Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[BradCube]

yeah crap example ill try to elaborate. evolution favours that we dont just pick any random partner to reproduce with. we pick a partner we see compatible not just to be able to reproduce, but also one who we think is able to raise offspring, share duties, be a good provider etc.
the nuclear family (married couple and children) not only fulfills the function of reproduction, however also, economics, education and sex. this structure is not a cultural universal, but a variable form of social organisation important for food supply and industrial societies.
you seem to think that evolution theory says "the more, the better", and that it does not favour any particular kinship structure? you think evolution favours guys who every time they get horny, instead of wanking, go out and produce millions of unexpected babies for others to care for? your "Hence that characteristic is more likely to be carried on" is flawed; a society which is overpopulated, is just as likely to die as one which is under populated.

Okay, awesome. This is the reasoning I wanted before

So, we've explained how rape could have come to exist via evolution. How about something that seems relatively neutral toward natural selection like pedophilia?

i simply believe rape as an "absolute truth" is not evil, however only appears to be evil because evolution did not favour it. my brain evolved this way, and knowing this fact consciously (that it is not an absolute truth), in no way impedes me still thinking it is evil.

But essentially you believe there is nothing innately wrong with rape at all?

 

[KFunk]

This quoted passage was originally part of your explanation for the quote above it. I pulled it out to highlight that this reasoning relies on the assumptions being correct for the sake of the argument. Point (2) however dealt with this assumption (suffering is evil) at least against the Christian God to which the question is most usually issued.

Aye, but note that point (1) still makes it difficult for you to use point (2) in that way. Even you (seem to) admit that needless suffering is bad. I assume that christian doctrine involves a god which would not generate suffering unless it was a necessary means to another end, such as instilling knowledge of god into people. Otherwise god could be labelled a sadist. Thus, in order to be able to disable that premise in the 'problem of evil' proof-by-contradiction argument and hence to show suffering to be tolerated in Christian doctrine you would somehow need to bypass point (1) - i.e. you would need to show that suffering is necessary in order for some other end to be fulfilled, but as you have pointed out this is very difficult given our limited natures.

 

[BradCube]

the simple answers really do allude you.. try testosterone.

Hence why looking for a biblical answer like "Satan influences males more than females" does not hold in my opinion.

and it is relevant, because it points out that the bible doesnt explain anything that was ahead of the current scientific thought of the time.

Well if you're expecting the word testosterone to come up, there is an obvious reason why it would not (I shouldn't have to explain that).

Also making this comment ignores many things that the bible talked about that were different to and ahead of current scientific thought. ie a spherical earth as opposed to a flat one. This comment in particular seems to be self defeating because it assumes that current and future scientific discoveries won't disprove current theories. Hence you cannot say the bible is wrong because it does not line up with all todays current scientific findings because not all of todays scientific findings may be correct!

For example, the inception of the universe at a single point in time was once frowned upon scientifically, now the opposite has occurred. (with what we regard as the big bang)

If the bible was a truly revealing text that contained thought youd expect from a god, it would be given alot more credibility. But unfortunately, it sounds like it was written by cavemen.

We'll we are also looking at another issue mixed in with this. That is that it would be impossible for a person back in the time the bible was written to accurately describe current scientific phenomenon in their language, since the terminology to do so, does not exist. In fact, much of Revelation is explained this way since it talks about future events.

As a quick example, how would you describe a jet or computer if you were only permitted to write in the language and terminology that existed back in that day?

 

[BradCube]

Aye, but note that point (1) still makes it difficult for you to use point (2) in that way. Even you (seem to) admit that needless suffering is bad. I assume that christian doctrine involves a god which would not generate suffering unless it was a necessary means to another end, such as instilling knowledge of god into people. Otherwise god could be labelled a sadist. Thus, in order to be able to disable that premise in the 'problem of evil' proof-by-contradiction argument and hence to show suffering to be tolerated in Christian doctrine you would somehow need to bypass point (1) - i.e. you would need to show that suffering is necessary in order for some other end to be fulfilled, but as you have pointed out this is very difficult given our limited natures.

Ahh, I see.
So then, point (1) holds in this argument regardless?

I suppose in that sense then, that point (2) is merely given to try and explain (more for emotional reasons than intellectual) any possible reason for suffering.

Does that make sense?

 

[HalcyonSky]

Hence why looking for a biblical answer like "Satan influences males more than females" does not hold in my opinion.
Well if you're expecting the word testosterone to come up, there is an obvious reason why it would not (I shouldn't have to explain that).

Also making this comment ignores many things that the bible talked about that were different to different to current scientific thought. ie a spherical earth as opposed to a flat one. This comment in particular seems to be self defeating because it assumes that current and future scientific discoveries won't disprove current theories. Hence you cannot say the bible is wrong because it does not line up with all todays current scientific findings because not all of todays scientific findings may be correct!

For example, the inception of the universe at a single point in time was once frowned upon scientifically, now the opposite has occurred. (with what we regard as the big bang



We'll we are also looking at another issue mixed in with this. That is that it would be impossible for a person back in the time the bible was written to accurately describe current scientific phenomenon in their language, since the terminology to do so, do not exist. In fact, much of Revelation is explained this way since it talks about future events.

As a quick example, how would you describe a jet or computer if you were only permitted to write in the language and terminology that existed back in that day?

exactly my point. The writing is limited by the very human capabilities of the time. Nothing in it speaks outside of the human scope of mind. They could've easily described the big bang in their language ("In the beginning, god created all that existed from a single point, from which billions upon billions of stars and earthlike bodies arose, with our earth being nestled away in the outer reaches of his creation") , but they didnt even know that much existed outside of the earth they knew, and so thats all genesis talks about, the creation of the earth but nothing outside of it.

 

[KFunk]

Ahh, I see.
So then, point (1) holds in this argument regardless?

I suppose in that sense then, that point (2) is merely given to try and explain (more for emotional reasons than intellectual) any possible reason for suffering.

Does that make sense?

Certainly. If nothing else, it indicates at least the possibility of a way out for the christian theist (if they can show that god cares for factors other than the state of suffering which may, at least potentially, conflict). The only problem is that the way out is guarded by point (1). While I don't think (1) is impossible to overcome I nonetheless feel that it would take a mammoth effort to do so and, as such, probably wouldn't be a very constructive avenue to pursue.

 

[BradCube]

exactly my point. The writing is limited by the very human capabilities of the time. Nothing in it speaks outside of the human scope of mind.

Scope of mind, and writing capabilities are two very different things here that you seem to have joined. Of course they could not write outside of their writing abilities - this does not invalidate what they have written however.

Your second point regarding scope of mind is debatable based on what you mean by scope of mind. Do you mean out of scope for their current scientific beliefs? (If so this was dealt with in the previous post) Do you mean out of scope for the human brain entirely?

If it is the second then you would not be able to comprehend it even if it were in the text. Certainly I would think that ideas such as the trinity and how it works seem to be out of comprehension in as far as being logical explicable.

... but they didnt even know that much existed outside of the earth they knew, and so thats all genesis talks about, the creation of the earth but nothing outside of it.

Of course it talks about the creation of things outside of earth - light, sun, moon, stars.

 

[HalcyonSky]

i mean things we can't see from earth like nebulae, or to describe things like stars in detail by mentioning how they work or outlining their lifecycle. We can see stars and the moon from earth, so of course theyre going to be mentioned in the bible.

so to you, in all honesty, the bibles explanation of things is so remarkably revealing you have no doubt it was influenced by a divine being?

 

[BradCube]

so to you, in all honesty, the bibles explanation of things is so remarkably revealing you have no doubt it was influenced by a divine being?

No, I would not say I don't have doubts about many things in the bible. However I'm not willing to throw the whole thing away without researching each issue first. Your enthusiasm to show any possible problem in the bible speaks more to me that you have issue with what the bible as a whole is about.

I would ask you then: What is your real problem is with the belief in God? Is it simply on the basis of the bibles teachings or something more?

 

[BradCube]

i believe its relevant because it supports that external, and random conditions can influence freewill and choice in matters. just the very fact that males have testosterone, or are influenced by "conditions of our current society" seems to me, a large factor in the "decision to disobey god". once again... if freewill is influenced to such an extent, is it really freewill at all? *spooky*

This argument assumes that testosterone can only have morally "bad" results. Also, if you believe in evolution, can you truly state that testosterone is a random condition? (or was that separate to your mention of testosterone?)

And yes I would stipulate that it is still free will. In fact, assuming that testosterone is not the only factor contributing to males higher crime rates, I would say that free will decisions on the part of others have influenced that individual in a negative way. For example a couple making a free willed decision to divorce or part could have a negative impact upon the child.

personally i dont see how it could even seem relatively neutral, and dont really know exactly what you mean. its completely outside the protection of parents; not sure i would want my genes being man-handled by horny men.
ill do some more reading on morals and evolution though, and get back to you with specifics.

Neutral in regard to natural selection. Where rape had a direct impact on the life and death of those related to it, pedophilia seems to have no such impact. So my question is how would evolution explain our moral conviction against pedophilia

im human, i already said i think rape is evil. however, i know in the long run of things whether i rape someone or not, it doesnt really matter *gasps*. at its most fundamental level its not really wrong . hopefully when gods judging me i get props for knowing this yet still keeping it in the pants.

Maybe I'm being a bit bold here, but to me, the fact that you continually re-explain your point shows me that deep down you know that rape is wrong also on a fundamental level.

Is it so impossible to think that your moral convictions actually go beyond a superficial fake sense of "good" and "evil"?

Edit*: Just re-reading this 3unitz, I feel like I am sounding a little rude. The internet is always a difficult place to convey true communication. Thought I would just highlight that I really don't intend for this post to be rude or out of line in anyway I still <3 you

 

[BradCube]

no to be honest, deep down, i know im going to die no matter what i do. nothing makes sense, everything is completely crap, and thats just the way it is.
i dont believe in god just because eternal life sounds good and the bible claims to have answers; its not the only book... i just want the truth, even if it says there isnt an incredable god or a heaven for me to go to.

Sounds like we're not all that different at all. Although I must admit that if it came down to a decision where evidence was split 50/50 I would choose the God option simply on the principle that it means life isn't complete crap, devoid of any purpose etc.

 

[HalcyonSky]

I would ask you then: What is your real problem is with the belief in God? Is it simply on the basis of the bibles teachings or something more?

My problem with god is that i feel its obvious hes simply not there. As nice as it is to rest on the thought of an eternal afterlife with a god who cares, theres just nothing any religion can offer me that will instill me with the conviction to hold such a belief. For me to believe, id have to go about the rest of my life encapsulated in a naive little bubble that cant be penetrated by any form of reason.

The other day i saw a story on the news about how a baby was found alive amongst the rubble after twisters in america claimed 57 lives. One of the relatives said "Its a miracle. thats the only explanation." Wait a second, lets take a step back. Twisters killed 57 human beings, and destroyed everything that hundreds of others owned, and you claim its a miracle that a baby survived? no, it would be a miracle if the entire tragedy never occured at all.
I see this way too often; people in their little bubbles ignoring everything that is inherently wrong with this world, praising god every day despite the fact they have no jobs, live in a housing commission, and their fourth child was born with no limbs. Why not blame god for all the shit? Why take one, miniscule prevailence of goodness and praise god for it, amongst all the hell that is evident in this world. If there does happen to be a god, he abandoned us a long time ago.

It's not just the ridiculous religious texts that sound like they were written by the neanderthal man, its not just the better explanation for everything that science offers, its not just the fact there have been thousands of religions over the centuries that hinders my faith.. it's my inability to ignore the facts and my need for a truth that is true, not just convenient, which leaves me with my current beliefs.

 

[KFunk]

Hey Bradcube, there are still a couple questions that I am interested in hearing your answers to:

(1) What is your account of morality?

Reiterating the examples I gave previously: Some believe that moral claims (such as 'torture is wrong') are made true or false by virtue of different things. Some say that the truth values of moral claims are determined by logic, others look to empirical facts (e.g. regarding human nature, if such a thing exists) and some look to Platonic forms. As I have mentioned, my account is, more or less, an expressivist one (i.e. moral claims express values/preferences) and so moral claims are not properly true or false. So what is your account? What do moral claims amount to and what makes them true or false (and why)?

(2) What is your account of free will?

I've gone to some lengths to try and argue that common accounts of free will don't work out (in particular the view which sees the will as an unmoved mover which always has the ability to choose otherwise in a situation). Given that you still wish to maintain that free will exists I'm interested to see whether you can develop a coherent account of free will.

 

[KFunk]

Hey 3unitz:

If you want to read up on accounts of morality from evolutionary biology and what they might imply I would recommend a recent book called The Evolution of Morality by ANU/USyd philosopher Richard Joyce. Also I've also attached a pdf of a 2005 review from the journal 'Nature' about the evolutionary explanation of reciprocity - it's brief, with clear explanatory diagrams and reasonable depth.

 

[KFunk]

Again to 3unitz:

Even better, you can download the introduction and first chapter of The Evolution of Morality in pdf form from MIT press. Access them here.

 

[BradCube]

Hey Bradcube, there are still a couple questions that I am interested in hearing your answers to:

(1) What is your account of morality?

You know, I have to say that this whole discussion is very much a roller coaster ride for my beliefs and emotions. There is nothing which provides me with greater pain and joy than putting forward my views and watching them stand or crumble in front of others - especially in the environment of a public forum.

My account of morality seems at least for the moment (since I am not done with researching it) to be based solely on intuition. Such a conclusion is extremely hard for me to both admit and deal with - since I am essentially telling myself that everything for which I believe to be right and true has no basis at all.

With that in mind, I think I will submit both of these issues to people that are more versed in these areas than myself. Certainly switching my beliefs so flippantly is not a habit I would like to start.

(2) What is your account of free will?

Again, this seems also so far to be based on intuition - but I find the opposing argument hardly as convincing as it seems also (to me) to be based on intuition. What other reasons are there to think that your explanation rings true apart from that it fits with current scientific theories better? Could you also explain in what ways it fits with these other theories?

Also thinking about this issue in my travels I had a thought. Could the will be free on the basis that provided with enough reason and convincing, it can carry through any action?

It seems that Dualism is closely related to this topic. What are your opinions and ideas on this topic Kfunk?

I am also wondering if you could restate your case against free will (the unmoved mover kind) with consideration of the previous points I have made? Quite a large request I know, but I would like to forward on such a case to others to see their responses.

 

[KFunk]

You know, I have to say that this whole discussion is very much a roller coaster ride for my beliefs and emotions. There is nothing which provides me with greater pain and joy than putting forward my views and watching them stand or crumble in front of others - especially in the environment of a public forum.

My account of morality seems at least for the moment (since I am not done with researching it) to be based solely on intuition. Such a conclusion is extremely hard for me to both admit and deal with - since I am essentially telling myself that everything for which I believe to be right and true has no basis at all.

With that in mind, I think I will submit both of these issues to people that are more versed in these areas than myself. Certainly switching my beliefs so flippantly is not a habit I would like to start.

It's funny you use the roller coaster analogy. I often liken my engagement with philosophy to a roller coaster ride and my favourite moments are actually those where my belief system drops out from beneath me and I am forced to reassess my views on things. I realise, however, that this kick I get is perhaps a peculiar one and that forced reevaluation of one's long-held beliefs is not necessarily a pleasant experience.

If you are interested in reading some material which defends the position of 'ethical intuitionism' (which you seem to find yourself occupying) then you might want to check out, in particular, Principia Ethica by G. E. Moore. For a rough overview of the position you could also check out this essay by Michael Heumer. I agree with a number of aspects of the intuitionist position (given that I think moral reasoning is largely driven by intuition, and emotion as well). However, skepticism and Ockham's razor force me to reject the possibility that our intuitions/emotions pick out objective moral properties/facts.

 

[KFunk]

Again, this seems also so far to be based on intuition - but I find the opposing argument hardly as convincing as it seems also (to me) to be based on intuition. What other reasons are there to think that your explanation rings true apart from that it fits with current scientific theories better? Could you also explain in what ways it fits with these other theories?

Also thinking about this issue in my travels I had a thought. Could the will be free on the basis that provided with enough reason and convincing, it can carry through any action?

It seems that Dualism is closely related to this topic. What are your opinions and ideas on this topic Kfunk?

I am also wondering if you could restate your case against free will (the unmoved mover kind) with consideration of the previous points I have made? Quite a large request I know, but I would like to forward on such a case to others to see their responses.

I'll try to find time (either tonight or in the next few days) to remake my case against free will. Are there any particular points of yours that you would like addressed (for the sake of economy)?

Also, some responses to your other questions:

• On the question: could the will be free on the basis that provided with enough reason and convincing, it can carry through any action? If you wanted to define 'free will' that way, sure. I don't, however, think it entails the 'truly free' model where given any time 't' it was possible for you to perform an action other than what you actually performed at time 't' (i.e. the notion that you 'could have done otherwise').

• On dualism: Yeah, you're right that there is a relation here. Funnily enough it actually has to do with your other question regarding consistency with scientific theories. The general idea is that if you have a truly free will which isn't determined then it has to somehow be causally isolated from the physical world (which science views as being a deterministic system - ignoring quantum mechanics, of course, which could potentially offer a mechanism for randomness). So, since the physical world is essentially deterministic and a free will isn't you can't identify the free will with an aspect of the natural world, forcing you to invoke some kind of substance/property dualism. Standard scientific method is typically skeptical of any move to invoke dualism (particularly given respect for the principle of parsimony - which is often used in the form of Ockham's Razor). It is important to note, however, that this is not a argument showing dualism to be possible or false. Rather, it is a guide for intellectual conduct which says that if we are to accept dualism we better have a damned good reason! I am actually reading a book at the moment (Chalmers' The Conscious Mind) which defends a form of property dualism. I am open to the general idea and do not rule it out categorically however my feeling is that the present balance of evidence is against dualism.

• More on the conflict between free will and science: Science can account for chemical behavior in (roughly) deterministic terms. To the best of our knowledge we are solely composed of such chemicals. Thus, to the best of our knowledge no aspect of our bodily composition could support a truly free will (since all the parts are roughly deterministic - bar the possibility of quantum effects, as argued for by Roger Penrose). Thus science would seem to suggest that we don't have free will because our bodily composition could not support such a will (this is the 'I could have done otherwise' variety, of course). Sure, we have intuitions that we 'could have done otherwise', we have moral doctrines which would benefit a great deal from the existence of supreme agency and we have spiritual doctrines which posit such free will - however, none of these facts make a convincing scientific/empirical case.

 

[veloc1ty]

Gee, I miss one day and I'm two pages behind this thread. I have to say I agree with the one who called this thread the most productive; even if we don't find one clear resolution to anything, we're covering a lot of ground and thinking about it all.

1. We are not in a good position to judge whether God has sufficient reasoning for allowing the existence of suffering and evil to exist:
As limited/finite human beings, we are limited in time, space and our intelligence. Unfortunate as it is, we have no way of being able to judge in the same capacity that an all knowing God would be able to. This inhibits our ability to make truthful judgments on the reasoning behind the suffering in the world we see. Although we may think that a certain amount or degree of suffering has no point or reason, we are simply not in a good decision to judge something like this. The reason God allowed such an action to occur may not arise until centuries later in a different country. Those familiar with the butterfly effect would also attest that it is impossible to know what the final result of any particular action is.

1. On what grounds do you have to judge God perfectly good, if he allows evil for reasons unknown to you? To be consistent, if you do not understand his motives or reasons, you don't actually know whether he is good or evil.
2. If there is a purpose behind the evil, why do people attempt to prevent it? If you've ever given money to the poor, or helped someone in some way, how do you know you aren't circumventing the suffering God has alloted them for a greater purpose?
3. Assuming God is omnipotent, it is entirely possible that he has the power to do whatever he wants achieved without unnecessary suffering of any kind.

2. The Christian faith entails doctrines that increase the probability of the co-existence of God and evil.
The suffering argument is usually posed at the Christian all knowing, all loving perfect God. The Christian faith however includes doctrines that increase the probability of God and evil. Here those four are:

a) The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but the knowledge of God

All too often I see both christians and non-christians making the assumption that the reason they exist is for their own happiness. Certainly this may be a logical way to carry out life if there is no God. If there is a God however, we should not assume that this is our divine purpose. I would assert that the purpose of life under a God is the knowledge of that God.

Under this idea, suffering may not be without purpose if it helps in increasing the knowledge of God. An innocent person suffering could increase their dependency and trust in God. It could also have a positive benefit for those watching them going through the suffering. The outcome will depend upon the reaction of that person/s however. Do they react with bitterness against God, or do they turn to him for help?

1. Why don't people suffer equally?
2. Why do people have to suffer to gain knowledge of God? Why not learn some other way, or better yet, create beings who are already perfect and connected to God?

b) Mankind is in a state of rebellion from God
Christianity teaches that humans are in a state of rebellion whereby we don't want to submit or worship a God that has higher power than us. So instead we choose to do as we please and find our selves alienated from God and morally guilty before him because we instead pursue our own desires. The Christian is not surprised by evils in the world because they expect it based on the fact that people decided to turn away from God.

What about people born into suffering or away from God (atheist parents or a different religion)? Again, I don't see why some should suffer more than others in the same position of rebellion/knowledge of God if it can be prevented.

c)The knowledge of God spills over into eternal life.
Christianity teaches that people will be rewarded for the suffering they have gone through when in heaven so in this way, the suffering they went through would be justified in some way.

No, this simply doesn't make sense at all. If I saw a person dying on the sidewalk, what would you think of me if I said "don't worry, I will come back to help tomorrow, and I will reward you for your patience"?

d)The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good.
Christianity would also teach that the knowledge of God and relationship with him is an incommensurable good. Meaning that despite what a person may be going through, regardless of how much they are suffering, they can still say that God is good simply based on the fact that they have knowledge and relationship with him.

I won't say anything to this, except that it's not much of an argument when presented to someone who doubts the existence of a god, much less the possibility of a relationship with him.

3. Relative to the full scope of the evidence, God’s existence seems more probable (I would argue probable, period)

If we take into account only the suffering in the world then we are far more likely to draw the conclusion that a God (such as the Christian one) is not probable. However, since the world is not only suffering - indeed "good things" also happen too, We need to take into account the other reasons that are quoted to present a probability in relation to Gods existence. (Now I could expand upon these point, but I feel that they are probably worthy of debate within themselves. As such I will leave them as statements which we can then pull apart and investigate together)

a) God provides the best explanation of why the universe exists instead of nothing.
b) God provides the best explanation of the complex order in the universe.
c) Objective moral values in the world.(This one is particularly debatable as we are already finding out)

It would seem to me that the problem of suffering in the world with the inclusion of Gods existence is not an intellectual one but an emotional one. We simply do not like the idea that a loving God would allow people to suffer. As a result we want nothing to do with Him. It is simply an atheism of rejection. So does the Christian belief have anything to these people? Well it certainly does because the very central belief of Christianity is based around Christ/Jesus who entered the world specifically to take on our suffering in order that we would be free of it. Although it is a much quoted verse, it sums up why Christians believe that God does more than sit idly by watching his creations suffer.

Those are particularly debatable, but it doesn't matter because it dances around the problem of evil. You're trying to offer more "proof" of a god while not fully addressing at least one blaring problem of the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful and perfectly good God.

Now while this may have seemed like a long winded response I'm not sure that it completely dealt with your question veloc1ty. You asked me if I am aware of the problem of evil? Now I assumed that you were leading on to how evil has become so prevalent in our society and hence how could the suffering that evil causes exist with a loving God. However, you may have not been asking this at all. You may have simply been asking how evil could possibly exist if there was only a perfect God to begin with? If so, I would suggest that this is because free will on our part. This is an already a fairly debated topic in this thread, but I currently still hold the position that we have the ability to make our own choices. With this in mind, for God to logically allow free will, he must be enabling us to choose otherwise to what he would. Hence the appearance of evil with a perfect God. (Since that anything apart from perfectly good must not be good at all)

Well, you got it right the first time but a quick question on this point: how does this explain evils such as natural disasters which kill and harm thousands?

You might need to point out to me what you don't feel is universal about feelings towards rape, adultery and pedophilia. As far as I am aware most people, if not all (apart from those with medical conditions) would regard these acts as wrong.

Ah, ok. I see what you mean, but I don't see your point. Rape, adultery and pedophilia have no (evolutionary) purpose and simply cause unnecessary harm. What sane person wouldn't see that as wrong? I don't think you really need an objective standard to figure out those acts are immoral.

No, I don't wish you to quote thousands who have been slaughtered with Gods approval. I would like you to quote those passage which God approves war on the basis that they are one particular race. As far as I was aware there was usually always a reason that extended beyond their nationality. ie they had fallen into immorality, turned away from God etc.

To save time and unnecessary debate, I will not pursue that further. I haven't studied the Bible enough to look into the reasons (or lack of reason) behind each atrocity.

Took a quick look at a few of your quoted passages and also questioned myself how these seem plausible. A quick google search revealed what I feel is a perfectly reasonable answer.

That link was an interesting perspective, I'll keep that in mind from now on. One could still argue that slavery of any kind is immoral by today's standards, but let's not go down that path right now.

Looking at the whole passage, it is clear to me that there is nothing that would suggest that the bible is being sexist here. The bible indicates that both male and female have different roles, but this in no way demotes either of those roles. In fact it states simply at the end of the passage "However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."

Why should the male be the dominant one ("leader")?

Furthermore, I quote from a link you provided:

During the Old Testament, the whole world was a patriarchal society. That status of history is very clear - not only in Scripture but in the social rules that governed most societies in the world. By modern value systems and worldly human viewpoint, that is called “sexist.” God ordained the order in society, not man, and He is the author of the establishment principles of authority. However, like everything else, fallen man has corrupted this order. That has resulted in the inequality of the standing of men and women throughout history. The exclusion and the discrimination that we find in our world is not new. It is the result of the fall of man and the introduction of sin - which is rebellion against God. Therefore, we can rightly say that the term and the practice of “sexism” is a result of - a product of - the sin of mankind. The progressive revelation of the Bible leads us to the cure for sexism, and indeed all of the sinful practices of the human race.

They clearly admit here that by today's standards it is sexist (the first sentence also shows that the Bible simply reflects values of the time). Furthermore, apparently the reason we think it's sexist is because we're so sinful nowadays.

Necessary for what exactly? Necessary to believe they exist or that they have meaning?

To clarify; I don't find an external source of morality necessary to have morality, but this just asserts what I said before. The problem you find is that any other morality other than the objective is not meaningful. Is this meaning necessary? Why can't ethics be a construct we derive?

On a Christian level you have to realize that the Christian is in a relationship with God. The reason for doing "right" is not to avoid punishment of hell, its done in order to please God. Or in other words it is beneficial for the relationship because you know that is what God would be pleased in you doing.

As an example, If I had a wife or girlfriend I would not physically care for them because I want to avoid punishment of physically abusing them. I would physically care for them because I love them and want to express this love to them.

But why do you wish to please God?

 

[BradCube]

brad,
still want to do more research in evolution and morals as you know, but ive had a quick read of some sites and found some interesting ideas which might point you as well, into some study for yourself.

Thanks for effort put in on your behalf

through evolution, we gained universal base emotions such as fear, anger, sadness, etc. (many of which can be seen in other animals so its not such a "big idea"). and its these universal emotional responses that can also help secure our moral norms.
ideas, concepts and skills in our society (science, engineering, literature etc) are bodies of socially transmitted information, and evolve by memes (probably heard this term before). there will be benefits of certain cultural items which are more likely to survive due to (perhaps) how they interact with our emotional responses.
"As memes comprise the elementary component of culture, they can be expected to play a large role in the formation of ethics and values in a given society. Religions and governments can be seen as large-scale memetic belief systems that persist via self-propagation in a dynamic and competitive environment. Such behavioral variables as altruism, aggression, and family structure can be mediated through their propensity to affect the survival of a host population. Just as genes compete for survival in the biosphere, memes compete for dominance in the metasphere of human thought. In this manner, through eons of adaptation, highly complex moral and belief systems can emerge through competitive interaction of specific behavioral traits."

You seem to be mentioning meme's as fact here. I was under the impression that this was still a reasonably debated topic. Essentially, is there any proof that memes are not simply another word for "idea" or "pattern of thought"?

Indeed the ideas that you have written could also be expressed as a meme could they not?