A Christian question for scientists.

[Keith]

Huge numbers of Christian testimonies speak of a life changing supernatural experience that has led them to forgoing sinful ways and trying to live by the Moral Laws of God. Some of these like mine have been so profound that they have penetrated the flesh by sight or sound and have been written down for the benefit of all. Others in many different circumstances have sensed the Presence of God that has often surprised them. Sometimes this has occurred whilst reading the bible, or in distress, or in good times. These testimonies are not only from good living souls but also from convicted murderers and other criminals.

Science demands proof of God as if He is going to meekly place Himself under a microscope and refuses to accept these personal total life changing experiences as proof that there is more to life than they can know. Is it nonsense that the world's greatest paintings, sculptures, writings etc were inspired by God plus the world wide wonderful churches built in honour of God?

When I was involved in spiritual healing both me and the man who trained me had rays of light protruding from our fingers when the power was with us and if we tried to touch each other it was impossible because it was like two powerful magnets repelling each other. To me this was spiritual power being transmuted into the physical. When I have suggested that this simple proof could easily be obtained it has been rejected out of hand because in the words of one well known Quantum Mechanics physicist “If that were true science would be turned on its head.”!!!

My question is:

Has anyone ever read the Theory of Evolution or any other scientific paper and in a moment of enlightenment stopped living a decadent life and devoted their life to living according to the morals which for at least 6,000 years humanity has accepted as being the Ten Commandments? If not how can evolutionists claim that morals just evolved from nowhere?

Keith

[zoegirl]

I can at least clarify something.

Scientists don't believe that reading papers about evolution brought about morality.

They believe that morality or the process of thinking morally was selected for because of strong social ties between humans meant that those who thought morally were under a selective advatntage (or perhaps not "thought morally" but had a stronger thinking process towards social interactions).

I agre with you on your premise I just wanted to clarify their position.

[For_Narniaaa]

I can at least clarify something.

Scientists don't believe that reading papers about evolution brought about morality.

They believe that morality or the process of thinking morally was selected for because of strong social ties between humans meant that those who thought morally were under a selective advatntage (or perhaps not "thought morally" but had a stronger thinking process towards social interactions).

I agre with you on your premise I just wanted to clarify their position.

Reminds me of C.S. Lewis' words: "If we ask: 'Why ought I to be unselfish?' and you reply 'Because it is good for society,' we may then ask, 'Why should I care what's good for society except when it happens to me personally?' and then you will have to say, 'Because you ought to be unselfish'--which simply brings us back to where we started."

[zoegirl]

Very true, for Narnia

One of the biggest problems with the idea that morality is that it means that nothing is really "good" or "bad" but thinking makes it so.

Selection for social mores means that these mores ar ehte current evolutionary solution. That raping, stealing, and murdering are considered wrong is simply the current fashion in social mores.

Rather an unfortunate conculusion.

[zoegirl]

An interesting but somewhat blunt view of the idea of evolution of morality and social mores.

There is some language...


What they say in the beginning is true....evolution does not necessarily favor the intelligent. Survival of the fittest in NOT the idea evolution...it's simply those that reproduce more and sometimes survive more.

You can track a cohort of deer and find one deer that reproduces each year but dies at year 5 and another that only reproduces two of those years but survives to year ten.

In the model of evolutionary morality, the bleak view offered by tis movie, while sad, is morally neutral. we may view this awful society as awful but according to evolutionary models, their social order is just as valid.

[David Blacklock]

Great video zoegirl!

DB

[zoegirl]

lol, it's one of those strange videos that I am alarmed to say I find fascinating. It has horrible language but if it's caught on TV much of it is filtered. It's a very pithy statement on society.

[David Blacklock]

>>That raping, stealing, and murdering are considered wrong is simply the current fashion in social mores<<

Haven't these acts (with a few exceptions) been considered wrong in virtually all societies, in virtually all ages, and in virtually all religions?

DB

[ageofknowledge]

>>That raping, stealing, and murdering are considered wrong is simply the current fashion in social mores<<

Haven't these acts (with a few exceptions) been considered wrong in virtually all societies, in virtually all ages, and in virtually all religions?

DB

No not really. Many pantheistic tribal peoples engaged in ritual sacrifice (especially enemies captured in their neverending wars) as well as slavery followed by rape of the enemy women turned into slaves. Stealing from anyone not of your tribal people is OK in many of those socieities.

[zoegirl]

>>That raping, stealing, and murdering are considered wrong is simply the current fashion in social mores<<

Haven't these acts (with a few exceptions) been considered wrong in virtually all societies, in virtually all ages, and in virtually all religions?

DB

ah, but in the evolutionary history of mankind, raping and murdering was certainly acceptable. Certainly right now, according to evolutionary models, our brains have allowed us to develop the culture of religious mores and acceptable behavior. But since these are only current evolutionary solutions, there is nothing inherently right about our way. And our judgement on what we consider barbaric is simply the product of this social selection.

So if this crazy idea of the future ever becomes true, this would be a perfectly acceptible social system, brought about by mate choice and reproductive success. There is nothing inherently wrong about it...just as there s nothing inherently wrong about lions killing the cubs of the males in the prides they have taken over.

(just to be clear, I don't believe this, but according to the current model of human evolutionary, our social mores are just the current mode)

[David Blacklock]

Note, I said "with a few exceptions." In primitive societies, maybe the cheaters got murdered. Everybody knew who they were. Maybe it was their version of capital punishment. Below 50 to 100 tribe members, peer pressure took care of cheating and they didn't any other police system. With a few cultural and ritual variations from the system, and outside of wholesale murder, rape, and stealing, such as what occurred in war, I think most cultural mores have frfowned on murder, stealing, and rape.

DB

[zoegirl]

Note, I said "with a few exceptions." In primitive societies, maybe the cheaters got murdered. Everybody knew who they were. Maybe it was their version of capital punishment. Below 50 to 100 tribe members, peer pressure took care of cheating and they didn't any other police system. With a few cultural and ritual variations from the system, and outside of wholesale murder, rape, and stealing, such as what occurred in war, I think most cultural mores have frfowned on murder, stealing, and rape.

DB

Not disagreeing with you about the model about the cultures. But the essence is the fact that out current ideas on morality are really just that, the current solution....therefore they are not *really* right or wrong, but thinking makes them so...we may think they are wrong but really it's just what has survived.

[ageofknowledge]

>>That raping, stealing, and murdering are considered wrong is simply the current fashion in social mores<<

Haven't these acts (with a few exceptions) been considered wrong in virtually all societies, in virtually all ages, and in virtually all religions?

DB

ah, but in the evolutionary history of mankind, raping and murdering was certainly acceptable. Certainly right now, according to evolutionary models, our brains have allowed us to develop the culture of religious mores and acceptable behavior. But since these are only current evolutionary solutions, there is nothing inherently right about our way. And our judgement on what we consider barbaric is simply the product of this social selection.

So if this crazy idea of the future ever becomes true, this would be a perfectly acceptible social system, brought about by mate choice and reproductive success. There is nothing inherently wrong about it...just as there s nothing inherently wrong about lions killing the cubs of the males in the prides they have taken over.

(just to be clear, I don't believe this, but according to the current model of human evolutionary, our social mores are just the current mode)

True. The social mores we have "evolved to" don't look good. In the 20th century, many came together in atheistic secular humanism or pantheistic political constructs and it resulted in a couple hundred million perishing on top of the maimed, psychologically shattered, economically ruined, etc... If religion is merely a construct of evolutionary behavioral science which we have trended toward, then why as time progresses are we abandoning it more and more for atheistic secular humanism that results in democide/genocide/murder/sexual immorality/a lack of morals and ethics/intolerance and persecution? These things result in chaos not greater social good.

[David Blacklock]

Hi Zoegirl - At least according to the author of "Germs, Guns, & Steel" percentagewise to the population, we have less genocide than ever in history...and each generation thinking the younger generation is worse than they were goes back at least to Aristotle.

DB

[zoegirl]

hey David,

I'm not necessarily disputing what *is* happening, ie I'm not arguing whether we have a more moral society. I am presenting a scenario. *If* such a thing (declining morals) *were* to happen, we would really ave no reason to judge a society that, like the models right now for the early hominids, accepted rape and murder and theft as morally acceptable.

When morality is expressed as a result of selection, automatically it simply becomes the current evolutionary solution to society and thus really neither ultimately right or wrong. That are ancestors accepted forced sex and killing each other is just as appropriate as our society not accepting it. It's just what has been the more successful societal pressure. If there were other pressures where these currently unacceptable behaviors *were* acceptable and we eventually became such a society, then that would not be wrong.

there is no right or wrong, but thinking makes it so....that's what morality based on evolution means.