is something which is not proven. I agree that it appears that to function in our society you have to assume them, but that doesn't necessarily mean they exist. Just as you must accept that the world is real and your senses can be trusted (which they can't).

    The issue of universal morality is also interesting, as it violates many observations seen across time and the world. To us in this time, racism is seen as immoral, but in days not long past even the more moral of people believed that segregation was necessary and just. There are also moral differences between cultures (your abortion example, cannibalism). There are even examples in the Bible of behaviour we would find thoroughly immoral today - for example the offering of one's daughter for the entertainment (rape) of a crowd to stop them attacking a priest. If the moral values change over time and space, this is a pretty clear indication that they are not fixed by a higher being.

    Finally there is the issue of moral dilemmas. One of the most famous I will try to summarise here - A man's wife is dying, and there is a medicine that can cure her. But he cannot afford the medicine due to the outrageous (well above costs) markup that the pharmacist has put on it. Should he steal it?

    My psych class last semester had differing opinions on this, all based on fair moral judgements.

    ReplyDelete
  2. your senses can be trusted (which they can't).

    So I guess that means science is over then? Or is there another way to know stuff apart from the empirical method?

    The issue of universal morality is also interesting, as it violates many observations seen across time and the world.

    Would that be 'observations' with your 'senses'?

    There are even examples in the Bible of behaviour we would find thoroughly immoral today - for example the offering of one's daughter for the entertainment (rape) of a crowd to stop them attacking a priest.

    Perhaps you could give ch & v. to where you are alluding to - I think you've mixed a couple of stories up here.

    Another thing Marty, you've missed the central point of the claim of moral absolutes. It is not, as your counter-'arguments' imply, that the mere existence of differing moral values (either over time or place) means the argument does not hold. I could give a million examples of different moral standpoints in other cultures today or in the past.

    The point is that whenever a person objects to certain behaviour (as you do every day) you are implicitly calling upon an external and objective standpoint - absolute morality.

    It is besides the point whether your grievance is justified or not. (Dawkins has yet to grasp this either I note). When I say, 'Hey, don't nick my pen!' I am implying that it is universally and absolutely wrong to steal.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sorry Jim, I may not have been quite clear in my point with the senses thing.

    What I'm saying is that we rely on our senses being right otherwise we could not function. Thus even though things we observe may not be the way we think they are, we assume they must be for the sake of order and sanity. It's the same with morals. If everyone believed a subjective moral code, then society would break down. That does not mean that an objective moral system instituted by a higher power exists, just that we assume there are objective morals for the sake of order.

    We can also come to these morals from an empathic evolutionary perspective - treat people the way you would like to be treated. I wouldn't like you to steal from me, thus I see stealing as wrong. I think that torture hurts, thus having it applied to someone else is also abhorent.

    And my point with the differing moral views was to point out that there are changes in the moral viewpoint not fitting with transcendent morality from an external source. It was once considered moral to subjugate people based on the colour of their skin or their birth (with serfs). We now find slavery morally wrong. Have the objective morals changed?

    And the passage I am refering to appears in Genesis 19: 7-8, and a similar passage in Judges 19: 23-28.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And looking at the various examples, I would say a decent whack of society does operate under conventionalism - reformers for gay, lesbian and intersex rights are often seen as immoral or at least misguided, as were those who worked for integration of races in america not so long ago. Just throwing it out there.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So if I get you right Marty, you're saying we have to 'act as if' the world is ordered, our senses are reliable, and objective morality is real, even though these things may not be so.

    If, as you say, we can't 'function' in this world without relying on our senses (and having objective morality) then what is the best explanation for that phenomena?

    Why do you want to say, things may not be as they appear to us all?

    Where is your proof they are not as they appear?

    You will say, no doubt,
    'The existence of objective morals is something which is not proven.'

    But the onus is on you to prove what we all seem to be experiencing (objective morality, design etc.) is not because it has a basis in what is real.

    You are the one living as if these things are real yet concurrently denying them. It is your lack of consistency that calls out for explanation - not my consistency.

    As for the Golden Rule coming from evolution, let's just say it isn't at all obvious that doing unto others and my survival are one and the same. Self-denial and self-survival just aren't the same in theory or practice. Is the lion loving the deer on the Savannah when it mauls it?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm not quite sure I follow your objection Jim. What I'm saying is just because we perceive there to be objective morals doesn't mean that they are real, and applied to us by a higher power. They could just be a function of the way our minds and society work. Evolutionarily we have an imperative to help those with similar genes (our own people and other humans). Thus the lion would kill the gazelle, but vigourously defend her own young from harm.

    I'm still not sure you have answered my point from differing morals -
    "And my point with the differing moral views was to point out that there are changes in the moral viewpoint not fitting with transcendent morality from an external source."
    This view is much more in keeping with perceived rather than actual objective morals - If they change, then they are hardly obective.

    As to my point on the unreliability of our senses, you only need to look up one of hundreds of optical or auditory illusions (really, look up the barbershop auditory one on youtube, its really cool). I'm not coming from a wild guess here, I have just spent this semester immersed in vision and hearing study (2nd year science), and as such know that a great deal of what you see is created by your brain.

    As to the onus of proof, it depends whether you believe this is a proof of God's existence or merely a good argument. If it is a proof, then the onus is only on me to show a way it could be different, and the proof fails. I have been approaching it in such a manner as that is how the video seems to use it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Marty, In regards to the comment concerning Genesis 19:7-8 and Judges 19:23-28; the descriptions of those events are just that, descriptions - they're not prescriptive, and the Bible certainly isn't endorsing that behavior.

    Yes, the moral values of a culture change over time, but that certainly isn't in conflict with the Christian worldview. The Bible teaches that there is an objective moral standard - God's. However, Humans from the beginning have chosen to rebel against God and make their own rules.

    Moral dilemmas are tricky, I agree. But God is an omniscient, perfect judge, and we can be assured that He will judge people justly, knowing their circumstances and their motives.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Nonsense.

    You can not prove that an imaginary figure exists, especially not by trying to rely on something as flaky as a supposed sense of morality.

    Right and wrong, good and evil, are all subjective social judgments wholly human and wholly dependent on circumstance.

    To put it another way, did Grand Moff Tarkin believe he was evil when ordered the destruction of Alderan? To be more pertinent did Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin? Or did they suppose that their actions where the part of a greater good? Ends justifying the means in other words.

    Who can judge their morality? I suppose anyone can in any number of ways, but thats not why they are condemned in popular culture and by history as being evil.

    Its because their actions ultimately violated personal, individual rights. Not because they violated some big nebulous god enforced view of right or wrong.

    Through their actions or inactions they caused the deaths of millions of humans. This is evil because our sense of right and wrong is Human centric.

    Even atheists know the difference between right and wrong, as do their children, of that I can assure you.

    -Gooney

    ReplyDelete
  9. I only have a few minutes, but quite simply, this argument is ridiculous. It is completely contaminated because the carriers of morality are all similar in one unique way, we are human. Do you not expect some kind of similarities in how we act.

    I have previously noted that certain mental illnesses such as emotional retardation in serial killers completely removes their regret and morality. When they caught Berdella, he couldn't understand why he was in trouble, despite the fact he had tortured and mutilated 6 young men.

    The fact is, all of us with big and working brains do have similarities in the way that we see the world - you just misdiagnose it as objective morality.

    There is no argument or statement that can defeat that reality.

    May the Force be with you

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1. Truth Exists
    2. Truth is immutable
    3. Truth is eternal
    4. Truth is mental
    5. Truth is superior to the human mind
    6. Truth is God

    1. “Truth exists.” Clark establishes this point by reminding us of the self-defeating nature of any attempt to deny the existence of truth. Since skepticism is false, there must be knowledge; and if there is knowledge, there must exist the object of knowledge, namely truth.

    2. “Truth is immutable.” It is impossible for truth to change. As Clark says, “Truth must be unchangeable. What is true today always has been and always will be true.” For Clark, all true propositions are eternal and immutable truths. He has no use for pragmatic views of truth that imply that what is true today may be false tomorrow. If truth changes, then pragmatism will be false tomorrow-if, indeed, it could ever be true. Truth itself is unaffected by the fact that sentences like “I am now typing” are sometimes true and usually false. Since I’ll present a rather long argument in defense of this claim later in this chapter, I’ll assume that this possible problem can be answered and move on to Clark’s next point.

    3. “Truth is eternal.” It would be self-contradictory to deny the eternity of truth. If the world will never cease to exist, it is true that the world will never cease to exist. If the world will someday perish, then that is true. But truth itself will abide even though every created thing should perish. But suppose someone asks, “what if truth itself should perish?” Then it would still be true that truth had perished. Any denial of the eternity of truth turns out to be an affirmation of its eternity.

    4. “Truth is Mental.” The existence of truth presupposes the existence of minds. “Without a mind, truth could not exist. The object of knowledge is a proposition, a meaning, a significance; it is a thought.” For Clark, the existence of truth is incompatible with any materialistic view of man. If the materialist admits the existence of consciousness at all, he regards it as an effect and not a cause. For a materialist, thoughts are always the result of bodily changes. This materialism implies that all thinking, including logical reasoning, is merely the result of mechanical necessity. But bodily changes can be neither true nor false. One set of physical motions cannot be truer than another. Therefore, if there is no mind, there can be no truth; and if there is no truth, materialism cannot be true. Likewise, if there is no mind, there can be no such thing as logical reasoning from which it follows that no materialist can possible provide a valid argument for his position. No reason can possible be given to justify an acceptance of materialism. Hence, for Clark, any denial of the mental nature of truth is self-stultifying. In Clarks words,

    “If a truth, a proposition, or a thought were some physical motion in the brain, no two persons could have the same thought. A physical motion is a fleeting event numerically distinct from every other. Two persons cannot have the same motion, nor can one person have it twice. If this is what thought were, memory and communication would be impossible…It is a peculiarity of mind and not of body that the past can be made present. Accordingly, if one may thing the same thought twice, truth must be mental or spiritual. Not only does [truth] defy time; it defies space as well, for if communication is to be possible, the identical truth must be in two minds at once. If, in opposition, anyone wished to deny that an immaterial idea can exist in two minds at once, his denial must be conceived to exist in his own mind only; and since it has not registered in any other mind, it does not occur to us to refute it.”

    To summarize Clark’s argument thus far, truth exists and is both eternal and immutable. Furthermore, truth can exist only in some mind.

    5. “Truth is superior to the human mind.” By this, Clark means that by its very nature, truth cannot be subjective and individualistic. Humans know certain truths that are not only necessary but universal. While these truths are immutable, the human mind is changeable. Even though beliefs vary from one person to another, truth itself cannot change. Moreover, the human mind does not stand in judgment of truth: rather truth judges our reason. While we often judge other human minds (as when we say, for example, that someone’s mind is not a keen as it should be), we do not judge truth. If truth and the human mind were equal, truth could not be eternal and immutable since the human mind is finite, mutable, and subject to error. Therefore, truth must transcend human reason; truth must be superior to any individual human mind as well as to the sum total of human minds. From this it follows that there must be a mind higher than the human mind in which truth resides.

    6. “Truth is God.” There must be an ontological ground for truth. But the ground of truth cannot be anything perishable or contingent. Since truth is eternal and immutable, it must exist in an eternal Mind. And since only God possesses these attributes, God must be truth.

    “Is all this any more than the assertion that there is an eternal, immutable Mind, as Supreme Reason, a personal, living God? The truths or propositions that may be known are the thoughts of God, the eternal thoughts of God. And insofar as man knows anything he is in contact with God’s mind. Since further, God’s mind is God, we may… say, we have a vision of God.”

    Therefore, When human beings know truth, we also know something of God’s nature. There is a sense in which all knowledge is a knowledge of God.

    -Ronald Nash – Faith and Reason - p. 161

    ReplyDelete
  11. Clarks argument only relates to the existence of the physical world and his definition of God is in line with deism, Spinoza would be proud, all of which is completely inconsistent with the Biblical notion of God. You seem to have been lured to the immutable definition of the deist God to support your personal one, not seeing that those things are inconsistent. The dark side is blinding you - for the Force you describe does not choose to do this, you do it to yourself (Star Wars analogies are excellent for describing the deist god).

    I do not deny the existence of the deist "god" but I do not think it appropriate to call it "god" either.

    Morality is not cogent in the physical world outside of the carriers of those decisions. Thus, it is not within the class of things that Clark describes. The only truth in regards to morality is the truth that the existent individuals describe. Again, you are assuming a perfect standard because something exists, but there is no such standard. You may as well think that there is a perfect cat to which all other cats should aspire to, it is a false suggestion into which you have been drawn.

    Note my presience here, I know that you will argue the deist God when it suits and then insist that it is evidence of a personal one - but I, nor any person who understands the true nature of the Force will be deluded by such self-defeating arguments. Perhaps you can trick the weak of mind, but that is the reason I respond, it is not for myself.

    May the Force be with you.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi Joel,

    While I agree with much of Clark's argument, I dont think its a good proof. It is reasonable, and gives a mind over to consideration of a deist god as has been said, but there are still some flaws in it.

    Specifically with the "Truth is eternal" point. It depends what you define as truth, but I know of some truths that are true now that may not be true later. Currently I own a cat, that is tangibly true. In ten years time, its likely that I won't, therefore the truth has changed. I'm being a little facetious here to try and get a clarification of 'truth', because once you begin to call some things truth and some facts you begin to blur the lines of what requires the god to be there.

    Interested to hear a clarification of truth, talk to you later.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "I do not deny the existence of the deist "god" but I do not think it appropriate to call it "god" either."

    Well Alex, A Deist god is one that is transcendent and personal that set the universe off, but hasn't interacted with it since. So you don't deny the existence of such a being? Wow, you've come along way.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ryan, the pandeist god is literally the entire universe, now, future and past. That is not a power with choice or intelligence which is a key component of your God. Its the reason, Stephen Hawking and Einstein talk about God without believing in one. I don't even think you can call it a being.

    Also, as you well know, I think the most likely initiating point for the universe is nothingness.

    Im sorry if this confuses you with the 17th century definition of deism.

    Plus I am very tired.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Gooney Who can judge their morality?...thats not why they are condemned in popular culture and by history as being evil. Its because their actions ultimately violated personal, individual rights...This is evil because our sense of right and wrong is Human centric. Even atheists know the difference between right and wrong.

    Ok Gooney I have a couple of questions for you.
    1. Why should it be condemned as wrong to violate the rights of an individual when as an atheist your world view gives you no reason to assume there is any worth to the individual (they are merely another accidentally generated blob of matter really).
    2. If there is individual worth where is it founded? What makes the individual person important and worth protecting
    3. You know the difference between right and wrong. Where does this understanding come from?

    Nature is red in tooth and claw as Darwin well knew and was emensely bothered by. If his theories are true there is no place for morality in an evolutionary world view.
    Nietzsche propounded that God was dead and that the Christian faith was dying and that they should stand asside and allow the superman of atheism to progress. This philosophy spawned the atheist regimes of Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Mao's China - this very athropocentric view of philosophy in practice was condemned by the world (not just Christians).
    The Christian world view on the other hand teaches both the place of morality and it's limitations. The moral arguement is aimed to point to God not prove Him.

    Alex The fact is, all of us with big and working brains do have similarities in the way that we see the world - you just misdiagnose it as objective morality. There is no argument or statement that can defeat that reality.

    The one big continuing question I have for you is - why is there morality, where does it come from and more to the point why is it SO consistent in all cultures?

    We've danced around this point for some time and I really want an answer Alex. Subjectivism might be a nice cave to hide in when you don't like the demands and implications of your conscience but it is inconsistent with reality.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Just quickly

    The one big continuing question I have for you is - why is there morality, where does it come from and more to the point why is it SO consistent in all cultures?

    Firstly, I don't see how you think the mayan exercise of ceremonial removal of hearts from victims so that the sun will rise is consistent with modern morality. Or hardcore BDSM sex play would correlate with your churches values. Or a serial killers moral standards would meet your own.

    Secondly, if you look into the eyes of another person and do not recognise they are there and that they would feel pain and the consequences of your actions then you may be a serial killer. Humans have evolved empathy because it is advantageous to living in communities. Ants do not have empathy, they are solely concerned with carrying out their duties, accordingly they have no difficulty in killing workers to feed the Queen. If we were a different species then we may not have the morality that we do, diverse as it is. Still, we respect each other because our big brains can share the thoughts of others - its that simple.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Well done Alex you managed to side-step two questions with one response. Not quite, you have merely failed to answer again.

    You would laugh if someone tried to have a law taken from legislature by build a case based on exceptions. Similarly your observation that there are exceptions the the morality that we all share serves not your case but rather ours. The fact that there are glaring perversions of the moral code only serves to emphasis it, not diffuse it.

    Humans have evolved empathy because it is advantageous to living in communities.

    This does not answer where the empathy you claim has arrisen via evolution has it's genesis, rather it points to the fact that it would possibly be fostered if it was present. Nature is red in tooth and claw Alex - Darwin could see that and it's implications, why cant you? Or is it that you wont?

    Where is there evidence in the natural world of a sacrificial empathy that leads as you claim to a moral code that defends the weak and the helpless?

    ReplyDelete
  18. This does not answer where the empathy you claim has arrisen via evolution has it's genesis, rather it points to the fact that it would possibly be fostered if it was present. Nature is red in tooth and claw Alex - Darwin could see that and it's implications, why cant you? Or is it that you wont?

    Where is there evidence in the natural world of a sacrificial empathy that leads as you claim to a moral code that defends the weak and the helpless?


    I have previously explained the genesis of empathy in other posts, however, I will do so again quickly here as I am not sure whether you were involved in those conversations.

    The notion that nature is “red in tooth and claw” is an over simplification of the mechanism of evolution. Generations do not develop depending on the powers or abilities of the phenotype of an animal for otherwise evolution would have us all as lions, tigers or condors. The evolution of any one species is determined by whether the genetic information of one pair (or individual in the case of asexual creatures) is passed to the next generation. Although the prowess with tooth and claw may be valuable assets in determining which individuals pass on their genes, it is hard to see how one can justify those characteristics being the only determinative characteristics when we live in a world which man has conquered using his intelligence and capability to act in a group. A wooly mammoth would be impossible for an individual human to take down, and yet for a group of humans making use of their intelligence, it could become a staple of their diet.

    Humans are weak of tooth and claw, but does that mean they cannot breed? No, it is not determinative of whether, over time, they will multiply. However, human bodies are subject to other constraints that become more necessary as we developed. Our ability to live in groups is vital to our survival, even today a human without connection to other humans is likely to have severely decreased chances for survival. Just imagine if no-one would farm your food, deliver your water or stitch your clothes. The same was true in our primordial phases.

    Consider our young. Many species that do not have developed emotional systems such as lizards and snakes leave eggs of young that are capable to taking care of themselves (within the proportional death rate given for their large clutches) without the care of their parents. Humans do not have that luxury. When our ancestors ceased laying eggs or keeping their young in pouches (as marsupials still do) they were given responsibility over those young. If they did not care for the young then their genes would be naturally selected out of the gene pool. Thus, there is selection pressure towards emotional caring for our young.

    So we can see, our ancestors had selection pressure from their weak physical nature to act in groups and take care of their young which are both resolved by increased emotions and intelligence. I put it to you that empathy is the key emotional tool used by humans when both working in groups and caring for young.

    Nonetheless, the evidence does not suggest that empathy extends to all people, animals and things in our world. Even within our own species, the evidence strongly points towards humans engaging in war with opposing tribes, cities and nations. We find it harder to empathize with people who have radically different cultures. Do not Australians place the ANZACs that died at Gallipoli on a pedestal in spite of the fact they are actually worshipping a belligerent force invading another people’s lands? This is also empathy in action. And yet, over the last few years I have noted a change in attitude to those events, we now remember not only the ANZACs but also the Turkish troops that halted their march. I think this is a result of our increasing recognition of all humans as being equal, an education that enlivens our empathy towards those peoples as well as our own. I think further that the evidence of widespread environmentalism in modern society shows that our empathy can be triggered not just towards other people, but things such as wild animal species and the climate. After all, it is harder to eat bacon after you have had a pet pig. I know that Charlotte’s web certainly turned me off it.

    And here, having explained our evolution, empathy and resulting morality is where the criticism of religion becomes complete. Religions naturally seek to vindicate their own dogmas by attacking the dogmas of other religions. See yourself how Islamic beliefs have been attacked in previous posts on this site. The view that only you are correct undermines your capacity to empathize with other people who have other belief systems. It is a subtle and disturbing force that is difficult to see, let alone deal with. I know that I am guilty of it at times as well and I freely admit to that. Neither of us are served by disrespecting the beliefs of others, if anything, we are pushing those others away – and when they are far enough away, when our empathy can no longer find them, that is when we have no difficulties in flying planes into their buildings or blowing up their nightclubs.

    There is no God. That is my belief. I would not hold it if others did not insist on the existence of a God for the question would simply not arise. Nevertheless, I am trying my hardest to engage with you so that I understand you better, so that I do not become excluded from you and so that you too can understand my point of view and empathise with me. I fear the day that empathy becomes lost between groups because of their exclusive beliefs, that is a thing that I truly will fight against, but in doing so, I am left with no choice but to show the fallacies in the mechanism that creates division: religion itself. Hate the sin and not the sinner as your side would say.

    May the Force be with you.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Although the prowess with tooth and claw may be valuable assets... when we live in a world which man has conquered using his intelligence and capability to act in a group.

    Please tell me you don't think that because mankind dominates the world and work together that - therefore we must have evolved using this as a major means of our advancement. If that is what you think you need to rethink it because it is circular reasoning.

    If they did not care for the young then their genes would be naturally selected out of the gene pool. Thus, there is selection pressure towards emotional caring for our young.

    You're appealing to an imaginary situation to give weight to your arguement here Alex. Now to assume that there would develope an emotional care drive that would become a sacrificial empathy you should see it in the other species with similar social structure and equally helpless young. There is no such evidence to support your thought there. If there was you would not see our nearest "relatives" the great apes and larger monkeys behaving the way they do.
    There is no caring displayed by the dominant chimp male/males when they eat the babies of the troup (some times THEIR OWN BABIES)if there is a lack of other protein sources. There is no mercy given in the struggles for dominance in both ape and chimp troups with both the challenged and the challenger fighting tooth and nail.
    These species have according to evolutionary theory arrisen over the same time as us and have similar young (helpless) and live in family groups (as you claim we did as we evolved). They show none of the empathetic qualms we do - I can see any father routinely eating his children or sibling's children just because there is no steak on his plate.

    As opposed to your thought that: "...having explained our evolution, empathy and resulting morality is where the criticism of religion becomes complete." You have rather produced a theoretical story based as far (as I can see) on the assumption that because we are evolved and have dominated the world and have morality we therefore have an evolutionary empathy that explains away the conscience that contradicts your sinful thoughts and deeds.

    I find it interesting that you look at the ANZACS and the turks and see that this is evolution in progress. Why do you see a problem with one race fighting another for supremacy. Is this not what darwin was propounding in his theories - "The origin of species and the preservation of favoured races"? Likewise the preservation of an animal you use as a food source is an evolutionary obsurdity.
    On the other hand God having given us both a morality that is absolute and a devine mandate to manage the world under Him; this makes sense of both the condemnation of war and the love some have for their pig.

    You have commented:Neither of us are served by disrespecting the beliefs of others. I agree to a point and do not intend to disrespect you just to preach ad hominem arguments (despite you seeming to think prior to this that it is a valid approach to myself and others). I am on the other hand prepared to contradict your beliefs when they do not gel with reality.
    There is a God Alex, He made you and gave you a conscience that you would know the good He has commanded you to do and the wrong you do in your rebellion to Him. Likewise He loves you enough to give both the good things you have and offer you freely the gift of eternal life through the death of Jesus.
    As I have said before, we are praying for you.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Just a BTW Alex, you have by no means refuted my article re the impossibility of bird evolution. Given the viability of the theory is threatened by these findings you have a major problem. IE you are even more unable to refer to evolution for the cause of your conscience.

    ReplyDelete
  21. There is no caring displayed by the dominant chimp male/males when they eat the babies of the troup (some times THEIR OWN BABIES)if there is a lack of other protein sources. There is no mercy given in the struggles for dominance in both ape and chimp troups with both the challenged and the challenger fighting tooth and nail.

    You are assuming that just because an animal or human has a certain characteristic, then that characteristic must always be displayed. That is simply not the case. The nicest and humblest of persons can become a whirling dervish of destruction in some circumstances.

    More to the point, your argument is defeated by your own holy book. For you think we should delineate apes from humans because humans would not eat the flesh of their children - yet your own God forsees such acts:-

    And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. -- Leviticus 26:29

    And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. -- Deuteronomy 28:53

    And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend. -- Jeremiah 19:9


    They show none of the empathetic qualms we do - I can see any father routinely eating his children or sibling's children just because there is no steak on his plate.

    Ironic much? Perhaps you do not know your God as well as you think.

    I find it interesting that you look at the ANZACS and the turks and see that this is evolution in progress. Why do you see a problem with one race fighting another for supremacy.

    Australians and Turks are both nations comprised of the same species. As I have pointed out, and you have ignored, evolution is a hindsight perception of the operation of mutation and natural selection. There is no choice as to what results. Accordingly, choosing to embrace your fellow beings, including protecting other animal species, does not "break" any rules of evolution.

    What is wrong with letting two groups of genetically similar populations kill each other? Well, my empathy tells me it is the pain and suffering that those populations will suffer. How can you not understand that?

    There is a God Alex, He made you and gave you a conscience that you would know the good He has commanded you to do and the wrong you do in your rebellion to Him. Likewise He loves you enough to give both the good things you have and offer you freely the gift of eternal life through the death of Jesus.

    That doesn't actually make sense. Conscience has a natural cause resulting from evolution of brain physiology, there is no evidence of anyone "giving it" to anyone. In fact, your statement is evidence that you believe in some kind of "magic" which can be used to "make feelings" in a being whereas we have a good idea as to how the natural physical operation of the human body results in same. You can continue to believe in magic if you want, I just note that it isn't science - can't be taught as science - and can be dismissed in the same way as it is raised, without evidence.

    [NB: This was only a short response to a couple of issues that you raised, please don't hesitate to raise further issues that you wish for me to specifically address].

    ReplyDelete
  22. You are assuming that just because an animal or human has a certain characteristic, then that characteristic must always be displayed.

    You're side steppin the issue again Alex. You have brought forth no evidence to support your fairy story of how you get your empathy. I have taken another species (two infact) which have the two characteristics you claim will produce empathy and shown that there is no empathy or mercy at that in the natural world. You point to a theory to support your empathy and when I point out that the natural world doesn't support you in any way you suddenly become evasive again. Either come up with something concrete or quite claiming an evolutionary cause.

    What is wrong with letting two groups of genetically similar populations kill each other? Well, my empathy tells me it is the pain and suffering that those populations will suffer. How can you not understand that?

    I understand it and have a reasoned and rational explanation for why it is so. You on the other hand Alex have conjecture and a theory that points to a natural world that never protests when one lion troup massacres another or a child/adult of any population suffers at the hands of another from that species. I point to one supernatural 'miracle' and the world makes sense, you need a miracle every where you look and every moment of history for evolution to make sense of you or other humans.

    Conscience has a natural cause resulting from evolution of brain physiology, there is no evidence of anyone "giving it" to anyone.

    Now, now Alex, have you so quickly forgotten what we discussed regarding neurophysiology? Even those at the top of that field do not understand how the brain and consciousness (let alone conscience) come to exist. This is underlined by the micrancephalic and ancephalic children I referred to. There is mystery there but don't give me this patronising 'magic' nonsense when even the best are mystified by the mind. If the brain and mind are so splendidly shrouded in mystery then how can you or any scientist say God could not give conscience to man, given you cannot even measure what defines a person how do you presume to be able to define or exclude God?

    So again, please come up with some evidence for your empathy from the natural world, sometime soon.

    ReplyDelete
  23. BTW you misquoted those bible verses too Alex, they all point to the evil that would come if God's people would not follow Him but rather would embrace other gods. Incidentally these gods that they worshipped demanded all manner of evil acts as worship, including child sacrifice and prostitution. The evil acts you speak of were the things that God gave them over to, not the evil that God comissioned.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Please come up with some evidence for empathy that comes ONLY from the supernatural god in your world, and try doing it without using references from your holy book (which is, aside from being the definitive, unprecedented, infallible word of your god, just a rehash of other people's opinions from a long time ago in a land where they really did believe in fairies... paraphrase if you like, I'll have to check my copy for the usage of the word fairies). Take the Bible away (or the Qu'ran, or the Bhagavad Gita, or whatever) and you literally have nothing left to work with, except your own opinions (which, funny enough, puts you on the same pitch as the rest of us poor, poor sinners... oh the shame). Heck, invent another revelation if you like. Religious pranksters have been doing it for centuries. Man, that's got to have a few gods pretty upset (Can they get upset?). To think they spent so much time trying to get their ideas just right, only to have their little blobs mucking it all up. If only it wasn't so darn easy. Can I get an amen for interpretation?

    And to help you out with evidence of empathy in the natural world, I'll offer this (--Christian smacks lips here--). I feel empathy towards my fellow human beings (even the ones who choose to worship all sorts of deities), without any influence of something supernatural. No influence? How can this be? This magnificent creature Yahweh is so thorough, so wise. How has he eluded me? How have I eluded him? Ohhh the denial I'm in. Or is it guilt? No, I think that would be your ballpark. Maybe it's that pesky little fella Satan who has got me in the clutches of evil, and masked my sensibilities to the true nature of right and wrong in this world. Nope, deny him to. It's easy if you try. (And thank you Ryan for pointing out in another stream that this Satan creature, much like a lion, roams around the Earth looking for people to deceive... Lorne Greene and Steve Irwin would be proud).

    Guys, I've said the same thing to just about every religious person I've ever been friends with (is that possible... yep). The moment you invoke a supernatural entity to satisfy an answer to a question that seemingly has no answer, you've solved nothing, even if you never intended to. All you've done is shown you ran out of ideas (or chose to accept something you otherwise feel guilt in refuting). That's the beauty of real science (--Christian inserts plug for intelligent design here--). We continue to investigate and discover so many wonderful things about our universe, and all you guys ever do is say it's already been found (again, feel free to paraphrase; I might be stretching that one).

    One day, a few thousand years from now, the holy books of today will have run out of things to say about this world (say hello to Judaism), or just lost that good old-fashioned chutzpah. And the rub working against you is that you can't change your gods word in the meantime; your god just wouldn't stand for it (or at least it shouldn't with everything it has sacrificed for you). You could offer that it would be legitimate for generations in the future to reinterpret the word, but then that is just another form of change. I guess we'll just have to get another visit from the big guy (or his son, or his spirit... ah, all three, more the merrier) so we're all clear on the matter. I think that's supposed to be in our lifetimes, right. I anxiously wait. I'll gladly turn believer if it shows up, no shit. How could I not.

    And one last proof of empathy, in supernaturalese, if you like. Your god still loves me, and most assuredly will take me into the immaculate confines of heaven with open arms; even if I don't think it's there (and regardless of what you say). I don't even have to worship it, or confess my sins to it. How do I know that... because the loving and tolerant god of the Christian bible (of which I am created in its own image, apparently, and that is key), teaches us that it is in fact better to love and be tolerant. It surely wouldn't go against its own word would it? If you care to paraphrase and say that Yahweh intends to send me to hell for not believing... then I guess empathy just ain't what it used to be.

    Thank you for keeping the spark alive.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Please come up with some evidence for empathy that comes ONLY from the supernatural god in your world, and try doing it without using references from your holy book

    Oh, please spare me! This is almost as imbicilic as saying "find out what a quark is without reference to nuclear physics".
    Robin, you like Alex are very good at rhetoric and like most atheists sprinkle your offerings/rantings with a liberal amount of sarcasm and strawmen. The only way that we have available to know directly what someone says or thinks is in their communication to ourselves or others. Likewise the same goes with God.
    If you dislike the bible as a source text find some way to disprove it's validity (asside from your obvious incredulity and lack of understanding of it). Until then as it has been validated by science/archeology/literature and historic studies you will just have to make do. Also you will like Alex have to come up with an explanation of where your empathy originates from. Why do you have empathy?
    God has said that He made you like all humans in His image and wrote the law apon your heart that is why you have any empathy at all, regardless of your denial. This would fit with your conscience as it accuses you, a pointless waste of energy in an evolutionary system but utterly fitting if we are called to be moral and holy beings by God who is outside us and utterly perfect and Holy.

    We continue to investigate and discover so many wonderful things about our universe, and all you guys ever do is say it's already been found

    Hmm, heres an iteresting thought for you then Robin, name me one pre-Christian (so not to get the two influences confused) athiestic society where science has flourished. Science has been still-born in most cultures and in the athiestic philosophical worldview that is even more the case. There is nothing quite like the belief that all the world is caused by foundationless random interactions in the universal chaos to stop scientific progress. The Christian worldview where there is certainty in the laws of the world (because there is an absolute law giver holding them in place) gives science its needed foundation.
    The modern atheism is a bastard breed of ancient philosophy riding on the back of stolen science produced largely by Christ believing scientists! You claim to be science based but deny the very basis by which you do science in the first place. No wonder you are all confused.

    the loving and tolerant god of the Christian bible, teaches us that it is in fact better to love and be tolerant...say that Yahweh intends to send me to hell for not believing... then I guess empathy just ain't what it used to be.

    First please tell me where in the bible you found that love and tolerance is the overwhelming message of the bible.
    Second your conclusion is false, tolerance is where someone with power allows something they view as wrong to continue for given reasons. It is true that God tolerates you and others who do evil, your unbelief is just the capstone really. God has gone to extravagant lengths to give you love, this is seen best in the person of Jesus Christ who died for sinners like you and I. This doesn't change the fact that He views it as wrong, and as such if you continue to refuse His love one day you will face judgement and hell. The bible affirms this in many places.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I already answered it (yes… I did). If you can’t figure it out, I guess you’ll just have to interpret it. Circle around it a couple times, that should help. Hopefully you won’t get it wrong. However, it appears to me like someone just likes the sound of their own voice (or is that god within you... or the spirit... man it's just so confusing), or maybe you just got your knickers in a bunch. Anyways, you just don't seem to get it. That's okay, to each his own. Just come down from the pride podium once in a while will ya (and remember, pride is a sin… gonna have to hit the confessional a little more often I think).

    If love and tolerance isn't your message, I'm stumped. What more is there in life to be positive about without love and tolerance? It's how we all learn to live with each other. If it isn't the overwhelming message of the bible, it certainly should be. Guess you missed on that one.

    Name me one modern society not still caught up in superstitious nonsense? (If you can’t paraphrase that, I don’t know what can be).

    As far as the "validity" of the bible goes, there's more than enough literature out there on the topic of its credibility, or lack thereof. (And no, I won't try to unload all of the critique on this as there are plenty of heavy-weights out there a lot more eloquent than the both of us who've actually had decades of research into in).

    But like I said above, to each his own. I don't hate you, I don't hate anybody. Just isn't something within me. And I just don't feel obligated to tell everyone how much I want them to agree with me. They can do what they want. That's why life is so interesting.

    I gotta move on now. Life is just too short to waste on argumentation about its nature with people lost in a story they'll never feel comfortable telling completely (oooh, I can hear those lips a smackin')

    All in good fun brother..
    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Never mind then Robin. God Bless you, I don't hate you either, I just wanted to challenge your perspective.

    BTW you just said you have empathy, you didn't say where you got it.

    Anyway bye for now.

    ReplyDelete

Note: All comments that contain inappropriate or off-topic material will not be approved. Also, generally posts that contain links/URLs will not be approved.