Evolution does explain why we have certain base ethical concerns and care about each other. It explains it, but it doensn’t justify it. That’s in the same way that no finding in science should ever be taken to mean “this is how we should act”. Evolution is beautiful in a sense, but in another sense it’s rather cruel and barbaric. To the point, some species evolve straight into dead ends of extinction, with every step along the way in their immediate best interest, but not their long term best interest. Sometimes, this does happen, and to quote Richard Dawkins “that’s just too bad”, however also to paraphrase him, the point is that evolution should NEVER be taken as a moral imperative or a source of moral conduct. It’s a fact, but so is gravity. I don’t see many people saying flight is immoral (yes I know flight doesn’t break the law of gravity at all, but neither does having a moral code that doesn’t take into account evolution).

Just because we are shaped by evolution doesn’t mean anything we do is justified by it. We have other rather evil things that evolution may have had a hand in, and that would be a reality but it would be something for us to overcome, not consider “just”.

We can form a moral code outside of evolutionary pressure, and to be frank, in a lot of ways, we should. In fact, we should not count on the slow process of evolution, the completely blind to the future process, any more. We can do better, improve on nature, and it’s in our best interests to. If we can develop a keen understanding of genetics, it’s in our best interests, perhaps in the best interests of every strain on the planet, for us to take hold of the reins of blind evolution and use our capacity for forsight to steer ourselves in a better direction.

Evolution is a fact. Evolution does NOT dictate morality. This goes both for idiotic creationists saying “evolution leads to genocide” and those who would argue that evolution justifies our good behavior. Yes, it is a source of some of our good behavior, and some of our bad behavior, but at this point the realm of ideas kinda has that beat. The recent centuries of moral change had nothing to do with evolution, for example. Clearly whatever our current moral code is derived from, it isn’t from evolution, at least not in it’s entirety. So no, I would not argue that evolution fully explains our morality, and indeed, I would not argue at all that even if it DID fully explain it, it would justify it. To do that would justify certain reprehensible traits, such as a genetic disposition to believe without evidence and force that on others.

I’d much rather go with a basic principle of “do no harm to others”, and let the definition of harm be determined by the “other” in question. Clearly life isn’t as simple as that but it’s a good principle to start with.

It wasn’t you who said “All Christians lie,” but an earlier poster (scroll up). All you did was back him up.

And you didn’t say that Christians drank the blood of atheist babies, but you more or less said it was true in effect. Go back and read your own post!

And I still think your contention that the Bible was repeatedly rewritten is conspiracy-theory stuff. I’m familiar with some of the original manuscripts, which you apparently are not. Nobody has engaged in any wholesale, or even partial, rewriting of the Bible. It’s a popular myth, an urban legend. There’s no actual scholarship backing it up. It’s like thinking Columbus proved the Earth was round. Or that the Proctor and Gamble logo contains Satanic symbols.

Examples: Pavel, Paulo, Paul, Pauli. Leonardo, Lenard.
Johanssen, Johanson, Johnson. Abraham, Ibrahim, Brahma.]]

Ah. So the fact that the way names are written has changed throughout history proves that people rewrote the Bible? You seem to have a few intermediate logical steps missing there.

[[@ Barton Paul Levensonon 10 Mar 2008 at 8:39 am
All of them?
Do they drink the blood of atheist babies, too?
———————–
They _do_ spill some of that blood on occasion today, and in history, _lots_ of independently verifable sources point to large-scale blood-spilling of atheists’ babies and wives. Factually correct.]]

[[So it’s factually correct that all Christians lie (the original contention), ]]
Hardly did I contend that. I can’t even see where *I* wrote that.
This is what I did write:
[[Remember, the Bible has been repeatedly modified throughout history by the rulers and oppressors of the day. Not one of those jerks knew what the Bible actually said or cared about what Jesus actually said.

The church was a seat of **power** and the Bible was the constitution. The Right-wing lawmakers of that day deliberately amended that constitution adding more and more crap, much like today’s Far Right adds more and more laws to deny personal liberty to citizens.
The similarity is just too much to ignore.]]
Are you trying to say that saying this: “the rulers and oppressors of the day”
is exactly the same as saying this: “all Christians lie (the original contention)”

Or that this: “The Right-wing lawmakers of that day deliberately amended that constitution adding more and more crap, much like today’s Far Right adds more and more laws to deny personal liberty to citizens.”
also means this:”all Christians lie (the original contention)”

Far from what you assume I say, I actually typed this:
“Mike J on the other post was quite right – People typically don’t like hating and fighting, unless they’re brought up in such an atmosphere.”

I did make one mistake: “What on Earth shows that the Ten commandments are being followed perfectly by the Reps or the GOP? Give me ONE example, please.”

There ARE good Reps and there are good people in the GOP who really believe in a good, reasonable Lord and want people in general to live happily. My apologies to those Republicans and members of the GOP.

Still, I NEVER said “all Christians”.

May I expect a similar apology…?

You seem to not deifferentiate between me and the “stereotype” Rationalist/non-religious/Christian-basher categories that you have eloquently described on your website.

I’m *NOT* giving you the same crap that you claim they do. Do you notice that?

[[and all Christians drink the blood of atheist babies.]]
Just where did I say that?
This and the above claim clearly prove that you have a habit of classifying people probably thinking that classifying them is the best way to discuss things. It is _not_.

I am not your stereotype as you can clearly see.
I pray to God daily. I fight with Him too, however amusing or abusive He (and maybe His group of higher beings) may find that.
What is fair is fair, what is not is not. God or Demon or Satan or Barton or PeaceLovingReligious.
Chiefly, I don’t stretch sentences of others, put in incorrect words of my own
and then say that *their* sentences are incorrect.

[[I assume you also think that all Jews are greedy, ]]
Precisely the problem with your categorization habit. I admire good Jews and clearly realize the torment that the majority of them have been facing at the hands of their small-minded corrupt leaders. Who would want half a century of war with a neighboring anarchy?

[[that all blacks are criminals,]]
Please give me a break. Just what are you trying to force in my name? Where did I say this?

[[and that all women are lousy drivers?]]
Again, where did I say that?

I learnt a few good conventions from you, right away.
The double square brackets – “[[" and "]]”
Will you say of this frank admission as a hidden assault in some sarcastic way?
It is not. Really, it is not.

I’m not here for personal vendetta.
That activity is damaging to *my* being (the source) more than it is to yours (the target).

[[Do you understand what “fallacy of composition” means?]]
pretty much.
Do you know of “Guilt By Association”?
See these:
http://www.stallman.org/archives/2004-jan-apr.html#29%20March%202004%20(Guilt%20by%20Association)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3181284&mesg_id=3182944

[[ Have you ever taken a course in formal logic?]]
Many. Scored well too. 100% in one.

[[Do you realize why most people nowadays tend to disregard the arguments of bigots?]]
*sigh* More reverse-hate.
I would love to start a blog explaining my views on each of the wrong arguments you have used to probably classify me as a “bigot” – without ever naming either you or me in the process, All the while getting the message clearly across to the ignorant fence-sitter. The reader must decide on his own, but he needs all the help from either side (assuming fairly, that both sides are correct or at least should be treated as so till one of them makes a clear obvious mistake in argument)

But all that takes one hell of a lot of time, dear.

Right now, I’m working on about _three_ really neat projects that help common folk get more say than “the powerful few” in those fields and those, you will agree, are far more tempting to invest my time and energy on than cleaning up the lazy categorizing habits of *one* single incorrectly thinking “convert from left to right”.
Sorry if it sounds personal, but I have to defend myself and my views.
Nothing personal, i take the “forgive thy enemy” words seriously, because of the most important thumb rule in social life- “love the sinner, but not the sin”

Another thing, many of your claims on your website declaring the reasons why your stand makes sense, use one particularly powerful tool of argument – I’ll call it the “SurelyYoureJokingFeynman” tool.

Read up the book “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman” by Dr. Richard Feynman.
One gem of a scientist he was. And brutally, ruthlessly frank about everything.
Being a scientist, a physicist and a mathematician, his words could never be disputed.
Either he spoke like that or he would not speak at all.
And, as far as I know, on matters of public or scientific importance, in widely published literature quoting him, he never flinched from speaking where it was needed of him to speak. So he had a conscience and a stong sense of duty too.
His ruthless analysis of the space shuttle disaster is stuff of legend.
Do read that as well.

The SurelyYoureJokingFeynman technique involves openly admitting your crime in such an unexpectedly emphatic way that people think you are joking. When in fact you actually are not. People use your stated reputation, gauge your declaration, and imemdiately conclude that it is humor. In his specific case, he actually did steal the door in question, since he was a notorious prankster as well. And he safely got out of it by stating upfront that he had, in fact, stolen the door. People thought that he was surely joking.

Another technique you use (or misuse, to state it un-mathematically) is, as a I said above, taking the sentence of the person you argue with, add your own words, and then criticise the person for those added words.

In effect, as I now realize, you have, by your above reply, directly **demonstrated** one among the many techniques used by the medieval power-hungry class and the present-day hypocritical section of the far-right ruling class. It was exactly by “pulling fast ones” like this tehcnique that the Bible was modified repeatedly.
Just wait till one of the wikileaks groups, or someone brutally frank like Dr. Feynman, from _within_ the ruling far-right (RFR), brings out a list of such modifications of the Bible throughout the centuries. From the point of view of the RFR, he will be a “betrayer”, but the revelations will be startling, nonetheless.
It is just a matter of time, Nature has its own ways of bringing crooks to book.
Scientists, by virtue of being honest (their trade demands that as a basic prerequisite, or they get argued out of reputation and credibility ), are dear to Nature/God/The Force/Jesus/…

As i said before, I believe that Religion poses questions for scientists to answer. And in-fighting is not an optimum solution for the problems of the human race. Wait till we hear from the Planet of Apes – President Reagan said that in different words, mind you.

Why we were forced to be ignorant to begin with, by Nature/God, is a question too big for this discussion and correctly for Nature/God to answer. Its/His crediblity has always been at question on that topic, but It/He rarely bothers to answer. Answering _that_ question is Its/His job, not mine.
At least, my present qualifications in formal logic (and informal knowledge/information) do not qualify me yet to answer that question.

If you reply equally venomously as before, and if it interests me to continue this discussion, my next reply will be using mathemtaical inequalities or equations or maybe a popular syntax like BASIC, which is a language displayed on your website, assuming it is written by you.

That will help make things much more unambiguous and aid quicker (for me) transfer of information.

Case rested.

All thoughts would then precede from earlier causes, none of which are rational; they would merely be what I had to think at a particular time. Where is the connection between such a thought and objective reality?

If all thoughts precede from earlier causes, then those thoughts are directly connected to objective reality — they’re a product of objective reality.

When you say “none of which are rational”, to what are you referring? Calling “earlier causes” rational or non-rational is making a category error. Calling the thoughts non-rational is begging the question.

Thank you. Barton, it’s not even clear if these folks are supporting BA’s initial position which is what I thought we were arguing about.

BA: “Evolutionary biology does in fact explain our concepts of justice, equality, and freedom”

BA: “What I have read of evolutionary biology (Dawkins, PZ, and others) does seem to indicate that our social mores (justice, fairness, etc) were evolutionarily reinforced when we became a tribal species.”

Dang it!, Don’t know why I didn’t see this in the first place. Doh! (Homer Simpson version). Jim, your argument is with BA who claims that the theory of evolution explains something you think is nonexistent. I’ll let you two fight that one out. LOL.

My position is contrary to both sides: Morals do exist and evolution does not explain them. Note, this is not a claim that some deity does explain them.

[[The opinion is fluid based on the time and needs of the group. Hence the varying ‘morals’ of time period to time period. What is perfectly moral today may not be 50 years from now or in the reverse.]]

If the group defines what is moral, what about those who defy the group, but are later accepted by the group as having been right? M.L. King, Jr., comes to mind.

I dispute that it is the consensus of the group that makes an action right or wrong. You’ve claimed this repeatedly, but you haven’t offered anything approaching a logical proof for it.

If you want to say “What is perfectly moral today may not BE CONSIDERED SO 50 years from now” you have a point. But if you’re saying “What is perfectly moral today may not BE SO 50 years from now” your point, I think is incoherent.