Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
unknown soldier
Banned
Banned
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2020 7:32 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 122 times

Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #1

Post by unknown soldier »

If there's one issue that keeps apologists busy, it's the issue of unanswered prayer. Skeptics often point out that the hungry children who pray for food often die of starvation. If God exists, then why don't we see better results from prayer? Christian apologist Kyle Butt answers this question on pages 229-244 of A Christian's Guide to Refuting Modern Atheism. He explains that effective prayer must conform to the following:

1. Prayer must be "in the name of Jesus." That is, prayer must be in accord with Jesus' teachings and authority.
2. It is necessary for prayer to be in accord with God's will. God has a way of doing things that no prayer can change.
3. The person praying must believe she will receive what she requests. Otherwise, she won't receive what she requests!
4. The person praying must be a righteous person. So all you sinners, forget it!
5. Prayer won't work if the petitioner prays with selfish desires.
6. Persistence in prayer is important. One or two prayers might not be enough.

I'm eager to read what other members here have to say about these guidelines, but allow me to start out saying that if 1 is true, then anybody who is not a Christian won't benefit from prayer. I wonder if those non-Christians see that their prayers aren't doing any good.

Guideline 2 seems odd. It's like God saying: "I'll do anything you ask as long as I want to do it."

I'd say that 3 can result in a "snowball effect" which is to say that if a doubter's doubt can lead to a prayer not being answered, then the doubter might doubt even more!

Regarding 4, it seems to me that sinners need answered prayer more than the righteous.

Guideline 5 also seems odd because if you're petitioning God for something you want or need, then you are thinking of yourself, and what's wrong with that?

Finally, 6 doesn't explain why God can't just grant the petition with one prayer request, and neither does it tell us how many prayers it takes to succeed. Could it be that the person praying is praying for something that in time she'll get whether she prays or not?

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #371

Post by The Tanager »

2. Resurrection

P1. There are 3 established facts concerning the fate of Jesus: discovery of an empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of his disciples’ belief in his resurrection
P2. The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” is the best explanation of these facts.
P3. This hypothesis entails that the God revealed by Jesus exists
P4. Therefore, the God revealed by Jesus exists.

TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 6:41 am:D Well that suits me fine. Atheist apologists often take the same view, and I'm rather unusual in that I suggest that the Bible be considered as valid as any other book until there is good reason to doubt and question it. You can hardly have missed that many, including myself, have very good reasons to doubt and question it.

Do you mean “it” as in an all-or-nothing kind of way? If so, I’m saying we don’t take the Bible as a whole here, but treat the sources within them as individual historical documents.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #372

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

unknown soldier wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:55 pm If there's one issue that keeps apologists busy, it's the issue of unanswered prayer. Skeptics often point out that the hungry children who pray for food often die of starvation. If God exists, then why don't we see better results from prayer? Christian apologist Kyle Butt answers this question on pages 229-244 of A Christian's Guide to Refuting Modern Atheism. He explains that effective prayer must conform to the following:

1. Prayer must be "in the name of Jesus." That is, prayer must be in accord with Jesus' teachings and authority.
2. It is necessary for prayer to be in accord with God's will. God has a way of doing things that no prayer can change.
3. The person praying must believe she will receive what she requests. Otherwise, she won't receive what she requests!
4. The person praying must be a righteous person. So all you sinners, forget it!
5. Prayer won't work if the petitioner prays with selfish desires.
6. Persistence in prayer is important. One or two prayers might not be enough.

I'm eager to read what other members here have to say about these guidelines, but allow me to start out saying that if 1 is true, then anybody who is not a Christian won't benefit from prayer. I wonder if those non-Christians see that their prayers aren't doing any good.

Guideline 2 seems odd. It's like God saying: "I'll do anything you ask as long as I want to do it."

I'd say that 3 can result in a "snowball effect" which is to say that if a doubter's doubt can lead to a prayer not being answered, then the doubter might doubt even more!

Regarding 4, it seems to me that sinners need answered prayer more than the righteous.

Guideline 5 also seems odd because if you're petitioning God for something you want or need, then you are thinking of yourself, and what's wrong with that?

Finally, 6 doesn't explain why God can't just grant the petition with one prayer request, and neither does it tell us how many prayers it takes to succeed. Could it be that the person praying is praying for something that in time she'll get whether she prays or not?
As one writer puts it:
All of Christ’s miracles and physical healings in his time on this earth in the flesh and all of His physical healings even now are only types and shadows of what really is of value to God. They are mere shadows of “greater things than these shall ye do.” God is not intent on preserving our physical bodies. He is intent on destroying our physical bodies.
and also
Where in those verses are we promised ‘The prayer of faith shall physically heal the physically sick”? Where, in these verses is that promise? Nowhere are we ever promised that God will always answer our prayers for physical blessings of any kind. All we are ever promised anywhere is that if our petitions are “according to His will” then He will hear that prayer and He will grant them to us.
Much of the healing mentioned in the NT represents spiritual healing, everything Christ said in the NT and OT pertains to spiritual matters.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #373

Post by JoeyKnothead »

The Tanager wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 9:55 am We aren’t defining the first cause any way we want, the existence and characteristics of a first cause are logical conclusions from the premises.
They're only 'logical conclusions' of the anthropomorphology department of a fourth rate christian high school.
Critique the premises to move the discussion forward.
I have, only you fail to understand I did.

We know the universe exists.

To purport to know how come it does is hubrisity.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #374

Post by Goat »

The Tanager wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 3:36 pm 1C. Moral

P1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
P3. Therefore, God exists.


Let's break this piece of logic down.

1) How do you know that objective morals and duties would not exist without god? Can you show that this is a true statemetn.
2) How do you know objective moral values and duties exist. Define what you mean by 'objective morals' and 'objective dutities' ,and then show they exist.

This syllogism can not be shown to be true.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #375

Post by TRANSPONDER »

The Tanager wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 9:55 am 1A. Kalam

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The spatio-temporal universe began to exist.
P3. Therefore, the spatio-temporal universe has a cause.
P4. If the spatio-temporal universe had a cause, then that cause would have to be eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal.
P5. Therefore, the cause of the spatio-temporal universe is eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal (attributes of what we would call a ‘god’).

JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 7:33 pmOkay. So a striped elephant wearing plaid overalls created it all.

Or how bout a bass boat? Created an entire universe just to have a lake on which to float?

Both of these candidates are ruled out because of P4.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 7:33 pmWe can define a 'first cause' we can't show exists any way we want, and ol Kalam there's just pleased as punch.

"Okay, so what does this argument tell us about the world?"

"He dont like how you act!"

Just like any god concept, the use of Kalam is merely a means to the ends of declaring a god I can't show exists has opinions I can't show he does, and don't it beat all, his opinions are my own.

That's all it is. It's merely words pouring into a gap in our knowledge.

We aren’t defining the first cause any way we want, the existence and characteristics of a first cause are logical conclusions from the premises. Critique the premises to move the discussion forward.
Diogenes wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 8:00 pm As if the 'Kalam' argument were not silly enough, it has to plug in "and personal" as an attribute of the unknown cause or 'causeless cause' or whatever kind of Italian sausage they throw into the grinder to come up with a result that fulfills their premise.

In the final analysis the proponents make a special pleading for their 'god.' "O! God!" they cry, as if this supplies the missing elements of their empty argument.
'God' is how they define whatever essential quality they deny to everything else... then they stand back and exclaim, "God is special!" :D

No, three arguments were given for “and personal”. Critique the premises to move the discussion forward.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 6:30 amThere's the problem, which you half seem to get - nothing and God are in the same boat. Both are counter intuitive or rather non - rational because we are used to everything having a cause. Appealing to an uncreated complex intelligent being to get out of this is emotional and instinctive (if anything exists a person must have made it) and as non rational as 'something from nothing'. But a nothing that can function as a something (energy) requires less to explain than a god. Name your own.

It’s logically impossible for everything to have a cause. There must be something eternal. ‘Nothing’, if truly named, isn’t a thing at all and so it can’t have any characteristics, including being eternal. That leaves (1) a ‘Nothing’ (that is poorly named and really ‘Something’) that is impersonal and a personal ‘Something’. Via the argument, (not emotion and instinct) this eternal thing must also be personal. So, the personal ‘Something’ (the “God” concept) is more rational than both the “Nothing” and the impersonal “Something”; they aren’t in the same boat.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 6:30 amBecause that's the reason that Kalam does not help any particular religion. Even if the argument is valid (and one can hypothesise that the cosmos or - alternatively - the universe that formed within it) had a start -off, it doesn't tell us which god it is. Aside that you argue that this Cause' is "God",I know the apologetic that Lane Craig doesn't mention a god or an intelligent creator, but a cause.

Craig does connect the cause with characteristics that he says humans have traditionally identified with the God of classical theism. This, alone (as I’ve said already) doesn’t get us Christian theism. My case is a cumulative case using all arguments to narrow down a particular religion.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 6:30 amThe thing is that kalam is not actually a problem for atheism (though some seem to think it is, but they reckon that it's an argument for Biblegod, which it isn't thought really at bottom it is) because It All either had a Cause or it has always existed. 50/50.

It doesn’t say 50/50, but argues that the universe couldn’t have always existed.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 6:30 amThe assumption that the 'cause is personal' is logically invalid; it is assuming what you are trying to prove - an intelligent Creator. Your claim that you already gave reasons for your position being 'rational' have been refuted.

How were the 3 arguments I offered for the cause being personal an assumption?
I'm aware of the problem of counter -intuition with where 'everything' came from. Whether the universe of ours (the observable universe, not just our galaxy) or the cosmic stuff from which the BB grew could somehow be eternal or have a cause both seem impossible. Endless causes? Turtles all the way down seems impossible. Just like a cause for no reason, or something having always existed without cause. Sure, the origin of matter implies a
'cause', and in that respect Kalam has some mileage. But you and I both know that an intelligent creator is being postulated, and that is not the logical answer. A nothing that can produce a nothing that behaves like something is (as you clearly see) hard to credit, but it posits less logical entities than a creative intelligence without any origin.

It isn't an answer or explanation, (though I think that 'nothing contains energy' experiments have made it at least as hypothetically credible as abiogenesis) (1), but it is the logically better hypothetical because of the principle of parsimony - the simpler explanation.

It doesn't matter either that the universe might need a cause, because there is no reason to think it's a god, let alone Biblegod. It gets you nowhere. Nor does it matter that you reject something from nothing. and cling to 'God'. It is a reasonable and rational counter to cosmic origins by atheists and thus you (and Lane -Craig) cannot force us to concede that a God has to exist because it is the only answer to 'Who made everything, then?'

You have to understand that having the idea that the God (name your own) hypothesis is the default until disproven is not logically correct. You have the burden of proof and all that atheism needs to do is say: 'an uncreated God makes less sense than something from nothing' and you have lost the argument. I know that theists hate the burden of proof being on them, but that's the way logic works. This is why your other argument from morality doesn't work either.

The problem was always that morality was unaccountable unless there was a big invisible lawgiver. Science had no answer because ethics and morality is in that area of human experience where science has no purview. But just a decade or so ago, while your attention was elsewhere, it was realised that science CAN explain morals and ethics and a set of rules imposed by an invisible dictator can't.

Paul put it quite nicely - 'written on our hearts'. Innate instinct, not imposed Laws. Once we understand that the objective basis of human well being evolved through pack identity, family group and tribal empathy, made more complex by social evolution and the need for Law codes, and like Life and consciousness, biological and social evolution explains it better than a god says so.

Indeed, a series of 'I said so' imposed by a god (who doesn't appear to use the same kind of morality) is no morality at all, but a Diktat.

So your argument fails there.

(1) and the objection I had to that: "Well, that isn't 'nothing', is it?" isn't the point. It may not really be 'nothing' but it it may not need to be created.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #376

Post by JoeyKnothead »

The Tanager wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 9:55 am 1A. Kalam

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The spatio-temporal universe began to exist.
P3. Therefore, the spatio-temporal universe has a cause.
P4. If the spatio-temporal universe had a cause, then that cause would have to be eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal.
P5. Therefore, the cause of the spatio-temporal universe is eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal (attributes of what we would call a ‘god’).

JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 7:33 pmOkay. So a striped elephant wearing plaid overalls created it all.

Or how bout a bass boat? Created an entire universe just to have a lake on which to float?

Both of these candidates are ruled out because of P4.
P4 wrote: If the spatio-temporal universe had a cause, then that cause would have to be eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal.
If sheeps was biscuits, would we still hafta shear em?

You've failed to show the universe hasn't always existed, as you propose your cause ain't bound by the same constraint.

A hypothetical - here it's 'if' - does not establish fact.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 7:33 pmWe can define a 'first cause' we can't show exists any way we want, and ol Kalam there's just pleased as punch.

"Okay, so what does this argument tell us about the world?"

"He dont like how you act!"

Just like any god concept, the use of Kalam is merely a means to the ends of declaring a god I can't show exists has opinions I can't show he does, and don't it beat all, his opinions are my own.

That's all it is. It's merely words pouring into a gap in our knowledge.

We aren’t defining the first cause any way we want, the existence and characteristics of a first cause are logical conclusions from the premises. Critique the premises to move the discussion forward.
The 'discussion' is dead in the water, as you refuse to realize the universe may have already existed, so would need no more 'cause' than does this cause of yours need it one.

If we were all sheep, we'd call your proposition special bleating.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #377

Post by Diogenes »

The Tanager wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 9:55 am 2. Resurrection

P1. There are 3 established facts concerning the fate of Jesus: discovery of an empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of his disciples’ belief in his resurrection
P2. The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” is the best explanation of these facts.
P3. This hypothesis entails that the God revealed by Jesus exists
P4. Therefore, the God revealed by Jesus exists.
:D No, these are not 'facts,' not any more than other reports in many cultures and religions other than Abrahamic ones. For example Plutarch writes:
Plutarch in his chapter on Romulus gave an account of the mysterious disappearance and subsequent deification of this first king of Rome, comparing it to traditional Greek beliefs such as the resurrection and physical immortalization of Alcmene and Aristeas the Proconnesian, "for they say Aristeas died in a fuller's work-shop, and his friends coming to look for him, found his body vanished; and that some presently after, coming from abroad, said they met him traveling towards Croton". Plutarch openly scorned such beliefs held in traditional ancient Greek religion, writing, "many such improbabilities do your fabulous writers relate, deifying creatures naturally mortal."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrect ... _Near_East
The claim for the 'fact' of the resurrection of Jesus is a special pleading.
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #378

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Diogenes wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 2:54 pm
The Tanager wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 9:55 am 2. Resurrection

P1. There are 3 established facts concerning the fate of Jesus: discovery of an empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of his disciples’ belief in his resurrection
P2. The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” is the best explanation of these facts.
P3. This hypothesis entails that the God revealed by Jesus exists
P4. Therefore, the God revealed by Jesus exists.
:D No, these are not 'facts,' not any more than other reports in many cultures and religions other than Abrahamic ones. For example Plutarch writes:
Plutarch in his chapter on Romulus gave an account of the mysterious disappearance and subsequent deification of this first king of Rome, comparing it to traditional Greek beliefs such as the resurrection and physical immortalization of Alcmene and Aristeas the Proconnesian, "for they say Aristeas died in a fuller's work-shop, and his friends coming to look for him, found his body vanished; and that some presently after, coming from abroad, said they met him traveling towards Croton". Plutarch openly scorned such beliefs held in traditional ancient Greek religion, writing, "many such improbabilities do your fabulous writers relate, deifying creatures naturally mortal."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrect ... _Near_East
The claim for the 'fact' of the resurrection of Jesus is a special pleading.
Yes. I have an argument that the details in the Gospels (if one accepted them as reliable report) makes the 'swoon' theory plus 'the disciples stole the body' the best explanation. This does require that the disciples' belief in the resurrection is of a spirit or perhaps a new perfect body going to heaven, not of them having seen Jesus on the Sunday evening. There is peripheral evidence of this - The order of appearances in I Cor.15.5 do not fit the resurrection account, and Paul equates his own vision (which is surely not on the Sunday night) with the visions of the disciples. I also can argue that the empty tomb looks dodgy as there is no reason for the women to go to the tomb at all, other than the story requires it.

This the first two premises or arguments Fail and the two conclusions also fail.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #379

Post by The Tanager »

1A. Kalam

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The spatio-temporal universe began to exist.
P3. Therefore, the spatio-temporal universe has a cause.
P4. If the spatio-temporal universe had a cause, then that cause would have to be eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal.
P5. Therefore, the cause of the spatio-temporal universe is eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal (attributes of what we would call a ‘god’).

TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 5:07 amBut you and I both know that an intelligent creator is being postulated, and that is not the logical answer. A nothing that can produce a nothing that behaves like something is (as you clearly see) hard to credit, but it posits less logical entities than a creative intelligence without any origin.

It isn't an answer or explanation, (though I think that 'nothing contains energy' experiments have made it at least as hypothetically credible as abiogenesis) (1), but it is the logically better hypothetical because of the principle of parsimony - the simpler explanation.

If by simplicity you mean there is one eternal entity (this ‘nothing’) that changes its form versus an entity that creates a separate second entity, then it is the simpler explanation. I’m not sure that is more parsimonious, though, because there is still one thing that exists followed by a change to result in a different situation. But even if a transformation is more parsimonious than an addition, this only matters if this is the only piece of information we have to consider.

However, the Kalam is additional information (if it’s reasonable, of course). The key conclusion of the Kalam (in its extended form here) is that the cause of the “something” is reasonable. Your “nothing” is not personal.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 5:07 amNor does it matter that you reject something from nothing. and cling to 'God'. It is a reasonable and rational counter to cosmic origins by atheists

Is this the same “nothing” that you are talking about as that which became “something”? If so, then you are equivocating. Your “nothing” isn’t the same as the “nothing” that I reject by saying “something can’t come from nothing”. Your “nothing” does not contradict “something can’t come from nothing” because we have two different “nothings”.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 5:07 amYou have to understand that having the idea that the God (name your own) hypothesis is the default until disproven is not logically correct. You have the burden of proof and all that atheism needs to do is say: 'an uncreated God makes less sense than something from nothing' and you have lost the argument. I know that theists hate the burden of proof being on them, but that's the way logic works.

I have never said theism is the default until disproven. I have accepted the burden of proof on my claims and proceeded to share my reasons.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #380

Post by The Tanager »

1C. Moral

P1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
P3. Therefore, God exists.

Goat wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 5:36 pm1) How do you know that objective morals and duties would not exist without god? Can you show that this is a true statemetn.

First, what do you mean by “show that this is a true statement”? Again, if you mean prove 100%, then I have admitted that I can’t show 100%. But that’s not a problem because pure mathematics and definitions are possibly the only things that can be shown 100%. Now, if you mean the most reasonable position to hold (as I do), then I would posit that all of the atheistic accounts of morality either (1) don’t posit objective morality or (2) have no good support for being true.

Now, obviously, I can’t list every single person’s versions of atheistically accounting for objective morality and then critique all of them in any efficienct way, but I’m open to discussing any of them to see if I have correctly characterized things below.

An atheistic account of evolution leads to subjective morality where, say, our moral senses could have been different if different evolutionary branches would have been taken. Some people have claimed that evolution can give us objective morality, but I’ve never been convinced of that.

While something like Erik Wielenberg’s “godless normative realism.” where moral values are objective abstract objects, fail, in my view because there is no good way to account for why “goodness” attaches itself to certain events (such as choosing to not torture someone for the sole reason of them having a different worldview) and, even if one could get around that, there is no reason why we should care that “goodness” attaches itself to such an event.
Goat wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 5:36 pm2) How do you know objective moral values and duties exist. Define what you mean by 'objective morals' and 'objective dutities' ,and then show they exist.

I think most people accept this premise as true, even if they don’t think they do at first. If you don’t think morality is objective, then torturing someone because they have a different worldview and not torturing them are simply different tastes akin to how some people like chocolate and others like vanilla.

But let’s say that one believes the above kind of torture is not wrong. I would say this goes against our common sense (how can nothing be wrong with such torture?), but more importantly looking across human history and culture, we see there are moral principles that run through all of them. If morality was truly subjective, then we wouldn’t expect this to be the case.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 5:07 amThe problem was always that morality was unaccountable unless there was a big invisible lawgiver. Science had no answer because ethics and morality is in that area of human experience where science has no purview. But just a decade or so ago, while your attention was elsewhere, it was realised that science CAN explain morals and ethics and a set of rules imposed by an invisible dictator can't.

Paul put it quite nicely - 'written on our hearts'. Innate instinct, not imposed Laws. Once we understand that the objective basis of human well being evolved through pack identity, family group and tribal empathy, made more complex by social evolution and the need for Law codes, and like Life and consciousness, biological and social evolution explains it better than a god says so.

It seems more likely to me that evolution would lead to competing moral principles evolving, but this doesn’t occur. One may think morals are very different, but they really aren’t. People define things differently and then seem to apply the same moral principles to those different definitions to lead to some of what people may think are “different” morals.

Yet, even if evolution could result in this universal human moral sense, all that would do is tell us what humans do rather than what humans should do.

Post Reply