Is morality subjective or objective? This is an intriguing question which has been debated over by theists and athiests alike. The theists usual argument is that if Morality does not derive from a higher power than it is subjective. I shall attempt to prove that this is the case.
I think it is useful to start from a point outside of the realm of morality to discover insights about morality. Human beings are creative. We constantly build things which make our everyday experience better or more pleasureable etc. When we as individuals create something for some purpose, we judge the value of that object as good or bad based on how well it performs the use for which it intended. For example a car designer is tasked with making a car that gets 30 miles to the gallon. after the car is made it turns out to only get 10 miles to the gallon. Thus the car is a bad car. on the other hand if the designer had made a car which went 40 miles to the gallon it would be a good car.
We do not make such value judgements on things which we do not actually create. For instance a tree or a rock or a stream of water is neither good nor bad. Thus we observe that we place value on things based on how well they serve the purpose for which they are created.
If we apply this same criteria for value on human beings we are forced with one of two options. Either man is a created being in which case we are good or bad depending on how well we performs the actions we were created for. Or Man is the result of random chance in which case we have no intrinsic purpose and thus good and bad are merely subjective judgements.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
CA, are you aware that Darwin thought man's evolution WAS a random chance sort of happening? That's what evolution IS. You have said you don't think Darwin was necessarily atheistic --but he did think the whole process was "natural," and unguided, did he not?
Atheists do think Darwinism gives them license to be subjective about morality --because they see his theory as compatible with their Godless worldview.
Barb said...
CA, are you aware that Darwin thought man's evolution WAS a random chance sort of happening? That's what evolution IS. You have said you don't think Darwin was necessarily atheistic --but he did think the whole process was "natural," and unguided, did he not?
Actually Darwins theory is that species evolved through the process of natural selection as a reaction to environmental stimuli. Thus if you take naturalism as a presuposition then yes Evolution is random chance. If, however, you presuppose the existence of God then Evolution becomes guided.
Atheists do think Darwinism gives them license to be subjective about morality --because they see his theory as compatible with their Godless worldview.
I find it interesting that evangelicals didn't have a problem with Darwins theory until the 1920's. If Darwins theories truly supported Athiesm, as you contest that they do, surely such opposition would not have been so long in coming.
I'm surprised to hear that 'evangelicals' didn't have a problem with evolution early on. Of course the bible believers had a problem with the idea that man evolved from primates.
I'm not so sure when the term "evangelical" was coined to describe Bible-believers --the forerunner term was "fundamentalist" --later some evangelicals didn't want to be identified with "fundamentalists" if it meant, as some thought, to be suspicious of higher education, extremely concerned about dress, dance, jewelry, makeup, etc. Actually, fundamentalists were concerned for certain fundamentals of doctrine in the Christian faith. and their opposites were the "modernists."
My grandfather was an evangelical fundamentalist -- and he certainly never believed Darwin--but this was even a more difficult position to take in HIS day --because people assumed (as many still do) that science was all on the side of the evolutionists --but the Bible believers have gained in their confidence since MANY scientists who know as much as the evolutionists say that Darwin's theory is refutable.
My grandfather was an evangelical fundamentalist -- and he certainly never believed Darwin--but this was even a more difficult position to take in HIS day --because people assumed (as many still do) that science was all on the side of the evolutionists --but the Bible believers have gained in their confidence since MANY scientists who know as much as the evolutionists say that Darwin's theory is refutable.
Darwins scientific theories have been, over the course of the last 150 years, improved and pruned such that his book 'origin of the species' no longer represents evolutionary theory as it stands today. The problem I keep running into with you is that of terms. You use the term Darwinism as if the theory of evolution and the philosophy of naturalism are insepperably linked. This is simply not the case.
The creationist movement started as a reaction to the naturalist movement. As more people began using the theory of evolution to try and support random chance, christian scientists reacted by saying that evolution supported divine creation. Most of the fathers of the modern creation movement were in fact what we now refer to as old age creationists.
BY the way --when I use "caps," it's a short cut for bold and for vocal inflection for emphasis --I am not shouting.
Would you call "Old Age Creationists" the same as what we also refer to as "theistic evolutionists?"
I would not. Old Age Creationists (a new term to me) COULD still be those who simply believe the 6 days of creation were eras, much longer than literal 24-hour days. They could include those who surmise that Genesis could be metaphorical/poetic description of God's role in creation --the "let there be light" and the rib and so on but who do not believe in evolution per se. However, this latter definition of an "old age creationist" is unlikely since geneology from Adam exists in the Bible --so at what point does that kind of creationist decide the Bible's history becomes recorded history and is no longer metaphorical/poetic?
Any kind of Creationist by definition does not believe in billions of years of evolution in order to naturally evolve by natural selection all the varieties of life from one living cell produced by some naturally occuring event after a Big Bang.
CREATIONISTS, BY DEFINITION, typically do NOT believe in "evolution" or "Darwinism" --no matter how you define the latter two terms. ID theorists might believe such, according to Rob. They just don't accept the atheistic/naturalistic IMPLICATIONS of Darwin's theory.
Dictionary defines Darwinism as follows:
the Darwinian theory that species originate by descent, with variation, from parent forms, through the natural selection of those individuals best adapted for the reproductive success of their kind.
n. A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory.
a theory of organic evolution claiming that new species arise and are perpetuated by natural selection
Darwinism (där'wĭ-nĭz'əm)
A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Darwin's ideas have been refined and modified by subsequent researchers, but his theories still form the foundation of the scientific understanding of the evolution of life. Darwinism is often contrasted with another theory of biological evolution called Lamarckism, based on the now-discredited ideas of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.
Many older laymen who describe Darwin's theory give Lamarckian examples --when they say, e.g., that "man evolved to walk upright so he could better see enemies and carry his food through the tall savannah grasses." As though "need" had anything to do with evolution or any genetic influence. YES, natural selection is the process by which the genes for survival are passed on in the surviving creatures because those who didn't survive took their genes for vulnerability with them. Right? But a NEED or DESIRE arising for a creature to improve his progeny has nothing to do with influence on the genes.
The creationist does not believe Darwin's theory accurately explains or describes how all of the life forms were generated from a common cell of life. He doesn't see any transitioning today from one kind of creature to another --not even incrementally. Why not? He sees that bacteria --which evolve countless generations rapidly --are still bacteria at the end of the day. Likewise viruses. That's what the Bible says --each produces after its own kind.
YES, natural selection enhances traits for survival in like-creatures --but common ancestry of all
mammals is not proven by the research so far. And fossils of extinct creatures don't prove transition either.
I realize that you can believe in Darwinian evolution and believe God did it that way. And you might call yourself a Creationist for believing in a Divine Creator but that is confusing. It is better to call yourself a believer in ID or a theistic evolutionist. Because "creationist" usually means those who do not believe in Darwin's explanation of origins of life from one cell spontaneously transitioning to all the other life forms by "natural selection."
Creationists are happy about the ID movement and consider themselves the fore-runners, even though there are those ID folks who don't believe in 6-day creation, who don't take Genesis literally, who think 6-day, Young Earth Creationists are denying evidence and who themselves, allegedly, believe Darwin's theory is how God did it --and would be called "theistic evolutionists" as well as ID proponents.
Both groups, Creationists and ID, certainly agree that there is evidence for intelligence and design behind life and the universe --a higher power or intelligence. Both groups seem to believe that Classical Darwinism/evolution IS atheistic, denying intelligence behind life, in its implications.
And for sure, many, many Darwinists/evolutionists certainly do oppose ID theory --and call it a belief in religion. But it's not necessarily religious to question any of Darwin's atheistic/naturalistic implications, and study and do research which leads to a conclusion that there is INTELLIGENT DESIGN behind life.
Such as Behe concludes in his book, Darwin's Black Box, with its mousetrap illustration of DNA.
Political correctness is affecting science as evidenced by the sneering disrespect and academic discrimination from evolutionists to ID proponents. There is such anger on the side of those who believe evolution is proven --to any who dare question any facet of it. Why? It's a diabolical reaction.
You speak of the diabolic influence on the ID/Creationists' side of the argument. I think the vitriol belongs to the evolutionists who want to shut down all dissent as know-nothing nonsense. Yet, the dissenters to Darwinian orthodoxy ARE scientists, ARE intelligent, and ARE capable of objectivity. I think 95 % of the defenders of Darwin's theory --which IS naturalistic --just ASSUME it has been proven --the "billions of years" of earth age and the emergence of life from one cell and the gradual, incremental genetic changes of natural selection as explanation for emergence of all species from that one cell.
To which I say, with no vitriol, no animosity to anyone, but with considerable good nature --"poppycock!"
Post a Comment