David Withun discusses the Historical Method and it's relevance to the ancient Church.
Anamnesis
8 years ago
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Response to "Morals without God."
My comments on a recent Opinion piece in the NY Times by Dr. Frans De Waal; Read the piece here.
Dr.De Waal makes the claim throughout his article that man can behave morally, or adhere to moral precepts without a belief in God. But this is quite different from his assertion in the title of the piece: "Morals Without God." It is evident that individuals can lead moral lives without a belief in God. But without God, which is to say, if God doesn't exist, can anyone be truly moral? I believe the answer is unequivocally in the negative. "Right" and "wrong," as objective realities, do not exist without God.
Dr.De Waal makes an excellent case for the genesis of ethical values from the socio-biological framework in which human beings evolved. He points to altruistic behavior commonly observed in various mammals, most notably chimpanzees and other primates. It may indeed be the case that altruistic behavior and moral values arose in an evolutionary context, but how does this assertion do anything to indicate that those moral precepts are actually true? For instance, If one holds the belief that it is wrong to kill innocent people for pleasure, is this belief held merely because it is a by-product of conditioning, or is it held because human beings realize that it's truly wrong to kill for pleasure? On Dr.De Waal's view, the only reason human beings adhere to certain ethical values is not because these values are necessarily true, but because we happened to evolve that way. It is highly possible that given different conditions, our "herd morality" would look quite different. For instance, our closest relative, the Chimpanzee is noted for certain altruistic tendencies that seem to be a result of socio-biological conditioning. Sort of "almost morals." But there is the flip side: Researchers in Uganda have observed repeated instances of cannabilistic infanticide among wild chipmanzees; that is, adult chimps kill and eat infants. They've posited that this behavior has some sort of adaptive advantage. We can't say that chimpanzees are being "immoral" in carrying out this behavior, nor would we hold them accountable. But being highly evolved primates, it is quite possible that given the right conditions, our own behavior could have developed along the same lines. Would this behavior then be considered "moral?"
Thus if we find an an event, say the Holocaust, to be abhorrent, we are disgusted by it simply because we have been biologically and/or socially conditioned to feel that way, not because the event was truly evil, in any sense.
Richard Dawkins sums it up quite well: "There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."
Dr.De Waal makes the claim throughout his article that man can behave morally, or adhere to moral precepts without a belief in God. But this is quite different from his assertion in the title of the piece: "Morals Without God." It is evident that individuals can lead moral lives without a belief in God. But without God, which is to say, if God doesn't exist, can anyone be truly moral? I believe the answer is unequivocally in the negative. "Right" and "wrong," as objective realities, do not exist without God.
Dr.De Waal makes an excellent case for the genesis of ethical values from the socio-biological framework in which human beings evolved. He points to altruistic behavior commonly observed in various mammals, most notably chimpanzees and other primates. It may indeed be the case that altruistic behavior and moral values arose in an evolutionary context, but how does this assertion do anything to indicate that those moral precepts are actually true? For instance, If one holds the belief that it is wrong to kill innocent people for pleasure, is this belief held merely because it is a by-product of conditioning, or is it held because human beings realize that it's truly wrong to kill for pleasure? On Dr.De Waal's view, the only reason human beings adhere to certain ethical values is not because these values are necessarily true, but because we happened to evolve that way. It is highly possible that given different conditions, our "herd morality" would look quite different. For instance, our closest relative, the Chimpanzee is noted for certain altruistic tendencies that seem to be a result of socio-biological conditioning. Sort of "almost morals." But there is the flip side: Researchers in Uganda have observed repeated instances of cannabilistic infanticide among wild chipmanzees; that is, adult chimps kill and eat infants. They've posited that this behavior has some sort of adaptive advantage. We can't say that chimpanzees are being "immoral" in carrying out this behavior, nor would we hold them accountable. But being highly evolved primates, it is quite possible that given the right conditions, our own behavior could have developed along the same lines. Would this behavior then be considered "moral?"
Thus if we find an an event, say the Holocaust, to be abhorrent, we are disgusted by it simply because we have been biologically and/or socially conditioned to feel that way, not because the event was truly evil, in any sense.
Richard Dawkins sums it up quite well: "There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
On "tolerance"
A response I made on a blog post regarding Ravi Zacharias. You can read the post here.
Hari,
You have voiced some legitimate concerns here, and I believe you have some valid points, but allow me to outline a few issues that came to mind.
In my mind, the problem arises because the word "tolerance" itself has been perverted to mean something completely different from what it actually means. The word itself implies that there IS a difference or disagreement between two or more individuals. I cannot be "tolerant" of someone with whom I have no difference in worldview. The very concept of pluralism or tolerance is relevant only when it is properly defined and contextualized; that is to say, it is relevant ONLY in a framework in which there co-exist differing worldviews. This is the very purpose of tolerance; to ensure the peaceful co-existence of those who adhere to differing perspectives. This does NOT imply that one should be inclined to agree completely with other worldviews, nor embrace "everything as equally true." Bygone generations knew this, and advocated tolerance as respectful disagreement, with the added notion of love for all human beings.
If Ravi Zacharias defames Mahatma Gandhi, or slanders other religions (I don't think I've heard him doing this), I surely don't condone it, and I believe you may have a valid point if he does. But if by "criticism" you mean that he points out the logical contradictions that he sees in those worldviews, then I believe you're missing the point. No worldview, including Christianity, should be granted immunity from careful examination.
I do not believe that as a Christian, I have a guaranteed one-way ticket to heaven. Neither do I believe that all others are instantly condemned. But I have nothing but pity for those who claim that all religions are "equally true." This stems from a lack of critical thinking. Whatever became of the law of non-contradiction? Why are we killing logic in the streets? Truth by it's very nature is exclusive - it excludes the opposite. My question to the culture of postmodernism is ultimately this: Why can't I firmly believe in the truth of my worldview, and point out why I don't subscribe to other worldviews, as long as I do it respectfully and while expressing a love for all human beings?
Hari,
You have voiced some legitimate concerns here, and I believe you have some valid points, but allow me to outline a few issues that came to mind.
In my mind, the problem arises because the word "tolerance" itself has been perverted to mean something completely different from what it actually means. The word itself implies that there IS a difference or disagreement between two or more individuals. I cannot be "tolerant" of someone with whom I have no difference in worldview. The very concept of pluralism or tolerance is relevant only when it is properly defined and contextualized; that is to say, it is relevant ONLY in a framework in which there co-exist differing worldviews. This is the very purpose of tolerance; to ensure the peaceful co-existence of those who adhere to differing perspectives. This does NOT imply that one should be inclined to agree completely with other worldviews, nor embrace "everything as equally true." Bygone generations knew this, and advocated tolerance as respectful disagreement, with the added notion of love for all human beings.
If Ravi Zacharias defames Mahatma Gandhi, or slanders other religions (I don't think I've heard him doing this), I surely don't condone it, and I believe you may have a valid point if he does. But if by "criticism" you mean that he points out the logical contradictions that he sees in those worldviews, then I believe you're missing the point. No worldview, including Christianity, should be granted immunity from careful examination.
I do not believe that as a Christian, I have a guaranteed one-way ticket to heaven. Neither do I believe that all others are instantly condemned. But I have nothing but pity for those who claim that all religions are "equally true." This stems from a lack of critical thinking. Whatever became of the law of non-contradiction? Why are we killing logic in the streets? Truth by it's very nature is exclusive - it excludes the opposite. My question to the culture of postmodernism is ultimately this: Why can't I firmly believe in the truth of my worldview, and point out why I don't subscribe to other worldviews, as long as I do it respectfully and while expressing a love for all human beings?
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Christian Apologetics isn't dead
Below is a comment I made in response to a post regarding the death of Christian Apologetics made by an atheist blogger. You can read the post here. For some reason, the comment didn't end up being posted on his page, so I'm reproducing it here.
1.) Since Methodological naturalism (science) is strictly confined to the acquisition of knowledge regarding the natural world, ie., that which is empirically verifiable, it can neither prove nor disprove the existence or non-existence of the supernatural(in this case,God.) As the supernatural by definition is beyond the natural world, it is therefore beyond the ability of science to observe.
In light of this, your statement that "it should be common knowledge that the atheistic view is the scientific viewpoint because that is where the overwhelming majority of evidence points – toward an atheistic universe.." is incorrect.
Science can't take either side. It must remain agnostic.
2.) You have conceded that there is more than abundant scientific evidence for the big bang. Assuming the big bang, one must also assume the singularity, before which, space and time didn't exist.This being the case, whatever caused the big bang must be immaterial (non-physical) and timeless. Since time as a dimension did not exist before the singularity, whatever caused the big bang could not have been accidental or a random event, since any event that occurs must happen within the dimension of time. Rather, it is reasonable to conclude that since the cause of the big bang was not a random event, it must have been a cause that freely CHOSE to cause the big bang, ie, an agent. In summary, the cause of the big bang was an immaterial, atemporal, agent with free will.
3.) Morality as you define it is nothing more than a set of highly evolved survival instincts; instincts that ensure the survival of Homosapiens as a species. If we had evolved under different circumstances or in different environments, we may have evolved different survival instincts that would then constitute "morality." On this view, there is no objective "Good" or "Evil." There was nothing really objectively "evil" or "wrong" with Hitler's extermination of 14 million human beings. It should merely be frowned upon because it was "maladaptive to the survival of our species" as you stated. This worldview utterly fails to account for why anyone, given a lapse of "normal" instincts, SHOULD desire the survival of our species. What can be said to an individual who either feels no such innate urge for self-preservation or for the preservation of his species? Why is he ultimately "wrong" in murdering another person? Metaphysical naturalism cannot give human beings any intrinsic value. On Metaphysical naturalism, Human beings, like all other living organisms, are merely the product of primordial slime. It is therefore no more "immoral" to kill a
human being than it is to kill a cow, or a cockroach. Science cannot prove that a human being has anymore intrinsic value than an insect, or a quadruped. The reason for this, as mentioned above, is because methodological naturalism deals only with the natural world.
Questions of morality and intrinsic worth are metaphysical, not naturalistic.
1.) Since Methodological naturalism (science) is strictly confined to the acquisition of knowledge regarding the natural world, ie., that which is empirically verifiable, it can neither prove nor disprove the existence or non-existence of the supernatural(in this case,God.) As the supernatural by definition is beyond the natural world, it is therefore beyond the ability of science to observe.
In light of this, your statement that "it should be common knowledge that the atheistic view is the scientific viewpoint because that is where the overwhelming majority of evidence points – toward an atheistic universe.." is incorrect.
Science can't take either side. It must remain agnostic.
2.) You have conceded that there is more than abundant scientific evidence for the big bang. Assuming the big bang, one must also assume the singularity, before which, space and time didn't exist.This being the case, whatever caused the big bang must be immaterial (non-physical) and timeless. Since time as a dimension did not exist before the singularity, whatever caused the big bang could not have been accidental or a random event, since any event that occurs must happen within the dimension of time. Rather, it is reasonable to conclude that since the cause of the big bang was not a random event, it must have been a cause that freely CHOSE to cause the big bang, ie, an agent. In summary, the cause of the big bang was an immaterial, atemporal, agent with free will.
3.) Morality as you define it is nothing more than a set of highly evolved survival instincts; instincts that ensure the survival of Homosapiens as a species. If we had evolved under different circumstances or in different environments, we may have evolved different survival instincts that would then constitute "morality." On this view, there is no objective "Good" or "Evil." There was nothing really objectively "evil" or "wrong" with Hitler's extermination of 14 million human beings. It should merely be frowned upon because it was "maladaptive to the survival of our species" as you stated. This worldview utterly fails to account for why anyone, given a lapse of "normal" instincts, SHOULD desire the survival of our species. What can be said to an individual who either feels no such innate urge for self-preservation or for the preservation of his species? Why is he ultimately "wrong" in murdering another person? Metaphysical naturalism cannot give human beings any intrinsic value. On Metaphysical naturalism, Human beings, like all other living organisms, are merely the product of primordial slime. It is therefore no more "immoral" to kill a
human being than it is to kill a cow, or a cockroach. Science cannot prove that a human being has anymore intrinsic value than an insect, or a quadruped. The reason for this, as mentioned above, is because methodological naturalism deals only with the natural world.
Questions of morality and intrinsic worth are metaphysical, not naturalistic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
