>LH>ABSTRACT: I suggest we look for God's SUPERnatural influence on human
>morality in the learned/social component of our moral ideals, and in
>"religious affections."
>
>Welcome to the discussion, Derek,
>
>
>
>LH>First, I'll make a semantic point to avoid (I hope) future confusion. You
>used the term "moral nature" to describe, primarily, how most people
>ACTUALLY behave most of the time, and only secondarily to describe
>humanity's more-or-less shared "ideal standard," which tells us how we
>SHOULD behave. Theists (and hence, most of the people on this group)
>primarily use the term "moral nature" to describe humanity's "ideal."
>(To describe how people ACTUALLY behave most of the time, we use the term
>"sinful nature." ;-) Clearly, we'll have to be careful about our
>definitions.
Perhaps what you would call "sinful nature", I would call "animal nature",
"mammal nature" or even "human nature". But then, I would suggest that we
have very different attitudes to sin, defined as "theological autonomy" or
"independence from God". I see such autonomy as desirable, even necessary,
for people to approach their full potential.
>LH>Should we look for evidence of God's influence over human morality in our
>"actual morality," or in our "ideal morality"? I'll leave that as an open
>question for now.
>
>Second, your argument puts a lot of stress on the genetic component of
>human morality, as opposed to the learned/social component --- the ol'
>nature/nurture debate. We'll have to be careful about that one, too.
>(Is the "family first/tribe second/etc. altruistic hierarchy" genetically
>programmed, or learned, or both?)
For the purposes of this discussion, it probably doesn't matter. Clearly
there are both genetic and learned components of human morality. The
significant question is; Are there any other components BESIDES the genetic
and the learned? I would say "no" or, at least, "not demonstrated". I
suspect that you might say "yes" and proceed to describe the divine component.
>LH>Third, when you are looking for answers to the questions, "Was/is God
>involved in evolutionary processes? If so, to what extent?" don't
>concentrate so hard on _collective_ human behavior that you ignore
>evidence for God in _individual_ human behavior. More on that later.
>
>
>O.k., having said all that, I agree with quite a bit of what you wrote.
>There are remarkable similarities between the behavior patterns of social
>mammals and human moral choices. My own tentative (evolutionary
>creationist) perspective on this is that the competing behaviors
>reinforced by natural selection (e.g. selfishness/altruism, abandonment of
>offspring/sacrifice for offspring, pleasure-reinforcing activity/difficult
>and dangerous food storage activity, pair-mating/harems, acceptance of
>social roles/rogue behavior) were God's way of creating "raw material" for
>free will and moral choice. In this sense, "evolutionary psychology"
>might eventually tell us something useful about our behavior patterns.
Although I don't believe in your God (nothing personal: I don't believe in
anyone's god), I really have no rational basis for arguing against this
perspective. I do, however, suggest that non-evolutionary creationists would
not even see a reason to investigate along these lines.
>LH>Once the basis for free will and moral choice are in place (along with
>the ability to grasp the concept of "moral ideals"), revelation from the
>Creator can play a formative role in shaping humanity's moral ideals (and
>our response when we fail to live up to those ideals). God's affect on
>certain individuals' moral codes can be transmitted socially to affect all
>of humanity. I suggest that if we're looking for God's SUPERnatural
>influence on morality, we look for it in the learned/social component of
>our moral IDEALS.
This is reasonable *IF* you trust alleged divine revelation. I don't, since
I believe it is too easily counterfeited or misinterpreted.
>LH>Whether I can prove to you that there IS an affect of God's revelation on
>the development of society's moral ideals is, to say the least,
>problematic. :-)
The odds approach certainty that you would be wasting your time, unless you
had a way of undermining my deep scepticism about the authenticity of
alleged divine revelation generally. If I accepted the authenticity of
divine revelation, your claims about the effect on human morality would be a
small hurdle.
What I see happening here is that certain people produce an effect on other
people's moral codes by feigning divine revelation or erroneously
misinterpreting an unusual personal experience as divine revelation and
transmitting it socially.
>LH>But I would point your attention to the "religious
>affections" described so well by Jonathan Edwards in his book by that
>title. What is the source of "truly gracious and holy affections ...
>grounded in the excellent nature of divine things, not self-interest"
>found in so many people? (In other words, why do some people place their
>highest values and affections, not on family/clan survival, but upon the
>perceived qualities on a transcendent being?)
Hope of future huge reward, e.g. eternal life; hope of avoidance of
punishment, e.g. disease, eternal torment; hope of a present hotline to a
God that is, to some people, little more thn a divine Santa Claus.
>LH>Does genetic altruism have a hope of explaining it?
Probably not. But genetic (inherited) selfishness might! As might inherited
curiosity.
>I, who am so naively optimistic about so many
>"evolutionary" things (just ask this group :-) , must express some
>skepticism.
The genetic component should be significant. Most of us are descended from a
long line of people who have almost invariably held supernatural beliefs.
>=======================================================
>=======================================================
>LH>In your personal introduction to this group, and in your "How to Think
>About Naturalism" post, you boldly ask some very difficult questions of
>Christianity. Since you have been so bold (and I commend you), I hope
>that you won't object to some difficult answers. (I'm not trying to be
>difficult myself, but the answers I suggest will be difficult to accept.)
>
>You wrote:
>
>DM> Presumably, in a free society, Christians can claim what they like. I fail
>> to see how Christians could provide strong support for a claim that their
>> "oughts" can "logically displace" the "oughts" of Buddhism, for example.
>LH>If the unique claims about Jesus --- which his followers wrote down as
>coming from his own mouth --- are true, then the "oughts" affirmed by
>Jesus must displace all other "oughts." The strength of Jesus' "oughts"
>depend on the strength of support for his claims of divinity.
I agree 100%. If Jesus is divine, then Christian "oughts" should and will
displace the "oughts" of other religions that do not have a divine leader.
However, firstly I don't believe that Jesus is/was divine. Secondly, I think
that the *most* that can be claimed of the New Testament writings is that
they were written by the followers of the followers of Jesus, more to
present a viewpoint than to provide a historically accurate description of
events.
>
>-----------------------------------------------
>
>DM> I reject
>> revelation transmitted via "chosen" people as a means of gaining knowledge
>> or understanding, since such revelation is so easily counterfeited that no
>> god worthy of the title would consider such an unreliable method of
>> revealing themselves.
>
>LH>This puts me in mind of a small child who complains to his mother,
>"My real mother would let me eat all the cookies I want."
A more apt simile might be, "My real mother would not object to me
independently testing the authenticity of my birth certificate."
>LH>Your categoric rejection seems hasty. If God had some good reason for
>limiting supernatural revelation to SOME humans, rather than ALL humans,
>then revelation will inevitably be transmitted via "chosen people."
If supernatural revelation is limited "to SOME humans", it would follow that
Christianity is *not* a religion for all of humanity?! I wonder if anyone
told all those missionaries! :-)
>LH>What good reasons might the Creator have for acting this way? Whole
>chapters have been written, so I'll leave that discussion for another day.
Whenever you're ready!
>---------------------------------------
>
>DM> Let's look in
>> the Book of Joshua, Chapter 10.
>>
>> 40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of
>> the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining,
>> BUT UTTERLY DESTROYED ALL THAT BREATHED, AS THE LORD GOD OF ISRAEL
>> COMMANDED.
>>
>> So, would you care to explain what was so "special" about the
>> "circumstances" surrounding these wholesale slaughters
>
>LH>Here is the _particularly_ difficult idea:
>
>Every society, every family, every human being, including you and me,
>deserves exactly that same treatment. By God's perfect standards, and our
>abysmal failure, truly just judgment earns everyone the death sentence.
>
>Occasionally, occasionally, God let that judgment fall, sometimes using
>natural disasters, sometimes using the armies of "his chosen people,"
>sometimes using pagan armies to punish his own "chosen people."
>
>The "special circumstance" is that MOST of the time, God restrains this
>just judgment.
>
>Can we fully accept the idea of a TRULY holy, infinite Creator, and his
>proper disappointment with continually rebellious creatures? I find it a
>terribly difficult concept, even so soon after meditating on Good Friday
>and Easter, which I believe are God's ultimate answer to the whole sordid
>situation.
This is an interesting twist! What makes it especially difficult for me is
that I cannot see why God would create a being that is intrinsically worthy
of nothing better than immediate and eternal death. If God, as he is usually
depicted, is so hung up on holiness, creating an intrinsically unholy being
like ourselves would simply be a bad idea.
Do all these difficulties with Christian theology really mean that the basic
premises of Christianity are wrong?
Regards
Derek
-----------------------------------------------------
| Derek McLarnen | dmclarne@pcug.org.au |
| Melba ACT | dmclarne@ncomcanb.telstra.com.au |
| Australia | |
-----------------------------------------------------