Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

People who doubt “evolution” are more likely to be racist?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

So academic elite types claim in a recent study:

A disbelief in human evolution was associated with higher levels of prejudice, racist attitudes and support of discriminatory behavior against Blacks, immigrants and the LGBTQ community in the U.S., according to University of Massachusetts Amherst research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Similarly, across the globe — in 19 Eastern European countries, 25 Muslim countries and in Israel — low belief in evolution was linked to higher biases within a person’s group, prejudicial attitudes toward people in different groups and less support for conflict resolution…

“People who perceive themselves as more similar to animals are also people who tend to have more pro-social or positive attitudes toward outgroup members or people from stigmatized and marginalized backgrounds,” Syropoulos explains. “In this investigation, we were interested in examining whether belief in evolution would also act in a similar way, because it would reinforce this belief that we are more similar to animals.”

University of Massachusetts Amherst, “Disbelief in human evolution linked to greater prejudice and racism” at ScienceDaily (April 4, 2022)

The paper requires a fee or subscription.

A friend who has read the paper kindly writes to say,

I think this study is a prime example of the temptation to make the correlation equals causation fallacy. What this paper is measuring has nothing to do with evolution or belief in it. It is measuring parochial attitudes among people in insulated groups who don’t have much contact with the outside world. These people tend to be prejudiced against other races and also have little contact with evolution so they are skeptical. It just shows that isolation breeds prejudice against the other.

The principle that isolation breeds prejudice against the “other” is a truism. And you could find evidence supporting this truism from very different groups. If you surveyed attitudes of ivory tower types you’d find similar prejudice against conservative religious groups, you’d find similar discriminatory attitudes. Why? Because those evolutionary secular academic types who accept human evolution have very little contact with conservative religious people.

So what’s interesting isn’t the finding of this paper. What’s interesting is why they chose to study isolated people who happen to be religious and defined prejudice as attitudes towards certain privileged groups in society (eg LGBTQ). Why not study prejudice of secular types who accept human evolution towards religious consevatives? You’d find analogous prejudices. But the researchers weren’t interested in studying that…because they are evolutionary secularists with an agenda to make religious conservatives look bad.

Come to think of it, if you are here anyway, you may also wish to read: E. O. Wilson and racism: The smoking gun is found. Some have dismissed the findings but others say they fit a pattern. From Schulson’s story: “I don’t really care that Wilson had racist ideas, because I know pretty much all of the people that I dealt with, when I was coming up through the science system, had racist ideas,” said [evolutionary biologist Joseph] Graves, who in 1988 became the first Black American to receive a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. “Wilson was just one of many.” Oh.

And remember, Wilson was supposed to be the second Darwin. Funny no one talks about that now.

Comments
Kairosfocus: have some basic respect: today is Good Friday and Sunday is Easter I cannot insist that anyone take time out from their worship to respond to my queries; they should only do so when and if they see fit. I will not take offence if replies are delayed by several days. I do not think I'm being disrespectful; I am trying very hard to gain a greater understanding of what believing in an objective moral standard means when applied to some specific social issues. I have not called anyone's faith into question nor have I ridiculed such. If you think I have then perhaps that's more down to how you view reasonable questions about how your moral standard gets applied in a practical sense. But only you can answer that.JVL
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
JVL, more accurately, adherents of evolutionary materialism cannot have in their worldviews an ontological source adequate to bridge the is ought gap. This tends to issues noted above as raised long since by Plato in The Laws Bk X, as already ruinous in his day. KF PS, I already had to notify you on the significance of today, you also know full well that there are other fora better suited to address what you seem to have hoped to toss in as disruptive. PPS, kindly, show us a nine sided hexagon.kairosfocus
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
F/N: Some key vocabulary, from Webster's 1828 Dictionary: LI'CENSE, noun [Latin licentia, from liceo, to be permitted.] 1. Leave; permission; authority or liberty given to do or forbear any act. A license may be verbal or written; when written, the paper containing the authority is called a license A man is not permitted to retail spirituous liquors till he has obtained a license 2. Excess of liberty; exorbitant freedom; freedom abused, or used in contempt of law or decorum. License they mean, when they cry liberty. UNPRIN'CIPLED, adjective 1. Not having settled principles; as souls unprincipled in virtue. 2. Having no good moral principles; destitute of virtue; not restrained by conscience; profligate. IMMOR'AL, adjective [in and moral.] Inconsistent with moral rectitude; contrary to the moral or divine law; wicked; unjust; dishonest; vicious. Every action is immoral which contravenes any divine precept, or which is contrary to the duties which men owe to each other. 1. Wicked or unjust in practice; vicious; dishonest; as an immoral man. Every man who violates a divine law or a social duty, is immoral but we particularly apply the term to a person who habitually violates the laws. LIB'ERTY, noun [Latin libertas, from liber, free.] 1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty when not checked or controlled. A man enjoys liberty when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions. 2. Natural liberty consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government. 3. Civil liberty is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty. The liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of others. In this sentence, the latter word liberty denotes natural liberty. LAW, noun [Latin lex; from the root of lay. See lay. A law is that which is laid, set or fixed, like statute, constitution, from Latin statuo.] 1. A rule, particularly an established or permanent rule, prescribed by the supreme power of a state to its subjects, for regulating their actions, particularly their social actions. Laws are imperative or mandatory, commanding what shall be done; prohibitory, restraining from what is to be forborn; or permissive, declaring what may be done without incurring a penalty. The laws which enjoin the duties of piety and morality, are prescribed by God and found in the Scriptures. Law is beneficence acting by rule. 2. Municipal law is a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power of a state, commanding what its subjects are to do, and prohibiting what they are to forbear; a statute. Municipal or civil laws are established by the decrees, edicts or ordinances of absolute princes, as emperors and kings, or by the formal acts of the legislatures of free states. law therefore is sometimes equivalent to decree, edict, or ordinance. 3. Law of nature, is a rule of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings established by the Creator, and existing prior to any positive precept. Thus it is a law of nature, that one man should not injure another, and murder and fraud would be crimes, independent of any prohibition from a supreme power. LAW'FUL, adjective 1. Agreeable to law; conformable to law; allowed by law; legal; legitimate. That is deemed lawful which no law forbids, but many things are lawful which are not expedient. 2. Constituted by law; rightful; as the lawful owner of lands.kairosfocus
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Nobody is an outsider to the objective moral standard. Those are the basic norms that we know from our own conscience. But you keep saying that atheists cannot have an objective moral standard. If you're just saying that the objective moral standard is the stuff we all agree upon then what's to stop that from changing from time to time and place to place? For example: it seems to have been widely accepted during the pre-Christian era that it was acceptable and expected that you could completely wipe out all the inhabitants of a city you were at war with. Women, children, the elderly, everyone. Such things are documented in The Bible. Does that mean that the things we 'know' have changed? But the application of those norms can create conflicts at times. Eventually, rational thought can only sort things out to a limited degree. That’s why atheism would not be good as a foundation for morals for a nation. So how does your belief help sort things out better? How do you progress things further? This is why I keep asking you about particular situations so that you can give an example of how you can propose a better, more consistent and less contentious approach. The objective moral law will say that we have to act for the good of the whole community and also allow for personal freedom to the extent that it can. But that conflicts when people do things that benefit themselves (or they thing it does) and harms the community. That’s the problem with something like gay marriage. Are you saying that your approach would or would not allow same-sex marriage given the level of support it has in the US at this time? I am not asking for your personal opinion, just the application of the objective moral standard.JVL
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
Jerry, it is first a failure of formal and informal education that many are unaware that morality is a major focus of philosophy, ethics. Second, there is refusal to acknowledge self evident first duties as first principles of moral government, failing to understand the US DoI 1776, where RIGHTS are binding moral claims tied to duties of justice and must be compossible. That already tells us we are in danger of undermining the basis of lawful freedom in a constitutional democratic state. Doubtless such cannot imagine that lawless oligarchy is the natural state of human government. KFkairosfocus
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
JVL, have some basic respect: today is Good Friday and Sunday is Easter. KFkairosfocus
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
SA, of course Math is objective in its core and your analogy is apt. That's why it is being hit at. We know that humans generally come issued with conscience, 1. We also know or could readily confirm if we were willing, that in our reasoning, thinking, arguing and dealing, we so pervasively appeal to the Ciceronian first duties that we can readily see that they are branch on which we all sit first duties, first principles, self evident first truths of morality. I even took time out to show how the attempt to deny objective moral truths is necessarily false as it implies being what it denies. No wonder objectors find themselves appealing to what they try to overturn, and those who try to prove find themselves already appealing to the duties. These are antecedents of proof just as the first laws of logic they embrace. Anyone willing can see that. So the real issue is why the fuss and feathers flying in attempts to object. The answer is, many today have been programmed to perceive moral principles as a threat to their desired behaviour, there is even a tendency to project that these are "far right" "religious" "theocratic" "Christofascist" "impositions and the like. To the point, that I see above attempts to drag us off on evil Bible type debates on Good Friday. Have some basic respect! KF PS, Thank God, I have now got through my GPIO bus headaches. The last key was to use a 10 k Ohm pulldown resistor.kairosfocus
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
Jerry, immoral acts are done in breach of a known, acknowledged moral principle. Amorality suppresses and denies principles as we see above. Back in the day, one of the strongest terms of rebuke, for cause, was to speak of an unprincipled man. KFkairosfocus
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
Are Christians required
You are introducing religion to the issue. As I said above religion is a not necessary for an understanding of morality. Morality/ethics is taught in business school. It’s hard to imagine a more forbidden subject in business school than religion So take it out of any discussion. I realize this is where many are first taught about morality. But it gets in the way of understanding just what it is. For centuries Christianity was guilty of advocating immoral policies. Not as part of religious doctrine but because it was too entwined with politics and advocated policies identified with Plato that led to the suppression of freedom of individuals which led to serfdom/slavery. So was the whole planet, not just the Christian areas.jerry
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
Jerry
It’s actually quite simple and objective so it cannot be personal.
In one aspect, it is simple and impersonal. Murder, rape, torture of innocents, theft, lying. There are simple norms, everyone knows in their conscience. That's the objective law. In the other aspect, morality is personal. To what extent is a person guilty of sin? How deliberate was their action? What should a person do to make up for wrongs he has done? It also is not simple: Is divorce is a sin? Are Christians required by the moral law to go to Church every Sunday? Is a person permitted to tell a lie in order to achieve a greater good (like saving many lives?). Will certain sins not merit the punishment of eternal hell? If so, which ones? Can a person interpret the Bible correctly through his own subjective opinion?Silver Asiatic
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
JVL
how would you propose a country like the US deal with that particular issue knowing that you would not be able to get your opposition to change their mind and see things your way?
The USA is secularist and pluralist in that sense. Every political platform points to the objective moral law to justify itself. But the application of those norms can create conflicts at times. Eventually, rational thought can only sort things out to a limited degree. That's why atheism would not be good as a foundation for morals for a nation. People need to realize that there is meaning in life and there is also justice. Some Christians feel that they have to separate from a secular structure and create their own communities. Some Jews and Muslims think the same. Some Muslim groups hope to gain a majority and thus create a religious-based law like Sharia to then control the moral life of people. That has been successful for Muslims in places like Turkey and Saudi Arabia. But it can create violent conflicts also, as we know. Natural law theory will say that governments have to have some level of tolerance for bad morals among the people. So, it's a trade-off. The objective moral law will say that we have to act for the good of the whole community and also allow for personal freedom to the extent that it can. But that conflicts when people do things that benefit themselves (or they thing it does) and harms the community. That's the problem with something like gay marriage.Silver Asiatic
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
Morality is a very personal topic
No it’s not. It’s actually quite simple and objective so it cannot be personal. If it’s personal, it’s based on a misunderstanding.jerry
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
JVL
So, how is an outsider to know what is part of the moral standard and what is not?
Nobody is an outsider to the objective moral standard. Those are the basic norms that we know from our own conscience.
Considering that Muslims are also people of the book how does one incorporate their much different interpretations into the objective moral standard?
At the root of Koranic laws are the objective moral norms. There are some big differences however, and Islam does not stress the rational nature of human beings as much as Christianity. The religious belief is that Allah just wills things, and they do not have to be consistent.Silver Asiatic
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Or of application of the objective moral standard to human activities? I am asking about applications so that I might glean a better understand of the underlying principles. And I'd like to see how it works in practice so that I can see a way to account for it when finding solutions to social issues. The more cases I can see it applied to the better I will be able to account for it in the future.JVL
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
JVL
I am trying to understand is what is meant by an objective moral standard by considering some particular cases ...
I'll try to clarify this. I think it's essential to make your questions clear and precise. Here you're asking "what is mean by an objective moral standard" but you're then saying you want to "consider particular cases ..." -- of the objective moral standard? Or of application of the objective moral standard to human activities? So, we need to lock this down. First - do you see the difference there? The objective moral code is one thing. The application of the code to various actions is another. The "particular cases" of the objective moral law are the principles themselves. Cicero lists foundational virtues and necessary moral principles. I have given some. Take one: A person should never murder an innocent person for no reason. That's a universal norm. it's not a subjective opinion that someone happened to come up with. That's an example of the universal, objective moral law. So, to "consider the particulars" - is to consider that statement. It's axiomatic and true. There's not much else to say. To murder an innocent person (say a child) for no reason is clearly an immoral act and we know this through our rational moral conscience. But, what it seems you're confusing is "particular cases" meaning "how the objective principles are applied". You asked if it is right for a country to finance weapons for another in warfare. Obviously, the status of the Ukraine and America's military budget and relationship is not something spelled out in the universal moral law. It's an application of principles. One principle would be what I provided - would the weapons be used to murder innocent people for no reason? Then, there's the question of "justice" - with the objective moral code, "justice" is the action that all are given what is truly due to them in proportion to the value and meaning of the acts performed. It's a generalized law. So, we apply justice to the situation in the Ukraine. In the end, there's room to disagree on how the moral norms are applied. As I said, for atheists, all they have is the objective norms and then apply them. For Christians, there is God's revelation. But even there, it takes some thought to discern what God wants.Silver Asiatic
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: In atheism, there can be no real justice. As mentioned many times, evolution does not propose that some species are good or others bad. No evolutionary developments are morally better than others. The death and destruction of species by evolutionary forces is not a “bad’ result for evolution. We are not prisoners of the evolutionary process. We can strive to care and support and love each other. We can choose to look after and support probably the only planet we will have to live on so that our descendants can also enjoy its beauty and life sustaining abilities. We can choose to create art and music and literature out of the sheer joy of making things that evoke great feelings and emotions. We can choose to be tolerant of those whose views are not ours and allow people to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as independently as possible as long as they are not imposing on the rights or faith of others. Sometimes we have to find some middle ground when making difficult choices that affect a large number of us but we can choose to do so in as fair a way as possible. All of this indicates to me that regardless of our faith or opinions the first rule must be: we have to learn to listen to each other. We have to avoid deciding what we think others believe. We have to avoid labelling other people based on a part of their view we disagree with. That takes time and effort and sincerity. That means giving people the chance to explain themselves before drawing conclusions. I think that entails asking questions and listening to the answers. No matter where we came from we are all made of star stuff, we literally are children of the universe. And that is an awe inspiring and humbling thought that should not be dismissed or minimised. We have only a limited period of time to be a physical part of the universe; we should not demean or waste that opportunity. Nihilism is cowardly; saying it doesn't matter so I don't have to work hard at making a difference. I only have a short time to help others, help the environment and help my society and civilisation. When I'm no longer here I don't mind if no one remembers my name but I do hope that those that come after me have even a slightly better world to live in.JVL
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
Jerry
Again, do people really understand what they are talking about? Or is the diversion on purpose?
There's a very big theme which is subjective morals and what that means, and then does the objective moral law exist or not. I said something like "atheism is nihilistic and amoral". That's just setting the stage and a very minor point. But instead, the word "amoral" became the topic. It's actually a synonym for "not having an objective moral code". But it's a trigger-word, apparently. I did the same thing with "transcendent". I said the objective moral law is transcendent (not its origin, but it in itself). It "transcends the personal" because it's universal. It's transcendent - that's what it means in that context. Yet again, the word "transcendent" became the topic and we forget the hundreds of words I wrote in the argument on the bigger issue of subjective morals. The same thing happened when I said that subjective morals "by popularity" just means that people "by chance" believe the same moral things, so that becomes a popular view. So then we had to debate what "by chance" meant in that context. Morality is a very personal topic. It can create defensiveness and fear. I wouldn't like people telling me that my moral code is not good, for example. Guilt is one of the most painful things humans can experience. In fact, in some severe cases, people will commit suicide rather than feel guilt for a wrong done. That's my fear for atheists. Walking around with just nothingness, but also having to feel the guilt for various things. It's not pleasant to think about and I would hope to have compassion. But at the same time, if something doesn't make sense, then we have to say it. For people to create their own moral code (where do they get the authority to decide what is right or wrong?) means they can change it. That also means "whatever I do is good because I always follow my moral code". That makes sense because whatever the person does, they can just say that it's part of their moral code. So, they can never commit a sin or fault, since the creator of the moral law is also the judge of it, and is also the one who can grant exceptions and revisions to the law as needed. That's how every human behavior can be justified. That is the sad world of atheism and I hope people will realize that and try to change and move past that.Silver Asiatic
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: You have written very well and, in my opinion, some beautiful thoughts about the power and value of Faith. You have seen that faith enables us to rise above the passing-things and “noise” of life and conflicts. Yes, it brings us to the harmony, love, peace, knowledge and goodness of God’s presence. Thank you for that. Even if I am not blessed with faith myself I am very cognisant of what it means to those who are so lucky. Or persistent? Or . . . I understand that you have been, and perhaps still are, confused about what the objective moral law entails. You cited localized, temporal laws and applications of the moral law as if they were universal. You’re running now to another topic (have you absorbed the first one yet?) by extracting Biblical quotes from the Hebrew scriptures and demanding an explanation. I hope I didn't 'demand' an explanation; what I am trying to understand is what is meant by an objective moral standard by considering some particular cases. Perhaps that's just my way of trying to wrap my head around something that I can't quite grasp. It's kind of like quantum mechanics: I don't really understand how or why it works so I focus, initially, on its effects and ramifications. Since I am interested in what you think I ask questions hoping you will clarify some things I consider confusing. I understand that a complete and deep understanding takes years of thought and contemplation but I was hoping to gain at least a sliver of insight from considering some particular cases. I am also interested in how a multi-faith society can (and should?) find ways of handling conflicts of interest. I figure finding out what other people think is the obvious first step. I figure that when I am confused by something others say then I should ask for clarification. This is why I try to answer questions asked of me honestly and clearly.JVL
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
An easier way to understand the amoral nature of atheism is as I said before - atheism is nihilistic. It proposes that ultimately, there is no meaning. But morality is entirely "a system of meaning" and requires a sense of justice. A nihilistic system proposes that everything came from nothing, without meaning, and then human life ends as nothing. In atheism, there can be no real justice. As mentioned many times, evolution does not propose that some species are good or others bad. No evolutionary developments are morally better than others. The death and destruction of species by evolutionary forces is not a "bad' result for evolution.Silver Asiatic
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
It’s interesting how a discussion of “moral” becomes a discussion on the word “amoral” but not “immoral.” Why the change? Why the emphasis? Again, do people really understand what they are talking about? Or is the diversion on purpose?jerry
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
VL @326
If you can’t even pay attention to what I write, and distort the meaning of a common word, then further discussion is hopeless
I find that unfortunate. You insist that I must accept your definition and you reject mine as invalid. But take a look, from the very exact page where you got your definition, we see this:
Definition of amoral 1a : having or showing no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong amoral politicians an amoral, selfish person b : being neither moral nor immoral specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply Science as such is completely amoral. — W. S. Thompson 2 : being outside or beyond the moral order or a particular code of morals
Definition 2 is exactly what I said. Subjectivism is outside the moral order. In fact, it's not a code of morals at all. It's entirely private within the person. There's no objective source. The definition speaks of "a particular code of morals" and that references objective codes, not subjective.Silver Asiatic
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
JVL
You do understand the confusion that entails ...
I understand that you have been, and perhaps still are, confused about what the objective moral law entails. You cited localized, temporal laws and applications of the moral law as if they were universal. You're running now to another topic (have you absorbed the first one yet?) by extracting Biblical quotes from the Hebrew scriptures and demanding an explanation. Understanding the history and meaning of Judaism and Christianity is a big topic to study. So, we have to be patient and look sincerely. We have to overcome inbuilt bias against religion, if it exists, and have some humility before the magnificence of God. Then we can ask questions and be open to the meaning of things. You have written very well and, in my opinion, some beautiful thoughts about the power and value of Faith. You have seen that faith enables us to rise above the passing-things and "noise" of life and conflicts. Yes, it brings us to the harmony, love, peace, knowledge and goodness of God's presence. Maybe this weekend, where the holy Resurrection of Christ is celebrated throughout the world, would be a good chance to go to church and maybe inquire more.Silver Asiatic
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
I will withdraw. If you can't even pay attention to what I write, and distort the meaning of a common word, then further discussion is hopeless. I will leave with this paragraph that I wrote above.
Amoral means “having or showing no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong.” But, I repeat: people do have a moral nature, and they do care, often very much, about whether their behavior is right or wrong. That is an observable, empirical fact. This is a separate issue from whether the moral standards they live by are related to some objective, universal standards or not, which is a philosophical, metaphysical issue of a different sort.
Viola Lee
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
Seversky
the God of Christianity appears notable only by His absence where human suffering is concerned
As KF reminds us @317, today is Good Friday and it's the perfect opportunity to contemplate Jesus' Seven Last Words on the Cross. There's a message about God's response to human suffering contained within that.Silver Asiatic
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
KF @ 315 - thank you for that reference and definition. Yes, an amoral system is one where there is no standard, and that's what it means to have subjective morals. Again, people who think art is subjective say that "there is no good or bad art". Taste is subjective. As I offered hypothetically, if math was subjective there would be no correct answers. All answers would be correct. When morality is considered subjective, then there is no standard. There can be no true good or bad because the very same action can be considered either morally good or morally bad.Silver Asiatic
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
Morality has been defined. It is objective and universal. It has nothing to do with religion just as ID has nothing to do with religion This has been ignored. There is no interest on UD for understanding, learning or truth about a lot of things. Just feigned hurt or neglect for a lot irrational points of view and the desire to generate thousands of words that are irrelevant and achieve nothing. This is just a repeat of what went on a year ago. So what else is new? Aside; religion has focused on morality but that does not mean morality is necessarily religious. Just as ID is not necessarily religious. Logic and evidence are all that’s necessary. Aside2: it may be possible using logic and evidence to tie morality to a creator. But that is not what these comments are about. They all beg the question by assuming that is so and not proving that. But first morality has to be shown to exist outside of religion and is universal which is easy. I was taught this in business school but the professors had no clue what they were proving.jerry
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: Time will tell, and there manifestly are first truths and duties on the table with powerful track record. And when another Christian disagrees with your views on those truths how do you propose to resolve the issue so that those not of faith can see the underlying objective moral standard? you have misjudged the geostrategic issues and may be unaware of relevant history (especially how the post WW1 League of Nations system collapsed as power mad tyrants precipitated WW2). I am in support of intervention in the situation in Ukraine, I understand the history and geopolitical issues. My moral question was: how do you morally justify aiding and abetting the killing of soldiers that are not actively involved in attacking you our your country? It's not a political or economic or strategic question, it's a question about morals and an object moral standard.JVL
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: I try to engage with my fellow Christians and reason with them, so they can see the higher-level morality that comes through Christian faith. That is, there’s a greater moral authority for the Christian than just the universal moral norms. The Christian believes that God has revealed more detailed moral truths through the Church, authorized to teach in the name of God. But for atheists here, I wouldn’t talk about such things at that higher level. You do understand the confusion that entails when people of faith seem to disagree (quite vehemently at times) about issues that seem pretty fundamental like homosexuality? It makes it sound like this claimed objective moral standard is not universally understood to be the same. All we can do with atheists and deists is talk about the built-in moral law which are the general moral precepts objective in human rational nature. And we sometimes still disagree. Like, say, about same-sex marriage. In a modern society where compromise is the sine qua non of introducing political and economic reform and advancement how would you propose a country like the US deal with that particular issue knowing that you would not be able to get your opposition to change their mind and see things your way? From that, atheists can discover that God is the author of the moral law and then they can discover the truths of the Christian revelation. But, again, when they see that even Christians can't agree on what the moral law says then how are they to discover those truths which seem to be relative instead of objective? I brought up a reference from Leviticus: If a man lieth with another man, both must be killed. (Leviticus 20:13). I would expect most people, including most Christians would find that directive appalling. I hope so anyway. How would you explain the proper way to interpret that verse? There are many such Biblical injunctions that, by modern standards, seem quite barbaric: If a man cheateth on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10) Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9) If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16) If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of its inhabitants, even the animals. (Deuteronomy 13:12-16) Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7) Slaves must be submissive and obedient to their masters. (Ephesians 6:5) And there are some that are just weird to modern ears: Don’t have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19) Don’t wear clothes made of more than one fabric. (Leviticus 19:19) Don’t cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27) People who have flat noses, or are blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God. (Leviticus 21:17-18) Women are not allowed to wear the clothing of men and men are not allowed to wear the clothing of women (Deuteronomy 22:5) And then there are these: Women must be submissive to their husbands. (1 Peter 3:1 and 3:5) Women should not style or braid their hair or wear any adornments (jewellery) or fancy clothing. 1 Peter 3:3, 1 Timothy 2:9) Women should be generally submissive and should be quiet, never teach or hold any authority over men. They should just be silent. (1 Timothy 2:12) Women must wear head coverings in any place of worship. (1 Corinthians 11:4-7) Clearly many of those (and other) Biblical 'rules' are no longer enforced or even taken seriously by most Christians and some Jews. So, how is an outsider to know what is part of the moral standard and what is not? Considering that Muslims are also people of the book how does one incorporate their much different interpretations into the objective moral standard?JVL
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: The toolkit says that “The concept of mathematics being purely objective is unequivocally false, and teaching it is even much less so.” It adds that “Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity as well as fear of open conflict.” The toolkit encourages teachers not to focus on students getting the “right” answer but to come up with more than one answer to questions that are “equally right,” … While it is true that there are areas of mathematics which are ambiguous and/or you can get different 'answers' depending on some assumptions or methods used at the high school level things are much more black and white. I think it is important when teaching mathematics to encourage students to try out different techniques and approaches; I have even had the experience of a student having a better approach to a particular kind of problem than I was used to using. It's also helpful, as an instructor, to get some glimpse of how your pupils think. In that sense, sometimes you do want to de-emphasise the one correct answer so that math is more like exploring and trying and, therefore, less scary and more engaging. It's alway more fun to experiment than to just memorise a set technique. In the 90s that sort of thing was starting to get introduced at the Calculus level when more emphasis was put on how you think about problems and situations first to be followed up by learning techniques to solve those problems. As a graduate student I was sometimes taught by the Moore method wherein the professor would give us a list of propositions and we had to either prove them or show that they weren't true usually via a counter-example. There the emphasis was also on learning how to think about the mathematics with the secondary objective of being able to do a lot of proofs. Anyway, all these kind of educational reforms at elementary levels always fall by the wayside once you start teaching engineers or chemists or mathematics majors. At some point you just have to use what works regardless of who discovered it.JVL
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT
Sandy: Not really. A math teacher of a 3rd grade level don’t agree with a PhD mathematician because they live in different planets of maths . It’s about levels of understanding and knowledge. The maths of a PhD mathematician is a “foreign language” for a math teacher of 3rd grade. So no not all mathematicians agree on math because not all have the same level of understanding and knowledge . No, it doesn't work that way. First of all NOT being able to address the same issues is NOT the same as disagreeing. Secondly, many high school math teachers have taken Calculus, Dif Eq, and some other higher level courses so they are aware of much past most people's daily experience. One of my high school math teachers had taken Topology which is quite abstract and quite messy.JVL
April 15, 2022
April
04
Apr
15
15
2022
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 13

Leave a Reply