Posted on 10/21/2008 8:28:11 PM PDT by Soliton
Please keep your ignorance of evolutionary theory to yourself.
Perhaps I phrased it incorrectly. When I stated “man made theory of evolution”, I was speaking to those who believe that evolution excludes the existence of God. I said that they are not necessarily incompatible because I believe that evolution may well be one of God’s grand designs.
So I am a proponent of the notion that Darwinism and faith are compatible and can coexist.
The atheist makes an enormous leap of faith by proclaiming that the miracle of the huma brain was a random occurence, starting with indistinguishable cells in some cosmic ooze.
Sorry Soliton, I did not mean to come across as negative about mankind’s accomplishments, which are indeed miraculous. Not my intent at all. The astounding human brain, which I believe is indeed God’s creation, is creating technology and medical breakthroughs that the formula for has always existed in the universe from the dawn of time.
Why would random generation of genetic variation be any different?
Thanks for your wise and kind response! :)
Actully, I mean the opposite. I am of the mind that “random” processes may well be part of God’s design. I was being critical of the atheist who believes that the existence of random processes is somehow “proof’ of God’s non-existence. You and I are most likely on the same page here.
Point well taken, and appreciated.
An oversimplification, I admit, but: Kind of like growing crystals in solution. The final form may be the result of "random" events at a molecular level, but the basic design and eventual formation was assured when you mixed the solution.
“?”A high priest from the temple of Darwin just put his foot in his mouth and demonstrated a complete lack of intelligence concerning biblical matters, thats all.
That sums it up quite well.
Indeed, after being defeated and serving the Empire the Romans granted citizenship to their better servants. Have you heard of Vichy French or the Scandinavian SS units? That said, the Gaulish Roman citizens were notable as being the exception to the rule, until the latter days of the Empire when citizenship was loosely defined.
The Gauls that even hinted at autonomy from Rome were given the normal Roman treatment for non-citizen treason - crucification.
Perhaps what is confusing you is that the Romans weren't tribal. Like the Soviets they based their rule on a mindset. That mindset was not "Love your neighbor as yourself." let alone "love your enemies".
And in any case, it doesn't really address the question of whether the Romans had laws against murder or some version of a Golden Rule. I see a list in a lot of places that says the Roman pagans had a principle, "The law imprinted on the hearts of all men is to love the members of society as themselves." I also find a quote from a first-century Greco-Roman philosopher who said, "Treat anybody whatsoever as though you supposed that he were you and you he." (He may have been influenced by Christianity, of course.) And I'm sure the Romans had laws against the murder at least of fellow Romans.
You may claim that those were rules of philosophers but not the practice of the state. True enough, but even Christian states aren't that good at following the Golden Rule towards their enemies, perceived or real--it's easier to love your neighbor when you reserve the right to define who your "neighbor" is.
OK.
And in any case, it doesn't really address the question of whether the Romans had laws against murder or some version of a Golden Rule. I see a list in a lot of places that says the Roman pagans had a principle, "The law imprinted on the hearts of all men is to love the members of society as themselves." I also find a quote from a first-century Greco-Roman philosopher who said, "Treat anybody whatsoever as though you supposed that he were you and you he." (He may have been influenced by Christianity, of course.) And I'm sure the Romans had laws against the murder at least of fellow Romans.
The ancients certainly had some enlightenment and there are many things to praise them for. That said, they did not give Christianity its virtue. Loving one's family and acting protectively inside of ones tribe appears to be a human trait. Its shared in and out of Christianity. Further, most successful empires realized that it was advantageous to treat the subjected populations with some level of dignity. That said, the mindset of human rights did not exist. Much like modern Muslims, references to "your fellow man" was not a biological reference, but rather a tribal, religious or political one.
The clearest example of this is the tendency of peoples to not even have a word in their language for friendly strangers, e.g. the Sue Indians, the Aztecs, and the Chinese, whose word for outsiders is best translated into English as "foreign devil".
Men like Voltaire were not recreating the virtue of the ancients, but rather completing the rational extension of Christian thought. The Enlightenment came right on the heels of a solidified Christian Europe. People tend to forget that most of Europe did not convert until after 1000 AD. This matter of connecting the Enlightenment's principals on human rights to the ancients has been a bit confused by the great thinkers of the Enlightenment themselves, by their desire to see the great minds of Greece and Rome as something other than Pagan. Thus, there were entire treatises written on pre-Christ Christianity.
You may claim that those were rules of philosophers but not the practice of the state. True enough, but even Christian states aren't that good at following the Golden Rule towards their enemies, perceived or real--it's easier to love your neighbor when you reserve the right to define who your "neighbor" is.
I've covered those philosophers notions above. Your point though is well taken. People are Christians, not states. However, Christian values have greatly affected Western culture in our unique regard for human rights and morals. This is truly amazing to me, as I very much doubt that any state ever had a citizenry that was more than 50% practicing Christians.
There are no good Darwinian arguments for assisting those who will never be able to help us, or for that matter acting against our own self interest to help someone else (turning in a bag of money) when no one could possibly know whether we had or hadn't. As our society becomes more secular you here more of these arguments every day, stating that what is moral is based on the situation at the time, and differs from person to person.
Its fine for atheists to grab onto Christian ideas as being superior, but it is wrong for them to pretend that they are universal traits. Finders keepers losers weepers is and has been the norm. In fact, you'll find a great number of pre-Christian stories treat what is now regarded as Western morality as foolishness, an opportunity lost.
What atheists miss is that Christian morals are not based on fairness. They are based on mercy. What is logical is to be fair and allow people who drove too fast and had no insurance to die of their injuries, vice shelling out $500k in our money to save them. It is fair that people who are incapable of working should die of starvation.
All of that logic and fairness becomes even more cold if you accept the premise that people are just animals, not so much different than the cattle we slaughter. Isn't it logical and fair to, at a minimum, sterilize people who can't pull their own weight?
If all we have is the now, it is only logical to take all we can as fast as we can, only being careful to avoid any repercussions. Morality in such a world isn't a virtue, its at best a tactic.
But your points do remind me of a conversation I had recently with a friend, a historian, who was saying that the Chinese don't have the same concept of individual rights or of the proper balance between mercy and fairness as we do in the West. He seemed to think this was a threat to our moral way of life, as the Chinese approach comes to dominate business and then social attitudes.
Since when are Darwinian actions thought out? I'd say it bolsters my argument. Atheists say that Christian type morals aren't Christian at all, but rather just natural. If they are just natural, then they are the result of Darwinian forces. My point is that such morals are not advantageous, although using such actions as a tactic might be argued to be.
My apologies for jumping into the middle of your discussion.
Athiests make that argument because they apparently aren't familiar with actual Christian teaching.
Yes, it's natural to care for your family and tribe. But Jesus taught:
43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.Those commandments are decidedly not natural. Jesus taught and demonstrated how to rise above the "natural" and become more.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Oops! Forgot the reference. It’s from Matthew 5.
I didn't say they were--sorry if I was unclear. What I meant was, I don't think Christians who act according to Christian morals do so because they think about it--I don't believe most people really stop and wonder "WWJD?", or weigh the promise of eternal reward against the punishment for sinning, before they perform a moral act. It's "instinctive."
And if instead moral impulses are truly instinctive, or natural, we can look at what evolutionary advantage they might confer--there certainly are many, at least on the family/clan/tribe level. Also, other primates, who presumably aren't influenced by Christianity, have shown a capacity for altruistic behavior.
If moral impulses are natural, I would say the challenge for modern humans is how to adapt a tribe-oriented instinct to the demands of interacting with much larger groups. That may be the significance of Christ's message, as illustrated in the quotes TChris offers: that all men are in your clan and deserve the same consideration.
Wow. You don't know the Christians that I know then. I'm tested every time a very attractive woman walks by. I can tell you that I spent a lot of time away from home while in the Navy as a young hormonal young man, and being true to my wife was not the "natural urge" that I felt.
Although living the faith does tend to make the next step easier, I don't at all think that Christians just happen to have genetic morals.
When faced with strong temptation to act against our Christian morals, I think every Christian stops and thinks WWJD? in some manner.
And if instead moral impulses are truly instinctive, or natural, we can look at what evolutionary advantage they might confer--there certainly are many, at least on the family/clan/tribe level. Also, other primates, who presumably aren't influenced by Christianity, have shown a capacity for altruistic behavior.
Every animal that raises its young shows signs of altruistic behavior. But there is absolutely no Darwinian explanation for showing mercy to an enemy or acting at ones own expense, when no one could possibly know. The Darwinian logic is that you benefit from reciprocity, but that is only of some actions and certainly only true of known actions. Returning a wallet or not cheating on your wife has absolutely no Darwinian value.
If moral impulses are natural, I would say the challenge for modern humans is how to adapt a tribe-oriented instinct to the demands of interacting with much larger groups. That may be the significance of Christ's message, as illustrated in the quotes TChris offers: that all men are in your clan and deserve the same consideration.
I think that logic will take society in exactly the opposite direction. I hope I am wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.