Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that If God guided the evolutionary process with the goal of creating morally significant creatures capable of relation with God, it would not be accidental that humans have largely correct moral beliefs

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Evolutionary pressures select for fitness-enhancing beliefs, not truth-tracking ones, making moral belief accuracy compatible with purely naturalistic processes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sharon Street's 'Darwinian Dilemma' shows that if evolution shaped evaluative attitudes, those attitudes track reproductive fitness rather than mind-independent moral facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A divine guidance hypothesis is therefore not required to explain moral belief accuracy, rendering the theistic inference to best explanation redundant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Persistent, cross-cultural moral disagreement on foundational questions—slavery, torture, obligations to outsiders—undermines the claim that humans have 'largely correct' moral beliefs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A perfectly competent designer intending moral truth-tracking creatures would not produce populations with systematically incompatible foundational moral commitments across history.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The observed distribution of moral error and disagreement better fits unguided variation than a providentially calibrated epistemic endowment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.God would have as one of his goals the creation of morally significant human creatures capable of enjoying a relation with God
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A God with that goal would ensure that humans have value beliefs that are largely correct
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Under divine guidance, the alignment between human moral beliefs and objective moral truths would not be a matter of luck
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.