Who Made God?

I don't see a morality-defining worldview in the existence of aircraft, but I do see it in the ToE. Also in the tenets of Islam of course. Perhaps you could make your point clearer?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The point is that all of the evidence still shows that humans have created every God ever discussed, that Nazism/Fascism are Conservative not Liberal political and cultural creations and that Conservative Evangelical Protestant Christians in German were avid supporters of Hitler, his policies, the Fuehrer Principal and anti-Semites.

Sounds like too many people were already buying into the Scientific definition of morality that allowed a Hitler to have such power. Believing in the authority of the God of the Bible does prescribe the humane standard that was lost in the Third Reich and in so many of our popular movements today. Even if you're right that it was all made up, which of course I reject, it would have exerted a humane influence that Science doesn't.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I don't see a morality-defining worldview in the existence of aircraft, but I do see it in the ToE.

---

Then you are hallucinating.Anyway, having established that Darwin added nothing to eugenics (selective breeding is mentioned in the Bible!) here is what he had to say about it.This quote is from The Descent of Man, Darwin’s book on human evolution.

Thanks for that from Darwin. Yes that is how we supposedly derive some moral principles from the ToE, but do note: he had to make up WHAT principle we should derive from it, as we always have to make it up, because the ToE really doesn't prescribe a moral standard. Sympathy? Well, OK? Altruism? Does it tell us not to steal, covet, lie, murder, commit adultery? Those principles also exist in Buddhism, based on the simple fact that nobody likes to be stolen from, lied to, cheated on etc. At least those principles have the virtue of being more or less in agreement with the Second Table of the Ten Commandments, but the ToE doesn't prescribe any morality with any kind of authority. You could just as well argue that evolution makes serial killers and greedy capitalists and tyranny. It seems to justify abortion just fine, and probably euthanasia.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Thanks for that from Darwin. Yes that is how we supposedly derive some moral principles from the ToE, but do note: he had to make up WHAT principle we should derive from it, as we always have to make it up, because the ToE really doesn't prescribe a moral standard.

---

Scientific theories don’t prescribe moral standards. And they shouldn’t.And that is why you don’t see a morality-defining worldview in there.

Which still has NOTHING to do with the facts or reality.The point is that all of the evidence still shows that humans have created every God ever discussed, that Nazism/Fascism are Conservative not Liberal political and cultural creations and that Conservative Evangelical Protestant Christians in German were avid supporters of Hitler, his policies, the Fuehrer Principal and anti-Semites.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

Every God, jar? How did humans create Jesus? How does all of the evidence point to this? Or is it just that you don't prefer the Jesus as marketed? Do you see the obvious attempts at anthropomorphization? You seem to agree with the group of scholars who accuse the religion of undergoing change, which to me simply means that you are biased. Both sides present a case unless you can prove to me that the apologists are lying. Why don't you believe their story? You once said that if the God that traditional apologetics marketed were real you would likely laugh at such a God. Why is this? Let's just suppose that Billy Graham's message was the Truth. What aspects of this truth would alienate you? What did your Mama warn you about? Why are they *all* snake oil salesmen? I only see evidence that some of them are, and I dont reject the story...likely because (according to you) it fits my fantasy. Do you reject the story because of the lack of evidence alone? Or would you likely reject it if there were evidence to support it?

And yet there we have Darwin talking about how we can derive a principle of helping the helpless from the ToE. And it's a pretty common thing one hears, it's not just Darwin. We got the argument of "altruism" as a moral principle from the ToE too. Whatever anyone wants to claim as a moral standard that can be attributed to evolution is going to be used as a moral standard derivable from the ToE. So it's really just empty words to claim science shouldn't be the basis for morality. REAL science, of course, but the ToE is NOT real science.

quote:

---

And yet there we have Darwin talking about how we can derive a principle of helping the helpless from the ToE.

---

Except that he isn’t really. He is urging it as a good thing but the theory doesn’t go all the way to proving that. And it certainly isn’t a part of the theory.

quote:

---

We got the argument of "altruism" as a moral principle from the ToE too.

---

No, at most we get an explanation of why we have altruistic impulses.

quote:

---

Whatever anyone wants to claim as a moral standard that can be attributed to evolution is going to be used as a moral standard derivable from the ToE. So it's really just empty words to claim science shouldn't be the basis for morality

---

The first statement doesn’t prove the second at all. In fact it hints at the fact that it doesn’t work.

quote:

---

REAL science, of course, but the ToE is NOT real science.

---

Of course evolution is real science, and your saying otherwise is just another example of your anti-scientific attitude.But go on. Tell me what REAL science is a basis for morality.

Well I wouldn't argue that we get or could get any kind of moral system from the ToE, but when people argue that we've evolved this or that trait that favors sympathy or kindness or whatnot I'd say it's the best we could ever get from Science and after Science has told us our religious morality is all made up people naturally try to find some kind of standard in that Science anyway, however irrational or whimsical.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Well I wouldn't argue that we get or could get any kind of moral system from the ToE...

---

Except that you did.

quote:

---

...but when people argue that we've evolved this or that trait that favors sympathy or kindness or whatnot I'd say it's the best we could ever get from Science and after Science has told us our religious morality is all made up people naturally try to find some kind of standard in that Science anyway.

---

That, of course is contradictory. The religious reasons for morality may be made up (and given how dreadful they are that’s probably a good thing). But the science does explain why we have at least some of our moral values - which means that they are not simply made up.

A few tentative moral principles derived from a supposedly evolved trait that is far from universal and just a wild guess anyway is not a "moral system."Religious morality is SO "dreadful" you say. Not lying, stealing, murdering, cheating on your spouse, coveting and so on is "dreadful?" Honoring one's parents is "dreadful?" Loving God and your neighbor is "dreadful?"Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Phat, there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus (the specific Jesus mentioned in the New Testament) ever existed. The only reason anyone even knows about that character is through the stories humans wrote. But again, all of the evidence shows that Christianity, like all religions has not only changed over time but is still changing. If we look at what is written in the Bible, for example the tales of Paul's encounter or the Great Commission what we see are evolving and changing stories.It is not scholars that accuse the religion of undergoing change but rather honesty and reality. WHAT story? There is no such thing as "The Story" just as there is no such thing as "The Bible" . There are stories and variations on stories and interpretations of stories.But what is fact is that what is written in the stories is actually what is written in the stories.

quote:

---

A few tentative moral principles derived from a supposedly evolved trait that is far from universal and just a wild guess anyway is not a "moral system."

---

Indeed. Yet you are still the one who kept talking about deriving morality from science.

quote:

---

Religious morality is SO "dreadful" you say.

---

No, I say the reasons supposedly underlying religious morality are often dreadful.