Why We Must Teach Evolution in the Science Classroom

Red Orbit ^ | Saturday, 2 August 2008 | Laura Lorentzen

[Dog Gone]

I think I understand what you’re saying and we’re probably not that far apart philosophically as some might think.

If the Supreme lawgiver could tell us what is right and wrong, and it’s the truth, why wouldn’t it be the truth if He didn’t say it?

Is it not truth unless He says it is?

That’s my dilemma.

In fact, if it’s not the truth unless He says it is, then I’ve got a whole new dilemma to wrestle with.

[mrjesse]

If the Supreme lawgiver could tell us what is right and wrong, and it’s the truth, why wouldn’t it be the truth if He didn’t say it?

Truth? I thought we were talking about right and wrong :-)

But I guess truth can apply to right and wrong. For example, then if God says to the children of Isreal "Do not murder. Any man that intentionally premeditatedly murders an innocent man must be put to death by men, because man was created in the Image of God" it is now true to say that they must not murder because God says so. Now if you remove the God part of it, it is no longer true to say "Do not murder because God says so." So in this case, the truth, that they must not Murder because God said so, is no longer true if we assume God didn't say so.

But it's getting a little confusing, which is why I wasn't (in previous posts) using the term "truth" but rather "right and wrong."

In fact, if it’s not the truth unless He says it is, then I’ve got a whole new dilemma to wrestle with.

As I said, I'm trying more to deal with right and wrong rather then truth, since truth encompasses much more. But let's hear your dilemma anyway, if you like!

Thanks,

-Jesse

[Dog Gone]

I don’t really distinguish between truth and the concept of right and wrong because I was referring to the truth about what is righr or wrong.

If you dissect them, they are somewhat different concepts because you can surely speak the truth about things that are wrong, or about what things are right.

So, let’s stick to right and wrong, and whether those concepts can exist outside someone else telling us what that is.

My fault. I muddied the waters unintentionally.

But I’m not sure how we can expect to solve the discussion. I think you can have a moral compass without a belief in God, the lawgiver, and you don’t. We can both give examples of people on either side of that divide who are either moral or immoral.

Maybe there doesn’t have to be a winner or loser in a debate. Maybe it can just be an exchange of ideas where both sides wonder who had the best argument or whether there was even a best argument. If it wasn’t imperative that the argument be settled, perhaps that’s the best thing.

[mrjesse]

But I’m not sure how we can expect to solve the discussion. I think you can have a moral compass without a belief in God, the lawgiver, and you don’t. We can both give examples of people on either side of that divide who are either moral or immoral.

Oh, yeah, you can have a feeling of moral compass without God - and so could I - but the two compasses may point in opposite directions, in which case, which one of us is right, when we can't both be right?

Do you believe that any act exists which is just outright wrong, anywhere on the world at any time in history?

If the answer is "No," then I rest my case in that without God there is no such thing as universal right or wrong beyond Might Makes Right. If the answer is "Yes," then arises the question "How do you know?" to which possible answers are "Most people agree" -- but that's just another case of Might (in numbers) makes right.

But it dawned on me that I may be talking about something else then you're trying to talk about. Are you talking about the statistical likelihood of people behaving in a generally Godly way naturally, even when they believe there is no fear-driven reason to do so?

Even here though history and the news is full of evidence that lots and lots of people don't do any such thing.

Thanks & have a nice day,

-Jesse

[steve-b]

Do you believe that any act exists which is just outright wrong, anywhere on the world at any time in history?
If the answer is "No," then I rest my case in that without God there is no such thing as universal right or wrong beyond Might Makes Right.

Non Sequitur. If your case is "resting" after a single irrelevant statement, it needs a lot more rest to recover from its critical illness.

[steve-b]

Are you talking about the statistical likelihood of people behaving in a generally Godly way naturally, even when they believe there is no fear-driven reason to do so?
Even here though history and the news is full of evidence that lots and lots of people don't do any such thing.

You sure you want to raise historical arguments?

[mrjesse]

Non Sequitur. If your case is "resting" after a single irrelevant statement, it needs a lot more rest to recover from its critical illness.

Ha ha - easy to say. Anyone can say anything, why not be a grownup and show me? That'd do more good to me and everyone!

I think my point that if one believes that there is no single act that is unquestionably wrong no matter what person you are or where you are in the world, then that person obviously does not believe in the existence of universal wrong!

And short of universal wrong, the only kind of right and wrong is might makes right.

So go for it! Maybe I'll learn something. I've been wrong in the past, and I have no doubt that I will be wrong in the future, and it is entirely possible I'm wrong in the present. So teach me!

Thanks,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

You sure you want to raise historical arguments?

What's with this strange scheme of yours? I just did raise historical arguments! I think anyone that looks around will see many different civilizations, often in bloody clashes, each with their own clashing contradictory rules of right and wrong. And obviously if any two people have contradictory ideas of right and wrong they aren't both correct. Without a supreme moral lawgiver, the stronger of the two people will be correct by might makes right.

-Jesse

[steve-b]

Simple. We need only go back to your own statement:

Do you believe that any act exists which is just outright wrong, anywhere on the world at any time in history?

Now, one of these three statements is true:

1. "Ethnic cleansing" is wrong today and was wrong at the time of Joshua's conquest of Caanan.

2. "Ethnic cleansing" is right today and was right at the time of Joshua's conquest of Caanan.

3. There is no such thing as immutable "right" and "wrong".

Pick one.

[mrjesse]

Simple. We need only go back to your own statement:

Said mrjesse: Do you believe that any act exists which is just outright wrong, anywhere on the world at any time in history?

Now, one of these three statements is true:

1. "Ethnic cleansing" is wrong today and was wrong at the time of Joshua's conquest of Caanan.

2. "Ethnic cleansing" is right today and was right at the time of Joshua's conquest of Caanan.

3. There is no such thing as immutable "right" and "wrong".

Pick one.

You'd be right if one assumes that there is no such thing as God. Of course if you assume there is no supreme moral lawgiver, then you're stuck with options 2 or 3 anyway. By the way, I like your clear succinct logic, even if it is slightly lacking in detail. In any case, if one grants that there is God, then there is a 4th option:

4. If God said don't do something, it's wrong. If God says go do it, it's not wrong.

Just like in our society it is illegal to murder people, and yet the punishment for certain crimes (such as murder of innocent) results in the legal killing of the perp, so also in God's economy certain acts deserve death as punishment. So if God says it's wrong to murder, then murder is universally wrong. But that does not prevent God from rightly executing punishment on people or even whole nations. Sometimes God used Joshua's army as you mentioned, and sometimes he just hit'em with fire and brimstone as he did in Sodom and Gamorah.

The difference between ethnic cleansing now and the total destruction of a nation at God's command is that God is (per the Bible) the supreme moral lawgiver and has the right to set the rules and punish as he pleases those who disobey his rules.

So as you can see not only (as I said before) does the existence of right and wrong beyond right makes right require the existence of universal right and wrong which requires the existence of a universal moral lawgiver, you can also see that the required universal supreme moral lawgiver then (assuming he exists) has the power to decide what is right and what is wrong by his own ideas alone, and also has the right to enforce his rules.

I most certainly do believe God exists, but that's not my point here. My point here is that his existence is logically workable, and it is the only way that such a thing as wrong can exist beyond might makes right. (And actually, even God's ability to determine for all the world what is right and wrong is a form of right makes might - but it's God's might, and it trumps all of mans might put together, and so it is therefore universal.)

So let me ask you this: Do you believe that there is any act that is universally wrong?

Thanks,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Simple. We need only go back to your own statement:

Said mrjesse: Do you believe that any act exists which is just outright wrong, anywhere on the world at any time in history?

Now, one of these three statements is true:

1. "Ethnic cleansing" is wrong today and was wrong at the time of Joshua's conquest of Caanan.

2. "Ethnic cleansing" is right today and was right at the time of Joshua's conquest of Caanan.

3. There is no such thing as immutable "right" and "wrong".

Pick one.


By the way, I would love to know which you picked of the above 1,2, or 3 :-)

Thanks,

-Jesse

[steve-b]

OK, then, you pick Option 3 (Moral Relativism).

[steve-b]

If God said don't do something, it's wrong. If God says go do it, it's not wrong.

For an infidel, you are very perceptive about my moral righteousness. I appreciate that -- I think I will kill you last.

[steve-b]

Of course, I picked (1), since I believe in morality. You rely on somebody else, and thereby picked (3) (i.e. the same act can be right or wrong, depending on whether or not you were just following orders).

[mrjesse]

OK, then, you pick Option 3 (Moral Relativism).

No, you lie! I did not pick 3 for myself. But what I've been telling you is that without a supreme moral lawgiver, #3 is the only logically coherent choice. As it turns out, I believe in the existence of a supreme moral lawgiver.

-Jesse

[steve-b]

Of course you picked option (3) — you’re punting the decision upstairs, and if the decisions coming from upstairs change from time to time then morality itself changes (i.e. there is no such thing as a fixed moral standard). A system of “morals” derived from pure authority is so inherently flexible that it makes Plastic Man look like Al Gore.

[mrjesse]

Of course, I picked (1), since I believe in morality.

I may rely on God as supreme moral lawgiver, but you rely on yourself! So let me ask you this - how do you know that ethnic cleansing is wrong? Who made you a judge? Lots of people disagree with you (not myself included) and either they are wrong or you are wrong. How do you know it's wrong? What if you were the only person in the world who thought it was wrong, would it still be wrong?

You rely on somebody else,

Somebody else who is supreme and who has the right define what is right and wrong universally.

and thereby picked (3) (i.e. the same act can be right or wrong, depending on whether or not you were just following orders).

You're incorrectly lumping capitol punishment together with murder of the innocent. That'd be obviously dishonest if we were talking about the capitol punishment of a guilty convicted serial killer today - and I think if you'll go look, the mass killing that Joshua's army did (which you call Ethnic Cleansing) was always against a group of people who were sinning against God and God was capitoly punishing them. Often times it was so bad that God even commanded Joshua to not take any spoil but burn it all in the city.

Another aspect is that something is wrong because somebody says to not do it. If a supreme moral lawgiver says don't do it, then it's universally wrong. So in the case of God, it is true that if he defines right and wrong, and that things are wrong because he says not to do them, then he can logically make exceptions under which the thing could be done without it being wrong -- because the driving force that made it wrong in the first place made the exception. But I think you will find that pretty much doesn't come into play in the Bible for most things.

How do you know that ethnic cleansing is universally wrong?

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Of course you picked option (3) — you’re punting the decision upstairs, and if the decisions coming from upstairs change from time to time then morality itself changes (i.e. there is no such thing as a fixed moral standard). A system of “morals” derived from pure authority is so inherently flexible that it makes Plastic Man look like Al Gore.

As I said before, you're lumping capitol punishment in with the murder of the innocent.

But what I'm saying is that logically in order for your favored number one (ethnic cleansing is and always has and always will be wrong) there has to be somebody who says so who is supreme and who is more mighty then all of the people put together.

Or to put it this way, the whole concept of wrong is built upon somebody with authority 'Saying so.'

If there's no supreme "Say so" then it's just might makes right, and there's no such thing as universal wrong, because the rulling majority might say it's wrong at one point but then change their minds later.

Would you say that our basic disagreement is whether universal right and wrong can exist without a supreme moral lawgiver existing?

-Jesse

[steve-b]

If God said don't do something, it's wrong. If God says go do it, it's not wrong.

Not Wrong.

[mrjesse]

If God said don't do something, it's wrong. If God says go do it, it's not wrong.

Not Wrong.

You prove my point well! The concept of wrong is based on the idea of somebody saying "Thus and such is wrong."

You also well illustrate that no universal right and wrong can be arrived at by everybody without everybody agreeing on who the supreme moral lawgiver is!

I think this well demonstrates that logically there is no such thing as universal right or wrong except to the degree of might makes right, unless one grants that there is a universal moral lawgiver!

This also well demonstrates that universal right and wrong simply cannot be arrived at without influence of a supreme moral lawgiver! We obviously think the terrorists were wrong, but they and their supporters obviously thought that they were right!

Whether a supreme moral lawgiver exists (I think God does) and just who it is (I say God as described in the Christian Bible) we're still stuck with the logical bind which says that in order to have universal right and wrong, their must be a supreme moral lawgiver.

You never did get around to answering my question as to how you know that ethnic cleansing is wrong!

The fact is people behave based on what they believe. You say that you believe ethic cleansing is always has been, is, and always will be wrong - and that's real easy to say, but how can you convince somebody else of it? How do you know its true? Obviously lots of people disagree with you - how do you argue to them that they are wrong and you are right?

If you were the only person in the world who thought that ethnic cleansing was wrong, would it still be wrong?

Thanks,

-Jesse