Last night I got a survey call about blood donation as apart of a study being run by Northern Illinois University. At one point during the survey, when he was asking about how much I cared that the blood I donated went to someone I knew, or someone here in town, it dawned on me that not only could I not care less who it went to, but that my blod might save some guy's life and his first stop after the hospital would be the nudie bar or his dope dealer's house. I donate five or six times a year, so theoretically I could be saving the lives of six saints or six enthusiastic sinners, even criminals. Since some blood is made into three different products, it could be 18 sinners or 18 saints.
But I realized I don't care. I do it because I have O+ blood and people in trouble need my blood. What gene is there that makes me do that? There's no reinforcement, there's no certainty that my cooperation will make society stronger and make it more likely that I (along with the recipient) will be more likely to pass on my awesome genetic material. I do it because I follow a Lord who is the ultimate in altruism, but without doubt there are many atheists and agnostics who donate blood. Can there really be a gene sequence that makes them do that? How would such a gene work, since it would basically require that certain very abstract thought patterns trigger a very concrete and specific behavior? To me, that takes more faith to believe than believing in God.
There are links to further information at the source document.
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
There is no morality without God.
“It is precisely because people believe in the divinity of Jesus that they are willing to give up their lives (sometimes literally) in service to those whom Jesus calls “His brothers.”
End of discussion. Count me as one who does not believe that a true atheist exists, based on personal experience.
Atheists are those that cannot let go of something personal in order to accept what the universe screams at them daily.
God is Dead, Nietzsche 1882.
Nietzsche is Dead, God 1900.
It takes an understanding of how human society has developed over hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of years.
Even studies of many animal species have demonstrated how many share resources and food, take care of each other and the sick, show compassion, etc.
We had a very sick cat and while he was sick, another cat looked after him and even licked his butt clean - something even the most avid theist wouldn't do for his fellow man.. ;)
It could be that species which have learned to take care of each other have a better chance of surviving and reproducing.
The crux and crucible.
It doesn’t bother you that Colson is a convicted felon?
ping
Please put me on your Chuck Colson ping list. Thanks.
When Nietzsche wrote that God was dead, he meant dead in the minds of Europe’s elite. He feared the consequences of that belief, and his concept of the Uebermensch was an unsuccessful attempt to fill the void.
Agnosticism is rationally defensible; atheism is not. To believe that what we have is an accident requires a high degree of gullibility.
ping
I know some 'Reformed' theologists that would beg to differ. The short version being that anything not done for the glory of God is not good. And if you're an atheist, you can't possibly do something for the glory of God
“That was Nietzsche, who argued that God is dead...”
BS - he argued that modern man had killed God with the newer forms of Christianity wherein believers profess a familiarity with the divine that connotes having double dated Jesus or shopping at the mall with him.
Beware of “relevent” religions where believers “know” God is what Nietzshe was saying.
Apparently, Dawkins doesn't know the definition for the word 'altruism.'
Paul Hollander suggested that in the absence of an appeal to God the source of morality becomes politics. In a sense that is what the social contract argument is stating as well. The difficulty is that when it does so morality loses its universalist characteristic and becomes subjective as a function of political identification.
This isn't unique to secular sources for morality - it is the same difficulty that a non-universalist appeal to religion finds itself in when that is a function of a similar identification - the different rules with respect to believer versus non-believer in Islam are an example of this. For example, is it immoral to lie to another human being? Where are of the latter are equal in the sight of God, yes. Where they are differentiated by group identification as believer or kaffir, no.
I suggest therefore that the real issue is that in the absence of God no universal root of morality is possible, but that the mere acknowledgment of the presence of God does not guarantee it.
This has interesting echoes in Western legal theory (it is literally ALL of Islamic legal theory). Ask a professor of law sometime to explain the difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se and get ready for an earful regarding something called a "value consensus model." The roots of that consensus are precisely the roots of morality we're discussing here. Huge topic.
I’ll stick with this “morality” thank you:
“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”; and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.”-1 Corinthians 3:19-20
Atheism is just more “wisdom” from those who reject the truth and the evidence of God. Morality is not of man’s making but a divine ordinance that even a pagan is compelled to follow, because man is made in God’s image and He is the source of all morality. This is true whether man acknowledges it or not.
I wouldn’t link morals or ethics and biological evolution. It is linked to something else entirely, something of our own creation—the state. In the moral state we would all do the moral things and have some hope of achieving whatever happiness is possible as a result. There is a ways to go.
Isn't adherence to God's moral code ultimately "enlightened self-interest" as well? After all, assuming that God is real and has given us an identifiable moral code, why should we bother with obeying it?
The answers I see most commonly are:
-To avoid His punishment or receive His reward
-Because as Creator, God knows what kind of system will make us happiest or most prosperous
-Because He told us to obey Him in His rules
The first and second answers are clearly based on self-interest. The third is simply circular reasoning- "we should obey God because God tells us to obey"- and doesn't answer the question.
I've never encountered a moral reason for obeying God's rules. If such a moral reason does exist, does this not suggest that there is some system of ultimate morality existing apart from God?
Ping
You wrote: “But I realized I don’t care. I do it because I have O+ blood and people in trouble need my blood. What gene is there that makes me do that? There’s no reinforcement, there’s no certainty that my cooperation will make society stronger and make it more likely that I (along with the recipient) will be more likely to pass on my awesome genetic material. I do it because I follow a Lord who is the ultimate in altruism, but without doubt there are many atheists and agnostics who donate blood. Can there really be a gene sequence that makes them do that? How would such a gene work, since it would basically require that certain very abstract thought patterns trigger a very concrete and specific behavior? To me, that takes more faith to believe than believing in God.”
______________________
My response: Actually, there is plenty of science out there to explain why animals (including humans) show compassion for others, or altruism, or whatever you want to call it, and it has nothing to do with “morality” or religion. There is in the brains of many animals a “mirror-neuron system” that many scientists now believe explains why and how animals develop empathy for other animals. It is in essence the manner in which animals, again, including humans, come to understand the suffering, comforting, pleasure, and other “feelings” of others.
We don’t need no stinking Bible to feel empathy for our fellow man. Altruism is a behavior we can develop from watching other animals. Buy a dog. It will teach you unconditional love.