"The Bible reveals the will of God, though not exhaustively. Homosexuality, for example, is a clear in error per the Bible. As is murder, theft, etc. However what of something like women preaching? This it is not crystal clear on, which is why different denomination differ on it. What about even, gulp, slavery? The Bible says nothing of Roman slavery (which was very different than the much later African Slave trade, which was obvious sin - in that it was the buying and selling of people as property), which was why both sides used biblical passages to "defend" their view. The Bible can most definitely be used to force one's own agenda because it just isn't exhaustive truth. If I felt like God told me everyone must eat cheerios every morning, the Bible does not refute that."
Ok, and I would very much say that Roman slavery is terribly immoral. Would you disagree it is wrong to buy and sell people or have them as your property? The condemnation of homosexuality is purely in the Old Testament. I don't think Jesus ever mentions it. But if you're willing to take such passages as in Leviticus that condemn homosexuality as a sin, you are most certainly picking and choosing because the Old Testament also explicitly outlines a few of these gems. If a bride is found to not be a virgin, she must be stoned (Deuteronomy 22:13-21), Adulterers must be stoned (Deuteronomy 22:22), Divorce is strictly forbidden (Mark 10:1-12), A married couple may not have sexual intercourse during the woman's period, otherwise they shall both be executed (Leviticus 18:19), If a husband dies childless, the wife must have sex with each of his brothers until a male heir is born (Mark 12:18-27). Leviticus is chock full of fun punishments for various things we consider to be trivial today. Would you condone all of these as terrible sins?
"To return to your postulated idea on how morality has developed I say this:
If I understand correctly, basically what you're saying is that everything about us can be explained as a function of natural selection. We've learned throughout the ages to co-operate to the betterment of each person. I'd argue against our reason for cooperation first, because you simply don't see this in nature. Species, or even members of the same species do not, to the ebst of my knowledge, cooperate so that they may benefit. Plus, you're answer that the value of life is innate because it is necessary for life seems really circular. Of course we'd value life, we're alive!"
I'm astonished to hear you say that you don't see co-operation in nature. Intra-species co-operation is rampantly apparent in every social animal such as in primates, monkeys, pack hunting animals such as wolves and lions, and herd animals such as deer, zebra, and elephants. Many insects take this to extreme levels such as in ants and bees. Inter-species co-operation is perhaps even more rampant, as you see relationships of mutualism amongst many macroscopic organisms such as clown fish and anemone's, or bees and flowers, and every single macroscopic organism owes it's very existence to mutualistic bacteria. Humans are more and more being shown to be extremely complex ecosystems for micro-organisms such that bacteria outnumber human cells in our body by 10:1. Microbiology is showing more and more that individual traits are not just due to genetics but very much due to the complex composition of micro-organisms in an individual body. The very organelles that allow us to metabolize energy and let plants photosynthesize are ancient mutualistic bacteria that incorporated themselves into our cells to the point that they evolve with us with their own mini-genome. Our entire agricultural system could not survive without bees and other pollenating insects and birds. Multi-cellularity and colonialism form the essence of co-operation, as does sexual reproduction, and it's apparent throughout biology that co-operation is very much a natural thing. As to my supposed circular reasoning, I think it's very apparent. Compare two sets of organisms which are equal in all aspects except that one values life and the other doesn't. Isn't it plain to see that the ones that value life will clearly live longer, reproduce more, and exist while the other set will likely die out? The only organisms that exist are that which are well-adapted to exist. The organisms that have a healthy value of existence will obviously exist over those that do not. It's not circular at all. It doesn't mean that the life is objectively valuable, only that it is naturally valuable to us as a result of evolution.
"Here's my main objection: If this is true, than we cannot trust our own senses at all; afterall, evolution is only interested in preserving adaptive behavior"
Yes. Excellent. This is an extremely important point. I think too often people take their sense for granted. We are extremely limited in what we can see. We can only see a very narrow set of wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum despite that we are heavily reliant on our vision. Our hearing is even worse, as is our olfactory senses. It's been postulated that bats may hear in colour (or something akin to colour) and that the star-nosed mole may feel in colour as well. Dogs can tell that methanol, ethanol, and propanol are closely related and in some order, in the same way we can predict that after playing a C and a D on the piano, an E would be the next note, simply with their sense of smell. We take too much for granted. What seems to be an arms length only seems like an armslength because it's more convenient. An insect would look at an armslength as quite a chasm of distance, but it would be useless for us to share this perspective because most of our dealings are on this level. Matter is mostly made up of empty space, but we have heavily innate concepts of solidity. This is because electromagnetic forces do not allow us to pass through most objects so solidity is a very important concept to have ingrained in us. We have no problem with passing through air, and consequently it doesn't matter if we can't see it. It matters more that we can see through it. We have heavy concepts of individuality and separation even though there is no real difference between the matter that composes my skin and the air around me, or the keys on my laptop. Since I was born, every atom in my baby self has been replaced with a different atom. It's extremely useful to have this concept of separation because evolution demands the success of my genes and consequently the body it builds for itself. Beaver dams could be considered a direct consequence of the beaver genome, if it were not for the arbitrary separation we put between the beaver and the dam. Everything we sense is heavily interpreted by our brain such that we really see representations and metaphors for reality. We cannot truly experience the nominal, only the phenomenal. This doesn't mean we cannot derive useful information from our senses because that would completely defeat the purpose of them. It's true that we are limited to our phenomenal universe, but science has shown us that at the very least this phenomenal universe is heavily predictable, even at points which are beyond human perception but can be perceived with the use of various measuring instruments. This should be apparent because we can predict the path of a beam of light through space and around large gravity wells with astonishing precision akin to measuring the distance between two exact points on either coast of America to within less than a hairs width, and we're getting more exact all the time. We can use this predictability and the models we've constructed to describe them to build fantastic machines and devise amazing chemicals that have improved our lives. I feel that few people in airplanes truly appreciate that they're flying through the air, sitting in the sky, in a large metal tube, because if they did, I don't think they'd complain about the guy in front of them who pushes his seat back and the baby crying a few rows up.
I don't accept your false dichotomy. I believe that our senses are amazing well adapted to helping us perceive the small middleground of reality in which we live and interact, but are hopelessly impoverished for anything beyond this. I know that science has given us extremely accurate models, that while they could be based on false metaphors, are extremely applicable and improve our lives constantly. I accept that beyond the phenomenal reality of our senses and our science there may reside an enormous number of beings and objects far beyond human imagination and comprehension, and this could include a deistic God, but there's no more reason to assume the existence of such a deity any more than there is reason to assume the existence of an omniscient blob of pure purple that resides beyond the phenomenal universe. I require evidence before I assume existence, especially for a Judeo-Christian God that supposedly answers prayers. Show me a double-blinded study where prayer has bestowed benefits over a control without prayer as well as prayers to other deities, say in curing cancer, and I would definitely give it much more consideration. Until then, I see no evidence for your God. You've given clues that could easily apply to any other deity, and I refuse to assume the existence of one or any of them simply based on a lack of evidence in our current understanding of the universe because it's not rational.
Moderator help
)
)
)