If beauty doesn't require God, why should morality? (Bite me Dr. Craig.)

[Whateverist]

If beauty can be explained in terms of evolution, why not morality and ethics? The idea expressed by Christian apologists that morality only makes sense if you can ground it in an objective source for oughts looks lame when applied to beauty. What would we say? That beauty only exists if what we claim to be beautiful is deemed so by an objectively infallible judge of beauty? Psssh.

http://youtu.be/PktUzdnBqWI

[DeistPaladin]

The idea expressed by Christian apologists that morality only makes sense if you can ground it in an objective source ...

God is not an objective source, by definition.

"Objective", by definition, means independent of any being's opinions or judgments. This remains the definition no matter how powerful, wise or benevolent the said being might be.

That's just the tip of the iceberg of problems with this line of thinking.

[Whateverist]

The idea expressed by Christian apologists that morality only makes sense if you can ground it in an objective source ...

God is not an objective source, by definition.

"Objective", by definition, means independent of any being's opinions or judgments. This remains the definition no matter how powerful, wise or benevolent the said being might be.

That's just the tip of the iceberg of problems with this line of thinking.

Hadn't thought about it that way. Excellent point.

[Dystopia]

Only a retard will think only with god humans can possess morality.

[bennyboy]

Okay, I'm not supporting God or speaking against the idea of evolution in general.

However, I DO have a problem with some evolutionary approaches-- they are often based on what I'd call a "plausible narrative" rather than actual science. Some narratives are so compelling that you'd almost call them obvious: like giraffes growing longer necks because they are competing for foliage high in trees. The problem is that a smart person can make a plausible narrative about absolutely anything, and then convince himself that this narrative represents reality: "OCD exists because during early human development, ____."

Is this really different, though, than a Greek theist who made what he thought was a plausible description of how things in our world were created by gods?

[Whateverist]

Well it is in the sense that it is a plausible NATURAL account. Still speculative but at least no woo.

[DeistPaladin]

Only a retard will think only with god humans can possess morality.

It is a simpler explanation, just to say God-Verb-It and be done with the search. We can simply plug all the gaps in our knowledge with GodWillsIt, GodWantsIt, GodDidIt, GodDoesIt, GodIsIt, etc. but it just ends up being a vapid bare assertion and argument from ignorance that does nothing to elucidate our understanding of anything.

[bennyboy]

Well it is in the sense that it is a plausible NATURAL account. Still speculative but at least no woo.

I think it's dangerous to start taking made-up ideas, of any kind, and taking them as reality if they are not provable or disprovable. It doesn't take much for science to become "Science," and for the authority of Scientists to usurp the good methodology of actual scientists. I think scientists have a reponsibility to stick to actual evidence, and to develop ideas that can be confirmed or disproven using scientific methodology. Saying, "I can make a story about how cavemen needed religion, therefore religion is an evolved trait" is not substantially different from "I can make a story that God visited cavemen, therefore God guided human development."

The problem is that while you can dig up bones, and maybe even DNA, you can't dig up subjective experiences like "beauty" or "morality."

[ignoramus]

Many things in our life will never be properly explained by science.
It's just the nature of our being.
But we can still apply critical thought, reason with a good dose of common sense to try to explain what is inherently subjective without the need to resort to explanations far more unfeasible.

Basically, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it usually is a duck. This is where evolution shines and "god" sucks at explaining.

[bennyboy]

Basically, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it usually is a duck. This is where evolution shines and "god" sucks at explaining.

Okay, let's take the example of consciousness. Is evolution a better explanation of why there is consciousness rather than nothing like it? EVEN IF consciousness has evolved, it doesn't explain why there is such a thing as qualia at all. Our quacking duck only tells us that there are ducks which quack (to abuse your metaphor badly).

The main philosophical problem with evolution is that it requires a framework. If there is consciousness, it can only evolve in a framework which has the capacity for consciousness. So the question is this: did a framework which has the capacity for consciousness "just happen," or is there an intrinsic connection between reality and the capacity for consciousness?

I think the latter makes more sense: consciousness is not an accident, but is intrinsic to the nature of reality. That's not to say all things are conscious, but to say that the framework in which we exist could not work without that capacity. It seems strange to me that such a framework could arise out of a parent system that didn't also include that capacity.