Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morality is a Logical Consequence of Evolution, not Creation
Minority Report
Member (Idle past 3154 days)
Posts: 66
From: N.S.W Australia
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 76 of 97 (546937)
02-15-2010 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
02-12-2010 10:13 AM


Re: Anarchy is the logical conclusion of evolution
Hello Jumped up chimpanzee,
Sorry for the delay. Had to go to the big smoke for training.
Jumped up chimpanzee writes:
I'd be interested to hear when Dawkins said this and in what context. I can't believe he did say it, because he clearly considers evolution to be a fact and presumably doesn't think we generally live in anarchy. Do you think we live in anarchy? If so, then presumably you think God caused the anarchy.
I do not think we live in anarchy. I think we are precariously restrained from anarchy by the remenants of judeo-christian morality. I also think that we are restrained by God having created within us an instinctive sense of right & wrong.
Dawkins may not have said the word 'anarchy' explicitly. I was simply making a one word summation of what Dawkins and others have implied on a number of occasions. Like the following;
Jaron Lanier: ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’
Richard Dawkins: ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.’
‘Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ Psychology Today 30(1):62, Jan-Feb 1997.
Dawkins writes:
I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave. My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene’s law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. (The Selfish Gene, p. 2-3).
Dawkins writes:
No self respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am an passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state.
Dawkins writes:
Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what are own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something which no other species has ever aspired to.(The Selfish Gene. Page 3)
I hope you can see from this small selection of quotes that; Dawkins believes evolution leads to a moral vacuum, and a society based on natural laws would be very nasty, and one base on Darwinian laws would be a fascist state. I chose to use one word 'anarchy', which I thought best described what these combined statements implied. After re-reading my post however, I can see now how I stated it as if Dawkins had used this exact word, which I apologise for. He may well have, but I cannot find a quote just now, so I will ammend my post.
Edited by Minority Report, : No reason given.
Edited by Minority Report, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 02-12-2010 10:13 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 02-15-2010 9:45 AM Minority Report has not replied
 Message 79 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 02-16-2010 7:32 AM Minority Report has not replied
 Message 81 by hooah212002, posted 02-16-2010 10:56 PM Minority Report has replied
 Message 83 by Peepul, posted 02-17-2010 11:22 AM Minority Report has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 77 of 97 (546951)
02-15-2010 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Minority Report
02-15-2010 7:10 AM


Dawkins view of morality
Hi MR
Thanks for your reply. I've heard Dawkins say some of the quotes you provide, or similar things. This is the one area where I disagree with his views, and I think he may even disagree with himself.
I'm busy now but will get back to you ASAP with my full response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Minority Report, posted 02-15-2010 7:10 AM Minority Report has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 78 of 97 (546975)
02-15-2010 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
02-09-2010 5:06 AM


Re: Amateurs & Professionals Alike
Thanks for the heads-up.
It was very interesting to see this professional make exactly the same conclusions as we amateurs.
Cool
The only difference was he had empirical evidence to demonstrate how different areas of the brain made different moral decisions. But that's just showing off!
One day, perhaps, technology and the great minds of this world will be able to identify whether or not we actually have free will. That will be an interesting time.
If everything turns out to be exactly deterministic in some way or another... does this resolve us of all responsibility? Or do we just have to slightly re-define "responsibility" in order to incorporate this new information?
If we can actually (somehow) prove that we do indeed have freewill... does this mean that some level of our decisions are random? In which case, how do we control that randomness? (I would hate to think that my decision to spend my life with my wife was, at some fundamentally basic level, random )
Time, time... if only I had more time. How come when I don't have time... there seems to be lots of posts I would like to make. But then when I have lots of free time, all the interesting posts are gone?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 02-09-2010 5:06 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 02-16-2010 11:36 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 79 of 97 (547094)
02-16-2010 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Minority Report
02-15-2010 7:10 AM


DAWKINS ON MORALITY
Hi MR
MR writes:
I hope you can see from this small selection of quotes that; Dawkins believes evolution leads to a moral vacuum, and a society based on natural laws would be very nasty, and one base on Darwinian laws would be a fascist state.
Obviously I can’t be too certain about exactly what Dawkins meant by his statements. I would first point out, though, that he has said he regrets the title The Selfish Gene because it has mislead many people.
Genes are not really selfish. They do not have a brain. They are what they are, and it’s because of what they are and what their environment is that determines whether or not they survive. They do not have any more feeling or consciousness or will to survive than a rock does.
The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is not an ideology. It is a natural phenomenon that has no more intention behind it than other natural processes such as erosion or plate tectonics. It is truly mindless; not in the sense that it is cruel, but in the sense that it is neither cruel nor benign. It is neither caring nor uncaring. There is no more intention behind the evolution of species than there is an intention of 2 asteroids colliding, or of a rock being eroded by the wind.
Evolution is a scientific fact. I think one of the main points Dawkins was making is that it is a fact whether you like it or not. It is a fact that rainfall erodes a mountain, whether you like it or not. It is a fact that the moon’s gravity pulls the tides, whether you like it or not. It doesn’t matter what you like, it doesn’t change the facts.
My argument that morality is a logical consequence of evolution does not mean that I think our basic sense of morality is some kind of ideological system based upon the same mechanisms that brought about evolution. I was making the point that our simple instinctive feeling that a decision is either good or bad was arrived at through the process of evolution. There are clearly innumerable different cultures and ideologies that could be based upon all kinds of mechanisms. However, I don’t think that an ideology can be truly based upon the mechanism of evolution through natural selection. Ideologies require a will to make decisions, and an objective. The mechanism of evolution through natural selection does not have any will or objective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Minority Report, posted 02-15-2010 7:10 AM Minority Report has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 80 of 97 (547107)
02-16-2010 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Stile
02-15-2010 12:48 PM


Re: Amateurs & Professionals Alike
One day, perhaps, technology and the great minds of this world will be able to identify whether or not we actually have free will. That will be an interesting time.
Indeed, it will be very interesting. My own feeling based on what I have previously stated, and on the points you made, is that we do have free will.
I think we are freely capable of determining what we want to do via our rational objective minds, but the "wanting" itself is an instinct that evolved and the related emotions are what give us the concept of "good" and "bad".
I'm probably just repeating myself again and stating the obvious but hey-ho.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Stile, posted 02-15-2010 12:48 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 81 of 97 (547178)
02-16-2010 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Minority Report
02-15-2010 7:10 AM


Re: Anarchy is the logical conclusion of evolution
I also think that we are restrained by God having created within us an instinctive sense of right & wrong.
But what about the part in the bible where it says man knew not of good/evil, right/wrong until after the fall? There was no evil or wrong until after eve ate the apple.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Minority Report, posted 02-15-2010 7:10 AM Minority Report has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Minority Report, posted 02-17-2010 6:14 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Minority Report
Member (Idle past 3154 days)
Posts: 66
From: N.S.W Australia
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 82 of 97 (547195)
02-17-2010 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by hooah212002
02-16-2010 10:56 PM


Re: Anarchy is the logical conclusion of evolution
Hello hooah212002,
hooah212002 writes:
But what about the part in the bible where it says man knew not of good/evil, right/wrong until after the fall? There was no evil or wrong until after eve ate the apple.
Good point, and you are right. Man did not know good & evil untill eating fruit (not apple) from a specific tree that God had told them not to eat of. But could they have still understood right from wrong before that? I understand that I might be splitting hairs here, but is there a distinction between good & evil, and right & wrong? Adam may not have known what good & evil were, but I could argue that he did know it was wrong to eat the fruit, simply because God had told him not too. (I have suggested before in another topic that as soon as adam ate the fruit, he then suddenly realised that he had disobeyed God, and thus understood what evil was.)
Now regarding a created instinctive sense of right & wrong. I know that the paragraph above implies that our knowledge of right & wrong is determined by God telling us so, and I have also previously stated as much, and so you therefore may conclude that it cannot also be a created instinct. So I will try & explain. When writing this, I had in mind that God created us in his image,(Gen1:26-27) and that part of this 'image' included God's sense of right & wrong. I know I may be speculating, as I cannot find Biblical verses that state what exactly this 'image of God' included. But that was where I was comming from.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by hooah212002, posted 02-16-2010 10:56 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 83 of 97 (547220)
02-17-2010 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Minority Report
02-15-2010 7:10 AM


Re: Anarchy is the logical conclusion of evolution
quote:
Jaron Lanier: ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’
Richard Dawkins: ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.’
‘Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ Psychology Today 30(1):62, Jan-Feb 1997.
Richard Dawkins is wrong here. In fact completely backwards! Evolution says that morals have a basis in nature. Christians believe the basis is God.
quote:
No self respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am an passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state.
This is based on Darwinian = survival of the fittest, I think, in the crude sense that 'ruthlessness pays'. Dawkins is separating himself from social Darwinism here, ie domination of the weak by the strong, everyone being out for themselves.
But actually, is it true that this kind of ruthlessness does pay, in terms of reproductive success in humans? Evidence suggests that it might not - that those who are generous are most respected / accorded high status, and also that there is a survival benefit for groups of humans who are mutually empathetic and supportive. Likewise it's probable that those who are most empathetic and loving to their kids have the greatest chance of bringing them to a successful adulthood.
In fact, provided we accept that moral feelings have an inherited basis, or at least a large inherited component, then if evolution is true, universal ruthlessness CANNOT be selected for through Darwinian processes - otherwise we would all actually be like that. Moral behaviour likewise MUST therefore be Darwinian if evolution is true.
However, I think it's possible that ruthlessness may pay off sometimes for individuals, provided the whole of society is not ruthless.
quote:
Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what are own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something which no other species has ever aspired to.(The Selfish Gene. Page 3)
This is wrong. Why does the selfishness of genes translate into a selfish nature? It's an unbelievably bad mistake. If being unselfish and generous is what leads to reproductive success, then the selfishness of genes will lead to that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Minority Report, posted 02-15-2010 7:10 AM Minority Report has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 02-17-2010 2:17 PM Peepul has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 84 of 97 (547237)
02-17-2010 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Peepul
02-17-2010 11:22 AM


quotes, quotemining.and quontext
Hi Peepul,
Richard Dawkins is wrong here. In fact completely backwards! Evolution says that morals have a basis in nature. Christians believe the basis is God.
This is based on Darwinian = survival of the fittest, I think, in the crude sense that 'ruthlessness pays'. Dawkins is separating himself from social Darwinism here, ie domination of the weak by the strong, everyone being out for themselves.
As I have yet to see the actual Dawkins quotes in context with references, and given the source so far is a creationist, it is likely a quote mine take from some creationist website, and totally untrustworthy (sorry Minority Report for the skepticism here, but this is a common fact about creationist statements).
See
Logic v Intelligent Design: Dawkins "Darwinism leads to Fascism"
and
Dawkins Flip-Flops on Link between Darwinism and Fascism | Evolution News
and
cheerful iconoclast: All Hail the Darwinian State
What a surprise eh?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added another
Edited by RAZD, : subtite

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Peepul, posted 02-17-2010 11:22 AM Peepul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Minority Report, posted 02-18-2010 7:15 AM RAZD has replied

  
Minority Report
Member (Idle past 3154 days)
Posts: 66
From: N.S.W Australia
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 85 of 97 (547317)
02-18-2010 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
02-12-2010 10:13 AM


Re: Anarchy is the logical conclusion of evolution
Hello Jumped up chimpanzee,
Just trying to get back to some of your earlier comments which I havn't answered yet.
Jumped up chimpanzee writes:
You asked why man would come up with the idea of objective morality.......I'm just speculating that people told lies for selfish reasons - have you never heard of such a thing?
Ok. I can see where you are comming from. From your perspective that evolution is true, morality must be explainable by selection pressures, or invented by man for personal power, etc. Your answers are consistent with your belief, and appear logically feasible from your perspective.
It's just that I'm still struggling with the whole objective / subjective thing, which you seem to be ignoring. Any chance of discussing this?
Jumped up chimpanzee writes:
Sounds like you're the one making wild speculations! You are certain things are the way they are for a reason, but you don't know what that reason is. How do you know they're that way for a reason then?
Yes I am certain things happen for a reason, because I read in the Bible 'are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your father'. Yes God does not always tell us His reasons, but we can be certain that there is one. You originally asked 'Why didn't God make us in such a way that we would only have eyes for one person?'. Surely you must understand that an answer to this kind of question will most likely be speculative. The Bible describes what God has done, and does not record many reasons for why he didn't do it another way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 02-12-2010 10:13 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 02-18-2010 11:49 AM Minority Report has not replied

  
Minority Report
Member (Idle past 3154 days)
Posts: 66
From: N.S.W Australia
Joined: 05-25-2009


Message 86 of 97 (547320)
02-18-2010 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by RAZD
02-17-2010 2:17 PM


Re: quotes, quotemining.and quontext
Hello Razd,
It's kind of funny that your link; Logic v Intelligent Design: Dawkins "Darwinism leads to Fascism" is actually where I copied one of the quotes from. I just vaugely remembered reading about evolution and morality somewhere, and some Dawkins related quotes, so I just did a google search and copied the quotes from the first sites I could find them in. Yes I did read some of the comments on that site regarding the quote, and yes I can see how social darwinism is different from what Jumped up chimpanzee is propposing. In a similar way, just because murders are recorded in the Bible does not also mean they are condoned by the Bible.
However, when I mentioned before about Hitler & stalin, they were actually trying to implement social darwinism, and those who supported them wanted to live in a 'facist state'. They thought evolution justified it, and would be a good thing. So the question is, how can one evolutionist who believes what Hitler did, be called morally wrong by another evolutionist who believes otherwise? What is there in Darwinian evolution, that can determine whose morality is right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 02-17-2010 2:17 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 02-18-2010 8:09 AM Minority Report has not replied
 Message 88 by Peepul, posted 02-18-2010 9:12 AM Minority Report has not replied
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2010 1:19 PM Minority Report has not replied
 Message 91 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-18-2010 3:48 PM Minority Report has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 87 of 97 (547325)
02-18-2010 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Minority Report
02-18-2010 7:15 AM


Re: quotes, quotemining.and quontext
Hi MR
So the question is, how can one evolutionist who believes what Hitler did, be called morally wrong by another evolutionist who believes otherwise? What is there in Darwinian evolution, that can determine whose morality is right?
I think the pervasive use of the words "Darwinian" and "Darwinism" are the source of a lot of confusion and misunderstanding.
Dawkins has been as guilty as anyone on this. I saw a film of a talk Dawkins did in New York a couple of years ago and he was picked up on this by someone in the audience. He was accused of inadvertantly portraying Darwin and his theory as some kind of cult by using the words Darwinian and Darwinism. Dawkins admitted he had never even considered this before but he agreed entirely with the criticism and vowed to try and avoid this language in future.
Anway, in one sense the short answer to your question "What is there in Darwinian evolution, that can determine whose morality is right?" is nothing. Darwin's theory of evolution can explain how and why we came to have a basic sense of morality (i.e. a will to make decisions concerning how we interact with others), but it doesn't determine or dictate what specific ideologies should be built upon that basic framework.
But as both Peepul and myself have indicated, it is logically an advantage to humans to cooperate with each other. A ruthless ideology/morality of everyone being totally selfish is unlikely to be successful at any level. I agree with Peepul that it is a very crude interpretation of Darwin's "survival of the fittest" to think that a ruthless Facist ideology will be successful. In the case of humans, "the fittest" who would survive would likely be those who cooperate with each other, not those who are totally selfish. But that just relates to humans and certain other species because of our overall characteristics. In other species, a more selfish and ruthless behaviour might be more successful.
One thing you do have to bear in mind though, is that ultimately we all have to be selfish in order to survive and reproduce. Any individual that took no care of itself would not survive and pass on it's genes. Nor would such an individual be of much help to anyone else (least of all its unborn offspring). But the best way for us to be selfish and take care of ourselves is through mutual cooperation. We help others to help ourselves to help others...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Minority Report, posted 02-18-2010 7:15 AM Minority Report has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 88 of 97 (547328)
02-18-2010 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Minority Report
02-18-2010 7:15 AM


Re: quotes, quotemining.and quontext
quote:
However, when I mentioned before about Hitler & stalin, they were actually trying to implement social darwinism, and those who supported them wanted to live in a 'facist state'. They thought evolution justified it, and would be a good thing. So the question is, how can one evolutionist who believes what Hitler did, be called morally wrong by another evolutionist who believes otherwise? What is there in Darwinian evolution, that can determine whose morality is right?
It's wrong to say 'social darwinism' is evolution - it's an extension of evolution, in fact a misunderstanding of evolution, into a domain it doesn't apply to.
You'd be hard pressed to find anyone whose belief in evolution leads them to support what Hitler did.
I agree with Jumpy that there is no absolute morality under an evolutionary explanation - there is no objective way to decide who is 'right' or 'wrong' in moral terms.
But I would say there is no absolute morality to be found in religion either - it's just that religious people think there is! I believe that morality of religions is derived entirely from human morality. That doesn't make it incorrect. But it doesn't mean it is not absolute.
In fact what I see is that the fundamental morality of religious and non-religious people is very similar.
Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Minority Report, posted 02-18-2010 7:15 AM Minority Report has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 89 of 97 (547343)
02-18-2010 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Minority Report
02-18-2010 6:22 AM


Re: Anarchy is the logical conclusion of evolution
Hi MR
It's just that I'm still struggling with the whole objective / subjective thing, which you seem to be ignoring. Any chance of discussing this?
I'm very happy to discuss anything on this subject. Please clarify what your queries are regarding the "objective / subjective thing". I don't mean to be ignoring anything.
Yes God does not always tell us His reasons, but we can be certain that there is one. You originally asked 'Why didn't God make us in such a way that we would only have eyes for one person?'. Surely you must understand that an answer to this kind of question will most likely be speculative. The Bible describes what God has done, and does not record many reasons for why he didn't do it another way.
Even if the Bible does not record the reasons for God's behaviour, rules, etc, it ought to be possible to form a logical explanation of what that reasoning might be. Yes, it would be speculative to a certain extent, but not nearly as speculative as stating that we can be certain there are reasons without having any idea of what they might be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Minority Report, posted 02-18-2010 6:22 AM Minority Report has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 90 of 97 (547346)
02-18-2010 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Minority Report
02-18-2010 7:15 AM


morality or enlightened self-interest?
Hi Minority Report, thanks.
However, when I mentioned before about Hitler & stalin, they were actually trying to implement social darwinism, and those who supported them wanted to live in a 'facist state'. They thought evolution justified it, and would be a good thing.
Hitler was also a christian, and he felt that this justified persecution of other religions.
Just because murders are recorded in the Bible does not also mean they are condoned by the Bible.
They thought evolution justified it, and would be a good thing.
Curiously, opinion, no matter who's opinion, is not reality. What we consistently find is that people that want to implement programs like these will find excuses to do so, whether it be in religious texts or scientific theories.
I just vaugely remembered reading about evolution and morality somewhere, and some Dawkins related quotes, so I just did a google search and copied the quotes from the first sites I could find them in. Yes I did read some of the comments on that site regarding the quote, and yes I can see how social darwinism is different from what Jumped up chimpanzee is propposing.
Interesting that you didn't investigate further before posting - would you do the same for quotes related to the evils of biblical teaching? Or are you looking for confirmation bias in what you find?
Social Darwinism - Wikipedia
quote:
While the term has been applied to the claim that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection can be used to understand the social endurance of a nation or country, social Darwinism commonly refers to ideas that predate Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species. Others whose ideas are given the label include the 18th century clergyman Thomas Malthus, and Darwin's cousin Francis Galton who founded eugenics towards the end of the 19th century.
Darwinism has also been used to justify racism, and this is typical of the misunderstanding: if the social application of the theory were true then programs would not be necessary to implement, as they would occur naturally.
... and yes I can see how social darwinism is different from what Jumped up chimpanzee is propposing.
My personal opinion on the evolution of morality is that our morality is first predicated on our being a social, sexual species, and therefore our concepts of morality will deal with social interactions and sexual interactions.
A morality based on a tiger species, where there is no social interaction, would be different, likely with murder and rape being perceived as moral behavior. In bees the morality would likely all be based around serving the queen.
The reason for this is that there would need to be a benefit to such behavior for it to be preserved. If the sacrifices for unselfish behavior within a group did not lead to a net benefit to the group and thus back to the individuals in the group, then the ones exhibiting unselfish behavior would be out bred and out survived by the selfish ones. These then become behavioral memes that are passed down through the generations, and evolve with the species.
We also see in many experiments with primates that there are some basic behavior patterns that are compelling in this regard:
The Times & The Sunday Times
quote:
MONKEYS and apes have a sense of morality and the rudimentary ability to tell right from wrong, according to new research.
In a series of studies scientists have found that monkeys and apes can make judgments about fairness, offer altruistic help and empathise when a fellow animal is ill or in difficulties. They even appear to have consciences and the ability to remember obligations.
The research implies that morality is not a uniquely human quality and suggests it arose through evolution. That could mean the strength of our consciences is partly determined by our genes.
The scientists say, however, that the evidence is clear. I am not arguing that non-human primates are moral beings but there is enough evidence for the following of social rules to agree that some of the stepping stones towards human morality can be found in other animals, said Frans de Waal, professor of psychology at Emory University in Georgia in the United States.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...17_monkeyfairness.html
quote:
Researchers studying brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) have found that the highly social, cooperative species native to South America show a sense of fairness, the first time such behavior has been documented in a species other than humans.
The new finding suggests evolution may have something to do with it. It also highlights questions about the economic and evolutionary nature of cooperation and its relationship to a species' sense of fairness, while adding yet another chapter to our understanding of primates.
"It looks like this behavior is evolved it is not simply a cultural construct. There's some good evolutionary reason why we don't like being treated unfairly," said Sarah Brosnan, lead author of the study to be published in tomorrow's issue of the science journal Nature.
For reference, capuchin monkeys are your typical "organ grinder" monkey, a fairly small species.
From these studies I would conclude that such behavior is typical of all social primate species, which is also evidenced by the pictures of mutual grooming and troops posting lookouts while others forage, behavior that is not selfish, but can be regarded as enlightened self-interest.
And when you get down to the basics of human morality, you find that it too is predicated on enlightened self-interest: the golden rule is pervasive in all cultures around the world, and it personifies enlightened self-interest.
See What is the evolutionary advantage to religion? for some additional comments. It is a related topic eh?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Minority Report, posted 02-18-2010 7:15 AM Minority Report has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024