I just didn’t like his example. Why not talk about controlling aggressive impulses and sexual impulses in general. But Tim Keller is Tim Keller.
As for morality, I think it is both inborn and learned. Experiments with babies show that they prefer the good.
Ok, you do not believe in God. I hope you have not replaced God with science because science is not capable and does not want to act as a replacement of gods. Science is limited by its methods and cannot answer all questions, like what is good or bad. If moral decisions are based on science, decisions are on a very soft bottom; I would claim there is actually no bottom at all.
If we are dealing with something that can be measured or calculated, science can try to give answers. Much needs to be left in the dark because it cannot be measured or calculated. Much is at least temporarily outside of our ability to answer because we do not have sufficient information yet. For example, the origin of our universe (what was before the big bang?) is potentially within the questions that science might answer but we do not yet have such information that science could give confident answers. We only have a lot of speculation and hypotheses. Strong opinions are necessarily based on faith when we do not have enough of facts.
This claim is delusional. Science is objective observation. Life requires subjective participation. It is impossible for a worldview to be based on the scientific method alone. Science simply does not provide enough for the living of ones life.
The truth is more that your world view is based on naturalism. But this idea of naturalism that the findings of science is the limit of reality is not a judgment which the scientific method can provide. To be sure it relies on the epistemological advantage science has over other sources of knowledge. It is cautious, for I will acknowledge that religion can be dangerous.
Unlike most here, I do believe that science contributes to morality by showing that some things are advantageous and other things detrimental to human well being (individually and communally). Thus I refute the common claim here that morality is completely subjective to say there is an objective aspect to morality. But there are subjective aspects which go to personal moral commitments. Likewise there are both absolute and relative aspects to morality. The only absolutes are found in the reasons why some things are better than others and not in any divine dictation. But sometimes it is more important to have a rule than what the rule may be and so there are also the relative aspects to morality based on convention only.
Incorrect. The scientific method requires faith just as much as anything else. One must have a faith that there are no invisible forces altering the evidence to deceive us. Science does not hold itself up by its own bootstraps. It requires a faith in the methodology of science. The most you can say is that this is a reasonable faith. You can even say as I do, that scientists are a better example of faith (more rational) than what you find in many religions.
Will it insult you when I ask if English is your native language, or suggest that a way of thinking which cannot handle the very real complexity of life is inadequate?
I don’t need a god so haven’t replaced him with science. Love can theoretically be measured if we humans concoct standards and measure behavior against those standards.
This isn’t quite true: “We only have a lot of speculation and hypotheses. Strong opinions are necessarily based on faith when we do not have enough of facts.” Its fine to not have 100% proof of a thing and be left with speculation and hypothesis. Science can lead you to the most likely answer. But it is NOT the same as faith.
Mitchell.
Science guides decisions. It forms my values. Your straw man of naturalism doesn’t apply.
Your word mishmash about morality left me confused.
Science DOES NOT require faith. The scientific method works because it works. It produces actionable results. It flies us to the moon while religion flies us into buildings.
Yes you do insult me by suggesting I am a simpleton.
Maybe, if you first define love and then measure how well the behavior matches the definition you made.
Love can mean many things. However you define love, and measure behavior against that definition, it does not give an answer to the question what is good or bad.
Thinking that there probably are no gods is not the same as saying there is no god (atheism). The former part is based on some kind of logical thinking or interpretation of observations, and includes the possibility that the interpretations and conclusion may be wrong.
Saying ‘there is no god’ (atheism) is not based on facts. If you disagree, please prove there is no god.
If you have a strong opinion, like ‘there is no god’, and you cannot prove it by facts or valid logic, then your opinion is based on faith.
I hope you also understand that science cannot tell much about God/gods because God cannot be measured or calculated. Science may test and conclude that god is not an automaton that follows fixed rules but that kind of exclusion of simple hypotheses is the limit of science. So you cannot rest on the results of science when you form your opinion about the existence of God/gods.
It requires faith in the efficacy of reason. Prove that reason is legit. Maybe it’s just an illusion and it helped us evolve to be the dominant species (except for ants – their biomass is greater than ours ; - ).
I like this… but I would, wouldn’t I 
:
This statement, " science cannot tell much about God/gods because God cannot be measured or calculated." I’m tempted to agree with you because zero divided by zero is zero. Can’t measure nothing.
Thank you for asking, Jay. The book is called On the (Divine) Origin of Our Species. It will be out later this year; most likely not until Fall. As we get closer to its release, BioLogos has indicated that a set of articles drawn from the book will be posted and I look forward to preparing those. In the book, I explore what I consider to be the ramifications of the statement, “God is love” (I John 4:16) as it relates to the process of human evolution. If this has always been true (and, course, there is nothing more central to Christian theology than God’s love), there could have been no beginning to that love as our species was developing. God is love—period(!)—and it was through experiencing and responding to that love that our species came into being.
Here’s what I mean. Although the love of God was a constant during human evolution, there was something that changed. What did gradually change was the ability of an individual to recognize that another individual had a mind just like their own. In short, they developed a full Theory of Mind (ToM): the emergence of the capacity to understand that the other has thoughts too and that those thoughts resemble what takes place in one’s own mind. That almost certainly had never happened before in 600 million years of animal existence. As a result, not only were there individuals on earth who had the capability to “understand,” but with this change, there were beings who, in Aristotle’s terminology, “understand that they understand and perceive that they perceive.” Aristotle considered this to be the essence of human existence. Aquinas put this into the context of what it means to exist as the image of God on earth. He wrote, “As far as a likeness of the divine nature is concerned, [humans] seem somehow to attain a representation. . . imitating God not only in this—that he is and lives—but especially in this, that he understands”. And, significantly, Teilhard de Chardin—using the word “reflective” to describe human uniqueness—wrote, “Because we are reflective, we are not only different but quite other. It is not merely a matter of change of degree, but of change of nature, resulting from a change of state.”
So here’s my point. As our ancestors’ Theory of Mind became more sophisticated not only were they aware of the minds and feelings of others, but the God who is love was now able to speak into their “thought-life” in increasingly meaningful ways. (A good analogy is the changes which occur in how parents are able to communicate their love and expectations to their child as she/he moves out of babyhood.) John Wesley’s reflections on the human condition is relevant here and my colleague Michael Lodahl summarizes this well: “[For Wesley] there is no human being who has ever existed who was not deeply loved and immediately graced by God . . . Thus, no human being lives without the Spirit’s wooing to live compassionately and justly with (all) others. . . ‘Everyone has some measure of that light, some faint glimmering ray, which sooner or later, more or less, enlightens every man that cometh into the world.’” Although Wesley knew nothing of how extremely ancient human existence was, this principle, it seems to me, should translate back through all of humanity even as it was emerging in Africa. Indeed, I think Paul illustrated this principle when he wrote approvingly of non-Jews (prior to Jesus) who followed the impulses “written on their hearts” (see Romans 2:14,15). So, when did this “writing on hearts” and this “wooing of God’s Spirit” begin? I maintain that one would expect it to emerge as those in the human lineage gained the capacity “to understand” (Aquinas), and to “perceive that they perceive” (Aristotle), and to “reflect” (Teilhard).
These changes in the mind were taking place while our ancestors were living in small groups in Africa. Reputation for trustworthiness in small groups matters! Cohesiveness of the group matters! Thus, if a small population lived harmoniously as a result of their positive response to the “wooing of God’s Spirit” and following after the “writing on the heart” that Paul spoke of, and if they did so for generations, that population would thrive, especially when compared to a neighboring population fraught by distrust and discord. If a population lived “rightly” it would blossom, and if it did so consistently over multiple generations, such a population would thrive reproductively as well and, accordingly, would increase in number.
Now we come to the key point: genetic changes which enhanced cooperativity (like those that facilitated better communication or those which fostered an “others-centered” demeanor), would provide a selective advantage to that population. As a result they would frequently increase in the population. This, of course, is evolution and it is occurring through natural selection. But there is one important caveat to this way of looking at natural selection. In this case, natural selection occurs because individuals in the successful population are responding to that which is supernatural. The God, who is love, is encouraging them to act rightly and they are responding to that “writing on their hearts” which is the beckoning call of God’s Spirit to live in a manner grounded in love. The God who is love, in “partnership” with a group of individuals who are living into that love, fosters the emergence of a whole set of genetic changes that lead to a new way of being.
Obviously, there are book-length nuances to this. The point is, however, that a positive response to the love and wooing of the Spirit of God is a “selective force” that leads to genetic changes such that members of our species become finely tuned to respond and communicate effectively with each other.
There are many biblical, theological, and genetic questions that arise in response to all of this, and I try to look at these pretty carefully in the book. I might add though that I do believe in a real Fall, original sin, and a historical “Adam and Eve,” although I leave open the possibility that “Adam and Eve” consisted of a small community as opposed to just two individuals.
I hope this explains what I’m trying to do in the book. I realize it’s pretty dense, but I’ve tried to squeeze what takes me 100,000 words to do in the book, into a 1,000 word summary.
Hi Darrel! Nice to see you.
You’re one of the originals, my friend. I was hoping you might say a few words!, Warm Regards, d.
What shall I say?
“Nice to see you” is good.
Thanks for the preview! 1000 words is roughly 100x harder than 100,000. haha. Fascinating premise. Sounds like you’ve been reading some @ThomasJayOord. I owe an apology to @JRM. For some reason I read his earlier post as saying you had a novel take on the science of evolution. Mea culpa. (Edit: Of course I somehow typed easier instead of harder in the original. Doh!)
I’ve argued for a historical Fall and an orthodox understanding of original sin, but of course we differ on a historical Adam & Eve. It’s getting to be dinner time where I live, and I should give other folks a chance to chime in. Hope you can make it back tomorrow for a few short questions and dialogue.
That’s what I said
@DarrelFalk I’m tied up this afternoon, but with your permission I’d like to start a new thread with your post as the OP. If you have time for a little dialogue tomorrow, I think your idea would benefit from wider exposure than being buried deep in this thread.
A less common view to consider is God’s overflowing love for himself. It is the reason for his law which directs us to worship him, and it is why he has made us to experience joy when we do.
What if original sin equals man centered religion. Which would be interesting for the way the thought of God’s love for himself so often rubs us the wrong way. As a triune God, this love for himself is also perfectly communal.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
