The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Religion & Culture / Christian Fools


Subject:  Re: He Lost 95% of His "Friends" Date:  10/19/2012  11:10 AM
Author:  bdhinton Number:  183735 of 198974

My moral conventions however are based on some very old teachings.
Nope. Your moral conventions are based on subconscious predispositions, same as everyone else. That's why atheists, christians, muslims, and buddhists all tend to share many mores.

Nigel's right in part, our sense of right and wrong do come from predispositions. The question is, which explanation (Christian theism or evolution) best explains the data.

Humans being made in God's image, which would include a moral "instinct" if you will, explains it rather nicely. That's why we intuitively know that "doing [evil thing] to [other human]* is morally evil.

That's also why we don't always follow what we know to be right. We're in various stages of rebellion against the moral law.

Under Nigel's view, there can't be anything like "moral evil" in the sense we use it. Evolution does not care about morality, it only cares about passing on the genes. Some have even argued that rape passes on DNA as good or better than other methods, which is why we have evolved it as a behavior. But evolution doesn't make it wrong, and under a naturalistic view, it doesn't always get justice.


*specifics deleted so Ray can read the post ;-)
Copyright 1996-2018 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us