Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Deliberate ignorance

2008-08-28T22:03:10Z

ScottForschler: In light of criticism of my edits, I have bowed to the demand that all opinionated, unsourced claims should be removed from this page.

User talk:JamesRa

2008-08-28T20:23:05Z

ScottForschler:

Just because something isn't [[Politically correct]] doesn't mean its not [[truth|true]]. Unless you're a [[liberal|lieberal]]. James

Please don't edit inconsistently. If you delete passages in an article because they "lack proof," delete *all* passage in that article which lack documentation.--[[User:ScottForschler|ScottForschler]] 16:23, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Deliberate ignorance

2008-08-28T20:21:27Z

ScottForschler:

'''Deliberate ignorance''' is the practice of refusing to consider or discuss logic or evidence disproving ideologically motivated positions. Examples include:

* [[Howard Dean]], a physician, former Governor, and longtime politician, refusing to recognize that [[taxpayer-funded abortion]] increases the number of [[abortion]]s<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/210vssua.asp?</ref>
* refusing to acknowledge the inferior credentials of the critics of [[Richard Sternberg]], whom they ostracize for having published an [[intelligent design]] article
* [[Democrats]] refusing to acknowledge [[Barack Obama]]'s appeal to unpatriotic donors and supporters
* [[materialists]] refuse to address the impossibility of material explanation for [[migration]] and [[homing]]
* [[creationists]] refusing to acknowledge the wealth of information supporting [[evolution]], including fossil, DNA, radiodating, and cladistic data
* [[evolutionists]] refuse to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path for the [[whale]]<ref>This is disputed by evolutionists at a blog worth reviewing further for plausibility [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/two_tales_of_whale_evolution.php here].</ref>
* [[liberals]] refuse to address how [[socialism]] destroys productivity
* [[abortionists]] refuse to address the undisclosed harm to the mothers who have [[abortions]]
* [[pro-life]] individuals refusing to acknowledge that most fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted by the woman's body
* Advocates of the [[global warming theory]] refuse to consider any scientific evidence which shows that natural causes have always had a greater effect on terrestrial air temperature than human activity.
* [[Christians]] refusing to acknowledge that the Bible often supported slavery.
(add more)

Common expressions of [[deliberate ignorance]] include:

*"I find that hard to believe!" (Howard Dean, June 11, 2008, in response to a fact ignored by [[liberals]]<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/210vssua.asp?</ref>)
* "I'm not aware of that!" (without admitting a failure to look)
* "I've never seen that in the [[New York Times]]!"
* "I believe this by faith."
* "That's not what it said in my ([[public school]]) textbook!"
* "Let's talk about something else!"
* "I'm not interested in that!"
* "They hate us for our freedom!"
* "Complete suspension of disbelief!"

== Crime of Deliberate Ignorance ==

'''Deliberate ignorance''' can be a crime. For example, jurors were instructed "to consider whether ... former Enron Corp. executives deliberately ignored accounting fraud as the energy trader fell into bankruptcy."<ref>http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/05/11/enron_jury_to_consider_deliberate_ignorance/</ref>

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:philosophy]]

Deliberate ignorance

2008-08-28T20:20:55Z

ScottForschler: Undo revision 506352 by JamesRa (Talk) If proof is needed, the entire article should be deleted at this point since no documentation is given.

'''Deliberate ignorance''' is the practice of refusing to consider or discuss logic or evidence disproving ideologically motivated positions. Examples include:

* [[Howard Dean]], a physician, former Governor, and longtime politician, refusing to recognize that [[taxpayer-funded abortion]] increases the number of [[abortion]]s<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/210vssua.asp?</ref>
* refusing to acknowledge the inferior credentials of the critics of [[Richard Sternberg]], whom they ostracize for having published an [[intelligent design]] article
* [[Democrats]] refusing to acknowledge [[Barack Obama]]'s appeal to unpatriotic donors and supporters
* [[materialists]] refuse to address the impossibility of material explanation for [[migration]] and [[homing]]
* [[creationists]] refusing to acknowledge the wealth of information supporting [[evolution]], including fossil, DNA, radiodating, and cladistic data
* [[evolutionists]] refuse to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path for the [[whale]]<ref>This is disputed by evolutionists at a blog worth reviewing further for plausibility [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/two_tales_of_whale_evolution.php here].</ref>
* [[liberals]] refuse to address how [[socialism]] destroys productivity
* [[abortionists]] refuse to address the undisclosed harm to the mothers who have [[abortions]]
* [[pro-life]] individuals refusing to acknowledge that most fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted by the woman's body
* Advocates of the [[global warming theory]] refuse to consider any scientific evidence which shows that natural causes have always had a greater effect on terrestrial air temperature than human activity.
(add more)
* [[Christians]] refusing to acknowledge that the Bible often supported slavery.

Common expressions of [[deliberate ignorance]] include:

*"I find that hard to believe!" (Howard Dean, June 11, 2008, in response to a fact ignored by [[liberals]]<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/210vssua.asp?</ref>)
* "I'm not aware of that!" (without admitting a failure to look)
* "I've never seen that in the [[New York Times]]!"
* "I believe this by faith."
* "That's not what it said in my ([[public school]]) textbook!"
* "Let's talk about something else!"
* "I'm not interested in that!"
* "They hate us for our freedom!"
* "Complete suspension of disbelief!"

== Crime of Deliberate Ignorance ==

'''Deliberate ignorance''' can be a crime. For example, jurors were instructed "to consider whether ... former Enron Corp. executives deliberately ignored accounting fraud as the energy trader fell into bankruptcy."<ref>http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/05/11/enron_jury_to_consider_deliberate_ignorance/</ref>

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:philosophy]]

Deliberate ignorance

2008-08-28T20:15:18Z

ScottForschler:

'''Deliberate ignorance''' is the practice of refusing to consider or discuss logic or evidence disproving ideologically motivated positions. Examples include:

* [[Howard Dean]], a physician, former Governor, and longtime politician, refusing to recognize that [[taxpayer-funded abortion]] increases the number of [[abortion]]s<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/210vssua.asp?</ref>
* refusing to acknowledge the inferior credentials of the critics of [[Richard Sternberg]], whom they ostracize for having published an [[intelligent design]] article
* [[Democrats]] refusing to acknowledge [[Barack Obama]]'s appeal to unpatriotic donors and supporters
* [[materialists]] refuse to address the impossibility of material explanation for [[migration]] and [[homing]]
* [[creationists]] refusing to acknowledge the wealth of information supporting [[evolution]], including fossil, DNA, radiodating, and cladistic data
* [[evolutionists]] refuse to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path for the [[whale]]<ref>This is disputed by evolutionists at a blog worth reviewing further for plausibility [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/two_tales_of_whale_evolution.php here].</ref>
* [[liberals]] refuse to address how [[socialism]] destroys productivity
* [[abortionists]] refuse to address the undisclosed harm to the mothers who have [[abortions]]
* [[pro-life]] individuals refusing to acknowledge that most fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted by the woman's body
* Advocates of the [[global warming theory]] refuse to consider any scientific evidence which shows that natural causes have always had a greater effect on terrestrial air temperature than human activity.
(add more)
* [[Christians]] refusing to acknowledge that the Bible often supported slavery.

Common expressions of [[deliberate ignorance]] include:

*"I find that hard to believe!" (Howard Dean, June 11, 2008, in response to a fact ignored by [[liberals]]<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/210vssua.asp?</ref>)
* "I'm not aware of that!" (without admitting a failure to look)
* "I've never seen that in the [[New York Times]]!"
* "I believe this by faith."
* "That's not what it said in my ([[public school]]) textbook!"
* "Let's talk about something else!"
* "I'm not interested in that!"
* "They hate us for our freedom!"
* "Complete suspension of disbelief!"

== Crime of Deliberate Ignorance ==

'''Deliberate ignorance''' can be a crime. For example, jurors were instructed "to consider whether ... former Enron Corp. executives deliberately ignored accounting fraud as the energy trader fell into bankruptcy."<ref>http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/05/11/enron_jury_to_consider_deliberate_ignorance/</ref>

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:philosophy]]

Russell's teapot

2008-08-28T20:11:25Z

ScottForschler:

'''Russel's Teapot''' is an [[argument]] first formulated by the [[philosopher]] [[Bertrand Russell]] as a [[reductio ad absurdum]] of the notion that in an argument about the possible existence of an [[unseen]] entity, the burden of proof is upon the skeptic.
{{cquote|If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.<ref>[http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html Is There A God?]</ref>}}

It might be thought that a fallacy in the argument is that there is in fact nothing absurd about believing the teapot to be there, if those "ancient books" were written by an ancient astronaut or other being who placed the teapot there.
The argument ''presumes'' that such is not the case, so presumes what it sets out to prove, and is thus a [[circular argument]]. That is, the argument is based on the ''presumption'' that there is no valid reason, beyond widespread belief, to believe that the teapot exists. But if the validity of those ancient books could be established, there is indeed reason to believe that the teapot exists, and thus the presumption in the argument is false.

This objection does not point out a fallacy in the argument, however, and tacitly assumes what Russell's argument tries to show: namely, that mere absence of a proof against the teapot is insufficient to justify belief in it, and what we need instead is positive evidence that the "ancient books" are in fact written by reliable authors. The argument neither assumes nor concludes that the teapot (or other unseen entity) does not exist, rather it concludes that positive evidence for such claims is required.

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

Russell's teapot

2008-08-28T20:11:10Z

ScottForschler: correction

'''Russel's Teapot''' is an [[argument]] first formulated by the [[philosopher]] [[Bertrand Russell]] as a [[reductio ad absurdum]] of the notion that in an argument about the possible existence of an [[unseen]] entity, the burden of proof is upon the skeptic.
{{cquote|If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.<ref>[http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html Is There A God?]</ref>}}

It might be thought that a fallacy in the argument is that there is in fact nothing absurd about believing the teapot to be there, if those "ancient books" were written by an ancient astronaut or other being who placed the teapot there.
The argument ''presumes'' that such is not the case, so presumes what it sets out to prove, and is thus a [[circular argument]]. That is, the argument is based on the ''presumption'' that there is no valid reason, beyond widespread belief, to believe that the teapot exists. But if the validity of those ancient books could be established, there is indeed reason to believe that the teapot exists, and thus the presumption in the argument is false.
This objection does not point out a fallacy in the argument, however, and tacitly assumes what Russell's argument tries to show: namely, that mere absence of a proof against the teapot is insufficient to justify belief in it, and what we need instead is positive evidence that the "ancient books" are in fact written by reliable authors. The argument neither assumes nor concludes that the teapot (or other unseen entity) does not exist, rather it concludes that positive evidence for such claims is required.

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

Talk:Jean-Paul Sartre

2008-08-28T20:05:59Z

ScottForschler: New page: Liberal??? Jean-Paul Sartre a '''liberal'''?? What the hell could this possibly mean? Have you read his books? Do you know what liberal means? Have you seen his scathing attacks on "b...

Liberal???

Jean-Paul Sartre a '''liberal'''??

What the hell could this possibly mean? Have you read his books? Do you know what liberal means? Have you seen his scathing attacks on "bourgeois" morality? His sympathy with Marxism?

Please, know thine enemy, at least describe him correctly!--[[User:ScottForschler|ScottForschler]] 16:05, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Ethics

2008-08-28T19:31:37Z

ScottForschler: Removed a vague and essentially meaningless phrase

'''Ethics''' are a system of [[values]] that people ascribe to certain actions or beliefs. People derive codes of ethics from several sources, among them being [[religion]], personal values, personal gain, and what things harm other people.

In [[legal]] terminology, ethics means relating to [[moral]] action and conduct; professionally right; conforming to professional standards.
[[Category:Legal Terms]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Ethics]]

Abortionist

2008-08-28T19:30:42Z

ScottForschler:

An '''abortionist''' is one who performs [[abortion|abortions]]. Controversy has surrounded the dual role physicians who profit from performing abortions (or referring cases), as they are professionally bound to present all options from a neutral persepective, though in reality it is argued that this rarely occurs and undue pressure is placed on women to have an abortion.{{fact}}

==See Also==
*[[Abortion]]
*[[George Tiller]]

[[category:medicine]]
[[Category:abortion]]

Charles Darwin

2008-08-28T17:48:55Z

ScottForschler: /* Criticism of the Work of Charles Darwin by Cliff Lillo */

[[Image:darwin.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Charles Darwin]]
'''Charles Darwin''' (12 February 1809 - 19 April 1883) was a famous naturalist born in England. Charles Darwin is best known for the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] by [[Natural selection|natural selection]]. The concept is that organisms are modified over vast amounts of time by naturally occurring processes, originating from common ancestors that lived tens of millions of years ago. Outside the area of evolutionary theory in particular, Charles Darwin was regarded as an expert on barnacles, as well as being credited with discovering how coral [[atoll]]s were formed.

==General Biography of Charles Darwin==
Charles Darwin was born in [[Shrewsbury]], [[England]] in 1809 to his parents Dr. Robert Darwin and Susannah Wedgewood. Darwin's mother was a religious woman but his father was, for the most part, a weak deist. Despite his lack of theistic religious belief, the Darwin's father allowed Charles to be baptized into the Anglican Church and encouraged him to become a clergyman. Darwin's mother died in 1817. In 1825 Charles Darwin went on to study medicine at the University of Edinburgh. There, he became horrified with the brutality of surgery before anesthesia was invented and quit his medical studies.

In 1831 Charles Darwin graduated from Christ's College at Cambridge with a BA degree in the classics and theology. On December 27 of the same year Charles Darwin departed on the ''HMS Beagle'' for a five year voyage of exploration. The ''Beagle'' returned to English shores on October 2 1836. In 1837, Charles Darwin drew his now famous depiction of [[common ancestry]] in the form of a branching tree.<ref>Charles Darwin, Transmutation Notebook B 1837:36</ref> The following year he discovered the concept of ''[[natural selection]].'' Darwin insists that naturally occurring phenomena and factors working together in blind tandem have produced nature and eventually mankind.

However, Charles Darwin originally based the idea of human evolution on a racist assumption<ref>Milton, Richard ''Shattering the Myths of Darwinism'' 1997:186,287 says "Darwin [was] openly racist"</ref>, [after God was rejected as Creator], made in the late 1830s<ref>Barlow, Nora (editor) ''The Autobiography of Charles Darwin'' 1958:130</ref>, that Fuegians (natives of Tierra del Fuego) resembled primates that he had observed in the London zoo.<ref>Larson, Edward J. ''Evolution: The Remarkable History Of A Scientific Theory'' 2004:66,67</ref> In 1842 he wrote out a ''sketch'' of his theory but did not publish it. Again, in 1844 Charles Darwin produced what is known today as an ''essay'' of the same theory more developed but he still chose not to publish.

Finally, in 1859, Charles Darwin published his famous theory about how the species may have been produced without any aid from a Divine Creator. He titled his book ''On [[The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection]], or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life''. In 1871, well after his theory enjoyed widespread success, Darwin published his ideas on human evolution in a two-volume book titled ''[[The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex]].''

==Religious Views of Charles Darwin==


[[Image:CharlesDarwin.jpg|thumb|150px|left|Charles Darwin in 1880 at the age of 71.]]
Charles Darwin likely abandoned Christianity as a student when he disappointed his father by refusing to become a minister. In his autobiography Charles Darwin wrote about the diminishment of his religious faith and Darwin stated that he was an [[agnostic]].<ref>http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm</ref> However, Darwin was being [[deceit|deceitful]] as he stated in his private notebooks that he was a [[materialism|materialist]], which is a type of [[atheism|atheist]].<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877</ref>
<ref>Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276</ref><ref>''American Scientist'' May 1977:323</ref> Darwin wrote the following: "The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."<ref>http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm</ref> In the 1996 ''British Journal for the Philosophy of Science'' Kim Sterelny wrote in a book review the following: "I have no doubt that Darwin was a [[Materialism|materialist]] and a mechanist..."<ref>http://www.jstor.org/view/00070882/ap020188/02a00130/1?frame=noframe&userID=80cdbf39@buffalo.edu/01cce4405c00501c2c38a&dpi=3&config=jstor British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Volume 47, 1996, page 641</ref> Furthermore, Charles Darwin’s casual mentioning of a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species appears to have been a merely a ploy to downplay the implications of his [[materialism|materialistic]] theory.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] states the following regarding why it is maintained that Charles Darwin was privately a materialist:
{{cquote|[[Ernst Mayr]]’s recent book on Darwin, One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Evolutionary Thought, Harvard, 1991, also acknowledges that Darwin’s references to purpose were to appease both the public and his wife. His early, private notebooks show his materialism well established. For instance, in one of them he addresses himself as, ‘O, you materialist!’ and says, ‘Why is thought, being a secretion of [[brain]], more wonderful than [[gravity]] as a property of matter?’ He clearly already believed that the idea of a separate realm of the spirit was nonsense, as is further shown when he warns himself not to reveal his beliefs, as follows:

‘to avoid saying how far I believe in materialism, say only that emotions, instincts, degrees of talent which are hereditary are so because brain of child resembles parent stock.’<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877</ref>}}

Scholars refer to the private notebook in which Charles Darwin stated he was a materialist as the "M" notebook of 1838.<ref>Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276</ref> [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote that "It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of [[Robert Malthus|Malthus]]. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a 'materialist' (more or less = atheist)". <ref>''American Scientist'' May 1977:323</ref>

According to Charles Darwin the "manifestly false history of the world" <ref>ibid. Barlow 1958:85.</ref> as recorded in the Old Testament and New Testament miracles led him to reject Biblical veracity <ref>ibid. Barlow 1958:85-87.</ref>. Eminent Darwin biographer, Professor Janet Browne, sums up Darwin's views concerning religion: Darwin "mapped out a comparative evolution of the religious sense, proposing that religious belief was ultimately nothing more than a primitive urge to bestow a cause on otherwise inexplicable natural events...In short, he made no secret of his view that he did not believe religion to have any rational foundation at all" <ref>Browne, Janet ''Charles Darwin The Power of Place'' 2002:341</ref>. When he died in 1882 at the age of seventy-three, Darwin was buried at Westminster Abbey next to Sir [[Isaac Newton]].

However, the [[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] states the following regarding Charles Darwin:
{{cquote|In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death:

In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244] <ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref>}}

There exists in hostile Darwin literature a story about a Christian called Lady Hope who visited and spoke with a dying Charles Darwin. This appears to be merely a legend, and there is no evidence that Lady Hope ever converted or even visited Darwin on his deathbed. <ref>http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/deathbed.htm</ref>

== Darwin's Sickness and Controversy Regarding His Sickness ==

For more on this topic see: [[Darwin's Sickness]]

For most of his adult life Charles Darwin suffered from very poor health.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/darwins_illness.asp</ref> The 1992 ''New Encyclopaedia Britannica '' stated that Darwin's illness was [[psychogenic]] in origin (A psychogenic illness is one that originates in the mind or in mental condition). <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/darwins_illness.asp</ref> A 1997 article in the [[Journal of the American Medical Association]] entitled "Charles Darwin and Panic Disorder" states that the "variable intensity of symptoms and chronic, prolonged course without physical deterioration also indicate that his illness was [[Psychiatry|psychiatric]]." <ref>''Charles Darwin and Panic Disorder''" by Thomas J. Barloon, MD and Russel Noyes, Jr., January 8, 1997 [[Journal of the American Medical Association]]</ref> In regards to illness associated with evolutionary ideas a journal article in the [[American Journal of Medicine]] states that Darwin suffered from "[[psychoneurosis]] provoked and exaggerated by his [[theory of evolution|evolutionary]] ideas".<ref>"The Illness of Charles Darwin", William B. Bean, September 1978, American Journal of Medicine</ref> The American Journal of Medicine article also stated that his Darwin's wife, Emma, greatly disapproved of his evolutionist ideas and "This, facsimile of public reaction, must have kept lively his anxiety and torment". <ref>"The Illness of Charles Darwin", William B. Bean, September 1978, American Journal of Medicine</ref> According to the abstract for a 1997 journal article in the [[Notes and Records of the Royal Society]] the psychogenic hypothesis for the origin of Darwin's illness "holds the field" but the article questions the validity of this diagnoses and mentions the work of [[Ralph Colp Jr.]] MD, a physician and psychiatrist (For details see: [[Darwin's Sickness]]). <ref>http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/c5la8dhfh8v7tbx8/</ref><ref>http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist06.htm</ref>

Given Darwin's likely psychogenic or [[psychobiological]] illness various [[Creationism|creationists]] have stated that Darwin's illness was the result of guilt and/or fear. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/darwins_illness.asp</ref><ref>http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist06.htm</ref>
==Criticism of the Work of Charles Darwin by Cliff Lillo==

Cliff Lillo wrote:
{{quotebox|Darwin was wrong when he says that science has not yet proved [[Lamarck]] in error about [[spontaneous generation]], wrong when he says that changes in habit can be [[inherited]], and wrong when he says that use or disuse of an organ can be passed along from parent to child, etc. [http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/OriginofSpecies.html]}}

Contemporary evolutionary biology strongly agrees that Lamarckian inheritance and spontaneous generation never or almost never occur. The early 20th century synthesis between Mendelian genetics and natural selection provides a non-Lamarckian basis for inheritance of biological characteristics.

== Reaction of Charles Darwin to Criticism of His Work ==
Charles Darwin closely followed the general public's reaction to his evolutionary ideas. In 2002, [[Richard Milner]] wrote an article entitled ''Putting Darwin in his Place'' and stated that Darwin ''"clipped, catalogued and indexed hundreds of offprints, about 350 reviews and 1,600 articles, as well as satires, parodies and Punch caricatures, with which he filled hefty scrapbooks..."''<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B62D6-7E63-1D7E-90FB809EC5880000#</ref> Criticisms of his work troubled Darwin. Milner wrote that after [[Charles Lyell]] published a weak endorsement of Darwin's work in Lyell's Antiquity of Man, "''Darwin's disappointment brought on 10 days of vomiting, faintness and stomach distress''". <ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B62D6-7E63-1D7E-90FB809EC5880000#</ref> In addition, Milner states when anatomist St. [[George Mivart]] made a negative review of Darwin's work The Descent of Man, it "triggered two months of "giddiness" and inability to work..." ''<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B62D6-7E63-1D7E-90FB809EC5880000#</ref>
== Family Life ==
Author Peter Brent wrote of Darwin's relationship with his wife Emma and stated that "Their ties to each other were linked to childhood and the very beginnings of memory. They had a common history, a joint tradition. It is hard to think their relationship a passionate one, but it was happy, and the happiness had deep roots."<ref>Peter Brent, "Darwin: A Man of Enlarged Curiosity", page 316</ref> Charles Darwin displayed a dependency on his wife that was childlike. Darwin wrote a letter to his wife in 1848 that said, "My dearest old Mammy ... Without you, when sick I feel most desolate .. Oh Mammy I do long to be with you and under your protection for then I feel safe."<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar9.html</ref> Peter Brent states that it is hard to imagine that the letter was from thirty-nine year old man writing to his wife rather than a young child writing to its mother.<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar9.html</ref> In their article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, entitled Charles Darwin and Panic stated that Darwin felt "nervousness when Emma leaves me".<ref>''Charles Darwin and Panic Disorder''" by Thomas J. Barloon, MD and Russel Noyes, Jr., January 8, 1997 Journal of the American Medical Association</ref> Darwin had ten children with his wife Emma. <ref>http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Browne_EmmaDiaries.html</ref>

==Darwin's Racism==
Charles Darwin wrote in his work ''[[The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex]]'' the following:
{{cquote|At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.<ref name="DoM6">[http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext00/dscmn10.txt The Descent of Man], chapter VI</ref>}}

==Darwin's Belief in Male Superiority==
In Darwin's work ''[[The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex]]'' he wrote the following:
{{cquote|... a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on “Hereditary Genius” that ... the average of mental power in man must be above that of women.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/08/24/feedback-female-inferiority</ref>}}

==Charles Darwin and the Cult of Personality==
There is a cult of personality and type of religiousity currently surrounding Charles Darwin. [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote the following in 1978: ""... all theories [of natural selection] cite God in their support, and ... Darwin comes close to this status among evolutionary biologists ...".<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar1.html</ref> In 2002, Michael White similarly wrote: "Of course today, for biologists, Darwin is second only to God, and for many he may rank still higher."<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar1.html</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Charles Galton Darwin]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/author/charles-darwin/ What Liberals Say - Charles Darwin], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Darwin, Charles}}

Atheism and evolution

2008-08-28T17:38:08Z

ScottForschler: Eliminated unsourced, vague, fabricated claims.

In regards to '''atheism and evolution''', a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary]] position which employs [[methodological naturalism]] since [[World War II]] have been [[Atheism|atheists]].<ref>Dr. [[Don Batten]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32
December 1997.</ref><ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]</ref> [[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists assert that the [[theory of evolution]] is an inadequate explanation for the variety of life forms on earth.<ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Theory of evolution]]
{{Nb Atheism}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Atheism]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Morality

2008-08-28T17:36:20Z

ScottForschler: /* Morality based on theistic religion */ Objections to theistic-based ethics

'''Morality''' is a concern with what is right and what is wrong.
An example would be that some people think that the "[[marriage]]" of a man to another man is moral based on the principles of [[utilitarianism]].
However, others think that such a thing is wrong, or immoral, usually on the basis of God's standards.
Some people believe that marriage of any sort is amoral (without morality). Therefore, these people would have differing moral codes.

== Morality versus law ==

Morality is distinct from the [[law]], which is, or should be, based on morality.
[[Slavery]], for example, was once legal in many places, but is now illegal, because people had the law changed because they considered slavery immoral.

Many people argue that the law should not be used to enforce morality.
But morality is actually the basis for much of the law.
Laws against theft, for example, are based on the idea that taking someone else's property is morally wrong.

==Morality based on theistic religion==

Thomas Brewton points out that things like the [[Ten Commandments]] or the [[Code of Hammurabi]] were sets of rules to establish moral behavior, enforced in the context of religion.<ref>The Conservative Voice: [http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/9332.html "Morality and Political Order"] by Thomas Brewton</ref>

According to some theist, only by basing morals on [[God|God's]] standards can morality have any sort of absolute basis.
Janine M. Ramsey:
{{QuoteBox|Evil and good do objectively exist because they emanate from the fact that there is an unchanging, omniscient (all-knowing), and holy God. These are not subjective opinions invented and written down by man. Rather, ‘good’ expresses the innate characteristics of God Himself that He has built into every human being, and every human being is responsible to live up to those standards. And the absence of good defines evil.<ref>Ramsey, 2004</ref>}}

One standard objection to this view is the Euthyphro dilemma, posed by Socrates in the dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks whether a thing is made pious (or just, right) because the Gods love (approve of, command) it, or if the Gods love certain things because they are just and right. If the latter, then it seems that God's commands would not be objectively valid, but arbitrary whims. If the former, then morality has an independent existence from God's commands; God is good because God always does the right thing, but they are not made the right thing simply because God commanded them. Morality would then need to have some further, independent ground which might be discoverable independent of religion.

==Morality based on evolution==
Some [[biology|biologists]] argue that morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by [[Theory of evolution|evolution]]. They see social behaviors displayed by some [[primate]]s as the precursors of human morality. They cite examples such as [[rhesus monkey]]s which, when given a chance to get food by pulling a chain that delivers a shock to another monkey, have been known to [[starvation|starve]] themselves for a considerable time.<ref>"Primates and Philosophers" by Frans de Waal</ref>

Dr. [[Frans de Waal]] argues that primates are social animals, and must constrain their behavior in order to live in a group. He maintains that these constraints have shaped behaviors from which human morality has emerged. He does not assert that chimpanzees are moral, but argues that emotional bases that can be observed among primates are the foundation for the evolution of human morality.

He points to the display of both [[empathy]] and self-awareness among apes, and asserts that human morality begins with a similar concern for others and the understanding of social rules about the treatment of others. <ref>New York Times: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5124&en=84f902c89c5a9173&ex=1332043200&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink "Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior"]</ref>

However, these arguments presume evolution to be true.
The stance that God created such creatures to act in a way that we would consider moral has at least as much scientific validity as the evolutionary position.

Evolution actually provides no basis for morality:
{{QuoteBox|'''Jaron Lanier''': ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’ 
'''Richard Dawkins''': ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.<ref>'Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ ''Psychology Today'' 30(1):62, January/February 1997, quoted in ''Creation'' 20(3):44, June 1998.</ref>}}

Peter Singer argues that a distinction must be made between the origins and the justification of morality, allowing that evolutionary explanations can be given for the existence of brains or minds able to reason, and hence able to determine what is moral, but that morality has its own logic and is not determined by contingent facts of evolution.<ref>The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology, 1983</ref>

== Morality based on atheism ==

The basis of morality for some [[atheism|atheists]] is their own opinion.
[[Bertrand Russell]], for example, said that his opinions on right and wrong were based on his feelings.<ref>'''Bertrand Russell:''' You see, I feel that some things are good and that other things are bad. I love the things that are good, that I think are good, and I hate the things that I think are bad. I don't say that these things are good because they participate in the Divine goodness. 

'''Frederick Copleston:''' Yes, but what's your justification for distinguishing between good and bad or how do you view the distinction between them? 

'''R:''' I don't have any justification any more than I have when I distinguish between blue and yellow. What is my justification for distinguishing between blue and yellow? I can see they are different. 

'''C:''' Well, that is an excellent justification, I agree. You distinguish blue and yellow by seeing them, so you distinguish good and bad by what faculty? 

'''R:''' By my feelings. 
(1948 radio debate; http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm)</ref>

In practice, they may adopt the morality of the society they grew up with, which in the case of the Western society is generally one with a Christian heritage.
[[Richard Dawkins]] said, "I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics".<ref>''The Science Show'', ABC Radio, 22nd January, 2000, quoted by Walker, Tas., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5177 National emergency in Australia], 29th June, 2007. (Creation Ministries International)</ref>

Although atheism provides no basis for absolute morality, this does not mean that atheists cannot be moral people.
Rather, it does mean that atheism itself provides no moral boundaries to constrain the actions of people.
As mass murderer [[Jeffrey Dahmer]] said in an interview:
{{QuoteBox|If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing...<ref>Dahmer, Jeffrey, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, 29th November, 1994 [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4145/105/]</ref>}}

Other atheists, such as Peter Singer, argue that our powers of reasoning provide a basis for morality. This view is shared by many theists, such as Richard Hare and Immanuel Kant, who do not deny the existence of God but think that morality is not derived from, but rather is exemplified by, a divine power.

=== The effects of atheism ===

Atheists frequently criticise "[[religion]]", by which they usually mean [[Christianity]], for atrocities committed by adherents of those religions, citing such things as the [[Inquisition]] and the [[Crusades]].
But when atrocities committed by atheists such as [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] are mentioned in return, they wish to disassociate the belief from its adherents.{{fact}}

Whilst atheism didn't directly ''cause'' these atrocities, because athiesm provides no moral boundaries, it ''allows'' these atrocities to occur.
{{QuoteBox|...atheism has been tried as a basis for life in many countries in the 20th century. The results have been some of the biggest bloodbaths of all time under communist despots above the law, e.g., Stalin, Mao and [[Pol Pot]]. For example, the Inquisition killed 2000 people in three centuries; Stalin killed that many before breakfast.<ref>Sarfati, 2004 & 2008. See also Morris.</ref>}}

== Bibliography ==
* Morris, Grantley, [http://net-burst.net/hot/war.htm A History Professor’s Criticism of My Webpage].
* Ramsey, Janine M., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3126 What basis, morality?], 11th May 2004 (Creation Ministries International).
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2207 Bomb-building vs. the biblical foundation], 24th December 2004 and 2nd December 2008. (Creation Ministries International)

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Terms]]

Morality

2008-08-28T17:32:06Z

ScottForschler: /* The effects of atheism */ Need to cite source or name specific figures

'''Morality''' is a concern with what is right and what is wrong.
An example would be that some people think that the "[[marriage]]" of a man to another man is moral based on the principles of [[utilitarianism]].
However, others think that such a thing is wrong, or immoral, usually on the basis of God's standards.
Some people believe that marriage of any sort is amoral (without morality). Therefore, these people would have differing moral codes.

== Morality versus law ==

Morality is distinct from the [[law]], which is, or should be, based on morality.
[[Slavery]], for example, was once legal in many places, but is now illegal, because people had the law changed because they considered slavery immoral.

Many people argue that the law should not be used to enforce morality.
But morality is actually the basis for much of the law.
Laws against theft, for example, are based on the idea that taking someone else's property is morally wrong.

==Morality based on theistic religion==

Thomas Brewton points out that things like the [[Ten Commandments]] or the [[Code of Hammurabi]] were sets of rules to establish moral behavior, enforced in the context of religion.<ref>The Conservative Voice: [http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/9332.html "Morality and Political Order"] by Thomas Brewton</ref>

Only by basing morals on [[God|God's]] standards can morality have any sort of absolute basis.
Janine M. Ramsey:
{{QuoteBox|Evil and good do objectively exist because they emanate from the fact that there is an unchanging, omniscient (all-knowing), and holy God. These are not subjective opinions invented and written down by man. Rather, ‘good’ expresses the innate characteristics of God Himself that He has built into every human being, and every human being is responsible to live up to those standards. And the absence of good defines evil.<ref>Ramsey, 2004</ref>}}

==Morality based on evolution==
Some [[biology|biologists]] argue that morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by [[Theory of evolution|evolution]]. They see social behaviors displayed by some [[primate]]s as the precursors of human morality. They cite examples such as [[rhesus monkey]]s which, when given a chance to get food by pulling a chain that delivers a shock to another monkey, have been known to [[starvation|starve]] themselves for a considerable time.<ref>"Primates and Philosophers" by Frans de Waal</ref>

Dr. [[Frans de Waal]] argues that primates are social animals, and must constrain their behavior in order to live in a group. He maintains that these constraints have shaped behaviors from which human morality has emerged. He does not assert that chimpanzees are moral, but argues that emotional bases that can be observed among primates are the foundation for the evolution of human morality.

He points to the display of both [[empathy]] and self-awareness among apes, and asserts that human morality begins with a similar concern for others and the understanding of social rules about the treatment of others. <ref>New York Times: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5124&en=84f902c89c5a9173&ex=1332043200&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink "Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior"]</ref>

However, these arguments presume evolution to be true.
The stance that God created such creatures to act in a way that we would consider moral has at least as much scientific validity as the evolutionary position.

Evolution actually provides no basis for morality:
{{QuoteBox|'''Jaron Lanier''': ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’ 
'''Richard Dawkins''': ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.<ref>'Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ ''Psychology Today'' 30(1):62, January/February 1997, quoted in ''Creation'' 20(3):44, June 1998.</ref>}}

Peter Singer argues that a distinction must be made between the origins and the justification of morality, allowing that evolutionary explanations can be given for the existence of brains or minds able to reason, and hence able to determine what is moral, but that morality has its own logic and is not determined by contingent facts of evolution.<ref>The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology, 1983</ref>

== Morality based on atheism ==

The basis of morality for some [[atheism|atheists]] is their own opinion.
[[Bertrand Russell]], for example, said that his opinions on right and wrong were based on his feelings.<ref>'''Bertrand Russell:''' You see, I feel that some things are good and that other things are bad. I love the things that are good, that I think are good, and I hate the things that I think are bad. I don't say that these things are good because they participate in the Divine goodness. 

'''Frederick Copleston:''' Yes, but what's your justification for distinguishing between good and bad or how do you view the distinction between them? 

'''R:''' I don't have any justification any more than I have when I distinguish between blue and yellow. What is my justification for distinguishing between blue and yellow? I can see they are different. 

'''C:''' Well, that is an excellent justification, I agree. You distinguish blue and yellow by seeing them, so you distinguish good and bad by what faculty? 

'''R:''' By my feelings. 
(1948 radio debate; http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm)</ref>

In practice, they may adopt the morality of the society they grew up with, which in the case of the Western society is generally one with a Christian heritage.
[[Richard Dawkins]] said, "I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics".<ref>''The Science Show'', ABC Radio, 22nd January, 2000, quoted by Walker, Tas., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5177 National emergency in Australia], 29th June, 2007. (Creation Ministries International)</ref>

Although atheism provides no basis for absolute morality, this does not mean that atheists cannot be moral people.
Rather, it does mean that atheism itself provides no moral boundaries to constrain the actions of people.
As mass murderer [[Jeffrey Dahmer]] said in an interview:
{{QuoteBox|If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing...<ref>Dahmer, Jeffrey, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, 29th November, 1994 [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4145/105/]</ref>}}

Other atheists, such as Peter Singer, argue that our powers of reasoning provide a basis for morality. This view is shared by many theists, such as Richard Hare and Immanuel Kant, who do not deny the existence of God but think that morality is not derived from, but rather is exemplified by, a divine power.

=== The effects of atheism ===

Atheists frequently criticise "[[religion]]", by which they usually mean [[Christianity]], for atrocities committed by adherents of those religions, citing such things as the [[Inquisition]] and the [[Crusades]].
But when atrocities committed by atheists such as [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] are mentioned in return, they wish to disassociate the belief from its adherents.{{fact}}

Whilst atheism didn't directly ''cause'' these atrocities, because athiesm provides no moral boundaries, it ''allows'' these atrocities to occur.
{{QuoteBox|...atheism has been tried as a basis for life in many countries in the 20th century. The results have been some of the biggest bloodbaths of all time under communist despots above the law, e.g., Stalin, Mao and [[Pol Pot]]. For example, the Inquisition killed 2000 people in three centuries; Stalin killed that many before breakfast.<ref>Sarfati, 2004 & 2008. See also Morris.</ref>}}

== Bibliography ==
* Morris, Grantley, [http://net-burst.net/hot/war.htm A History Professor’s Criticism of My Webpage].
* Ramsey, Janine M., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3126 What basis, morality?], 11th May 2004 (Creation Ministries International).
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2207 Bomb-building vs. the biblical foundation], 24th December 2004 and 2nd December 2008. (Creation Ministries International)

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Terms]]

Morality

2008-08-28T17:31:28Z

ScottForschler: /* Morality based on atheism */ Correction of some views on atheist morality

'''Morality''' is a concern with what is right and what is wrong.
An example would be that some people think that the "[[marriage]]" of a man to another man is moral based on the principles of [[utilitarianism]].
However, others think that such a thing is wrong, or immoral, usually on the basis of God's standards.
Some people believe that marriage of any sort is amoral (without morality). Therefore, these people would have differing moral codes.

== Morality versus law ==

Morality is distinct from the [[law]], which is, or should be, based on morality.
[[Slavery]], for example, was once legal in many places, but is now illegal, because people had the law changed because they considered slavery immoral.

Many people argue that the law should not be used to enforce morality.
But morality is actually the basis for much of the law.
Laws against theft, for example, are based on the idea that taking someone else's property is morally wrong.

==Morality based on theistic religion==

Thomas Brewton points out that things like the [[Ten Commandments]] or the [[Code of Hammurabi]] were sets of rules to establish moral behavior, enforced in the context of religion.<ref>The Conservative Voice: [http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/9332.html "Morality and Political Order"] by Thomas Brewton</ref>

Only by basing morals on [[God|God's]] standards can morality have any sort of absolute basis.
Janine M. Ramsey:
{{QuoteBox|Evil and good do objectively exist because they emanate from the fact that there is an unchanging, omniscient (all-knowing), and holy God. These are not subjective opinions invented and written down by man. Rather, ‘good’ expresses the innate characteristics of God Himself that He has built into every human being, and every human being is responsible to live up to those standards. And the absence of good defines evil.<ref>Ramsey, 2004</ref>}}

==Morality based on evolution==
Some [[biology|biologists]] argue that morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by [[Theory of evolution|evolution]]. They see social behaviors displayed by some [[primate]]s as the precursors of human morality. They cite examples such as [[rhesus monkey]]s which, when given a chance to get food by pulling a chain that delivers a shock to another monkey, have been known to [[starvation|starve]] themselves for a considerable time.<ref>"Primates and Philosophers" by Frans de Waal</ref>

Dr. [[Frans de Waal]] argues that primates are social animals, and must constrain their behavior in order to live in a group. He maintains that these constraints have shaped behaviors from which human morality has emerged. He does not assert that chimpanzees are moral, but argues that emotional bases that can be observed among primates are the foundation for the evolution of human morality.

He points to the display of both [[empathy]] and self-awareness among apes, and asserts that human morality begins with a similar concern for others and the understanding of social rules about the treatment of others. <ref>New York Times: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5124&en=84f902c89c5a9173&ex=1332043200&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink "Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior"]</ref>

However, these arguments presume evolution to be true.
The stance that God created such creatures to act in a way that we would consider moral has at least as much scientific validity as the evolutionary position.

Evolution actually provides no basis for morality:
{{QuoteBox|'''Jaron Lanier''': ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’ 
'''Richard Dawkins''': ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.<ref>'Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ ''Psychology Today'' 30(1):62, January/February 1997, quoted in ''Creation'' 20(3):44, June 1998.</ref>}}

Peter Singer argues that a distinction must be made between the origins and the justification of morality, allowing that evolutionary explanations can be given for the existence of brains or minds able to reason, and hence able to determine what is moral, but that morality has its own logic and is not determined by contingent facts of evolution.<ref>The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology, 1983</ref>

== Morality based on atheism ==

The basis of morality for some [[atheism|atheists]] is their own opinion.
[[Bertrand Russell]], for example, said that his opinions on right and wrong were based on his feelings.<ref>'''Bertrand Russell:''' You see, I feel that some things are good and that other things are bad. I love the things that are good, that I think are good, and I hate the things that I think are bad. I don't say that these things are good because they participate in the Divine goodness. 

'''Frederick Copleston:''' Yes, but what's your justification for distinguishing between good and bad or how do you view the distinction between them? 

'''R:''' I don't have any justification any more than I have when I distinguish between blue and yellow. What is my justification for distinguishing between blue and yellow? I can see they are different. 

'''C:''' Well, that is an excellent justification, I agree. You distinguish blue and yellow by seeing them, so you distinguish good and bad by what faculty? 

'''R:''' By my feelings. 
(1948 radio debate; http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm)</ref>

In practice, they may adopt the morality of the society they grew up with, which in the case of the Western society is generally one with a Christian heritage.
[[Richard Dawkins]] said, "I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics".<ref>''The Science Show'', ABC Radio, 22nd January, 2000, quoted by Walker, Tas., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5177 National emergency in Australia], 29th June, 2007. (Creation Ministries International)</ref>

Although atheism provides no basis for absolute morality, this does not mean that atheists cannot be moral people.
Rather, it does mean that atheism itself provides no moral boundaries to constrain the actions of people.
As mass murderer [[Jeffrey Dahmer]] said in an interview:
{{QuoteBox|If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing...<ref>Dahmer, Jeffrey, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, 29th November, 1994 [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4145/105/]</ref>}}

Other atheists, such as Peter Singer, argue that our powers of reasoning provide a basis for morality. This view is shared by many theists, such as Richard Hare and Immanuel Kant, who do not deny the existence of God but think that morality is not derived from, but rather is exemplified by, a divine power.

=== The effects of atheism ===

Atheists frequently criticise "[[religion]]", by which they usually mean [[Christianity]], for atrocities committed by adherents of those religions, citing such things as the [[Inquisition]] and the [[Crusades]].
But when atrocities committed by atheists such as [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] are mentioned in return, they wish to disassociate the belief from its adherents.

Whilst atheism didn't directly ''cause'' these atrocities, because athiesm provides no moral boundaries, it ''allows'' these atrocities to occur.
{{QuoteBox|...atheism has been tried as a basis for life in many countries in the 20th century. The results have been some of the biggest bloodbaths of all time under communist despots above the law, e.g., Stalin, Mao and [[Pol Pot]]. For example, the Inquisition killed 2000 people in three centuries; Stalin killed that many before breakfast.<ref>Sarfati, 2004 & 2008. See also Morris.</ref>}}

== Bibliography ==
* Morris, Grantley, [http://net-burst.net/hot/war.htm A History Professor’s Criticism of My Webpage].
* Ramsey, Janine M., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3126 What basis, morality?], 11th May 2004 (Creation Ministries International).
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2207 Bomb-building vs. the biblical foundation], 24th December 2004 and 2nd December 2008. (Creation Ministries International)

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Terms]]

Morality

2008-08-28T15:58:46Z

ScottForschler: /* Morality based on evolution */ Another view of morality-evolution relationship

'''Morality''' is a concern with what is right and what is wrong.
An example would be that some people think that the "[[marriage]]" of a man to another man is moral based on the principles of [[utilitarianism]].
However, others think that such a thing is wrong, or immoral, usually on the basis of God's standards.
Some people believe that marriage of any sort is amoral (without morality). Therefore, these people would have differing moral codes.

== Morality versus law ==

Morality is distinct from the [[law]], which is, or should be, based on morality.
[[Slavery]], for example, was once legal in many places, but is now illegal, because people had the law changed because they considered slavery immoral.

Many people argue that the law should not be used to enforce morality.
But morality is actually the basis for much of the law.
Laws against theft, for example, are based on the idea that taking someone else's property is morally wrong.

==Morality based on theistic religion==

Thomas Brewton points out that things like the [[Ten Commandments]] or the [[Code of Hammurabi]] were sets of rules to establish moral behavior, enforced in the context of religion.<ref>The Conservative Voice: [http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/9332.html "Morality and Political Order"] by Thomas Brewton</ref>

Only by basing morals on [[God|God's]] standards can morality have any sort of absolute basis.
Janine M. Ramsey:
{{QuoteBox|Evil and good do objectively exist because they emanate from the fact that there is an unchanging, omniscient (all-knowing), and holy God. These are not subjective opinions invented and written down by man. Rather, ‘good’ expresses the innate characteristics of God Himself that He has built into every human being, and every human being is responsible to live up to those standards. And the absence of good defines evil.<ref>Ramsey, 2004</ref>}}

==Morality based on evolution==
Some [[biology|biologists]] argue that morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by [[Theory of evolution|evolution]]. They see social behaviors displayed by some [[primate]]s as the precursors of human morality. They cite examples such as [[rhesus monkey]]s which, when given a chance to get food by pulling a chain that delivers a shock to another monkey, have been known to [[starvation|starve]] themselves for a considerable time.<ref>"Primates and Philosophers" by Frans de Waal</ref>

Dr. [[Frans de Waal]] argues that primates are social animals, and must constrain their behavior in order to live in a group. He maintains that these constraints have shaped behaviors from which human morality has emerged. He does not assert that chimpanzees are moral, but argues that emotional bases that can be observed among primates are the foundation for the evolution of human morality.

He points to the display of both [[empathy]] and self-awareness among apes, and asserts that human morality begins with a similar concern for others and the understanding of social rules about the treatment of others. <ref>New York Times: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5124&en=84f902c89c5a9173&ex=1332043200&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink "Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior"]</ref>

However, these arguments presume evolution to be true.
The stance that God created such creatures to act in a way that we would consider moral has at least as much scientific validity as the evolutionary position.

Evolution actually provides no basis for morality:
{{QuoteBox|'''Jaron Lanier''': ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’ 
'''Richard Dawkins''': ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.<ref>'Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ ''Psychology Today'' 30(1):62, January/February 1997, quoted in ''Creation'' 20(3):44, June 1998.</ref>}}

Peter Singer argues that a distinction must be made between the origins and the justification of morality, allowing that evolutionary explanations can be given for the existence of brains or minds able to reason, and hence able to determine what is moral, but that morality has its own logic and is not determined by contingent facts of evolution.<ref>The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology, 1983</ref>

== Morality based on atheism ==

The basis of morality for [[atheism|atheists]] is their own opinion.
[[Bertrand Russell]], for example, said that his opinions on right and wrong were based on his feelings.<ref>'''Bertrand Russell:''' You see, I feel that some things are good and that other things are bad. I love the things that are good, that I think are good, and I hate the things that I think are bad. I don't say that these things are good because they participate in the Divine goodness. 

'''Frederick Copleston:''' Yes, but what's your justification for distinguishing between good and bad or how do you view the distinction between them? 

'''R:''' I don't have any justification any more than I have when I distinguish between blue and yellow. What is my justification for distinguishing between blue and yellow? I can see they are different. 

'''C:''' Well, that is an excellent justification, I agree. You distinguish blue and yellow by seeing them, so you distinguish good and bad by what faculty? 

'''R:''' By my feelings. 
(1948 radio debate; http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm)</ref>

In practice, they may adopt the morality of the society they grew up with, which in the case of the Western society is generally one with a Christian heritage.
[[Richard Dawkins]] said, "I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics".<ref>''The Science Show'', ABC Radio, 22nd January, 2000, quoted by Walker, Tas., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5177 National emergency in Australia], 29th June, 2007. (Creation Ministries International)</ref>

Although atheism provides no basis for absolute morality, this does not mean that atheists cannot be moral people.
Rather, it does mean that atheism itself provides no moral boundaries to constrain the actions of people.
As mass murderer [[Jeffrey Dahmer]] said in an interview:
{{QuoteBox|If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing...<ref>Dahmer, Jeffrey, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, 29th November, 1994 [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4145/105/]</ref>}}

=== The effects of atheism ===

Atheists frequently criticise "[[religion]]", by which they usually mean [[Christianity]], for atrocities committed by adherents of those religions, citing such things as the [[Inquisition]] and the [[Crusades]].
But when atrocities committed by atheists such as [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] are mentioned in return, they wish to disassociate the belief from its adherents.

Whilst atheism didn't directly ''cause'' these atrocities, because athiesm provides no moral boundaries, it ''allows'' these atrocities to occur.
{{QuoteBox|...atheism has been tried as a basis for life in many countries in the 20th century. The results have been some of the biggest bloodbaths of all time under communist despots above the law, e.g., Stalin, Mao and [[Pol Pot]]. For example, the Inquisition killed 2000 people in three centuries; Stalin killed that many before breakfast.<ref>Sarfati, 2004 & 2008. See also Morris.</ref>}}

== Bibliography ==
* Morris, Grantley, [http://net-burst.net/hot/war.htm A History Professor’s Criticism of My Webpage].
* Ramsey, Janine M., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3126 What basis, morality?], 11th May 2004 (Creation Ministries International).
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2207 Bomb-building vs. the biblical foundation], 24th December 2004 and 2nd December 2008. (Creation Ministries International)

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Terms]]

Homosexuality and health

2008-08-28T15:54:39Z

ScottForschler: criticism of a weakness in the stated ethical principle regarding homosexual

[[Image:Biol 01 img0018.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[Human Immunodeficiency Virus]] attacking T4 [[lymphocyte]]s]]
In regards to '''homosexuality and health''', the homosexual population has a significantly higher incidences of a large number of diseases. One of the reasons for homosexual population having higher incidences of diseases is the significantly higher incidences of promiscuity in the homosexual population. In addition, according to the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) from 1994 to 1997 the proportion of homosexual men stating they had anal sex increased from 57.6 percent to 61.2 percent.<ref>[http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1 The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality]</ref> Although homosexual men may engage in sexual practices which may put them at risk, studies report that anal sex can be an important risk factor for the relay of many diseases.<ref>[http://www.springerlink.com/content/jx13231641717w48/ Intestinal Parasitism among Homosexual Male]</ref><ref>http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/qa22.htm</ref><ref>http://www.rsm.ac.uk/media/downloads/std0703brody.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/features/artikel.php?ID=37809</ref><ref>http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/331/25/1717</ref> In addition, in regards to homosexuality and health, the [[Homosexuality and Mental Health|homosexuality population has significantly lower rates of various measures of mental health]].

In 2004, the prominent medical website, WebMD, stated the following: "Men who have sex with men and women are a "significant bridge for [[HIV]] to women," the CDC's new data suggest."<ref>http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/20061101/hiv-bisexual-bridge-to-women</ref>

Below are some articles in regards to homosexuality and health that cite medical literature:

*[[Homosexuality and AIDS]]
*[[Homosexuality and MRSA]]
*[[Syphilis and Homosexuality|Homosexuality and Syphilis]]
*[[Homosexuality and Gonorrhea]]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Gay_Bowel_Syndrome#Lymphogranuloma_Venereum_Outbreaks_Among_Homosexuals_and_HIV_Infection Homosexuality and Lymphogranuloma Venereum]
*[[Homosexuality and Parasites]]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Gay_Bowel_Syndrome#Proctitis_and_HIV_Infection_Further_Elaborated Homosexuality and Proctitus]
*[[Homosexuality and Hepatitis]]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Gay_Bowel_Syndrome#Shigellosis.2C_Proctitis.2C_and_HIV_Infection Homosexuality and Shigellosis]
*[[Homosexuality and Anal Cancer]]
*[[Homosexuality and Illegal Drug Use]]
*[[Mental Health and Homosexuality|Homosexuality and Mental Health]]
*[[Gay Bowel Syndrome]]
*[[Homosexual bathhouses and disease]]
*[[Homosexual circuit parties and disease]]
*[[Lesbianism and Obesity]]
==Homosexuality and Smoking==
In regards to [[Homosexuality and Smoking|homosexuality and smoking]], the recent medical literature states the homosexual men and lesbians in the [[United States]] have significantly higher rates of cigarette smoking than [[heterosexuality|heterosexuals]].<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15456993&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus Cigarette smoking among lesbians, gays, and bisexuals: how serious a problem? (United States), Cancer Causes & Control, 2004 Oct;15(8):797-803]</ref><ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17018152&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus Gay/Lesbian sexual orientation increases risk for cigarette smoking and heavy drinking among members of a large Northern California health plan, BMC Public Health. 2006 Oct 3;6:241]</ref>

==Homosexuality and Violence==
Another factor that is notable in regards to homosexuality and health is the significantly higher rates of [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|domestic violence in homosexual couples]].{{fact}} In addition, according to experts [[Homosexuality and Murders|homosexual murders are relatively or quite common and often homosexual murders are very brutal]].{{fact}}
==Bible, Homosexuality, and Sound Health Practices==
Given the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the [[Bible]] prohibition against homosexuality is arguably one of the many examples where the [[Bible scientific foreknowledge|Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time]]. However such an argument is weak in several respects; the Bible does not actually predict any such diseases, nor does it base its moral condemnation on any such disease incidence; far more health problems have been historically associated with pregnancy, which would seem to condemn heteroseuxality (at least for women); and [[Atheism_and_morality|morality based on self-interest would not apply to someone powerful or skilled enough to avoid the negative consequences]] (implying, for example, that homosexuality would be fine if medical techniques could avoid disease, or murder would be fine if one could get away with it just once, etc.)

==See Also==
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexuality Research]]
*[[Homosexuality Statistics]]
*[[Causes of Homosexuality]]

== External Links ==
*[http://www.cwfa.org/articles/959/CWA/family/index.htm Homosexuality and Health] by [[Concerned Women of America]]
*[http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/gr082301.asp| American Family Association on the rise of AIDS]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Diseases]]
[[Category:Mental health]]

Talk:Atheism and morality

2008-08-28T15:41:33Z

ScottForschler: contradiction in article

== Inclusion of Bertrand Russell? ==
One of the prominent quotes included on the CP entry for Russell is: "I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values, but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it." This seems to suggest that he felt compelled towards the notion of moral absolutes, although he was logically unable to prove them. In any case, I think he is a poor example of an atheistic moral relativist because presenting him in such a light in this article is not coherent with the quotation provided on his own entry. [[User:WalksAmongUs|WalksAmongUs]] 22:40, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

There's something puzzling in the first part of this page:
<blockquote>
Given the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the Bible prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the many examples where the Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time.

Dr. William Lane Craig states the following regarding the comments of atheist debator Dr. Kai Nielson:

“ ...He says, "It’s in our self-interest to be moral." ... self-interest can only lead to a sort of self-aggrandizing hedonism..."
</blockquote>

That first line seems to give a self-interested reason to avoid homosexuality. (Of course, a further problem is that pregnancy causes all kinds of medical issues, so heterosexuality might be even more dangerous for women than homosexuality is, certainly before modern medicine and probably even today, but that's a whole 'nuther issue.) So the article seems to contradict itself.--[[User:ScottForschler|ScottForschler]] 11:41, 28 August 2008 (EDT)