Believing it is not proving it

I haven't seen the basis of your logic yet.My preference is to start with facts. What statements or general ideas in the plain text of the Bible are contradictory to the theory of evolution?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

I'm not referring to the Bible.

---

Then what is your logic based on?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

The more I think about it though, I believe there might be a dilemma in my thought process that I can't solve.

---

I feel the dilemma is that you are missing quite a bit of information.Try to understand what is actually in the Bible as opposed to what various groups present. Adds more info to the mix.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

The dilemma is this: If God does not exist, then presumably our morality is subjective. And if our morality is subjective, my judgment that evolution is immoral would also be subjective and therefore meaningless.

---

Whether God exists or not, human morality (individual or corporate) is subjective. It is from the viewpoint of the individual or the group.Your conclusion that evolution is immoral is subjective and meaningless. But the only reason it is meaningless is because you are not judging a human who can make decisions. You are trying to project human morality on a process. The process doesn't make decisions.IMO, creatures have their own set of "morals".Is there some reason you feel that all living things should have the same moral code?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

If one is a Christian or Jew or Muslim, one has to believe in an objective morality. Otherwise, sin would be a meaningless concept.

---

Why? Morality is nothing more than the rightness or wrongness of an action or being in accord with the principles of right and wrong in conduct. Each individual, culture, or civilization decides what is right and wrong for their group.If you live in an apartment by yourself, you can run around the apartment naked, eat whatever you want out of the fridge, or keep the apartment as clean or as cluttered as you please. BUT, if you have a roommate, then there is a need for rules to define allowable conduct.Even between Jews, Christians, or Muslims what is considered morally wrong or right differs in some areas and situations. It even varies among sects within each religion.

quote:

---

If God made the process, then He is responsible for it morally.

---

Refer back to your Message 238. Don't change tracks on me. We are still working with the idea that God does not exist. So it is fruitless to project the concept of human morality onto a process that makes no conscious decisions.

quote:

---

I'm assuming that animals don't have a moral code and so are not responsible.

---

But animals do have their version of a "moral code." Look at wolf packs or a pride of lions. It is unreasonable to expect their code to be the same as ours and judge them by our standards.

quote:

---

He who made the animals would be responsible.

---

Again, we are still working with the premise that God does not exist.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

purpledawn writes:

​

So it is fruitless to project the concept of human morality onto a process that makes no conscious decisions.

​

If God does not exist, of course it is fruitless.

---

So we agree on this point, although I would say it is fruitless whether God exists or not.

quote:

---

If moral rules are just ideas "decided on" by somebody or some group, then these rules are subjective, of no more significance than my preferring blue to green, the violation of which cannot possibly constitute "sin" in the theological sense. That's why, if one is a Christian, one has to believe in objective morality, which would be as objective as 2 plus 2 make 4.

---

I don't feel that comparing the importance of human morality with color preference to be a just comparison. Although through the ages there have probably been some rules just as ridiculous. (Deut 22:11)Your objective math example: If you have two apples in one hand and two apples in the other, then you have four apples. No matter what you have two of in each hand or by what language you call the items, you will still have four items. Same in the plant and animal world.So let's look at human morality. People probably feel that the base elements of our morals are objective, but I don't think they would be considered as universally objective as the math example.Our definitions today.
Do not kill (to cause the death of, to destroy life)
Do not steal (to take another's property dishonestly, esp. in a secret manner)Still assuming there is no God, can these very simple rules be viewed as objectively wrong for all life forms? Can one penalty be applied to any breech of these rules?

So you're saying that these very simple rules cannot be viewed as objectively wrong for all life forms or that one penalty be applied to any breech of these rules. Correct?

quote:

---

What answer can one give? I shouldn't kill her because it's wrong to kill her? That's begging the question. Why is it wrong? Oh, well, because I wouldn't want somebody to kill me?

---

Exactly. Objectively it would make sense to do away with her and make good use of the money, but if you put yourself in her shoes your view would change. So is the original decision really objective?Now let's look at human morality with a God in place. The same two rules listed in Message 256 which are also listed in the Bible. Assuming that there is a God, can these very simple rules be viewed as objectively wrong for all life forms? Can one penalty be applied to any breech of these rules?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

We must make a distinction between subjectivity and circumstantiality.

---

Why? We are dealing with the very basics.

quote:

---

Suppose there were a God and we knew his objective moral rule was, "Thou shalt not murder."

---

The question is:
Assuming that there is a God, can these very simple rules be viewed as objectively wrong for all life forms? Can one penalty be applied to any breech of these rules?Your math example: 2+2=4
If you have two apples and I bring you two more you will have four. It doesn't matter if I hand them to you, roll them to you or throw them at you, you will still have four. It doesn't matter what color the apples are or their condition, you will still have four. It doesn't matter if it is a dog, a horse, or a person who brings you the two apples, you will still end up with four. It doesn't matter if it is in war, peace, flood or famine; you will still have four apples.So given your example of objective, answer the questions?Assuming that there is a God, can these very simple rules (do not kill and do not steal) be viewed as objectively wrong for all life forms? Can one penalty be applied to any breech of these rules?Are they truly objective? I would say no. Human moral rules are made to deal with human interaction with each other.Let's look at the apples again. You have two and I give you two. You have four apples. So 2=2=4, but I stole the apples to give to you and now you are an accomplice. We both go to jail. That doesn't change that 2+2=4.

quote:

---

So IF the killing was in fact unjustifiable

---

What is justifiable and what isn't is also subjective. The person doing the killing may consider it justifiable, whereas someone judging may not.Rules may be added or changed due to circumstances, but does that make them any less subjective? Deciding someone's fate is not always cut and dried.The circumstances don't change that 2+2=4, but our actions can change whether we enjoy eating them together or possibly spend time in jail.So are the two rules in their most basic form, objective?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

If we knew there was a God and we knew that God wrote in our hearts those two rules, then yes they would be objective.

---

Why does that make it objective?What do you mean written in our hearts? I assume you realize that the heart muscle has nothing to do with decisions and following rules. I know what the Bible writers mean by it, but if we are to determine objectivity we need to avoid inaccurate ancient terms. Hopefully I haven't done that before now. Plus you said you weren't pulling from the Bible.Did God apply those two rules to all living things?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Oh, please. My use of the word "heart" is quite common in conversation and literature.

---

I realize that, but your statement smacks of the Old Testament. But you say you aren't relying on the Bible. We are looking at a God, not a religion. I need to know that you are looking at reality and not mixing in bits and pieces of a religion or religions.How does the existence of a God make the rules not to kill or not to steal objective? A God is still a being subject to feelings.By looking around you can see that those rules don't apply to all living creatures. If to kill was objectively wrong then it would always be wrong no matter what the circumstances. Theoretically no living creature would kill.2+2=7 is wrong. We can write it wrong as I just did, but I don't believe we can make it wrong in reality. If you have two apples and I give you two more, I can say seven, but you still only have four apples.

quote:

---

Well, I don't think God exists, so no. But if God existed, at least the type of God I'm thinking of, we would know what's right and wrong just as we know arithmetic. There would be no doubt about it.

---

I realize you don't feel that God exists, but we are looking at this from the viewpoint that he does. We want to see the God that is, not the one you are thinking of. I hate to say this, but be more objective. Let go of your preconceived idea of the God you don't believe exists. Look at what is. I feel you are basing your opinion on what you know of religion and probably have an unrealistic expectation.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

What I meant was, there is no way to ground a moral rule logically. One just ends up begging the question. To ground it, you need an Absolute. If you're saying I don't know if there's an Absolute or not, that's true; I don't for sure.

​

ABE: But what I do know is that, without an objective morality, the concept of "sin" is meaningless.

---

Why? And no Message 254 doesn't answer that question.You are making your own rule. How is it more logical to say don't kill each other or steal from each other because God said it is wrong, as opposed to, don't kill each other or steal from each other because the tribal elders said it is wrong or your parents said it is wrong. The elders have learned from experience that it is better not to kill each other or steal from each other. What is illogical about that?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

God, if He existed, would have the absolute truth.

---

According to who? Again you are making rules on what God should be. Look at what is, not what you feel should be.

quote:

---

Elders and the parents may or may not right. What's illogical about not killing or stealing? It's not logical or illogical, or at any rate cannot be shown to be so. It's just a preference of no more significance than our preference for cetain colors or a certain look in the opposite sex or any other of those subjective preferences. Ultimately, it's arbitrary.

---

I disagree.Logic is correct reasoning. Who determines what is correct reasoning?Let's look at killing. From an objective standpoint, do all creatures kill? It doesn't matter for what purpose. Now I haven't studied all creatures, so I won't say yes, but let's look at the one creature we do know, Humans.Do humans kill? Yes
Can an elder or a God make a blanket rule not to kill at all? IMO, no.
This is where we get to the circumstances or specific reasons for killing.Since we have a drive to survive, is killing other creatures for food wrong? From a survival standpoint, no.Still with survival in mind; if enemy humans attack and steal your food for the winter, this threatens survival. Is it wrong to kill if other means do not deter the enemy?If the enemy that is attacking also kills the people in your village, is it wrong to kill to protect the lives of your family or tribe?If a member of the tribe or family kills another member over a trivial argument, is it wrong to kill in that instance?These are some possibilities that elders or a God would have to reason through to determine moral rules.Looking at human history, we see that not all leaders made logical or wise rulings and their civilizations suffered.The more people that must coexist together the more complicated the rules get.While I think we can analyze the situation objectively, creating rules are still going to be based on feelings and experiences or subjective. But that doesn't necessarily make the rulings arbitrary or illogical.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

So you have created your own idea of God.Interesting. You're an atheist who creates his own idea of God and then deems that that God does not exist because the world doesn't fit your idea of what that God would allow.IMO, it is much easier and less stressful to understand the reality of the God concept.This message has been edited by purpledawn, 04-07-2006 09:01 AM

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz