Originally posted by Petrel:
Scott J, you're using a different definition of morality, I believe. Here is the definition that I am using.
Morality: a standard of desireable behavior--the way one ought to act. Not necessarily Christian morality.
Maybe. I am using the American Heritage definition which is consistent with Webster's:
mo·ral·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-rl-t, mô-)
n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties
The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
Virtuous conduct.
A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
It is more definitive than what "ought to be" and of course these definitions are consistent with an active, sovereign creator.
The theory of evolution is amoral in that it is just a description of what has happened.
It is not a description of what has happened but it is amoral.
However, when people take the theory and try to draw a conclusion about how we ought to behave, that is when they are creating a morality from it.
No. Taken to its logical conclusion, the theory says that there are no valid authorities for telling us what we "ought" to do except that we "ought not" do those things that threaten our survivablity.
Now we turn to David Hume and the is-ought problem.
Why? Why not turn to scripture where God says that man "ought" to obey and that there "is" a consequence for not obeying?
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.
Do you as a Christian really want to cite Hume as an authoritative counter to scripture?
The application here is that basically the theory of evolution makes a descriptive statement that it is the fittest members of a population that survive. Some people come along and, motivated by pride, selfishness, and fear, make a normative judgement that those they consider unfit should either be exterminated or not aided because they are unworthy. That is a fallacy--it doesn't follow. You can't make a value judgement from a descriptive statement.
But it isn't a value judgment in the sense of morality if evolution is true. Humans don't have individual value if evolution is true. We are nothing more than highly evolved animals. And no, you can't reference God here. Since it is your contention that morality is what "ought" to be rather than what God said "must" be.
BTW, what you argue against, Darwin argued for.
Would anyone here say that because of this it is right to persecute those who don't carry the sickle-cell or CCR5 mutations? Of course not!
Darwin did. And while no one here would an atheist whose world view was shaped by evolution would have no reason not to consider it since morality is ultimately arbitrary.
That is because the truth that natural selection acts on human populations does not affect how we as moral agents ought to behave.
Maybe for you. But for me it is because God has established moral laws that are every bit as sure as natural law. It isn't an "ought to behave" proposition according to the Bible. It is a do this or die proposition... of course, that's where Grace comes in.
If anyone here wants to contradict Hume and say that you can get to ought from is . . . well, you probably want to avoid that.
No I don't. What little I know of Hume's beliefs aren't impressive and I certainly wouldn't use them as a filter for scripture.
I most definitely DON'T want to avoid that. God's moral laws bridge the gap between "ought" and "is" completely.
Christians have been saying for decades that it is improper to draw any conclusions about proper moral behavior from simple observation of the natural world since true morality comes from God. The moral relativists disagree, and by saying that you can logically draw conclusions about the way one ought to behave from evolutionary theory, you're giving them ammunition.
We aren't saying that. We are saying the opposite and this whole line of reasoning is invalid.
It is exactly because evolution frees man from the moral absolutes that it results in immorality.
