The Book Challenge (spirits, Commandments, Satan, Adam and Eve)

[MontanaGuy]

Jazzed, I looked at a few descriptions of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and I chose one that was brief. I understand what you're trying to say about entropy but the meaning is being twisted in the book. If you used the simplistic and twisted idea that the authors are presenting wouldn't you have to say that a more complex computer could never be built or a car could never replace a horse and buggy because they're more complex and according to their interpretation of the Second Law that should be impossible? The Second Law is not talking about biology. Here's another example of a practical application and what it really means.

The active nature of the second law is intuitively easy to grasp and empirically demonstrate. If a glass of hot liquid, for example, as shown in Figure 3, is placed in a colder room a potential exists and a flow of heat is spontaneously produced from the cup to the room until it is minimized (or the entropy is maximized) at which point the temperatures are the same and all flows stop.

[GCSTroop]

Oh I only got through part of Chapter 6 this morning. I worked a little late and was beat when I got home. I'll try to finish it up tomorrow morning.

[Jazzedforhim]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

Jazzed I want to give you a perfect reason why you can't use any theory with physics and apply it to biology. By what you are saying, is that the universe must get more chaotic as it uses up energy, correct? Why are we here? Think about the answer that everyone agrees on. We are here because our parents got us here. They "created" us. How did they create us? Father had a sperm. What did the sperm come from? The sperm came from a cell. Where did the cell come from that created the sperm? By using your Second Law of Thermodynamics you are saying that no one on Earth creates a sperm in which to fertilize an egg because the chaotic state of the universe would not allow it. The same can be said for a mother and her egg.

If you want to talk about what happens in the universe when something runs out of energy the best example would be a black hole. A black hole is a star that has burned up and collapsed inwards upon itself forcing a massive gravitational pull that not even light can escape from. That is catastrophic. But, the birth of a newborn baby is not and it happens every day.

True, the baby is growing and becoming more "organized" in it's thoughts and physical development...however that is only for a short period of time to become an adult human. After that, it's all downhill. But I see what you are saying...never really thought about a baby growing up before.

[Jazzedforhim]

Originally Posted by MontanaGuy

Jazzed, I looked at a few descriptions of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and I chose one that was brief. I understand what you're trying to say about entropy but the meaning is being twisted in the book. If you used the simplistic and twisted idea that the authors are presenting wouldn't you have to say that a more complex computer could never be built or a car could never replace a horse and buggy because they're more complex and according to their interpretation of the Second Law that should be impossible? The Second Law is not talking about biology. Here's another example of a practical application and what it really means.

I'm not sure that is what they are saying though...I think that the idea is that yes a car can replace a horse and buggy but that car is deteriorating with every stroke of the piston. It's not improving, but wearing down.

[Jazzedforhim]

Well, back to a weaker chapter, in chapter 7. The whole arguement about a Moral Law makes sense but I'm not sure that is proof of intelligent design. Of course that is what I believe, and it makes sense to me, but proof? They made a good comment on page 171 that there is no land where murder is virtue and gratitude vice. I agree, but again I don't see that as proof...but definately something to think about.

I have a question for the atheists. The authors spend a lot of time trying to make a case for Moral Law because apparently atheists only believe in the material things. But no atheist would deny emotions such as love and hate which are not material. So I can't imagine any atheist being so strict (tell me if I'm wrong) in their beliefs that they would say that if it is not material (including emotions such as love and hate) then it doesn't exist? Seems like atheists acknowledge that some things are not material. Am I right? I know I've heard the discussion here in this forum that atheists believe the brain makes these feelings for our benefit and such. Obviously if the brain is producing feelings it's not material in the sense that it cannot be weighed and such. So would an atheist also take the position that the brain also makes moral law? It does seem like there are some standards where most humans agree but not in all lands so it must be open to interpretaion somewhat. I thought the canibal example was kind of lame...how do they know the rituals are because they know it's wrong? Maybe it's just rituals for some other reason?

I don't know...I was really disappointed with this chapter. Any thoughts?

[Mag3.14]

In this chapter the authors discuss the link between morality and religion. Sorry for the long winded reflection of it, but this chapter is so bad that it deserves full evaluation:

The purported link between God and morality is the idea that we have an obligation to obey His commands because He is our omnipotent creator, to whom we owe our existence. The obvious question is: "Why do we have this obligation?" It implies the theoretical possibility of rape being right simply because God commands this (he did in fact command it from time to time, but let us not dwell on this). To this, people would respond: "But God would never command rape!" This would have to be true were God benevolent in any non-vacuous sense, because a benevolent being's choices are constrained by external standards of right and wrong. It thus paints a thoroughly off putting picture of ethics, far removed from our actual beliefs about it. It comes dangerously close to a purely prudential view of morality.
Of course, such a view is what lies behind many people's claims that atheists cannot be moral. The presumption is that if you do not believe you will be punished for transgressions, there is no reason to obey the dictates of morality. If these dictates are thought to come from a state or society rather than an omnipotent God then they can often be ignored with impunity: the police will miss many crimes, and, unless disapproving looks count, society does not even sanction some of the things it frowns upon (verbal cruelty, for example). In our world, people who are bad quite often get away with it, or even get ahead because of it, and those who believe the world must be just find this hard to accept. There is no guarantee of ultimate accountability. With traditional religion, all this is solved: God judges everything; if you're good, you go to heaven; if you're bad, you go to hell. The authors find this profoundly satisfying.

I cannot claim that I know where conscience comes from, and the suggestion that it has been implanted by God to keep us on the straight and narrow makes a satisfying just-so story. However, there is no reason to think that it is the only explanation possible. In particular, the claim that if humans developed through evolution, they would not have had consciences is false. For one thing, it would be wrong to assume that a conscience is an unmitigated curse from an evolutionary perspective: humans have done rather well by their ability to cooperate. For another, it is extremely likely that a full-fledged conscience, in all its aspects, is not a specific adaptation, but a byproduct of our advantageous cognitive capacities: get one, and you get the other.

The authors whole line of thought is based on a rather warped view of morality, however. What is good and what is good for you need not coincide, at least when 'what is good for you' is understood in purely prudential terms. Morality is not about self-interest; sometimes, it is about sacrificing your self-interest for the good of others. Atheists defend morality not as a set of arbitrarily (or self-interestedly) chosen social rules, but as a set of principles we cannot help but feel bound by when we consider how our actions can affect our fellows on this planet.

As for the claim that a conscience makes no sense unless there is a supreme being for us to be accountable to, that is extremely simplistic. If you want someone to feel accountable to, how about the people your actions actually affect? But anyway, the idea that morality presupposes accountability is either excessively legalistic, or based on the purely prudential view of ethics.

Truly moral behavior is reasoned behavior. Whatever the beneficent result of an act may be, the act itself cannot be considered truly moral if the motive or the intention is not fundamentally moral. If I do something "good" for the sole reason that God has promised to reward me personally a thousandfold for such acts, my act, in my view, a moral act, but a completely selfish one.

Point 2 on page 172 was ludicrous. I don't believe that a professor could possibly state such idiocratic comments.. surely if that happened then the whole standard of teaching at that institution must be called into question.

The maps of scotland example is again, some of the most unintelligent writing I've had the displeasure of reading. I only know what the 'real' scotland looks like from books written by other people! What the hell are they talking about???? Evaluating the morality of Mother Teresa and Hitler are human perceptions of right and wrong. We can all agree that Hitler was a a disgrace to the human race, but Mother Teresa's morality is certainly no perfect example (even though some may assume so), according to my feelings on morality.

I could go on for a long time about the contradictions and illigimate points in this chapter. It is so badly written and concluded that I just can't fathom how these people could be 'educated'. That seems rather pompous of me, but thats the way it is.

I would like to say that I have enjoyed reading all the responses, and would like to commend Blue, Alpha and Jazz for their open minded and valid responses.

[june 7th]

Granted, I am reacting to the author's attempt to establish that there exists an absolute moral law and that it is "god" that has put it there. ("Written in our hearts...") I have not finished the entire chapter yet, and perhaps I am missing something here, but I just have one question for Mr. Turek:

He states (p. 177) that "since we all know that evil exists, then so does Moral Law." I'm not quite sure he realizes how arrogant HE IS in his claim that relativists are famous for their "self-defeating arrogance." As well, he states: (p.183, p.186): "An absolute Moral Law can exist even if people fail to know the right thing to do in a particular situation...some people are suppressing the Moral Law in order to JUSTIFY what they want to do."

Here's my question for Frank: Suppose it had been his home that was broken into by those two thugs in Cheshire, Connecticut. Suppose he had the means by which to defend himself, his wife and two daughters. If Frank had access to a loaded rifle and was able to shoot the intruders, thereby preventing the torture, rape, and deaths of his family, (and possibly himself in the process,) would he do so?

--My bet is that he would also, (circumstances such as location and finances permitting) hire Alan Dershowitz, (one of the best defense lawyers in the country) to defend him at trial....

(Is it just me, folks?)

I realize my question for Frank is utterly sophmoric, but somehow, I just couldn't help but wonder.

......???

(June is hoping to feel a bit better as regards what these author's are saying as well as how they go about saying it by the time she finishes the chapter. However....)

[Miss Blue]

Chapter 5..Guys this just isn't my day I am falling behind here and had my answer all ready to submit on chapter 5 and was distracted and lost everything..So to summarize my summary, since I am in the process of fixing Sunday dinner for the family and must be ready by one o clock..This was a good chapter on the arguement against Darwinism, which imo was pretty much shot down with the discovery of DNA in that little ole amoeba in the slimy water some eons ago. Dna starts another arguement of where did it from. IMO this was the only good point in this chapter. I am beginning to think of this book as the grown up version of kids arguements which sometimes go like this..."Is so! Is not, Is so!, Is not" Both are stubborn and believe that they know what is is.Will do chapter six later on today if I get a chance to finish it, and I will try to come up with an intelligent response

[MontanaGuy]

Jazzedforhim wrote:

I have a question for the atheists. The authors spend a lot of time trying to make a case for Moral Law because apparently atheists only believe in the material things. But no atheist would deny emotions such as love and hate which are not material.

Actually emotions, as complex and important as they are, do in fact have a physical basis in the human brain. I don't think that diminishes the importance of love or any other human feeling, I just think that if the electrical and physical working of the brain were not functioning we wouldn't feel anything whatsoever.
I also felt that chapter 7 was weak. It's very clear to me that our morals and concepts of right and wrong are the result of the cumulative experience of all of the generations that preceded us and they are completely the result of human endeavor. It's also obvious that morals have changed over the centuries and what was once considered acceptable like slavery (even in the Bible) is now condemned and universally regarded as inhuman. Humans developed a basic moral standard because it was necessary to do so. As civilizations formed certain codes of conduct had to be enforced to prevent certain behaviors like stealing, murder and rape to be suppressed. None of this can shown to be the work of a God and there really isn't much that anyone can put forward as a proof that a God is presenting people with absolute and clear cut laws that define morality.

[Jazzedforhim]

Originally Posted by blue62

Chapter 5..Guys this just isn't my day I am falling behind here and had my answer all ready to submit on chapter 5 and was distracted and lost everything..So to summarize my summary, since I am in the process of fixing Sunday dinner for the family and must be ready by one o clock..This was a good chapter on the arguement against Darwinism, which imo was pretty much shot down with the discovery of DNA in that little ole amoeba in the slimy water some eons ago. Dna starts another arguement of where did it from. IMO this was the only good point in this chapter. I am beginning to think of this book as the grown up version of kids arguements which sometimes go like this..."Is so! Is not, Is so!, Is not" Both are stubborn and believe that they know what is is.Will do chapter six later on today if I get a chance to finish it, and I will try to come up with an intelligent response

Blue, your summary was fine...what do you mean "intelligent response"? Your response was intelligent. I agree the book is a bit back and forth, but I kind of think that's the point in some ways. To realize there is some faith on both sides when traditionally it's the religious ones who have all the faith in their beliefs. Anyway, glad you're here, and just go along as you can!

I agree with Ian, I'm really enjoying reading everyone's responses and so proud of us for being able to communicate our valid thoughts without attacking each other personally.