Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

For the sake of my self respect, I won't dignify this tripe with a response.

It's a little disconcerting to realize that even the foremost proponents of Evolutionism confess that what I'm saying about the nature of their "discipline" is true, isn't it?

He is just describing the practice of evolutionary biology, and is certainly not implying what you are inferring. Normal Christians don't seem to feel threatened by evolution, but then normal Christians usually have more sense than to be Bible literalists.

[Dubious]

Well, it's not me saying he's regarded that way: that's the general acclaim he's gotten from his peers.

And he does believe that. You can see it.

No!

So you can't read his words and interpret them?

It wasn't hard to interpret! There was not a single word or sentence that denies evolution as a process, of which the earth itself is the ultimate manifestation in terms of flora and fauna. Why you would even reference that quote as a renowned evolutionist's denial of evolution is not only in itself wholly contradictory but also, as usual, manifests your incessant desire to corrupt into its opposite what was actually said in favor of some outworn biblical account.

If I or anyone attest, by some path of spiritual reformation, to having the scriptural light in all its godlike glory revealed to them starting with the biblical account of creation, what would you say?

...better late than never?

[Immanuel Can]

For the sake of my self respect, I won't dignify this tripe with a response.

It's a little disconcerting to realize that even the foremost proponents of Evolutionism confess that what I'm saying about the nature of their "discipline" is true, isn't it?

He is just describing the practice of evolutionary biology,

Exactly so. That is exactly the methodology of Evolutionism. He's pointing out that it's not at all like "science," which is empirical, and relies on tests and data. It's an exercise of hopeful-narrative-reconstruction.

As such, it can certainly be wrong...as, indeed, it has already been in many cases.

[Immanuel Can]

No!

So you can't read his words and interpret them?

It wasn't hard to interpret!

I wonder why you didn't understand it, then.

[Harbal]

It's a little disconcerting to realize that even the foremost proponents of Evolutionism confess that what I'm saying about the nature of their "discipline" is true, isn't it?

He is just describing the practice of evolutionary biology,

Exactly so. That is exactly the methodology of Evolutionism.

Ah, well I'm not talking about Evolutionism, whatever that is; I'm talking about evolutionary biology, as practiced by biologists.

He's pointing out that it's not at all like "science," which is empirical, and relies on tests and data. It's an exercise of hopeful-narrative-reconstruction.

What utter codswallop.

Of course evolutionary biology is science, and employs scientific methods. How do you suppose they date specimens, and identify what they are, if not scientifically? I know that you think if you repeat this nonsense often enough it will start to sound true, but I don't think there is anyone here stupid enough to fall for that.

As such, it can certainly be wrong...as, indeed, it has already been in many cases.

All science gets things wrong until it gets them right. You really are swimming against the tide here, IC. You are, of course, entitled to believe whatever nonsense you like, but if you want to persuade others to believe it -and you obviously desperately do want others to believe it- you need to modify your beliefs to accommodate evolution, because the evidence for it is far too compelling to resist. If God created all life on this planet, he did it through evolution; that's the only sensible way for you to go, old chap.

[Immanuel Can]

He is just describing the practice of evolutionary biology,

Exactly so. That is exactly the methodology of Evolutionism.

Ah, well I'm not talking about Evolutionism, whatever that is; I'm talking about evolutionary biology, as practiced by biologists.

Same thing: an ideology drivng a narrative.

He's pointing out that it's not at all like "science," which is empirical, and relies on tests and data. It's an exercise of hopeful-narrative-reconstruction.

What utter codswallop.

And yet, Ernst Mayr would know. Would you?

As such, it can certainly be wrong...as, indeed, it has already been in many cases.

All science gets things wrong until it gets them right.

"Science" doesn't construct imaginary narratives.

You really are swimming against the tide here, IC.

I'm unconcerned. The "tide" has been created by Atheists desperate for a narrative, and by credulous folks desperate to bow every time somebody calls a thing "scientific." Just as they did with the COVID panic, only a little while ago. That they've been so successful is too bad for the world. But I'm happy to be an exception to those who simply buy the narrative.

[Harbal]

Exactly so. That is exactly the methodology of Evolutionism.

Ah, well I'm not talking about Evolutionism, whatever that is; I'm talking about evolutionary biology, as practiced by biologists.

Same thing: an ideology drivng a narrative.

I suppose we'd better start calling it's followers Evolutionary Biologists, then.

What utter codswallop.

And yet, Ernst Mayr would know. Would you?

What he said was unremarkable; it was the spin you put on it that was codswallop.

All science gets things wrong until it gets them right.

"Science" doesn't construct imaginary narratives.

Yes, that's one of the things that sets it apart from religion.

You really are swimming against the tide here, IC.

I'm unconcerned. The "tide" has been created by Atheists desperate for a narrative, and by credulous folks desperate to bow every time somebody calls a thing "scientific." Just as they did with the COVID panic, only a little while ago. That they've been so successful is too bad for the world. But I'm happy to be an exception to those who simply buy the narrative.

Your confrontational attitude is something I would not have associated with Christianity before the advent of the internet, and my subsequent experience of the views of some of its more fundamentalist followers. I see no reason why one can't both believe in God and recognise the overwhelming evidence for the biological evolution of every species of life on this planet. There doesn't need to be a conflict, as I demonstrated when I drew your attention to the position of the C of E. Their attitude was one of reason, demonstrating a recognition of the fact that religion has to accommodate the expansion of scientific knowledge about our world. I really don't approve of religious proselytization, even with innocuous religious beliefs, which yours are certainly not, but when it requires its target to completely renounce rational thought, it is unforgivable.

[Immanuel Can]

Ah, well I'm not talking about Evolutionism, whatever that is; I'm talking about evolutionary biology, as practiced by biologists.

Same thing: an ideology drivng a narrative.

I suppose we'd better start calling it's followers Evolutionary Biologists, then.

Nobody's stopping you.

"Science" doesn't construct imaginary narratives.

Yes, that's one of the things that sets it apart from religion.

Except apparently, some think it ought to make exceptions for Evolutionists.

Your confrontational attitude is something I would not have associated with Christianity

Why? Because your impression is that Christianity is supposed to be more about being "nice" than being honest?

We've had enough jelly-spined "nice" religiosity in the last half century or so. Now let's have some that believes something, and stands for it.

I see no reason why one can't both believe in God and recognise the overwhelming evidence for the biological evolution of every species of life on this planet.

Well, firstly, because it's quite underwhelming, actually. And secondly, because Evolutionism would have theological implications in the case of humanity...and very serious ones for things like ethics, teleology, identity, science, and so on. So the stakes are not small.

I drew your attention to the position of the C of E.

The C. of E. has unfortunately (other than their evangelical wing) tended to become an embarassment over the last few decades, particularly for compromising every ethic they have in order to placate secularists. Consequently, they are among what's called the "mainline churches," which are the ones that are dying at a very rapid pace, in contrast to the more conservative wings, which, like other conservative groups in Christianity, continue to grow rapidly worldwide.

For example, church membership in the C of E is nosediving by 10% per year, according to the Anglican Journal. If that continues, there will be no C of E by 2040. At the same time, membership in the evangelical and Pentecostal churches is growing by about 7% per year. That says a lot. The reasons for this are several, probably. But one that seems very clear is that people who claim to be religious but stand for no solid convictions are not people that tend to be liked or trusted...by anyone. Contrary to expectation, the public doesn't reward them for their craven capitulation to the latest prejudices, it seems.

[Harbal]

Same thing: an ideology drivng a narrative.

I suppose we'd better start calling it's followers Evolutionary Biologists, then.

Nobody's stopping you.

My desire to not look like an idiot is stopping me.

Yes, that's one of the things that sets it apart from religion.

Except apparently, some think it ought to make exceptions for Evolutionists.

Do what you like with the Evolutionists (whatever they are ); burn them at the steak if you like; I'm sure you're dying to.

Your confrontational attitude is something I would not have associated with Christianity

Why? Because your impression is that Christianity is supposed to be more about being "nice" than being honest?

No, I just don't think those things are mutually exclusive; quite the contrary, in fact. If Christianity is to have any value, and indeed any respect, it needs to recognise that any duty it places on itself should be towards other human beings, not to a mythical tyrant, at the expense of other human beings.

We've had enough jelly-spined "nice" religiosity in the last half century or so. Now let's have some that believes something, and stands for it.

Steady, boy, if that Bible flies out of your hand it will look like you are standing there doing a Nazi salute.

I see no reason why one can't both believe in God and recognise the overwhelming evidence for the biological evolution of every species of life on this planet.

Well, firstly, because it's quite underwhelming,

Well it appears to have whelmed you enough to get you into fighting mode and attempt to strangle it to death. Do you normally feel so overwhelmingly threatened by quite underwhelming things?

And secondly, because Evolutionism would have theological implications in the case of humanity...and very serious ones for things like ethics, teleology, identity, science, and so on. So the stakes are not small.

Only to a religious fanatic. Do you really doubt your ability to behave like a civilised human being without your religion to that extent?

The C. of E. has unfortunately (other than their evangelical wing) tended to become an embarassment over the last few decades

What's embarrassing about exhibiting a bit of common sense?

For example, church membership in the C of E is nosediving by 10% per year, according to the Anglican Journal. If that continues, there will be no C of E by 2040.

There will probably be no me, either, by 2040, so it's not my concern. RIP Harbal.

At the same time, membership in the evangelical and Pentecostal churches is growing by about 7% per year.

Then evolution must be true, otherwise how do you explain its going into reverse.

The reasons for this are several, probably.

Yes, stupidity comes in various forms.

[Immanuel Can]

I suppose we'd better start calling it's followers Evolutionary Biologists, then.

Nobody's stopping you.

My desire to not look like an idiot is stopping me.

I think you might want to read that script back to yourself. I don't think you said what you meant to say.

Your confrontational attitude is something I would not have associated with Christianity

Why? Because your impression is that Christianity is supposed to be more about being "nice" than being honest?

No, I just don't think those things are mutually exclusive; quite the contrary, in fact. If Christianity is to have any value, and indeed any respect, it needs to recognise that any duty it places on itself should be towards other human beings, not to a mythical tyrant, at the expense of other human beings.

Then what you want is Humanism. That's when small, mortal creatures imagine they're god, and start to worship themselves. It's very popular.

And secondly, because Evolutionism would have theological implications in the case of humanity...and very serious ones for things like ethics, teleology, identity, science, and so on. So the stakes are not small.

Only to a religious fanatic.

Not at all. To anybody who takes it seriously, and follows through what they actually claim to believe.

You can do the math: if you and I are here by cosmic accident, plus some primordial ooze, plus some time and good luck, then there are no moral rules for this game, and there's no payoff when it's done. So what would make sense for the rational Atheist is to grab all the gusto one can grab between the womb and the tomb, and die with as many toys as possible. But one will fight a losing battle with age, inevitably lose everything, and then slip into stygian blackness forever. That's the whole meaning of life, from an Atheistic perspective. You may as well be brave and bad -- just as Nietzsche foresaw.

Admittedly, many Atheists do not live like that's true. Instead, they live as if life can still have purpose and meaning, as if ethics and morals are still important, and as if the good they do for others is really good...all the while, maintaining a set of basic suppositions about life that cannot rationalize with any of that.

I'm always kind of glad they aren't less hypocritical. It speaks well of their consciences and of them as people, if not of their rationality.

RIP Harbal.

You're a cheerful soul! Well, I wouldn't wish that upon you. We might not agree, but I certainly bear you no animosity, and I strangely enjoy your cybercompany.

[Dubious]

So you can't read his words and interpret them?

It wasn't hard to interpret!

I wonder why you didn't understand it, then.

...this from someone who doesn't understand the most fundamental facts of evolution, who believes by talking about missing links he's making a case which defaults to the true story of the bible!

[Dubious]

There will probably be no me, either, by 2040, so it's not my concern. RIP Harbal.

I would think it over! Perhaps it's not too late; all you have to do to get unripped is to believe in Jesus and repent NOW. If you don't know anything substantial to repent of, just invent something to legally enter the purlieus of everlasting bliss. The first formality of entry is to memorize all the hymn books praising the lord forever and ever and the entire crew will once again rise upon hearing the Hallelujah chorus just as George the second did.

In the meantime I'll probably be singing some of the more infamous songs of history down below where no sun but only fire creates the shadows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raQNyM_M3OA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hlh6bAm9gIw

By god! We shall clear the ramparts of heaven yet and offer respite to all from the tyranny of heaven which never was a place for Gentiles to begin with!

[Harbal]

Nobody's stopping you.

My desire to not look like an idiot is stopping me.

I think you might want to read that script back to yourself. I don't think you said what you meant to say.

I think it is what I meant to say, but if I made a mistake, I'm not clever enough to figure out what it was.

No, I just don't think those things are mutually exclusive; quite the contrary, in fact. If Christianity is to have any value, and indeed any respect, it needs to recognise that any duty it places on itself should be towards other human beings, not to a mythical tyrant, at the expense of other human beings.

Then what you want is Humanism. That's when small, mortal creatures imagine they're god, and start to worship themselves. It's very popular.

No, I don't want any kind of ism. And I don't know what I said that implies our worshiping ourselves.

You can do the math: if you and I are here by cosmic accident, plus some primordial ooze, plus some time and good luck, then there are no moral rules for this game, and there's no payoff when it's done. So what would make sense for the rational Atheist is to grab all the gusto one can grab between the womb and the tomb, and die with as many toys as possible. But one will fight a losing battle with age, inevitably lose everything, and then slip into stygian blackness forever. That's the whole meaning of life, from an Atheistic perspective. You may as well be brave and bad -- just as Nietzsche foresaw.

Evolution has furnished us with the emotional function we call morality, and once our social environment has shaped the nature of its content, we find ourselves wanting to behave in accordance with it, and we soon learn that not doing so leaves us with that other little gift evolution has given us the potential to experience; guilt. Most of us find guilt to be an unpleasant sensation, therefore avoiding it is perfectly rational.

Admittedly, many Atheists do not live like that's true. Instead, they live as if life can still have purpose and meaning, as if ethics and morals are still important, and as if the good they do for others is really good...all the while, maintaining a set of basic suppositions about life that cannot rationalize with any of that.

That should demonstrate to you that no concept of God is needed in order to be able to value ethics and morals, which is what I have asserted all along. Morality is part of human nature, and has nothing to do with whether we think existence has any meaning or not.

I'm always kind of glad they aren't less hypocritical. It speaks well of their consciences and of them as people, if not of their rationality.

I don't think my absence of belief in God makes morality pointless, so it wouldn't be a rational reason to stop behaving morally. And I don't see where hypocrisy comes into it; if I believe morality is important, and I behave morally, then my actions are consistent with my beliefs.

You're a cheerful soul! Well, I wouldn't wish that upon you. We might not agree, but I certainly bear you no animosity, and I strangely enjoy your cybercompany.

I've heard of politicians who viciously rip one another to pieces in the debating chamber, and then go for a friendly drink together afterwards. I bear no animosity, either.

[Dontaskme]

If God created all life on this planet, he did it through evolution; that's the only sensible way for you to go, old chap.

Exactly Harbal.

It was indeed Evolution that got us here just so that this hairless primate could 'stand proud' and pronounce to the whole of creation those 3 magic little words '' GOD DID IT ''

I mean, I couldn't even begin to imagine who or what else could have made such a claim, can you ?

Biology already shows us how a single celled organism called a zygote changes through the process of time into a fully formed human being...and that human beings don't just pop up fully formed out of thin air.

[Immanuel Can]

...it needs to recognise that any duty it places on itself should be towards other human beings, not to a mythical tyrant, at the expense of other human beings.

Then what you want is Humanism. That's when small, mortal creatures imagine they're god, and start to worship themselves. It's very popular.

No, I don't want any kind of ism. And I don't know what I said that implies our worshiping ourselves.

What you said was, "...it needs to recognise that any duty it places on itself should be towards other human beings, not to a mythical tyrant, at the expense of other human beings." You're implying there is some objective "duty" that we "have" "should" be to human beings. But Evolutionism tells us that a "human being" is nothing but an accidental byproduct of an indifferent universe, recently ape-like, but still just a piece of cosmic dust-gone-strange.

You can't have any "duty" to such an entity. In order to imagine we do, we have to pretend that "human" means something special and elevated, something objectively deserving of our service and duty. That's Humanism.

Evolution has furnished us with the emotional function we call morality,

...which Evolutionism tells us is just another accident, with no reason for us to pay attention to it at all.

...that other little gift evolution has given us the potential to experience; guilt.

Lots of people think that's just a bad "gift," and we should get over it. They would accuse you of some form of illegitimate "shaming."

Admittedly, many Atheists do not live like that's true. Instead, they live as if life can still have purpose and meaning, as if ethics and morals are still important, and as if the good they do for others is really good...all the while, maintaining a set of basic suppositions about life that cannot rationalize with any of that.

That should demonstrate to you that no concept of God is needed in order to be able to value ethics and morals,

Well, because we were created by God, as moral beings, we DO have such a sense...even when we deny we ought to have it at all. That's one of the follies manifest in Atheism: that many Atheists insist on conforming themselves to ghostly "moral" qualities to which they deny the possibility of any legitimacy or objective existence.

According to their own story, that just makes them superstititious. It doesn't prove their moral nervousness is rational or legitimate in any way.

Still, I'm glad there are more Atheist hypcrites, in that regard, than not. I'd hate to see what they'd get up to if they actually believed their own claims about what we are and where we came from.

Morality is part of human nature,

It is. But Atheistically speaking, it ought not to be. Atheism denies there are any objective duties to be "moral." In fact, it can't even say what "moral" actually is, except by trusting its God-given intuitions about that, or "conscience," if you prefer. But its own worldview has to convince a thinking Atheist (like Nietzsche, Rand, and Huxley, to say nothing of Hitler, Stalin and Mao), that morality is really nothing but an inconvenient fiction: and when Atheists have acted like their worldview is true, millions have died.

I'm always kind of glad they aren't less hypocritical. It speaks well of their consciences and of them as people, if not of their rationality.

I don't think my absence of belief in God makes morality pointless, so it wouldn't be a rational reason to stop behaving morally.

Why would you behave morally, when being moral is so often inconvenient and even dangerous? The Evolutionistic story gives you no reason to stand on the side of good morals when your own interests are at stake.

You're a cheerful soul! Well, I wouldn't wish that upon you. We might not agree, but I certainly bear you no animosity, and I strangely enjoy your cybercompany.

I've heard of politicians who viciously rip one another to pieces in the debating chamber, and then go for a friendly drink together afterwards. I bear no animosity, either.

Well, maybe one day we'll be down at "the local" in Leeds or Bradford, and accidentally have a pint together.

But you touch on the right analogy: being political opponents doesn't mean you have to hate the opposition (sorry, Marxists). You can disagree agreeably; and just so, one can disagree in philosophy without resorting to any spite or ill-will. I think we both prefer that.