Posted on 01/26/2006 1:47:10 PM PST by jennyp
...
Third, complexity does not imply “design.” One of Adam Smith’s most powerful insights, developed further by Friedrich Hayek, is that incredible complexity can emerge in society without a designer or planner, through “spontaneous order.” Hayek showed how in a free market the complex processes of producing and distributing goods and services to millions of individuals do not require socialist planners. Rather, individuals pursuing their own self-interest in a system governed by a few basic rules—property rights, voluntary exchange by contract—have produced all the vast riches of the Western world.
Many creationists who are on the political Right understand the logic of this insight with respect to economic complexity. Why, then, is it such a stretch for them to appreciate that the complexity we find in the physical world—the optic nerve, for example—can emerge over millions of years under the rule of natural laws that govern genetic mutations and the adaptability of life forms to changing environments? It is certainly curious that many conservative creationists do not appreciate that the same insights that show the futility of a state-designed economy also show the irrelevance of an “intelligently designed” universe.
...
Evolution: A Communist Plot?
Yet another fear causes creationists to reject the findings of science.
Many early proponents of science and evolution were on the political Left. For example, the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 affirmed support for evolution and the scientific approach. But its article fourteen stated: “The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible.”
Subsequent humanist manifestos in 1973 and 2000 went lighter on the explicit socialism but still endorsed, along with a critical approach to knowledge, the kind of welfare-state democracy and internationalism rejected by conservatives. The unfortunate historical association of science and socialism is based in part on the erroneous conviction that if humans can use scientific knowledge to design machines and technology, why not an entire economy?
Further, many supporters of evolution were or appeared to be value-relativists or subjectivists. For example, Clarence Darrow, who defended Scopes in the “monkey trial” eight decades ago, also defended Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb. These two young amoralists pictured themselves as supermen above conventional morality; they decided to commit the perfect crime and killed a fourteen-year-old boy. Darrow offered the jury the standard liberal excuses for the atrocity. He argued that the killers were under the influence of Nietzschean philosophy, and that to give them the death penalty would hurt their surviving families. “I am pleading for life, understanding, charity, kindness, and the infinite mercy that considers all,” he said. “I am pleading that we overcome cruelty with kindness and hatred with love.” This is the sort of abrogation of personal responsibility, denial of moral culpability, and rejection of the principle of justice that offends religious conservatives—in fact, every moral individual, religious or atheist.
In addition, nearly all agnostics and atheists accept the validity of evolution. Creationists, as religious fundamentalists, therefore see evolution and atheism tied together to destroy the basis of morality. For one thing, evolution seems to erase the distinction between humans and animals. Animals are driven by instincts; they are not responsible for their actions. So we don’t blame cats for killing mice, lions for killing antelope, or orca whales for killing seals. It’s what they do. They follow instincts to satisfy urges to eat and procreate. But if human beings evolved from lower animals, then we might be merely animals—and so there would be no basis for morality. In which case, anything goes.
To religious fundamentalists, then, agnostics and atheists must be value-relativists and subjectivists. Whether they accept evolution because they reject a belief in God, or reject a belief in God because they accept evolution, is immaterial: the two beliefs are associated, just as are creationism and theism. By this view, the only firm basis for morality is the divine edicts of a god.
This reflects the creationists’ fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of morality.
Morality from Man’s Nature
We humans are what we are today regardless of whether we evolved, were created, or were intelligently designed. We have certain characteristics that define our nature.
We are Homo sapiens. Unlike lower animals, we have a rational capacity, an ability to fully, conceptually understand the world around us. We are self-conscious. We are the animal that knows—and knows that he knows. We do not survive automatically, by instinct, but must exercise the virtue of rationality. We must think. We must discover how to acquire food—through hunting or planting—how to make shelters, how to invent medicines. And to acquire such knowledge, we must adopt a rational methodology: science.
Furthermore, our thinking does not occur automatically. We have free will and must choose to think, to focus our minds, to be honest rather than to evade facts that make us uncomfortable—evolution, for example—because reality is what it is, whether we like it or acknowledge it or not.
But we humans do not exercise our minds and our wills for mere physical survival. We have a capacity for a joy and flourishing far beyond the mere sensual pleasures experienced by lower animals. Such happiness comes from planning our long-term goals, challenging ourselves, calling on the best within us, and achieving those goals—whether we seek to nurture a business to profitability or a child to adulthood, whether we seek to create a poem or a business plan, whether we seek to design a building or to lay the bricks for its foundation.
But our most important creation is our moral character, the habits and attitudes that govern our actions. A good character helps us to be happy, a bad one guarantees us misery. And what guides us in creating such a character? What tells us how we should deal with our fellow humans?
A code of values, derived from our nature and requirements as rational, responsible creatures possessing free will.
We need not fear that with evolution, or without a god, there is no basis for ethics. There is an objective basis for ethics, but it does not reside in the heavens. It arises from our own human nature and its objective requirements.
Creationists and advocates of intelligent design come to their beliefs in part through honest errors and in part from evasions of facts and close-minded dogmatism. But we should appreciate that one of their motivations might be a proper rejection of value-relativism, and a mistaken belief that acceptance of divine revelation is the only moral alternative.
If we can demonstrate to them that the basis for ethics lies in our nature as rational, volitional creatures, then perhaps we can also reassure them that men can indeed have morality—yet never fear to use that wondrous capacity which allows us to understand our own origins, the world around us, and the moral nature within us.
Edward Hudgins is the Executive Director of The Objectivist Center.
And a trillion years ago is was nothing.
Sort of like getting slapped with a Man-Bag er, purse.
Quoting: "I don't know HOW He did it, but I think it's so."
Ahh, the ever-present-but-unseen argument.
This argument is not allowed when students flunk engineering exams. Bridges have to hold up according to secular science, and you are not allowed to use God or fairies in your analysis.
Good thing, too.
But, I'm not USING it as an argument.
Many bridges have been built NOT using science, but seat-of-the-pants knowledge of strength of materials available.
NO bridge will 'hold up' if too much load is on it.
[i]Hayek showed how in a free market the complex processes of producing and distributing goods and services to millions of individuals do not require socialist planners. Rather, individuals pursuing their own self-interest in a system governed by a few basic rules—property rights, voluntary exchange by contract—have produced all the vast riches of the Western world.[/i]
This did not occur without design and planning. This infrastructure occured due to smaller scale planning and desgin of private organization and individuals. The basic laws of commerce also acted as "designers" for this system.
I think there is plenty of wisdom in the bible. The same goes for Atlas Shrugged. I just think both of them have to be taken as "inspired" books, and not "infallible."
Jesus himself took parts of what are now the bible with a grain of salt. Remember the woman taken in adultery?
parsy, the holy.
Too many posts to scroll through. Gotta let it go.
I would've loved to throw in some puns if any had been suitable.
Cheers!
If the urges are simply dispersal of seminal fluid, Bob can just wank off every so often.
What you're doing in that story -- don't know if you hold it as a general principle -- is equating happiness to sexual fulfillment; and suggesting that doing the right thing never involves suffering, either your own or others'.
Try reading Rush Limbaugh's piece on the suffering of those who signed the Declaration of Independence...
Even their families were miserable afterwords; including one whose son was starved to death in prison.
Did they do the right thing?
Full Disclosure: In other words, sometimes one is in a situation where no matter WHAT you do, people suffer. And to make it worse, you don't know for sure in advance what that suffering will be. Your story is a strawman.
If anything I'd argue an atheist or agnostic who is a deeply moral and ethical person in his actions is more impressive than a religious person who is equally deeply moral and ethical person in their actions but is doing so because they're expecting a post-death reward or avoiding a post-death punishment.
Impressive to you. But maybe not to God ;-) Which is precisely the point many Christians would make; but not all religious people.
But your last sentence interests me. Why are you assuming so many religious people are motivated by fear of punishment or for rewards? King David (try reading the Psalms) talks as if he were motivated by loyalty to God and love of God; you can find similar sentiments in many New Testament writings...
Full Disclosure: ...I've not forgotten about those 72 Virginians we keep hearing about ? KABOOM! :-( Cheers!
How is this possible?
Bullwinkle knows, but even Boris and Natasha couldn't get him to talk.
Cheers!
Gotta go read real work and do my sit ups!
What you're doing in that story -- don't know if you hold it as a general principle -- is equating happiness to sexual fulfillment; and suggesting that doing the right thing never involves suffering, either your own or others'.
No. As I remember I was trying to illustarte how a blind adherence to the words in the bible can lead to a lot of unnecessary suffering. I think that they do. Sadly, the alternative often leads to suffering also. I think you have to weigh out the suffering. If you accept literal meaning, you are deprived of this choice.
parsy, who suffers from a lot of stuff
Well I agree with that.
I think you have to weigh out the suffering. If you accept literal meaning, you are deprived of this choice.
But obedience to scripture could also prevent other problems: if all homosexuals had just engaged in celibacy, or at worst, masturbation, we'd have no Michael Jackson or Catholic priest molestation trials, and MUCH less AIDS.
The problem here is that our society is so radically
[ even fundamentally, perhaps? ;-) ] different from the all kinds of strictures in the Bible, that it's hard to make realistic comparisons. What would happen if the 10th commandment (thou shalt not covet) were enforced? Poof, there goes the luxury car market :-) ...
But still, your response is more thoughtful and respectful than many posts from those questioning or challenging religious truths or doctrines...
Cheers!
The way in which the theme of liberty is portrayed in the Christian Bible—through the concepts of salvation, free will, the opportunity to choose good over evil—is indeed unique.
And “liberty as a woman,” from the link you give, describes another concept central to the Christian Bible. The ultimate form of liberty. Liberty as freedom from sin, the liberty of our Blessed Virgin Mary.
Thank you for the nice comments. I do not disrespect the bible even if I do not believe it word for word. I do not believe that this universe or life just happened by accident. I just can't make the jump from that belief to creationism, per se.
parsy, who sometimes doesn't leap.
Careful now, parsifal. We don't want any outbreaks of goodwill and mutual respect on crevo threads, do we? ;-)
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.