tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post4785575236527151483..comments2024-03-16T21:32:23.088-04:00Comments on A Sure Word: Can Darwinian evolution produce a healthy society?RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-650874175339813012015-10-25T13:12:59.919-04:002015-10-25T13:12:59.919-04:00Steven J,
I don't have time to address all yo...Steven J,<br /><br />I don't have time to address all your points so let me hit a few. You said, “I think that a sympathetic reading of Silverman would be, not that there are no objective moral principles that are more than mere opinions,...”<br /><br />Well, Silverman does say that “objective morality is dangerous” See the tape beginning at around 10:10 for one example. In that case, he said it's dangerous “because it gets in the way of growth.”<br /><br />You said, “but that the idea of a detailed moral code that is permanent and unalterable, in all societies, all times, and all situations, is wrong (because it does not maximize human welfare and minimize human suffering).”<br /><br />But Silverman believed the Bible is “wrong” for “endorsing slavery” or the stoning of heretics. So he apparently does believe that some societies, in some times, were wrong about certain situations. I ask on what grounds he can say our view of slavery is the “correct” view?<br /><br />You said, “Also note that complaining about the dangers of moral absolutism, and about how violent zealots can justify themselves by appealing to eternal divine law as superior to human wisdom and symmpathy, is not that novel;”<br /><br />Silverman seems to be claiming his own absolute sense of morality when saying our understanding of slavery is preferred over the slavery discussed in the Bible. Is his sense of moral absolutism dangerous?<br /><br />You said, “Natural selection is not, itself, the justification or examplar of morality; rather, the human sympathies and reasoning abilities that have been shaped by natural selection are. Moral judgments are not based on how well they preserve copies of our genes, even if our minds were shaped because the mental habits and feelings that shape our moral judgments happened, in fact, to work (more often than not) to preserve the genes for minds that felt and thought that way.”<br /><br />If evolution were true, we have no reason to believe our senses are reliable. The things we believe aren't necessarily “true” they are merely “expedient.” <br /><br />You said, “Slavery seems, given your apologetic goals, an odd example of permanent morality, given that the Bible explicitly authorizes keeping foreigners (but not fellow Israelites) as inheritable permanent chattels; both the Old Testament and the New sanction the practice.” <br /><br />I need to do a post on this sometime. The laws concerning slavery are like the laws about divorce. Jesus made it clear (Matthew 19:8) that God did not intend certain things but has made allowances for them because of the hardness of our hearts. The enslavement of non-Jews was primarily the result of war. “Slaves” were usually captured enemies. God didn't intend there to be slavery or war. However, when war happened, God gave strict commands as to how to treat defeated enemies. <br /><br />I'm going to snip the rest of your comments. Maybe I'll revisit them later. Thanks again. God bless!!<br /><br />RKBentleyRKBentleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-45744860924317383152015-10-25T00:17:06.563-04:002015-10-25T00:17:06.563-04:00I think that a sympathetic reading of Silverman wo...I think that a sympathetic reading of Silverman would be, not that there are <i>no</i> objective moral principles that are more than mere opinions, but that the idea of a detailed moral code that is permanent and unalterable, in all societies, all times, and all situations, is wrong (because it does not maximize human welfare and minimize human suffering). Also note that complaining about the dangers of moral absolutism, and about how violent zealots can justify themselves by appealing to eternal divine law as superior to human wisdom and symmpathy, is not that novel; I'm pretty sure the argument has been around since at least the birth of utilitarianism some 200 years ago.<br /><br />Note that while in creationism, the <i>source</i> of our moral intuitions is also, directly, the <i>justification</i> of those intuitions and the standard by which they are to be corrected and adjusted; this is not so with evolution. Natural selection is not, itself, the justification or examplar of morality; rather, the human sympathies and reasoning abilities that have been shaped by natural selection are. Moral judgments are not based on how well they preserve copies of our genes, even if our minds were shaped because the mental habits and feelings that shape our moral judgments happened, in fact, to work (more often than not) to preserve the genes for minds that felt and thought that way.<br /><br />Slavery seems, given your apologetic goals, an odd example of permanent morality, given that the Bible explicitly authorizes keeping foreigners (but not fellow Israelites) as inheritable permanent chattels; both the Old Testament and the New sanction the practice (both Old and New Testaments heap scorn on slave traders, though, implying that the U.S. was at its most biblical regarding slavery between 1807 and 1865). I assume, despite this, that you regard our present fairly extreme anti-slavery stance as correct, not the more moderate biblical stance. I offer this as an example of Silverman's point: if you really tried to follow biblical morality absolutely, you would end up holding some positions you regard as horrifying side by side with those you regard as nigh-impossibly benevolent and beneficial for society.<br /><br />Now, many evolutionists have indeed suggested that natural selection has shaped, not quite an "irresistable urge to believe in God" as mental habits that predispose us to theism. One explanation is that, because the most important fact in our mental evolution was being able to figure out others' motives, we basically evolved as natural conspiracy theorists. The technical term for this is "over-attribution of agency" -- the assumption that things happen because someone <i>caused</i> them to happen. You're less likely to die young if you're too ready to assume that the rustling in the bushes is an enemy or predator, than you will be if you're too ready to assume it was just the breeze or some harmless animal, for example. Write this trait large, and you end up assuming that the universe exists because Someone made it, and history happens because He wanted it to happen that way. But just as you can check your assumption about the cause of rustling leaves, you can at least question and examine your assumptions about superhuman Agency at work in nature and history.Steven J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15638850493907393069noreply@blogger.com