Tuesday, June 5, 2007

Biblomorphism Article 2 – Morality

Bible Verse – Romans 2:14-15
Species – Moth

At the height of secular humanism, there was a great effort to prove a sliding moral scale; this hypothesis has completely and absolutely failed. The idea of sliding morality says that there is no absolute right and that different cultures have ‘evolved’ different standards of morality.

Evidences to support this theory included pedophilia during the first reich, human sacrifice in Mayan culture, and killing enemies is not seen as wrong. There is such a thing as a slipping morality, where humans are naturally predisposed to do wrong, but the direct contradiction to the idea of sliding moral scales comes when you consider whom the anti-moral behavior is directed. Roman pedophilia may seem right if you are the pedophile in question; pedophilia is not ok if you are the parent of the victim or the victim. Human sacrifice seems fine when you are the one doing the sacrificing, it is completely a different matter when you are the sacrifice. And killing is perfectly acceptable when you’ve been wronged against, being killed changes your whole outlook.

Morality is absolute; eHarmony.com lists the number one pet peeve among males and females as lying. Lying is a perfect example of morality; there is an absolute, truth, and anything less is not truth. You cannot tell extra-truthful statements. There is truth and lies. To dabble briefly into Article 3 – The Sinfulness of Sin, lying causes destruction. If you lie to your spouse, trust dies. If you continue to lie, love dies. And refusing to stop lying leads to the marriage dying. Truth is always true.

The animal designed to show the absoluteness of morality is the moth. The moth is famous for attacking the flame on a candle, even to the point of the flame killing the moth. The flame is absolute; the moth attacking the flame is opposing an absolute fact. Clearly, the moth wants whatever the flame has to offer more than the flame is hot.

When the moth approaches the flame, it is faced with the reality that the flame is hot, and it ceases to be in close proximity to the flame. Through the continued attacking of the flame, the moths perception of the heat is dulled until the moth is killed by the heat of the flame. The temperature of the flame does not change despite the slipping understanding of the moth.

Through this examination of morality and the moth, we can conclude that not only is there a moral standard which does not slide, and that there cannot be extra-morality, only morality and a lack of morality. Not only so, but the moth shows that testing that absolute is a natural condition.

If you are chasing after the flame, please see article 3, the sinfulness of sin.


mavaddat said...

The philosopher Immanuel Kant believed that his system of morality, which did not rely on God's word, was the only way to establish absolute moral truths. Moral truths do not depend on God's say so any more than facts about nature depend on God's say so.

But it's doubtful that there are any such absolute moral truths. After all, suppose there was a moth or an insect that did not burn when it went into a flame. Would it be immoral for the inflammable moth to go into a flame? If not, then it seems that the morality of the action is dependent on the moth's ability to resist fire. If a moral judgement is dependent in any way, then it is not absolute.

You see, your simplistic arguments never achieve or even come close to supporting your conclusion. You think that the fact that many people agree on some moral principles means that they are absolute. But evolution by natural selection can account for this fact. It may be that there are objective moral truths (whose truth does not depend on our beliefs) without there being absolute moral truths (unconditional truths).

Moreover, even if there are absolute moral truths, that does not mean we need to know what they are in order to be good people. That is, we can get pretty close to knowing what they are.

C. Shearer said...

What if worms had guns?

I truthfully have no idea what your post said? It's a bunch of gibberish using big words which don't go together. Like most agnostics who call themselves atheists, you are willfully ignorant of facts.

I can't believe you still believe in evolution! In this day and age to believe in evolution is to be so wrapped up in yourself and your love of sin to believe blindly in the greatest fairy-tale ever written. Evolution could account for things, if it existed, but it doesn't.

Please see http://trustobey.blogspot.com/2007/06/dying-religiong-of-evolution.html