Morality.

[somethingillremember]

Originally Posted by devonin

That really only covers the most basic moral imperatives like "Don't kill" maybe "Don't steal" but our culture has developed a much more robust code of behavior and social mores that seem much more fabricated than something that is some reflection of objective values from God.

In the evolutionary animal world, spending resources that could be used for the betterment of the strong and the young/developing to keep the sick and elderly alive is a counterproductive action, and yet as a culture we pride ourselves as morally superior for our efforts to care for the elderly, and that's just one example.

I was just giving the most common examples, like killing and stealing. Much of the moral code may be derived from "Me and this guy can agree not to do this to each other, and we both come out the better."

The part where my argument fails a bit is in all the extensive laws made by governments. These, I think, are less evolutionary and more governments thinking through things.

But at the base of it all seems to be our sense of Morality, and Guilt. If we didn't feel like it was wrong to kill or that anything could be gained from not killing, chances are we wouldn't care so much for obeying other laws. Again, with the sick and elderly thing, our brains might say something like "This person is going to die. Dying is not good. This person may still be of some help to society." In my view, it's God that gave us, possibly through evolution, our sense of morality.

Originally Posted by Seefu Sefirosu

Wait, wait, wait just a second. Explain how evolution has any effect on morals. Your explanation doesn't work for me, k. It simply doesn't fit: The fact that we're having this debate in a way proves you incorrect, or everyone would obviously agree that killing, in any sense, is wrong. Which doesn't work out, cause if somebody attacks me, intent to kill or not, my immediate intent is to immediately terminate the threat. And by terminate, I think my meaning is obvious.

I don't mean that everyone thinks that killing is wrong. In your point of view, it is just socially accepted that you don't kill someone (or, at least, that's what I'm understanding. If you're viewpoint is different, please correct me).

But think about if you did. Would you feel too good after killing someone? Personally, even if the person was attacking me, I would probably feel sick for months.

So I guess I meant more that "don't kill" is written into our brains somewhere, not that it is wrong in everyone's point of view.

Originally Posted by Seefu Sefirosu

Also, evolution is science, God is a construct. One cannot work within the other, so your third argument (God controlling evolution) is scientifically (and constructurally) impossible.

Intelligent design is the name of the theory that states that some "intelligent designer" (not specifically a God) controls things. I don't see the problem with God and science working together. I might be wrong on this, but I think the view that the God and science cannot go hand in hand comes from the Middle Age church, and them not accepting the works of people like Gallileo. I'm not sure why, but I don't like having a large opinion on evolution. My view is that whatever God did, it'll work. I should probably learn how to back up my view on evolution, but... um... I haven't.

That being said, here's the Wikipedia article for Intelligent Design:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
And it's not just an uncommon, third party thing. I mean, it certainly is less common than the other two views, but it has a featured article on Wikipedia.