So is rape reeeally wrong?

[FreeTony]

If gravity is true, what is the problem with dropping a large rock on your neighbour?

[Mudhammam]

If the atoms that comprise a human body are made of mostly empty space, why hit the brakes when you see an elderly woman crossing the road at the same point your vehicle is racing towards?

[Tonus]

To a person whose morals come down to "what does god command" the statement by that creationist makes perfect sense. Without god there to tell you not to do something, you have full freedom to do it.

Now, if this guy can explain why any action is right or wrong aside from "god said so" then he's doing Christianity all wrong, but he's also undermining his claim that without god we could not determine right or wrong. He can't have it both ways. Either he has no personal concept of right and wrong and can only function because god gave him a list of "dos and don'ts" or he does have a personal concept of right and wrong and doesn't need the Bible in order to develop a working moral framework.

[Ben Davis]

Derek Isaacs = sick fuck

I think he's just looking for a suitable defense. You know, just in case.

[DeistPaladin]

The biggest problem is that his premise is wrong: evolution is not just about spreading one's DNA, as evolution happens to populations and not individuals. He's really talking about survival of the fittest, in that special, misrepresentative way that christians do, which doesn't take into account that "fitness," for humans, is about our ability to maintain a social species and not just outright strength. ...

Agreed with your evaluation of his misrepresentation of evolution but I would argue that the "biggest problem" with his argument is even more basic than that, and it's one commonly made by science-bashers like him: confusing science with philosophy.

Even more basic than his straw man arguments and profound ignorance of the subject of evolution, he is confusing "is" with "ought" and trying to attribute moral philosophy with scientific findings. This is very important to establish first-and-foremost with Creationists. Science is not philosophy. It does not prescribe moral evaluations. It simply describes what is. It does not speak of what ought to be.

This may be confusing to Creationist thinking, as indeed much of reality must be but I digress, because to the Creationist mind, "is" and "ought" are intertwined. "GodDidIt" is naturally followed by "and so it ought to be". After all, if God made something a certain way and God is a perfectly good and wise being, then it logically follows that this is how it should be. This is why a convoluted theology of a fall from grace is required to explain evil in the world but again, I digress. The point is simplistic Creationist thinking leads them to blend together "this is how it is" with "and so this is how it ought to be".

This kind of thinking, the conflation of "is" and "ought", is what leads them to such appeal to consequences as "so since you think evolution is true than that must mean you think we ought to..."

Stop right there.

Putting aside all the straw men and over-simplifications, science is the study of what is, even when its a cold, hard truth. No wishful thinking is allowed. A scientist might study what is and be personally horrified by it but is still duty bound to report simply what is, like it or not.

The fact that science is divorced from the "ought" is underscored by how we've used science to change the very way we live. Summers are hot and we've invented air conditioners. Winters are cold and we've invented indoor heating. Viruses spread and we invent vaccines. Other planets are uninhabitable but we may yet use scientific advances to terraform them.

Just because science has discovered what "is" doesn't mean anything about what "ought to be".

You want to discuss morality? The philosophy department is that building over there.

You want to discuss political ideology? The poli-sci department is that building over that way.

You want to discuss evolution? Keep it within the realm of science.

Now let's discuss all these straw men...

[LostLocke]

One of the big things I find disturbing about these people is that they are in effect saying, "If it weren't for my religion/faith/god I'd be out there raping people."

These are one of the few times that I would support someone being in a religion if it is the only thing that is keeping them from raping, killing, and being an otherwise violent and cruel human being.

[max-greece]

The aim of rape isn't progeny. Its about domination and the taking of another person's human rights / dignity etc.

Its like asking - if the aim of a football game is to win isn't the easiest and most reliable method to accomplish this to shoot the opposition at the start of the game?

[Tonus]

One of the big things I find disturbing about these people is that they are in effect saying, "If it weren't for my religion/faith/god I'd be out there raping people."

Right, which is why they undermine that position the moment they use any sort of reasoning for why something is right or wrong, or why they "couldn't" do something.

I know the story of Abraham was brought up recently, and one of the things Godschild said was that Abraham's thought process could be affected by his understanding that god could raise his son back from the dead, and that he had god's promise that he (Abraham) would father a nation. That's all well and good, but let's pretend for a second that god explains to Abraham that the sacrifice means that he will lose his son forever and that another patriarch will be chosen to father god's chosen people. Would killing Isaac still be the right and moral and good action for Abraham to take?

For the Christian the answer is "yes." Because it is what god commanded of Abraham, and Abraham had no right to question or challenge god's command. Regardless of how you arrange the circumstances, if god told Abraham to kill his son then the right and moral and good thing to do was kill his son. Yet many Christians, when faced with the question, find it difficult to answer just "yes" or "no." Clearly they find the act of killing their child to be so awful that even under the circumstance that god demanded it, they hesitate. Why? What standard are they using to judge the killing of a child to be awful?

[Whateverist]

When ChadW asks "but why is it wrong" it seems he means "why shouldn't one do it" rather than "why is it we've come to this widely held belief that it is wrong to do so". The actual origins of moral phenomena - the answer to the "how did it come to be" question - doesn't, as DeistP so ably explained, carry any ought.

But neither does its natural origins erase the ought. Likewise we don't stop enjoying bacon or sex once we come to understand the functional origins of those desires. Moral considerations aren't really that different than other motivational forces. They just plug into something very deeply rooted in our psyches. Our connection to family and to tribe - and therefore anything which might sever that connection - will trigger all those raw compulsive feelings involving love, honor and duty.

Rationality doesn't sit apart from the body deciding abstractly what is required, permitted or forbidden. Apart from all those raw compulsive feelings, there are no ends for rationality to work toward. Reasoned systems of how best to serve our many impulses to care for and earn the respect of the tribe, never replace the role of those base desires.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

The guy is probably a Repub.