Posted on 07/12/2021 7:54:14 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov once said, “Modern people believe this: man descended from apes. Therefore, let us love one another.”
Of course, Solovyov made his statement in a mocking fashion. Despite attempts from secular philosophers and ethicists who try to assert that an evolutionary-based altruism instinct or other such thing impels us to do good to others, Solovyov is right – you can’t link traditional evolutionary teaching and objective morality together.
And yet, perhaps more than ever in the history of humanity, there is widespread belief in the equal treatment of others; that we should be working for the betterment of all people, especially those who are poor, marginalized and oppressed. The only odd thing about that is it contradicts everything we know about naturalistic teaching.
As Solovyov says, most people believe that we came from an unguided process of natural selection, a survival of the fittest where the strong eats the weak, a nature red in tooth and claw. And we’re told it’s been that way for billions of years.
But now all that must stop.
Even though we’re taught that is how nature has worked, and still works, its methods no longer apply to humanity. Greater nations must not overcome lesser nations, fortunate or stronger individuals must not overpower less fortunate or weaker individuals.
And the reason why? Because it’s “wrong”.
Naturalism knows no such thing as “wrong” in that sense. Like humanist Paul Kurtz said, “If man is a product of evolution, one species among others, in a universe without purpose, then man’s option is to live for himself.”
Evolutionary William Provine admitted, “When Darwin deduced the theory of natural selection to explain the adaptations in which he had previously seen the handiwork of God, he knew that he was committing cultural murder. He understood immediately that if natural selection explained adaptations, and evolution by descent were true, then the argument from design was dead and all that went with it, namely the existence of a personal god, free will, life after death, immutable moral laws, and ultimate meaning in life.”
Though difficult to accept, Kurtz and Provine’s conclusions are inescapable if we’re just animals living in a meaningless and purposeless universe. But our schizophrenic secular culture today demands both a commitment to naturalism and objective morality, which is impossible. On the one hand it wants freedom from any transcendent Creator who might impose absolute moral obligations on it, but on the other, it wants to impose its ever-changing-but-absolute-for-right-now moral obligations on others.
The question is, how does our culture support its ethics without God? The natural universe can’t provide an answer because you can’t get moral grounding from amoral matter; it’s metaphysically impossible.
Our democratic process and culture is anything but objective and stable. Moreover, activists have proven they will work tirelessly to overturn laws decided by the majority. Add to that the fact that there are multiple cultures in the world; what one may deem morally correct another could reject.
Science can’t help because as Einstein noted: “You are right in speaking of the moral foundations of science, but you cannot turn round and speak of the scientific foundations of morality.”
Individual opinion doesn’t work because everyone lives in societies where individual opinions clash every second of every day. That puts you back at the sad ending of the Old Testament book of Judges, which describes our current culture pretty well: “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).
This is why the founders of the United States grounded the equality of all people in God; our Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
You won’t find a statement made by any other nation like this – moral grounding, human worth and rights based on a divine creative act.
This is consistently overlooked by our secular society that forgets (1) a government big enough to give you your rights is big enough to take them away, and (2) morals not based in God devolve into pure opinion. As an example, former politician and president of the Human Rights Campaign Cheryl Jacques, who fought so hard for same-sex marriage, had this to say as to why polygamy shouldn’t be legalized: “Because I don’t approve of that.”[1]
So is racism wrong? Should we work to help those struggling in poverty? Do we respect all people and affirm their innate moral worth?
Absolutely. But why?
On the one hand, you have the teachings of naturalism, which Richard Dawkins sums up as: “Life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”
On the other, you have the truth of Christianity. And in contrast to Vladimir Solovyov’s thinking, Christians believe this: humanity was created in the image of God. Therefore, let us love one another.
[1] CNN Crossfire (February 24, 2004), Transcript #022401CN.V20.
If you delete God from the history of man, then don’t be surprised that the future is full of Evil..................
I’m currently rereading Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. This is exactly what he says in the first book (5 chapters).
If man descended from apes why do we still have apes duh.
“They” being atheists:
They believe in evolution but they don’t believe in how evolution works - it’s not nice, it’s not altruistic.
Yet, altruism is what they want from you. Their understanding of you has a disconnect between how they think you came about and how they think you should act.
The morality they say they want from you only makes sense if you are made in the image of G-d, not Darwin.
Maybe but what is it? 99%+ of what I see being called 'racism' is not only BS but in no way 'racism'. Even the so called old definition of racism is somewhat ambiguous. Racism is nothing but a tool and a weapon.
If you raise Timber wolves and Gray wolves together, they soon inter mate and live as one group. But if you turn them loose in the wild, the Gray Wolves will soon live together in packs and the Timber wolves will live in their own packs.
Are wolves racist?
Or is it just life to create differences and have the differences prefer each other?
Specieist.
Never forget that Darwin’s Origin of Species was written in 1859 during the height of the Christian abolitionist movement. To undermine the belief in God was to undermine abolition. His book even talked about slavery among ants and included his belief that the red ants he observed would cease to exist if they couldn’t keep using the black ants as slaves.
Bookmark
No answer.
Always interesting to read " scientists compare their DNA, the instruction manual for building each species. Humans and chimps share a surprising 98.8 percent of their DNA."
Chimps on TV and at the zoo seem to be so much nicer and cuter. They shouldn't be slandered by being accused of being so close to humans.
>>If man descended from apes why do we still have apes duh.<<
Because evolution is not linear duh.
It is OK (sort of) to debate the science. Doing so from a position of sheer ignorance is a bad idea.
It's been a while since I read about this, so forgive me if it's a bit rusty. But a biochemist named Dr. Fuzale Rana (part of an old earth creation organization) pointed out that every time we read about darwinists comparing DNA across different species they always do their numbers after filtering out parts of the DNA that don't match.
It'd be like saying flying a helicopter is almost exactly like riding a bike --- as long as you're not talking about the fact that helicopters travel three dimensionally, require fuel, etc.
It was Thomas Hobbes who laid the foundation for the destruction Christian morality.
He was the first person to come up with a replacement for Biblical morality: social contract theory. The idea that murder is wrong because none of us wants to get murdered and thus agree as a society to make murder a crime.
Once that virus was planted in the European mind the traditional basis for a society steadily began to erode until we reach the present mess.
Evolution is links only not twin evolution.
>>Everything in life creates groups, And like groups always tend to congregate together. Is that racism - or is it just life?<<
One of the very interesting accidental anthropological discoveries was when they were filming the original “Planet of the Apes” the extras self-grouped by type of ape they portrayed. Gorillas with gorillas, orangutans with orangutans, etc.
Mildly freaked the director and producers out.
Close but no cigar even pigs have some DNA links as many other animals do.
someone has to play basketball
>>Evolution is links only not twin evolution.<<
That statement is semantically and scientifically null.
The term “racist” is used in order to not have to defend your position, you simply dismiss opposing opinions as “racist”.
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.