Darwin at Columbine

_{Barry Arrington
November 9, 2007

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In a recent post Denyse O’Leary linked to a news story coverning Pekka Eric Auvinen, the Finnish student who killed eight in a shooting spree at his school. Apparently Auvinen was an ardent Darwinist who considered himself to be an instrument of natural selection. He wrote: “I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgaces of human race and failures of natural selection.”

One of O’Leary’s interlocutors more or less accused her of cherry picking her data to push her personal religious agenda. Apparently this person believes this case is an aberation, and it is unfair to suggest a connection between Darwin’s theory and a school shooter’s self understanding as an instrument of natural selection. Not so.

As the attorney for the families of six of the students killed at Columbine, I read through every single page of Eric Harris’ jounals; I listened to all of the audio tapes and watched the videotapes, including the infamous “basement tapes.” There cannot be the slightest doubt that Harris was a worshiper of Darwin and saw himself as acting on Darwinian principles. For example, he wrote: “YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE??? Natural SELECTION! It’s the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms . . . but it’s all natural! YES!”

Elsewhere he wrote: “NATURAL SELECTION. Kill the retards.” I could multiply examples, but you get the picture.

It was no coincidence that on the day of the shootings Harris wore a shirt with two words written on it: “Natural Selection.”

I am not suggesting that Auvinen’s and Harris’ actions are the inevitable consequences of believing in Darwinism. It is, however, clear that at least some of Darwin’s followers understand “survival of the fittest” and the attendant amorality at the bottom of Darwinism as a license to kill those whom they consider “inferior.” Nothing could be more obvious.

Comments

getawitness: Tribune 7: Reynolds Hall: The United States was founded under the auspices of a Creator God, and was not conceived as a secular nation. Only the Judeo/Christian ethic contains the necessary theology to harmonize God’s revelation with the Declaration of Independence. If we are to be “endowed by Our Creator with certain inalienable rights,” then two conditions are necessary: 1) GOD'S TRANSCENENCE God as creator is the final moral authority on all matters of civil law and therefore his authority supersedes that of the state. That means that God grants basic rights (not imaginary rights) and the state is in the business of making sure that it stays that way. (Obviously, our government has betrayed us in this respect) Any right the state could grant, the state could take away. Unfortunately, that is what is happening today. The only way a right can truly be inalienable and natural is because God confers it. 2) GOD'S IMMANENCE We are all made in the "image and likness of God" and therefore deserve to be free. Inasmuch as we possess a "God-like conscience," we are capable of knowing the natural moral law and acting on it. That means that we can govern ourselves without the need of rulers, tyrants, or kings. We are, however, obliged to acknowledge our capacity for self-government as a function of our “inherent dignity as human beings.” (Obviously, we have betrayed ourselves in this respect). Thus the natural moral law which reflects both God’s TRANSCENDENCE and God’s IMMANENCE “informs” but does not “dictate” the codes and standards for the civil law. There is no “Biblical law” (as in a parallel to Islamic Sharia law) but only Biblical principles which can serve to guide us, and they work only insofar as we honor them. Judeo/Christitianity is the only belief system that recognizes both 1) The authority of God and 2) the dignity of the human person. All other world views fall short. Islam recognizes the authority of God, but it rejects the dignity of the human person. Eastern religions recognize the dignity of the human person but they reject the authority of God. Atheism/Darwinism rejects both the authority of God and the dignity of the human person. That is why we will all eventually lose our freedoms if we continue to allow atheists and Muslims to dilute our cultural heritage.StephenB_{November 11, 2007
November
11
Nov
11
11
2007
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

KF--- great ponts, as always. (and that should have been Render unto Caesar)tribune7_{November 11, 2007
November
11
Nov
11
11
2007
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

Tribune7, "As a Christian, I’m always perplexed that some find that values and cultures don’t matter." To whom are you referring? I've never said anything of the sort, and you're making a lot of judgments about me. Meanwhile, you're hanging an enormous weight on a terribly thin peg ("Year of our Lord") that is obviously a widely used convention at the time, and that is appended to a document that deliberately did not mention God directly anywhere. I'm glad, however, that you seem to accept that the Magna Carta example is not to the point Kairosfocus, I always enjoy reading your posts. There's a lot to consider there. I have a small question of fact about Columbine: I've heard that there's considerable question about whether Cassie Bernall was targeted as a Christian, or whether she was asked anything about believing in God. I thought that another girl, Valeen Schnurr, who survived the massacre, was the one asked that question. But maybe the Borne is the person to ask about that.getawitness_{November 11, 2007
November
11
Nov
11
11
2007
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

Actually, the 1763 Treaty of Paris does refer to “the year of Grace 1763.” That would be the signature of the French king, not the effective date of the document, which neither uses A.D. nor Year of Our Lord. Further, note that the signarture of the British king does not use that phrase, and, I think, neither does the Spanish king as I understand that Buen Retiro is a place name, but I'm willing to stand corrected. The fact is that “in the Year of our Lord” is a widely used convention. And I'm not disputing that. I'm merely pointing out that it is not a required one. It could have been omitted without controversy -- (i.e. see the DOI). Obviously they’re not going to refer to “the year of our reign” If they were going to keep British convention they would have said in "year of our Republic" or "the year of Independence". As a Christian, I’m always perplexed at the idea that America was founded as a Christian nation. As a Christian, I'm always perplexed that some find that values and cultures don't matter. America was a nation founded on Christian values, more so than any other in the world, and it prospered greatly. As Jefferson said with regard to the teachings of Jesus, "There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. " Ben Franklin said one of his goals was to imitate Jesus (and Socrates). Further, Christian values have subtleties one might not consider at first blush. The separation of church and state is based on "Render on Ceasar". And do you really want to live in a place where the laws don't account for mercy as well as necessary order? And do you really want those in authority not to be told they are sinners just like the rest of us? If so, cultural and educational reinforcement are necessary for this to happen, and even then don't expect perfection. And if not I don't want to live in the land you envision. Regardless, "Year of Our Lord" appears in the Constitution and specifically refers to Jesus.tribune7_{November 11, 2007
November
11
Nov
11
11
2007
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

Carl wrote, Stephen, I’d like to introduce a distinction in my defense between “objective” and “absolute.” Something is objectively true (or false) if the truth (or falsity) is independent of what is believed to be the case. Something is absolutely true (or false) if the truth (or falsity) does not change with respect to historical or social context. To Carl-- we are in complete agreement with the DISTINCTION between “absolute morality” and objective morality, but, in my judgment, your DEFINITION of “objective” is compromises the meaning of the term. To everyone--- I realize that many philosophers have used this “soft” approach to objectivity, but there is no way it can work. Here is what they are saying and why I strongly disagree with it. The argument goes something like this: “I am not “creating” my morality as I go along because I “discover” it in my community (institution, society, history, nation etc.), which is, itself, a ‘social reality.’ Thus my morality is not subjective, because it is, in a sense, derived from a source outside of my mental own framework. That means that I am not really making it up as I go along.” What is really happening, though, is this: The problem of “I am making it up” has been transferred to “we are making it up.” The subjectivity persists, because “we” are not really discovering anything’ we are only “creating” a morality by aggregating all the other individual moral creations into a synergistic whole. Besides, as I pointed on another post, the synergy doesn’t really happen. No two individuals will agree completely on even one aspect of morality, so someone must arbitrate those differences. But to successfully navigate through that arbitration, the arbitrator must call on some standard of justice that resides outside of all parties, including the arbitrator. Otherwise, the arbitrator or arbitrators (state, court, consultant) will simply be imposing his or their own personal prejudices on the proceedings. For a more detailed explanation, consult my post #60. So how does this tie in to Barry A’s post? In keeping with the “soft” definition, Hitler and his henchmen, in concert with a 20th century German zeitgeist, can socially construct a genocidal ethical system and call it objective morality. Hitler did, after all, transcend his own mental framework to draw upon the collective “wisdom” available from the social reality of which he was a part. And yes, Darwinism was a decisive factor in informing that social reality. It seems, then, that there is only one way out. We must dispense with the soft definition and call on an objective reality that transcends all parties. The answer isn’t at all that hard to find; it’s just hard to face. There is an objective moral standard to which we all will be held accountable and from which there is no escape. It is written in nature and on every human heart. America’s Founding Fathers called it the “natural moral law,” while Moses presented it as the Ten Commandments. For CS, Allen, and others, itpresents “epistemological difficulties;” for Jefferson and Co, it was a “self-evident truth.”StephenB_{November 11, 2007
November
11
Nov
11
11
2007
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

Hi Trib The link you refer to in 74 is stronger than that, as a look at 68, point 6 will show. It also ties back into the point of this thread, on the moral implications of evolutionary materialism-anchored secularism, which BarryA shows -- as an attorney concerned with the case -- was a factor in the thinking and actions of the Columbine murderers. Note in particular, how the murderers specifically asked certain students on their faith at gun-point, and if they confessed to faith in Jesus, murdered them; as Borne points out and links in 16. This ties into the implications of the sort of rhetorical hostility to Bible-believing Christians that is -- sadly -- now increasingly common in your society and across the wider west, especially in the often heard slander that we are inevitably would-be tyrannical theocrats and a danger to liberty. For, unwarrantedly and ill-foundedly harsh, mind-poisoning rhetorical accusations and slanders have consequences, potentially deadly consequences when they -- as is inevitable --get into the hands of those who are a little less restrained than most of us are. So, setting the record straight on the actual major historical contribution of practicing Christians and those strongly influenced by that faith to the rise of modern liberty is important. So is removing the question-begging redefinition of "Science" and of "Science Education" that tries to take science out of being an open-minded empirically anchored inquiry into the nature of reality, to being in effect the best evolutionary materialist account of the rise of the cosmos from hydrogen to humans. Such a closed-minded power game is not harmless, as in a great many minds, not being "scientific" is tantamount to being an irrational, potentially dangerous threat to the community. This blog as a whole is largely about the second of these issues, so we need not go into further details here. Likewise, there has been enough discussions on various threads since say the Aug 20 Darwin thread, for us to see why there is a serious issue that evolutionary materialism is a worldview that -- on evidence and argument that need to be taken seriously -- too often tends to undermine the impact of morality and moral restraint in the community. So this angle too doesn't need much more underscoring. On the first point, though, let us specifically observe that the STRUCTURE of your Constitution is that of a Grand Statement-style legal document, and that statement begins in part by speaking of securing the blessings of liberty. An instance on what that means in the late C18 context in which your Constitution was written and ratified, let us cite here just one of many cases -- the usage in the 1777 call to a national day of thanksgiving:
It is . . . recommended to the legislative or executive powers of these United States, to set apart THURSDAY, the eighteenth Day of December next, for Solemn Thanksgiving and Praise; That with one Heart and one Voice the good People may express the grateful Feelings of their Hearts, and consecrate themselves to the Service of their Divine Benefactor; and that together with their sincere Acknowledgments and Offerings, they may join the penitent Confession of their manifold Sins, whereby they had forfeited every Favour, and their humble and earnest Supplication that it may please GOD, through the Merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of Remembrance; That it may please him graciously to afford his Blessing on the Governments of these States respectively, and prosper the public Council of the whole; to inspire our Commanders both by Land and Sea, and all under them, with that Wisdom and Fortitude which may render them fit Instruments, under the Providence of Almighty GOD, to secure for these United States the greatest of all human blessings, INDEPENDENCE and PEACE; That it may please him to prosper the Trade and Manufactures of the People and the Labour of the Husbandman, that our Land may yet yield its Increase; To take Schools and Seminaries of Education, so necessary for cultivating the Principles of true Liberty, Virtue and Piety, under his nurturing Hand, and to prosper the Means of Religion for the promotion and enlargement of that Kingdom which consisteth “in Righteousness, Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost.”[i.e. Cites Rom 14:9]
Of course, there are many more similar declarations across the whole US founding era. So, in that sort of historical context, securing the blessings of liberty in the year of OUR Lord 1787 [which also immediately identifies just who the Lord in question is] is clear enough, methinks. BarryA has done us all a favour to expose a link that was by and large suppressed in media coverage. We need to think about this, soberly and prudently. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 11, 2007
November
11
Nov
11
11
2007
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

tribune7, Actually, the 1763 Treaty of Paris does refer to "the year of Grace 1763." It's in the link you provided. As for the Magna Carta, that's 1215, which may be too early. According to Wikipedia, "Though the Anno Domini dating system was devised in 525 it was not until the 8th century that the system began being adopted in Western Europe. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, even popes continued to date documents according to regnal years, and usage of AD only gradually became more common in Europe from the 11th to the 14th centuries. In 1422, Portugal became the last Western European country to adopt the Anno Domini system." The fact is that "in the Year of our Lord" is a widely used convention. Obviously they're not going to refer to "the year of our reign" -- that's a monarchial system of dating that is tied to specific regimes (something the Founders were kind of against, no?) I fail to see the signficance of the absence of the phrase in the DoI. As a Christian, I'm always perplexed at the idea that America was founded as a Christian nation. The Kingdom of Heaven is not of this world.getawitness_{November 11, 2007
November
11
Nov
11
11
2007
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

Reynold Hall -- you say it was convention and cite a webpage from a group call "Separation of Church and State" as an authority, which makes its case with what rather little authority. I cited a foundational docutment of Anglo-American civilization is which the phrase is not used for dating; a contemporary document does not use the phrase as for setting its date. Further, I noted it does not appear in the Declaration of Independence. Jesus is not ever named in the Constitution, So who does "Our Lord" refer to in your opinion?tribune7_{November 11, 2007
November
11
Nov
11
11
2007
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Getawitness, The Declaration of Independence doesn't even use the phrase "Year of Our Lord"tribune7_{November 11, 2007
November
11
Nov
11
11
2007
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

Actually, it seems it was convention. Jesus is not ever named in the Constitution, nor is the bible. Why, if it's a christian document as you claim. http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg10a.htm http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg10.htmReynold Hall_{November 11, 2007
November
11
Nov
11
11
2007
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

that the signers of the Constitution, which was written quite deliberately without any mention of God, It looks like they screwed up at the end then, huh? :-) wanted to smuggle Jesus in through the conventions of the calendar. Smuggled in?? It seem rather bald and straightforward to me. As far as conventions of the calendar, the 1763 Treaty of Paris (ending the French and Indian Wars) dates itself "Done at Paris the tenth day of February, 1763." See http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/PreConfederation/Treaty_of_Paris_1763.html The Magna Carta dates itself "the fifteenth day of June in the seventeenth year of our reign". See: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/magnacarta.html And five years after the signing, France tried to scrap the whole established system of dating events. There certainly was no requirement of convention that the phrase "Year of Our Lord" be used. But it was, hence it is infinitely more accurate to say that Our Constitution establishes us as a Christian nation by that simple phrase, than it is to claim the Consitution is a "godless" document.tribune7_{November 11, 2007
November
11
Nov
11
11
2007
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

tribune7, I assume you're referring to the phrase "in the year of our Lord." But although it would be nice to think so, it strains credulity to believe that the signers of the Constitution, which was written quite deliberately without any mention of God, wanted to smuggle Jesus in through the conventions of the calendar. That would be undignified and un-Christian.getawitness_{November 11, 2007
November
11
Nov
11
11
2007
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

Allen -- any more than it declares or establishes the United States of America as a “Christian nation.” (30) Allen, the U.S. Constitution declares Jesus to be Lord i.e. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.signers.htmltribune7_{November 11, 2007
November
11
Nov
11
11
2007
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

All: Pardon A few footnotes: 1] CS: we should think of morality as being like science, i.e. objectively true but not absolutely true H'mm, as in seeking to say of what is,t hat it is, and of what is not, that it is not, but sometimes falling short so being open to correction ands development? Taken in this sense, objectivity is not contradictory to there being a moral reality that our moral reasoning seeks to conform to. And such moral reality can in principle be described by a series of accurate statements that jut happen to state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Our problem is to access such reliably as finite and fallible creatures. the further problem of evo mat views, is that they end in elf referential incoherence, on trying to account for mind and morality as a key function of mind. This was discussed at length in say the Aug 20 Darwin thread. 2] Darwin, might makes right and eugenics-genocide-democide The above cites at 45 - 46 should suffice to show that the point that CD was the first Social Darwinist is well established, and that the links onwards s to the evolutionary materialism or at least Darwinism anchored tyrannies of C20 is not a myth. As the post in mod I made on the consequences thread will show once released, Rummel has totted up the resulting democide totals to 212 millions. 3] thinking of morality in these terms is consistent with thinking that morality is, like science, an activity undertaken by human beings H'mm, but the natural sciences rest on the principle that there is a real physical world to be explored. So, this analogy implies that there is credibly a similar real moral world to be explored. but, as that may well have "unacceptable" implications -- cf Koukl here at an introductory level -- that is often resisted. But at the expense of self-contradiction. the challenge of reformation in the teeth of social consensus shows just how that happens, being a form of quarrel writ large and appealing to inherent value and fairness due to the respect for that value. 4] a naturalistic and “Darwinian” understanding of human beings does not undermine the objectivity of science or of morality. (However, it may undermine the ‘absoluteness’ of science or of morality, if ‘absoluteness’ can only take a supernatural or non-natural form.) In short, if we try to redefine science as only dealing with evo-mat approved accounts of the world, if the world is not rooted in the materialist cascade of evolutions from hydrogen to humans, it will necessarily depart from being even possibly accurate to reality. A very big question is being begged. 5] KJV cite out of context In 23, Prof MacNeill tries to invite inference to immoral equivalency by citing an OT statement out of Biblical and situational context. I suggest readers interested in looking at that context - pardon this Patrick et al -- look here. 6] EZ, 27: our God-less [US] constitution, & Mac Neil 30: the United States Constitution doesn’t mention “taking life” nor does it declare murder illegal, any more than it declares or establishes the United States of America as a “Christian nation.” Here it would be worthwhile to pause and look at the STRUCTURE of said Constitution as a Grand Statement-style legal document:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty [a covenantal not a legal concept, cf the relevant calls to prayer and penitence of the founding Congress . . .] to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America . . . . [Main Body, Arts I - VII] . . . . Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven [cf here Rom 1:1 - 5 for what it means to be curently in the year of "our Lord" XXXX] and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth [cf here US DOI 1776, 2nd paragraph]. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names. . . . . [AMENDMENTS].
As can be shown, this structure firmly sets the US Constitution in the double-covenant, Judaeo- Christian framework of nationhood and government under God. Specifically, the US Constitution of 1787 -- despite many hot denials and one-sided legal and historical revisionism to the contrary -- as the 2nd covenant that seeks inter alia to secure the blessings of liberty from the God who as repeated declarations and calls to prayer of the Founding Continental Congress state across the entire revolutionary era, forgives sins that forfeit such blessings and restores such a state of prosperity and progress, through the merits of Jesus Christ. [Cf my summary notes here for an introduction.] GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 11, 2007
November
11
Nov
11
11
2007
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT}

getawitness @ 3
why did Harris, Klebold, and Auvinen kill themselves, then?
To avoid punishment in this life, of course. And because they had already created for themselves the only sort of immortality they had learned to value, i.e., fame/notoriety. Perhaps they thought of suicide as a win-win situation. Too bad for them that there is life, and judgement, after death. StephenB @ 55,
if one loves sufficiently, he will not NEED rules because, through love, he will rule himself.
Very well said! Thank you. Allen_MacNeill @ 56, I started to read one of John Rawl's books but stopped about a quarter of the way through. His grammar and punctuation were so poor that I got tired of trying to figure out what he was talking about.Janice_{November 11, 2007
November
11
Nov
11
11
2007
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT}

Summaries are written by editors, not by authors, and are meant to sell books. I agree that it's badly done. I'm happy to "sell" Flanagan on the strengths of those books of his I have read (Consciousness Reconsidered and parts of The Problem of the Soul). I'm not endorsing The Really Hard Problem, since I haven't read it yet.Carl Sachs_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT}

From Amazon's description of The Really Hard Problem, "Eudaimonics, systematic philosophical investigation that is continuous with science, is the naturalist's response to those who say that science has robbed the world of the meaning that fantastical, wishful stories once provided." Who, exactly, is saying that? Who has ever said that? No theist makes this argument - it's a (usually) atheist charicature of what they think theists are 'really' saying when they object to atheist materialist (Mind you, not just materialist, not just atheist, but specifically atheist materialist) descriptions of reality. I mean, maybe this book is filled with brilliant ideas - maybe it has just a few, but are still worthwhile - but the summaries get it off to a bad start.nullasalus_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT}

Allen --Anyone acquainted with the basic literature in philosophical ethics would know that both deontological and teleological ethics can be fully justified without resort to a supernatural or natural “lawgiver.” Define "fully justified".tribune7_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT}

Stephen, I'd like to introduce a distinction in my defense between "objective" and "absolute." Something is objectively true (or false) if the truth (or falsity) is independent of what is believed to be the case. Something is absolutely true (or false) if the truth (or falsity) does not change with respect to historical or social context. It is, by now, somewhat easy for us to see scientific theories as objective but fallible. That is, scientific truths are objective -- they are independent of what is believed about them -- but not absolute -- since they could turn out to be wrong when further evidence is revealed, more experiments conducted, etc. In the case of science, it has by now become second nature for us to see how something can be objectively true without being absolutely true. We no longer require certainty or necessity as criteria of scientific knowledge, and this is, in my view, a good thing. The core of my proposal -- which is, I hasten to add, not at all original! -- is that a) we should think of morality as being like science, i.e. objectively true but not absolutely true; b) thinking of morality in these terms is consistent with thinking that morality is, like science, an activity undertaken by human beings; c) a naturalistic and "Darwinian" understanding of human beings does not undermine the objectivity of science or of morality. (However, it may undermine the 'absoluteness' of science or of morality, if 'absoluteness' can only take a supernatural or non-natural form.) Owen Flanagan, a philosopher of mind and of moral psychology, writes in The Problem of the Soul: Two Visions of the Mind and How to Reconcile Them about "ethics as human ecology." I find this very attractive, though I would want to modify this view to include a more explicitly historical orientation. (Flanagan has also just written The Really Hard Problem: Meaning in a Material World, which looks very interesting. Even those skeptical of the project might want to take a look at it -- by considering what one of the best 'on the other side' has to say, you'll be in a better position to say what's unsatisfying or inadequate about it.)Carl Sachs_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

I made a huge reversal error in the last sentence on #57. What I meant was this: Either we conform desire to truth, which is objective morality; or we conform truth to desire, which is moral relativism.StephenB_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

StephenB, "What happens when society’s rulers decide that it is you that should be marginalized, persecuted, or even put to death?" This is an interesting question that got me thinking. It seems to me that the answer to this question (as to all your questions) is it depends. There are, for example, many rulers in power today who are marginalizing, persecuting, and executing various groups of people, and I am not doing anything about most of them. In some cases I would take action: write a letter, engage in protest -- even, in some instances, seek to fight or perhaps kill the ruler or his minions. And yet, I'm not doing anything about them right now. Do I appeal to absolute moral standards in making my decision? Again, it depends. Similarly, in some cases regarding morality I will appeal to an absolute standard. In other cases I may take a poll. For example, I don't want to criminalize homosexual behavior in the United States, even though it violates Christian morality and even though it was illegal in most states only a few decades ago. I might appeal to absolute standards in talking with an individual about the practice, but I don't use such standards in deciding whether homosexuality should be legal or illegal. My point is this: the answer to "what should we do about moral questions," including even what to do about expressions of absolute evil, remains it depends just as much for the Christian as for the materialist. Everybody's stuck in the same fallen world, with limited options and competing demands on our lives and consciences.getawitness_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

Allen MacNeil wrote, "Exactly. This means that one does not need a supernatural justification for morality, any more than one needs a natural one. Anyone acquainted with the basic literature in philosophical ethics would know that both deontological and teleological ethics can be fully justified without resort to a supernatural or natural “lawgiver.” This was the whole point to Kant’s “categorical imperative” and to John Rawl’s “original position.” Both allow both individuals and groups to formulate and fully justify comprehensive systems of ethics without resort to supernatural or natural" Of course, one does not need the resort to the supernatural or natural to justify morality. Societies can socially construct any code they choose, and that is precisely the problem. I will not bother to provide the obvious examples --about the many groups and societies who have "justified" the most outrageous behaviors with no tempering influence from the natural moral law. Putting that problem aside, and it is a big one, we must also take into account the inter-societal dynamic. What happens when society A socially constructs a morality that society B finds intolerable? By what standard do we arbitrate their differences? We can hardly appeal to an objective standard of justice, because we have already conceded that no such standard exists. Further, we must face the problem of societal integrity. By what standard do we grant rights and take them away from members inside each group? Since God will not be granting the rights, they will have to come from the state. What happens if person A decides that abortion is murder and person B decides it is nothing but an inconvenient medical procedure. By what standard do you establish a civil law that must finally accept one view and reject the other as the law of the land? Do you take a poll? Do you ask a university professor? What happens if the courts determine that some individuals are not fully human and therefore unworthy of freedom? What happens when society’s rulers decide that it is you that should be marginalized, persecuted, or even put to death? Will you then appeal to a objective moral law that supersedes the power of the state in order to save your own life?StephenB_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

"(2) The stability of morality. It is true that morality is not “stable” as I conceive of it — nor would I want it to be. Among my various commitments is a commitment to the idea of moral progress. We know things about morality that were unknown hundreds or thousands of years ago — for example, we now know that slavery is immoral. The writers of the Bible didn’t know this — although they were morally advanced for their time in that they did think there were limits on how slaves should be mistreated. .... Quick follow-up: it may seem that I’ve contradicted myself in saying that we can find out things about morality — that is, discover moral knowledge — while at the same time holding that there’s nothing outside of humanity to determine what’s moral. My proposal is that the objectivity of morality is found in human social relations, practices, and institutions. And these are not subjective, because social reality does not depend on what is believed about it. (Although it also cannot be separated from the realm of subjective belief, either.)" I'm sorry, but you are still contradicting yourself. If "the objectivity of morality is found in human social relations, practices, and institutions", how can these things progress? If society is what objectifies morality, it cannot progress, since there is no goal, nor can it obtain new knowledge about what is moral, since ther is no moral knowledge outside of it. And, by the way, what makes you say that ending slavery was progress, rather than a step backwards?StephenA_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

Carl wrote, "My proposal is that the objectivity of morality is found in human social relations, practices, and institutions. And these are not subjective, because social reality does not depend on what is believed about it. (Although it also cannot be separated from the realm of subjective belief, either." Carl, it seems to me "a" (a kind of) morality, which could be extracted from social interactions, is different than "the" morality, which cannot. In other words, "a" morality is subjective and "the" morality is objective. I submit, then, that "subjective morality" has more to do with whether it is created or discovered and less to do with the problem of whether it is generated from the individual or the group. I contend further, that the law of the excluded middle applies here. Either morality is discovered or it is created; either we are conforming to a unchangeable code outside ourselves, or we are developing an arbitrary one for some reason other than morality, such as survival, power, convenience, or tradition. That would mean, of course, that we can't make it up as we go along--no matter how sophisticated our rationale may be. Either we conform truth to desire, which is objective morality; or we conform desire to truth, which is moral relativism.StephenB_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

Don't forget the 50 million and counting babies killed in America after it became a secular state. At 1.5 million babies killed a year, it won't be long before this will be the worst mass murder in history. Ultrasound has removed any doubt that the unborn are persons. These babies would have lived if society followed the morality of the church instead of the amoral secular politicians, judges, and media elite. The logic is irrefutable and obvious - no religion, no morality. Darwinists do not want to accept the facts, but that is nothing new. Just because they want an egotistical life without any obligation to anyone other than themselves doesn't mean we should suppress the truth. And what hypocrites they are. How many times have we heard ID isn't science by the people that fire scientists if they publish ID papers? Does anyone ever wonder way there are 20+ million illegal (permanent?) immigrants in America at this point in its history? Blessed are the meek for they will inherit the world.Peter_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Carl Sachs has stated quite succinctly the mainstream position in both philosophy and the natural sciences vis-a-vis the relationship between morality and natural science: "the objectivity of morality is found in human social relations, practices, and institutions. And these are not subjective, because social reality does not depend on what is believed about it." Exactly. This means that one does not need a supernatural justification for morality, any more than one needs a natural one. Anyone acquainted with the basic literature in philosophical ethics would know that both deontological and teleological ethics can be fully justified without resort to a supernatural or natural "lawgiver." This was the whole point to Kant's "categorical imperative" and to John Rawl's "original position." Both allow both individuals and groups to formulate and fully justify comprehensive systems of ethics without resort to supernatural or natural authorities.Allen_MacNeill_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

Reynolds Hall: and mynym: You have both asked me to read the Hector Avalos article. I don't want to be unkind here, but his commentary is absolute nonsense. There can be little doubt that it was written in a desperate attempt to draw a moral equivalency between Darwinism and the Judeo/Christian tradition. Almost every line contains an egregious error and an easily refuted mischaracterization. Here is just one example: He writes “Christianity is actually founded on moral relativism that is even more chaotic than secular systems of ethics. Ephesians 2:15 tells us this about what Christ did to the Law of Moses: "by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace." In fact, from a traditional Jewish viewpoint, Christianity is founded on systematically destroying God's laws as revealed to Moses, and so speaking of a Judeo-Christian tradition is also akin to speaking of a Capitalist-Marxist tradition.[6a]” That paragraph may set a new record for ignorance and dishonesty. Frankly, I can’t imagine how any educated person could get through the thing without laughing out loud. Jesus Christ was very explicit in his intention “not to destroy the law but to perfect it.” His intention was to create a law of love between God and creature which would transcend the “legalism” in the Old Testament. That means if one loves sufficiently, he will not NEED rules because, through love, he will rule himself. That doesn’t mean he has been given a dispensation from the demands of Biblical morality. A Christian may not BYPASS the Ten Commandments in the name of spirituality. On the contrary, he must keep them, improve on them, and “become perfect, as his heavenly Father is perfect.” It is the total opposite of “moral relativism.” Much less does it have anything to do with the “Capitalist-Marxist” tradition. I am not going to write ten pages refuting every point the man makes, because he simply isn’t worth it. Suffice it to say he has no credibility whatsoever.StephenB_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

When people do it- the selecting- then it is a case of artificial selection. These murdering morons were even too stupid to realize that plain and simple fact.Joseph_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

[...] incidents of students shooting up their schools and killing their fellow human beings. The essay Darwin At Columbine is not a casual reading of the incident at Columbine and the recent incident of a student in [...]Social Darwinism: ‘Necessary but not Sufficient’? « Life Under the Blue Sky: The View From Below_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Quick follow-up: it may seem that I've contradicted myself in saying that we can find out things about morality -- that is, discover moral knowledge -- while at the same time holding that there's nothing outside of humanity to determine what's moral. My proposal is that the objectivity of morality is found in human social relations, practices, and institutions. And these are not subjective, because social reality does not depend on what is believed about it. (Although it also cannot be separated from the realm of subjective belief, either.)Carl Sachs_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply