Would be a built in survival mechanism, I would think, like the system in a human female that delivers the sperm to the egg. Hard for an original organism to get along without those systems long enough to evolve them. 
Posted on 11/28/2001 8:21:55 PM PST by Phaedrus
True.You've missed the point completely. The argument is not about morals per se -- anybody can invent a system and call it "morals."
Rather, the argument is about absolute morality -- without which concepts such as "unalienable rights" make no sense except as a matter of convenience.
Ah, but "absolute" morality as I think you're defining it is what we Objectivists would call a "floating abstraction". You can think of morality as being absolute in its proper context: In this case it's the context of humankind. (Otherwise this same "absolute morality" should be enforced for lions when they ruthlessly gang up on a zebra!)The standard-issue FR libertarians (and objectivists in general) claim that one can by reason alone discover and prove the existence of absolute morality. Such claims do not stand up to logical scrutiny, however -- and evolutionary theory (which they tend to defend with vigor)provides empirical evidence to that effect.
Morality is a tool we humans use to sustain civilized society, which is the only way a thinking species like ours can exist above the Ted Kaczynski level. This is obviously an objectively Good Thing for humans.
The plain facts are that homo sapiens is a species of thinking animals. In fact, we have little in the way of instincts that we can rely on to survive - that's why we need to live in the protection of our parents for 15 years or more. And all our knowledge of how the world works and how best to survive & thrive in it comes from using our rational capabilities to sift out truth from mere fantasy & wishful thinking.
Couple these two fundamental truths about our species with one more insight from game theory: In an environment where people interact with each other again & again over time (i.e. civilized society), the most profitable strategy by far is to cooperate honestly with everyone, except in order to retaliate against someone who lies or steals from you - even if you'd profit more in the short term by screwing the other guy first. These 3 things alone imply very, very much about what a proper, sustainable moral system for humans should look like. And you know what? It looks very much like the standard Libertarian code: "Non-initiation of force or fraud" + "Individuals are ultimately responsible for their actions, not groups".
I contend that these basic codes are so profitable a long-term survival strategy compared to anything else, that they have been selected for by evolution ever since our ancestors first started getting big brains & formed complex social networks. This is why it's utterly ridiculous when some on your side (not you, I don't think) claim that evolution encourages us to act like lower animals.
That doesn't follow at all. If unalienable rights exist, they are objectively true. You're saying an objective truth cannot have its basis in objective reality??? Whazzup wid' DAT???Logic demands that if unalienable rights exist, they must have a source outside of "objective reality."
Hawking is a big-time tripper - can't you tell?
Sometimes I'm willing to share such a pessimistic view of humanity. And if that was the case, maybe I could go along with it, re-learn all the stories & learn how to retell them to others with a sincere look on my face. But even then I wish there was a place where us religious leaders could all let our hair down & admit freely to each other that we're only spinning these mythical mystical tales to keep the lumpen proletariat in line. But none of the very knowledgable religious advocates here on FR are willing to come out & admit that. (Maybe 'cuz it's a public forum? If any of you creationists admitted it to me in private, I wouldn't tell.)That's correct, but postulating a deity is very useful if you want people to follow those morals. Of course it would be wonderfull if everyone understands the reasonings behind those rules but reality shows that this is not the case. Only a minority really sees the consequences that can arise if you follow respectively do not follow those rules. For the rest the "do/don't do that because I told you so" argument should suffice.
Now if this "I" is an immortal god that knows and sees everything the chances are much higher that the people obey those rules as if it were a mere human.
As an example imagine what Islam would be today if Mohammed wrote in the Qu'ran that he said this or commanded that and not Allah.
You know what's ironic? Even a moral code that depends on believing in God takes mental effort to construct & to implement it properly in one's day-to-day life! IOW, a person can apply it in a self-serving, spur of the moment way, or in a reasoned, objective way. Having God at the center of one's moral code is no guarantee that it'll turn out good for human life. Witness the Taliban.
Another from the great state of Washington, my new home. You from Seattle?
You realize of course, that if we convince people that they are descended from the British, they will all start driving on the left side of the road! :-)
Please, West Seattle!
But even then I wish there was a place where us religious leaders could all let our hair down & admit freely to each other that we're only spinning these mythical mystical tales to keep the lumpen proletariat in line. But none of the very knowledgable religious advocates here on FR are willing to come out & admit that. (Maybe 'cuz it's a public forum? If any of you creationists admitted it to me in private, I wouldn't tell.)
LOL, but maybe they don't come out and admit it because most of them really believe all that stuff and those that don't believe it are not going to tell anyone because that's part of the game ;->
A good example for this are politicians. While I don't deny the fact that most of the major politicians are devout Christian/Jews, I'm pretty sure that some are not that religious at all but they pretend to be because I don't know one who says that religion is of no importance to him. They don't have to be atheists but Christians who are not deeply religious and thus don't go to church very often or don't go at all. But as soon as they run for an office they go to church every Sunday and make sure they are seen doing so but as they are no longer in office and have no further political ambitions they don't go to church any longer. That may be hypocritical but it's necessary if you want to have success.
So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 10.0].
Would be a built in survival mechanism, I would think, like the system in a human female that delivers the sperm to the egg. Hard for an original organism to get along without those systems long enough to evolve them.
There are lots of "organisms" without the particular systems of another organism, and they seem to get along just fine without them.
I for one would love to live in the world of Jefferson vs. the amoral, scumbag, hedonist society of the post-Darwin era. If you enjoy the chaos and moral relativism of modern society then you are welcome to it. There are still many who would love to live in a world with some principles.
Unknown at this time. There are some theories as to how, but "why" is more of a theological question.
How long had it been there "unexpanded" before it decided to expand??
The question is actually unanswerable because time, as physics deals with it, essentially did not exist prior to the universe. Time can variously be considered to be a measure of entropy or a measure of the expansion of the universe. It really has no conceptual or mathematical meaning prior to the existence of the universe itself.
How are you certain that space expanded? Were you there?
None of us were around to see T-Rex either, but we've got good fossil skeletons that make the scientific case for its existence. Likewise there is good evidence for spacetime expansion.
Are there people who DON'T do acid who believe that space expanded??
Expansion is supported by obeservable astronomical evidence. It is very clear from observation that on the large scale, all objects in the universe are moving away from each other (there are exceptions on a smaller scale when say, two galaxies come under the influence of each other's gravity well and begin to collide). The best way to explain how all objects can be receding from every other object is to envision them as existing on the surface of a hypersphere. If you stuck two dimensional objects on a half inflated balloon and then blew it up, all those objects would likewise recede from every other object on the surface of the baloon. The conceptual leap is that the objects aren't moving through spacetime so much as they are moving along with expanding spacetime.
RadioAstronomer or Physicist can certainly explain it better and more accurately, but that's the back of the sugar packet explanation, anyway.
I for one would love to live in the world of Jefferson vs. the amoral, scumbag, hedonist society of the post-Darwin era. If you enjoy the chaos and moral relativism of modern society then you are welcome to it. There are still many who would love to live in a world with some principles.
I once thought as you did, but as I've grown up, I've realized that history isn't all it has cracked up to be, and that the past is generally must nastier and much more toxic than today. Living in 18th century America was bloody, dirty, and filth and disease ridden. Sort of like living in scarier parts of the world right now. Your life expectancy would be about 15-20-25 years shorter than it is right now, and if you got your wife pregnant, you wouldn't be sure that she or your new child survived the birthing process.
I'd also hazard a guess that the idyllic morality that you strive for in the past isn't all you make it out to be, either. Give me now over then anyday.
You and me both! :)
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.