----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 9:58 PM Subject: Re: Re: christian dreams of murder...
> Dan Minette wrote: > > > > > > I was evaluating this in terms of what you have said earlier is that > > things > > like human rights, morality, etc. comes from evolution. In other words, I > > was taking what you wrote in the context of your earlier writings. > > I never said that they come from evolution, I said that they evolved. The > two ideas are not even directly related, so it appears as if you were just > looking to take a potshot at my personal philosophy. I'm really not that interested in simply taking potshots. The arguements you gave sounded very close to the ideas of Dennett. He argued that ideas, such as morality, evolved in a manner similar to biological evolution. Thus, the arguement that the right morality is, by definition, the byproduct of natural selection. If you want to use a weaker definition of evolve, without the connotations of a link to evolution, then we could use it in the same sense that a physical system evolves. It changes from one state to another. So, we could say that the implementation of morality is different from what it was 100 years ago, or 1000, but that's about it. For it to be better or worse, we need a standard to compare it to. Personally, I tend to favor love one's neighbor as oneself...love each other as I have loved you as the standard. Its true that we have changed our understanding of that basic principal, and, in at least part of the world, we seem better at living it now than 1000 years ago. But, that doesn't change the basic principals. Indeed, I find reflections of these same basic principals in other traditions. > > Jefferson was a very complex man. > > Yes he was. And I have absolutely no doubt that he would have no problem > in interpreting his reference to a creator as I wish to. He said: > "I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or > admit the right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others." -- > Letter to Edward Dawse, 1803 But, that doesn't mean he was a post modernist, or a believer in scientism. Evolution is a scientific theory. It is a model that is sucessfully fit against observations. The existance of human rights is not required to explain observable phenomenon. Thus, it is not part of science. For Jefferson, as well as for others in the enlightenment, human rights are a transcendental principal. I don't doubt that he was very open minded concerning one's views about the nature of the transcendental. But an arguement that eliminates it is inconsistant with his writing in the Declearation of Independance. > > He clearly believed in God, and the reference to self evident > ^^^^ > a creator is, I assume > > > He clearly believed that people have the right to believe what they want > to, and to me the term creator is clearly ambiguous. He could have made > it unambiguous by saying God instead of creator, he did not. It wouldn't have had the same cadence. I'd be more than willing to agree that Jefferson would not be too disturbed by people who just accept his principals as self evident Truths without worrying about how they came to be. But, your argument reduces them from Truth to social norms. That he would have trouble with. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
