Re: Religion based ethics
Russell Chapman wrote: Doug Pensinger wrote: But doesn't the randomness of evolution begin to recede once you are actually aware of the evolutionary process and actively abet it? An animal with a successful adaptation is unaware of what that adaptation is, but a human with a successful innovation can immediately recognize what and why it is successful and continue to build upon it. Not really, because we also hinder it at the same time - handicapped people who would never have had the chance to pass on the damaged genes in past millenia are now at no disadvantage in terms of conceiving and raising a child. If anything, we are increasing the randomness by allowing disadvantages to continue and promoting genetic advantages, so there's a broader range of genetic variance. Hell, in this century, even _I_ can have children and raise them to child bearing age... :-) But increasingly, our greatest assets are our minds. (tried and true example follows) How long would Stephen Hawking have lived even a hundred years ago? Essentially, I agree with you, but I think that the advantages of allowing more minds to survive has (at least) neutralized the disadvantages of allowing genetic disadvantages to survive. Doug Pure speculation though. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion based ethics
Dan Minette wrote: But doesn't the randomness of evolution begin to recede once you are actually aware of the evolutionary process and actively abet it? Then, its not really evolution. So once we become aware we are evolving, we stop evolving? As I pointed out, the aberrant behavior of the Iriquois allowed them the greatest power for the greatest time with respect to the Europeans of any native group. The 6 nations were afforded some respect by the Europeans because of their power. But, as someone else pointed out, their behavior put them in a poor position to compete with the Europeans. In turn, behaviors that eventually prove to be more successful may have appeared and failed one or more times before they succeeded. Evolution. That only works if you are taking a snapshot of about 50 years of history and calling it the culmination of history. The US is somewhat unique in that morality is actually the third priority of foreign policy (after national security and economic self interest). The US winning the Cold War was not a certainty. I was thinking of stuff like the emergence of a form of democracy in ancient Greece... What you appear to be saying is that the system that ends up the dominant system is, by definition, moral. If totalitarian systems had won, or eventually win, will that make individual freedom immoral? But that's a non sequitur because that type of system, though it continues to emerge, continues to fail. It's like saying in biological evolution, if, under normal circumstances, a clearly inferior design had "won" over an inferior one. This isn't to say that there are extraordinary cases where a less moral system has advantages over a more moral one - suspending rights during (a real) war might be an example, but those are the exceptions, not the rule. If your worst nightmares come true, and a US theocracy is formed, will that make you immoral if you are not Christian. Does might make right? You see, you are trying to foist moral relativism on me and that isn't what this argument is about. Looking at one particular system that may or may not be dominant at any given time doesn't determine what is moral and what is not. It is the trend over time _what_works_ that determines our morals. The argument given above indicates that this is true. My argument is, that some things are immoral, even if they prove successful. It was wrong to treat the Native Americans as we did, even though the power of our country is at least partially founded on that immoral behavior. Would you argue, by definition, it was right? You aren't looking at the big picture. I don't think that you would argue that any successful system in our past was free of immoral elements would you? What I see and you apparently don't is that the morals of a thousand years ago and the systems that used them are clearly inferior to those of today. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion based ethics
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Isn't there at least one, however vaguely defined purpose to > > evolution: success? > > No. Purpose presupposes intent. There is no intent in the > happenstance that some of a set of erroneously self-replicated > machines survive and self-replicate better than others. > > We attribute intent to other systems through a mechanism that is a > metaphorical extension of a quality we perceive in ourselves. Hmmm, I was going to give in and say you are correct, but after thinking about it a bit I wondered why the urges to survive and reproduce colud not be considered intent even if they are subconcious. Doug Still no [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail server. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion based ethics
> Isn't there at least one, however vaguely defined purpose to > evolution: success? No. Purpose presupposes intent. There is no intent in the happenstance that some of a set of erroneously self-replicated machines survive and self-replicate better than others. We attribute intent to other systems through a mechanism that is a metaphorical extension of a quality we perceive in ourselves. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion based ethics
- Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 2:32 AM Subject: Re: Religion based ethics > Dan Minette wrote: > > - Original Message - > > From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>I see our morals evolving before our very eyes, don't you? > > > > > > Not really. Remember there is no purpose to evolution, it just is. > > Isn't there at least one, however vaguely defined purpose to evolution: > success? In the same sense that the purpose of gravity is falling, but that's streatches the meaning of purpose. > The > > survival of the fittest is not the survival of the best. In particular, > > fittest may be a function of the sequence of environments; so the nature of > > the fittest can be somewhat random. > > But doesn't the randomness of evolution begin to recede once you are > actually aware of the evolutionary process and actively abet it? Then, its not really evolution. > An animal with a successful adaptation is unaware of what that > adaptation is, but a human with a successful innovation can immediately > recognize what and why it is successful and continue to build upon it. > > An animal is not aware of the social "laws" that guide its behavior, but > a human is not only able to see short term benefits of social behaviors, > but he is able to 1) compare those behaviors with those of other groups > and 2) compare those behaviors with past behaviors. Aberrant behaviors > may have short term success, but as in your Native American example, > eventually end in failure. Every behavior by the Native Americans ended in failure. The Euroepeans simply took the land as they willed. The result was a vast and powerful European country in the Americas. It became the super power of the world. As I pointed out, the aberrant behavior of the Iriquois allowed them the greatest power for the greatest time with respect to the Europeans of any native group. The 6 nations were afforded some respect by the Europeans because of their power. >In turn, behaviors that eventually prove to > be more successful may have appeared and failed one or more times before > they succeeded. Evolution. That only works if you are taking a snapshot of about 50 years of history and calling it the culmination of history. The US is somewhat unique in that morality is actually the third priority of foreign policy (after national security and economic self interest). The US winning the Cold War was not a certainty. What you appear to be saying is that the system that ends up the dominant system is, by definition, moral. If totalitarian systems had won, or eventually win, will that make individual freedom immoral? If your worst nightmares come true, and a US theocracy is formed, will that make you immoral if you are not Christian. Does might make right? The argument given above indicates that this is true. My argument is, that some things are immoral, even if they prove successful. It was wrong to treat the Native Americans as we did, even though the power of our country is at least partially founded on that immoral behavior. Would you argue, by definition, it was right? Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion based ethics
Doug Pensinger wrote: But doesn't the randomness of evolution begin to recede once you are actually aware of the evolutionary process and actively abet it? An animal with a successful adaptation is unaware of what that adaptation is, but a human with a successful innovation can immediately recognize what and why it is successful and continue to build upon it. Not really, because we also hinder it at the same time - handicapped people who would never have had the chance to pass on the damaged genes in past millenia are now at no disadvantage in terms of conceiving and raising a child. If anything, we are increasing the randomness by allowing disadvantages to continue and promoting genetic advantages, so there's a broader range of genetic variance. Hell, in this century, even _I_ can have children and raise them to child bearing age... :-) Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion based ethics
Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I see our morals evolving before our very eyes, don't you? Not really. Remember there is no purpose to evolution, it just is. Isn't there at least one, however vaguely defined purpose to evolution: success? The survival of the fittest is not the survival of the best. In particular, fittest may be a function of the sequence of environments; so the nature of the fittest can be somewhat random. But doesn't the randomness of evolution begin to recede once you are actually aware of the evolutionary process and actively abet it? An animal with a successful adaptation is unaware of what that adaptation is, but a human with a successful innovation can immediately recognize what and why it is successful and continue to build upon it. An animal is not aware of the social "laws" that guide its behavior, but a human is not only able to see short term benefits of social behaviors, but he is able to 1) compare those behaviors with those of other groups and 2) compare those behaviors with past behaviors. Aberrant behaviors may have short term success, but as in your Native American example, eventually end in failure. In turn, behaviors that eventually prove to be more successful may have appeared and failed one or more times before they succeeded. Evolution. No mumbo jumbo required. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion based ethics
- Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 11:41 PM Subject: Re: Religion based ethics > Dan Minette wrote: > > > > > One of the conclusions he accepted was the difficult position someone with > > his philosophy has with the foundation of ethics. It was one of his > > greatest regrets in life that there was no logical/calculus foundation for > > ethics. It was clear, by the nature of his statements, that he accepted > > that ethics have no firm foundation in his worldview. > > > > Indeed, he volunteered this when he was asked about regrets. There's an > > atheist with his eyes open. I respectfully differ with his position, but > > he certainly has strong integrity. > > > > Let me ask you this, Dan. If morals/ethics are purely a matter of > faith, and the "rules" as set forth by a god, why aren't they constant? The fundamental rules that I follow have been constant for at least 2000 years. The application has changed. Peter Gomes writes an excellent analysis of this in "The Good Book" He argues for applying Biblical principals, not practices. Practice and interpretation of basic principals are also included in scripture, but one does not have to conform to practice. One of the great things about his argument is that he starts out by showing how the temperance movement (a relatively conservative movement by the 20th century) is consistent with an interpretation of scriptural principals, even though Jesus drank wine. > Why are slavery, human sacrifice, infanticide, child labor, the > subjugation of women etc. etc. ethical in the past, but unethical now? The scriptural answer was "because your fathers were hard of heart." Another way to look at it is seeing us as growing in understanding. Further, there are changes in the world that changes the morality of a given action. For example, child labor was inherently moral when the inherent results of pulling children from the labor pool was to reduce > We are discussing gay marriage in another thread. Is it unethical in > your opinion? No, it is not. I think that the Christians who are opposed to this are not basing their arguments on biblical principals. I think that they are guided by an earlier understanding of natural law. I think that this understanding is flawed and should be perceived as opposed to fundamental biblical principals. > I see our morals evolving before our very eyes, don't you? Not really. Remember there is no purpose to evolution, it just is. The survival of the fittest is not the survival of the best. In particular, fittest may be a function of the sequence of environments; so the nature of the fittest can be somewhat random. Yes, of course, there are some things, such as eyes, which are almost inevitable along many branches of evolution. But, there are many things that survived for reasons that can best be described as luck. I don't the nature of morality is a function of chance. In addition, by this definition, might is right. For example, if the Soviet Union had won the Cold War, then an uncontrolled press would have been immoral. If you think that morality is just the rules of the prevailing culture, then this is probably a self consistent viewpoint. But, then you would have to say that all that prevents the viewpoint that it is immoral for women to live as men's equals from being true is the military and economic power of the US. I don't think this is your viewpoint, but I'm not quite sure what it is. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Religion based ethics
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Doug Pensinger ... > That gives me the impression that you think we're some kind of science > experiment. I don't think that's a logical conclusion. The point is that solving one mystery, such as the origin of species, doesn't eliminate all mystery. > Do you think maybe he coded Stalin and Hitler in to see > what would happen? How about the AIDS virus - some kind of debugging > tool? I apologize for being a bit harsh, but if the creator is so > intelligent that he can "code" an evolutionary species, why are there so > many truly horrific bugs? That is certainly a difficult question, but it's not one that science can deal with at all, since it is a "why" question rather than a "how." If we were created as described in the Bible, it is our free will that allows us to do evil things. As for the "freedom" of viruses and such, that's a much tougher question, as far as I'm concerned, but it has to do with the "fallen world" metaphor. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion based ethics
Reggie Bautista wrote: Depends on what exactly you mean by our morals evolving. Some would say that right and wrong haven't changed, but our understanding of right and wrong has, just as gravity has been the same for the past 12 billion years but our understanding of gravity has changed. So by "our morals evolving," do you mean that our understanding of right and wrong have gotten closer to the truth, or do you mean that right and wrong have changed? Right and wrong might well change as a result of a change in environment, just as physical attributes that are well adapted for one environment become obsolete when that environment changes radically. In the short term, we see modified versions of right and wrong when we are threatened either individually or as a unit. Deadly force is sanctioned if your home is invaded. We inter suspected terrorists in gross violation of our own standards because they have threatened our security (not saying that's right, but it is being tolerated). So yes, I do not believe that morals/ethics are static. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion based ethics
Nick Arnett wrote: Doug wrote: I see our morals evolving before our very eyes, don't you? The existence of evolution, whether in biology, morality or whatever, doesn't rule out the existence of God, does it? No, not necessarily, but it trumps the need for any kind of faith to understand morality. Who is the more intelligent creator, the one who creates things that cannot evolve, or the one who creates those that can? As a programmer, I'm quite sure that writing evolutionary code is a lot harder than writing the static kind. That gives me the impression that you think we're some kind of science experiment. Do you think maybe he coded Stalin and Hitler in to see what would happen? How about the AIDS virus - some kind of debugging tool? I apologize for being a bit harsh, but if the creator is so intelligent that he can "code" an evolutionary species, why are there so many truly horrific bugs? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion based ethics
Doug wrote: I see our morals evolving before our very eyes, don't you? Depends on what exactly you mean by our morals evolving. Some would say that right and wrong haven't changed, but our understanding of right and wrong has, just as gravity has been the same for the past 12 billion years but our understanding of gravity has changed. So by "our morals evolving," do you mean that our understanding of right and wrong have gotten closer to the truth, or do you mean that right and wrong have changed? Reggie Bautista _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Religion based ethics
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Doug Pensinger ... > Let me ask you this, Dan. If morals/ethics are purely a matter of > faith, and the "rules" as set forth by a god, why aren't they constant? > Why are slavery, human sacrifice, infanticide, child labor, the > subjugation of women etc. etc. ethical in the past, but unethical now? > We are discussing gay marriage in another thread. Is it unethical in > your opinion? They change for the same reason that the rules change for children as they grow up -- the same reason that the U.S. Constitution is different from the Magna Carta and the Code of Hammurabi. > I see our morals evolving before our very eyes, don't you? The existence of evolution, whether in biology, morality or whatever, doesn't rule out the existence of God, does it? Who is the more intelligent creator, the one who creates things that cannot evolve, or the one who creates those that can? As a programmer, I'm quite sure that writing evolutionary code is a lot harder than writing the static kind. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion based ethics
Dan Minette wrote: One of the conclusions he accepted was the difficult position someone with his philosophy has with the foundation of ethics. It was one of his greatest regrets in life that there was no logical/calculus foundation for ethics. It was clear, by the nature of his statements, that he accepted that ethics have no firm foundation in his worldview. Indeed, he volunteered this when he was asked about regrets. There's an atheist with his eyes open. I respectfully differ with his position, but he certainly has strong integrity. Let me ask you this, Dan. If morals/ethics are purely a matter of faith, and the "rules" as set forth by a god, why aren't they constant? Why are slavery, human sacrifice, infanticide, child labor, the subjugation of women etc. etc. ethical in the past, but unethical now? We are discussing gay marriage in another thread. Is it unethical in your opinion? I see our morals evolving before our very eyes, don't you? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion based ethics
On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 07:24 pm, Dan Minette wrote: I decided to finish my reply on religion based ethics, since there've been comments on me ducking the issue. I am more than happy to discuss it; its just that it takes a bit of time to clearly express my thoughts on it. Even if man is 'created in the image and likeness of God' that says nothing about how men should treat each others without an additional assumption that 'those created in the image and likeness of God must be treated in such and such ways'. Right, just as if one points out how valuable $100 bills are, there is nothing said about burning them being a bad idea. Rather, they are simply called valuable. The analogy is closer to 1) Man is made in God's image = This is a $100 bill 2) 'those created in the image and likeness'... = $100 bills are valuable. I cannot imagine picturing someone as the image and likeness of Love and Truth and Goodness, and still thinking there is nothing at all wrong with harming them. Sorry, but I don't see how the limitations of your imagination constitute an argument. So you might as well ditch the 'image and likeness of God' part and go directly to the 'must be treated in such and such ways' part. God is a redundant assumption that adds nothing to the line of argument. No, not really. Yes, really. To me, the real question/the real dividing point is whether one accepts the transcendental. Once one does this, one is arguing theology when one sees Love and Goodness as self-aware and the foundation of all existence or as non-self aware principals. I certainly will not claim any proof of God's existence by simplicity; I was just pointing out having one starting point for self worth, the foundation of Love, the foundation of right and wrong is not really a matter of complication. So you don't have an argument then? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "A bad thing done for a good cause is still a bad thing. It's why so few people slap their political opponents. That, and because slapping looks so silly." - Randy Cohen. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Religion based ethics
I decided to finish my reply on religion based ethics, since there've been comments on me ducking the issue. I am more than happy to discuss it; its just that it takes a bit of time to clearly express my thoughts on it. >Even if man is 'created in the image and likeness of God' that says >nothing about how men should treat each others without an additional >assumption that 'those created in the image and likeness of God must >be treated in such and such ways'. Right, just as if one points out how valuable $100 bills are, there is nothing said about burning them being a bad idea. Rather, they are simply called valuable. I cannot imagine picturing someone as the image and likeness of Love and Truth and Goodness, and still thinking there is nothing at all wrong with harming them. >So you might as well ditch the >'image and likeness of God' part and go directly to the 'must be >treated in such and such ways' part. God is a redundant assumption >that adds nothing to the line of argument. No, not really. To me, the real question/the real dividing point is whether one accepts the transcendental. Once one does this, one is arguing theology when one sees Love and Goodness as self-aware and the foundation of all existence or as non-self aware principals. I certainly will not claim any proof of God's existence by simplicity; I was just pointing out having one starting point for self worth, the foundation of Love, the foundation of right and wrong is not really a matter of complication. > I would add that although the concept of god IS redundant to that > argument, it may have been useful in persuading people to the 'must > be treated in such and such ways' point of view. But I question its > usefulness for that purpose today in places where we are enlightened >enough not to need fear and superpower to motivate and comfort us. Its amazing that such a large number of folks arguing with theists argue against a 6th graders understanding of God. Why, if you are so sure of your position, don't you consider the understanding of God put forth by serious adults? For me, the question of God is not fear of punishment if I break the rules. It's a more being out of sync with Truth and Good when I do wrong. I really worry little about heaven and hell, but worry a good deal about how my actions jib with actually living out love. >Are we not mature enough to persuade people to morality by honest >argument, trusting them to make their choices with their eyes open, >rather than tricking them into believing in fairy tales and fearing >boogey-men? What constitutes having their eyes open? It certainly is not pretending that morality comes from genetics, since we have inherent tendencies to do both immoral and moral things. Rather, it comes from accepting the implications of one's position. One of the reasons I enjoyed Weinberg's arguments in a recent discussion in Houston on God and science is that he readily acknowledged the difficult conclusions that could be derived from his position. He regretted, but accepted, the unpleasant consequences of atheism, rather than waving his arms and pretending that could eliminate them. One of the conclusions he accepted was the difficult position someone with his philosophy has with the foundation of ethics. It was one of his greatest regrets in life that there was no logical/calculus foundation for ethics. It was clear, by the nature of his statements, that he accepted that ethics have no firm foundation in his worldview. Indeed, he volunteered this when he was asked about regrets. There's an atheist with his eyes open. I respectfully differ with his position, but he certainly has strong integrity. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
