Are You Just a DNA-Ridden Meat-Suit?

I just read a comment by a woman defending her atheist husband as a highly moral man without the need of religion or God. I had to reply:

Oh idalily, all atheists who have been brought up in countries steeped in Christian values say that. Your dear husband got his "values" from his culture. And his culture got it from its religion.
Atheism has no—and logically can have no—inherent values. It is, by definition, a "values neutral" philosophy.

If there is no values Giver, Intelligent Designer, Cosmic Architect, then we are all merely products of blind and accidental nature, and are like any other animal, all of whose lives are dominated by "eat or be eaten". There is no moral component to nature. Morality transcends it. But if Nature is all there is, sans Nature's God...transcendence is impossible. Therefore morality is impossible.

You cannot adopt another's value system and then proclaim the other's philosophy—of which their value system is the unique product—null.

It is at best illogical.

My friend The Scientist claims that all our human morality can be rationally explained by our instincts to behave in ways that insure our survival and continuation as a species.

In other words, he advances the idea that people are just meat-suits used by DNA to replicate itself - and that which we call "morality" are really just those behaviors that foster human safety, survival and continuation...like honestly, friendliness, charity, kindness, cooperation, fairness, truth, honesty, etc. All of which grease the wheels of civilization and aid in the survival of individuals and cultures.

Sounds kind of convincing at first glance, doesn't it?

But, I have a question...

If DNA exerts such a powerful instinct as to minutely direct and define our individual and social behavior, determine the moral codes of millennia of human civilization, then why the hell is it so hard to get people to behave themselves?

The Gunslinger

God AND Science

This started out as a comment, in response to a comment...but it got so long I decided to just make it a post. Besides, I think it's interesting.

I do need to give a little background. An earlier post had to do with us old folks learning to love being old for all the real reasons it's pretty cool.

Sure we're not as pretty or agile or sexual (san chemicals) as we once were, but there are a lot of benefits to not being self-absorbed, vain, insecure, unformed, unfinished and dumber than a box of rocks. (I speak only of myself, of course.)

A commenter took exception to my describing aging as "natural" because he believes that the bible testifies to a perpetually young, perfect, vital humanity before the "fall".  He believes that our natural state is young forever. And that old age is unnatural...introduced by sin.

Now I totally respect his religious beliefs, but I don't agree.

In fact, I think the way we are is so elegant, and so logical I can't help but think the Intelligent Designer meant us to be just this way.

I honor the Bible, but I don't understand it as being the "word of God" with every passage being literally true history.

I think of it as the chronicle of a people's relationship with their God. And it is human understanding that informs it, with perhaps, divine inspiration...but certainly not divine dictation.

My idea of the "fall" is when our brains/minds developed to the point that we became able to distinguish good from evil.

Before that, we were in a state of bliss because we were in a state of perfect moral ignorance. We operated according to our animal nature, because that is what we were. We were nothing more than bundles of instinct.

It is when we became fully human that the concept of "sin" originated. We could make choices. We transcended instinct. That is the moment when we were "expelled from the Garden" of blissful ignorance into the harsh reality of choices and consequences; of fore-knowledge of death and the sad appreciation of the transience of all we love and value.

Remember, the fruit that caused the expulsion was from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

It was the moment we became free agents with free will...with all the doubts and difficulties, conflicting emotions and goals inherent in human intellectual development.

In my opinion we became better, higher, more evolved beings that the simple contented ones we had been before, grazing among the other animals, living short, brutal lives, but not minding it, because we didn't have the capacity to intellectualize it...and had nothing to compare it to anyway.

Adam biting the apple is a metaphor for the same moment portrayed in "2001 A Space Odyssey" when the ape absently tapping one bone against another forms the first abstract thought—makes the leap from animal to human. Kubrick called the sequence "The Dawn of Man".  It still gives me chills to see it. It is the moment we began. The moment we left the garden of innocence and instinct and moved into a landscape of choices and consequences; of knowledge and the sorrow and pain—as well as the joy—it can bring.

I believe the biblical story of the "fall" of man is really one of the "rise" of man. Of that single moment in time...that first self-awareness...that first abstract thought...that first knowledge of choices, of free will...and of good and evil.

For the record, while the Theory of Evolution is incompatible with Creationism, it is certainly not incompatible with idea of God as Intelligent Designer.  There is no reason why God should be assumed to be incapable of creating the Big Bang, and designing evolution as science understands it, to result after billions of years in the development of Man (and beyond?)

It is absurd and anti-intellectual, as the Marxist and atheists do, to offer only the choice of Creationism OR Evolution; of Religion OR Science.  It is perhaps their nearness to our primitive animal nature that prevents them from being more creative and inventive in their thinking.

The Gunslinger
(Sorry in advance for making the trolls "think" too much.)

The Atheist's Bible

This is called "reporting".

Gender-Neutral Bible to be Pushed Out

The L.A. Times turns the story on it's head, reporting this fascinating quote:

New Testament scholar and author Bart Ehrman doubts the revision has as much to do with the evolution of the English language as the orthodox trends in evangelical thought.

"...evolution of the English language"?

The "Gender-Neutral" Bible was a forced, phony, artificial translation of strict adherence to the politically correct NewSpeak of the Left, that reflected no "evolution of the English language", but rather the coerced, inelegant language demanded by people offended by the word "man" and the pronoun "he".

The story, however, is framed to suggest that the new, goofy "Gender-Neutral" Bible is the standard, and the simple restoration of the original translation is some sort of new-fangled notion, insisted on by people whose prejudices demand the Bible be revised in a new, bigoted method which goes out of its way to denigrate women and offend athiests.

One has to admit the L.A. Times works hard at their agenda. Even on a small story like this, they've gone to great lengths to write it in such a way that the traditional translation of the Bible becomes a "revision" and the dopey, crackpot, politically correct NewSpeak is the "traditional" version.

And they wonder why nobody listens to a single word they say.

The Gunslinger, EOTIS
Ûlfhednar

Too Much God Addendum

Let me simplify my argument made in Too Much God.

I argued there that if you believe in America you must believe in God. Here's the syllogism:

Inalienable rights are not possible without God.

America* is not possible without inalienable rights.

Therefore America is not possible without God.

Therefore one cannot believe in the America without also believing in God. Not, at least, if one is to be logically consistent.

While secularists/atheists may say they believe in America but refute the existence of God, they may as well claim to believe in bread while refuting the existence of flour.

Anyone can say it, but it's illogical nonsense.

One may believe in both or neither. No other option is rational.

*America is defined here as the America of the Founders. Constitutional America. The Idea and Ideals of America.

The Gunslinger

Perspective

"As he [Obie] gives his speech tonight, we all should be visualizing a newly born infant crying and slowly dying, alone in a utility closet, because Obama wanted it that way."

--a capella on August 27, 2008 at 12:42 PM

This...while the adoring crowds worship The One at his Grecian Temple...built specially for the occasion.

I'm not sure these people are really clear on the potential unintended effects of such symbolism. Are they so besotted with Obie that they assume everyone is? Or are they just stupid?

Perhaps their bitter atheism has left them so desperate and hungry for meaning, that they are ready suckers and dupes for this weird and very un-American "cult of personality"...to warm their withered souls.

It's a very disturbing spectacle.

The Gunslinger

The Godless Bible Scholars

Some of the new scholarship of the Bible, particularly some of the stuff presented on TV channels like History or Discovery, has the feeling of propaganda disguised as education. While the information is interesting, it is almost always framed to discourage faith and encourage questioning.

I think that honest examination and research into the Bible and early Christianity is a legitimate study, but it is curious that so much presented on television leads to a more secular point of view, and away from the sacred and religious one.

You might almost, if you watched it long enough, conclude there was a plan unfolding...a concerted effort to diminish faith by promoting the idea that science and scholarship have actually disproved Christianity and the Bible.

Of course they haven't. One cannot disprove the existence of God.

And, many of the "theologians" or "professors of Religion" interviewed are not busy teaching "religion", but rather busy teaching that religion is just the history of mythology.

What the creators and producers of such television shows seem to miss, of course, is that most Christians are not believers in the "literal truth" of the Bible. Not many Christians I've ever met believe the world was created six thousand years ago, in a seven day period, with the literal creation of Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden, who were tempted by a real snake to eat a real apple, and get thrown out of paradise by an real angel with a flaming sword.

As a product of long years of Catholic education, I can state without fear of contradiction that Roman Catholics (the largest single sect of Christianity on the planet), do not take the Old Testament as Historical Fact...and do not believe that most of the stories presented in it are historical facts. Catholics understand the stories to be lessons, metaphors, fables that teach us wisdom and truth, a little like the Aesop's Fables. Donkeys don't speak...nor do serpents...but the lessons are good ones, nevertheless. Catholics believe that the Bible writers were inspired by God. But they do not suppose God was busy writing the facts of history. That'd be awfully mundane. God is not necessary for that, man is quite up to that challenge.

Indeed, if the Bible is God's version of history, He's been proven to be in error by the research and scholarship of mere man. And that's a preposterous idea, isn't it? In the end, it seems to me that anybody who insists the Bible is literal historical fact is making God out to be an idiot, or a liar. A pretty untenable position for a believer I should think.

That, of course, does not excuse the makers of such programs "researching" The Bible, for the often obvious intent of discouraging faith by attempting to prove the historical inaccuracy of the Bible. They only do so because they apparently believe that the foundation of Christianity is the literal belief in Bible stories...so to undermine them is to undermine Christianity, which, on can argue reasonably, often seems to be their purpose and intent.

But assuming that all Christians believe in the literal historical truth of the Bible is to mistake all of Christianity for fundamentalism. But, fundamentalism is not representative of the modern Christian faith, rather it is a throwback to the Dark Ages.

The Catholic Church has moved on from those days of ignorance. Indeed it was, itself, a significant influence in the advancement of science and discovery...and, in spite of the commonly held prejudice, never persecuted or outlawed scientific truth because it seemed to conflict with religion. Not even Galileo, that favorite example of Christianity-haters, was ever persecuted or excommunicated for any of his scientific discoveries.

Fundamentalist dogma has been mistaken by ill-educated atheists and secularists as a common belief of all Christians. And they clearly believe that to show the non-historicity of the Bible is to undermine Christian faith itself. Nasty little buggers, even if their efforts are futile.

A perfect example of this ignorance is their claim that anyone who is open to the idea of Intelligent Design is really trying to advance Biblical Creationism. They seem unable to understand that someone who thinks the wonders of the universe require an intelligent designer does not necessarily think the biblical version of creation is literally true. Yet you hear the argument over and over that ID is really Creationism in disguise.

Silly really.

That said, I really do enjoy some of the shows. One particularly interesting one is called "Mysteries of the Garden of Eden" on History International. If you get a chance, watch it. It has an interesting take on the possible significance of the eden-like early hunter-gatherer life of early man in the Tigris Euphrates valley, where the weather was good, the hunting and gathering easy...until Climate Change (too many polluting automobiles, I suppose) forced a rapid change in their environment, and forced them into a more difficult, less idyllic, less abundant world.

Don't let the likelihood that their primary goal is to undermine Christianity stop you from watching. Since they misunderstand Christianity so badly, their changes of success are slim to none. Meanwhile, they do discover some fascinating bits, and weave some interesting theories.

And in spite of themselves, by showing how often the Bible poetically reflects much that may very well be historically true, they have made it even an more amazing document.

The Gunslinger