“I couldn’t give a [profanity] whether a person calls himself a scientist. Science has covered itself with glory, morally, in my time. Scientists were the people in Germany telling Hitler that it was a good idea to kill all the Jews. Scientists told Stalin it was a good idea to wipe out the middle-class peasants. Scientists told Mao Tse-Tung it was fine to kill 50,000,000 people in order to further the revolution.”
–Ben Stein
Oh, I forgot to add: To be fair, maybe this person doesn’t realize that secular society doesn’t base its laws or morals on evolution, or that they find purpose in what they do, not where they came from.
Understanding this much would be a good start.
Frequent Reader did not say you won’t have law, morals, intelligence, uniqueness, etc. On the contrary, we can all observe that those things do indeed exist. What the commentator said was that evolution gives no adequate explanation for why we have these moral motions. They exist, but how does one account for their existence if we’re nothing more than billions of years of chance random processes?
That’s exactly what he said and what he’s been saying throughout this whole discussion. To him, there is no third rail. It’s God or bust. To wit:
Quote: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Romans 1:20,21”
The guy is clearly a quack. When he doesn’t know something, he just makes up crap. You’ve got to be cognizant of at least that much:
Quote: “Why should Secular Humanism, which by it’s own definition is a religion, be held up as the state religion in our public schools while out of the other side of their mouths they cry separation of church and state?”
*sigh*
Honestly,”where do morals come from?” Are you serious? The answer’s so obvious, you’re gonna kick yourself when you hear it: they exist because we created them. What makes you think it has to be more complicated than this?
In criminal justice studies, the consensus model is a pretty good example of how we come create laws and morals: We all agree that certain things are bad and that certain things are good. We then outlaw things that everyone agrees is bad for society. Take murder, for instance. Everyone agrees that murder is bad, because nobody wants to be murdered. Make sense?
Why do we have laws and morals? Because that’s how society survives and prospers. What is the point of life if not to prosper?
Postsimian, on the contrary, I think the consensus model only begs the question. The consensus model is based on agreement among people who have already made moral judgments on an issue. It doesn’t explain why “everyone” has those moral judgments in the first place.
Your example was, “Everyone agrees that murder is bad, because nobody wants to be murdered.” Yes, and everyone believes that slavery is bad because nobody wants to be a slave… except, wait! We did have slaves for hundreds of years in the U.S., and slavery still exists elsewhere in the world even today. Not only that, but plantation owners prospered during that time and big corporations (and American consumers, incidentally) still prosper today from slave labor overseas. So, if there’s a consensus (whether in the U.S. in the pre-Civil-War era, or globally today) that favors the exploitation of slave labor, then does that mean slavery and exploitation are good? In fact, wouldn’t that mean that they are indeed moral by your reckoning, since we create morals by consensus?
I’m not sure where this conversation went just now, but good show! I think that if we want to go anywhere with this, we’re going to have to lay out some kind of definition for “morals” and “laws,” that we both agree on, because to me it looks like we’re speaking different languages right now.
Anyway, I’m going to make this response brief: Consensus is not universal, it is achieved within groups, otherwise we’d be living in Utopia, free of all conflict. It separates moral from amoral (like the slavery issue) not in the sense that it transcends morality, but that it discards it.
Now that we’re entering the realm of philosophy, good and bad are poor words to use: instead, let’s replace them with “acceptable” and “unacceptable,” respectively. If you want to get in a good versus evil discussion, that’s going to have to wait for another day–it’s a huge discussion apart from moral origins.
Good discussion. Your move.
You guys just wait until I have the time to get in on this!
Heh. First you said it wasn’t complicated, that I was going to kick myself because it’s so darned simple, and that “everyone” agreed on these morals. Now you’re saying that it’s a huge discussion requiring a more technical definition of “morals,” yada yada yada.
Whatever. Why don’t we just let it go. It’s pretty clear that everyone is ensconced in their own beliefs, so there’s really little benefit from a further protracted discussion.
No, I said good versus evil is a huge discussion, not the origins of morality. I suggested settling on a definition so we understand each other, but nice attempt at a cheap shot anyway. Next time get the quote right.
Okay, I’ll agree to let it go. Especially if it’s gotten to the point of twisting people’s words to fit into an argument.
“because it’s so darned simple, and that “everyone” agreed on these morals”
Didn’t catch this earlier, but I thought I’d address it: Read up on consensus and conflict models and you might get the drift.
Morals do indeed embody consensus. If it didn’t we surely would still be stoning people as punishment. The Bible calls for stoning on several occasions. Yet even the most ardent Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. shirk at the notion of actually carrying that sentence out.
The very consensus that stoning is acceptable, still exists in other parts of the world. I encourage you to look for them on YouTube or Google and check your reaction after viewing them.
Moral behavior is derived from a fundamental sense that being nice will achieve more than being mean and that cooperation achieves more than selfish behavior. Morals can change over time as the circumstances of our world changes. We write moral tales, celebrate existing moral tales, interpret anew old moral tales, discarding what is no longer relevant, as best suits the needs of society. Those tales exist to reinforce that which we hold a consensus. It isn’t all as flip as it sounds. It isn’t ‘well stoning is ok today but tomorrow it is not’. The consensus of moral values, usually, changes slowly over time. Moral behavior is conservative by nature.
Postsimian, I believe you’re simply playing semantic games. First you spoke condescendingly about how simple the explanation was — and you used the terms “good” and “bad” in doing so. Then when I challenged you using the same terms, you switched gears and said those weren’t good terms — that we should instead use “acceptable” and “unacceptable.” Then you recast your simple explanation as a much more complex issue of “good versus evil” — making an artificial distinction between that and the origins of morality.
I’m always happy to engage in discussion with those with whom I disagree, but not when they continually treat me and other commentators like idiots. You should be able to make your point without being personally insulting to people who don’t share your point of view.
C.J.: Calling Jesus a “Jewish zombie” was intended to be inflammatory, but you shouldn’t offense to it. After all, my ‘counterpoint’ was the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may you be touched by His Noodly Appendage) and I referred to Him as a “plate of anthropomorphic spaghetti”. Hardly the tone/demeanor of a vicious insult. 🙂
postsimian: I certainly cannot claim “Jewish zombie” as a creation of my own mind. If the MAFIAA and BSA had their way, somebody out there on the world wide interwebs would soon be suing me for “IP theft” or some such nonsense.
Wow, way to fail. You’re the one focusing on semantics, not me. I was trying to further the discussion by asking for mutual understanding. Instead, all I got was a weak attempt at twisting my words to support a poorly-conceived counterpoint.
Gee, I couldn’t imagine why you’d feel that you were being treated like an idiot after all that. Guilty conscience, much?
Pff. I’m done here.
Sounds good. Come back if/when you learn how to have a civil conversation.
Anytime I see a religion vs. science debate I think of this
http://lucis.net/stuff/clarke/9billion_clarke.html
I would submit that neither science or religion hold all the answers and we all should be somewhat respectful of both. I like the quote from the movie Creator where the scientist said one day he would look into the microscope and find himself face to face with God.
vonster said “I would submit that neither science or religion hold all the answers and we all should be somewhat respectful of both.” I would agree somewhat, but the difference is even more than that.
Religion gives answers, as long as you don’t ask questions. Science demands questions, but never gives absolute answers.
Science and religion should both be respected, but only as long as they stay away from the “middle ground” known as pseudoscience. Homeopathy, astrology, and ID – I’m looking at you! Pseudoscience is not religion. Pseudoscience is not science. The fact that pseudoscience is treated as anything other than entertainment is a disgrace to every thinking person on earth.
What yanks my bell rope is what are these ID people really after? I mean seriously, if you have some sort of a ‘religious’ agenda, whether it is ID, abortion, Satan and Harry Potter…is it not enough to promote these beliefs in your own religious community? Go to your church, Catholic or Protestant, visit your ‘Amen Corner’, dirge factory, god box, holy place, mosque, pagoda, pantheon, sanctuary, shrine, synagogue, tabernacle………..
Postsimian: You are young and eager to prove your mental prowess! Focus! Restraint! Do this or prepared to get a spanking.
What yanks my bell rope is what are these “science” people really after? I mean seriously, if you have some sort of a ‘SOCIAL’ agenda, whether it is tree hugging, stem cell research, global warming and better living through chemistry…is it not enough to promote these beliefs in your own scientific community? Go to your campus, Private or Public, visit your ‘Scientific Journals’, laboratory, government or private think tanks, Congress, The Senate………..
;^)
[Comment deleted by blog owner]