tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post722698244150745399..comments2023-07-03T04:15:38.436-07:00Comments on Apologetic Junkie: Monkey MoralityAaronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16436136389787730133noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-28519081453364121022010-03-03T22:42:36.571-08:002010-03-03T22:42:36.571-08:00Mr. Corbett (if it’s not really you, then well, th...Mr. Corbett (if it’s not really you, then well, this applies to whoever is reading),<br /><br />I appreciate your willingness to thoughtfully engage Christians on issues such as the one from this debate. I also commend your willingness to take truth seriously. My question for you has to do with your approach and mindset to handling doubt. In an effort to take truth seriously, do you ever investigate yourself? It seems like you do, but I don’t really know you. Obviously I didn’t come up with this idea, but it is one of the most profound encouragements ever uttered (“Know thyself”, as well as many other versions). <br /><br />What I mean is, hypothetically speaking, let’s say Christianity turned out to be true, and you knew it was true. How would you respond? Before answering quickly, think if anything else would have to happen within you in order for you to turn your life over to trusting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior? I think this is a great question for those of us dealing with doubt. Searching ourselves is a great exercise ("What do I want to be true? Why do I think that? Could I change on that? What would happen if I changed? Am I okay with that? Why or why not?, etc")We should realize that our investigation of truth does not happen in a vacuum. After all, it is I who am doing the investigation (or in your case, it's you). <br /><br />Those of us who take truth seriously ought to investigate whether or not we’re ready to accept truth when it confronts us. If we genuinely take truth seriously, then we ought to respect it enough to not want to miss out on it. <br /><br />Consider the hypothetical situation above on Christianity and let me know what you think; how you think you would respond intellectually and emotionally, etc.<br />Thanks again for the debate,<br />JakeJakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12877435635161967245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-19588901965430235822010-03-03T12:47:22.881-08:002010-03-03T12:47:22.881-08:00Jim,
Thanks so much for your comments and for vis...Jim,<br /><br />Thanks so much for your comments and for visiting the site. I have put your comments in bold below so you know exactly what I am responding to.<br /><br /><b>Not that it makes a great deal of difference to the folks at this site...</b> <br /><br />We do in fact greatly appreciate your comments Jim...though I understand why you doubt it. : )<br /><br /><b>...but actually my comments about the evolutionary origen of morality came during the first 14 minute case for the negative.</b><br /><br />I listened again to your entire opening statement and found nothing with regard to the evolutionary origin of morality. At one point toward the end you did say, "Is there another explanation for morality? I'm sure there are many." But you did not elaborate. Can you please point to exactly where you mention evolutionary morality in your opening statement and where you present the argument?<br /><br /><b>The fact that Sean didn't recognize it as such led me to re-read it to him later in the debate.</b><br /><br />I completely understand why Sean didn't recognize it because after listening again I still do not recognize it. Could you point it out please?<br /><br /><b>One other note, the reason rape proves my point and not the opposite is that the children of women who are abandoned by the father are much less likely, in a primitive society, to produce young that live to reproductive age. That, of course, is the origen of the family--the need females, who have a limited number of eggs, to do what she can to make sure a fertilized egg becomes an adult. Women must invest years in raising a child, she will logically seek to increase the likelihood that her child will survive.</b><br /><br />I think there is much that could be said here Jim but let me just make a few comments.<br /><br />First, is this <i>really</i> the reason rape is <i>morally wrong</i>? Is this why we shutter and cringe when we hear a woman has been victimized by rape? Because we somehow instinctively realize that her children will not be as likely to produce young that live to reproductive age? <i>Really</i>??? And what if it turned out that children conceived through rape actually aided survival? Would a man forcing himself on a woman then be considered morally <i>right</i>? If so, this reflects the arbitrariness of any moral system founded on evolution.<br /><br />Second, this still seems to commit the is-ought fallacy. Even if your story here is true, this only describes what <i>is</i>, not necessarily what <i>ought to be</i>. Why should any of us be moral tomorrow? Why should the rapist not rape tomorrow? Does this explanation you've provided give any reason why the rapist <i>ought not</i> to rape? Will the longevity of future generations be of any concern to the rapist considering rape? You are smuggling in the moral rule that we <i>ought</i> to be concerned with future generations.<br /><br />Third, what about rape that occurs within the marriage relationship? What happens when a wife is not "in the mood" and the husband still takes it upon himself to forcefully rape his wife? Is that wrong? If so, why is it wrong? Your explanation given here does not seem to account for this.<br /><br />Fourth, if evolution is true, how do we get morals from matter? And why should we be obliged to obey these arbitrary rules which resulted from a mindless process?<br /><br /><b>Jim Corbett</b><br /><br />Is this <i>really</i> Jim Corbett? It could be...but I doubt it. : )<br /><br />Thanks Jim again for your thoughts and your participation in the debate. May we both continue to put on our bucklers and swords of reason.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16436136389787730133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8323705069567388486.post-66931202265734271052010-03-03T07:29:33.734-08:002010-03-03T07:29:33.734-08:00Not that it makes a great deal of difference to th...Not that it makes a great deal of difference to the folks at this site, but actually my comments about the evolutionary origen of morality came during the first 14 minute case for the negative. The fact that Sean didn't recognize it as such led me to re-read it to him later in the debate.<br /><br />One other note, the reason rape proves my point and not the opposite is that the children of women who are abandoned by the father are much less likely, in a primitive society, to produce young that live to reproductive age. That, of course, is the origen of the family--the need females, who have a limited number of eggs, to do what she can to make sure a fertilized egg becomes an adult. Women must invest years in raising a child, she will logically seek to increase the likelihood that her child will survive. Jim Corbettfalkowitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12162099010775376571noreply@blogger.com