The Christian Man's Evolution: How Darwinism and Faith Can Coexist

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?"

Some or most people may not. But some people do, and it's not "instinctive", but rather a good habit that's formed with practice.

Atheistic theories seem to hinge a great deal on variations of "I do/do not X, therefore others (more or less) do/ do not X either." The fact is, generalizations about deeply personal and individual motivations and choices are instantly flawed by definition. Without exhaustive interviews of a huge number of people, how would you begin to presume to know what they're thinking or what motivates them?

I agree with your second sentence, but I don't think it's just true of atheistic theories. For example, SampleMan generalizes from his behavior in the Navy to other Christians; but I can say that when I was married I was faithful to my spouse because of the promise I made to her, not because of any religious considerations. Now, maybe being honest was just a good habit instilled by the religious aspects of my upbringing, but we don't know that either.

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.

At the same time, lots of mammals have ways of showing submission to a dominant rival, and after such a display the dominant one usually "shows mercy," if that's how you want to look at it. So it's not like the natural rule is "kill or be killed." As for acting at one's own expense when no one could know: if something like conscience truly did evolve, it's not going to apply on a case-by-case basis. The impulse to be generous will always be there and will win out sometimes.

Sorry about dropping off the planet during the middle of a good conversation. I had out of town guests from the Czech Republic visiting and my wife is out of town, so I haven't had much time to relax (which is how I look at FR). On to your comment.

I think we agree on the premise that man is not a homicidal maniac by design. Its been a few days, so I hope I don't jump subject here. Forgive me for not going back and rereading the posts, I like to pretend that I still have a good memory. Here it goes.

Historically, animals and people tend to hesitate in killing their own species more as the blood relation grows stronger and less as the blood relation grows weaker.

The crux of the issue is whether atheists are correct in stating that it is "only logical" that we love our neighbor as we love ourselves. I think it is anything but logical.

Taking a look at those male wolves who didn't kill their younger rivals, is that really logical? Those rivals will almost certainly displace them later, to their loss individually and genetically. Indeed, many male animals kill the male young, even their own, if given a chance.

Extreme totalitarian regimes have always been very logical about getting rid of their enemies. The NAZI's extermination of the Jews pops to mind, but I'd have to give the Soviet pogroms the prize. Remarkably the NAZI's still appeared to be restricted by a latent sense of morality. If the Gestapo had absolutely no proof, but only suspected, they generally let people go. The Stalinists took self-protection to the logical end. Knowing that being inhibited by proof would put themselves at some risk, they simply exiled and executed people based on suspicion alone. They set the bar very low and they were very successful at eliminating the threat. Logical and methodical. And it must be noted that the USSR did not crumble from insurrection but from economic rot. It is testament to the Soviet pogroms that even when the shackles were removed in '91 Russian culture was uninterested in taking up popular government. The impulse to challenge their leaders had been pruned from their society.

My hypothesis is that societies driven by logic alone will always move to totalitarian rule and the devaluation of human life.

No problem with dropping the conversation, especially for such a good reason.

I guess I'm not convinced there is such a thing as "societies driven by logic alone" or that "logic alone" maps to "atheism." I think these are the kinds of constructs that anti-atheists use to discredit atheism: if you are an atheist, you must believe X, and X is immoral, therefore atheists are immoral. The atheists I know, and personally know of, have consciences--they don't simply reason their way to behavior any more than anyone else does. They may ask "What's the logical reason that men have consciences?" where the religious person doesn't. But I think mostly people follow their consciences,or lack thereof, and rationalize it however they can--some using "logic," and others using their religion.

The point in particular that I was addressing were atheists that state that their morals that have definitely come from Christian culture, are just naturally superior and don't require Christianity. Certainly not all atheists think this, esp. the ones in non-Christian cultures that do not at all share our values.

The idea of “natural morals” is flawed in the sense that morals vary. When the Tartars were throwing their children into pits to fight with dogs, they weren't troubled. Nor were the Aztecs troubled at holding down their enemies ripping out their beating hearts and tossing their corpses down the steps of their temples. I'm sure they felt that their cultural morals were impeccable.

So what did Aztec and Tartar atheists think about their own morals? They probably thought that they just naturally had “good” morals, just like their religious friends.

The works of the great thinkers of the enlightenment are often pointed to by many atheists in the West as their guide to non-Christian based morals, but in truth those works are just products of Christianity applied to the secular world. This is why I reject the argument of the atheists who claim the morals of the Enlightenment, but reject any connection of those morals to Christianity.

Well, I'll meet your Aztecs and Tartars with Inquisitors and Albigensians. They certainly thought their morals were impeccable but also that they were acting on behalf of their God. And why do you refer to "Aztec atheists"? I thought the Aztec human sacrifices had religious significance?

My feeling is that people do what they do and rationalize it by whatever means they have--religion, atheistic "logic," or whatever works. And at the same time, almost all people--atheists, Christians, Buddhists, ancient Greeks--have some kind of conscience and maybe even some notion of the Golden Rule, albeit with exceptions. And like I said, I think one of the breakthroughs of Christ's message was, "Sorry, no exceptions."

Well, I'll meet your Aztecs and Tartars with Inquisitors and Albigensians. They certainly thought their morals were impeccable but also that they were acting on behalf of their God.

Maybe. People justify things in all manner and using religion is no exception. That said, the Enlightenment (the logical progression of Christian thought) is why we consider such things to be bad vice necessary.

And why do you refer to "Aztec atheists"? I thought the Aztec human sacrifices had religious significance?

I must not have been clear. Yes that was religious. My point is this. Assuming that not all Aztecs believed in their gods, they had some atheists. So were those Aztec atheists troubled by the morals of their brethren or did they accept them. Obviously the answer must be assumed, but would you agree that they likely shared the morals of their society, vice having some other "natural morals"? That is my point. Atheists in the West tend to think of Christian morals as good, but mistakenly think that they are just commonly shared morals.

Here are some rhetorical questions. Do you think there is one moral truth, or were the Aztecs just as correct as Mother Theresa? Why is the Golden Rule better? Why shouldn't a person do what will logically benefit them the most in the short time before they die? If its just a matter of a evolutionary anomaly that we have a conscience, wouldn't it be better to overcome it? If you feel lust and guilt, why should it be lust that is repressed?

The trouble with simply accepting the message of Jesus without accepting His divinity is that it is then just another opinion. Nice to have, but open for debate.

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.