Creation "science" and a Bible-based morality

[Wiploc]

In "The Genesis Solution" Ken Ham says that the Bible (and a literal Genesis) is the foundation for wearing clothes and being against homosexuality (God didn't make "Adam and Steve"). It says that evolution justifies racist views, divorce, abortion, and relativistic morality.

Are you saying that, aside from your religion, you have no reason to be against homosexuality, racism, divorce, and abortion? Unless there's a god, those things aren't wrong?

So promoting Creationism can have moral reasons so that you have a strong foundation when trying to promote Biblical values like being against homosexuality, and men being the spiritual head of the family. So that gives Christians more reasons to support Creation science....

No, that doesn't work.

If you believed that homosexuality was actually wrong (not just magically wrong according to your religion) then you could say that religions which oppose homosexuality are (in that way, at least) good. That would make sense.

But it makes no sense to say, "There's nothing wrong with homosexuality. But some religions oppose homosexuality, so we should support those religions. Otherwise, we'd have no reason to oppose homosexuality -- which would be great, since then we wouldn't have to persecute gays."

That's not a great argument. It's a stay off my side quality argument.

Maybe that illustration isn't clear to people who are prejudiced against homosexuality, so let's put the shoe on the other foot:

Suppose somebody presented you with this argument: "Christianity is fine. There's nothing logical to be said against it. So therefore we should all support Islam. Otherwise, we would have no reason to oppose Christianity."

Would that fly? Would you find that argument persuasive?

You should find it persuasive, because it's the same logic you use when you say that we should believe in the Christian gods because otherwise we'd have no reason to oppose homosexuality.

-

Personally, I see nothing wrong with homosexuality, divorce, and abortion. So you see how your argument strikes me. "Unless you believe in gods, you can't want people trapped in unhappy marriages to have to stay trapped. Unless you believe in gods, you won't want to force people to have children when they don't want to. And, unless you believe in gods, you won't be able to get properly irate about boys kissing. Therefore, you should believe in gods."

That falls flat. It utterly fails.

Racism, on the other hand, is actually bad: It has a strong tendency to increase human misery. So I don't need to believe in gods to oppose racism.

In fact, if you told me that I should believe in goblins so I can be more against racism, I'd think you were out of your tree. What do gods and goblins have to do with morality?

Are you against human trafficking? Would you be more against it if you believed in fairies? Would believing in fairies, and basing your moral arguments on the existence of fairies, help you persuade other people to be against human trafficking?

No, it wouldn't.

Unless you have some actual logical reason to oppose something, you have no reason to want to believe in gods so that you can oppose that thing. And if you do have logical reasons to oppose something, then believing in gods won't help justify your opposition.

 

[Wiploc]

Ken Ham thinks homosexuality is immoral in a similar way that people often think paedophilia is ...

Wonderful example!

Can you actually not see what's wrong with pedophilia? Do you really need to have religion to oppose child abuse?

I love when theists pretend to be moral cretins in the attempt to want us to be like them. William Lane Craig said he doesn't know of anything wrong with rape, aside from the fact that gods told him not to do it.

How is that supposed to appeal? "I want to be like William Lane Craig so that I won't see anything wrong with rape!" "I want to be like Ken Hamm, so that I won't see anything wrong with racism."

That argument is so flawed it's delicious.

 

[Wiploc]

Morality based on "God's word" theoretically has an absolute foundation while "anything goes" if you base it on man's opinions.

That's a bald claim, unsupportable.

What if I said that morality based on logic is objective, but moralities based on the opinions of various gods are inherently subjective? Wouldn't that argument be at least as strong as yours?

And if morality really were based on the words of gods, that's when we'd have a case of anything goes. "Regardless of logic or consequences, anything that god says goes."

 

[Wiploc]

Even if we assume for the sake of argument that A) God exists, and that B) he's deeply concerned about the morality of humans, and thus C) there is such a thing as "Objective Morality" ...

Theists love to assume that C derives from A and B, but they can never explain how that's supposed to happen.

 

[Wiploc]

Ken Ham might say that the ten commandments should be followed because they are from God, and whether they are seen by sinful humans as "good" or original is irrelevant.

So we should believe in gods in order to be able to follow rules that we think are bad? How does that make sense?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Morality based on "God's word" theoretically has an absolute foundation while "anything goes" if you base it on man's opinions.

That's a bald claim, unsupportable.

What if I said that morality based on logic is objective, but moralities based on the opinions of various gods are inherently subjective? Wouldn't that argument be at least as strong as yours?

And if morality really were based on the words of gods, that's when we'd have a case of anything goes. "Regardless of logic or consequences, anything that god says goes."

And it's not morality.
You don't know WHY homosexuality or rape is wrong, it's just on The List. Like nudity, and crabs. Flat roofs. Oysters. Gossip.
If you encountr something not on The List, you do not have an absolute moral basis for deciding if it's wrong. You have no basis.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Morality based on "God's word" theoretically has an absolute foundation while "anything goes" if you base it on man's opinions.

That's a bald claim, unsupportable.

What if I said that morality based on logic is objective, but moralities based on the opinions of various gods are inherently subjective? Wouldn't that argument be at least as strong as yours?

And if morality really were based on the words of gods, that's when we'd have a case of anything goes. "Regardless of logic or consequences, anything that god says goes."

And it's not morality.
You don't know WHY homosexuality or rape is wrong, it's just on The List. Like nudity, and crabs. Flat roofs. Oysters. Gossip.
If you encountr something not on The List, you do not have an absolute moral basis for deciding if it's wrong. You have no basis.

That's because many theists see obedience to their god as moral. Why would anyone who considers himself moral wish to be obedient to a genocidal god? That's right. it's because all those victims were sinners and deserved to be murdered. Got it. Quite the morality.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The whole point of the game of life is to show how evolution works (without the need of a God). The rules just simulate the natural mechanics of evolution. So you couldn't possibly have used a worse example to prove acts of God in the world.

In the game of life the initial conditions are usually intelligently designed. If they are random it behaves randomly then usually gets stuck
e.g.
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzMQY9Etb4Q[/YOUTUBE]

If intelligently designed it can involve the game of life simulating the game of life (see post #195) - an intelligent designer can take advantage of their knowledge of still lifes, oscillators, and spaceships....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life

I'm not aware of evolution simulating/emulating itself (like that example of the game of life emulating the game of life)

Perhaps the game of life could also be about chemistry and machines/factories like living cells.... (random vs purposeful machine-like structures) I think it is about "emergence"...

When you play the game if life you can set the parameters to whatever you want and press play. That's its purpose. It's an evolutionary mathematical laboratory.

The game of life is from a time when computers weren't powerful. Today we simulate all kinds of stuff. Blue mouse simulates a mouse brain. The fieid of evolutionary design uses these kinds of programmes to build real life objects in industry.

Science has already done what you asked for thousand times over.

https://playgameoflife.com/
Have fun!

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ken Ham thinks homosexuality is immoral in a similar way that people often think paedophilia is ...

Wonderful example!

Can you actually not see what's wrong with pedophilia? Do you really need to have religion to oppose child abuse?

I love when theists pretend to be moral cretins in the attempt to want us to be like them. William Lane Craig said he doesn't know of anything wrong with rape, aside from the fact that gods told him not to do it.

How is that supposed to appeal? "I want to be like William Lane Craig so that I won't see anything wrong with rape!" "I want to be like Ken Hamm, so that I won't see anything wrong with racism."

That argument is so flawed it's delicious.

They're also implicitly saying that they are pedophiles. Since the only thing preventing them from raping children is the Bible. Only a pedophile would if they could

 

[excreationist]

When you play the game if life you can set the parameters to whatever you want and press play. That's its purpose. It's an evolutionary mathematical laboratory.
.....
https://playgameoflife.com/
Have fun!

The lexicon is almost like a field of science in itself.

 

[excreationist]

In "The Genesis Solution" Ken Ham says that the Bible (and a literal Genesis) is the foundation for wearing clothes and being against homosexuality (God didn't make "Adam and Steve"). It says that evolution justifies racist views, divorce, abortion, and relativistic morality.

Are you saying that, aside from your religion, you have no reason to be against homosexuality, racism, divorce, and abortion? Unless there's a god, those things aren't wrong?

Ken Ham is saying that without the foundation of Biblical literalism and with a foundation of evolution it is up to you to decide though a belief in evolution could make things like abortion seem ok since it could be argued that it is just some tissue or an animal rather than a human life. Though I guess it is possible an atheistic "evolutionist" could be completely against abortion.

Morality based on "God's word" theoretically has an absolute foundation while "anything goes" if you base it on man's opinions.

That's a bald claim, unsupportable.

What if I said that morality based on logic is objective, but moralities based on the opinions of various gods are inherently subjective? Wouldn't that argument be at least as strong as yours?

And if morality really were based on the words of gods, that's when we'd have a case of anything goes. "Regardless of logic or consequences, anything that god says goes."

From post #11:

If you believe in creation what does that mean? Doesn't it mean there's a creator? The creator owns you, he sets the rules. It means we are to be in total submission to him. He is the absolute authority. He sets what's right and what's wrong. He has a right to do that because he owns us, because he created us. On the other hand if you believe you're a product of chance random processes who owns you? You do. Who sets the rules? You do. Who decides what's right and what's wrong? You do.​

Do you have an example of objective morality based on logic? I mean a whole system of morality - not just saying that murder is wrong.

I didn't respond to most of your points because I'm not a supporter of Ken Ham though I can see his point of view and I think he is quite influential.

 

[DrZoidberg]

When you play the game if life you can set the parameters to whatever you want and press play. That's its purpose. It's an evolutionary mathematical laboratory.
.....
https://playgameoflife.com/
Have fun!

The lexicon is almost like a field of science in itself.

Despite it's name it's not an actual game. It's a science experiment. It's called a game because it uses the mathematical branch "game theory" as it's mathematical basis. Yes, the lexicon is a field of science in itself. It literally is.

 

[excreationist]

They're also implicitly saying that they are pedophiles. Since the only thing preventing them from raping children is the Bible. Only a pedophile would if they could

I think the Bible is only explicitly against the rape of a female and men having sex with men.... (it isn't clear about men having sex with boys)
A related quote:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9679681-i-have-found-nice-guys-to-be-prone-to-hidden
Dr Glover - No More Mr. Nice Guy

“I have found Nice Guys to be prone to hidden, compulsive sexual behavior. I have developed a theory that states, the nicer the guy, the darker the sexual secrets. I find this to be consistently true. Sex is a basic human drive. Because most Nice Guys believe they are bad for being sexual, or believe that other people will think they are bad, sexual impulses have to be kept hidden from view.”​

 

[DrZoidberg]

They're also implicitly saying that they are pedophiles. Since the only thing preventing them from raping children is the Bible. Only a pedophile would if they could

I think the Bible is only explicitly against the rape of a female and men having sex with men.... (it isn't clear about men having sex with boys)
A related quote:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9679681-i-have-found-nice-guys-to-be-prone-to-hidden
Dr Glover - No More Mr. Nice Guy

“I have found Nice Guys to be prone to hidden, compulsive sexual behavior. I have developed a theory that states, the nicer the guy, the darker the sexual secrets. I find this to be consistently true. Sex is a basic human drive. Because most Nice Guys believe they are bad for being sexual, or believe that other people will think they are bad, sexual impulses have to be kept hidden from view.”​

Unless you have 30 pieces of silver. Then you can rape as much as you want. Until you are out of silver.

The command against gay sex, I think should be interpreted as an anti-Greek commandment. When Judea was taken by the Helenistic Selucid empire under the king Antiochus, their attempt to impose Greek religion onto the Jews was quite heavy handed. They forced the Jews to erect a statue of Dionysus in the temple of David in Jerusalem as well as partaking in pagan rituals. It didn't go over well. So any cultural practice that was identified as specifically Greek became taboo within Judaism.

As I'm sure you know, Greeks had a peculiar cultural practice of pederasty. Where all young boys were systematically and ritually raped by men above 40. This was, even by ancient standards, considered bizarre. Before the Seluicid conquest Jews had no problems with homosexuality, and pagans in general were very cool about gay sex. After the Helenistic rule gay sex became taboo. I think you can replace anything in the Bible against gay sex as instead being about being against culturally insensitive foreign conquerors forcing strange practices upon their ruled people.

In order to understand the Bible you need A LOT of context.

When the Persians ruled Judea, they were about as strange as the Greeks, but they didn't force any of their cultural practices on the Jews. As a result the Bible has nothing but praise for the Persian rulers.

 

[excreationist]

I think the Bible is only explicitly against the rape of a female....

Unless you have 30 pieces of silver. Then you can rape as much as you want. Until you are out of silver.

Related verses:
Deuteronomy 22:23-29

If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

​

So the moral of the story is if you have to rape a woman make sure she is a virgin who isn't engaged. And since you can't divorce her make sure she is the right one for you. Though I guess you could marry multiple women using this method. And if you don't get discovered you don't need to pay that fee.

....As I'm sure you know, Greeks had a peculiar cultural practice of pederasty. Where all young boys were systematically and ritually raped by men above 40...

Actually I wasn't aware of that. BTW apparently Greeks in the early church caused the church to adopt the Greek belief in the immortality of the soul:
https://www.jewishnotgreek.com/
Maybe pederasty in priests involved Greek influence....

 

[DrZoidberg]

Related verses:
Deuteronomy 22:23-29

If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.​

But he was also allowed to have several wives. The one man one woman rule came a lot later.

Again, context is very important

So the moral of the story is if you have to rape a woman make sure she is a virgin who isn't engaged. And since you can't divorce her make sure she is the right one for you. Though I guess you could marry multiple women using this method. And if you don't get discovered you don't need to pay that fee.

....As I'm sure you know, Greeks had a peculiar cultural practice of pederasty. Where all young boys were systematically and ritually raped by men above 40...

Actually I wasn't aware of that. BTW apparently Greeks in the early church caused the church to adopt the Greek belief in the immortality of the soul:
https://www.jewishnotgreek.com/
Maybe pederasty in priests involved Greek influence....

You're making the mistake of equating Platonism with Greek. While Platonism was a thing during the period the Selucid's ruled Judea. Platonism didn't become a widespread belief until the rise of Neoplatonism 250 BC. Which is well after this period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism

The idea of immortal souls is also probably not Plato's invention either. Both the ancient Egyptians and the Zoroastrians believed in immortal souls. Either or both of these could have been the source for Plato.

The article is correct though that neoplatonism is a huge influence on what later became Christianity. All the three Greek philosophical schools Neoplatonism, Epicureanism and Stoicism had a massive influence on Christianity. To a point where it's fair to say that those are the core to Christianity and all they got from Judaism is the monotheism, the mythic stories, and the fetishisation of books.

 

[excreationist]

But he was also allowed to have several wives. The one man one woman rule came a lot later....

Yeah in the OT a large number of the main men had multiple wives (or concubines). Perhaps the one woman limit was inherited from the Roman culture [my own thoughts]. (and then Ken Ham says that the one woman rule started with Adam and Eve).

 

[excreationist]

.....The article is correct though that neoplatonism is a huge influence on what later became Christianity. All the three Greek philosophical schools Neoplatonism, Epicureanism and Stoicism had a massive influence on Christianity. To a point where it's fair to say that those are the core to Christianity and all they got from Judaism is the monotheism, the mythic stories, and the fetishisation of books.

What do you think of this excerpt from "Hell and Mr Fudge"? It is about a person who was paid to research the doctrine of hell for a year.... this excerpt talks about Tertullian:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W66HP-3HO_A&t=4882s

 

[DrZoidberg]

But he was also allowed to have several wives. The one man one woman rule came a lot later....

Yeah in the OT a large number of the main men had multiple wives (or concubines). Perhaps the one woman limit was inherited from the Roman culture [my own thoughts]. (and then Ken Ham says that the one woman rule started with Adam and Eve).

That's how I understand it. It comes from the egalitarian ideal of the Roman Republic. Both among ancient Greeks and Romans. Polygamy was associated with royalty, and therefore seen as decadent.

Worth noting is that Roman Christians thought sex with slaves was always ok. It's not in the Bible because to the Roman's it was so obviously ok that there was no need to mention it. The rules in the Bible are only about free men and women.

Slaves were never outlawed in the Roman empire. But as Rome stopped expanding in size new slaves stopped flowing into the empire. And since Rome had a tradition of freeing hard working slaves upon the death of their master, slaves, over time vanished from Roman society. Making the concept of sex with slaves go away by itself without the church ever having to deal with it.

Sex outside marriage was always frowned upon in Rome. But was not outlawed until Augustus in 60 BC

 

[DrZoidberg]

delete