So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?

[seer]

So how do you explain that fact that the Church ignored the edicts for more than the first 300 years of its existence? and the records showing that God didn't pay a whole lot of attention to those edicts in either the Old Testament or the New?

What are you talking about?

[Mountain Man]

If morality is indeed part of the evolutionary model (and I increasingly think so), then it does indeed have an objective target: the same one evolution itself has. Evolution always moves a species to better adaptation to its environmental niche. That is an objective target, albeit not an absolute one (since it is always changing). Since everything else about us is associated with evolution, I don't see how one can avoid morality also being part of the evolutionary process. However, I have to admit I have not given that a great deal of thought.

Once again, the problem is moral obligation. If morality (however you wish to define that term) is nothing more than the end result of natural processes, then we have no more obligation to live morally than the chimpanzees. There might be pragmatic reasons for behaving morally, but that's not the same as saying that we have an obligation to be moral, because there are also pragmatic reasons for behaving immorally, so pragmatism can not be our guide.

Somebody might say that it is in our best self-interest to adopt a moral life-style. But clearly, that is not always true: we all know situations in which self-interest runs smack in the face of morality. Moreover, if one is sufficiently powerful, like a Ferdinand Marcos or a Papa Doc Duvalier [...] then one can pretty much ignore the dictates of conscience and safely live in self-indulgence. Historian Stewart C. Easton sums it up well when he writes, “There is no objective reason why man should be moral, unless morality ‘pays off’ in his social life or makes him ‘feel good.’ There is no objective reason why man should do anything save for the pleasure it affords him.”

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-...od-without-god

[Tassman]

If morality is indeed part of the evolutionary model (and I increasingly think so), then it does indeed have an objective target: the same one evolution itself has. Evolution always moves a species to better adaptation to its environmental niche. That is an objective target, albeit not an absolute one (since it is always changing). Since everything else about us is associated with evolution, I don't see how one can avoid morality also being part of the evolutionary process. However, I have to admit I have not given that a great deal of thought.

It's “absolute” inasmuch as ‘rules of behavior’ (i.e. morality) are necessary for our survival as a social species. And, 'survival' is instinctive among living creatures.

[Tassman]

And, being an entirely volunteer army, nobody forces them to join.

If Christianity is merely a “volunteer army” why does it seek to impose its own “voluntary beliefs” on everyone else via gov’t legislation and by stacking the courts with like-minded people?

[Tassman]

But what is your point, the Western World grew and thrived with male dominance. Just as primates thrive with male dominance. What is your problem?

Now “male dominance” is being questioned by women and others, demanding equal rights. And they have made significant advances. Do you have a problem with that?

But we had social cohesion with male dominance and the West thrived. So what is your beef?

See above.

No, just part of your constantly shifting "argument".

Same argument, which you are unable to address.

[tabibito]

If Christianity is merely a “volunteer army” why does it seek to impose its own “voluntary beliefs” on everyone else via gov’t legislation and by stacking the courts with like-minded people?

What? You think perhaps that Christians (or even just Church-men) should be deprived of a say over the kind of society they live in?

[seer]

Now “male dominance” is being questioned by women and others, demanding equal rights. And they have made significant advances. Do you have a problem with that?

I have no idea where you are getting this idea of equal rights. From our monkey ancestors? The fact is the West thrived and created the greatest civilization in world history with the greatest scientific advancement while being largely male dominated. Remember your argument was about social cohesion - and we had that. And it could be argued that the feminist movement undermined social cohesion, and the single most important institution in society, the two parent family with biological children.

[carpedm9587]

Once again, the problem is moral obligation. If morality (however you wish to define that term) is nothing more than the end result of natural processes, then we have no more obligation to live morally than the chimpanzees.

Ultimately, we don't. Morality is a personal/social construct. Our sense of "obligation" is an acquired one through those channels, and from the very nature of morality.

There might be pragmatic reasons for behaving morally, but that's not the same as saying that we have an obligation to be moral, because there are also pragmatic reasons for behaving immorally, so pragmatism can not be our guide.

Again - our sense of "obligation" comes from the very nature of what morality does: it is a way we categorize action. For any situation, a variety of possible actions exists and our brain is the ultimate categorizer - so we seek to sort action into ones we ought do and ones we ought not do. In a society, our actions impact on others - so society we have a social norm of framing that is moral terms as part of the social contract. I don't need more than that to understand my sense of "obligation."

Somebody might say that it is in our best self-interest to adopt a moral life-style. But clearly, that is not always true: we all know situations in which self-interest runs smack in the face of morality. Moreover, if one is sufficiently powerful, like a Ferdinand Marcos or a Papa Doc Duvalier [...] then one can pretty much ignore the dictates of conscience and safely live in self-indulgence. Historian Stewart C. Easton sums it up well when he writes, “There is no objective reason why man should be moral, unless morality ‘pays off’ in his social life or makes him ‘feel good.’ There is no objective reason why man should do anything save for the pleasure it affords him.”

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-...od-without-god

The problem with the box is the emphasized part. We live in society, and in a global context. When the only indulgence we are concerned with is our own, then our ability to do so will be directly linked to power. The more power an individual has, the more they will be able to preserve that lifestyle. They might even see it as "morally permissible." But then again, moral relativity/subjectivity predicts this. When we cannot align moral frameworks, we all resort to the same series: ignore, isolate/separate, contend. In the Marcos example, assuming he actually saw his actions as moral (he could also have been functioning against his own moral code), he reached "contend" and his power let him win that contention - until he couldn't. That didn't make his actions moral to the majority of humanity - it simply meant he won the contention - until he didn't.

[Mountain Man]

In the Marcos example, assuming he actually saw his actions as moral (he could also have been functioning against his own moral code), he reached "contend" and his power let him win that contention - until he couldn't. That didn't make his actions moral to the majority of humanity - it simply meant he won the contention - until he didn't.

So? If your worldview is true then why shouldn't everybody strive for the same? To accumulate as much money and power as possible so that we can live however we please? For every pragmatic reason you can name for living morally, I can name a pragmatic reason for living immorally.

Source: Can We Be Good Without God?

If there is no God, then any ground for regarding the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed. After all, what is so special about human beings? They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. Some action, say, incest, may not be biologically or socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo; but there is on the atheistic view nothing really wrong about committing incest. If, as Kurtz states, “The moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion,” then the non-conformist who chooses to flout the herd morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably.

The objective worthlessness of human beings on a naturalistic world view is underscored by two implications of that world view: materialism and determinism. Naturalists are typically materialists or physicalists, who regard man as a purely animal organism. But if man has no immaterial aspect to his being (call it soul or mind or what have you), then he is not qualitatively different from other animal species. For him to regard human morality as objective is to fall into the trap of specie-ism. On a materialistic anthropology there is no reason to think that human beings are objectively more valuable than rats. Secondly, if there is no mind distinct from the brain, then everything we think and do is determined by the input of our five senses and our genetic make-up. There is no personal agent who freely decides to do something. But without freedom, none of our choices is morally significant. They are like the jerks of a puppet’s limbs, controlled by the strings of sensory input and physical constitution. And what moral value does a puppet or its movements have?

Thus, if naturalism is true, it becomes impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil. Nor can one praise brotherhood, equality, or love as good. It does not matter what values you choose—for there is no right and wrong; good and evil do not exist. That means that an atrocity like the Holocaust was really morally indifferent. You may think that it was wrong, but your opinion has no more validity than that of the Nazi war criminal who thought it was good.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...d-without-god/

© Copyright Original Source

[Charles]

So? If your worldview is true then why shouldn't everybody strive for the same? To accumulate as much money and power as possible so that we can live however we please? For every pragmatic reason you can name for living morally, I can name a pragmatic reason for living immorally.

Source: Can We Be Good Without God?

If there is no God, then any ground for regarding the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed. After all, what is so special about human beings? They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. Some action, say, incest, may not be biologically or socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo; but there is on the atheistic view nothing really wrong about committing incest. If, as Kurtz states, “The moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion,” then the non-conformist who chooses to flout the herd morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably.

The objective worthlessness of human beings on a naturalistic world view is underscored by two implications of that world view: materialism and determinism. Naturalists are typically materialists or physicalists, who regard man as a purely animal organism. But if man has no immaterial aspect to his being (call it soul or mind or what have you), then he is not qualitatively different from other animal species. For him to regard human morality as objective is to fall into the trap of specie-ism. On a materialistic anthropology there is no reason to think that human beings are objectively more valuable than rats. Secondly, if there is no mind distinct from the brain, then everything we think and do is determined by the input of our five senses and our genetic make-up. There is no personal agent who freely decides to do something. But without freedom, none of our choices is morally significant. They are like the jerks of a puppet’s limbs, controlled by the strings of sensory input and physical constitution. And what moral value does a puppet or its movements have?

Thus, if naturalism is true, it becomes impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil. Nor can one praise brotherhood, equality, or love as good. It does not matter what values you choose—for there is no right and wrong; good and evil do not exist. That means that an atrocity like the Holocaust was really morally indifferent. You may think that it was wrong, but your opinion has no more validity than that of the Nazi war criminal who thought it was good.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...d-without-god/

© Copyright Original Source

You seem to always use William Lane Craig in discussions on these topics. Here is a quote by him that perhaps would interest you:

This is why in my debates with atheists and agnostics I always try to treat them with charity and civility and not engage in name-calling or insults or even just interruptions. I think that is uncivil discourse. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/medi...elicals/#_ftn1

[Mountain Man]

You seem to always use William Lane Craig in discussions on these topics. Here is a quote by him that perhaps would interest you:

He's welcome to his opinion on that point.

Now, do you have anything to say about the topic? Or are you just here to nanny as usual?

[Charles]

He's welcome to his opinion on that point.

Now, do you have anything to say about the topic? Or are you just here to nanny as usual?

With regard to the topic I will say that you'r welcome to your opinion on that point.

Since it is certainly not the first time you point to it I can point to what I have already written about it:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post470485

[Mountain Man]

With regard to the topic I will say that you'r welcome to your opinion on that point.

Since it is certainly not the first time you point to it I can point to what I have already written about it:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post470485

And people can continue reading that thread to see my devastating rebuttal. So if you have nothing else to add, I'll let my previous replies on the topic stand.

[Charles]

And people can continue reading that thread to see my devastating rebuttal. So if you have nothing else to add, I'll let my previous replies on the topic stand.

I encourage people to read it too.

The only thing I have to add is that I find the discussions with Carpe on these topics rather interesting and strange at the same time. I completely disagree with him with regard to his idea that subjectivity is a solution. And then reading the ideas he usually promotes on this forum with regard to how we should treat other people I find him to be much closer to the idea that we should act according to the golden rule than some of the people promoting God given objective standards. Ironic in many ways.

[carpedm9587]

So? If your worldview is true then why shouldn't everybody strive for the same?

My worldview related to morality is based on what actually happens and how we arrive at moral conclusions. Everyone strives (generally) to achieve their own moral goals. The goals may or may not be the same. Mostly, they are.

To accumulate as much money and power as possible so that we can live however we please?

Some do exactly that (see the gap between rich and poor) and some people defend it as "perfectly moral." Others see such a pursuit as immoral. It is an area where moral alignment is not very high.

For every pragmatic reason you can name for living morally, I can name a pragmatic reason for living immorally.

Most of us do not conform 100% to our own moral frameworks. Usually, in my experience, it is the distinction between long-term moral goals and short-term "temptations."

Source: Can We Be Good Without God?

If there is no God, then any ground for regarding the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed. After all, what is so special about human beings? They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. Some action, say, incest, may not be biologically or socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo; but there is on the atheistic view nothing really wrong about committing incest. If, as Kurtz states, “The moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion,” then the non-conformist who chooses to flout the herd morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably.

The objective worthlessness of human beings on a naturalistic world view is underscored by two implications of that world view: materialism and determinism. Naturalists are typically materialists or physicalists, who regard man as a purely animal organism. But if man has no immaterial aspect to his being (call it soul or mind or what have you), then he is not qualitatively different from other animal species. For him to regard human morality as objective is to fall into the trap of specie-ism. On a materialistic anthropology there is no reason to think that human beings are objectively more valuable than rats. Secondly, if there is no mind distinct from the brain, then everything we think and do is determined by the input of our five senses and our genetic make-up. There is no personal agent who freely decides to do something. But without freedom, none of our choices is morally significant. They are like the jerks of a puppet’s limbs, controlled by the strings of sensory input and physical constitution. And what moral value does a puppet or its movements have?

Thus, if naturalism is true, it becomes impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil. Nor can one praise brotherhood, equality, or love as good. It does not matter what values you choose—for there is no right and wrong; good and evil do not exist. That means that an atrocity like the Holocaust was really morally indifferent. You may think that it was wrong, but your opinion has no more validity than that of the Nazi war criminal who thought it was good.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...d-without-god/

© Copyright Original Source

The author leaps from obviously true things (we are simply another form of animal), to unwarranted conclusions. Our nature as sentient beings changes a great deal. It is that sentience that leads us to moralize, and to attempt to influence one another's moral framework. The sentient mind automatically sorts and categorizes. Morality is nothing more than our categorization of human action and choices. If it is true that moral reasoning is simply another outgrowth of evolution, then in general we tend to see as moral that which most likely leads to species growth and survival, and as immoral that which does not. That would partially account for variations in moral conclusions by culture, society, nation, and geography (not to mention time). However, I've not thought through that aspect thoroughly. I'm just starting to explore it, frankly.

The rest of this quote is essentially more objection that "green is not blue." It says nothing except to object that moral subjectivism/relativism isn't absolute/objective. We already know that. It's not an argument, as I have noted multiple times.