[Casyimipist]

The real question I was asking, however, was how evolution offers any morality at all.

The obvious answer to this is that evolution doesn't offer morality. Its a theoretical model for the origins of species, nothing more.

The next obvious thing is to ask why Humber thinks the two should be connected in any way.

While I'm hesitant to try & think like Humber, I'll take a shot in the dark (so to speak) and say that he is under the assumption that one must believe in either God or evolution, and that as all morality comes from God/ one's belief in God, to believe in evolution must mean one has no morals.

Which of course is ludacris.

But let's talk morality & God.

Some, like Humber, would have you think there is a single objective morality. As all human opinion of morality is subjective, the objective must come from something beyond humans, ie God. Therefore there must be a God.

I myself cannot see why God's point of view would be objective (assuming there is a God). So I ask... is there an objective morality?

[olivelappers]

The obvious answer to this is that evolution doesn't offer morality. Its a theoretical model for the origins of species, nothing more.

Exactly. Evolution doesn't offer any morality in the exact same way that organic chemistry, plate tectonics, and nuclear physics don't offer any morality. They're sciences, not morality systems.

While I'm hesitant to try & think like Humber, I'll take a shot in the dark (so to speak) and say that he is under the assumption that one must believe in either God or evolution, and that as all morality comes from God/ one's belief in God, to believe in evolution must mean one has no morals. Humber's entire argument relies on creating a false dichotomy between religion and evolution.

But I think we may be overthinking it. Humber takes a shotgun approach to arguments: he just throws out tons of them to see what sticks, without any coherence or underlying logic. He doesn't have any actual evidence for creationism being a "true science", so he uses a jumbled combination of invalid criticisms of evolution, ad-hoc pseudo-moral arguments (Hitler believed in eugenics, therefore evolution is inherently evil!!!11!!!one!), and bizarre arguments from authority (Sir Issac Newton believed in God, therefore evolution is true!!!1!!!one!). He treats evolution as if it were a rival religion, rather than a science, so many of the arguments he makes are religious arguments against it. To his mind, the "rival religion" of evolution doesn't offer any morality, therefore Christianity is a superior religion.

[Hinigyday]

Exactly. Evolution doesn't offer any morality in the exact same way that organic chemistry, plate tectonics, and nuclear physics don't offer any morality. They're sciences, not morality systems.

He treats evolution as if it were a rival religion, rather than a science, so many of the arguments he makes are religious arguments against it. To his mind, the "rival religion" of evolution doesn't offer any morality, therefore Christianity is a superior religion.

Beautiful! Perhaps Humber will have a deathbed realization: science is not religion. Dogma is not science.

But I think we may be overthinking it.

Compared to under-thinking, I like over-thinking, I'm a big fan of over-thinking. If more people were over-thinkers, the world would be a better place.

[Agehoobionibe]

Brammpppt:

Part 8 Niloroth wrote: “It's funny, in all these years, all these conversations i have had, both online and in person, no creationists has ever provided proof FOR creationism. Why is that humber?”

False. I have provided proof previously and am about to do so again. Maybe it’s because you decline to read what is written. More likely it is because you have a religious commitment to evolutionism and refuse to admit any argument for creation.

[carlsberg21]

The obvious answer to this is that evolution doesn't offer morality. Its a theoretical model for the origins of species, nothing more.

The next obvious thing is to ask why Humber thinks the two should be connected in any way.

While I'm hesitant to try & think like Humber, I'll take a shot in the dark (so to speak) and say that he is under the assumption that one must believe in either God or evolution, and that as all morality comes from God/ one's belief in God, to believe in evolution must mean one has no morals.

Which of course is ludacris.

But let's talk morality & God.

Some, like Humber, would have you think there is a single objective morality. As all human opinion of morality is subjective, the objective must come from something beyond humans, ie God. Therefore there must be a God.

I myself cannot see why God's point of view would be objective (assuming there is a God). So I ask... is there an objective morality?

I'm glad you brought it up...I wanted to address it in the other thread but that would've meant complete thread hijack!

I don't see what morality has to do with evolution! One can still be moral while accepting evolution. I don't think that accepting this fact makes one immoral by default. My guess is that his definition of morality comes from religion and belief in God, and that's what messes up everything...just a speculation.

I thought these stories were considered to be myths, hence the term mythology, and never as actual facts. I don't think you need to abandon the belief in a higher power to accept evolution as a fact. I don't think one needs to be an atheist to be an evolutionist! Finally, if one considers religion as a way to fill the gaps in knowledge and science, you would think that these gaps would slowly decrease as we discovered more things...but I guess people are just too scared to let go of their beliefs and change!

If creationists and other religious fanatics were open to ideas and change as scientists are, we wouldn't have such people in the first place!!

[indocrew]

I don't see what morality has to do with evolution! One can still be moral while accepting evolution. I don't think that accepting this fact makes one immoral by default. My guess is that his definition of morality comes from religion and belief in God, and that's what messes up everything...just a speculation.

That's what I was getting at in the first post Penny. Humber seems to be of the idea that one is either a creationist & therefore moral, or an evolutionist & therefore lacking in morals. The concept is (I'll be tactfull) preposterous.

I thought these stories were considered to be myths, hence the term mythology, and never as actual facts. I don't think you need to abandon the belief in a higher power to accept evolution as a fact. I don't think one needs to be an atheist to be an evolutionist!

Of course you can believe in a God (or god-force or higher power) and still believe in evolution. It will not mean you are lacking in morals.

((You didn't say it but I'll go ahead & add: atheists also are not lacking in morals.))

Finally, if one considers religion as a way to fill the gaps in knowledge and science, you would think that these gaps would slowly decrease as we discovered more things...but I guess people are just too scared to let go of their beliefs and change!

If creationists and other religious fanatics were open to ideas and change as scientists are, we wouldn't have such people in the first place!!

There is a school of thought called "the god of the gaps." I'm about to do one of those degrading to women spray tans tho, so I'll post more about that later.

[viiagrag]

Exactly. Evolution doesn't offer any morality in the exact same way that organic chemistry, plate tectonics, and nuclear physics don't offer any morality. They're sciences, not morality systems.

Nor does Creation inherently offer any morality. A Creator could just as easily wish into being a world that is unjust and immoral. Just look at the Creation Myth Humber believes. Humans were not given any moral choice--in fact, they were denied the ability to do so. They lacked the basic knowledge of right and wrong. Remember the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Adam and Eve were forbidden to partake of it. Mankind wasn't given the task of making a moral choice, but of blind obedience. A creation of, "don't think, do as I say." There was no morality there. There was no choice. It wasn't until Adam and Eve sinned, and gained the knowledge of Good and Evil that man had the capacity to make any sort of moral choice. In the Creation Myth of Humber's world, we owe our morality to the Serpent, not YHWH.

[Wsjltrhe]

Nor does Creation inherently offer any morality. A Creator could just as easily wish into being a world that is unjust and immoral. Just look at the Creation Myth Humber believes. Humans were not given any moral choice--in fact, they were denied the ability to do so. They lacked the basic knowledge of right and wrong. Remember the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Adam and Eve were forbidden to partake of it. Mankind wasn't given the task of making a moral choice, but of blind obedience. A creation of, "don't think, do as I say." There was no morality there. There was no choice. It wasn't until Adam and Eve sinned, and gained the knowledge of Good and Evil that man had the capacity to make any sort of moral choice. In the Creation Myth of Humber's world, we owe our morality to the Serpent, not YHWH.

Very good point!

We also owe our chance at eternal life to Judas. Had that evil betrayal not happened, we'd be doomed.

[DumnEuronoumn]

Finally, if one considers religion as a way to fill the gaps in knowledge and science, you would think that these gaps would slowly decrease as we discovered more things...!!

OK you've hit on the main problem of the God of the Gaps, theory: that the more we know, the less need we have of God as an explanation. As the scientific gaps get smaller, so does God.

If you're Humber & insistant on believing in a large God, there is only one choice... deny science & make the gaps larger!! But even that makes for a small God: why would God make a universe-creation incapable of functioning on its own? Picture a carpenter making a table with 3 legs and the carpenter supporting the 4th side -- not such a bright carpenter. We have good reason to believe the universe does not work this way. We have good reason to believe that the unexplainable will in time be explained & often explained very elegantly, as the universe tends to work in a beautiful harmonious, tho not always obvious, way.

Humber tries to prove there is a creator by presenting a false depiction of an imperfect creation!!

[SigNeewfoew]

This one's simple, with a little background. Humber had just been caught lying, though I can't remember which specific lie it was. He had apparently been talking the forum (back on PB) up among fellow creationists, and my even have had some of his parishioners following along.

For whatever reason, he seemed particularly stung and embarrassed by the proof that he had lied. He began trying anything that he could to change the subject, but the forum members (including Seanibus, MichaelTree, devilspocket and myself) wouldn't let him off the hook.

The actual question was "Why does Humber feel that it's OK for him to lie." Humber tried to blunt the force of the question by asking why, in general terms it is wrong for anyone to lie, hoping us all to allow that "it's wrong because God says it's wrong." (I guess at that point we were all supposed to fall to our knees and ask Humber's forgiveness, as though we were math students late to class, and acknowledge Humber as a superior intellect and teacher.)

Of course it didn't quite work out that way. Instead, the consensus seemed to be that it's wrong to lie because it is disrespectful to the people whom you're lying to. Humber simply does not want to admit that the quote is up there on my sig because he had been caught lying, and refused to apologize to the forum for lying.

He was, and evidently still is, livid about the signature. He complained incessantly to the then forum moderator about it, and I was told that he even complained to upper management at PB about it. I have heard that some of them had concerns about his relationship with the truth, and were not interested in becoming involved.

Old City Tans, you may rest assured that there is nothing wrong with your avatar (or "picture" as Humber calls it). He refuses to answer you because you are asking questions that he cannot answer. He sees himself as a mover and shaker in the creationist community. It is easier for him to work himself up into a state of righteous indignation over some manufactured "issue," and to claim that he is not answering you because of that, than it is to appear not to have the answers. Because, I guess, there's always another creationist ready to step on you to get themselves to the top of that pile.

He starts ignoring me when I get to close to the real issues. I think that this time, the posts about the contradictions in the Bible, and how they "prove evolution," and the post about the bears, whales and seals pushed him over the edge

[Farson]

Humber simply does not want to admit that the quote is up there on my sig because he had been caught lying, and refused to apologize to the forum for lying.

He was, and evidently still is, livid about the signature. He complained incessantly to the then forum moderator about it, and I was told that he even complained to upper management at PB about it. I have heard that some of them had concerns about his relationship with the truth, and were not interested in becoming involved.

Wonder why he hasn't popped into this thread yet?

Old City Tans, you may rest assured that there is nothing wrong with your avatar (or "picture" as Humber calls it). He refuses to answer you because you are asking questions that he cannot answer.

More than abundantly obvious.

He sees himself as a mover and shaker in the creationist community. It is easier for him to work himself up into a state of righteous indignation over some manufactured "issue," and to claim that he is not answering you because of that, than it is to appear not to have the answers. Because, I guess, there's always another creationist ready to step on you to get themselves to the top of that pile.

hahah in the land of the blind...

[DeilMikina]

But let's talk morality & God.

Some, like Humber, would have you think there is a single objective morality. As all human opinion of morality is subjective, the objective must come from something beyond humans, ie God. Therefore there must be a God.

I myself cannot see why God's point of view would be objective (assuming there is a God). So I ask... is there an objective morality?

Now this is coming across as a bash-Humber thread and I really did intend to get into a discussion of morality. I read this blog recently...

There is a kind of argument for God that seems very common amongst the “New Apologists” that is commonly called the “Argument from Morality.” I am bothered by this argument for a couple of reasons, and I’ll spell them out here. This argument runs something like this:

1. There is objective morality.
2. A law-giving God is the only thing that could ground an objective morality.
Hence, God must exist. http://www.appleeaters.com

... and am absolutly not equipped to discuss this with the author. I thought perhaps a few of the armchair philosophers here might want to tackle this with me tho.

So I ask... is there an objective morality? and can this prove God?

[esdfsdflast]

The other things he's missing is that the theory of Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of God. Nor does it try to.

It just suggests that the book of Genesis isn't literally true, which is a position held by most Christian theologians since at least the 1400's.

[CGECngjA]

It just suggests that the book of Genesis isn't literally true, which is a position held by most Christian theologians since at least the 1400's.

I'd assume Moses, being a pretty sharp guy, didn't think it was literally true when he wrote it (assuming he wrote it).

[tgs]

For whatever reason, he seemed particularly stung and embarrassed by the proof that he had lied. He began trying anything that he could to change the subject, but the forum members (including Seanibus, MichaelTree, devilspocket and myself) wouldn't let him off the hook.

Wow...I didn't know he lied! At least I didn't think he would so out in the open because just yesterday, on one of his other threads, he said,
What would he do? I envisioned something far worse than a mere spanking. I was sure he would march me to my home and tell my father, etc. Nevertheless, I think I had become a Christian by that time (I became a believe at 7.5 but am not sure of the rock-throwing chronology) and knew that truth was important. I, probably sheepishly, said, “I did.” Guess he couldn't live with it, hence contacting the moderators and all

I hate hypocrites!

[drislerfottor]

Some of those lies are in the creation thread here... pages 7-9?? ~could be wrong about the page numbers but I know I read em here.

[Ferrotoral]

So I ask... is there an objective morality? and can this prove God?

I can only try to answer your first question, according to my observations and beliefs.

I do not think there's anything such as objective morality because we're always changing. What is accepted today wasn't so yesterday. The best example I can give is that of homosexuality, which was immoral and a sin not too long ago, and which still is in some countries. Another example is abortion, which is not considered immoral in the country I come from but is so in this country. Therefore, I believe that morality depends upon culture, history, and circumstances. Something as basic as 'one shouldn't kill' has exceptions. Incest has always been a taboo, but from what I know, Bible does contain some instances of incestuous relationships (correct me if I'm wrong)

And the perfect quote is "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter". This can easily be applied to people who push their moral views on others, who in turn, consider that act and the views as immoral.

I guess Dawkins does try to discuss this in The Selfish Gene (read it a while ago so can't remember much)

[bahrain41]

I'd assume Moses, being a pretty sharp guy, didn't think it was literally true when he wrote it (assuming he wrote it).

Well, yes. Jewish theologians have accepted Genesis as metaphorical for much longer than Christians have. And one of the problems with Christianity is that the theologians of the Middle Ages worked very hard to wipe out anything they disagreed with, so it's somewhat difficult to determine what the Church believed before 800 or so.

[WGfg4CCZ]

I read an article a while ago which suggested that morality is based on values and the idea that actions have consequences. Values are rooted in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The moral position is to fulfill our basic needs but still remain 'moral' within the context of our societal roles.

If all we do is fulfill our own needs at the expense of others, we are societal outcasts - the consequences of those actions can be societally disastrous. If we fulfill our needs with consideration for the needs of others, we are advancing our entire society, not just ourselves.

This seems to me to make sense. To say "Thou shalt not kill" without context is an extremely difficult moral obligation to fulfill. Do you not kill someone who is trying to kill you? Do you not kill a poisonous insect or snake that is attacking you? Do you not kill someone who is trying to kill your child? I think that societal context is necessary for moral definition. The Talmud is a long and complex document; rabbinic scholars devoted a lot of brain power to interpretation of Mosaic law. The Ten Commandments that form the basis for Christian 'morality' are not at all clear cut. Even if one accepts these commandments as moral law, they must be interpreted in light of societal rules and consequences.

re. the other thread - Humber seems to have me on ignore. I suspect it's because he can't tolerate my screen name which to him is suggestive of demons, although it's actually the name of the neighborhood in which I live.

[herawaq]

I read an article a while ago which suggested that morality is based on values and the idea that actions have consequences. Values are rooted in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The moral position is to fulfill our basic needs but still remain 'moral' within the context of our societal roles.

If all we do is fulfill our own needs at the expense of others, we are societal outcasts - the consequences of those actions can be societally disastrous. If we fulfill our needs with consideration for the needs of others, we are advancing our entire society, not just ourselves.

That's just delicious if taken in the context of Humber. He has a need to push his delusions on others, to supress 150 years of science so as to make a name for himself within his own social circle... at the expense of the entire society which advances only when searching out & finding new ways to explain & understand natural phenomena.

By this definition we have a moral obligation to one another to profess only that which we have good reason to believe is true.

As there is a huge preponderance of evidence that leads us to believe evolution is a sound theory, and ZERO evidence to believe that the universe was wished into being by something supernatural, it is our moral obligation to society to advance the notion of evolution, not creation, as the origin of species.

re. the other thread - Humber seems to have me on ignore. I suspect it's because he can't tolerate my screen name which to him is suggestive of demons, although it's actually the name of the neighborhood in which I live.

I'd offer to quote you, which would re-post your posts but I don't want to responsible for the old guy blinding himself. You know he lusts for headless women in bikinis...