The Origins of Morality: Convergent and Consilient Reasons for a Re Think

By Daniel A. Briggs Ph.D.

The Origins of Morality juxtaposes nature and divinity, theory and faith, and science and theology, provoking intense curiosity about threads woven into the fabric of ethics and belief systems by humankind over the ages. Daniel Briggs critically analyzes classic and contemporary theories in science, biology, philosophy, psychology, sociology, and theology to present fresh insight into the derivation of value systems and mores from the beginning of recorded time to the present day. Tempered by the writings of renowned theorists such as Einstein, Hawking, Darwin, Freud, and Adler against a backdrop of writings attributed to the Divine, Briggs helps the reader traverse a web of complex concepts ranging from the big bang theory and the cosmological constant to Darwinism and intelligent design, iron logic and faith to formulate a cogent view of morality.

Briggs balances secular and spiritual elements, examining contentious and divergent views on the foundations underlying humanity and morality to present objective information that allows readers to formulate their own conclusions. Although written in scholarly fashion, The Origins of Morality includes references and a glossary making it suitable for a wide audience of readers. The book will be of particular interest to academicians, psychologists, scientists, sociologists, theologians, students and those individuals seeking answers to fundamental questions about the origins of human belief systems. Rather than repeating content from works, Briggs refers readers interested in exploring certain areas in more detail to other books he has published on related or tangential topics.

Briggs has written an intellectually stimulating and thought provoking book that challenges readers to question answers proffered by scientific theory and religion, to draw their own conclusions. The Origins of Morality is highly recommended for those who want to get past philosophical rhetoric and confusing scientific theories to formulate their own answer to the question, "What is morality?" How will you answer this question after reading The Origins of Morality?

Judy Bullock, Ph.D.
Professor at American Intercontinental University
Atlanta, Georgia, USA

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Apr 23, 2012
• ISBN: 9781469194639

Daniel A. Briggs Ph.D.

DrBriggs1 Daniel Briggs, Ph.D. Brother Daniel Briggs earned his Ph.D. from Walden University, his C.A.C. from AAINE (n/f Alfred Adler Institute of New England), his B.A. in Fine Arts in Writing & Literature from Union Institute & University, and completed 105 credits in Sociology at Norwich University. He also received a Th.B. from Indiana Bible College). He has held various professional positions ranging from Non-Destructive Radiographer II (within an aerospace manufacturing company, FMI) to a CEO/COO, and from a Psychoanalyst to a Financial Consultant (within a Wall Street company, First Investors). He has owned/operated two successful mechanical engineering companies. He now teaches Sociology, Philosophy and Psychology between IADT and ALU, writes books and writes articles for the Examiner.com. He is also the Chairman of WCMA. Dr. Briggs founded Bangor Counseling Center, Cornerstone, Inc. (n/f), Cornerstone Theological University, First Apostolic Church of Biddeford, Apostolic Church of Faith, Maine Christian Ministries, and others. He also founded Aletheia Logos University, which is now approved to operate in the State of Florida, and Transmutation Psychology Institute. He also helped establish, design and build the Pentecostal Church of Moncton. He has authored several books, most notably his Disciples of Christ Volumes, (eight volumes) , The Origins of Morality and A Comparative Historical Analysis of Freudian, Adlerian and Theocentric Psychologies. Dr. Briggs, is a third generation clergyman who began his life calling when he was just 15 years old, when he first started preaching under the guidance of his father, Rev. Arthur Briggs, in Winterport, Maine. When Dr. Daniel Briggs was 17 years old he began attending seminary in the USA (ABI) and by 18 years of age he transferred to a Canadian seminary (NCC) and simultaneously began to minister in many churches throughout Eastern Canada. By age 21 Dr. Daniel Briggs left Canada and went to Biddeford, Maine (a predominately catholic French speaking city) to start a new congregation he named First Apostolic Church of Biddeford (FACB), where he founded and headquartered WCMA-Maine in 1993. WCMA-Maine was divested in 2008 and merged with WCMA-Florida. Dr. Briggs began developing World Christian Ministries Association, Inc. (WCMA-Florida) as an unincorporated church association for Apostolic Pentecostal ministers, churches, ministries, charities and organizations to help spread the gospel around the world and help less fortunate apostolic Pentecostal Christians in developing countries. Since he began this work in early 2006, it has flourished to over 4,300 churches, ministries, ministers, charities and organizations representing over 202,246 constituents. One of the main premises of this book (UTA) was endorsed by Rev. Dr. David Bernard (UPCI General Supt.) in the early nineties when it was first being developed. A copy of that interview is available upon request and will be a part of an upcoming book soon to be published.

Book preview

Copyright © 2012 by Daniel A. Briggs Ph.D.

Library of Congress Control Number:      2012906038

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

To order additional copies of this book, contact:

Xlibris Corporation

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

[e-mail]

114735

Contents

Chapter -1- Views on Cause and the Universe’s Beginning

Chapter -2- Views on the Origins of Biological Life

Chapter -3- Views on the Origins of Morality Part I

Chapter -4- Views on the Origins of Morality Part II

Chapter -5- Views on the Origins of Morality Part III

Chapter -6- The Nature and Teleology of Laws & Rules

Chapter -7- Ultimate Morality The Supreme Universal Moral Code (The UTA)

Glossary

Bibliography

Endnotes

Chapter

-1-

Views on Cause and the Universe’s

Beginning

INTRODUCTION

For most of us, when we encounter ideas that run contrary to our iron logic they are swiftly arrested and shackled by our iron logic security guards. Therefore, more often than not, only repeated introductions of emotionalized thoughts gain access and front runner status within our mysterious and myriad synapses, a synaptic world where even cursory considerations are quickly categorized and are either used for reinforcement of our iron logic or shackled by our dominant emotionalized brain thoughts and cast into the netherworld of our gray matter, to be eternally forgotten. But persistent, progressive and emotionalized reinforcement can eventually and efficaciously ally with our impressions that comprise our iron logic to engender modest or even dramatic thought transformations. Stated another way, sometimes repetition is the only way we will ever accept something new and abandon faulty assumptions. I will, therefore, contrary to my literary mentors, follow my psychology training and reinforce some of the ideas in this book more than once, which will hopefully evoke a few ah-huh moments or maybe a déjà vu feeling or two.

Furthermore, some of you more scientifically inclined readers will undoubtedly enjoy the intellectual readings of the first few chapters, whether agreeable or not, while others less inclined so may find certain sections more laborious. But I assure you that if you will persevere through any challenging section(s) your efforts will be rewarded. You will discover provocative information, some of which will resonate with you while some of it will rouse your curiosity to venture into unchartered waters, or perhaps places where you have not gone for a long time.

With that said I want to begin by making the following introductory observations and then delve right into critique and analysis. There are several secular scientific theories regarding the origins of morality from the framework of Evolutionary Psychology, formerly known as or in response to, Sociobiology, and in particular the Sociological and Psychological views. Whether considering Jonathan Haidt’s[¹] mechanisms of morality view, Edward O. Wilson’s[²] ought biological view, Heinz Pagels’[³] view, the Game Theory[⁴] view, Adler’s theories[⁵], Hume’s[⁶] theories, or various elements of the Darwinian theory, they all have common secular threads which are built upon flawed paradigms, as I will show. Interestingly, the more modern (later) secular scientific theories often incorporate views proffered by much earlier philosophers, e.g., Hume, Newton, Bacon, Nietzsche, Hobbes, Epicurus, etc. Thus, the question must be asked, Why? to which I will also offer an answer. Conversely, there are also many scientists (e.g., Michael Rivero—New Realities: The Big Bang is Just Religion Disguised as Science, Tom Van Flandern—Dark Matter, etc., William C. Mitchell—The Cult of the Big Bang, Eric J. Lerner—Big Bang Never Happened, Halton Arp—Seeing Red Shift: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, Geoff Hazelhurst—On Truth and Reality, etc.) that controvert mainstream secular scientific views. Lastly, some philosophers purport a more non-scientific (metaphysical and/or divine) explanation as to the source and essence of morality, particularly as it relates to cause, reaching back into antiquity. The antiquity list of thinkers includes both secular and theistic scholars. The most famous ethicist in early antiquity was Moses of Egypt, with Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Rab Yahushua Mashiyach, Paul of Tarsus, John the Revelator, et al., appearing in later antiquity. More recent theorists, beginning from the Middle Ages (Medieval), onward to the Dark Ages, to the Renaissance, to the Enlightenment, to the Romantic Period, and up to the extended Modernity Period, include such notables as St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, William of Ockham, John Calvin, Rene’ Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, Samuel Clarke, Kant, Nietzsche and far too many more to list here. Most of the latter three groups are more closely linked to biological views than the former groups, showing the influence that recent secular science has had on modern philosophers and theologians alike.

As I will show, literature seems to strongly suggest that every society has had a form of morality (and some form of ethics), usually as it relates to religion, since the dawn of time. Although some scholars suggest solely biological sources of the origins of morality, others suggest solely divine sources. But I will demonstrate that a combination or convergence of two sources, both nature and divinity, more aptly applies.

Even the atheist accepts moral codes that emerge from religion and scripture, not because of their origin but because they make social sense. However, modern secular views on the origins of morality, both secular and theistic, have underpinnings that go much deeper than surface biology, sociology or religion and are inextricably linked to the earliest of writings on the subject, whether secularists or theists acknowledged it or not. It seems as though a moral collective consciousness, that began millennias ago, continues to influence philosophers throughout the continuum of written thought relative to morality. Said roots reach backward well beyond Darwinian thought and Enlightenment philosophers.

Finally, the views on the origins of morality inevitably link to discussions on cause, i.e., arguments that contemplate the origins of the universe and whether or not it was caused or uncaused, and the origins of biological life. The outcomes of these arguments directly or indirectly impact on the thinking of theorists who contemplate the origins of morality because views on causation and the origins of biological life influence and provide a foundation on which moral philosophers build their theories. If these outcomes are flawed, then the moral theories themselves, developed by moral theorists that build on the credibility of these outcomes, are inherently flawed as well. Just as discussions on the origins of morality reach backward to antiquity, so do the discussions on causation. Such discussions reach backward to views well before those of modern cosmologists, like Georges Lemaitre, Einstein, and Hubble, etc., views that have heavily influenced modern moral philosophers.

Therefore, given that most moral philosophers consider causation at some level when contemplating the origins of morality, an examination of cause (views on origins of the universe) will come first (Chapter 1), both secular and theistic views, then Chapter 2 will explore popular secular scientific views and paradigms regarding the origins of biological life, both historical and modern views, both secular and theistic, as well as their inherent flaws. In Chapters Three (3) and Four (4) I will present secular views on the origins of morality as well as alternative views/paradigms that are in contrast to the secular views (and some theistic views) as it relates to views on cause/causation, and that will provide consilient and convergent opportunities relative to views on the origins of the universe and views on the origins of biological life; these alternative views spring from a scriptural perspective (see glossary for Hebrew and Greek meanings).

Finally, I realize that if I am going to excite the scientist, I will have to use a tone that reverberates an iron-clad cool objectivity typical of a scholarly treatise, one that is filled with rock-solid, first-grade sources sufficient in quality and number to both silence and appeal to the logic and sound reasoning of the many critics this book will surely elicit. But if I do that, I will surely lose most laypersons before they even read the first twenty-five (25) pages of this book. So my quandary is this, whose attention do I wish to retain, the scientist’s or the laypersons? Well, I guess the scientist will just have to tolerate their feelings, with less than the hoped for truckloads of boredom, put on a new set of reading glasses and try to experience the real world of the layperson for a while. But at least the scientist will be introduced to the ideas, issues and problems that need addressing. I will provide all the unending iron-clad boring stuff under different cover because it will be hard enough for the average layperson to get through the first few chapters as it is.

VIEWS ON CATACLYSMIC BIRTH

Although the breadth of causation views has always been narrow even in late modernity, there still remains only a few prevailing views. Secular scientists currently and predominately favor an uncaused cataclysmic birth theory, first postulated by Georges Lemaitre. A newer and more recent view is emerging known as the complexity theory: a theory now associated with the long-standing and popular theist views on causation, usually known as "design", i.e., Intelligent Design, not to be confused with Theist Evolution. Wilson (1998) would agree, since the burden of proof is on the secular empiricist (and/or reductionist) and not on the pure theist, that there are several questions regarding cause that have not been answered by secular scientists who embrace the cataclysmic birth theory. Hume (Norton, 1998), an empiricist, strongly believed that the aim of science must not be to reveal the intelligible character of the universe, but simply to catalogue the regularities that causal sequence reflects (ibid). But given that modern secular scientists like to speculate rather than remain purely scientific, before rolling up my sleeves and reviewing some of these secular views on causation, a partial list of questions are listed below, questions with which I am challenging speculating secular scientists to answer:

• If the supposed hypersphere of the cataclysmic birth is comprised of something, why is there something instead of nothing?

• If the supposed hypersphere, smaller than a femtometer, actually contained all stars, planets, moons, comets and all other visible and invisible particles, elements and matter, what force kept it in that compressed state?

• If a force kept the supposed hypersphere compressed, where did that force come from?

• If the supposed hypersphere eventually exploded/expanded, which would break many scientific laws (not theories, see below), what internal force (no matter the size) caused it to explode/expand?

• If an outside force or object (outside of the epicenter) caused the supposed hypersphere to explode/expand, as some suggest, where did that force or object come from or what force was causing the striking?

• And if an outside object, who or what made the object or where did the object come from?

• And if an outside object or force was the catalyst for said explosion/expansion of the supposed epicenter, then does this not mean that something instead of nothing existed outside of (beyond) the supposed hypersphere?

• How can a Big Bang overcome Newton’s or Einstein’s Laws of Gravity, especially as it relates to singularity?

• How can a Big Bang overcome the Laws of Thermodynamics?

• How can a Big Bang overcome the existence of Population I & II stars?

• How can a Big Bang overcome the Law of Probability with 100% certainty?

• How can a Big Bang overcome light speed constants?

• How can a Big Bang overcome a required universe’s age?

• How can a Big Bang overcome not being the only element formation incident?

• How can a Big Bang prove (with 100% certainty) that the Red Shift indicates expansion as opposed to contraction (Blue Shift), given the observed data is supposedly billions of years old?

• How can reductionism, whether microscopic or telescopic, truly allow scientists to take the leap of faith from discovering/examining what is (at least what it seems to be, and the setting aside of the exhilaration of curiosity satisfied by discovery of some new piece of information), to disconnected assumptions (intelligible character) of why, what or who, in the causation and/or in the re’shiyth (רֵאשִׁית—Hebrew) sense?

Problems with the Cataclysmic Birth

I realize that the above questions are not exhaustive, by any means, but they do provide a starting point in this examination of cause. From here, I will begin a literature critique by first examining and reviewing the writings of Quentin Smith. I will start with Smith because he is a secular (atheistic) Professor of Philosophy at Western Michigan University and he philosophically embraces the cataclysmic birth or Big Bang Theory (BBT), as supposedly first coined by Fred Hoyle in 1949 (Kaku, 2004), and criticizes and contradicts the principles found in ancient writings that are not yet disproved. In fact, the Big Bang Theory itself, as described by adhering scientists, also contradicts said ancient writings, as shall be shown. Unfortunately, the BBT view is commonly held by most secular philosophers, most scientists and far too many theists who have been misguided. This section will expose some of the flaws found in Smith’s writings, theories and critique and that of others. Smith has published five books, including Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology (Clarendon Press, 1993) that he co-published with William Lane Craig.

According to Smith (Smith, 2007), since the mid-1960’s scientifically informed theists have been ecstatic about the Big Bang cosmological view, but Smith ignores the fact that not all scientifically informed theists acquiesce to his assertion. Smith suggests that theists believe that the best scientific evidence that YHWH (the Hebrew God) exists is the evidence that the universe began to exist in an explosion about 15 billion years ago, an explosion commonly known as the Big Bang (theory). He correctly suggests that many theists believe that the universe could not have begun to exist uncaused, that they believe that the cause of the universe is YHWH. But, Smith claims that the theists’ view of causation is their version of the most reasonable hypothesis. (Smith, 2007). This faulty assumption about the pure theists’ belief, however, is not held by theists to be the most reasonable hypothesis. Instead, it is more than a belief for pure theists, it is an absolute truth hinged on Biblical statements that are embraced by faith. Nonetheless, Smith also calls this belief an assumption, i.e., the belief that it is obviously true that whatever begins to exist is caused and everything that was caused has a purpose—the premise of teleology, which is rarely taught in secular philosophy anymore. But the theists’ belief regarding causation is no more an assumption than is the Big Bang theory, which is also embraced by the faith of those who adhere to it.

One recent statement relative to this theist belief, which is drawn from David Hume’s writings (Norton, 1993), is presented by William Lane Craig, in his 1994 book, Reasonable Faith, like this:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

A related and very interesting quote from this same book discusses the first premise and mentions Quentin Smith’s view of it (a belief that Smith identifies as an assumption) as follows:

The first step is so intuitively obvious that I think scarcely anyone could sincerely believe it to be false. I therefore think it somewhat unwise to argue in favor of it, for any proof of the principle is likely to be less obvious than the principle itself. And as Aristotle remarked, one ought not to try to prove the obvious via the less obvious. The old axiom that out of nothing, nothing comes remains as obvious today as ever. When I first wrote The Kalam Cosmological Argument, I remarked that I found it an attractive feature of this argument that it allows the atheist a way of escape: he can always deny the first premise and assert the universe sprang into existence uncaused out of nothing. I figured that few would take this option, since I believed they would thereby expose themselves as persons interested only in academic refutation of the argument and not in really discovering the truth about the universe. To my surprise, however, atheists seem to be increasingly taking this route. For example, Quentin Smith, commenting that philosophers are too often adversely affected by Heidegger’s dread of the nothing, concludes that the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing—a nice ending to a sort of Gettysburg address of atheism, perhaps (Craig, 1994).

First of all, the German philosopher, Heidegger (ibid), certainly does not represent the YHWH-ology view relative to YHWH (the God of the Hebrews) creating the universe and humanity (out of) nothing. The reason that Craig even mentions "uncaused out of nothing" is that some atheists and perhaps some theists, who may lack faith in the Divine and/or lack knowledge of the scriptures, may believe such a thing. But he rightly assumes that pure theists would never hold such a contradictory atheistic belief. It is likely that Craig cannot envision that any theist that knew the scriptures, i.e., scriptures that teach that YHWH created what is now visible from nothing, would ever embrace an uncaused universe deception. But not only does Smith err here, many other philosophers and theists also err on both sides of the aisle. Scriptures do NOT teach that YHWH made the universe from nothing—from nothing is a non-scriptural Roman Catholic-promoted dogma, among other dogmas they hold that is not supported by scripture (Armstrong, 1993)—but rather from the eternal "invisible things" of YHWH (Romans 1:20; Hebrews 11:3). And, according to what scientists believe they have figured out, all the rudimentary building blocks of what is visible are comprised from that which is invisible, a direct reiteration of the scriptures, written millennias ago.

Secular scientists and far too many uninformed theists may be a little slow, but once they have climbed over their last height of ignorance, they will come face to face with the YHWH-ologists who have been there all the time. Elements of the "caused (dasha) universe" truth is a Biblical truth that was written long before man had the ability to see some of the invisible things of YHWH in the microscope, or to view what they think are some of the broader reaches of the universe through the telescope, or to understand more about the attributes of light (an invisible electromagnetic spectrum, including x-rays, gamma rays, radio waves, white light, etc.), which is only a fraction of YHWH’s attributes, essence, and powers, i.e., what YHWH is, according to scripture.

Smith (Smith, 2007) correctly criticizes theists (for all do not embrace the same view) that use what he calls a scientific cosmology argument, those who use the same Big Bang theory to argue that YHWH exists. But, he is not correct about all of his other assumptions, as shall be shown. Smith submits a question relative to the first premise of Craig’s argument, that whatever has a beginning to its existence must have a cause, as follows, What reason is there to believe this causal principle is true (ibid)? He suggests that it is not self-evident; something is self-evident if and only if everyone who understands it automatically believes it. But many people, including leading theists, such as Richard Swinburne, understand this principle very well but think it is false. Many philosophers, scientists, and the majority of graduate and undergraduate students (Smith claims he has taught), suggest that they too think this principle is false. Conversely, I have polled many of my secular philosophy students who do not agree with Smith’s faulty assumptions. Nonetheless, Smith suggests that this causation principle is not self-evident, nor can this principle be deduced from any self-evident proposition. Therefore, Smith claims that there is no reason to think it is true. According to Smith, it is either false or it has the status of a statement that one does not know if it is true or false; or at the very least, it is clear that one does not know that