Francis Collins on evolution and altruism

Another review of this and three other books by scientists on religion, by George Johnson, is in the Oct 2006 issue of Scientific American.

Thanks for posting this quite thorough review...

It's quite a good review, both of Collins' excellent pro-evolution arguments, and his strange exceptionalism regarding human biology and relatedness to chimps and other primates whose actions are so reminiscent of our own.

It might be worth noting that Collins claims to have taken up religion because of the moral perspective, and the hope that we are something more than just animals acting out our genes. Then again, you'll get enough non-theistic evolutionists who think there's something "special" about humans as well.

Quite arguably, bonobo chimps are the more moral of the great apes/humans, unless you have some moral revulsion against their rampant sexuality. Compared with injunctions to go off and slaughter the enemies in the Bible, bonobos rarely kill each other at all, and I have not heard of their engaging in warfare.

One should notice well how Collins is quite orthodox in his area of specialty, deviating from science and causality where he lacks a strong grasp of other relevant sciences. Thus "cosmological ID", which has been well called an "observation" and not properly a conclusion, appeals to him.

And he will not look at evolved genes only to conclude that they were designed, but he will look at evolved morality and call it "designed" or some such thing (he may have the decency to not label god a designer, in fact).

Why is this? Does he think that causality reigns in biology, as we consider it to necessarily do in the classical sciences, only for causality to disappear when we get to the ten commandments/torah/new testament? Do the precursors of the "Law of God" mean nothing to him? Are we to think that Hammurabi's Code had no influence upon Biblical Morality, that Greek concepts did not evolve into New Testament morality?

In principle, Collins' fight against ID is the same thing as our fight to show that morality has evolved and been shaped by cultural/economic factors, not to mention our evolved tendencies. He has to be blind to the purposes and precursors of Xian morality for him to suppose that it came pristine from God, much as the "hypothesis" of the "design" of humans has to ignore all of the evidence against it (as well as the lack of evidence for it).

There is, however, an inherent strangeness to morality in today's society, which is that it has nearly to be portrayed as if it did come down from God without development, to be followed without question. For how else is it to be binding upon us? And still in the scientific sense we have to understand that morality is simply an idealization of our primate behaviors, which might suggest that Roman religion is closer to human form than is our secularization of Xianity in modern society.

The two tendencies are at odds with each other, much as the judiciary's belief in "free will" is at odds with science's recognition that we are animals whose behaviors are caused by nature and nurture.

It seems that we need the kinds of fictions in our society which cannot be supported by good science.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Glen wrote:

"Compared with injunctions to go off and slaughter the enemies in the Bible...."

There is no such "injunction" in my copy of the Bible (Hebrew Old Testament) and I strongly doubt it exists in any other version.

"Are we to think that Hammurabi's Code had no influence upon Biblical Morality, that Greek concepts did not evolve into New Testament morality?"

Again, my copy of the Bible reveals not a trace of such influence, from either source. As a matter of fact, they are very much on opposite ends of the spectrum on many fronts, such as the treatment of slaves, idolatry, the role of the human body, etc.

Yes, Carol, I'm sure that's true of your Bible.

Fortunately, there are many "Bibles" and commentaries which reflect no need to bring tribal squabbles up to modern standards of morality, nor which deny the primacy of Hammurabi's concept of coding the laws (nor the similarities of eye-for-an-eye justice found in both Bible and Hammurabi--was anyone claiming a literary or "literal" dependance, Carol?).

Beyond that, Lenny's question.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

His Theistic Evolution is a more science-friendly form of religion then YEC and ID, because it reduces supernatural intervention to a minimum.

The New Testament was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had already come to maturity as the Old Testament developed.

Glen,

"Fortunately, there are many "Bibles" and commentaries which reflect no need to bring tribal squabbles up to modern standards of morality, nor which deny the primacy of Hammurabi's concept of coding the laws (nor the similarities of eye-for-an-eye justice found in both Bible and Hammurabi---was anyone claiming a literary or "literal" dependance, Carol?)."

On the one hand you do not want to get into "squabbles" but then, in the same paragraph, you proceed to pick one that you think supports your statement. Now, make up your mind, which is it?

A few brief points, if I may.

(1) You are wrong. There is only one Bible. The others masquerade as such and people in the know, well, know the score.

(2) Sure, in the superficial sense of organizing some sort of code, the Bible contains elements that are similar to that. But what about the content of those codes? Why don't you check them out?

(3) The oral tradition that came with the one Bible, as recorded in the Talmud, interpreted the biblical "eye for an eye" as referring to the "value of an eye for an eye" and this interpretation goes back thousands of years ago. It represents one of the five elements of compensation the Bible expressly mandates that the perpetrator be made to pay the victim (by the court). They are: NEZEK - monetary damage, such as loss of income, TZAAR - pain and suffering, RIPU - cost of medical treatment, SHEVET - monetary damage and loss due to the treatment and pain, BOSHET - embarrassment. The "eye for an eye" is merely the first of these five.

Glen wrote: "Compared with injunctions to go off and slaughter the enemies in the Bible...."

"Are we to think that Hammurabi's Code had no influence upon Biblical Morality, that Greek concepts did not evolve into New Testament morality?"

"Since then, religions have given the world stonings, witch burning, crusades, inquisitions, holy wars, jihads, fatwas, suicide bombers, gay bashers, abortion-clinic gunmen, child molesters, and mothers who drown their sons so they can happy be reunited in Heaven..."

These are horrible arguments. You can't blame an ideology simply because there are individuals who do wrong in the name of that ideology. If a certain sect of atheistic "Darwinians" decide to start killing off everyone with HIV/aids so as to strenghten the human population as a whole, you can't blame evolution for their actions. Survival of the fittest, right?

"The Bible describes infanticide: Exodus 1:16 tells us Pharaoh commanded Shiphrah, Puah, and other Hebrew midwives to kill all male children at birth. Much later King Herod "sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all its borders from two years old and under" (Matthew 2:16)..."

Is this a joke? This is the worst case of quote-mining I've ever seen. How about a little context... the Bible isn't promoting infanticide in either case. In the first case Pharaoh gave those orders to "thin-out" the population, as he felt they were becoming too numerous. He saw them, as foreigners in his land, as a threat. In the second case Herod ordered children two and under killed because he was trying to kill Jesus. He had heard that Jesus, the "King of the Jews," had been born. He, like Pharaoh, ordered these slayings as he perceived a threat to his throne. Obviously neither of these were promoted as moral acts in the Bible...

"Since then, religions have given the world stonings, witch burning, crusades, inquisitions, holy wars, jihads, fatwas, suicide bombers, gay bashers, abortion-clinic gunmen, child molesters, and mothers who drown their sons so they can happy be reunited in Heaven..."

How about a little context... the Bible isn't promoting infanticide in either case. In the first case Pharaoh gave those orders to "thin-out" the population, as he felt they were becoming too numerous. He saw them, as foreigners in his land, as a threat. In the second case Herod ordered children two and under killed because he was trying to kill Jesus. ... Obviously neither of these were promoted as moral acts in the Bible

"For me this animals-are-inferior-view is another deep (emotional) reason to reject Christianity"

...such argumentative force that I am overwhelmed.

If anything, this guy is no philosopher.

What I liked with this review is that it seems to fill in gaps from Collins' book that other reviewers do not touch. (Note: I have not read the book.)

But it also seems to be a reaction to those other reviewers. In so doing it goes far in criticising their concentration on a central part, Collins nonstandard use of science. For example, the comment that Harris review "is ill-considered, and unbalanced" is not well supported IMO.

The cosmological and teleological arguments of Collins is on the other hand mentioned here by being explicitly embedded into theistic evolution. The problems with such arguments, which all rely on a subset of possible cosmologies, have of course been discussed any numbers of times before. Considered over all cosmologies natural creation/noncreation and finetuning is now evidence (Collins' term) against beliefs, Barrow and Tipler notwithstanding.

I also have a few nitpicks. I believe the notes references comes askew by insertion of the unused (?) note 10. And (being nonbiologist) I have to ask if not claiming "DNA between genes is non-functional, so-called junk-DNA" is wrong? I seem to remember discussions where some junk-DNA have been suspected or found directly (regulatory?) or indirectly (stability) to have non-proteincoding functions.

I listened to Collins' book as an audiobook last week on the way to and from a meeting. I was encouraged by his vigorous opposition to YEC and ID, but I, too felt his discussion of altruism was just not consistent with current animal data and a variety of well thought out ideas. In genera, I got a little tired of the way in which Collins presented a criticism of faith/religion and then argued against it using C.S. Lewis. To a large extent the book could have been subtitled "How C.S. Lewis might apply to modern science." In any event, I do want to reiterate that he strongly denounces ID as not being science and being bad theology for all the right reasons.

Glen, "Fortunately, there are many "Bibles" and commentaries which reflect no need to bring tribal squabbles up to modern standards of morality, nor which deny the primacy of Hammurabi's concept of coding the laws (nor the similarities of eye-for-an-eye justice found in both Bible and Hammurabi---was anyone claiming a literary or "literal" dependance, Carol?)." On the one hand you do not want to get into "squabbles" but then, in the same paragraph, you proceed to pick one that you think supports your statement. Now, make up your mind, which is it?

A few brief points, if I may.

(1) You are wrong. There is only one Bible. The others masquerade as such and people in the know, well, know the score.

(2) Sure, in the superficial sense of organizing some sort of code, the Bible contains elements that are similar to that. But what about the content of those codes? Why don't you check them out?

(3) The oral tradition that came with the one Bible, as recorded in the Talmud, interpreted the biblical "eye for an eye" as referring to the "value of an eye for an eye" and this interpretation goes back thousands of years ago.

It represents one of the five elements of compensation the Bible expressly mandates that the perpetrator be made to pay the victim (by the court). They are: NEZEK - monetary damage, such as loss of income, TZAAR - pain and suffering, RIPU - cost of medical treatment, SHEVET - monetary damage and loss due to the treatment and pain, BOSHET - embarrassment. The "eye for an eye" is merely the first of these five.

In any event, I do want to reiterate that he strongly denounces ID as not being science and being bad theology for all the right reasons.

— Duhrkopf

Patricia Pearson reviews Collins' book along with Dawkins' for the Toronto Star, and seems rather more convinced by the "Moral Law" argument than Korthof (or myself).

However, contrary to Dawkins' selfish pitiless universe, the actual behaviour of animals towards genetically related individuals can certainly be altruistic and, famously, this has been theoretically derived from Darwinian principles by W. D. Hamilton.

This sentence is a bit crap.

Norm,

(1) A careful reading of the original Hebrew makes it abudantly clear that the incident with the golden calf was associated with general mayhem and violence that included rape and murder. (The word "revelry" has a much more sinister connotation in the Hebrew.)Moses urges the Levites to not spare those guilty of these serious offenses even if they are blood relatives of theirs. That is the context you are ignoring.

(2) The Midianites had united with the Moabites and had declared war on the Israelites. Just as the Israelites were attacked without provocation by the Amalikites at Refidim and the Cannanites at Arad, these and many of the other neighboring kingdoms were out to get the nomadic Israelies. All this is spelled out in the Bible, which you need to read in context.

Glen,

I get your point all too well. You claim that morality evolved over time and religious morality is just another step in the continuum. (If I misunderstand your position, please correct me.) To which I respond that Biblical morality represents a sharp break with the past. The examples I cited served to support my point and simultaneously weaken yours.

You can huff and puff all you wish, you and Norm and others here just do not know a whit about the real Bible.

This sentence is a bit crap.

But throwing in a shot at Dawkins is usually more a signal that the writer is not one of those nasty-hostile-to-religion-kind-of-atheists, than any kind of substantive criticism.

Norm, (1) A careful reading of the original Hebrew makes it abudantly clear that the incident with the golden calf was associated with general mayhem and violence that included rape and murder. (The word "revelry" has a much more sinister connotation in the Hebrew.)Moses urges the Levites to not spare those guilty of these serious offenses even if they are blood relatives of theirs. That is the context you are ignoring.

(2) The Midianites had united with the Moabites and had declared war on the Israelites.

Just as the Israelites were attacked without provocation by the Amalikites at Refidim and the Cannanites at Arad, these and many of the other neighboring kingdoms were out to get the nomadic Israelies. All this is spelled out in the Bible, which you need to read in context.

Glen, I get your point all too well.

You claim that morality evolved over time and religious morality is just another step in the continuum. (If I misunderstand your position, please correct me.) To which I respond that Biblical morality represents a sharp break with the past. The examples I cited served to support my point and simultaneously weaken yours.

You can huff and puff all you wish, you and Norm and others here just do not know a whit about the real Bible.

If a certain sect of atheistic "Darwinians" decide to start killing off everyone with HIV/aids so as to strenghten the human population as a whole, you can't blame evolution for their actions. Survival of the fittest, right?

I keep hearing Carol (save the zebras!) Clouserbot continue to repeat her tired canards of "we all just don't have the right translation of the bible in hand!"

well, Carol, after all this time, one would think just once, you would have provided, literally, chapter and verse to support your points.

which EXACT version are you using (so anybody interested could follow along), and then you could actually directly quote the passages in question.

oh, that's right, it would be in ancient hebrew, which only you and Landa could properly translate, right?

and of course, you don't see the problem with that.

phht.

the problem with this analogy, as always, is that unlike the thousands of actual case examples linked to religion, you will be hard pressed to find an actual event you can legitimately link to "atheism" to support your attempt at equivalency.

If a certain sect of atheistic "Darwinians" decide to start killing off everyone with HIV/aids so as to strenghten the human population as a whole, you can't blame evolution for their actions. [My emphasis]

The Midianites had united with the Moabites and had declared war on the Israelites. Just as the Israelites were attacked without provocation by the Amalikites at Refidim and the Cannanites at Arad, these and many of the other neighboring kingdoms were out to get the nomadic Israelies. All this is spelled out in the Bible, which you need to read in context.

— Carol

This makes me really quite interested in your opinion, Carol. What exactly does this justify, and what exactlydid the Isrealites do?

Didn't the OT god drown almost all of humanity, including children and pregnant women, in the Great Flood?

Carol:

The Bible I read suggests that Yahweh at one point approves of the genocide of the Canaanites. If this isn't your Bible, or if I'm mistaken, please explain.....SH

Glen,

I cannot at this time post essays here anywhere nearly as long as your posts. Where do you find the time? But A few brief points must be made.

"He didn't say that mayhem wasn't claimed to justify it. He notes the bloodiness of the response. And no, we don't believe the "justifications" spelled out in religious texts. What part of being non-religious don't you understand, Carol?"

He called it a "slaughter" which to me implies unjustified mass killing, and he said that to back up your nonsense about Biblical injunctions to "kill bible haters". There were three thousand deaths in that incident and they were presumably justified based on the actions of the accused. And I am not referring to the act of worshipping the golden calf.

And you cannot cherry pick the Bible unless you have some rational basis for accepting some events (such as the killing after Moses returned) and rejecting other events (such as the activities of some in the Israelite camp before he returned.

"Yes, no doubt plentiful justification to kill all the males and rape the virginal females. No one said there weren't provocations, we note the cruelty and genocide used in response."

These wren't mere "provocations". This was self defense. And nobody was raped. You made that up.

"I certainly have read it in context. What you left out is that according to the Bible the Amalikite attacks occurred hundreds of years earlier than the genocide of that tribe. We no longer believe in slaughtering the descendants of people for the "sins" of their ancestors, as these were proclaimed in questionable religious texts."

You have read nothing. And your ignorance of the Bible is far greater than I suspected. Indeed it is pathetic. While the original attack by the Amalikites (Exodus) and their final defeat by King Saul (Samuel)were indeed separated by about three hundred years, you will find in the book of Judges repeated attacks by the Amalikites upon the Israelites during the intervening years. Again, self defense and a good one to boot. It solved that problem.

Lenny,

Do see the above.

unjustified mass killing

These wren't mere "provocations". This was self defense.

And nobody was raped. You made that up.

Judges 21: [10] And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children. [11] And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. [12] And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan. [13] And the whole congregation sent some to speak to the children of Benjamin that were in the rock Rimmon, and to call peaceably unto them. [14] And Benjamin came again at that time; and they gave them wives which they had saved alive of the women of Jabesh-gilead: and yet so they sufficed them not. [15] And the people repented them for Benjamin, because that the LORD had made a breach in the tribes of Israel. [16] Then the elders of the congregation said, How shall we do for wives for them that remain, seeing the women are destroyed out of Benjamin? [17] And they said, There must be an inheritance for them that be escaped of Benjamin, that a tribe be not destroyed out of Israel. [18] Howbeit we may not give them wives of our daughters: for the children of Israel have sworn, saying, Cursed be he that giveth a wife to Benjamin. [19] Then they said, Behold, there is a feast of the LORD in Shiloh yearly in a place which is on the north side of Bethel, on the east side of the highway that goeth up from Bethel to Shechem, and on the south of Lebonah. [20] Therefore they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in wait in the vineyards; [21] And see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin. [22] And it shall be, when their fathers or their brethren come unto us to complain, that we will say unto them, Be favourable unto them for our sakes: because we reserved not to each man his wife in the war: for ye did not give unto them at this time, that ye should be guilty. [23] And the children of Benjamin did so, and took them wives, according to their number, of them that danced, whom they caught: and they went and returned unto their inheritance, and repaired the cities, and dwelt in them.

Numbers 31: [9] And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. [10] And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. [11] And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts. [12] And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho. [13] And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp. [14] And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. [15] And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? [16] Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. [17] Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. [18] But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Dueteronomy 21: [10] When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, [11] And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; [12] Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; [13] And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. [14] And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

you will find in the book of Judges repeated attacks by the Amalikites upon the Israelites during the intervening years. Again, self defense and a good one to boot. It solved that problem.

(Note to audience: I find it utterly surreal to hear these sorts of things coming from a *Jew*, of all people.)

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Lenny,

Your anti-Bible bias and utter confusion and ignorance about matters Biblical exceeds even that of Glen.

"Um, is there, Carol, in your opinion, such a thing as JUSTIFIED mass killing .... ?"

Are you implying, as an example, that the millions of German and Japanese soldiers killed by US tropps in WWII were not justified?

"Is genocide, uh, OK if God tells you to do it?"

Killing on the basis of race was never sanctioned by God nor will it ever be. And the mere mention of the word by you and others here in association with the Bible is another blood libel inherited from the Christians over the centuries. You are in great and illustrious company.

"And nobody was raped. You made that up.
Perhaps my Bible is different than yours"

I made that remark pertaining to the Midianites and the events in Numbers. The events you cite from Judges was in fact an evil deed, not authorized by God, and most importantly, the other eleven tribes, the rest of Israel, were revolted by the Benjemites' actions and made them pay a heavy price, indeed. Now why do you fail to mention that? Does it not fit in with your grotesquely distorted understanding of the Bible?

You see, Lenny, OUR heroes, unlike those of the Christians you are more familiar with, are human beings, not gods, semi-gods, human-gods or any such contrivance. The Bible openly displays all their faults, warts, errors, misdeeds, and even sins, from Abraham through Moses and beyond, giving the likes of you an opportunity to misunderstand. This in and of itself speaks volumes of the Hebrew Bible.

"I suppose they just wanted to keep these virgins alive for themselves, just to do laundry and wash dishes, right Carol?"

There is no rape spoken of here and you know it. And a village consisting only of young girls would have been an invitation for the other neighboring evil peoples (as depicted in the Bible, your source for these events) to rape and kill them. They needed to be taken in and protected for their own survival. If you know anything about the state of civilization in the area at the time, so very different from what you are familiar with these days in the US, you would be better able to put things in perspective.

"Nothing in there anywhere about "asking permission", is there, Carol?"

Now you are really acting infantile and idiotic. What does waiting a year mean to you? Does that sound like a license to rape? Of course permission was needed since she needed to convert first and one does not convert against one's will. If you know anything about conversion to Judaism, you know it is very involved and difficult.

"I see. The Final Solution to the Amalekite question, huh Carol"

Not really. Despite all the BS here, we find David fighting that same damn Amalikite enemy some thirty chapters later in Samuel. The "solution" apparently wasn't "final" enough. Why do I detect no concern for the Israelite victims of these attacks, and only for the aggressors. The Amalikites first attacked the weary and escaped Israelite slaves from Egypt for no reason whatsoever and were at it repeatedly for three hundred years.

Actually I should not be surprised at this attitude at all. It is exactly what is taking place today in the Middle East. Some things just never change.

"(Note to audience: I find it utterly surreal to hear these sorts of things coming from a *Jew*, of all people.)"

That is a shameful thing for you to say. Apologize!

There is no rape spoken of here and you know it. And a village consisting only of young girls would have been an invitation for the other neighboring evil peoples (as depicted in the Bible, your source for these events) to rape and kill them. They needed to be taken in and protected for their own survival. If you know anything about the state of civilization in the area at the time, so very different from what you are familiar with these days in the US, you would be better able to put things in perspective.

Why do I detect no concern for the Israelite victims of these attacks, and only for the aggressors. The Amalikites first attacked the weary and escaped Israelite slaves from Egypt for no reason whatsoever and were at it repeatedly for three hundred years. Actually I should not be surprised at this attitude at all. It is exactly what is taking place today in the Middle East. Some things just never change. "(Note to audience: I find it utterly surreal to hear these sorts of things coming from a *Jew*, of all people.)" That is a shameful thing for you to say. Apologize!

— Carol Clouser

Carol Clouser, I'm curious about something in your analysis - how does it apply today?

Do you think Bush is justified in using torture because the Islamic fundies use torture?

That is a shameful thing for you to say. Apologize!

Dueteronomy 21: [10] When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, [11] And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; [12] Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; [13] And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. [14] And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Nothing in there anywhere about "asking permission", is there, Carol?

Norm,

"Carol Clouser, I'm curious about something in your analysis - how does it apply today? Do you think Bush is justified in using torture because the Islamic fundies use torture?"

Great questions.

The Bible's clearly and repeatedly stated position on this is that violence is justified only as a last resort in self defense, and only after seeking every avenue offering a peaceful resolution. This is demonstrated repeatedly in Numbers and Deuteronomy. (If you wish to see chapter and verse, I can do so later.) And when violence does become necessary for self defense, we may and should do so in a manner that renders the defense effective.

This is, as I understand it, indeed the current policy of the US and all other ostensibly civilized societies. Accidental and incidental non-combatant casualties are to be avoided, but we cannot, should not and do not allow the possibility of such casualties to prevent us from taking necessary action. Otherwise, the brutal fact is that we will just not be able to defend ourselves and other victims of aggression. And the injustice in that is likely to far exceed the injustice of the alternative.

You have read nothing. And your ignorance of the Bible is far greater than I suspected. Indeed it is pathetic.

While the original attack by the Amalikites (Exodus) and their final defeat by King Saul (Samuel)were indeed separated by about three hundred years, you will find in the book of Judges repeated attacks by the Amalikites upon the Israelites during the intervening years.

Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1 Samuel 15: 2-3 KJV

Again, self defense and a good one to boot. It solved that problem.

Norm, "Carol Clouser, I'm curious about something in your analysis - how does it apply today? Do you think Bush is justified in using torture because the Islamic fundies use torture?"

The Bible's clearly and repeatedly stated position on this is that violence is justified only as a last resort in self defense, and only after seeking every avenue offering a peaceful resolution. This is demonstrated repeatedly in Numbers and Deuteronomy. (If you wish to see chapter and verse, I can do so later.) And when violence does become necessary for self defense, we may and should do so in a manner that renders the defense effective. This is, as I understand it, indeed the current policy of the US and all other ostensibly civilized societies. Accidental and incidental non-combatant casualties are to be avoided, but we cannot, should not and do not allow the possibility of such casualties to prevent us from taking necessary action. Otherwise, the brutal fact is that we will just not be able to defend ourselves and other victims of aggression. And the injustice in that is likely to far exceed the injustice of the alternative.

Carol: There is no rape spoken of here and you know it. And a village consisting only of young girls would have been an invitation for the other neighboring evil peoples (as depicted in the Bible, your source for these events) to rape and kill them. They needed to be taken in and protected for their own survival. If you know anything about the state of civilization in the area at the time, so very different from what you are familiar with these days in the US, you would be better able to put things in perspective.

Kevin: I've seen this apologetic before. I've always asked the same question, and never gotten a good answer: If the state of civilization at the time was such that young girls needed to be protected, what was done to protect the young boys? If my 3-month old son Wade had been among the Amakalites, what would God's command have done ensure his continuted health, safety, and survival at the hands of the loving Isrealites? If it helps you construct an answer, I can send you a photo of Wade making his adorable little scrunched up smiling face.... Would that help you answer the question?

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of
International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva
from 21 April to 12 August, 1949
entry into force 21 October 1950:

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

I've seen this apologetic before. I've always asked the same question, and never gotten a good answer: If the state of civilization at the time was such that young girls needed to be protected, what was done to protect the young boys?

— Kevin

Norm,

I thought I did answer both your questions. I assume you are interested in the application of Biblical principles, rather than my personal opinions. The Bible does mostly lay down general principles, and their application is up to you and me.

What I said about violence is applicable to torture which after all is a form of violence (in addition to the other aspects you mention). Torture is not justified on the basis that the other fellow does it. But a "walking ticking time bomb" or one who should have information about such, is another matter.

As far as the Geneva Convention is concerned, as I understand it Bush claims his program is not one of torture and that terms like "offenses to human dignity" are too vague. But that is another matter. The Bible does insist on treating the human body with great respect even in death. But I an sure that saving lives takes precedence.

The Bible does mostly lay down general principles, and their application is up to you and me.

While the original attack by the Amalikites (Exodus) and their final defeat by King Saul (Samuel)were indeed separated by about three hundred years, you will find in the book of Judges repeated attacks by the Amalikites upon the Israelites during the intervening years. Again, self defense and a good one to boot. It solved that problem.

Lenny: "I see. The Final Solution to the Amalekite question, huh Carol" Carol: Not really. Despite all the BS here, we find David fighting that same damn Amalikite enemy some thirty chapters later in Samuel. The "solution" apparently wasn't "final" enough.

In order to emphasize the genocide that you defend, I would note that the people of Jericho are portrayed as having been slaughtered for no reason other than that the Israelites/Yahweh wanted their city. Sorry, there is no suggestion of "self-defense" in Judges, but only of 'righteous genocide'.

— Glen

And just how does all this relate to altruism, much less the esteemed Francis Collins?

Well yes, I should also backtrack in noting that there was self-defense in Judges, though if you believe Joshua it was the kind of "self-defense" that aggressors end up having to do (as in defending oneself from those one has dispossessed, like in present-day Israel).

Enough corrections, especially as they are only ancillary to the issues that Carol has chosen to illuminate and emphasize.

I can't think of how Korthof could have argued any better against their being a determinate "Moral Law" than Carol has.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

I can't think of how Korthof could have argued any better against their being a determinate "Moral Law" than Carol has.

The Bible's clearly and repeatedly stated position on this is that violence is justified only as a last resort in self defense

Carol: Why did your god drown innocent children in the Great Flood?

Why did your god drown innocent children in the Great Flood?

Carol said:

"As far as the Geneva Convention is concerned, as I understand it Bush claims his program is not one of torture and that terms like "offenses to human dignity" are too vague."

Yes, and as a result his recent comments on the 'vagueness' of the Geneva convention, he appeared on the website: Fundies Say The Darndest Things.

It seems that using evolution to explain altruism is a major project of Oliver Curry, who is being widely reported on today as a "researcher" on evolution who predicts humans will evolve into 2 subspecies in the next thousand years.

This story has circulated globally today. Jay Leno used it in his monologue tonight (October 18), although he did not mention the "2 subspecies" idea.

You can expect the anti-evolution folks to attack this as an example of evolutionary science.

I don't have time to write a proper blog article now. I'll expand this to a blog article tomorrow. But I wanted to go ahead now and share some links that I have posted at
http://curricublog.wordpress.com/2006/10/19/curry-subspecies/

Hmmm ... I would think that a conservative, evangelical Christian that fully supports the scientific method and posits a view that theology must yield to new discoveries about the natural world would be a welcome thing.

I am almost finished with Collins' book, and I believe it is primarily written for the evangelical audience. In that respect, his forays into philosophy and theology are well placed and help the reader progress through the book. The views in the book will be surprising and new to evangelicals who more often see evolution cloaked in anti-faith arguments, as evidenced here. They believe its more about disproving the existance of God than it is about understanding the world around us.

I'm sure the references to St. Augustine's non-literal interpetations of Genesis don't mean much to a secular scientist, but they matter greatly to the evangelical who has to consider if the anti-evolution movement is worthy of his support. Suddenly he realizes that one of the giants of Christianity, in the early days of the church, had a non-literal interpetation AND states that our theology needs to yield to truth.

Collins' references to CS Lewis are made in the same way, as Lewis, a hero of American evangelicals, also argues for non-literal interpetations of Genesis.

Kudos to Collins. Quibbling about his philosophy, which is clearly labeled as such in the book, only serves to minimize the importance of his main message. There is no conflict between science and God for the Christian concerned about the truth.

I would think that a conservative, evangelical Christian that fully supports the scientific method and posits a view that theology must yield to new discoveries about the natural world would be a welcome thing.

There is no rape spoken of here and you know it. And a village consisting only of young girls would have been an invitation for the other neighboring evil peoples (as depicted in the Bible, your source for these events) to rape and kill them. They needed to be taken in and protected for their own survival. If you know anything about the state of civilization in the area at the time, so very different from what you are familiar with these days in the US, you would be better able to put things in perspective.

Not sure how to quote here ... but in reference to the "his evolution is too small" comment ...

I'm just not sure how you get that opinion reading his book. He clearly separates his theology from his science, and gives mention of competing views, including the non-spiritual interpetations of things like Moral Law. I can understand how an atheist or agnostic would not care for much of the book, but that's not the intended audience in my view.

As a layman, without formal training in either theology or science, I appreciated his approach. I also suspect ... and clearly can see that I could be wrong on this ... but I suspect that the various theories about the roots of altruism are still open to a bit of debate (unlike evolution, which really is settled). Based on Collins' statements in the book, if the issue of altruism is settled to be completely non-spiritual, Collins would change his mind about that issue, and report that the issue has been settled.

There just aren't that many of these guys out there that resonate with my views, friendly to both faith and science.

There just aren't that many of these guys out there that resonate with my views, friendly to both faith and science.

I also suspect ... and clearly can see that I could be wrong on this ... but I suspect that the various theories about the roots of altruism are still open to a bit of debate (unlike evolution, which really is settled). Based on Collins' statements in the book, if the issue of altruism is settled to be completely non-spiritual, Collins would change his mind about that issue, and report that the issue has been settled.

— Frank Hagan

Anton, have you read the book? Or are you going by our comments here?

The reason I ask is that I really don't think Collins presents altruism in the manner it is presented here.

Do you believe that to be a good scientist, you must reject the notion of a god? Is faith incompatible with science?

Do you believe that to be a good scientist, you must reject the notion of a god? Is faith incompatible with science?

... but I suspect that the various theories about the roots of altruism are still open to a bit of debate (unlike evolution, which really is settled).

Based on Collins' statements in the book, if the issue of altruism is settled to be completely non-spiritual, Collins would change his mind about that issue, and report that the issue has been settled.

Oh, lookie, Norm has found another theist.

Time for yet another pointless religious war. . . . .

(sigh)

Anton, have you read the book? Or are you going by our comments here? The reason I ask is that I really don't think Collins presents altruism in the manner it is presented here.

— Frank Hagan

Do you believe that to be a good scientist, you must reject the notion of a god? Is faith incompatible with science?

Well, you won't get a religious flame war from me; I don't happen to think that faith is based on any evidence at all in the modern meaning of the word.

It would not surprise me to find a "God gene", because some people seem "wired" to be spiritually minded and others seem just as honestly to be wired to be non-spiritual. That's not a threat to my theology in the least (and no, Christianity will not fall because of it; a major branch of Christianity already has beliefs entirely consistent with that view).

I'm now reading Professor Falk's book, Coming to Peace with Science. Its another book intended for an evangelical or conservative Christian audience from a biologist who argues for less conflict between religion and science, and acceptance of the truth underpinning all of modern science. I will probably be just as blind to the deficiencies in his explanations of his personal beliefs as I am of Collins' explanations.

But I still think there is much to recommend, especially for the evangelical audience, in Collins book.

"If I'm walking down the riverbank, and a man is drowning, even if I don't know how to swim very well, I feel this urge that the right thing to do is to try to save that person. Evolution would tell me exactly the opposite: preserve your DNA. Who cares about the guy who's drowning? He's one of the weaker ones, let him go. It's your DNA that needs to survive. And yet that's not what's written within me."

"If I'm walking down the riverbank, and a man is drowning, even if I don't know how to swim very well, I feel this urge that the right thing to do is to try to save that person. Evolution would tell me exactly the opposite: preserve your DNA. Who cares about the guy who's drowning? He's one of the weaker ones, let him go. It's your DNA that needs to survive. And yet that's not what's written within me."

OCPD is often characterized by a distinct lack of empathy for others.

Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) ---

Seems to me as though "antisocial" simply means "whatever people with power, don't like" ....

I think it quite impossible to even talk about whether such a subjective entity is or is not "genetic" in nature ...

That kind of impression is an ongoing problem for people with psychological disorders. By and large, the symptoms of any psychological problem are things everyone does some of the time, but done to the extent that they interfere with the person's life.

Lenny may recall a conversation on DebunkCreation where I tried to describe my ADD and ran into exactly this reaction from the participants there.

That's what Monk has (a TV show) and they don't portray him as lacking empathy. Is lack of empathy a normal side effect?

Do i need to clarify, or were you just going off on a tangent?

Yes, lack of empathy is commonly associated with OCPD (you can look it up easily enough).

— Sir_Toejam

You're right, it's not as commonly associated with OCD as it is with NPD, but it has been associated with it as a symptom; you should do some better checking. does that make you happier?

now that we have explored that tangent ad nasueum, does it invalidate the point I was making re Collins?

I really am not interested in exploring the tangent.

Note also, since it was brought up, that OCD (Monk) isn't always associated with OCPD.

the two are not the same thing, just in case that was where the confusion lay.

again though, for simplicities sake, a better substitute in the argument would be NPD.

Note also, since it was brought up, that OCD (Monk) isn't always associated with OCPD.

... for simplicities sake, a better substitute in the argument would be NPD.

... for simplicities sake, a better substitute in the argument would be NPD.

so I wonder if Collins has ever addressed the gist of the obvious counter argument to the idea that morality is NOT materialistic in nature, given the nature of disorders where his definitions of morality are specifically lacking in many individuals? Does he say that psychological disorders are "evil"? thought we left that kind of thinking behind about a hundred years ago.

If there are readily definable and repeatable material reasons for why someone is lacking any give sense of "morality", in this case altruism (which one could argue empathy plays a large role in), why should we assume that the basis for "morality" is anything other than materialistic?

I'm genuinely curious to see how those who think like Collins does address this question.

I'm genuinely curious to see how those who think like Collins does address this question.

I am of course ignoring your dick-waving, Norm.

*woosh*

what was that?

*woosh* what was that?

According to Reiss, the research, published in this week's issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows that elephants share high-order behaviors with humans, even though we've evolved along different paths. Among those traits is empathy, or the capacity to distinguish others' emotions, which in turn is tied to the capacity to distinguish oneself from others. "This is true for great apes, dolphins, and elephants," said Reiss. "They have large, complex brains, complex social organization, and they show these social traits of altruism and empathy, which really involve care-giving and helping behavior."

Yes, lack of empathy is commonly associated with OCPD (you can look it up easily enough).

If you actually do the google, you may notice that many of those "lack of empathy" instances apply to NPD, not OCPD ... in other words, I screwed up. Sorry about that. Still, there are some associations mentioned of OCPD with lack of empathy.

P.S. This site/server/software sucks even worse than it did a month or so ago, sig.

Weird that my last post only shows up when I preview this post, but doesn't show up on the page otherwise, no matter how many times I refresh. Maybe it will show up if I post this ...

Really very odd. The first time I view a thread, I see all of it. If I post something, it doesn't show up except under 'preview' conditions. Others can post, and I don't see theirs either. By observation, since the server software was changed, the first view of a thread "locks" it so that's all I can ever see, and all subsequent entries by everyone simply don't happen. This applies to the main page, and applies to the archives as well.

But if I delete all temporary internet files (not the cookies, just the files), then I can take a new snapshot of each page, which then "locks in" until the next time I delete the temp files. Refreshing the page or returning to it apparently now is told something like "If that page exists in the temp files, use it no matter how old, and never return to the server for a genuine update".

Most interesting, of all the many many places I've ever visited, this is the ONLY one with the problem, yet our Great Site Administrator is telling us that this is OUR fault, and we should switch to Firefox. Instead, I find myself switching to other discussion groups...

It seems that the problem encountered by Popper's Ghost and Flint (it was experienced by some other commenters as well) can be solved by making the size of the cache as small as the browser allows. On MS Explorer click Tools, then Internet Options, then Setting (in the Internet Temporary Files), and decrease the cache to 1 Mb (it would not go to 0). In other browsers must be also a way to do the same.

Still, there are some associations mentioned of OCPD with lack of empathy.

— Popper's ghost