Posted on 02/14/2003 5:41:19 PM PST by Remedy
Where did all the water come from...and where is it hiding now?
... thus making them ... ah ... er ... "future missing links"!!!
Does the evolutionist account, bent on explaining everything without recourse to God, leave any room to discover moral meaning on earth? I don't believe so.
The problem is even worse than that. I saw one of them chemistry books -- the kind they use in those public schools -- and gull darn, it's shocking -- there was no mention of God in there. Not even once! Clearly, Satan's influence is growing.
</flaming idiot mode>
Regards
And I think your argument relies on a category error. Morality is not a free-floating abstraction, rather it's a survival tool based on the requirements of human nature.
But why do YOU think we should be moral? Which of the following reasons do you agree with? And can you think of any others?
Why Refrain from Harming Others?
Morality tries to answer the question, "why shouldn't I harm others if I want to?" There are several reasons people can give for why you shouldn't initiate force or fraud on others. Let's look, as an example, at how I might convince you not to steal:
1) Enlightened Self-interest - If I tell you not to steal because in the long run it destroys that which makes a thriving civilization possible, then I'm giving you a long-term, indirectly selfish reason not to steal.
2a) Eternal Damnation - If I tell you not to steal because this life is really just an audition for a second, infinitely long life that begins when this one ends - and there's this all-powerful God who will punish you forever, then I'm also giving you a long-term, directly selfish reason not to steal.
2b) Karma - If I tell you not to steal because you're going to be reincarnated after this life ends, and your status in the next life depends on your behavior in this life, then I'm also giving you a long-term, directly selfish reason not to steal.
3) Empathy - If I tell you not to steal because if you put yourself in the victim's shoes, wouldn't that feel terrible, then I'm giving you an immediate, directly selfish reason not to steal. This argument depends on you being able to feel empathy. (This is an effective tool for perhaps 98% of the population, and is one of the best tools for teaching morality to children. I think it's so effective because reason #1 is so compelling that it was selected for by evolution.)
4) Crime Does Not Pay - If I tell you not to steal because I & the government I support will getcha if you do, then that is an immediate, directly selfish reason not to steal (or at least to make sure you don't get caught).
5) Duty - If I tell you not to steal because "it's just wrong", then I'm invoking a reason that does not appeal to your selfishness at all. In fact, this argument doesn't appeal to any facts about the real world - it's essentially an arbitrary statement! This sometimes works with children if they recognize me as an authority figure. In that case they implicitly trust that I have a good reason to say it's wrong but for some reason I don't want to explain it to them. But adults demand explanations, so if I use this argument on an adult it basically amounts to me begging you to please please don't steal.
Notice that there is only one argument for moral behavior that does not ultimately appeal to your own self-interest, and that one is arbitrary! This is a pity, because at first blush #5 sounds like it should be the most compelling argument of all: It sounds so final & absolute.
Theists' moral systems are based on #2a, and sometimes #5. Usually they will acknowledge the truth of #1, though they don't think that's enough of a reason to be persuasive. In practice their system would have to depend on #2a, 3, & 4. Atheists' moral system is based on #1. We think that #2a & 2b are factually untrue or (unprovable & therefore moot). In practice our system depends on #1, 3, & 4.
Both atheism & theism have fundamental reasons for moral behavior - #1 & 2a respectively. But in practice both atheists and theists can agree that #3 & 4 must be supported by a healthy society.
Honest believers are also humble. Recall that "through a glass darkly" thing? Recall the "many mansions" thing?
Are you so sure of your own intellect that you are willing to dismiss the evidence of creation itself, and assert that all of physical existence is a Potemkin Villiage?
I would have thought that this would be doing the ID movement a considerable service. Haven't many of them been careful to distance themselves from young-earth creationism? According to his book, Behe certainly accepts an old earth and common descent. Perhaps the YEC movement should be more forceful in distancing themselves from men like Behe.
The increasing accuracy with which science models nature should be everywhere apparent to people who have been alive for a few decades. Such performance is not possible if you're stuck with a story from 2000 years ago and can only see what "helps" it and must be utterly blind to its many failures.
But their basic fallacy is the idea that overturning one "known fact" refutes all of science. It's just a total lack of understanding of what science "is".
I'm curious. Have you read the links we provided regarding the Moon Dust argument or the Moon's Recession argument? Have they made "the smallest dent" in your reliance on them?
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.