Morality is a Logical Consequence of Evolution, not Creation

Hi slevesqueBoy, these are long posts! I’m not certain what you mean here. Are you saying we can’t prove that pigs, crows and fish do not have an empathetic ability because they don’t have the intelligence to prove it to us? This topic was not really meant to be about providing empirical proof (there’s plenty of other topics for that) but to discuss the logic of morality within the generally understood concepts of Evolution and Creation. I don’t know if there is any firm evidence one way or the other as to whether pigs, crows or fish have empathetic ability similar to our own. I think it is generally accepted by most people that they don’t. However, if you disagree or know of any evidence, by all means let me know. I’m not qualified to give a precise account of the extent to which a psychopath lacks the ability to contemplate another person’s thoughts and to empathise with them. All I can say is that they do not have the normal ability in this area that most humans have. They are abnormal. We could have all evolved like that, but we didn’t. And for good reasons; particularly due to the advantage of mutual cooperation that I have already explained. Yes, that’s correct. Who knows what the future holds. Although, at the moment, we still have core instincts to love our fellow human beings and cooperate with them. Our genes are an historical record of our past. And they still seem to be working for us pretty well. Just look at the population expansion over the past few decades. Maybe they are working too well, but that’s for the future to determine. It would be considered good by anyone who happily agreed to it. The holocaust was considered good by those who happily agreed with it. Good and bad are simply the opinions of individuals or society, not entities within themselves. However, we are able to take care of the sick and the old better than we ever were before and, hard as it may be to accept it, we do place a direct value on them. The amount we spend on the sick and the old via taxes and charity, and the amount of personal time we give, is exactly how much we consider they’re worth. We could do even more for them, at the expense of our own wealth, leisure time, etc. But we don't. Some of us do more than others, but in the end we have to balance everything. Life is very tough, there's no getting away from that. I’m pretty certain the cases of euthanasia done without request were switching off life support systems for terminally ill people in a coma. This is done in many countries. I’ve no problem at all with euthanasia in this respect. But killing otherwise healthy old people, or sick people who don’t want to die, I still consider bad. Just for one thing, as I’ve said before, who would want to live in and contribute to a society where you knew you were going to be killed at a certain age?Killing unwanted newborns is bad in my opinion, not least because even if they are unwanted by their parents, they are not unwanted by society. Society still wants to give them a good life for all sorts of reasons. Killing defective newborns is a very difficult subject. If a child were born so ill or deformed that it had no possibility to endure anything other than a very painful life, I would not condemn any parent who had to make that most difficult decision. In my opinion, I would say the decision ought to lie somewhere between society (i.e. democratic law) and the parents, and each case should be considered independently. That’s just my opinion, I can’t really say any more than that. Having a sense of morality does not mean some decisions aren’t incredibly difficult.Anyway, let’s put the ball in your court. Why would Christians or Creationists insist that the very sick must be kept alive at all costs, including the cost of suffering horribly against their will (if, as you imply, that is what they insist)? I’ve no doubt that the very old, the very young, and the very sick have been left to die in the past, and this is also still happening in places today. But it is not our general instinct to do so. It is the exception (usually due to very difficult circumstances), rather than the rule. In any case, Evolution, by definition, should not be expected to give a consistent picture of anything about us. Our morality could change, just as our eyes, legs, fingers, etc could change. But as long as we benefit by being a socially cooperative species, it will be an advantage to care for each other. If caring for each other became a disadvantage, then you would expect over a very long period for our sense of morality to change too.

Hi StileBeing a real nerd, I recently purchased the DVD of the AAI 2009 conference. It features a talk by the evolutionary psychiatrist, Andy Thomson, titled: "Morality: From the Heavens or From Nature?"It was very interesting to see this professional make exactly the same conclusions as we amateurs.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!It's worth getting the DVD because it also features very interesting talks from:PZ Myers — Design vs. Chance
Lawrence Krauss — A Universe from Nothing
Jerry Coyne — Why Evolution Is True
Daniel Dennett — The Evolution of Confusion
Richard Dawkins — There is grandeur in this view of life
and others.

Hello Slevesque, Just so you don't feel so lonely, I also posted a similar view in the forum 'What was God's plan behind creation and why does He need one?', in the faith & belief section, Starting from post #91 onwards. Hope this helps.

I watched it on Youtube. Genie (I can't remember her name: opening speaker) was ingenious. I haven't watched the whole thing yet, but yesterday I caught Jerry Coyne: brilliant as well.

---

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 SaganFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

Hello Jumped up Chimpanzee,Sorry for not contributing anything to this thread yet, though I have been following it. The posts in this topic are long aren't they, especially for my tiny brain to take in I think there is a distinction that needs to be made between good & bad, right & wrong, and morality. I see good & bad as purely subjective things that we determine, based on what we like or dislike, or what brings us pleasure or pain, and I would not call this morality. Right & wrong seems to me to be closer in meaning to describe morality, as an objective set of laws governing our behavior. Therefore your topic wording, that morality is a consequence of evolution, seems nonsensical to a christian mind. Good & bad being a consequence of evolution is a feasible theory, but morality, as defined by christians, is certainly not.When I mentioned discussing good & evil, I had in mind C.S. Lewis and his book 'Mere Christianity'. Lewis presents the idea that the fact that we argue with each other over who is right or wrong, presupposes that there actually exists an objective standard of right & wrong. If there is no objective standard of what is right or wrong, then it is pointless to argue, as we only argue to show the other man is wrong, which only works if you both believe that right & wrong do actually exist, and can hold each other accountable to it, which only works if it is objective.If you believe there is no objective standard for right & wrong, then it is ultimately a subjective thing, and whoever has the biggest club then determines what is right & wrong. But the one with the biggest club who dictates what is right & wrong, only does so to suit his particular likes & dislikes. So it cannot really be called 'morality', in the christian sense.

Hi MRDo you have any view on why we attach emotion to what we consider to be "right and wrong"?Regardless of whether or not morality is objective or subjective, why do we care what is "right and wrong"?That was the question I raised at the start and was the basis of my whole argument.If we only applied a purely objective view as to whether or not something was "right" or "wrong", then those words would have no meaning. What would it mean that something was "right" or "wrong", and why would we worry about which option we took?It would be like arriving at a fork in a road, and deciding that one way was the "right" way and the other way was the "wrong" way, but having no idea or concern as to what difference it made which way you chose to go.Perhaps you could use that analogy of a fork in the road to explain your Christian view of morality. What does it actually mean to you to take the "right" way or the "wrong" way?

Hello Jumped up chimpanzee, Good question. One reason is because they matter. Let's say you are a doctor, and you notice in a maternity ward that another doctor who washes his hands between each delivery, has far fewer mothers & babies die after delivery, than other doctors who did not wash their hands. Even though you cannot prove it at that point, you are convinced there is a link. But when you ask all the other doctors to wash their hands between deliveries, you are met with refusals & mocking. In that situation I would be frustrated, heartbroken, and angry, that other doctors would not even humour you & do something so simple as to was their hands, when so many lives were potentially at stake. You are either right, which could save many lives, or you are wrong, and a few doctors wasted a little time for a lttle while testing this theory.I believe that whether you are right or wrong matters, that lives hang in the balance. So because of this, we do attach emotion to right & wrong. Christians believe that getting it right means eternal bliss, but getting it wrong means eternal damnation. I'd like to use another analogy of a designer and his creation to explain this. Say an person designs & builds a car. This car was designed to be operated in a certain way for best performance & reliability. Now this way of operation, would be called by the designer the correct or right way. Now say if somebody tried to open a window by throwing a brick at it, this would be called the wrong way.As God made this world and us, He would know what is the best way for us to operate, for our own benefit & others. God has told us how we should behave, and our belief in His set of regulations, and our attempts to follow them can be called our 'morality'. Sometimes our desires conflict with these regulations, but we are learning that any deviation from these regulations, always causes problems.So getting to your fork in the road analogy. Taking the right way, means reading our owners manual (Bible), and finding out what our manufacturer states is the right way. To choose any other way is the wrong way, regardless of how good or right it looks or feels.

Hi MRThanks for your reply. To me, it appears that your view of "right" and "wrong" is essentially exactly the same as mine. It's ultimately all about what is beneficial to survival and comfort. The only difference is that you extend this to include your survival and comfort in Eternity, but it's the same instinct.I believe I have logically explained how, if we accept evolution as fact, a moral code must inevitably have evolved to produce the right decisions that are beneficial for our survival. In the case of humans, that is a moral code based on mutual cooperation. It's easy to see how this evolved moral code has been seized upon by religious doctrine such as "do not murder", "do not steal", "treat others as you would have them treat you", etc. That's just stating what must have already been obvious and natural to us. Again, this is not fundamentally different to an atheist or evolutionary view of morality. It's all about what is beneficial to us.However, you imply that there are specific regulations from God from which deviation always cause problems. Can you list what these are? And if they weren't naturally obvious to us, do we feel emotionally attached to these regulations, or do we just blindly and automatically follow them like robots following their programming?

Hello Jumped up chimpanzee, Our views might appear to be the same, but they are actually worlds apart. You feel that something is considered good if it has a benefit to the human race, which then has emotional attachment. I believe that something is objectively right because God has said so, regardless of how we feel about it. I presented the maternity scenario only to demonstate that right & wrong matter. What I was trying to say, is that whatever God said is right or wrong, matters. It still matters and is still right even when we cannot see how, and even if it causes us discomfort, and even when there is no emotional attachment, or even when we have a negative emotion towards it. I was not implying that deviating from only a few regulations always cause problems. I said that 'any deviation from these regulations, always causes problems. ' This means all of them. Whether we sin by telling a small lie, or by murdering many in an act of genocide, the result is the same. It comes between us & God. Some sins may cause us harm. Some may harm others. Some may cause no perceivable change. But they all harm our relationship with God. Many of Gods rules are contrary to our desires. I personally suffer from the sin of lust. Seeing a beutiful woman stirs up lots of emotions within me that I would call good. Evolutionary theory might also say that lust is a good instinct & is beneficial to the survival of the human race. But God has said that unless this woman is your wife, the act of looking at this woman and the thoughts & feelings that follow, are wrong. As I believe God is right, my emotional attachment is to the rule being right, even though my desires are in opposition to this.I hope you can now see a distinction between instinct/emotionally driven & derived good & bad V's revealed right & wrong. If God is an invention of man, then why don't all the rules pander to mans desires, and agree with your sense of right & wrong? Why would man invent the very concept of objective right & wrong, if all that really mattered was subjective good & bad governing our evolution?

Hi MR Power.Someone who wanted to exert power over a community could, let's say, wander off alone into the desert, or up a mountain, and then come back to their community and say they'd met their god and been given a list of instructions that everyone had to obey. Anyone refusing to obey those rules might be cast out of the community, or maybe even killed by...I don't know...maybe the throwing of stones.In the case of lust, we have a natural instinct to procreate in order to spread our DNA. To do this, we have to be competitive to get ahead of others. So that is a very simple and easy evolutionary explanation for why someone would tell everyone else that God says they mustn't look at other women.You haven't explained why God would make you with emotions such as lust, but then command you to ignore this emotion. There's just no logic to that. Why didn't God make us in such a way that we would only have eyes for one person?And you haven't explained why God has his rules. You've only explained that breaking his rules may harm our relationship with God. Why? Why does he care and why do we care that he cares? What ultimately is the point of anyone (God and ourselves) caring about anything?The evolutionary explanation for caring is simple. It is an emotion that drives our behaviour to that which is beneficial to our survival.

Hello Jumped up chimpanzee, This is very speculative, and so is your whole premise. History however has demonstrated otherwise. Evolutionists such as Hitler & stalin show that those who want power over other people, do so by force, and have no problems killing millions to get their own way. Many evolutionists would explain their actions as being entirely consistent with evolutionary theory. You however attempt to show that morality can also be explained by evolution. If a person is selfish, bloodthirsty & lustful, evolution can explain that. If a person developes morality, don't worry, evolution can explain that too. Only problem though, a theory that can be twisted to explain everything, ends up explaining nothing. Ever seen the term 'Goddidit' on this site before? Perhapps I should invent a new term to explain your argument. How does 'Evodidit' sound? Perhapps the reason why there is not much interest in your forum, is because everyone else can see that there is no basis at all for morality in evolution. All the instincts and desires that we have are good things which God has given us. But any good thing can be used in a bad way, such as rape. Adam & eve didn't just discover sex one day by themselves and said 'this is fantastic, but lets not tell God, He's bound to be annoyed'. God was the one who created sex, and wants us to enjoy it. But if there were no limitations on sex or any other desire, then anarchy would reign.I believe evolution would lead to anarchy, not morality. Dawkins has similar views, as do other prominent evolutionists. Why are we wrong? This is similar to Larni's question about why couldn't God create a world without pain, which both presuppose that God does not know what He's doing, that He must be an idiot or something worse. God is not an idiot. Things are the way they are for a reason. I do not know the reason why God made us this way. Perhapps our sexual desires needed to be strong enough to overcome our desire to throw them (meaning female companion) out when they annoy us, and switching it off once we have chosen a mate might prevent us from ever procreating, which would be bad.Sorry but I'll have to answer the rest of your post later.Edited by Minority Report, : clarifying objectEdited by Minority Report, : Restating sentence for clarity.

You asked why man would come up with the idea of objective morality. I gave a perfectly logical explanation that someone could just have made up things like God's 10 Commandments in order to gain some sort of control over their community. Yes, it is speculative, but it is still perfectly logical. I'm just speculating that people told lies for selfish reasons - have you never heard of such a thing?I've no idea whether Hitler or Stalin cared or knew anything about evolution. In any case, I never claimed that only religious people told lies. I'm sure every human being has told a lie at some point to gain some kind of advantage.In previous messages, I have already given a logical explanation for how morality is a product of evolution. In fact, not just a logical product, but an essential one. If you have any specific queries about any of the points I made on that I would be happy to consider them.(As I've said before, this topic was not about providing evidence for the theory of evolution, there's enough topics on that, but on how morality logically fits in with the theory of evolution through natural selection. A decision making process that drives us to make decisions that are to our advantage is logically necessary for our survival. Maybe the reason why not many people seem to be interested in this topic is because that is so obvious!) 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. 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? I love that line. I've often thought how much more enjoyable life would be in so many ways if we could just throw out our sexual desire!I look forward to your response on why we (and/or God) care about the decisions we make.

Hello Jumped up chimpanzee, As I've said before in another topic, I believe God's rules come from His character. They are who He is, so to speak. They show us who God is, in the same way that you can tell alot about a person by what they care about.The rules also make us aware of our sin, to teach us what is right & wrong. Could God condemn us for offending Him, if He did not first tell us what He finds detestable?They are also there to keep the peace. As we are to live eternally with others & God, if we were allowed to 'do whatever seemed right in our own eyes', then people will end up hurting each other and God. Because God is perfect, Just and Holy. When we break a rule we are then blemished, impure & dirty. God cannot then remain in our presence. An analogy I can think of to explain this, is a Judge who had many friends over to dinner. One friend was a columbian drug lord. Another was the leader of a notorious bikie gang. Others were corrupt police officers, prostitutes etc. Would you have any faith in this Judge to deliver justice, or have respect of his authority? If our sins did not harm our relationship with God, then could we respect Him as a pure and holy lawgiver & judge? Because of a peculiar aspect of God's character, namely love, which He has also imparted into us.Edited by Minority Report, : No reason given.

Hello Jumped up chimpanzee, Sorry about that. I have ammended the post to better reflect what I meant.Will get to rest of your post later.

Hi MRFirstly, I did genuinely like your line about throwing away our sexual desire, even if it wasn't quite what you meant. I'm not being sarcastic when I say what a relief it would be to get rid of those constant nagging thoughts!I still see a lot of inconsistencies and lack of logic in your explanation of morality from God. Assuming God was around before we came along, how or why would he have developed (or always had) a caring nature? What did he have to care about? Are you really saying that what seems right in your eyes is to hurt other people? That it's only because of things like the 10 commandments that you don't go around killing and raping people? This is getting very close to the essence of my argument. If God is perfect, he would not have made humans imperfect in his eyes. Or if he did, it could only have been deliberately. If he had done it deliberately, he would not have any reason to be angry at our imperfections - he would delight in them. It just doesn't make any sense to claim that God is perfect but that he inadvertantly made an imperfect world. It's a contradiction in terms. He's either perfect and made us exactly how he wanted us, in which case he will be absolutely happy with us all the time, or he is imperfect and therefore does not automatically deserve respect. Whatever happened to the idea given by Jesus that we shouldn't be so judgemental and that we should regard everyone as equal and forgive them for wrong-doings? Has Christianity thrown all that out? The God you describe sounds like an elitist snob.