Moral Ebbs and Flows
by BradfordSteven Pinker is someone with whom I have had frequent disagreements. However, his article The Moral Instinct makes some interesting points worth pondering. The article is long and for the purpose of this blog entry I'll confine the focus to the second page. From the article:
Rozin notes, for example, that smoking has lately been moralized. Until recently, it was understood that some people didn't enjoy smoking or avoided it because it was hazardous to their health. But with the discovery of the harmful effects of secondhand smoke, smoking is now treated as immoral. Smokers are ostracized; images of people smoking are censored; and entities touched by smoke are felt to be contaminated (so hotels have not only nonsmoking rooms but nonsmoking floors). The desire for retribution has been visited on tobacco companies, who have been slapped with staggering "punitive damages."
Pinker correctly observes that what once may have been viewed as a personal choice can be transformed to a moral issue with the passage of time. That seems to have occurred with smoking. While the disadvatages of smoking were evident in prior eras the attachment of a moral stigma to smoking is a more recent development and one that has important consequences for smokers and the larger society.
At the same time, many behaviors have been amoralized, switched from moral failings to lifestyle choices. They include divorce, illegitimacy, being a working mother, marijuana use and homosexuality. Many afflictions have been reassigned from payback for bad choices to unlucky misfortunes. There used to be people called "bums" and "tramps"; today they are "homeless." Drug addiction is a "disease"; syphilis was rebranded from the price of wanton behavior to a "sexually transmitted disease" and more recently a "sexually transmitted infection."
Excellent Pinker. Note how changes in moral perspectives are accompanied by linguistic modifications. Someone who has been outside their culture for some time could come to recognize changes in the moral landscape through key changes in phraseology used to describe behavior. He would know something happened without having to trace the history. Moral inclusion and exclusion is a dynamic process. Change flows in both directions.
This wave of amoralization has led the cultural right to lament that morality itself is under assault, as we see in the group that anointed itself the Moral Majority. In fact there seems to be a Law of Conservation of Moralization, so that as old behaviors are taken out of the moralized column, new ones are added to it.
Yet from the perspective of those holding to a different set of standards morality would be under attack. Those adding new strictures to moral standards would man the ramparts to keep those changes institutionalized should they come under attack. As I read this I thought of the many heated blog commentary wars I have witnessed. Why would one fiercely resist historic evidence that eugenics could have been inspired by influences stemming from Darwinian theory? Inaccuracy is the refrain likely to be heard from those so resisting but there does appear to be enough historic evidence to make a connection. Realization that a moral shift could accompany the historic depiction is in my view a more realistic motive for those who downplay the eugenics linkage. Teaching about mutations and natural selection is inevitably linked to larger issues that have nothing to do with biology. It is done by all sides, not simply the "ID movement." Recent comments about linking historic abuses to Christianity likewise harkens to Pinker's idea of dynamic changes in our moral compasses. If Christianity itself is seen as responsible for evil then the attachment of a moral stigma to it and its followers becomes likely. TTer Joy's lamentations about metaphysical wars may come down to a recognition of the effects of Pinker's moral fluxes and a realization by those on all sides as to what is at stake.
April 1st, 2008 at 11:41 am
I am not sure if I understand you, Mike, but I am sure you will correct me.
Okay, they could well be a connection from Darwinism to eugenics; I would go so far to say there probably is. Does that make Darwinism morally wrong? Does that make Darwinism scientifically wrong? Does that mean we should not teach about mutations and natural selection? I would say no in all three cases.
As with Darwinism and eugenics: Just because great evil has been done in Christianity's name, does that mean it is morally or theological wrong? No.
From my perspective, it is the Christian right that is attempting to attach a moral stigma to Darwinism by associating it with Hitler's final solution, for instance, the Expelled movie.
Comment by The Pixie — April 1, 2008 @ 11:41 am
April 1st, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Of course we continue to teach about mutations and natural selection. The connection may be perceived as a red alert by those fearing that a next step in the inferential process is to argue that Darwinism is morally wrong. If that becomes the perception then the stakes will be seen as very high and the defense against eugenics charges correspondingly vigorous.
I agree but if a consensus builds around an idea that any belief system fosters evil then the relegation of that system to the bin of what is morally proscribed becomes ever more likely. As much as Pinker and I disagree I think we would both agree about this.
That may be true. It would also explain the intensity of the debate that is likely to ensue.
Comment by Bradford — April 1, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
April 1st, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I think one can tell who realizes what is as stake by the way they react to evidential challenges to their world view. Those who hold their view as sacrosanct generally meet those challenges with subtle shifts in epistemology. I have discovered over the years many shifts in terms which can be signs of new understanding or epistemological differences. I think many readers of this blog recognize this and it is why metaphysical clashes are more frequent.
A measure of intellectual dishonesty, I've found, is usually present with those who deny their own metaphysics. My own experience has seen this most frequently among those who revere Reason© and Logic© as ultimate ends, rather than as means to an end. It is a rather uncommon materialist who acknowledges their own unprovable beginning assumptions and even rarer is one who recognizes it is very much like faith.
Comment by todd — April 1, 2008 @ 12:17 pm
April 1st, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Todd:
That's an interesting comment but I'm not sure I understand what you're driving at. Can you illustrate by example?
Comment by Bradford — April 1, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
April 1st, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I think you are basically correct in what you say, Bradford. (I may quibble about the history of tobacco use with Pinker, but I think understand the point.)
I don't think, what I call "comparing body counts," is very helpful. Everyone has a skeleton in their closet.
Obviously Darwin's theory is eugenical, but our beliefs about the rights-and-wrongs of eugenics have changed over time. We may appreciate the complexities of genetics a lot more, e.g., and that changes our opinion. Or we have adopted a generally more "egalitarian" perspective on human relations. (Less interested in the rank, status, familial relations, etc., of or our mates.) Maybe we're just more promiscuous, which makes eugenics effectively impracticable. Etc.
How humans decide what is right and what is wrong is not simple.
Comment by Rock — April 1, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
April 1st, 2008 at 1:05 pm
True. I think in most instances it is a top down process. The ultimate top down example would be Moses receiving the Ten Commandments but on a human level we can also find examples. Great shifts in moral perspectives tend to center around a small group of thinkers and a set of fortuitous circumstances. The abolition of slavery by both the USA and the UK took this pattern as did the US civil rights movement. Great masses of people get involved but after the intellectual seeds have already been sown. The suffragette movement also had its guiding light leadership to go with millions of following "soldiers" in the movement. More examples come to mind but nuff said for now.
Comment by Bradford — April 1, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
April 1st, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Bradford
As Joy so often say, it is a culture war. If one side are going to use the eugenics, the other side will take against it. Truth is the first casuality in any war.
Right. So it is vital that children are talk evolution properly, specifically, the are never told that it is a religion, are never told that it is a basis for morality.
Rock; well said.
Comment by The Pixie — April 1, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
April 1st, 2008 at 4:40 pm
It depends on what morality you start with.
It's not just the "Christian right." (As if they all think alike, anyway.) I'm sure I could provide you with a few samples of liberal and atheist Jewish folk (my best friend) who would agree that Darwinism logically leads to such a thing as Hitlerian genocide.
At any rate, it seems perfectly natural to me. If life on earth really is dog eat dog, with no "higher purpose" who's to say Hitler was wrong? There is no wrong. Just personal taste. And Darwinism gives those with a taste for genocide a "logical", natural excuse.
Does any of this mean Darwinism is wrong? Of course not. But nobody should be surprised when it buttresses the mindset of those who are bent on the conquest, subjugation, and destruction of others.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 1, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
April 1st, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Certainly Darwinism can be used to justify something that is morally wrong, just as the Bible can. I do not think that makes Darwinism itself morally wrong. Perhaps you could explain further.
That would be an argument against atheism, not Darwinism. Darwinism makes no statement about any "higher purpose"; there are plenty of people who accept Darwinism (or its modern equvalent) who are also Christians.
Absolutely. So what we should set out to do is to educate as many people as we can about what Darwinism really says about "high purpose", morality and so forth, and so attempt to reduce that buttressing as far as possible, right? It is in everyone's best interests that everyone realises that Darwinism has nothing to do with morality at all, any more than relativity has.
Comment by The Pixie — April 1, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
April 1st, 2008 at 6:15 pm
People always tell me I'm uncommon. It's nice to know why.
Comment by One Brow — April 1, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
April 1st, 2008 at 6:17 pm
That's what some people say. But, really, what is the practical difference? If Darwinism asserts that the process is "blind", a-telic, with no foresight, then what happened here on earth can hardly be said to be in accord with any theistic higher purpose, can it? Except, perhaps to say, the higher purpose is simply to exist as a blind process. But where would any absolute morality come into play here? From what door would it enter?
Granted, theistic evolutionists try to have their cake and eat it, but remember, Darwinism posits a blind process, any backdoor entry of telic intelligence via, say, quantum level effects, is no longer a strictly blind process. We're talking about something other than a strict Darwinism, per se.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 1, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
April 1st, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Obviously Darwin's theory is eugenical, but our beliefs about the rights-and-wrongs of eugenics have changed over time.
I don't think that is even true of Darwin's theory, and it is certainly untrue of modern evolutionary theory. If the moral imperative is survival as a species, evoloution makes it clear that diversity and adaptability, not culling, is the key to long-term success. "Darwin's theory", if anything, is anti-eugenical.
Comment by One Brow — April 1, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
April 1st, 2008 at 6:21 pm
If Darwinism asserts that the process is "blind", a-telic, with no foresight, then what happened here on earth can hardly be said to be in accord with any theistic higher purpose, can it?
Specifically, the process of variation is a-telic with regard to the immediate survival needs of the organism. There is nothing in evolutionary theory that can dispute a front-loading mechanism, for example.
Comment by One Brow — April 1, 2008 @ 6:21 pm
April 1st, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Diversity and adaptability at what expense? The destruction of the less viable. That's the very essence of eugenics.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 1, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
April 1st, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Fair enough. (Neither does it dispute some periodic intervention.) What do think Professor Snikwad would say about that?
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 1, 2008 @ 6:35 pm
April 1st, 2008 at 6:55 pm
kornbelt:
That's not the essence at all. The essence is to improve the "genetic quality" of the human species. Of course it is not so easy to define "genetic quality". But whatever it means, the destruction of the less viable is just one particularly nasty way to try to achieve it. Modern techniques allow for less nasty ways to prevent genetically determined diseases. Surely not all such modern "eugenical" methods should be off the table.
Comment by Raevmo — April 1, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
April 1st, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Raevmo,
Good points. But I was particularly referring to the brand of eugenics that has no problem destroying the presently living so they can do no "harm" to the "racial hygiene." At any rate, Natural Selection certainly operates as this sort of "eugenics" principle, don't you think?
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 1, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
April 1st, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Bradford,
Marxist polylogism is the most glaring example I can offer. Classic economic critiques of socialism in general and marxism in particular were dismissed on grounds they were 'bourgeoisie logic'.
Comment by todd — April 1, 2008 @ 7:19 pm
April 1st, 2008 at 7:23 pm
kornbelt:
Sure, differential survival is one of the causes of natural selection. However, natural selection doesn't necessarily improve the long-term survival prospects of the species. What's good for the individual (e.g. the ability to kill competing members of the same species) may harm the species. Thus, eugenics and natural selection are not necessarily allies.
Comment by Raevmo — April 1, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
April 1st, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Right. It's suppose to be a blind process with no foresight. Definitely a major difference between that and artificial (human) selection. No one can deny that. But some may (and do) point to humans and say that in humans, nature has gained a certain amount of foresight, and now the process can set about to improve the long-term survival and fitness as well as the short term. Some might use that is a "natural" reason to "kill the defectives" (determined by the killers, of course.) Isn't that the bottom line?
What morality is going to keep the overlords from making the leap from "do eugenics in a nice way" to "do eugenics any way possible?"
C.S. Lewis's Abolishment of Man is an easily disgestible little book on this subject. Some here might like to scan it.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 1, 2008 @ 7:41 pm
April 1st, 2008 at 8:07 pm
It seems that Morality, much like life itself, has evolved over time rather than being handed down from on high as a fully formed and canonical concept. Personally I think the evolution of morality has greatly improved morality beyond its primitive expressions several thousand years ago. But much like the tree of life there are out-shoots in the evolution of morality that have failed or even de-evolved from our perspective. Even if Eugenics evolved from a common ancestor of classical Darwinism it was the modern Darwinistic view that survived because its free from harmful immoral taint that would reduce its fitness. To associate Eugenics with modern Darwinism would be as silly as putting someone on trial because their Great-Great-Grand-Uncle killed someone.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 1, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
April 1st, 2008 at 9:45 pm
kornbelt,
Abolition of Man is online in its entirety. Just follow the link.
Comment by todd — April 1, 2008 @ 9:45 pm
April 1st, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Todd B,
Why was Eugenics abandoned by her supporters? The legacy of one of eugenics most fervent supports lives on to this day!
It is the materialist implications of Darwinism, modern or not, which give rise to eugenics. Indeed, if morals evolve and aren't transcendent, then rationally directed breeding (selection) of humans is a moral imperative to improve humanity, isn't it? I mean, if natural selection can get us to our current point of development, what marvels our descendants will be if we just artificially select! Do deny this rational deduction is silly!
Comment by todd — April 1, 2008 @ 9:54 pm
April 1st, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Thanks for the link. Although, by "scan" I meant "read."
That's old turkey buzzard lingo.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 1, 2008 @ 11:04 pm
April 1st, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Todd to Todd B:
This exchange made me realize that I've been filing both Todd B and Todd comments together in my mind as if they were the same person. Gotta be more careful. Todd, the beneficial possibilities of artificial selection are impressive but they also should be a concern. The obvious maladies that genetic changes could correct would not be problematic for most but some would see maladies in variety and that could be dangerous. For example, would we alter the appearance of an offspring simply because of a parental preference if the relevant property is not intrinsically harmful to the individual?
Comment by Bradford — April 1, 2008 @ 11:16 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:00 am
Bradford,
Oh silly man, I'm talking about the transcendence of man! Modern Darwinism™ has opened the genetic code to us all! Without Modern Darwinism™ we would have no idea it was a code at all! Science® will take the door opened by Modern Darwinism™ and lead us into the next stage of human eeevolution! Indeed, Womyn© are leading the eeevolutionary charge to remove gender and transgender bias, ingrained from thousands of years of patriarchal tyranny! We eeevolve our future, directed by our brightest and most expert sociologists and psychologists and carefully screened biologists, and neuter all the passions and superstitions to move us beyond human.
We'll all be Humâ„¢.
Viva la Eeeevolution!
Comment by todd — April 2, 2008 @ 12:00 am
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:50 am
That was the complaint made against Copernicanism, as well. As science progressed, it became increasingly obvious that the Earth was not a unique creation, but one of a vast universe of planets. They burned Giordano Bruno for claiming so.
Indeed, it was known long before Darwin that the physical evidence indicates that people are all eventually worm's meat. Among the greatest genocides were committed by the Mongols in their Conquests, and as many as 8% of Central Asians trace their male lineage to Genghis or his close male relatives.
Mercutio: They have made worms' meat of me.
Comment by Zachriel — April 2, 2008 @ 7:50 am
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:54 am
No. But artificial evolution is already here in the form of genetic engineering.
Comment by Zachriel — April 2, 2008 @ 7:54 am
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:31 am
Z-
Good point. Directed eeevolution will substitute for directed breeding. Indeed, it is an improvement in terms which helps us discard all that icky racist eugenic baggage contained in 'breed'!
Progress is good, right? And Scientific Progress® - well it is the divine engine of climb up to Hum™! The sooner the better, I say! As soon as we have a large enough population of Hum™, the humans will of course need to stop reproducing. Modern Darwinism™ shall provide the experts to explain to the superstitious and open their eyes to the DUTY to advance us to Hum™!!
Comment by todd — April 2, 2008 @ 8:31 am
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:13 am
They burned him for a little more than that. It also seems that his philosophy and manner upset pretty much everyone who had prolonged contact with him, not just the Inquisition.
If the great-great-grand-nephews would stop being so eager to prove their ancestor correct, they might avoid trial. To wit (in chronological order):
Source.
Source.
Source.
Even more, right here on this blog.
Comment by angryoldfatman — April 2, 2008 @ 9:13 am
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:25 am
We already have test-tube babies. In the short term, selection for health will probably continue to be the primary motivation, but people already select for sex.
Not always. Typically, progress is a double-edged sword. In any case, just because Galileo's theories of motion led to better methods of knocking down castle walls doesn't make them false or morally suspect.
Comment by Zachriel — April 2, 2008 @ 9:25 am
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:34 am
The initial complaint was Bruno's claim "of teaching the existence of a boundless universe filled with a countless number of solar systems", but certainly Bruno had many unorthodox beliefs.
Yes, because we always burn those with whom we disagree. That way when you threaten the aging and arrogant Galileo with the Inquisition, he'll take your threats seriously.
Comment by Zachriel — April 2, 2008 @ 9:34 am
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:47 am
And very nearly correct for many indigenous populations. Keep in mind that Darwin was not an anthropologist, but was applying his theory to so-called facts from that field. People of the time overestimated the divergence in the human family. For his time and place, Darwin was quite liberal. Slavery was still legal in the United States when he published Origin of Species.
Yes. It is apparent that Hitler had a significant misunderstanding of Natural Selection (as did others). For instance, maternal love is a strongly selected trait, common in mammals and birds. While self-sacrifice can be observed even in bees.
Which goes to show that a decent molecular biologist can be just as ignorant of fields outside his specialty as a layperson.
Comment by Zachriel — April 2, 2008 @ 9:47 am
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:51 am
Someone has found another planet like earth? (And I mean "like" in the strongest sense.) So far, it seems earth is unique.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 2, 2008 @ 10:51 am
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:09 am
Diversity and adaptability *require* keeping the less viable.
Let's make the standard animal husbandry consideration. Strong restrictions on breeding of, for example, dogs, lead to highly specialized breed that are good for certain types of tasks, but are often poor at other types of tasks and not adaptable. If the specialized task is no longer needed, the specialized breed often serves no further functional use. Allowing most, or all, of your dogs to breed will keep your pack diverse and adaptable, while still creating a few dogs that can perform the specified tasks. YOu can continue to direct your pack to perform other functions.
If the primary concern is the survival of the species, efforts to remove the "less fit" are more likely to hurt than help, scientifically.
Comment by One Brow — April 2, 2008 @ 11:09 am
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:11 am
Under what goal? After all, science can not prescribe a goal. However, if the goal is long-term species survival, science does say that eugenics is a bad idea, not a good idea.
Comment by One Brow — April 2, 2008 @ 11:11 am
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:53 am
Wrong. It was for sticking it to his bosses.
His bosses had a prediliction of killing off recalcitrant employees. He knew this, and undertook the risk anyway.
Does this make it right? No. But as you are fond of pointing out, it was a different era, with different ways. The Church (of which I'm not enamored) did business like everybody else did business - harshly. You should read what pre-Christian Romans used to do to their own prized citizens for failing to pay off debts, if you want wonderful examples of historical context.
They burned Bruno to mess with Galileo's mind? Interesting hypothesis, but just as wrong as everything else you've posited about Bruno so far.
Also, are you judging people and institutions by modern standards in this example? I see a pattern here. If it's something you disagree with, use the modern yardstick to evoke outrage; if it's something you agree with, use the historical context yardstick to avoid outrage. Neat little Marcusian trick there, though it's getting stale from overuse.
Simple-minded apologetics is something I expect to hear in Sunday school, not read from a self-styled champion of mainstream science. Then again, it's this sort of thing that destroyed my belief in Darwinism in the first place. No one needs to make a saint out of a scientist who does real science; saints are only needed to prop up a religion.
Here's a challenge, and a chance for you to buttress your argument: find in The Descent of Man where Darwin disapproves of the eradication of the "savage races" (i.e., non-Caucasian races).
If these other two men had no authority or power, your excuses might have some weight.
Having a misconception is not the problem. Everyone has misconceptions. The problem here lies in the application of these misconceptions by those in power and/or authority. It also lies in the aggressiveness (or lack thereof) in correcting the misconception. It is extremely difficult to correct a supposed misconception if:
1. The originator of the concept never argued against it.
2. The relatives and descendants of the originator perpetuate the so-called misconception instead of disseminating the correction.
3. American schoolchildren (including my grandfather, may he be forgiven) were taught the misconception as scientific truth.
4. Only after the horrors of Nazi war crimes were revealed did any scientist express a desire to correct the supposed misconception.
5. Now there are scientists in authoritative positions who don't think the misconception really is incorrect, and admit that following the originator's idea to its logical conclusion leads one to the same door that the Nazis stepped through.
Comment by angryoldfatman — April 2, 2008 @ 11:53 am
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Before that time, celestial bodies were widely consider to be composed of quintessence, and not material like the Earth. Bruno imagined a different possibility, but Galileo's discovery of mountains on the Moon provided convincing evidence.
Of course, in context my statement was clear. All planets are unique in some way.
In fact, recent discoveries have confirmed and extended understanding of planetary formation such that material planets orbiting material stars are now considered common. Indeed, the discovery of extra-solar planets is a profound and historically important scientific confirmation.
Comment by Zachriel — April 2, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:12 pm
duplicate
Comment by Zachriel — April 2, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Your own cite seemingly indicates otherwise.
Bruno: "It is with far greater fear that you pronounce, than I receive, this sentence."
Yes. And the proximate issue was Bruno's unorthodox views.
Burning was public, and acted as a deterrent. Galileo and his contemporaries were quite aware of the power and methods of the Inquisition.
Not at all. We can't change the past, but we can learn from it. I introduced Copernicanism as an example of how a non-telic scientific theory led to accusations that the theory undermined the belief in a "theistic higher purpose".
Comment by Zachriel — April 2, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Is that why many requested to have their case heard before the inquistion opposed to the secular tribunals?
Comment by Doug — April 2, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Darwin may have expressed his disapproval elsewhere, or simply never addressed the issue. The Descent of Man, being a scientific manuscript, would typically only address the scientific issues, not the moral ones.
Darwin: I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England, if she is the first European nation which utterly abolish is it.
Darwin: Every one here is fully convinced that this is the most just war, because it is against barbarians. Who would believe in this age that such atrocities could be committed in a Christian civilized country?
Misconceptions are always a problem. I assume from the previous comments that this is the misconception at issue:
That does not appear to be Darwin's view.
Comment by Zachriel — April 2, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Zachriel: Of course, in context my statement was clear. All planets are unique in some way.
Right. All rocks are unique in some way too.
I didn't intend violate your context. I merely point out that while other planets have been discovered, inside and outside of our solar system, Earth stands out alone like a diamond compared to lumped of coal. Man, this place is special. Really really special. Don't you think so?
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 2, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:19 pm
I didn't actually make a complain. At any rate, you didn't really answer my question.
I'll put it slightly different:
If Darwinism asserts that the process is "blind", a-telic, with no foresight, then how can any particular production of that process be said to be in accord with any theistic higher purpose other than the fact it merely exists as one possible very unspecial / unplanned-for entity? (Pardon the clunkiness.)
More pointedly, if the process is blind, with no foresight, how can man or man's morality matter to God, other than perhaps a curiosity, given that man is merely an unplanned production of said blind process? Does God care about the morality of tigers and hippos?
And to get explicitly theological, how can the blind process be reconciled to the idea that Jesus the Messiah really is the "lamb slain before the foundations of the earth to redeem mankind" Can this be true along side the full-tilt Darwinian assertion that the process is blind, with no foresight?
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 2, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I don't understand how they can, not if they accept the full bore.
Please see my previous post.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 2, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I had understood that about your parenthetical.
Not an inappropriate metaphor in a cosmos that appears cold, vast and indifferent. Sagan said of an image of a distant Earth, that it "underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."
Comment by Zachriel — April 2, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:12 pm
The same way someone who wins the lottery might thank God.
What makes you think the Theory of Evolution is different from other sciences in this regard? From the vantage of science, the Earth is just a happenstance of how an obscure stellar nebula collapsed.
Comment by Zachriel — April 2, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Somebody literally thanking God would, I shoult think, believe that God actually had a hand in giving here winning numbers. She believes the game was rigged at some level. Otherwise this makes no sense to me. In the case of totally blind, a-telic evolution, how does thankfulness come into play here? Is it reasonable for me to thank a God, who had no hand in the particulars, for me being born a human rather than a frog?
I would disagree with that last sentence. Putting "just" in there hardly does justice to the differences between the productions of our "collapsing nebula" and all other known systems, as you acknowledge in a prior post.
At any rate, I find nothing about the history of our solar system that would contradict the idea that Jesus is the lamb slain from the foundations of the earth. Scientifically, we don't really know to what degree telic intent influenced the formation the particulars. I think likewise for the evolution of life on earth. But that's beside the point. With regards to full bore Darwinism, that asserts the process is, in fact, blind, how can that assertion be reconciled with a view that Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundation of the earth?
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 2, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:12 pm
kornbelt:
Too bad for the facts if they seem to contradict the Jesus myth? Is that what you're saying?
Comment by Raevmo — April 2, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:12 pm
For what it's worth, I think the chief difference amongst those who see the duck and those who see the rabbit is one of two particular working philosophies:
A) "I never trust my intuitions unless I have proof they are true." These people tend to see the rabbit.
B) "I never doubt my intuitions unless I have proof they are false." These folks tend to see the duck.
My experience is that everyone falls into either of these slots by default, by nature of birth.
Is either one of these working philosophies superior? If so, why?
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 2, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Why are my posts being moderated now? Did I make somebody mad?
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 2, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:15 pm
No. "Too bad for the facts" is not a reconciliation. It's merely a rejection of one possible "party" to a reconciliation. Killing one's husband is not the same thing as a reconciliation.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 2, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:42 pm
kornbelt:
To the extent that your religious beliefs don't contradict the facts, you can have your reconciliation. I know several Christian evolutionary biologists who seem to manage just fine. Personally, I don't see how you can be a scientist and a Christian (or a Muslim, or an adherent to many other creeds). To believe these ancient stories with so little supportive evidence makes me suspicious about their ability to analyze the facts in other contexts. But some of these religious colleagues are really excellent scientists, so I might be wrong.
Comment by Raevmo — April 2, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Raevmo:
There is more supportive evidence for the NT than there is for Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great and Themistocles. You are wrong again.
Comment by Bradford — April 2, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Are you saying that statistics leads to atheism? There are certainly some believers who would simply credit a miracle. But others are quite cognizant that all tests would show the lottery to be statistically fair"”but would still credit God.
Oh well. We're talking about people. I'm not sure it has to make sense.
You transferred the denominator. Among the vastness of the cosmos, stars and planets are but tiny specks. But among stars and planets, the evidence indicates that the Solar System is probably one among a multitude.
That's the entire point. You point to Darwin, when you may as well point to Galileo or Greek physicians.
Full bore planetary science (a.k.a. planetary science) indicates that the formation of the Solar System was due to happenstance and gravity. Full bore medical science (a.k.a. medical science) indicates that when you're dead, you're dead.
Those categories do not apply to me. Intuition and evidence each have their place.
Comment by Zachriel — April 2, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Hmm. I'm stuck in moderation, too. Hey, kornbelt888! You finally learned to spell my name.
How many years you in here for?
Comment by Zachriel — April 2, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Bradford:
You can't be serious. There is more evidence that Jesus walked over water than for the existence of Julius Caesar?
Comment by Raevmo — April 2, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Zachriel: It's not moderating everything I post. For some reason it doesn't like the one I posted prior to my last one citing the moderation. Maybe it thinks "duck" is too close to another word.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 2, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I've heard such people exist. That's why I'm asking the question. How do they reconcile full bore a-telic, blind Darwinism with a belief that Jesus is the lamb slain before the foundation of the earth? This is not a rhetorical question. If there are any such Christians here, please jump in.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 2, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:26 pm
That is just an absurd statement. Yes the NT contains a lot of history, but it also contains a ton of make believe. Sure there are some fairy tales concerning characters like Alexander the Great too, I mean who knows if he really sliced the Gregorian Knot in half with a sword, but its pretty clear that he existed. But his significance is not based on these fairy tales, its based on his historical impact. His significance is not based on raising the dead, walking on water, or violating the conservation of mass. Jesus minus these unsupported miracles is just some guy trying to make the world a better place.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 2, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Todd B-
Jesus' significance rests in who he claimed to be, which is why he had historical impact, no? If he was telling the truth - if he was indeed 'the Word made flesh', then it is not reasonable to think reports of his miracles were make believe. It is reasonable to think he knew a thing or two about the nature of nature and could effect it - perhaps by exploiting as yet unknown properties of matter?
And while there is no doubt in my mind some stories are embellishments, I think the times in which he lived and the people who opposed his following would document him as a charlatan. Are you aware of any contemporaneous accounts which dispute the more fantastic claims of divine exhibition?
Comment by todd — April 2, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:55 pm
The NT contains a ton of history. By historic standards the writings are credible. They are also to a great extent authenticated by third party secular sources. There is much that could be introduced in support of my claim. Perhaps a separate blog entry would be a better vehicle. Your comment about make believe is your expression of personal incredulity. You are entitled to it. What is unreasonable is the argument that there is no evidence for the deity of Christ and your simultaneous reaction to evidence with the claim that it cannot be credible because of the preconceived notions you are determined to hold onto.
He existed. There is evidence for it. It is simply much less adaquate by scholarly standards than the evidence for Christ.
Think about that statement. If historic impact explains significance than the historic impact of Christ is arguably equal to or greater than that of any historic figure. You come into discussions believing that the supernatural is impossible and use your stand on that issue to discount any evidence that could be used to change your mind. This is the personal genie argument. Unless a supernatural entity responds to my demands for miracles I won't believe.
Throw the dog a bone. If Jesus was a fraud he was not making the world a better place.
Comment by Bradford — April 2, 2008 @ 11:55 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:39 am
kornbelt888,
I probably qualify as much as most. I'd simply respond that 'atelic, blind' are mischaracterizations at best. They're aspects of the theory that the science can't comment on (And "there has been no evidence found that they are not-blind and telic" doesn't get you to atelic or blind, any more than "there is no evidence they are atelic and blind" gets you to telic and not blind), and that's where peer-reviewed falsification is left behind and more complicated, depthful considerations begin.
So, I'd say that the question doesn't get very far, because the 'full-bore' Darwinism you talk about goes beyond the science itself. And what you're left with in the science strikes me as constituting brilliant creation, botflies and all. Then again, I'm pretty much in the Leibniz school of thought - best of all possible worlds and all that.
Comment by nullasalus — April 3, 2008 @ 3:39 am
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:35 am
Nullasalus, one of your best comments I have read.
At least oversimplifications. Simply swinging around the term "telic" or "non-telic" is not necessarily specific enough to constitute a valid scientific hypothesis.
Vague claims usually have little scientific merit, but consider this simple example. We can examine a lottery; the method by which the numbers are chosen, as well as the results; and we can determine, with some measure of statistical certainty, that they are defined by a random variable. This does not completely eliminate the possibility of tampering or other telic influence, but it seemingly can be considered statistical and empirical evidence against even a vague claim of teleology.
Comment by Zachriel — April 3, 2008 @ 8:35 am
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:17 am
I like that you put "seemingly" in there. Otherwise, what sense would it make for someone to "thank God" if they understand the science of statistics? Again, the point of my posts regarding all this was compatibility between theistic beliefs and scientific evidence. And specifically, the compatibility of claims that the evolutionary process is entirely blind, no intent, no foresight, with the idea that Jesus Christ is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. If one is a thorough-going believer in the a-telic nature of biological processes, I don't see how one could simultaneous hold the view that Jesus is the preexistent lamb slain without deliberately sacrificing intellectual integrity.
Nullasalus answered well, I think.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 3, 2008 @ 9:17 am
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:28 am
Maybe it's a miracle. Are you saying people shouldn't thank God when they win the lottery? (Scientific investigation will in all likelihood refute any correlation between belief or wishing or prayer and winning numbers.)
Are you saying people shouldn't thank God when they wake? Or for their food? Or for the rain? Or for any manner of natural events?
Comment by Zachriel — April 3, 2008 @ 9:28 am
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:14 am
How do you decide when either applies in a given circumstance?
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 3, 2008 @ 10:14 am
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:38 am
Well, I know I would. But I'm not a thorough-going naturalist who accepts that any given natural process is always blind and a-telic.
I seems to me that this is only true if one could correlate all those who prayed, and who didn't pray, with the result. But we could never know if the winner was chosen by God to win.
Thanking God seems absurd to me if one really believes that all these processes are a-telic all the time. In other words, if no miracles or intervention occurs. What's the point in thanking a God who doesn't intentionally intervene or plan the event that you're please with? You may as well thank God that some rock is here, and another rock is over there. Unless the naturalist simply wants to hedge his bets.
If I randomly scatter rocks around the neighborhood that lead to some kid being saved from an accident, and my intent was unrelated to such an event, I would feel a little wierd accepting thanks from some happy parent for having saved their child.
At any rate, if one really and truly believes biological evolution is an utterly blind process, I don't see how such a one could accept that Jesus Christ was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world, without sacrificing intellectual integrity. For Christ to have been the preexistent lamb slain, man would have to have been inevitable. How could that be if the biological process was utterly a-telic with no intervention or foresight?
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 3, 2008 @ 10:38 am
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:41 am
Interesting presentation from Dawkins in angryoldfatman's link to The Biopolitical Times -
Oh, give us all a break! If you want to 'breed' mathematical whizzes, marry a mathematician. If you want a musician, it's a good idea to marry someone with musical abilities, then get the kid some music lessons. People have been sexually selecting - thus selectively breeding - for as long as young people have been allowed by their societies to choose their own mates. That may not be a long time in the overall scheme of things, but it goes back well before Charlie Darwin.
What in the world would make Richard Dawkins or anyone else think this is controversial because of Adolph Hitler? It can't be the genocides or mass sterilizations, because sexual selection isn't a matter of eliminating lesser people. Could it be Hitler's Aryan breeding farms? You know, those enclaves where specially chosen blond haired, blue-eyed girls were used as brood mares - and elite SS members as studs - known as the Lebensborn.
Genetic medicine will soon allow parents to choose the traits of their children with a little bit more accuracy than results from choosing a mate. As it now offers parents screening for Tae-Sacs, Downs, CF or other congenital conditions. Fertility clinics stocked up with frozen embryos will probably market the screened embryos like they now market sperm from 'ideal donors'. Just like birth control, abortion and tubal ligation/vasectomy being available to individuals, it will boil down to individual choice. Government should regulate, but there's no reason to interfere. Besides, those ever so prolific poor can't afford such things. They have a hard time affording plain old regular health care.
It's scenarios that have indentured brood-slaves (no doubt poor black or brown women) contracted to carry those select babies that resembles the kind of eugenics popular in the first half of the 20th century (though they didn't have in vitro clinics or genetic engineering). Along with the likelihood that the blond haired, blue eyed 'elites' will privatize the technology. Not allow non-white couples to choose features and talents in their offspring or otherwise impose limits on their procreation.
See, blonde haired blue eyed mathematicians are never going to take over the world so long as brown haired brown eyed non-mathematicians are being born in greater numbers. The whole point of eugenics is to "improve the race" and that can't happen unless you prevent breeding in those deemed unacceptable. Designer Barbie will probably not be the avatar of choice of people that in no way resemble Barbie/Ken. Designer GI Joe could certainly be an issue, if the public were ever to find out about such a program.
I don't see that we have much to fear from individual parental choice. We've always got reason to be vigilant against force. So long as choice remains choice, we're not talking about eugenics. We're talking about the modern equivalent of sexual selection (now applied to the offspring), which has been practiced by humans and other critters since forever. Thus for Dawkins, et al. to be touting it as "New Eugenics" is a serious case of bad framing. Unless there's a dark side to the plan, that is.
…is there?
Comment by Joy — April 3, 2008 @ 10:41 am
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:11 am
In the link you posted, Dawkins is quoted as saying there are good reasons not to breed people that would persuade him, but that the question is worthy of discussion. So, it sounds he does actually think eugenics is incorrect.
Comment by One Brow — April 3, 2008 @ 11:11 am
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
You don't have to be a philosophical naturalist to understand correlations, or the lack thereof.
Seems easy enough. Any luck with that?
That's why such a claim has no scientific meaning.
Most believers have no problem believing that rain is caused by condensation in the atmosphere while still thanking God for the weather. But you are welcome to your sense of the absurd.
Comment by Zachriel — April 3, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:10 pm
(Duplicate)
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 3, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:10 pm
I'll take your word for it. Although, I'm curious to know how you know what most believers do.
I don't think it's odd for a believer to thank God in general for a weather system setup by God that generally benefits mankind, and "sends rain on the just and unjust." But to thank God for a sunshiny day today because I happen to want to go to the beach today seems rather strange. Esp since the sunshine today may be causing others some harm.
Thank God
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 3, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:33 pm
I would hazard a guess that most believers don't think the weather is a totally random, blind, a-telic process, in that God can and does intervene. Thanking God for