Morality is a Logical Consequence of Evolution, not Creation

The whole issue is with the definition of 'good' and 'bad'. You equate them with 'beneficial' and 'harmful'. However, you will probably acknowledge that this is not how both terms are defined in a christian worldview. We can already see that, right from the beginning, the starting point is different and so any discussion of if morality is a logical consequence of creation/christianity is impossible.This was the second part of your OP, in which you set out to prove that morality, as you envisioned, could not be a logical consequence of christianity. (Note that I narrowed the topic on the christian worldview, since other theistic views such as Islam for example would not have the same morality etc.) Of course, the result you arrived at (not a logical deduction) was pretty straightforward from the beginning, because the real issue is if first christian morality is a logical deduction of it's theology, and second if it is compatible and appliable with the real world.I am however very intrigued by your definition of good and bad as 'beneficial' and 'harmful' (which is simply the evolutionnary view on morality) and so I will also bring up some examples as RAZD did. However, I will take situations where the two moral systems come to different conclusions, because these are the situations that tell us something. It is futile, in my opinion, to come with situations where the conclusions are the same and then argue that one system is better then the other:- There are elderly people in modern society today that are now too old to help in production. Even worse, they consume production from younger people who have to take care of them. So they turn out to be a harmful effect on the population. Passing this situation in your morality filter, killing them would be 'good'. Do you agree that this is the case in reality ?- There are many children today that are born with genetic diseases but can be kept alive through medicine. The more affected ones will be in a similar spot as an old person: unable to socially produce and in fact consume ressources. The less affected ones will be able to have a social production and probaby pass down his genes. However, even in this case, it is harmful since his production will be less then a healthy individual and so letting his disease spread in the population is a risk. Once again passed through your morality filter, letting the first group to die would be good, and letting the second group to live but not reproduce would be good. Do you agree with this ?I could come up with a lot of examples, but I think you get the point. We can observe that in both cases, the moral system you defined and the christian moral system come up with opposite positions in both cases. Which reaffirms my previous statement about the two not being the same. Second, I think that in both cases we will agree that the human tendency will be to act opposite to the conclusion from your morality; we will keep the old people alive and let the sick babies live.I would even say that in the vast majority of situations where the two moral systems come in conflict, the christian position will be the one that human counsciousness has a natural tendency to go to as well. This situation is why someone like Dawkins claimed to be ''anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality''; because he recognizes that ''our best impulses have no basis in nature''.

Seeing as only the issue of morality logically deduced from evolutionnary principles has brought up a couple replies, I'll let any other religious folk start a discussion on this. Of couse, I agree that a Darwinian explanation can be given to some extent of empathy, but I do not think to the extent we see in humans. You gave a very good example by referring to the empathy we have towards other species. The fact that we could have developped empathy towards our own scial group of the same species does not logically bring that therefore, we also developped empathy for other species. I find this to be a bit circular.-) Why do we feel empathy towards the old people amongst us ? Because they probably still serve a function that gives us a selective advantage, and therefore this emotional trait was favored-) How do we know they do have such advantage ? Well the strong emotions we have for them is a strong indication of thatThe trick is of course to start by finding if such an advantage exists, not by supporting it's existence with what it is supposed to explain.Let's take a scenario of two tribes of hunter/gatherers. They have both developped empathy for the other people amongst their group. However, in the first tribe, this empathy was transmitted to old people as well in the group while that in the second tribe, the old people are let to die when they are no longer useful. Which tribe will have a selective advantage ? I can already see that the second tribe will have more food and ressources for themselves, they will have more clothes to wear, they will be able to travel much faster. Put these two tribes in the same geographic locality in a competition for ressources and it seems pretty clear that tribe no2 has a head-on advantage.PS sorry I'm talking in terms of ressources and production terms, I've been playing a lot of CiV4 lately so I only have this terminology in my mind lol Of course, I agree, caring for each other has advantages. But it doesn't necessarily follow that, therefore, it is normal that we care for old people, or for animals of other species. The real question is why we would even have those instincts in the first place, if they bring a selective disadvantage ?

I'll cut down to the examples as the first part of your reply comes down to the same point as JUC; which is the last question of why we have such instincts to that extent ? (I understanding there is a Darwinian explanation for the basis of empathy, but nowhere near the extent we see in humans) I'm not a Bible pro, but I don't remember anywhere saying that killing witches was good A very good (but very inappropriate) psychological experiment would be to go to an african tribe and take one of their pregnant women and abort her. We could see if the rest of the tribe members would have any sort of aversion towards it. I think they wouldThe point being that our acceptance of abortion is just a social conditioning. A touchy subject, but are their a lot of homosexuals in african tribes ? If we would bring amongts them a homosexual couple, what kind of response would their 'inherent morality' give them ? (Btw I do not cliam to have the answers to these two questions)And the Bible does not say it good to kill homosexuals. But it says that act in itself is bad because it is against the natural order God established at creation I think that following the Biblical commands has greatly benefited our society, don't you think ? (Besides, I never claimed that we were born with the Bible in our sub-consciousness)

Hi everyone, I'm low on time right now so I haven't had time to anwer. But I did think about all this. JUP and Meldinoor pretty much say the same thing so I'll only answer once.their are two ideas that came up, so I'll paraphrase them and say my little bit on each:1- ''Empathy is the result of our intelligence''As developped by Meldinoor, I understood it as that intelligence brought with it empathy. I would have liked to get more info of this supposed link between the two in the form of research because I feel skeptical that this is the case. Pigs are considered very intelligent, yet I don't know of it ever having any sort of empathical behavior. Same would go for crows, fish, etc.2- ''Empathy is the result that we can imagine what the other feels, thinks, etc.''I find that this does not logically follow. Empathy requires that we have this ability, but it does nothing to prove that it is caused by it. The case beign that we have individuals in society who are jsut as intelligent as anybody, just as able to project what I am feeling/thinking, yet do not feel any empathy. Obvious examples are serial killers, where some even like to do harm to others.And so even if the two characteristics are linked, it is not a causal relationship. Ok, the old people example I chose provides too many cope-outs form the point I wanted to make. Imagine the same two tribes scenario, but instead we are talking about deformed and/or weak babies. One tribe decides to keep them by empathy while the other decides to dispose of them. Such a behavior would have no negative repercussions on the social group itself (just think of the spartan society) but would give them a selective advantage against the other group, because they would preserve more ressources and production.And on a final note to Meldinoor, I play CiV4 with both expansions. Currently I win frequently on the monarch level of play, and plan to go up another level soon.

I have been thinking about good/evil and how it should be defined from a christians and biblical perspective, and this is where I am on the issue.I do not think that something is good 'because God said it was good'. This idea seems to be popular amongst the christian comunity right now but I feel it is faulty and brings up numerous theological and logical problems.So here's my view on all this. In the christian worldview, God is defined as being infinitely love,mercy,justice,holy,righteous, truth etc. These are all characteristics of his nature and are called ''good''. And so when God says a certain thing is 'good', it isn't simply because he said it, but rather because it is by itself a logical extension of his own 'good' nature. And so when he says something is bad, it is such because it is against his own nature.Between these two, there certain things that seem to be in the in-between zone, but that God still calls good or bad. I'll take the example you brought up ''to worship other gods''. I like to view that God says this is bad simply because it is stupid. Thos other gods do not exist, and so it's a complete waste of time to worship them and this is why God tells us not to do it.A sub-category of this would be that God says something is good or bad strictly because he knows it will have beneficial or harmful consequences. This category would include things such as homosexuality, abortion, pornography, drugs, etc. God created us with our own human nature and for a specific reason, and when we act against this nature, it will have harmful consequences on us. So God in fact tells us not to do it for our own good.This is all on a theoretical level in my mind and I find little to no christians in my immediate surroundings that hold this view. This will explain why I just had a hard time putting it in a comprehensible text (in english doesn't make it any easier)And just to make it explicit, the starting axioms of my positions on this is:- God exists
- The Bible is God's word
- God is love,holy, etc. etc. and this is what should be called 'good'.the rest as logical deduction from these axioms.

I haven't forgotten this subject People I'll come back to put more fuel in it when I have the time. (Besides I'm still ruminating all of it) Is this true ?? Because I so have to find myself goggles like those and try it.

If pigs crows and fish are not intelligent enough to prove the relationship betwee the two, it means that the relationship cannot be proven at all since you are left with only humans in any case study of it ... Which shows that it is perfectly possible that we can imagine what others feel but not have empathy for them. One does not oblige the other. I'll take another path in the discussion. Let us suppose that there is a possible evolution of our over-caring nature and that this is how we became to be this way. The dilemna then becomes this one: it does not dictate what is good or bad to do right now, in the 21st century. I have also evolved an apparent free will to judge of a situation and see which way is more beneficial.And so now I have evaluated that killing the elder people in our society would be the good thing to do. They consume ressources a lot of state money just to keep them alive. So I decide that we should give them an honorable death. Better that then wait till they get cancer and die anyways. The effects of their death will be there one way or the other, so better save us 10 years of taking care of them.Who will tell me that this is morally wrong ? The majority ? And if I convince the majority of my point of view. Does it then make it good ?You'll maybe tell me that such a politic would have terrible side-effects on the population. This, however is not true. More then 3 200 euthanasia were performed by Dutch doctors in 2008. Including 550 which were done ''without request''. No negative social repercussions of this, people continue to live as before. Now many physicians are asking that 'defective' and 'unwanted' newborns be also euthanized. Will this provoque a conscious outcry from the population ? Only from the christians among us, I suppose.And so the two examples I used earlier are now happening or on the border of happening without any of the social repercussions you said they would have had in our distant evolutionnary past. But if they aren't happening now, there is no reason to think they would have happened in the past.And so in the end, an evolutionnary framework has a hard time giving any consistent picture of morality.