Posted on 02/05/2002 8:18:30 AM PST by JediGirl
For those of us who are constantly checking up on the crevo threads, why do you debate the merits (or perceived lack thereof) of evolution?
For the sake of discussion, I will concede this. ;o)
Each of my rational actions is chosen in affirmation of my values, in pursuit of my happiness.
OK, I'm with you so far.
In order to pursue happiness, I must be free to act in accordance with my own understanding of it. Other human beings likewise require freedom to act in accordance with their own understanding of happiness, in order to pursue happiness. There are only two ways in which a rational human being may be prohibited from acting in accordance with the dictates of his own will. Initiated force, and fraud. If I am to pursue happiness, I must be free of initiated force and fraud on the part of others. If I am to claim the pursuit of happiness as a moral imperative, I must be willing to deal with others only by consent, forswearing the initation of force, or fraud. And there you have it in a nutshell.... a rationally derived moral code.
In other words, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." We are in complete agreement, as far as this goes.
Now, if I may play devil's advocate, the logic of this breaks down in the leap from being free myself to pursue my happiness, to having a moral imperative to allowing others the same freedom. Why not, if I have the power, run roughshod over other's rights, if it advances my own desires (rational or otherwise)? The problem I see with your proposed code is that it is a matter of preference, not of imperative.
Something that is almost always missed is the fact that we are ALL mutations. The term "species" is really just a way of grouping DNA that is sufficiently similar despite its differences. Sexual reproduction is a form of controlled mutation; it creates a new organism that at the DNA level is fundamentally different than either of its parents and which may exhibit particular abilities above and beyond either of its parents.
The human species has a vast number of genetic variations within its own genome. We don't look at these differences as "mutations", but that is in fact what these variations are. Over time, the basic characteristics of the human species have changed as we've moved into different environments with different selection pressures. The various overt physical differences among people alone is obvious evidence of this. Over time and space, these minor mutations add up and the differences become more pronounced. Every time you look at a fossil you ARE seeing a mutation, with different DNA and different characteristic tendencies than its ancestors. The problem is that it might take a linear sequence of hundreds of thousands of fossils before there was any really overt speciation, as the changes aren't really distinguishable (at least not from the fossil record) from one generation to the next. As it stands we don't have a linear sequence of hundreds of thousands of fossils, only a small number which are very spotty snapshots of the linear progression. So yes, the fossil record doesn't show clear mutation leading to speciation as hypothesized, but our current DNA and genome analytical capabilities have generally filled in the holes as to the mechanisms and such that the fossil record could not. Evolution was hypothesized LONG before DNA was discovered; many of the open questions in the evolutionary speciation hypothesis have been closed with recent technological and analytical developments in the DNA and genome related sciences.
Follow that thought. If there is a designer, there was a reason for what was designed. That means you are'nt the greatest thing in existence. It also means that some (or one) manner of living may actually have an advantage over others.
It means maybe, just maybe, a certain responsibillity for moral actions may be in the works. And that concept can be terrifying. Almost as terrifying as ineveitable, complete non-existence.
I didn't say that the constitution is a theological document. When I talk about theological foundations I'm referring to the mindset of the forefathers, where they drew the beliefs from, and how it influenced their political beliefs. Clearly the founders had core religious beliefs and values, and they are reflected in our documents whether you choose to recognize it or not.
The Judeo-Christian background of the founding fathers can be seen in the Bill of Rights and other documents that champions the dignity and worth of individuals. That mindset certainly didn't spring from the militant atheism you love so much.
The rational imperative is one of principle.
You may not claim free action by right, without recognizing the equal ability in others.
If you wish others to deal with you by consent, free of initiated force and fraud, you must do likwise.
There are no other rational alternatives.
(and man's not-all-too infrequent decent into irrationality is well understood).
Yes, that's exactly what it means. Public schools by their very nature, are immoral.
By the way, unless a man believes in God, I can't see why he should be concerned about "sin".
I don't believe in God, and I am very concerned about behavior which violates the rights of other human beings. I consider it "sin".
Now, if I may play devil's advocate, the logic of this breaks down in the leap from being free myself to pursue my happiness, to having a moral imperative to allowing others the same freedom. Why not, if I have the power, run roughshod over other's rights, if it advances my own desires (rational or otherwise)? The problem I see with your proposed code is that it is a matter of preference, not of imperative.
I can't see how one can talk of a moral principle that's applied self-servingly. Any principle - even a bad one - has to be consistent in order to even "play in the game".
I still don't know if this is a logical axiom, or just a very very strong conclusion from personal & historical experience, but it sure does hold up. On a personal level, the vast majority of rapists, robbers, & murderers are adhering to an ad-hoc, self-serving "principle". Consistency is something they seem to never have learned, & the result is always utterly destructive to themselves & everyone they touch.
OTOH, a consistenly applied principle always leads to either an obviously good result or an obviously bad one. Take communism, for example. Compared to capitalism, the results of its consistent application are clear. The only communist societies that have thrived over time to any extent are the ones who dropped large chunks of communist ideology in practice. And the safest & richest societies are the ones who practice capitalism in the purest ways. (None are perfect, of course, but there is a strong correlation between freedom & prosperity, as measured in several different ways.)
Yes, I did.
And it is 100% correct.
HE does not force you to love Him or believe in Him. The Founding Fathers imitated God in that respect. They did not wish to force belief in Him on the new nation. Forced love would be more like rape.
To me - their conscious decision to allow free choice argues more forcfully for their belief in Him than would ANY attempt to define "proper" beliefs in the confines of the Constitution.
Just addressing this superficially, the common definition of concepts such as "moment of creation" break down when talking about something like the Big Bang hypothesis. It is very hard for the human mind to conceive of things where normal concepts of "time" and "space" don't apply. Physics frequently uses metaphors from the common language to describe things that have mathematical properties that can differ substantially from common usage.
I don't think Darwinists strongly reject the concept of a creator so much as the people who posit a creator for the universe do so using naive assumptions and necessities that aren't actually correct in the context of the theory. In other words, the metaphors by which many people understand physics break long before you actually get to the point of the creation of the universe, and therefore so do many of the ideas based on those metaphors. To have really meaningful discussions of such things, you kind of have to get into the descriptive mathematics.
On the other hand, positing a creator for the universe also seems to create necessary consequences that people approaching this from a strictly religious standpoint aren't comfortable with. So while I think many "Darwinists" would be willing to entertain the idea of a creator (as it is not excluded by the theory of evolutionary speciation), it would likely be a creator that doesn't fit neatly into the religious doctrine of some individuals. I've seen as much heat between religious fundamentalists and what you could call rational creator theory as you do between the religious fundamentalists and the atheists on the same topic. All of which tends to indicate to me that these discussions are just a proxy argument for other issues the religious fundamentalists have in my opinion.
Thank you. On this we can agree, to some extent. If you were standing here, I'd offer my hand.
It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service [i.e. the founding of America] had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses
-- John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America [1787-1788]
Of course American society was overwhelmingly Christian, but so was Great Britain! What's the distinguishing characteristic of the American form of government vs. England's? It's the rejection of the concept of the divine right of kings. America was a product of the Enlightenment, & England had way too much institutional investment in the principles of the pre-Enlightenment to change with the times. (America, a small, isolated population of British subjects, speciated from England!) Lucky for us, this philosophical revolution had legs, & was a vastly beneficial "mutation".
Wow!
A keen understanding of the nature of your faith.
I think that men are not beasts. Our powers of reason raise us to the level where each of us is of great significance; and killing one of us is morally wrong. The creationist, however, if you take away the literal truth of Genesis, would not agree with me.
The above was drafted before I noticed OWK's excellent post #120. I agree with him, and I'll also stick with what I had drafted.
From #142:
Now, if I may play devil's advocate, the logic of this breaks down in the leap from being free myself to pursue my happiness, to having a moral imperative to allowing others the same freedom. Why not, if I have the power, run roughshod over other's rights, if it advances my own desires (rational or otherwise)? The problem I see with your proposed code is that it is a matter of preference, not of imperative.
There are societies that operate as you describe. Idi Amin's Uganda is a great example. Rational people reject such societies.
"The fact is, the predominantly Christian and Deist Founding Fathers could have made this a Christian government. They did not."
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.