Response to Dr. Blomberg

Dr. Blomberg’s view of altruism is flawed in light of recent primatological research.

I thank Dr. Blomberg for posting his commentary on Debunking Christianity. Here, I would like to respond to his argument for theism based on altruism. In addition to being a trained biblical scholar, I am also formally trained as an anthropologist (B.A., University of Arizona, 1982 + 1 year of graduate work). I have had a longstanding interest in the evolution of morality.

Dr. Blomberg’s post seems uninformed about crucial advances taking place in primatology as well as in neurobiology, which can explain altruistic behavior. I begin with this remark from Dr. Blomberg:

"What about the sheer altruism, utterly unmotivated by self-interest, which leads firefighters to sacrifice their lives by running back into towering infernos? Only the concept of humans made in the image of God can account for that in my estimation."

In one of the responses he adds:

"The most advanced of apes has never disclosed any awareness of systems of morality, which is why we never arrest and imprison them, even if they kill humans."

His example about human beings not imprisoning apes is not only factually incorrect (we do "imprison," kill, or separate apes who hurt human beings), but also overlooks that the human beings he describes may not be informed about recent primatological research. Otherwise, these are the problems with Dr. Blomberg’s argument:

1. It relies on a God-of-the-Gaps argument.
Dr. Blomberg suggests that since we don’t have a naturalistic explanation for altruism, then this should be relegated to the actions of God. Historically, such arguments have been overturned repeatedly. We can name literally hundreds of phenomena once thought to be supernatural, but which were subsequently overturned by completely naturalistic explanations. Everything from lightning to earthquakes were once thought to have supernatural origins before we discovered naturalistic explanations.

The reverse has never been the case to my knowledge. That is to say, I don’t know of any case where a naturalistic explanation has been replaced by an indisputably supernaturalistic one. The replacement of natural explanations by indisputably supernatural explanations has batted a zero in history. Given such a track record, therefore, it is reasonable to posit that altruism is no less naturalistic than any other phenomenon observed.

2. We do have observations of animals who act to save other individuals even when it imperils their lives.
One recent dramatic case was in Santiago, Chile, where a dog rushed into traffic and dragged to safety another dog lying on the road. See video here: Dog saves Dog in Traffic

Can Dr. Blomberg explain why a dog would do such a thing?

3. Recent and very rigorous primatological research shows that greater apes do have a sense of what we might call “morality.”
Crucial here is the research of Frans de Waal, Professor of Primate Behavior in the Department of Psychology at Emory University. Frans de Waal has brought a methodological and experimental rigor to primate behavioral research that provides good controls. Overall, de Waal’s research shows a continuity between higher ape “moral” behavior and that of human beings (as opposed to previous theorists who think human moral behavior is completely unique and/or an innovation).

In some cases (e.g., food sharing behavior), his data sets have involved upwards of 7,000 interactions (see de Waal. “Food Sharing and Reciprocal Obligations Among Chimpanzees.” Journal of Human Evolution 18 [1989]:433-459).

In addition, to his important books (Good Natured: The Origin of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals [1996] and Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved [2006]), I would suggest his following technical articles:

S. F. Brosnan and F. B. M. de Waal. Monkeys Reject Unequal Pay.
Nature 425 (2003):297-299.

F. B. M. de Waal and A. van Roosmalen. Reconciliation and Consolation
among Chimpanzees. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
5 (1979):55-66.

Let me just briefly summarize the results of some of these experiments. In the article in Nature, Dr. de Waal devised elegant experiments showing that capuchin monkeys do have a sense of fairness. For example, capuchin monkeys might reject a food reward of less value if they observe other monkeys receiving food of higher value for performing the same task.

Just as compelling are the earlier experiments showing that Rhesus monkeys refuse to pull a chain that delivered food to themselves if pulling the chain shocked other monkeys. Some monkeys were willing to starve if getting food for themselves meant hurting other monkeys. See: J. Masserman. M. S. Wechkin and W. Terris. Altruistic Behavior in Rhesus Monkeys. American Journal of Psychiatry 121 [1964]: 584-585.

How would Dr. Blomberg explain that behavior?

In his research on consolation, de Waal found that chimpanzees who observe a fight between two other chimpanzees will offer consolation behavior at much higher rates to the recipient of the aggression than to the aggressor. This also involved hundreds of rigorously quantified conflictive interactions, and not just a few anecdotes.

Further research by de Waal shows that chimpanzees do make inferences about the mental and emotional states of other chimpanzees, and then tailor their own behavior accordingly. In other words, we see incipient theories of mind among greater apes. Combined with research about the development of morality in infants, primatology can greatly elucidate what we observe in human beings.

Neurobiology is also helping us to make great strides in explaining the origin of human morality. For example, consider recent experiments elucidating the role of Oxytocin, a neuropeptide, in explaining nurturing and “trust” behavior in animals. See, for example, Duo Jin et al., CD28 is Critical for Social Behaviour by Regulating Oxytocin Secretion. Nature 446, (1 March 2007): 41-45.

In any case, the conjoining of primatology, neurobiology, and human developmental psychology will probably yield much better explanations for “altruism” than the old “God-does-it” theories, which have not a single piece of verifiable scientific evidence to support them. Dr. Blomberg must interact fully with this scientific and anthropological literature before he can convince us that a theistic argument is a better alternative.

If he wishes to respond, I hope Dr. Blomberg can at least address these questions:

1. Are you familiar with the the primatological and neurobiological literature I have cited above? If so, could you tell us where you have cited or critiqued it?

2. How do you explain the motivations of the dog who saved the other dog in traffic?

3. Why do Rhesus monkeys prefer to starve rather than receive food if that means hurting other monkeys?

4. How do you explain that Oxytocin pathway malfunctions will result in a loss of nurturing behavior in some animals?

Otherwise, thanks again for your time and for posting on our website.

44 comments:

Jason Long said...

I have an anecdote that you may find amusing Dr. Avalos. About twelve years ago, I saw someone at my workplace swat and kill a fly (something I oppose). It landed upside down with its legs sticking up. Not two seconds later, a nearby fly that had been flying around with it moments ago came by, grabbed the fly by its legs, and proceeded to slowly fly away with it - all while the swatter was still directly over the dead fly. My fellow employee killed it as well in the act. It was the damned things I'd ever seen and made me quite upset.

Jason Long said...

make that "damnedest thing"

Anonymous said...

As I'm writing my book on the Darwinian Problem of Evil this post was very interesting to me, Hector. I was thinking in terms of sentience, thinking, consciousness, and self-consciousness with regard to animals and animal pain, but now I need to consider animal altruism too. It would seem to me that such a phenomena must be explained in some kind of animal thinking and consciousness, at least likened to that of human beings. After all, we are all a part of the evolutionary chain of being.

Ben said...

I'm not convinced that the firefighter example shows us a case of "pure" altruism, a good (and risky) deed done solely to benefit another.

Is there such thing as "pure" altruism?

SirMoogie said...

Jason,

There are numerous species of flies, so it'd be hard to confirm this, but a number of insect species are cannibalistic. So it's possible that the fly was merely taking the other fly to eat it. This is also a possible explanation for the dog behavior, though I'm not sure how prevalent cannibalism is in wild dogs.

However, this shouldn't detract from the salient point that altruism does occur in other species than ourselves. Since I disparaged the flies in the anecdote above by saying they might have been exhibiting cannibalism, I'll offer a few examples of altruistic behavior in insects:

Japanese Honeybees - One predator honey bees must be wary of is the Asian Giant Hornet (one of the most deadliest insects, a small swarm can literally decimate a hive of honey bees in minutes). In order to protect themselves from a potential invasion of Asian Giant Hornets (which rely on z scout to find prey), one Japanese Honeybee acts as a lure, leading the scouting hornet into the hive. Once in the hive the other bees swarm the hornet, and vibrate their bodies increasing the internal temperature inside of the "bee ball" in order to cook the hornet. All bees involved are in danger, but the lure most of all.

Globitermes sulphureus (a termite species) - The soldiers of this species will disembowel themselves, causing a sticky secretion to pour from their now dead bodies in order to prevent invading insect species.

Anonymous said...

... or the heroic fierceness with which mindless animals protect their young, much unlike human mothers who seek abortions for no other reason than comfort.

Philip R Kreyche said...

Yes, Lucian, the one universal reason that all human mothers have abortions is because they want to be comfortable.

Rigorous scientific analysis, I say!

Anonymous said...

It is no less enlightening to read "Baboon Metaphysics." I can not understand how fundamentalists, in the face of even the most cursory observational evidence of animal behavior, can fail to see the origins and parallels to human intellect and emotion. Surely the mental gymnastics necessary to hold such evidence at a distance must cause the occasional sprain in their mental faculties and let surface the long-suppressed ability to reason.

Anonymous said...

Not the only one, Philip, but one of the most common.

Brad Haggard said...

Let me preface this by saying that I never thought the moral argument to be the most convincing argument for Christianity.

That said, I'm still amazed at how quick scientists are to draw a parallel between animal behavior and human reason. Isn't it self-evident that there is a huge difference between humans and animals? I think that the main difference is not "in principle" (i.e. animals don't do anything nice for like kind) but degree.

It seems like humans are nicer and meaner that warranted by evolution. I think the argument of evil is actually stronger for supernaturalism. The Bible's teaching on our sin nature really resonates with what I see in the news and personally.

And I still say that this post commits the genetic fallacy. Even if Dr. Avalos provided an evolutionary method for our sophisticated morals (which he didn't do here), it doesn't show that they are only natural. I think that the opposite is shown to be true in the fact that he and the other contributors on this blog see some "purpose" in their writings. As much as we try to "see through" morals, we can't help but live by them.

zilch said...

Ben- as many philosophers have pointed out, altruism is very tricky to pin down: if it pleases me to help others, am I not just being selfish and trying to please myself? I doubt that there is any rigorous definition of altruism.

Dr. Avalos- all these anecdotes of apes demonstrating altruistic behavior are well and good, but can you prove that they didn't have access to Bibles or Sunday School?

Anthony said...

Brad wrote: The Bible's teaching on our sin nature really resonates with what I see in the news and personally.

Yes Brad, that's what happens when you wear any kind of worldview glasses. I used to think the same thing when I was a Christian. Looking back now I understand that I saw what I wanted to see. I believed the Bible and saw the world through that lens, so in that sense, the Bible was self-authenticating.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Dr. Avalos ~ "3. Recent and very rigorous primatological research shows that greater apes do have a sense of what we might call “morality.”

That's a quack argument and is only based on "what we might call" morality...Listen, birds feed their young, are they moral beings, do they have any sort of objective moral values such as humans...I'm sure we can find a lot of things that "we might call" morality but NONE stack up...

I'll get back with greater detail later but mokey morality is a farce...so far as the dog, was he a domesticated animal? I'm SURE he was...but that point is totally overlooked "mysteriously" in most methodological studies regarding this.

Later.

Philip R Kreyche said...

Brad,

How would you demonstrate morals to be supernatural in origin?

And if they are, how do you explain the endless varieties or morals that different cultures have and have had? I could make the claim that the fact that every culture has a different set of ethics that one could conclude that each was started by a different god since logically it wouldnot make sense for one god to instill different morals in every human and culture.

Joe Staub said...

Dr. Avalos, just another personal anecdodal observation on animal altruism. I raise, breed, and train Llamas. Recently, I put several pregnant females in with a young agressive stud male because they all needed to feed off a particular pasture. Normally you don't do this because a pregnant female is vulnerable to harm by an agressive male. I did not think that this would be a problem at the time, because the females were much older and always stood up against this young stud male when ever he tried to make advances in the past. So, I found them to be benign with each other due to their counteracting characteristics. However, on this occasion, one of the females was injured and was not able to fend off the aggressive male. The male singled the injured female out, because he knew that she was easy pickings. As the male chased the female around, immediately one of the other females came to her defense and literally got between the male and the injured female. I was so facinated by this behavior that I kept them all together for a few days to continue monitoring this behavior. On ocassion, the male would try a few times to "get" the injured female, but he would give up due to the persistence of the defending female who would position herself between them. Not only did I notice that the defending female kept a keen eye on the injured llama for these several days, but she was also quite clever about how she helped the weeker llama. My thought at the time was that I was impressed with the "altruistic" behavior of the defending llama. I had always known that llamas were very intelligent and had distinct personalities, but this kind of behavior taught me that they have the ability to in some degree "feel" for the needs of other llamas. Read the book, "The Emotional Life of Animals" by Celeste Adams. It will give you a whole new perspective on how animals actually feel and behave. I wonder if our cultural "Christian" theology, with its dismissal of animals as merely instinctive souless beasts, has set us back in our understanding and study of what animals actually are like.

Anthony said...

Harvey wrote: That's a quack argument

Harvey, you only think it's a quack argument because you are a young-earth creationist. It's interesting how evolutionists have produced mountains of evidence, and what does the creationist do? Dismiss it. What kind of evidence have you provided Harvey? The lack of moon dust is evidence for a young universe, an argument that even Answers in Genesis rejects.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Anthony,

Choose to believe the lie that monkeys and dogs have as much morality as you...they'll be driving your car and drinking your coffee next in this anti-Christ world view that you espouse. When some court steps up and tells you that the dog had every right to bite your child's head off because you've enfringed on their moral right then you'll get the picture won't you?

Monkey morality only offers what Dr. Avolos stated..."What WE MIGHT CALL morality"...Since when are Observations science? We observe a lot of things but that doesn't mean it's science...any animal can do anything at any time but do they repeat and duplicate that behavior regularly...NONE of these quack studies say that...can you? Moondust or not.

Peace my friend.

Anonymous said...

All 'scientific' explanations of morality prove too much. For example, it's undeniable that cooperation and altruistic behavior have evolutionary benefits, *but so do uncooperative and selfish behaviors*. In other words, scientific explanations of morality can at best elucidate tendencies, i.e. provide descriptions of how people, apes, dogs, etc. in fact behave, and perhaps (with much less precision) explain why such behaviors developed, but what they cannot do is explain *prescription*. That is, science can tell us how we (and other animals) in fact behave -- which includes altruism, selfishness, etc. -- and it can provide clues as to why certain behaviors developed, but it cannot tell us how we 'should' act in any situation. In short, there's a world of difference between description and prescription, and none of us think only about the former when discussing morality.

Anonymous said...

"Yes Brad, that's what happens when you wear any kind of worldview glasses."

Anthony, we're all wearing them!

Brad Haggard said...

Anthony,

I anticipated someone pointing out the subjective nature of my argument. I can't deny it, only to say that in my ministry experience I have accumulated overwhelming anecdotal evidence of this.

Peter Hitchens has his notion of "privileged atheism" where comfortable people talk about these abstract issues without contact in the real world. I don't think I could accuse anyone of that because I live relatively comfortably as well, but with all my experience I have seen a depth of evil in others and especially in myself that consistently confirms this teaching. I wish I could "empirify" it, but it is still very convincing to me, even as I try to consider the evidence outside of my perspective.

Harry H. McCall said...

Globitermes sulphureus (a termite species) - The soldiers of this species will disembowel themselves, causing a sticky secretion to pour from their now dead bodies in order to prevent invading insect species.

Harvey is an excellent example of this insect. He has sacrificed all his objective intelligence just to keep the Biblical God afloat.

Harvey, the reason I reject the Bible is that all that it promises to believers seems to only happen around subjective believers like yourself.

In the Book of Acts, Herod was struck down by God and eaten of worms: On an appointed day Herod, having put on his royal apparel, took his seat on the rostrum and began delivering an address to them. The people kept crying out, "The voice of a god and not of a man!" And immediately an angel of the Lord struck him because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and died.(Acts 12: 21 - 23).

Acts is contra Josephus Ant. Xvii 8/ BJ i 33, 8.

The Bible is full of stories and adventures and is one hell of a long running commercial to the ancient world.

Fact is Harvey, I’ll put my godless life up against your Christian life and I'll bet you will suffer more before you finally died simply because you trusted something that was only stories and adventures.

In the ancient word, the Bible, just like Homer, was source of entertainment and fear.
It’s rejected today because it claims far too much as fact when it' now know as know as ancient lies sold as religious propaganda.

Jason Long said...

Anthony/Harry:

Perhaps Harvey has good reason to reject information from peer-reviewed publications. Have you ever asked him if his rejection extends beyond information that would discredit everything he has dedicated his life to?

Erik said...

2. How do you explain the motivations of the dog who saved the other dog in traffic?
I don't personally see the relevance of this challenge. The degrees to which people speculate upon the motivations for animal behavior are far reaching - the passage seems to suggest that there may be altruism behind it, a commenter suggests that it may have been cannibalistic, and another commenter forces us to wonder, "did the dog in question have access to altruism-promoting or religious materials/pamphlets/texts?" People of all beliefs who are willing to explain animal behavior are just as willing to make their own personal point of view seem more relevant via their explanation of animal behavior. How does asking anyone to guess at the motivations of a dog get us anywhere? Human beings can actually answer questions for why they do things yet there seems to be a tendency to presume animals will speak louder and clearer. We presume that humans will lie about or misunderstand their own true motivations, we presume that animals are just as "moral" as the lying, ignorant humans, and we conclude that an animal on par with a human will more clearly exemplify why behavior exists the way it does, even though that animal could presumably manipulate an observer as a primitive human could have.

3. Why do Rhesus monkeys prefer to starve rather than receive food if that means hurting other monkeys?
To what degree were the monkeys allowed to starve themselves? Was it to such a degree that it can be adequately compared to the degree of risk a firefighter faces when entering a burning building for the sake of another human?. Are the monkeys thoroughly convinced they will suffer/die if they don't take the food? Is a monkey that is taken out of it's environment and brought into a controlled environment where food is provided regularly until the experiment fully aware that it is being allowed to starve?

I agree that it is fascinating that animals will undergo stress for other animals (I've read of similar studies with rats and shock treatment), seem to have concepts of fairness, and respond empathetically to aggression victims, but I don't think we should immediately apply those findings to the behavior of humans...to do so is not proving behavioral parallels between humans and other animals but it is resting on the notion that this has already been proven and these findings fit in.

Today's science requires controlled experiments that ultimately explain the smallest of life's fundamentals, which is not to suggest it is unimportant, but these explanations do not have the infinite reach that some would like them to have. A caged monkey with a specific food supply under the care of and conditions set up by an opinionated human being - does this seem like it's directly analogous to the behavior of a human being capable of becoming overwhelmed with emotion and behaving completely irrationally at the drop of a hat?



How does any of this exclusively support the "atheistic evolution" Dr. Blomberg mentions and I'm assuming Dr. Avalos is providing evidence for? I certainly appreciate the comments regarding the 'God of the gaps' argument and the notion that no natural explanations have been replaced by supernatural ones, but I still do not see how this is a refutation of god's existence more than it is a refutation of certain conceptions of god. I understand this is a response to a conception of god, but why does it stop there? Even if this response absolutely invalidates Dr. Blomberg's perception of the Christian god, how does it affirm anything else? Are affirmations still held by people, or are we merely the negative reactions to the hypotheses offered?

I was curious as to the reason behind the Oxytocin question...any further clarification there would be appreciated.

Regardless of how my comments are perceived, I truly appreciate Dr. Avalos' comments. Many of my responses began based on his comments and ended as a response to the popular arguments I have heard regarding things like human vs animal behavior - if I came across as trying to misrepresent Dr. Avalos, I was not, but it is likely that I was reacting to popular opinions of a similar nature. I am especially thankful for his even temper throughout the entire post. Sarcasm seems to be a popular method of presenting ones point of view amongst some of the writers for "Debunking Christianity." His approachability, even while disagreeing, will be many times more likely to produce reasonable dialogue than sarcastic representations of opponents' most cherished beliefs will ever do.

Dr. Hector Avalos said...

I wonder if Mr. Burnett will be kind enough to answer these questions:

1. What is your definition of "objective morality"?

2. Can you provide at least 3 rules that would
qualify as "objective morality"?

3. In regard to this statement of yours:
("NONE of these quack studies say that"),
could you tell us specifically which studies
you actually read of the ones I cited?

It is also interesting that you deny that animals can have humanlike abilities, given that your own Bible has animals that talk (the jackass in Numbers 22) and animals that have "evil" motivations (the serpent in Genesis 3).

I hope I don't sound sarcastic here, as I am really just trying to understand how you reconcile your own ideas about animals with those of the Bible.

Brad Haggard said...

Dr. Avalos,

First off, let me say that I haven't seen a hint of sarcasm in your tone, and I appreciate you commenting on your article.

I'll try to address your questions and see where it goes.

1. I define "objective morality" as the innate moral sense that all humans have which causes us to live with purpose and direction. It is the "grid" within which all our discussions of life are based. It is manifested in various forms, such as, in our case, the Beatitudes or the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. Those examples are not objective morals, but are manifestations of the morality to which we all assent.

2. Here are three rules which I consider to be objective and absolute across humanity. a) It is good for humans to flourish, b) it is bad for humans to suffer, c) (this is the important one) humans have an intrinsic value (moral and legal) above that of other sentient beings. I have never heard a discussion on morals or ethics which did not presuppose these three items. I might also add d) humans have a purpose in their existence. That purpose could be divinely inspired or purely existential, but it is always in the discussion.

3. I trust your authority in those studies, but I do think they are applied too broadly in this discussion. As I stated earlier, the issue for me is not principle but degree.

I listened to a dialogue between Allister McGrath and David Helfand in which Helfand cited a goldfish study which seemed to show that the fish were more logical than college students. I'll spare you the details only to say that Helfand concluded from the study that we humans have an accidental extra mass in our brains that tries to find patterns where there may be none. This was also his assessment of religion and morality. But to say that the fish somehow were smarter than humans is to not recognize the fact that the humans were the ones conducting the experiment. We can't draw any metaphysical conclusions from it because of the nature of the experimenters themselves.

I don't want to disparage science in this area, I only want to caution on the latitude which we give these studies to form metaphysical worldviews. The old standard of Partially Overlapping Magisteria is helpful here.

Finally, in both accounts you give of animals talking, both instances obviously involve a spiritual entity speaking through the animal. In the Genesis account it may even be purely symbolic. Nowhere in the Bible are animals personified in that way, they are clearly created beings set lower than humanity.

Unknown said...

How would Dr. Blomberg explain that behavior?

I have a feeling it will sound a bit like this:

"Why, that's just god! God has taken control of those animals to teach humans a lesson in compassion."

When in doubt: God did it.

Josh said...

In a similar line as icelander wrote, I was thinking that, really, animal morality is not incompatable with the bible. If God made people to understand morality (being made in his image), why couldn't the same be true to some degree for animals?

That being said, I don't think Blomberg's argument is a compelling proof of the veracity of Christianity. But it is good to think about his argument, and it is graciously presented. I would say the same thing about Dr. Alverez's response. I really think there is not enough evidence of divine intervention to require morality in humans to point unquestionably to a God, and specifically the Christian God's existence. But I don't think one can discard Blomberg's argument as incompatable with science either. There is just more faith involved in his perspective.

Dr. Hector Avalos said...

Hello, Mr. Haggard,
Thank you for your forthright answers. You may not know that I have written an entire book that discusses religious and biblical ethics (Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence, 2005).
I discuss therein many of the types of arguments you have made.

First, your three instances of objective rules are all tautologies because you don't provide any rationale to justify them. Thus, their circularity can be expressed as follows:

a) It is good for humans to flourish because it is good for humans to flourish.

b) it is bad for humans to suffer because it is bad for humans to suffer.

c) (this is the important one) humans have an intrinsic value (moral and legal) above that of other sentient beings because human beings
have an intrinsic value above that of other sentient beings.

The third is also a religiocentric proposition because there are religions where sacred cows and other animals may be as sacred or more sacred than human beings. So you are simply providing a Euro-American Christian perspective of “morals.”

The last rule is also contradicted by a number of biblical stories, where God commanded human beings to be sacrificed while even non-sentient beings were spared. For example, in Joshua 6:18-24 (RSV)


[21] Then they utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword... [24] And they burned the city with fire, and all within it; only the silver and gold, and the vessels of bronze and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.

Second, you state that the UN Declaration of Human Rights would be an example of objective moral rules.

But my study of the UN Declaration of Human rights would show that the majority of its articles are directly against the biblical practices or principles of at least some authors.

For the text of these. see www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Consider Article 4 of the 1948 declaration: "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms."

Compare this with Leviticus 25:44-45:
[45] You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property.
[46] You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession for ever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness.


The Bible also contradicts the UN Declaration on the issue of genocide. The UN Declaration of Human Rights says that genocide is forbidden: www.hrweb.org/legal/undocs.html#CAG

Yet the Bible has many instances where genocide and the killing of women and children is commanded by the biblical god---For example, 1 Samuel 15:1ff and Numbers 31:17ff.

So, if you really believe in the UN Declaration, you would have to reject at least some practices sanctioned by the biblical god.

Finally, perhaps, you might tell us if you regard this as an objective moral principle:

“Killing infants is ALWAYS wrong”

Yes or no?

Anonymous said...

Dr. Avalos, you only asked Brad to provide you with three examples of rules that would qualify as 'objective morality'; you didn't ask him to justify them. Therefore, to criticize him for not providing what you didn't ask is disingenuous, and to characterize what he didn't provide (since you didn't ask for it) as 'tautological' is farcical. How could his justification be characterized as tautological if he never provided it?

Anonymous said...

Eric, you're not being fair with Hector then. He merely wanted some examples so he could blow the lid off them as tautalogies. That's standard argumentation. "Tell me what they are so I can see if they are not tautalogies."

Would you like to try?

snafu918 said...

The case of the dog saving the dog is interesting and I think a case of anthropomorphizing a dog.

In third world countries dogs and cats run rampant and are starving and hungry. What we see as one dog saving another dog may just have been one dog pulling his lunch to safety.

That is only a hypothesis because we don't know and can't know what this dog was thinking.

I would also assert that there is no true altruism in human beings. Firefighters become Firefighters because they want the recognition. Mothers sacrifice themselves for their children because evolution has engineered parents to protect their offspring at all costs.

Anyway just a few of my thoughts on the matter.

RBH said...

Brad Haggard said

It seems like humans are nicer and meaner that warranted by evolution. I think the argument of evil is actually stronger for supernaturalism. The Bible's teaching on our sin nature really resonates with what I see in the news and personally.

The important fact that Darwin (and Wallace) established was not natural selection as such, it was variation, the raw material on which natural selection operates. Prior to them, variability was deemed to be merely noise surrounding a fixed and unalterable central mode. But given polygenic influences on complex phenotypic phenomena like altruism and intelligence, and given the variability of environmental and developmental circumstances across human beings, we expect a dispersed distribution of those phenomena. All distributions have tails, but pointing to the tails and imagining that they are too wide is a fallacy. The extremes -- sociopaths and saints -- establish only that there is broad variability, but does not establish that one or the other is typical or that the breadth of the distribution contradicts the hypothesis that the distribution as a whole cannot be due to natural causes.

Brad Haggard also said

I anticipated someone pointing out the subjective nature of my argument. I can't deny it, only to say that in my ministry experience I have accumulated overwhelming anecdotal evidence of this.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

Dr. Hector Avalos said...

Hello, Eric,
I think you are missing my more implicit philosophical point: There ARE NO JUSTIFICATIONS that one can provide for basic moral principles that are not themselves also tautologies.

The fact that any justifications are themselves tautologies only undermines any pretense that there is such a thing as objective moral rules if
by the latter is meant rules that do not change
due to time or circumstance or rules that should be held true universally.

If you would like to to provide such justifications, I would be glad to show you why they are also tautologies.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Harry M~ "Globitermes sulphureus (a termite species) - The soldiers of this species will disembowel themselves, causing a sticky secretion to pour from their now dead bodies in order to prevent invading insect species.

Harvey is an excellent example of this insect."


Now Harry that wasn't a nice thing to say, however I'd line up my insect sense of God with your Ape sized irrational anti-Christ dogma any day---;)

Harry M~ "He has sacrificed all his objective intelligence just to keep the Biblical God afloat.

I'm 44 Harry, I've been saved since I was 17. God was "afloat" long before I got here and has managed to stay "afloat" quite handsomely by himself. In other words, I thank you for recognizing my efforts for the Kingdom Of Christ as that's my duty, but God will do fine with or without me.

Harry M~ "Harvey, the reason I reject the Bible is that all that it promises to believers seems to only happen around subjective believers like yourself.

Harry, why do I have so much control over you? I thought you had rejected Christ long before I showed up and began posting on this site in Feb. 2008...I guess you were a boarderline atheist then? Now you're full blown? Besides, I have a lot of good sinners in my church that have a lot of "good things" that happen to them...it's just that they are smart enough that most of those "good things" are a result of the Lord's blessings...so I don't quite understand your assertions...

Harry M~ "Fact is Harvey, I̢۪ll put my godless life up against your Christian life and I'll bet you will suffer more before you finally died simply because you trusted something that was only stories and adventures."

Harry I'll bet that we'll suffer proportionately similar to whatever degree and that we'll to our best to do what we think is good for humanity in the meantime, ONLY that I will have a purpose and a reason for all that I surffer and go through. I mean I will understand that I am not a product of random chance or scientific process, and that I am not a preprogrammed, piece of genetic material that just happened to develop and that will simply fade away. I will also live my life knowing that I will consequently receive an eternal reward for my suffering and labor and will be united in exact detail with the answere to all the questions that I currently have or will have.

That's the difference Harry, I have a future expectation and you don't...By the way, If by some means that my future expectation doesn't materialize...YOU WON'T KNOW IT! But believe me I have NO DOUBTS of my future expectation...The question is do you?


Dr Avalos,

Thanks for the dialogue, I'll get back with my answers to your questions although I think both Eric and Brad Haggard sum up my initial thoughts.

I still think that if any of you are so intent on denying God until you exalt animals in your place then you get what you deserve. I mean if feel your life is not morally or actually above that of a monkey or some other animal...then so live it out. I'll gladly live by a higher standard.

Later.

Dr. Hector Avalos said...

Hello, Mr. Burnett,
Thanks for the dialogue, but I think you just offered us another utterance that is based on a tautology: "I'll gladly live by a higher standard."

Translation: "My standard is higher because my standard is higher."

You can see that there is no way to decide objectively who has a "higher" standard.

Anonymous said...

John and Hector,

I think that much of this hinges on a deeper issue, viz. whether final causation can be defended. If it can, then, following Aquinas and Aristotle, one could argue without recourse to tautologies that an act is good if it contributes to our proper end as human beings, an end that will be determined in large part by our nature (which leads to another important issue upon which all this hangs -- the notion of substantial form, which seeks a state of 'actuality,' to introduce yet another important concept; and, of course, both substantial forms and actuality are intimately related to final causation). You couldn't simply respond with, "An act is good if it contributes to our proper ends because it contributes to our proper ends," since that's not at all the end of the argument (which, as I said, follows from a number of rigorous arguments about final causes, substantial forms, and the like). In short, without getting into a host of complex, interrelated philosophical sub-issues, and thus effectively repeating the first two parts of the Summa Theologica or the second and third books of the SCG, I would argue that the Thomistic conception of morality does not rely on tautologies, and can be justified philosophically. I'm sure that the two of you are at least somewhat familiar with Thomism, so I'll simply ask: how is Thomistic morality ultimately tautological?

Dr. Hector Avalos said...

Hello, Eric,
I have discussed Thomistic ethics a bit in Fighting Words. Needless to say, Aristotelean and Thomistic ethics are indeed also based on tautologies because they rely on views of “natural” that are circular.

Moreover, in some instances, Thomistic ethics would contradict what Mr. Haggard (and perhaps you) regard as universal principles.

For example, Mr. Haggard said that the UN Declaration manifests objective moral rules that I hope you also accept. So, let’s return to Article 4 of the 1948 declaration:

“No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.”

However, Aristotle (Politics 1) thought that some men were, by nature, slaves. When you seek to understand why some men were, by nature, slaves, it turns out to be a tautology: Feature X makes men, by nature, slaves because feature X makes men, by nature, slaves.

Although Aquinas has a slightly different view of nature and “slave” (See Summa Theologica II-II, 57, 3), he still believes slavery is allowable because of “resultant utility” (utilitatem consequentam). Note his reasoning (Summa Theologica II-II, 57, 3, ad 2):

“Considered absolutely, the fact that this particular man should be a slave rather than another man, is based, not on natural reason, but on some resultant utility, in that it is useful to this man, and to the latter to be helped by the former, as the Philosopher [= Aristotle] states (Polit. 1.2). Wherefore slavery which belongs to the right of nations is natural in the second way, but not in the first.”


Latin:
Ad secundum dicendum quod hunc hominem esse servum, absolute considerando, magis cuam alium, non habet rationem naturalem: sed solum secundum aliquam utilitatem consequentem, inquantum utile est huic quod regatur a sapientiori, et illi quod ab hoc iuvetur, ut dicitur in “Politica”. Et ideo servitus pertinens ad ius gentium est naturalis secundo modo, sed non primo.

Indeed, all of “natural law” is tautological, and can yield very different results because different people will have different conceptions of what is “natural” or part of “human nature.” For example, inequality of women was once thought to be “natural.” Africans were enslaved because they were, “by nature,” inferior.

Likewise, your idea of our “our proper end” will ultimately be tautological because all ideas of what is “natural” are tautological when they rely on any theistic premises.

That is to say, once you inject what God thinks is “natural,” then you are back to a tautology such as this: God thinks X is a proper end because God thinks X is a proper end.


Moreover, Aquinas did not believe abortion was murder if the fetus was not yet “animated” (Summa II-II, 64, 8, ad 2), something that could range upwards of 90 days after conception. Thus, he would have a different conception of when human personhood begins relative to current Catholic tradition.

In sum,current Catholic thought does not always follow Thomistic conception of "natural." More importantly, different cultures have different conceptions of what is "natural." Therefore, Thomisic ethics do not qualify as universally "objective" but rather they are the result of certain theological and cultural premises.

Brad Haggard said...

Dr. Avalos,

Thank you for responding again.

First off, I never cited the U.N. Declaration as objective moral values, only as a (cultural) manifestation. Surely between cultures we can find points of tension between sophisticated moral and ethical codes.

Second, you are right to call my examples of moral laws tautologies. I see no reason to affirm those tenets as true apart from some divine revelation. You have aptly demonstrated that.

The real news is that no one wants to hear that. As much as philosophers point out the circularity of moral reasoning, we are still left with moral systems, and moral systems which are generally the same (once again, there will be certain differences.) Even this blog purports to have a purpose.

So yes, moral thinking without appeal to some higher order eventually falls into irrationality, but we still keep on living like it is self-evidently rational. As much as we tell our minds that we are above morals, we can't get it out of our hearts. And some of the atheistic accounts of morality that I have heard recently fall upon that same line of existential irrationality.

So yes, I believe that it is wrong for humans to kill infants for expedient purposes, but the only way I can truly affirm it is that I take every human to carry the "imago dei" which imbues them with intrinsic moral value.

SirMoogie said...

Dr. Avalos,

I'm trying to get a sense of your use of the term "tautology". Are you using it in the rhetorical sense, which is to say that something is tautological, if it is trivial? Are you using it in the logical sense where a statement is tautological in structure, if every possible valuation of its propositional components results in the statement being true? Are you using it in some sense that I'm not aware of?

If you're using it in the first sense, what is trivial about grounding one's ethics in themselves? Justifying good intentions based on a mental simulation of how one thinks they'd feel if an action was inflicted on them (i.e., principle of reciprocity). For example, I will not commit murder on Dr. Avalos because I have mentally simulated the action being performed on myself, I do not desire the consequences, and I presume Dr. Avalos is a conscious entity similar to myself and reckon he wouldn't like it either. I don't see how this is a trivial statement.

Perhaps you meant the second sense. If so, I don't find this to be a legitimate criticism, as all valid deductive proofs can be restated as a logical tautology. All of mathematics relies on such proofs, which can be restated as tautologies.

Dr. Hector Avalos said...

Hello, Mr. Haggard,
Thanks for your response, but I am still not clear on the answer to this proposition: “Killing infants is ALWAYS wrong”

My request required a YES or NO.

The way you phrased your response ("So yes, I believe that it is wrong for humans to kill infants for expedient purposes"), suggests that it is NOT ALWAYS wrong to kill infants.

That is to say, your answer suggests that killing infants is wrong when done for expedient purposes. Other types of purposes may justify killing infants.

Please let me know if I am understanding your answer. Again, it requires simply a YES or NO (either it is always wrong to kill infants or it is not).

Dr. Hector Avalos said...

Hello, Sir Moogie,
I am using "tautology" in a logical sense to expose the fact that moral tautologies cannot constitute an “objective” and universal sets of moral principles. Everyone can come up with a different tautology that is no less logically valid than that of Mr. Haggard.

For example, note this tautology: The principle of reciprocity is wrong because the principle of reciprocity is wrong.

Thus, one would now have to explain why one moral tautology is better than another.

It is true that mathematics is based on tautologies, but you also miss the big difference. In mathematics, most terms are well defined or only have a single definition. Thus, 1 + 1 = 2 because we all can agree on what 1 means and what 2 means. We can generate clear mathematical rules and results that do not depend on theism or atheism. Christians, Muslims, and Atheistst can come to the same results every time.

That is not the case with morals. Every term from “good” to “human nature” can have many definitions. One cannot use these moral tautologies to yield the same results for everyone on a practical level. Empirically we can observe that they indeed do not yield the same results for everyone.

Thus, moral tautologies cannot be described as being as objective as mathematical tautologies if that is what you are alleging.

Brad Haggard said...

Dr. Avalos,

To clarify, let me give a situation that would bypass "expediency." I am imagining an instance in which a pregnant woman's life is in danger either from the pregnancy or the delivery. In that case, the moral dilemma is choosing which human holds more worth. This is debatable, but I can hardly fault a doctor in this sense for choosing the mother's life over the baby's. "Expedient" in my definition covers pretty much any other reason for terminating the life of a baby (e.g. abortion on demand for a baby with a birth defect discovered in utero). So maybe I might say, "no" except when another life is at risk.

Now I would like to return to your deductive grounds for rejecting my objective morals. I am not categorically stating those as objective, I am arriving at them inductively. Those three "tautologies" which I gave are what I perceive to be the three foundations of any moral code in any culture or worldview. In that sense they are objective, not because they are reached through deductive reasoning, but because everyone everywhere, no matter where or when we are, live by these rules.

You objected to my third rule by claiming that it was religion-based and therefore not objective. I would counter that even in practicing Hindu societies families would not prefer a cow over a family member, no matter what the official status of cows are in the religion. These morals are obtained by looking at how people live, and I doubt even a devout Hindu would morally prefer a cow over his son. Even if he did, and we found an isolated example of this, every other culture in the world would categorically condemn that act.

I am also a little confused at your citation of Joshua 6:21-24. This was meant to show that Christianity preferred gold and silver over all sentient beings. In the first sense, I'm not sure how the objects were "spared" in any way if they do not possess sentience. Does a golden object prefer to be burned or looted? Without sentience I think that those objects have little moral value. They do, though, have economic value.

But even if this event can be a verified moral anomaly, it is just that, an anomaly. These rules are arrived at through the preponderance of the evidence, inductively. If we were to justify every basic proposition in the manner in which you ask, we would not be able to even justify the notion that we are rational creatures.

Anonymous said...

Hello Dr. Avalos

Rather than get immediately into an exchange about your conception of the bases of Aristotelian/Thomistic ethics, I think it would be much more economical to address the root of your position first, as I understand it, and then to tie in what seems to me to be the error you're making in your analysis. Before I do any of that, let me state what I take you to be saying, which I'll call for the sake of convenience HP (Hector's Principle):

(HP): If an argument (A) that leads to a conclusion (C) is ultimately grounded on a first principle (FP) that can be shown to be tautological, then, even if (A) is valid and/or sound, (C) cannot be objectively true, because (FP) cannot be objectively true (where 'objectively true' means true independent of anyone's beliefs; therefore, universal agreement is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition of 'objective truth').

Is this accurate? If it is, I see three problems.

1. (HP) itself doesn't rest on first principles that are objectively true, so (HP) can't be objectively true. In this sense, (HP) is self defeating. (Note, universal agreement on logical principles -- even if such agreement could be obtained -- wouldn't suffice to defend their objectivity. If everyone agreed that evolution was false, this wouldn't in any sense falsify evolution. Similarly, if everyone agreed to use the word 'gloop' to signify 'tree,' this wouldn't mean that there's any necessary connection between the word 'gloop' and trees -- we could always choose to use a different word tomorrow. Also, even if we agree that 'gloop' means 'tree,' nothing could stop two friends from using it differently to communicate a secret message. Therefore, you cannot claim that X is objectively true simply because we can come to an agreement about what X means, or about how to use X -- especially when X denotes an abstract concept, such as a logical rule.)

2. (HP) assumes that all possible (FP) that are definitional are tautological. But this can only be defended if you take a nominalist position about universals. However, (HP) itself obviously makes use of universals. Therefore, the same criticisms you apply to (FP) apply with equal force to the universals you used to formualte (HP).

3. The nominalism presupposed by (HP) leads you to misread Aquinas' definitions as tautologies, while he would argue that they involve the intellect coming to understand a substance's objective, essential form. Hence, if moderate realism can be defended, and nominalism refuted, Thomistic morality doesn't rest on tautologies, but on objective facts. Therefore, if moderate realism obtains, (HP) becomes untenable.

Dr. Hector Avalos said...

Eric, Mr. Haggard, et al
I shall respond at greater length once I finish grading all my final exams this weekend.