Does Hooking up Hurt You and other moral issues

In Apologetics, Christ, Christian, Christianity, Prayer, Satan, Saved on March 23, 2009 at 2:11 am


Does Hooking up Hurt You


Today at 9:28am

Here’s a good article to why there might be a biological explanation of why hooking up/casual sex might be detrimental to women. This stems from a debate I had with a friend about pre-martial sex (the larger debate was about morals) and my stance was that there is a biological reason for limiting this type of encounter, but I do not think that is morally wrong (well, to some degree it is since it can lead to suffering). I think that SOME of our innate moral precepts or espoused religious values are actually a reflection of biology (or some type of other physical explanation). Regardless, if you agree or take the opposite stance, I do think that we need to educate people about all of the responsibility and effects of this type activity in young adults.

Dan’s response-

Chris from the tone of the conversation I sense a real seeking for absolute proof of absolute truth and thereby acceptance of a moral system that would bring peace and joy for you. I think the first response I can offer is God left just enough out of the Bible for us to have to come to him in faith because only faith pleases him. To come to that point we have to admit we are not God most importantly of ourselves. After we come to that reality most other questions about life seem to fall into place. We love others from a perspective that comes from a selfless motivation and true devotion; we then know peace and joy.


 “We act moral because biological evolution or social conditioning.”


Just a few points to consider regarding on morality based on evolutionary development or biological adaptations. Without God morality is arbitrary and you don’t have to be a believer in God to recognize this.

I might use a few quotes for Arthur Allen Leff (1935-1981) was a professor of law at Yale Law School who is best known for a series of articles examining whether there is such a thing as a normative law or morality. Leff answers this question in the negative and follows the consequences to their logical conclusions. Leff follows his insight to its logical conclusion and notes that similarly there is no way, using logic, to prove that any particular act, no matter how horrible, is normatively wrong. Put it another way, one can never prove to another person that a particular set of behaviors is right or that a different set of behaviors is wrong. He states:

I will put the current situation as sharply as possible: there is today no way of ‘proving’ that napalming babies is bad except by asserting it (in a louder and louder voice), or by defining it as so, early in one’s game, and then later slipping it through, in a whisper, as a conclusion.

In Law and Technology: On shoring up a Void and Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law. Leff states “I want to believe —and so do you— in a complete, transcendent, and immanent set of propositions about right and wrong, findable rules that authoritatively and unambiguously direct us how to live righteously. I also want to believe —and so do you —in no such thing, but rather that we are wholly free, not only to choose for ourselves what we ought to do, but to decide for ourselves, individually and as a species, what we ought to be. What we want, Heaven help us, is simultaneously to be perfectly ruled and perfectly free, that is, at the same time to discover the right and good and to create it.

All I can say is this: it looks as if we are all we have. Given what we know about ourselves, and each other, this is an extraordinarily unappetizing prospect; looking around the world, it appears that if all men are brothers, the ruling model is Cain and Abel. Neither reason, nor love, nor even terror, seems to have worked to make us “good,” and worse than that, there is no reason why any thing should. Only if ethics were something unspeakable by us could law be unnatural, and therefore unchallengeable. As things stand now, everything is up for grabs. Nevertheless:


Napalming babies is bad.

Starving the poor is wicked.

Buying and selling each other is depraved.

Those who stood up and died resisting Hitler, Stalin, Amin, and Pol Pot —and General Custer too— have earned salvation.

Those who acquiesced deserve to be damned.

There is in the world such a thing as evil.

[All together now:] Sez who?

God help us.


Was Leff correct?

Can a world view without God explain objective morality and obligation at all?

Why should a person be moral if a naturalistic understanding of the universe is true-in other words, if the world is wholly without God and nothing exists beyond what we can see?


To address the evolutionary development or biological adaptations I would offer several comments then “Love thy neighbor” or any other sense of morality is merely an adaptation of how we survive. If that is the case then why over the centuries do we still have the terrible genocides we see not only in ancient history but literally happening in the Sudan today?  We could have evolved or developed, for example, a moral instinct favoring rape-which could be an aid to survival. Rape, then, would be “good” because it helps us to survive. One would also have to ask why would a mother give her life for her child and surrender her brief existence.

One might consider ethics based on a social contract but we would have the problem of the one who doesn’t want to go along. Even if people agree to a social contract, this doesn’t mean that their actions are right. To become a part of a gang, for example a person might be required to comment murder.

To have a moral law without the moral law giver we fool ourselves. Anselm in his Proslogion 3 made another a priori argument for God, this time based on the idea of necessary existence. He claimed that, if God is that than which no greater can be conceived, it is better to be necessary than contingent; therefore, God must be necessary. To sum up:

1. God is the entity than which nothing greater can be thought.

2. It is greater to be necessary than not.

3. God must therefore be necessary.

4. Hence, God exists necessarily.

In Chapter 2 of “The Existence of Nature and God” Anslem′s Argument for the Existence of God is as follows:

  1. God is something than which nothing greater can be thought.
  2. God exists in the understanding.
  3. It is greater to exist in reality and in the understanding than just in understanding.
  4. Therefore, God exists in reality

You know I couldn’t go this long without scripture:


(Gen 1:1)  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.


(Gen 1:26)  Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the animals, all the earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth.”


(Gen 2:9)  The LORD God caused to grow out of the ground every tree pleasing in appearance and good for food, including the tree of life in the midst of the garden, as well as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.


(Gen 2:16-17)  And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree of the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die.”


(Gen 3:15)  Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the wild animals that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You can’t eat from any tree in the garden’?” The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit from the trees in the garden. But about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said, ‘You must not eat it or touch it, or you will die.'” “No! You will not die,” the serpent said to the woman. “In fact, God knows that when you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”


(Gen 3:19)  You will eat bread by the sweat of your brow until you return to the ground, since you were taken from it. For you are dust, and you will return to dust.”


We see the basis of good and evil, the beginning of God and man, the judgments of disobeying God and most important the Grace available for our own disobedience God’s forgiveness.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: