Good Point

Thanks for explaining. Phrases like "we need to realize" are just the way I think and write, but I now see how they can be offensive and so I will certainly write in a different manner. Thanks for pointing it out. I think we can continue without a problem.
Blessings friend.

Maybe an explanation will help...

Do you understand what bothered me? I'll try to explain. It's something that kinda matters to me.

"We both need to realize...."
Was that just some idiomatic expression? Because it sure didn't come across that way to me. We don't both need to realize anything. You have certain opinions, but just because you draw a particular conclusion as a result of our discussions doesn't necessarily mean that I will agree or even understand it. It doesn't necessarily even mean that it is logical or self-evident or correct! Not only is this not an apt way of saying things, but statements like that impose your frame of reference on me, and it simply can't fit.

To reverse it as an example, I'm happy for you to realize or understand something, but it's not true that we both need to agree, just because I think it's correct. I simply refuse to impose my viewpoint on you. If you comprehend it, wonderful. But I will not under any circumstance impose it on you or try to define you by my viewpoint. That type of imposition is what bothers me.

It doesn't bother me that you see me as a man of faith. It seems crucial to your mindset. I wouldn't try to deny you that. But it bothers me for you to try to in some manner impose that on me or back me into a box or logical corner where you feel like I have to admit it. There is nothing to admit. It is simply not the case.

Does this make sense at all? Is it something that we can work with? I'm not about making stupid rules, like "we can't say this" or "we can only say that". I'm mostly just asking you to help me figure out ways that we can communicate that don't try to trap or box the other person in, that actually allow for the other persons perspective to potentially be true. I'm working at doing that, and am asking for it to run both ways. If you don't feel that it is feasible, no problem at all, but I will probably want to end the conversation on this blog, at least for the time being. Otherwise, I'm willing to take a stab at continuing.

And just so you know, our friendship isn't even remotely at risk here, at least from my perspective; I think it's safe to assume from your response here that the same is true of you.

I wish you well, Jason.

An Apology

First let me say that I apologize. I should not have attempted to label you as a man of "faith". My intent was not to offend you, yet I fear that is what I have done. I am deeply sorry.

I am unsure as to whether to continue in this vein of conversation for fear of further offense. Though I would like to continue to converse on the first four points of discussion about the validity of evidence, the fact that we disagree about it, and as you said we cannot seperate ourselves from our beliefs, I do not want to step on your toes again. Our friendship is more valuable to me than this blog.

I will leave the ball in your court. Let me know, and until then I will work on responses to both of our discussions but not post until I hear back from you.

Again, I apologize for the offense.

Response on Evidence

You said "1)We both need to realize that our beliefs are not based upon “evidence”. Rather, our interpretations of the evidence are based upon our beliefs."

No.  I utterly reject this.  I've changed my beliefs based on the evidence I've seen, and this has happened repeatedly.

You said "2)“Evidence” is not self-attesting or self-defining, but rather it is subject to the one defining it. So, yes, I am saying that evidential inquiry is not enough in coming to any truth.".

Do you believe the earth is flat, or do you believe the earth is round?  Please substantiate your answer without using evidence.

You said "3)Therefore, “evidence” is not sufficient in establishing whether something metaphysical (our beliefs) is true or false." Only partially true.  Sometimes evidence is sufficient to falsify a belief.  It is rarely sufficient to, by itself establish the truth of something.  As evidence increases over time concerning a specific belief or viewpoint, it tends to validate, but never absolutely, utterly establishes something as unfalsifiable.

You said "4)We must both understand that if our metaphysic is wrong then our interpretation of data is proportionally wrong." Maybe, maybe not.  It often happens that people reach the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.  My interpretation of data may be correct even when as you put it my "metaphysic" is wrong.  same can apply to both of us.

You said "5)You and I are both, therefore, men of faith. We place our faith in our interpretation of data without the certainty of knowing if our interpretations are correct."  

No.  I reject this.  You like saying this, and have tried to impose it upon me repeatedly.  Does that somehow make it right?  It wasn't right the first time you said it, and it hasn't been right any of the subsequent times you've said it.  

I believe(for lack of a better word, even though i suspect you use the word "believe" differently than I do) that using faith as a basis for a worldview is a failure at a very basic level.

If something is obviously false,  faith says "believe it anyway".  Faith is the province of christians and psychics and ufo-ologists and new-agers.  Why do many scientists spurn faith as a source of knowledge or inspiration?  Because it doesn't work.  I'm a big fan of what works.  Faith doesn't.

It seems to me that it is the "Christian" thing to tell others what they have to believe.  For me, when people try to impose their will on me like that, it ends the conversation. Was that your intent?  I don't think so, so I'll give this another chance.

Peace Out.

Is "Evidence" the Test of Truth?

So how fun has this been up to this point. Thanks again for doing this. I am thoroughly enjoying our interactions.

To continue on our creation-evolution talk…

You said, “I take it from your response that you aren't satisfied with the facility of using evidence to establish whether or not something is true or false. If I can't use evidence to establish the truth or falsehood of claims, how am I supposed to determine if they are believable or not?...If you reject evidential inquiry as to the truth or falsehood of a claim, what if any basis is there to verify the truth or falsehood of anything?”

It seems that you believe that evidential inquiry is a valid standard of verification for the truth or falsity of a claim. Yet how do we know that it is? To me it appears as if it is not, because evolutionists and creationists both use evidential inquiry and yet come to totally different conclusions.

For example, you say “If there were evidence that supported a hypothesis that the earth is only 9,000 years old(Young Earth Creationism), and in doing so it invalidated an evolutionary theory, I'd be happy to accept that as the truth.” There is evidence, and I know that you have read much of it. It's just that you reject it. The same for the old earth model and for evolution. They all have “evidence” supporting their theories. Each of these positions not only has data, but they have the SAME data, each interpreted in different ways. Each has a full body of evidences, but what you and I must realize is that the evidence is a subjective interpretation of the objective data. You accept one interpretation and reject the others, based upon your belief.

So in one sense we can both say we have evidence that proves our theories, and both of us would be correct in saying this, from our point of view. It’s just that the interpretation of that evidence is subjective, it has been subjected to our predisposition and therefore could easily be the wrong interpretation. In other words, our rose-colored glasses are coloring the data. The question we must ask ourselves is, “Why do I believe the one interpretation and not the others? Why do I accept one’s presentation of the data and their interpretations of it and not the others?”

All of this is to say that you and I have a pre-evidential, pre-scientific belief system (metaphysic) that determines the nature of evidence and how we look at data. It is not based upon any data or observation but is essential to looking at all data and doing observation. In this we must both realize that if our interpretive framework is wrong then our understanding of the data must be wrong. In other words, ones interpretation of the data is only as valid as the metaphysical framework he is interpreting from. This is self-evident.

You asked, “What are you saying?” What I am saying is this:

1)We both need to realize that our beliefs are not based upon “evidence”. Rather, our interpretations of the evidence are based upon our beliefs.

2)“Evidence” is not self-attesting or self-defining, but rather it is subject to the one defining it. So, yes, I am saying that evidential inquiry is not enough in coming to any truth.


3)Therefore, “evidence” is not sufficient in establishing whether something metaphysical (our beliefs) is true or false.

4)We must both understand that if our metaphysic is wrong then our interpretation of data is proportionally wrong.

5)You and I are both, therefore, men of faith. We place our faith in our interpretation of data without the certainty of knowing if our interpretations are correct.

You ask “how then do we proceed?” I suggest we proceed by 1) First discussing the five points above and coming to a consensus on them and then 2) examining the validity of our pre-scientific metaphysics in light of logic and rationality.

I hope this was not too long. I look forward to hearing from you and will be soon to respond to our morality discussion.
Later Buddy.

Response to Amazing Grace and Morality

You said "Perhaps you are familiar with the recent movie Amazing Grace." Nope, never saw it. I think I remember hearing you describe it, though. From your descriptions, I think what Wilberforce did to get slavery abolished in England is admirable. And moral.

I don't know, since I'm not familiar with the history, but I would guess that the British slave owners of the day were not aware of the deplorable conditions in which the slaves were shipped from their home locations to Britain. I'm just guessing, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that descriptions of those deplorable conditions helped sway people into outlawing slavery. It was a degradation of the human condition, and once people understood that, the continuing existence of slavery over a fairly short period of time became intolerable. It certainly had nothing to do with any biblical standard.

I would judge any society that enslaves human beings as being an immoral society. I include in that pre-Wilberforce English society, The deep south prior to the civil war, the north before it was outlawed in the north, The african cultures that sold and still sell other africans into slavery, The Romans that took slaves, and yes even the Hebrews that took slaves. And yes, I'd even judge the bible as being immoral for not just justifying, but even going so far as codifying slavery. Deuteronomy 21:10 sure doesn't give the captive woman any choice on whether or not she wants to be the 'wife' of her captor, now does it? Sure sounds like sexual slavery to me, and it is immoral.

But people in biblical times didn't deem it as such. It fit within that societies mores to take a beautiful captive woman as your sexual slave, as long as you treated her decently. If an American soldier in Iraq quoted that scripture, and used it as a pretext to make a beautiful Iraqi woman as his wife whether or not she wanted it, the entire world would be justified in calling it immoral. So, ya, I judge the Brits that took slaves as immoral, just as I judge the bible as promoting immorality for the same reason.

Societies evolve and change. Individuals in those societies make moral decision based on what they are taught in their society. Wilberforce made a different moral decision than much of the rest of his society did; sometimes our moral choices are opposite of the society in which we live. But they are always in the context of our society. And we judge others as good or bad based on that context. I judge the bible as immoral based on my societal context; you judge it as moral. We judge it differently based on not only our societal context but on our personal moral decisions based on seperate life experiences.

Hitler deemed it right to exterminate the Jews. It isn't somehow right by any stretch of the imagination just because some Nazi's considered it right in their frame of reference. And in the same way, the bible's version of god is immoral in commanding the Jews to exterminate races of people in the land of Canaan just so that the Israelites could possess the land. I don't deny that such a moral judgement on my part is the result of my cultural perspective; I have never claimed anything else. But I couldn't possibly see it otherwise. Doesn't matter to me that the bible justifies the extermination and calls it good and puts flowery language on it. It is still wrong.

So I see no justification other than prooftexting holy books for saying there is or ever has been any absolute moral standard. There are morals because they work. Some moral systems work better then others. Those that don't work fall by the wayside and don't get used over time. societal evolution, if you will.

You said "My questions are in reference to a non-theistic system of belief, so I hope you are not taking them personally.
Anyway, that is all for now. I look forward to hearing from you."

I don't separate my beliefs from me easily. My beliefs are a part of me; how am I not supposed to take it personally? I suspect that it makes you at least a little bit irritated or uncomfortable to see me call your bible and your god immoral, especially since you know that I truly believe it. Unfortunately, that is the risk both of us take in having these discussions. I'm thick skinned enough that I can take it up to a point. I'm far less bothered by the questions coming from the perspective of informal debate than I would be if I thought you were just doing it just to try to get my goat.

If I've gone too far, I apologize. I genuinely don't know how to express my feelings/rational/logic on this issue without saying some of the things that I've said, however.

Peace, Friend.

Amazing Grace and Morality

Hey there,

As to the response to Morality III, here are my thoughts.

You said, "A man's actions are judged moral or immoral in the context of his society... We consider slavery wrong in the context of our society, but in the context of the society of the Deep South in the mid 1800's, a slave owner could have exposed a black slave to horrors by just releasing them. In the context of that society, slavery was a moral choice."

Perhaps you are familiar with the recent movie Amazing Grace. It is the story of William Wilberforce, the English politician that was primarily responsible for the abolition of the slave trade in England. When he came into office the slave trade was legal and accepted by almost the entire country. All of parliament barring a very few exceptions were in favor of it. Now if you are familiar with the story you know what was happening to those slaves being brought into the West Indies. They were kidnapped from their homes, chained hand, foot and neck and put into compartments 2’ by 4’ on the ships, where those compartments would quickly fill with their own excrement during the several week trip across the ocean. About two thirds of them would die during the trip over due to the conditions. The others would be branded and used by the English as slaves.

So, since the context of the society was favorable to this, does that mean that such actions were moral? Further, since Wilberforce was against this, and the society was in favor of it, was Wilberforce then immoral? Since he stood against the culturally accepted practice does that make him the evil one?

A few more questions: When did Wilberforce’s immorality turn into morality and vice versa for those that were participating in the slave trade? Was it one day moral and the next immoral? And how do we know when it changed? Further, I am sure that the African countries from which the people were being stolen were against this activity. They would have considered it immoral. So their society says it’s immoral while the British society says it’s moral. Who then is right? Or is there a right? When two different societies have opposite moral standards, is there any precedent for determining which society is moral? And if there is, who sets that precedent?

These are my questions. Again, I fully believe that you are a moral man (and a great friend). I know that you would not say that the activities of the slave trade are moral, but my problem isn’t with you. My questions are in reference to a non-theistic system of belief, so I hope you are not taking them personally.
Anyway, that is all for now. I look forward to hearing from you.

Answers to Creation and Evolution 1

I take it from your response that you aren't satisfied with the facility of using evidence to establish whether or not something is true or false. If I can't use evidence to establish the truth or falsehood of claims, how am I supposed to determine if they are believable or not?

Yes, I agree that I might interpret evidence differently than you. You would throw out evidential inquiry, in favor of what? If you reject evidential inquiry as to the truth or falsehood of a claim, what if any basis is there to verify the truth or falsehood of anything?

If you reject the validity of evidential inquiry based on the concept that differing worldview cause 2 different people to draw different conclusions from the same evidence, then I don't really know how to proceed. I don't reject it. I depend on it.

If there were evidence that supported a hypothesis that the earth is only 9,000 years old(Young Earth Creationism), and in doing so it invalidated an evolutionary theory, I'd be happy to accept that as the truth. If there were evidence that supported a hypothesis that a much older earth than that was created by a god(Old Earth Creationism), and in doing so invalidated evolutionary theory, I'd not hesitate to accept it. I am not aware of any such evidence. But I'm aware of evidence that supports a universe very old, and that supports the idea that a planet came about in the course of its development that we call Earth, and that live slowly developed and evolved on that planet over a vast scale of time.

But your blog entry seemed to argue that the evidence doesn't matter, so I guess we'll just have to hold our different opinions on that until or unless one of us sees reason to change, and I'm fine with that.

Answer to Morality III

Sorry it took me so long to respond. Guests from out of town slowed me down, hehe.

You said,

Given these responses to the questions I would think it fair to say that you do not believe there to be any universal standard of right and wrong (as relates to actions), but that everything is relative to the individual. According to his nature and past experiences he determines for himself what is right and what is wrong and acts accordingly. So for some it is altruism, others masochism, for some it is loving his neighbors, for others it is eating them. Each man does what is right in his own eyes and there is no universal standard that his actions can be judged by. Is this, in essence, what you are saying?

Not quite. A man's actions are judged moral or immoral in the context of his society. In our society, cannibalism is judged as immoral; but in some tribes eating the organs of an enemy you slew in battle was seen as a sign of respect and treated as a courtesy. You would only eat the organs of enemies that died with honor, and that fought well. We consider slavery wrong in the context of our society, but in the context of the society of the Deep South in the mid 1800's, a slave owner could have exposed a black slave to horrors by just releasing them. In the context of that society, slavery was a moral choice. Would I eat an honored enemy? No, but I am judging the act from the framework of my societal context. Same applies concerning slavery.

Not much else to comment on here, so I'll leave it at that.

Creation and Evolution 1

There is such a variety of fun ways to continue this dialogue on creationism and evolution that I am unsure in which way to proceed.
Well, here is a quote to begin with.

“Creationism is based on mountains of evidence. Evolution has no basis other than the belief structure of which it is a part. The evidential basis on the one side and the utter lack of evidence on the other side make them different.”

Okay, so you didn’t say this, but I am. And I believe this as fully and strongly as you do the statement, “Evolutionary Theory is based on mountains of evidence. Creationism has no basis other than the belief structure of which it is a part. The evidential basis on the one side and the utter lack of evidence on the other side make them different.”

Now both of us are looking at the same evidence. It is the same set of fossils setting on the table, the same scientific laws, the same data. And yet there appears to be another metaphysical elephant in the room, one which determines how we interpret that data. You see, no piece of data can ever be understood outside of one’s metaphysical bias. It is his metaphysic that informs how he looks at and understands the data in front of him.

So I, because I have a Christian metaphysic, interpret the data one way, you, because of your preexisting metaphysic interpret the same data completely differently. Hence how we can come to two entirely antithetical ideas looking at the same things.

All of this is to say a couple of things.

1) No one ever views a piece of data neutrally. It is impossible, because for him to interpret it he must use his metaphysical presuppositions to do that interpreting.

2) Just as my creed (Christian metaphysic) caused me to view the evidence one way, so you must understand that it is your creed (metaphysical naturalism) that causes you to view the data the way you do.

3) This is, of course, not limited to you and I but everyone in the whole world. Every evolutionary biologist has a creed (metaphysic) that determines how he interprets evidence. He presupposes certain things that then determine how he sees what he sees. The same way with creationists.

4) All scientific work is subject to the scientific philosophy that undergirds it. That scientific philosophy is, in part, the metaphysic of which I speak. Both of us appear to be consistent with our metaphysic in interpreting the existing data as we have, but are in need of understanding that the way we even view science the way we do is because we are already biased in our philosophical understanding of what it entails. (That was a mouthful).

And so once again we are in need of discussing our metaphysical beliefs and whether or not they are consistent and valid, before we even go to the evidence, because in the end all the interpretation of every piece of data is only as good and valid as the metaphysic which gives rise to it.

A few other noteworthy points need to be made here.
The “Uniformitarianism” of which we have spoken is one of those metaphysical concepts. The reason you don’t read about it in evolutionary authors is because it is assumed by them. But it is rather easy to prove that they hold these beliefs.

With the scientific method we have observed change within nature. This change has always been minor and we have never ever observed, or even come close to observing, one kind changing into another. With this I know you will agree. And so evolutionary biologists say, “Well this must have occurred just like this throughout all of history”, and then they combine the observed data with the assumption to make theories about the past. Uniformitarianism is simply the assumption stated above, the belief that the way nature behaves now is the same way that it has always behaved. Yet this, of course, cannot even be remotely proven for we cannot test the past but only the present and we have no record of scientific experiments done even 5,000 years ago. Every evolutionist believes it implicitly because his beliefs dictate that this is the way things must be. He was not there 5,000 years ago nor 500,000,000 years ago (if there was such a time). Therefore he must make assumptions about how nature behaved at those times. (hence his uniformitarianism) It is his creed. Whether we want to call it religion or non-religion, the fact remains that it is an unverifiable metaphysical assumption that underlies how someone understands and interprets their present experiences.

One more comment. You said, “Creationism is based on dogmatic assertions that are considered unchallengeable by the adherents of the specific faith that it is a part of. Such dogma has no place in science.” Two thoughts here.

1)Evolution is also based on dogmatic assertions that are considered unchallengeable by its adherents (as I already covered above with the metaphysical assumptions). There is a degree of challenging ideas in evolution, but those go on within the given metaphysical construct. The same is true of creationism by the way. Though creationists hold the same metaphysical constructs there is a wide variation of how of creation and the flood.

2)As to the “such dogma has no place in science”, I still am trying to figure out how a non-theist can account for any of the numerous presuppositions (axioms) that underlie science and are necessary for any science to be done. If you would like me to list some of these axioms then I will do so.

Anyway, that is plenty of fodder for you to play with for now. I hope you had a great weekend and look forward to your responses.

Addendum:
As I have had a little more time to process and think on this I had a few more thoughts. (These are just enhancements to the two points directly above.)

1)We know that Science or the Scientific method is based upon the principle of falsifiability. If we cannot falsify a theory or hypothesis then it is not scientific. Therefore, as you stated, creationism “has no place in science” since one cannot falsify that a supernatural Creator created the universe. Well, then we must also say that evolution has no place in science, because it is not falsifiable either. When I posit something in the remote past, whether it be an event of purely natural processes or an event done by supernatural processes, it is still an event of the remote past and not repeatable or falsifiable. So just as creationism “has no place in science”, so evolution has no place in science.

2)Having said this I am going to turn the tables a bit. I think the real question here is not “Can science account for my theory”, but “Can my theory account for science?”. You see, though neither can be tested or falsified by science, the truth of the matter is that only one of them can explain why science is even possible. Evolution, if it were possibly true, cannot explain any axiom basic to science. If evolution were true then science would no longer be objective but would become a purely subjective discipline. On the other hand, creationism not only led to modern day science but is basic to any scientific endeavor. It alone gives rise to a solid basis (those axioms of which I speak) upon which science can be done.

Morality III

Thanks for your responses. They were very illuminating in helping me understand where you are coming from. There are a few things I wanted to discuss specifically about what you said as well as perhaps clarify, and also I wanted to clarify a few of my questions that you say you didn’t understand for I think they are still important to our discussion.

Previously you said, “My current feelings on the issue is that we are moral creatures simply because being so gives us a survival advantage as a species. I don't think it's any more complicated than that. So saying that it's logical to be moral is probably about as meaningful as saying that it's logical to have hair. Whether or not you could impute a logical reason to have hair doesn't change the fact that I am hairy”.

This is where the questions arose from. It sounds as if you are saying that morals arose naturally, like hair. They are a natural part of a human being, like hair. So it appears as if an individual has no choice in the formation of any morals, but what he values is merely a product of time plus chance plus nature. Therefore, we do not make “moral” choices, but act out our natural course, simply manifesting what nature has programmed in us. In other words, we can say that morality is merely “nature taking its course”, like hair growth. You cannot decide where your hair grows, it just does. And so you do not decide what your morals are, they just are. Hence Questions 2 and 4. Morality, in the non-theistic view, is just nature taking its course. So how then does one discern between what is moral, amoral and immoral when all of them are simply descriptions of nature taking its course? It would be like saying that hair growth on one part of your body is immoral and growth on another is moral. No, they are just nature happening. There is no value judgment to any of them at all.

“The beliefs that we have formed as a result of the experiences we've had in our life provide us with the ruler that we use to make moral judgements. Just like you don't need to find some absolute invariant standard to define an inch, you don't need some absolute invariant standard to define right and wrong.”

“Based on our beliefs, formed by our past experiences, we make general rules of thumb about what we should do and shouldn't do.”

“The person making that moral judgment makes it dependent on the basis of their past experiences. You can't separate the moral judgement from the person; neither can you seperate it from the circumstances in which they find themselves making the judgement.”

Given these responses to the questions I would think it fair to say that you do not believe there to be any universal standard of right and wrong (as relates to actions), but that everything is relative to the individual. According to his nature and past experiences he determines for himself what is right and what is wrong and acts accordingly. So for some it is altruism, others masochism, for some it is loving his neighbors, for others it is eating them. Each man does what is right in his own eyes and there is no universal standard that his actions can be judged by. Is this, in essence, what you are saying?

“No religion provides such a standard (including Christianity)”.
This was your answer given in response to the question of whether or not you believe there to be any absolute invariant standard for right and wrong. Yet the Bible does make this claim, and it does so in absolute and unchanging terms. Now I by no means think that most, if any Christians, live by this standard, but that does not change the fact that the authoritative source of a religion makes the claim that there are absolute invariant standards laid out by an absolute unchanging God. But I don’t suppose our talking about non-theistic explanations for morality have anything to do with this, so I will leave it there. I just couldn’t let it go without commenting on it.

Anyway, I have once again written far too long of a blog, so I hope I have not bored you. Have a great weekend my friend.

Response to "More on Religion pt3"

You say "So if both evolution and creationism are parts of religious paradigms, but are not religious because of those associations, as your statement about evil so clearly illustrates, why then do you consider creationism religious?"

Another point: My illustration about evil doesn't illustrate in any way shape or form that creationism is not religious because of it's association with a religious paradigm. You are conflating differing types of associations. Creationism is part of a religious paradigm because it is necessarily dependent on a creator. Evolution has no such dependency relationship with a religious paradigm. Some religious are evil but not necessarily dependent on evil. Some relgions embrace evolution, but don't necessarily have a dependency relationship. But creationism requires a creator, so it is necessarily religious, and no non-religious worldviews have creators.

You said (long quote, sorry)

I am guilty of poor communication on this one. I assumed that as we spoke of “evolution” that we were talking about the ideology of the descent of life and various species, not of the adaptation that we currently observe in creation. And though adaptation is still founded and dependent upon worldviews, it is the extrapolation of this idea combined with the ideology of uniformitarianism to account for origins that I was addressing. As to this belief of evolution I think you and I would both agree that it, like creationism, is based upon an unprovable set of assumptions about the origin and early progression of the physical universe. Since both theories are then based on unprovable (by modern scientific standards) ideologies and both address the origin of the universe why is one religious and the other not?

No, not poor communication, fundamental disagreement on a wide variety of points. "Descent with modification" is a definition used by evolutionary biologists. It is a definition that Berkeley's site on evolution uses, for example. I don't think there is an ideology of uniformitarianism outside of some creationist books and websites. Evolutionary Theory (I'm using the word "theory" in the same sense as I would if I said Theory of Gravity, by the way) is based on mountains of evidence. Creationism has no basis other than the belief structure of which it is a part. The evidential basis on the one side and the utter lack of evidence on the other side make them different. There is no creed in evolutionary theory. You'll see very sharp disagreements on a regular basis amongst evolutionary biologists. The common agreements are based on extensive evidence(not uniformitarianism, whatever that is) and the disagreements are associated with those hypothesis that don't have strong evidential support. It is the way science works. Creationism, on the other hand, is based on dogmatic assertions that are considered unchallengeable by the adherents of the specific faith that it is a part of. Such dogma has no place in science; there is no central authority anywhere that dictates any supposed "uniformitarianism" that I'm aware of; scientists would rightfully reject if even if it did exist.

You said "So is “belief” in something non-physical then the test of religion, rather than “worship” (for worship is nowhere mentioned and yet you still consider creationism to be religious)?"

We're probably getting closer to a better definition, but that is still unsatisfactory. I believe in justice, for example, and justice is non-physical, but that belief in justice is not religious. If by 'non-physical' you mean supernatural, then probably yes.

Anyway, that is my answers for now.

Response to "Morality II"

You said "Hip, Hip, Hooray!"
I'm less sure than you are that we reached consensus, but I'm happy to celebrate, hehe.

Q1: Is there such a thing as right and wrong or are all actions just natural (like hair)?
A1: You ask this as if it's possible for "right and wrong" to be independent of what they are referring to. I don't understand that.

Whether or not something is right or wrong is a moral judgement that one makes using ones beliefs as a basis for that decision. Moral judgment is dependent on what is being judged. The person making that moral judgment makes it dependent on the basis of their past experiences. You can't separate the moral judgement from the person; neither can you seperate it from the circumstances in which they find themselves making the judgement.

Q2: If all actions are merely natural then how can any judgment be rendered since all of them are simply natural?
A2: The question doesn't make any sense to me, so I'll just talk a bit, and maybe answer in the process :). Moral judgements are "should's" and "shouldn'ts". Based on our beliefs, formed by our past experiences, we make general rules of thumb about what we should do and shouldn't do. It might be purely pragmatic: "I shouldn't steal because I might get caught and go to jail." is an example of that. It can be altruistic: "I shouldn't steal because it deprives the other person of needed sustenance, and if we all stole we all would suffer". It might be a belief based on a belief system: "I shouldn't steal because the 10 commandments prohibit it" or "I shouldn't steal because humanism teaches that theft is wrong". But all those are rules of thumb based on our belief structures. I don't even see how natural or not connects. Sorry if I'm being dense.

Q3: Is there then any absolute invariant standard for right and wrong?
A3: I dont' think so, but I can't say with 100% certainty :). No religion provides such a standard(including Christianity), and neither do any secular belief systems that I'm aware of. That doesn't mean such a standard doesn't exist, but there isn't any evidence that it exists. I don't even see how it could, since you can't seperate a judgement of right or wrong from the person doing the judging and what it is they are passing judgement on. I think for that reason its pretty much a flawed question.

Q4: What is the difference between what is moral, immoral and amoral if all actions and attributes of our species are ultimately natural?
A4: Sorry, the question doesn't make any sense to me. So let me ask a somewhat related question: How do you know how long an inch is? For lots of things, a guesstimate of "O, about this much(as i spread my fingers to an inches width) is good enough. But for some things I need more accurate measurements. So I use a ruler. Here's the weird part, though. There are rulers all over the place with inches on them, and I can use most any of them to find what an inch is. I don't need (to use your words) an absolute invariant standard for how much an inch is. I just find a ruler and it's good enough.

I(and you) make moral decisions in the same way. The beliefs that we have formed as a result of the experiences we've had in our life provide us with the ruler that we use to make moral judgements. Just like you don't need to find some absolute invariant standard to define an inch, you don't need some absolute invariant standard to define right and wrong.

Is divorce wrong? Nope, at least judging by the actions of most Americans, Christian or not. Is lying wrong? Same answer. Is polygamy wrong? Yes, judging by most Americans, Christian or not, even though it's right judging by the bible. Is slavery wrong? Yes, by the same standard, even though the bible says it's right. Christians form their belief systems as a result of their life experiences just like everyone else does, and use those beliefs as a basis for judgement calls just like everyone else does, regardless of anything in the bible or claims about some deity.

So I can't say with 100% certainty that there is no such thing as an absolute utter invariant standard of right and wrong, but there is no evidence for such a thing or reason to believe such a thing exists(at least that I'm aware of).

My answers are probably unsatisfying; I hope at least they are at least mildly entertaining.

Cheers, friend.

More on Religion pt3

“You say "Evolution is also an attribute of many religions, so would we then say that evolution is religious?" Well, I think that we could both find religions that have the attribute of being evil, so does this logic imply that all religion is evil?”

Well, I am glad we both saw the leap in logic there. And that was precisely my point, in response to your previous statement, “Scientologists and Muslims and Christians are all creationists (at least I think so) but the religions tied to their disparate creation stories are different. I would say, generally, that creationism is an attribute of some religions, but it is not in and of itself religion.” So if both evolution and creationism are parts of religious paradigms, but are not religious because of those associations, as your statement about evil so clearly illustrates, why then do you consider creationism religious?

Further, you said, “Evolution is not even remotely religious; it is a description of modification through descent that occurs in many natural systems. Saying "Evolution is religious" is roughly equivalent to making statements like "The sunshine is religious".

I am guilty of poor communication on this one. I assumed that as we spoke of “evolution” that we were talking about the ideology of the descent of life and various species, not of the adaptation that we currently observe in creation. And though adaptation is still founded and dependent upon worldviews, it is the extrapolation of this idea combined with the ideology of uniformitarianism to account for origins that I was addressing. As to this belief of evolution I think you and I would both agree that it, like creationism, is based upon an unprovable set of assumptions about the origin and early progression of the physical universe. Since both theories are then based on unprovable (by modern scientific standards) ideologies and both address the origin of the universe why is one religious and the other not?

I tend to think your answer would be contained in the statement, “If you believe in a creator you are religious and believe in a religion.” So is “belief” in something non-physical then the test of religion, rather than “worship” (for worship is nowhere mentioned and yet you still consider creationism to be religious)? Which brings this very long and intricate discussion back to the original question about the definiton of religion. Whew! My head now hurts, how about you?

Looking forward to your counter-point of my counter-point of your counter-point of my…

Morality II

Sorry for being so late in responding. We were on a family camping trip for six days. It was great!

After your latest email we have good news: You and I finally agree on something (as pertains to this blog)! You said, “…I'm pretty confident that I can't prove the logic of morality.” I said, “…there is ultimately no logical foundation for morality in non-theism.” Hey, I think we can celebrate this consensus together! On the count of three… Hip, Hip, Hooray!

Given our consensus I will turn more to you beliefs. I guess the best direction is to ask a series of questions in response to your current system of belief about morality.

Q1: Is there such a thing as right and wrong or are all actions just natural (like hair)?

Q2: If all actions are merely natural then how can any judgment be rendered since all of them are simply natural?

Q3: Is there then any absolute invariant standard for right and wrong?

Q4: What is the difference between what is moral, immoral and amoral if all actions and attributes of our species are ultimately natural?

I know, these questions tend to blend together and touch upon each other, but hopefully they are distinct enough to be answerable on their own.

I look forward to hearing from you my friend.

Morality I

You said

I think that you are correct in saying this (that Christians assume this), but I am not sure that I make this exact assumption. I think that you are a very moral and upstanding man though you do not believe in God. What I would say is that any non-theistic thought system cannot account for morality. This does not mean that non-theists are not moral, but that there is ultimately no logical foundation for morality in non-theism. It is kind of like math. Unbelievers use math every day, just as they use morality, but the fact that they use math does not mean that they can account for the ability to use math or account for why math works. I am sure I have made this as clear as mud.

I've thought about this a lot over a period of years and still haven't come to any conclusions that I feel confident about. I don't know if I can come to conclusions that I'm confident with even. My current feelings on the issue(that could change as soon as tomorrow, or never, hehe) is that we are moral creatures simply because being so gives us a survival advantage as a species. I don't think it's any more complicated than that. So saying that it's logical to be moral is probably about as meaningful as saying that it's logical to have hair. Whether or not you could impute a logical reason to have hair doesn't change the fact that I am hairy, and would be whether or not any logic was imputed. I can't imagine any way in which humans could exist as a species without having a moral structure, simply because moral behavior is necessary to survive in a society.

So I'm pretty confident that I can't prove the logic of morality. But I know that it exists, and I'm confident there are reasons that it exists regardless of any theism or non-theism.

Unless you see my utilitarian argument as logical, hehe.

Anyway, that is all for now. I wish you well, friend.

Response to "More on Religion".

You said

I don't think that it is at all necessarily dependent upon religion. Creationism is simply a model of origins, just like evolution. In fact I like to call evolution "Naturalism's creation story". So creationism is not dependent on a "system of belief that has a form of worship as integral to it". It does appeal to the super-natural for the origin of the natural, but this does not seem to be religious in the sense that I have heard you use the term. Evolution is also an attribute of many religions, so would we then say that evolution is religious? The same is true, of course, of a Christian worldview. Though a super-natural God is integral to its belief it in no way demands a form of worship, though I would agree that the adherents of such a worldview will almost always become religious and worship God as an extension of it. But I again think we could say the same thing about every other worldview, including naturalism.

Naw. Creationism is a model of origins that is dependant on a creator. If you believe in creationism, you believe in a creator. If you believe in a creator you are religious and believe in a religion. Simple as that.

You say "Evolution is also an attribute of many religions, so would we then say that evolution is religious?" Well, I think that we could both find religions that have the attribute of being evil, so does this logic imply that all religion is evil? Evolution is not even remotely religious; it is a description of modification through descent that occurs in many natural systems. Saying "Evolution is religious" is roughly equivalent to making statements like "The sunshine is religious". If you choose to define your terms that loosely, fine I guess, but they lose meaning and significance. You say "But I think we could say the same thing about every other worldview, including naturalism". Naw. You'd say that, and have many times. Saying it doesn't make it either real or applicable, though. I even think your worldview demands this sentiment of you. That doesn't make it real, though.