Comments on: On God, Darwin, Morality and Muehlenberg. http://memeplex.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/on-god-darwin-morality-and-muehlenberg/ Sammy Jankis Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:32:47 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: arthurvandelay http://memeplex.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/on-god-darwin-morality-and-muehlenberg/#comment-91 arthurvandelay Mon, 03 Mar 2008 12:17:21 +0000 http://memeplex.wordpress.com/?p=40#comment-91 <i>Charles Colson also picked up on the Pinker piece when it first appeared in the New York Times. Colson argues that . . .</i> Does Bill Muehlenberg ever have a thought of his own? And his notion of "objective morality"--"If I don't observe x set of dogmas then God will punish me and send me to burn in the fires of Hell for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever amen"--is sheer <a href="http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm" rel="nofollow">Kohlberg Stage 1</a>. When fundies like Bill ever decide to rise above their kindergarten approach to moral reasoning, I might consider listening to them. Charles Colson also picked up on the Pinker piece when it first appeared in the New York Times. Colson argues that . . .

Does Bill Muehlenberg ever have a thought of his own?

And his notion of “objective morality”–”If I don’t observe x set of dogmas then God will punish me and send me to burn in the fires of Hell for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever amen”–is sheer Kohlberg Stage 1. When fundies like Bill ever decide to rise above their kindergarten approach to moral reasoning, I might consider listening to them.

]]> By: Bruce http://memeplex.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/on-god-darwin-morality-and-muehlenberg/#comment-82 Bruce Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:37:16 +0000 http://memeplex.wordpress.com/?p=40#comment-82 Ahhh! But Bill doesn't believe that you think that Sam, so you don't, even if you do! Ahhh! But Bill doesn’t believe that you think that Sam, so you don’t, even if you do!

]]> By: Samuel Skinner http://memeplex.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/on-god-darwin-morality-and-muehlenberg/#comment-81 Samuel Skinner Tue, 26 Feb 2008 04:41:08 +0000 http://memeplex.wordpress.com/?p=40#comment-81 Hey, I'm a materialist and I think morality exists- not as a platonic from, but the same way concepts such as good and bad exist. I don't believe matter, er matters- only people do (and other thinking creatures- categories a bit wider now). Matter can't feel pain- people can. It is the wonder of complexity. Hey, I’m a materialist and I think morality exists- not as a platonic from, but the same way concepts such as good and bad exist. I don’t believe matter, er matters- only people do (and other thinking creatures- categories a bit wider now). Matter can’t feel pain- people can. It is the wonder of complexity.

]]> By: Bruce http://memeplex.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/on-god-darwin-morality-and-muehlenberg/#comment-80 Bruce Tue, 26 Feb 2008 04:17:49 +0000 http://memeplex.wordpress.com/?p=40#comment-80 Oh geez. I've stopped reading. "The more consistent Darwinists, such as Dawkins, simply concede the point: there is no such thing as right and wrong." Dawkins has; A) Never said this (the quote that followed didn't even support the notion when taken out of context!) and... B) Contradicted it (such as in stating that he thinks there is such a thing as evil but not as a supernatural force and in arguing against social Darwinism.) Bill has also surreptitiously slipped in the "Social Darwinist" straw man in above quote as well. For the record, <i>The Devil's Chaplain</i> contains Dawkins' argument <i>against</i> social Darwinism. Bill should seriously consider actually reading someone he critiques, but then I guess that would make it harder to be dishonest. If I can stop mentally vomiting, I may take a crack at Muehlenberg for this one. Oh geez. I’ve stopped reading.

“The more consistent Darwinists, such as Dawkins, simply concede the point: there is no such thing as right and wrong.”

Dawkins has;

A) Never said this (the quote that followed didn’t even support the notion when taken out of context!) and…
B) Contradicted it (such as in stating that he thinks there is such a thing as evil but not as a supernatural force and in arguing against social Darwinism.)

Bill has also surreptitiously slipped in the “Social Darwinist” straw man in above quote as well. For the record, The Devil’s Chaplain contains Dawkins’ argument against social Darwinism.

Bill should seriously consider actually reading someone he critiques, but then I guess that would make it harder to be dishonest.

If I can stop mentally vomiting, I may take a crack at Muehlenberg for this one.

]]>