Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

Last night I dreamt of our shared fish-like ancestor, Tiktaalik! He spoke to me! No, not in a human language but in something I would call a muddled fish-dialect. And yet I understood everything!

I must remember to consult you the next time I need to know what Walker, and one or two others here, are trying to say.

[Immanuel Can]

But what I mean -- what we mean perhaps -- is that the entire construct that you attempt to represent here -- that -- has died.

But that, of course, is hogwash, on two counts: one is that belief in God has verifiably not died at all...there are more Theists in the world now than at any point in history. But that's unimportant, compared to the fact that you're only assuming -- and doing nothing to prove -- that God does not exist, or that "God" is merely a human construct. That latter was Nietzsche's mistake. And absent any such proof, there really is no reason to take that claim seriously at all. In fact, we all ought to find it extremely dubious, and ask any such speaker, "How do you think you know such a thing?"

[Immanuel Can]

No, I maintain that you, and within your brand of Christian Zionism, are best understood as a 'wannabe Jew'.

Yes, that is "your view."

No, it is not factually correct.

That's all anybody really needs to say about that.

[Immanuel Can]

Ah, I see the conversation has turned to Nietzsche. Yer have to put him in context. Nietzsche was a teenager when Darwin published On the Origin of Species. The theory of evolution by natural selection was, to put it mildly, a challenge to any theory that man was created in the image of a divine being. Hence God is dead.

Well, the Origin of Species has been found, of course, to be quite inadequate in various ways, even by modern Evolutionists.

Can you think of a mid-nineteenth century work which hasn't been found inadequate in various ways? It's a simple enough relationship; the more you look, the more you find. With coming on for two hundred years of hindsight, I can't think of any science book the author wouldn't revise in light of intervening discoveries.

Quite so. Revision is a necessary reality, where theories are concerned. The question is whether the revisions proposed for Darwin are adequate to save him, or are rearguard actions designed to shore up a dying paradigm.

That's the case that Atheist Thomas Nagel makes in Time and Cosmos...a little book but well worth the read.

Anyone who takes the theory of evolution seriously is compelled to accept that any truth in the biblical creation story is allegorical rather than historical.

No, they actually aren't. If we were to suppose that God used evolution as a mechanism to produce all species but one, that would be devoid of theological concerns...whether that explanation were right or wrong.

Only in the case of human beings is the theory of Evolutionism a no-go. And there, you're right: it would have very serious theological implications. Fortunately, the case for human evolutionism has proved to be by far the weakest case for the theory that can be made, and the history of it is fraught with telling frauds and failures, such as the Monkey-to-Man theory, now embarassingly dead, but once held up as core orthodoxy in Evolutionist teaching.

That should worry us: if Evolutionists have manifestly lied to us in regards to the data before, then that's a great deal more than a historical revision of old data -- that's an outright fraud.

People who don't understand evolution sometimes believe that it implies we will evolve into a superior being, the Ubermensch. We, as common or garden homo sapiens, will be as subservient to them as dogs are to us.

It's a natural deduction. If we were once random atoms, then some rudimentary organism in pond scum, then some kind of fish, then some kind of amphibian, and so on, then evolutionism would seem to suggest that being what we are is, in some important sense, "higher" than that. But then the deduction comes: if the process of evolution got us this far, what's the evidence it won't get us farther? Who's to say that you and I are the most highly-evolved version of the human creature? Who's to say that in another billion years, human beings won't be much more "high" than we are now?

It's not clear yet whether intellect is a long term evolutionary advantage. There are various ways our intellect might destroy us. Global warming, germ warfare, AI. [/quote]
Yes, the jury's out on that one. But in the short term, it's made us the most overwhelmingly successful organism on the planet. So that's something.

One possibility is a Christian fundamentalist, eager for the rapture, getting their hands on America's nuclear codes. Such a person may not be your kind of Christian, but they are interpreting the same source as you.

That's an old-wives tale. There's zero chance of that, and nobody who is actually depending on the same source as I am would ever even think of doing that if they could. I could justify that claim at much more length, but it's so wild a thought that perhaps it doesn't need any further commment.

Then comes the further deduction: why would evolution proceed at exactly the same pace for all instances of a "species"? Wouldn't it be logical that if something like "survival of the fittest" were the mechanism, then there would always be around a great many specimens of each "species" that were less-than-survival-apt?

It is demonstrably the case that some "instances" are better adapted to their home environment that others. Some instances have adapted to extremes of heat, cold, elevation, humidity and all sorts of subtler pressures. Among all instances, there are "specimens" who but for human compassion and ingenuity would not survive long.

But "compassion" for failed organisms is contrary to "survival of the fittest," of course. So one might make the argument that human beings should allow them to die, so as to cleanse the gene pool. And if that argument sounds a little sinister in respect of mere lower organisms, it's a whole lot worse when it's applied to mankind...which it has been on various occasions, through eugenics.

And so the next deduction follows: what, then, if, say Aryans are the highest current evolved form of mankind, and blacks, Jews, slavs, and other dusky folks are the less-evolved entities that deserve to lose out to the Aryans and die out by survival-of-the-fittest?

It's not a deduction, it's a prejudice and someone doesn't understand evolution. Stick an "Aryan" above 16 000ft, at high latitudes, in a desert or jungle and they won't be as fit as the locals.

Well, we can argue which "race" is the "master race," and it won't change the argument. The Evolutionist still has to think that some specimen of the human race is destined to breed the next stage of human evolution...and they can fight and kill each other (using survival of the fittest, of course) to determine which "race" it is.

It's a ghastly creed. But it does certainly fit with the Evolutionary story.

...you can see it comes as a product of Evolutionism itself.

In the same way that the Ku Klux Klan is a product of Bible studies.[/quote]
The KKK has nothing to do with Bible studies: it also has to do with eugenics, with the Confederacy, and with the Democrat Party, of course.

Any belief that genocidal nazism is an inevitable product of belief in evolution has to account for the believers in evolution who happen not to be genocidal nazis.

Well, historically, what happened is that HItler came along. Up to his time, eugenics was actually unbelievably popular in scientific speculation around the world...especially in America, where it seemed to promise explanations for race distinctives that were troubling the Democrat South.

What really ended that was Hitler. What he did was so shocking to the post-Christian moral world, so utterly vile and reprehensible that eugenics became a kind of "black science," a thing that could not be advanced in political safety any longer. And the voices in favour of it died out for many years...until our historical amnesia became sufficient, and now they're back.

Hitler's preoccupation with breeding and genetics was not at all accidental; he knew what project he was on, and why the death camps were worth expending tremendous quantities of men and resources he actually desperately needed for places like the Eastern Front. His was a utopian, evolutionary, genetic-engineering project, in which he saw himself as the saviour of the human race. And, of course, you see that preoccupation in people like Josef Mengele, as well, whose ghastly experiments often aimed at the same "race affirming" goals.

If you are trying to persuade me that Hitler was a bad man, you are pushing against an open door.

Not at all. That case doesn't really need to be made, does it?

I'm just showing you how enthusiastic Hitler was about Evolutionism and eugenics.

...every member of the wehrmacht was issued a belt on which the buckle said Gott mit uns,...

There has never been a conquesting power in the history of humanity that has not done such things. The Greeks and Romans claimed that "the gods" were with them, even when fighting each other. Even Communist dictators invoke the great god "History" as their patron, and say things like, "We're on the right side of history." In all cases, it means absolutely nothing. It's just typical of each regime to claim divine authority, because that's a way of mustering enthusiasm for its cause.

Hitler had many propaganda tracks he was working, all at the same time, and many of which were in radical conflict with each other. He was, on the one hand, an Aryan occultist and afficionado of Norse legends and cosmology; at the same time, he claimed his Reich was scientific; and then, of course, he appealed to state "churches" to support his cause for "religious" reasons. Any tool would do, for a cynical strategist like Hitler. What he genuinely believed is awfully hard to say...but it certainly wasn't Christianity.

Ironically, we're presently turning back to that kind of thinking. Not only are people becoming more racist again, as as result of the aggitations of the Left...

Well again, that is one interpretation. Another might be that such sentiments are always present, but that currently any discouragement of racism is criticised as an affront to freedom of speech or derided as 'woke'.

Well, the Wokies are the only people who are keeping "race talk" alive. All the sensible people would prefer a colour-blind society, but the Wokies keep insisting that race/gender/sex/fatness/transness/disability or some other axis of difference is the foundation of all identity. They're just loser aggitators, and the sooner we ignore them all, the better.

...which is incessantly preoccupied with blaming particular "races" and valourizing others, rather than regarding all humans as equal in value, but are also turning to utopian visions of the fusion of biological humanity with technology...still with a view to seizing the alleged evolutionary process and accelerating it toward desired human goals. In fact, the WEF has a whole program for this, which they call "The Fourth Industrial Revolution."

One would think we should have learned our lesson. But apparently, we have not.

Or we just haven't engineered nutcases out of the species yet.

It's the longing to "engineer" people that's the heart of the problem. The danger is that we let somebody define for us who a "nut case" is, and then exterminate them. Historically, that has not worked out well. But it's still popular, sadly.

[Immanuel Can]

It's a natural deduction. If we were once random atoms, then some rudimentary organism in pond scum, then some kind of fish, then some kind of amphibian, and so on, then evolutionism would seem to suggest that being what we are is, in some important sense, "higher" than that. But then the deduction comes: if the process of evolution got us this far, what's the evidence it won't get us farther? Who's to say that you and I are the most highly-evolved version of the human creature? Who's to say that in another billion years, human beings won't be much more "high" than we are now?

That's an induction.

I was only speaking colloquially. Most people are not aware of what "induction" is, except that they think it has something to do with heat.

My point is merely that there is a logical line that runs from evolutionism to the belief that human beings are still evolving to higher states. And that's a really short and easy line.

[Harbal]

Only in the case of human beings is the theory of Evolutionism a no-go.

You know that isn't true, and everyone else here knows it isn't true, and you know that they know it isn't true, yet you persist in saying it.

You either need to modify your beliefs, or adopt a set that doesn't conflict with overwhelming evidence.

[Harbal]

My point is merely that there is a logical line that runs from evolutionism to the belief that human beings are still evolving to higher states. And that's a really short and easy line.

Actually, natural selection no longer has much of a role in human evolution, and if we think about the implications of that, we might reasonably conclude that humans are in a state of deterioration.

[Immanuel Can]

Only in the case of human beings is the theory of Evolutionism a no-go.

You know that isn't true,...

I disagree. I "know" nothing of the kind.

What's your argument that suggests it's not true? I'm prepared to hear it, if you've got one.

[Immanuel Can]

My point is merely that there is a logical line that runs from evolutionism to the belief that human beings are still evolving to higher states. And that's a really short and easy line.

Actually, natural selection no longer has much of a role in human evolution,

Really? What's your evidence for that?

...we might reasonably conclude that humans are in a state of deterioration.

Well, morally speaking, we might well say that very thing. It's like the '80s group, Devo (short for "devolution"), used to sing:

"…They tell us that
We lost our tails
Evolving up
From little snails
I say it's all
Just wind in sails
… Are we not men?
(We are Devo)
Are we not men?
(D-E-V-O)"

But I think that human nature is what it's always been...sometimes good, sometimes definitely not good. But social constraints on evil change, and societies that have no such constraints or the wrong constraints sometimes certainly give rein to the worst features of human nature.

[Harbal]

Only in the case of human beings is the theory of Evolutionism a no-go.

You know that isn't true,...

I disagree. I "know" nothing of the kind.

What's your argument that suggests it's not true? I'm prepared to hear it, if you've got one.

If you have an argument to suggest that human beings are biologically any different from any other animal, I am prepared to hear that.

[Harbal]

My point is merely that there is a logical line that runs from evolutionism to the belief that human beings are still evolving to higher states. And that's a really short and easy line.

Actually, natural selection no longer has much of a role in human evolution,

Really? What's your evidence for that?

...we might reasonably conclude that humans are in a state of deterioration.

Well, morally speaking, we might well say that very thing. It's like the '80s group, Devo (short for "devolution"), used to sing:

I wasn't talking about moral deterioration, but physical, and maybe mental, deterioration.

[Immanuel Can]

You know that isn't true,...

I disagree. I "know" nothing of the kind.

What's your argument that suggests it's not true? I'm prepared to hear it, if you've got one.

If you have an argument to suggest that human beings are biologically any different from any other animal, I am prepared to hear that.

Well, sure: a human being is...a human being, not a fish, or a dog, or a canary. We may share some of the basic building blocks with our feathered or furred friends, but it's very easy to see we're not them.

So that was a little easy to do, so I can only think you've got some deeper point to make; but I'm not sure what it is, yet. Maybe you'll tell me?

[Immanuel Can]

Actually, natural selection no longer has much of a role in human evolution,

Really? What's your evidence for that?

...we might reasonably conclude that humans are in a state of deterioration.

Well, morally speaking, we might well say that very thing. It's like the '80s group, Devo (short for "devolution"), used to sing:

I wasn't talking about moral deterioration, but physical, and maybe mental, deterioration.

I think DEVO was saying the same. I would guess that they saw moral deterioration, but they were pretty cynical about the rest, too, I think.

And they were quite funny and quirky, too...which is all to the good.

[Harbal]

I disagree. I "know" nothing of the kind.

What's your argument that suggests it's not true? I'm prepared to hear it, if you've got one.

If you have an argument to suggest that human beings are biologically any different from any other animal, I am prepared to hear that.

Well, sure: a human being is...a human being, not a fish, or a dog, or a canary. We may share some of the basic building blocks with our feathered or furred friends, but it's very easy to see we're not them.

So that was a little easy to do, so I can only think you've got some deeper point to make; but I'm not sure what it is, yet. Maybe you'll tell me?

We are made out of exactly the same stuff as our feathered or furred friends, and our bodies work in exactly the same way; we are just one variation among many. The only thing that sets us apart is our brain, but even that is basically the same organ as in most other creatures. We are the most intelligent animal on the planet, just as there is a fastest animal, and a strongest animal, and a biggest animal, but we are all just animals. I can't imagine on what you base your assertion that we are somehow different.

[Harbal]

Really? What's your evidence for that?


Well, morally speaking, we might well say that very thing. It's like the '80s group, Devo (short for "devolution"), used to sing:

I wasn't talking about moral deterioration, but physical, and maybe mental, deterioration.

I think DEVO was saying the same. I would guess that they saw moral deterioration, but they were pretty cynical about the rest, too, I think.

And they were quite funny and quirky, too...which is all to the good.

Sorry, I don't know what you are referring to here.