Creation vs Evolution

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Abiogenesis is a different field of science from evolutionary biology. Evolution doesn't necessarily have to account for the neuropsychology of consciousness and morality (notwithstanding that as a practising neuroscientist I'm not in favor of unsubstantiated dualistic theories, and believe that "morality" is a simply a result of neural substrates - e.g. see what happens when you damage the ventromedial prefrontal cortex.) These are again, at their core different fields of science.

Therefore Mr D'Souza's objections to evolution are relatively irrelevant.

Richard Dawkins says that morals are evolved, just as much skin color, walking upright or any physical trait. But D'Souza explains in his book that that's not possible because you aren't born knowing that theft is wrong....or anything else that a society deems 'wrong' for that matter. People are taught that killing is wrong, theft is wrong, adultery is wrong, eating pork is wrong, or whatever else their culture/society deems wrong. You didn't come out of the womb knowing "Hey, that's wrong!" in the same way your eye color was predetermined.

Also, in reference to morals, Dawkins often asks "Why are we good?". Now my question to him is what is his definition of "good"? I mean if morals are subjective, then what standard is he going off of? As a Christian I have my answer, but since he doesn't believe in any divine objective morality, he tries to use evolution to explain that morals are genetically pre-programmed.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Richard Dawkins says that morals are evolved, just as much skin color, walking upright or any physical trait. But D'Souza explains in his book that that's not possible because you aren't born knowing that theft is wrong....or anything else that a society deems 'wrong' for that matter. People are taught that killing is wrong, theft is wrong, adultery is wrong, eating pork is wrong, or whatever else their culture/society deems wrong. You didn't come out of the womb knowing "Hey, that's wrong!" in the same way your eye color was predetermined.

Also, in reference to morals, Dawkins often asks "Why are we good?". Now my question to him is what is his definition of "good"? I mean if morals are subjective, then what standard is he going off of? As a Christian I have my answer, but since he doesn't believe in any divine objective morality, he tries to use evolution to explain that morals are genetically pre-programmed.

The neural substrates of "morality" and "moral" acquisition and consolidation are likely evolved.

That doesn't preclude acquisition of particular morals to be cultural, or an innate "morality" being molded by experience.

The neural substrates of complex language are evolved.

That doesn't mean I speak Hindi, nor that if I was never taught language I would be mute.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
If I bash in your ventromedial prefrontal cortex, you'll be more likely to strangle your baby to stop it from crying.

The neural substrates of "morality" and "moral" acquisition and consolidation are likely evolved.

That doesn't preclude acquisition of particular morals to be cultural, or an innate "morality" being molded by experience.

The neural substrates of complex language are evolved.

That doesn't mean I speak Hindi, nor that if I was never taught language I would be mute.

That doesn't answer anything.

The acquisition and consolidation of morality and morals being evolved can't be. In the Arabian Peninsula being gay is a big no-no, but to the American Indians in the Southwest being gay is highly revered and considered god-like. Now if morals are evolved, how do you explain that huge clash of morals??

I think science needs a better definition of "morals" and "good". And when Dawkins says "Why are we good?" he's getting into a subjective realm (as far as science is concerned) and therefore science can't be used to explain why something is considered good or bad. Religion can.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That doesn't answer anything.

The acquisition and consolidation of morality and morals being evolved can't be. In the Arabian Peninsula being gay is a big no-no, but to the American Indians in the Southwest being gay is highly revered and considered god-like. Now if morals are evolved, how do you explain that huge clash of morals??

I think science needs a better definition of "morals" and "good". And when Dawkins says "Why are we good?" he's getting into a subjective realm (as far as science is concerned) and therefore science can't be used to explain why something is considered good or bad. Religion can.

You have the ability to acquire complex language, you speak English, if you weren't taught English you'd still have the ability to vocalize.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The ability to acquire "morals," i.e. the neural substrates of morality, being evolved doesn't imply that the actual particular "morals" acquired are evolved.

My vote for the post that should appear on the header of every topic posted in the Religion Forum. Period.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Judging from your response, you've not understood my post. The ability to acquire "morals," i.e. the neural substrates of morality, being evolved doesn't imply that the actual particular "morals" acquired are evolved. And if one presupposes an innate universal morality (which I don't) as perhaps Dawkin's does, that doesn't prevent it from being shaped by environment.

You have the ability to acquire complex language, you speak English, if you weren't taught English you'd still have the ability to vocalize.

What is a neural substrate? And why are you putting morals in quotes?

Yeah, Richard believes in an inate universal morality that is hard-wired into us. Just read The God Delusion; he has an entire chapter dedicated to discussing it, as well as an entire segment dedicated to it in his documentary The Root of All Evil?. He argues that "killing and stealing is bad" is inate, without giving a sinlge credit to the Mosaic Law, which is where those come from and effect his upbringing as an Anglican.

Originally posted by Devil King
My vote for the post that should appear on the header of every topic posted in the Religion Forum. Period.

Why?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
What is a neural substrate? And why are you putting morals in quotes?

Yeah, Richard believes in an inate universal morality that is hard-wired into us. Just read The God Delusion; he has an entire chapter dedicated to discussing it, as well as an entire segment dedicated to it in his documentary The Root of All Evil?. He argues that "killing and stealing is bad" is inate, without giving a sinlge credit to the Mosaic Law, which is where those come from and effect his upbringing as an Anglican.

Why?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why should he give credit to the Mosaic law?

Because that's where they come from, not DNA like your hair color.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Because that's where they come from, not DNA like your hair color.

You go tell that Hammurabi, then we talk.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You go tell that Hammurabi, then we talk.

"Eye for an eye" demands death as punishment, the Mosaic Law says no killing under any circumstances.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
"Eye for an eye" demands death as punishment, the Mosaic Law says no killing under any circumstances.

That's not how Christian's have interpreted it apparently, also not in line with other laws of the Bible.

Either way, having stated it first (and I wouldn't bet that he stated it first), doesn't mean all further ideas derived from it. Dawkin's derives his morals in other ways, so I see no reason why he should give credit to mosaic law, especially since he clearly opposes parts of it.

Of course they derived from it. So when Dawkins argues a religious law is in fact a genetic trait, he's contradicting his image of a militant anti-theist.

He might as well attempt to use evolution to show us that avoiding pork is also ingrained with in us. (It's mentioned in the same book after all)

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Of course they derived from it. So when Dawkins argues a religious law is in fact a genetic trait, he's contradicting his image of a militant anti-theist.

He might as well attempt to use evolution to show us that avoiding pork is also ingrained with in us. (It's mentioned in the same book after all)

Please remember that the bible was written by humans, and humans are a product of evolution. Therefore indirectly, the bible is a product of evolution,...

but so is playboy. 😆

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Of course they derived from it. So when Dawkins argues a religious law is in fact a genetic trait, he's contradicting his image of a militant anti-theist.

He might as well attempt to use evolution to show us that avoiding pork is also ingrained with in us. (It's mentioned in the same book after all)

What nonsense. He would argue that Moses wrote them because it is a trait in humans. He doesn't have to reject every philosophy of a theist, in order to reject theism.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What nonsense. He would argue that Moses wrote them because it is a trait in humans. He doesn't have to reject every philosophy of a theist, in order to reject theism.

Why is it nonsense, ey?

I mean if he is trying to prove that one religious rules flows through our veins, why not another? He's fixated on killing, theft and lying. Why doesn't he try to prove that it's in our nature to also avoid pork?

If he's so fixated on connecting a few religous laws to biology, why stop at those?

----

In fact, "good", "bad", "moral" and "evil" are words that Richard Dawkins uses a lot....A LOT. Now these 4 concepts are subjective and exist outside of science, so why is an evolutionary biologist who is supposed to more concerned about fish growing legs, so obsessed with morals and values, things that're supposedly subject?

Since he argues that theft being wrong is innate, I would also like to see him defend other religious laws from a biological standpoint like avoiding pork (Judaism and Islam) and that men can't wear gold (Islam). But he won't because he has an agenda: to eradticate religon under the benign term "Humanism".

^ "That's what happens when you let a biologist out of the lab" -D'Souza

Dinesh D'Souza points out that if you look at the UN Declaration of Human Rights, just about every single one of them are Christian values. So Dawkins should really just stick to dinosaurs and cavemen. A biologist lecturing on morals is about the same as a fat person lecturing on healthy living.....'Just stick to what you know, pal!'.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
...

Dinesh D'Souza points out that if you look at the UN Declaration of Human Rights, just about every single one of them are Christian values. So Dawkins should really just stick to dinosaurs and cavemen. A biologist lecturing on morals is about the same as a fat person lecturing on healthy living.....'Just stick to what you know, pal!'.

Christianity is a product of humanity. Dinesh D'Souza is making an assumption. He assumes that some god on a cloud made Christianity, but it was really a human invention.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why is it nonsense, ey?

I mean if he is trying to prove that one religious rules flows through our veins, why not another? He's fixated on killing, theft and lying. Why doesn't he try to prove that it's in our nature to also avoid pork?

Because he doesn't believe that is our nature. Simple.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
If he's so fixated on connecting a few religous laws to biology, why stop at those?

Because he is a scientist and not a Christian Inquisitoner who wants to destroy something at all costs.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
In fact, "good", "bad", "moral" and "evil" are words that Richard Dawkins uses a lot....A LOT. Now these 4 concepts are subjective and exist outside of science, so why is an evolutionary biologist who is supposed to more concerned about fish growing legs, so obsessed with morals and values, things that're supposedly subject?

Because it is an important human issue I assume.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Since he argues that theft being wrong is innate, I would also like to see him defend other religious laws from a biological standpoint like avoiding pork (Judaism and Islam) and that men can't wear gold (Islam). But he won't because he has an agenda: to eradticate religon under the benign term "Humanism".

That's nice that you would like that, but if avoiding pork is not innate then he just won't argue for that. It's not like he is blindly guessing. He has reasons for why he believes theft and murder are the ones that we deem wrong.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Dinesh D'Souza points out that if you look at the UN Declaration of Human Rights, just about every single one of them are Christian values. So Dawkins should really just stick to dinosaurs and cavemen. A biologist lecturing on morals is about the same as a fat person lecturing on healthy living.....'Just stick to what you know, pal!'.

Quite idiotic. A Biologist certainly has the same right as any philosopher or theologican to lecture about morals, possibly even more.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Christianity is a product of humanity. Dinesh D'Souza is making an assumption. He assumes that some god on a cloud made Christianity, but it was really a human invention.

Look who's assuming.

Also, the fact that the UN does that says something.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Look who's assuming.

Also, the fact that the UN does that says something.

If the UN has been formed by Islamic countries, do you think it would have reflected Christian values?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Because he doesn't believe that is our nature. Simple.

I know, but why?

"Why are you so deadset on proving one religous law to be in our nature, but not others?" is something I wanna ask him personally.

Originally posted by Bardock42

Because it is an important human issue I assume.

And a religous one.

Originally posted by Bardock42

That's nice that you would like that, but if avoiding pork is not innate then he just won't argue for that. It's not like he is blindly guessing. He has reasons for why he believes theft and murder are the ones that we deem wrong.

Yeah, his reasons are trying to explain that cherrypicked relgious laws that he personally decided are important are biological.

If one law is worth his attention, then so are the others.

Originally posted by Bardock42

Quite idiotic. A Biologist certainly has the same right as any philosopher or theologican to lecture about morals, possibly even more.

More? I don't think so. I'd rather have a dentist perform spinal surgery.