Post by rbbailey on Nov 9, 2009 22:10:01 GMT -8
This is an argument I've often placed out in front of my non-Christian friends. Usually they end the discussion by saying something along the lines of, "Hu, that's a very interesting point."
Which means I won! Well, sort of. Or maybe it means I completely botched the whole thing, and they have no clue what I'm talking about. I've always wondered if this is something I sort of thought of myself, or is it a pretty common outline on which to argue the existence of God?
________________________________
The existence of morality proves the existence of God.
If there is no God, then the origin of all things is a purely scientific event that culminates with the evolution of the human being. This means that evolution is the ultimate theory of the universe, and the basis on which all civilization is made. If this is true, then evolution's main premise, which is the driving force behind the evolution of the species, is the Survival of the Fittest. If this is true, then Survival of the Fittest is what one might well call the moral code of the evolutionary process.
Yet, this does not fit well with our reality.
If survival of the fittest is the supreme law by which humans came into existence, then it would be a terrible sin against scientific thought and progress to not actively practice survival of the fittest on a world-wide sociological stage: Exterminate the lesser races, practice eugenics, euthanasia, mass warfare for the sole purpose of gaining the world's best resources, racism as a science, slavery as a favor to all mankind... but this is not how we operate. In fact, normal societies shun these things, write laws against them, even go to war to stop these terrible actions.
The logical conclusion must be that there is a different set of rules being played than simple survival of the fittest. Logic would dictate that humanity's moral code does not operate on the one put forth by the idea that the origin of the species is our moral code. So what is this moral code that we live by? And where has it come from?
It certainly didn't evolve.
The evolution of a moral code that praises the man who sacrifices himself for his country is anti-theoretical to the survival of the fittest. A moral code that preserves the life of the weak, old, and invalid is anti-theoretical to the survival of the fittest.
If Survival of the Fittest is the ultimate morality which is responsible for bringing us into existence and creating the human animal in all of his perfection and beauty, why don't we practice it?
We must assume that our most basic of moral codes, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, came from another source. The very recognition of the fact that others may want something different than ourselves, and the ability to empathize with others, is an evolutionary stab in the back.
The opposing theory would say that the morality we practice is good for you, good for me, therefore, it propels the species into the future in a better way. This is a nice thought, but it is one that has been destroyed by the reality of human nature -- the nature that, unless we control it, bring it under the control of our practiced societal norms -- becomes a bully, a monster, a killer, another Hitler.
In fact, if we live only by the idea that Survival of the Fittest dictates that humanity must be nice to itself in order to reach further into our evolutionary future, we find that we are bound to practice eugenics and selective killings of otherwise innocent people for the purpose of rooting out the potential Hitlers and other bad eggs. In other words, we come back to square-one.
Again, we must assume that our most basic of moral codes came from a source other than evolution. But at the same time, we cannot attribute this moral code realization or invention to ourselves -- that would be the same thing as saying it evolved within us, and again, we plunge the dagger into the back of our own evolutionary existence.
We must assume that our moral codes came from an outside source. It's the only way to exit this circular reasoning.
Accepting this notion for a moment suddenly solves a lot of problems with the various conflicts involving morality that we see around the world, because we suddenly realize that there is a moral code, one that existed before we did. Therefore, there is a right moral code; and if there is a right morality, there can also be a wrong morality. Witness the morality of the man who believes he will be a martyr, and that he is doing the will of God by killing the infidel. Observe that his moral code is different than the normal, accepted moral code of the rest of the world. Observe that his moral code is ever so closely related to the false morality that evolution presents -- survival of the fittest.
Accepting this idea also resolves a whole host of issues surrounding the false idea that morality, or faith and science cannot coexist. One begins to realize that science is not a trap set against the faithful. Science is not merely a construct of a confused group of otherwise very smart people who are completely missing the truth of the matter as set forth in an ancient book, if only they'd read Genesis, they'd not have to continue their research! -- no, they are merely missing the point of what they are discovering. But this is a topic for another discussion.
Accepting this notion, that our moral code came from an outside source, we inevitably come to the conclusion that a God, some God, must have touched the human animal at some point in our history. In fact, one must actually come to the conclusion that morality is a not only a proof for God, but an inspired gift from Him.
Which means I won! Well, sort of. Or maybe it means I completely botched the whole thing, and they have no clue what I'm talking about. I've always wondered if this is something I sort of thought of myself, or is it a pretty common outline on which to argue the existence of God?
________________________________
The existence of morality proves the existence of God.
If there is no God, then the origin of all things is a purely scientific event that culminates with the evolution of the human being. This means that evolution is the ultimate theory of the universe, and the basis on which all civilization is made. If this is true, then evolution's main premise, which is the driving force behind the evolution of the species, is the Survival of the Fittest. If this is true, then Survival of the Fittest is what one might well call the moral code of the evolutionary process.
Yet, this does not fit well with our reality.
If survival of the fittest is the supreme law by which humans came into existence, then it would be a terrible sin against scientific thought and progress to not actively practice survival of the fittest on a world-wide sociological stage: Exterminate the lesser races, practice eugenics, euthanasia, mass warfare for the sole purpose of gaining the world's best resources, racism as a science, slavery as a favor to all mankind... but this is not how we operate. In fact, normal societies shun these things, write laws against them, even go to war to stop these terrible actions.
The logical conclusion must be that there is a different set of rules being played than simple survival of the fittest. Logic would dictate that humanity's moral code does not operate on the one put forth by the idea that the origin of the species is our moral code. So what is this moral code that we live by? And where has it come from?
It certainly didn't evolve.
The evolution of a moral code that praises the man who sacrifices himself for his country is anti-theoretical to the survival of the fittest. A moral code that preserves the life of the weak, old, and invalid is anti-theoretical to the survival of the fittest.
If Survival of the Fittest is the ultimate morality which is responsible for bringing us into existence and creating the human animal in all of his perfection and beauty, why don't we practice it?
We must assume that our most basic of moral codes, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, came from another source. The very recognition of the fact that others may want something different than ourselves, and the ability to empathize with others, is an evolutionary stab in the back.
The opposing theory would say that the morality we practice is good for you, good for me, therefore, it propels the species into the future in a better way. This is a nice thought, but it is one that has been destroyed by the reality of human nature -- the nature that, unless we control it, bring it under the control of our practiced societal norms -- becomes a bully, a monster, a killer, another Hitler.
In fact, if we live only by the idea that Survival of the Fittest dictates that humanity must be nice to itself in order to reach further into our evolutionary future, we find that we are bound to practice eugenics and selective killings of otherwise innocent people for the purpose of rooting out the potential Hitlers and other bad eggs. In other words, we come back to square-one.
Again, we must assume that our most basic of moral codes came from a source other than evolution. But at the same time, we cannot attribute this moral code realization or invention to ourselves -- that would be the same thing as saying it evolved within us, and again, we plunge the dagger into the back of our own evolutionary existence.
We must assume that our moral codes came from an outside source. It's the only way to exit this circular reasoning.
Accepting this notion for a moment suddenly solves a lot of problems with the various conflicts involving morality that we see around the world, because we suddenly realize that there is a moral code, one that existed before we did. Therefore, there is a right moral code; and if there is a right morality, there can also be a wrong morality. Witness the morality of the man who believes he will be a martyr, and that he is doing the will of God by killing the infidel. Observe that his moral code is different than the normal, accepted moral code of the rest of the world. Observe that his moral code is ever so closely related to the false morality that evolution presents -- survival of the fittest.
Accepting this idea also resolves a whole host of issues surrounding the false idea that morality, or faith and science cannot coexist. One begins to realize that science is not a trap set against the faithful. Science is not merely a construct of a confused group of otherwise very smart people who are completely missing the truth of the matter as set forth in an ancient book, if only they'd read Genesis, they'd not have to continue their research! -- no, they are merely missing the point of what they are discovering. But this is a topic for another discussion.
Accepting this notion, that our moral code came from an outside source, we inevitably come to the conclusion that a God, some God, must have touched the human animal at some point in our history. In fact, one must actually come to the conclusion that morality is a not only a proof for God, but an inspired gift from Him.
