Two of the various shades in my personal blogosphere are lighting up with comments on Creation. They’re not connected, nor are they necessarily in opposition.
The Friendly Atheist (among others) has been doing a series of posts on the Creation “museum” that opened in Kentucky: that $27 Million Dollars could have fed a lot of poor people.
Meanwhile, over in the UK, David notes an essay, written by one of his students, replying to this question: ‘Christian teachings about family life are not relevant in the 21st century.’ Do you agree? Give reasons to support your answer and show that you have thought about different points of view. The student reports that now we have “evidence that we developed and evolutionerised [sic] from apes and monkeys”.
While these posts are totally unconnected - save by my reading them together - it raises a very interesting question in my mind.
For most of human history “morality” has been more a matter of religious taboo than human thought: the Wooji-Wooji says do/do not do this thing, most often with no reason other than “because I said so.” Current critiques of such include the idea that the Wooji-Wooji (who or whatever that is/was in a given society) was only concerned with power/patriarchy/control, various incorrect assumptions of agrarian societies, etc.
Yet I know a lot of moral people - of many different religious traditions and some with no traditions at all.
David says, “When people reject the Creator God and believe they are indistinct from, and merely exist on a continuum with, animals, they have no reason to love and respect.”
Is that so? Where does morality come from otherwise? Just wondering.
Some of the more Deist founders of our country argued for a social contract theory of morality, etc.
Utilitarians argued for “utility.” That is, all human actions serve or have “utility” in maintaining society or family or whatever. Thus “morality” is judged purely on utilitarian grounds.
Nietsche claimed that there is no reason or morality for action. You simply did what you had the power and were empowered to do. If you had the will to conquer, you could do so.
And so on in various philosophical camps. I do not agree with them, but various non-God arguments have been put forward over the centuries.
Human beings have evolved to be social animals. Morals are rules on how to cooperate and interact with your own species in a society.
Basically we are moral because it was an advantage to the survival of the species for most of us to be moral.
Joe - That would be the social contract theory of which Fr E spoke in his comment?
That makes sense to me. Taboo would, also, be a social contract. Albeit one that, shall we say, has a silent partner.
I use “taboo” because I think that’s why conservatives react so strongly when the contract is changed: we’ve broken a contract with the silent partner and s/he may pull out “the big guns” in support of that contract. In other words, conservative reaction to changes in the social contract are, essentially, fear of “what God might do” if we don’t fix this. We see the same forces play out when natives get spooked by a Zippo in movies from the 1940s.
Nope, nope that’s not the social contract theory. The social contract theory is literally just that, a decision to live together according to certain rules. In other words, when we vote democratically, we essentially make a decision on the rules by which we will live. Mind you, the actual theory is more complicated, but that gives you an idea. As you can quickly tell, the treatment of minorities can be a problem in this theory, unless the social contract is defined as a minimalist set of rules which we all need to abide.
What Joe is reporting on is a type of biological determinism. That is, essentially all human behavior and emotions can be explained, at base level, as developed survival mechanisms for the species.
Mmm. Two things:
In other words, when we vote democratically, we essentially make a decision on the rules by which we will live.
I don’t see anything but a constant rejection of this idea by those who most idolise the “Founding Fathers”.
And I didn’t see anything about biological determinism in Joe’s comment: “Morals are rules on how to cooperate and interact with your own species in a society.” It sounds rather like “the social contract is defined as a minimalist set of rules which we all need to abide.” (The “maximum” being the taboo thing I mentioned.)