- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @fmfWe’re just retreading old ground. I don’t believe in the theory of evolution, but I’m aware of its basic claims. I don’t believe in man-made global warming but I’m aware of its basic claims.
He's an atheist. So for him there is no "God’s Holy Spirit". How on earth would you think that he'd "understand" that it does "indwell" in you? As a student of theology he can "understand" that it is your CLAIM that there is some supernatural thing that happens, that's all. Don't forget, he's an atheist.
Ghost put forward an argument concerning Christians - arguing in their milieu - and seemed unaware of a basic tenet of the Christian faith. It just seemed strange.
22 Apr 18
Originally posted by @romans1009Going from self-interest to altruism is going from one extreme to another.
Going from self-interest to altruism is going from one extreme to another. And I don’t see how it happens gradually - to me, that’s like saying someone is a little bit pregnant.
At some point, if morality developed through evolution, the motivation for self-interest had to give way to a motivation for altruism for altruism to exist - and it’s even har ...[text shortened]... explain from an evolutionary basis if the altruism is self-sacrificing to a significant degree.
No, I don't think so. It's a continuum, I think. To jump straight from EXTREME self-interest to EXTREME altruism would be "going from one extreme to another" but that's a straw man/reductio ad absurdum objection to the process.
22 Apr 18
Originally posted by @romans1009Ghost of a Duke thinks that Christian claims that "God's Holy Spirit" dwells in them are sheer nonsense. So why would he accept any assertions you make about your morality based on what he sees as a nonsense claim you make about yourself? And what does being an atheist theologian, as it were, have to do with it?
Ghost put forward an argument concerning Christians - arguing in their milieu - and seemed unaware of a basic tenet of the Christian faith. It just seemed strange.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
22 Apr 18
Originally posted by @fmfThe question is not whether he thinks tenets of the Christian faith are valid or even if he thinks God exists.
Ghost of a Duke thinks that Christian claims that "God's Holy Spirit" dwells in them are sheer nonsense. So why would he accept any assertions you make about your morality based on what he sees as a nonsense claim you make about yourself? And what does being an atheist theologian, as it were, have to do with it?
He didn’t know (or seemed not to know) based on what he wrote that God’s Holy Spirit indwells Christians, which is a pretty significant tenet of the Christian faith.
But this could be another case of him not expressing himself well or clearly.
But I’d rather hear from him than talk to you about what he thinks or knows.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
22 Apr 18
Originally posted by @fmfI guess we just disagree on this. At some point, self interest yields to altruism and I don’t see how that happens if morality develops via an evolutionary process, especially if the altruism is self-sacrificing a la the widow with two mites:
[b]Going from self-interest to altruism is going from one extreme to another.
No, I don't think so. It's a continuum, I think. To jump straight from EXTREME self-interest to EXTREME altruism would be "going from one extreme to another" but that's a straw man/reductio ad absurdum objection to the process.[/b]
“And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.”
(Mark 12:41-44)
22 Apr 18
Originally posted by @romans1009The meaning of the word "evolution", as I am using it, is along these lines:
At some point, if morality developed through evolution, the motivation for self-interest had to give way to a motivation for altruism for altruism to exist - and it’s even harder to explain from an evolutionary basis if the altruism is self-sacrificing to a significant degree.
a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding
b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission
c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance
a. and c (1) and (2) [It's from the Merriam-Webster dictionary]
The 'biological evolution' side of it would have presumably been when humans started developing from whatever our ancestors were and they were coagulating into the very earliest groups and communities and forming societies ~ and defending themselves from other humanoids [who have subsequently died out].
Once the faculties and capacities were in place ~ those that we recognize today as defining us and setting us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom ~ then the "evolution" would have been more social and cultural evolution.
22 Apr 18
Originally posted by @romans1009I guess we just disagree on this. At some point, self interest yields to altruism and I don’t see how that happens if morality develops via an evolutionary process...
I guess we just disagree on this. At some point, self interest yields to altruism and I don’t see how that happens if morality develops via an evolutionary process, especially if the altruism is self-sacrificing a la the widow with two mites:
“And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many tha ...[text shortened]... ance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.”
(Mark 12:41-44)
Is it that you don't know what a continuum is?
22 Apr 18
Originally posted by @romans1009I think the 'biological evolution' side of human morality occurred hundreds and hundreds of thousand years before "the widow with two mites" was written.
Do you think the morality of the widow with two mites developed within the theory of evolution?
22 Apr 18
Originally posted by @romans1009Here's what he said - and that you responded to:
The question is not whether he thinks tenets of the Christian faith are valid or even if he thinks God exists.
He didn’t know (or seemed not to know) based on what he wrote that God’s Holy Spirit indwells Christians, which is a pretty significant tenet of the Christian faith.
But this could be another case of him not expressing himself well or clearly.
But I’d rather hear from him than talk to you about what he thinks or knows.
I was speaking to Romans directly, so no, I don't apply that to all theists. - My point was that his morality was 'borrowed' from an outside agency and was not 'self-generating.' Christians like him believe man falls into depravity when God is taken out of the equation, despite the world being filled with perfectly decent individuals who manage to do so without God. If God alone is keeping you good,....then you're not good. Borrowing morality from God is like borrowing a watch. Lose that watch and you lose all concept of time. Fashion your own watch and you're in control of your own timekeeping.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
22 Apr 18
Originally posted by @fmfI understand the term but at some point, one becomes the other and the two do not co-exist. In fact, one could argue that the two never co-exist in the example I gave.
[b]I guess we just disagree on this. At some point, self interest yields to altruism and I don’t see how that happens if morality develops via an evolutionary process...
Is it that you don't know what a continuum is?[/b]
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
22 Apr 18
Originally posted by @fmfThe theory of evolution has to answer for more than just biology to be valid (and there are plenty of significant problems on the straight biological side as well.)
I think the 'biological evolution' side of human morality occurred hundreds and hundreds of thousand years before "the widow with two mites" was written.
22 Apr 18
Originally posted by @romans1009Self-interest and altruism clearly co-exist. There are people all along the continuum, and there are people that swing between the two depending on the circumstances.
I understand the term but at some point, one becomes the other and the two do not co-exist. In fact, one could argue that the two never co-exist in the example I gave.
22 Apr 18
Originally posted by @romans1009Things change - evolve - develop - grow - adapt - progress over time. This includes human activities. It's not controversial.
The theory of evolution has to answer for more than just biology to be valid (and there are plenty of significant problems on the straight biological side as well.)
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
22 Apr 18
Originally posted by @fmfHere’s part of what I wrote in response:
Here's what he said - and that you responded to:
[b]I was speaking to Romans directly, so no, I don't apply that to all theists. - My point was that his morality was 'borrowed' from an outside agency and was not 'self-generating.' Christians like him believe man falls into depravity when God is taken out of the equation, despite the world being filled with ...[text shortened]... e all concept of time. Fashion your own watch and you're in control of your own timekeeping.[/b]
“My morality is not “borrowed from an outside agency.” It exists within me and is as much a part of me as anything else.
You studied theology and don’t understand that God’s Holy Spirit indwells Christians? That God’s Holy Spirit is as much a part of a Christian as his or her feet and legs - more a part, actually, as the feet and legs can be removed.”