Atheism, Evolution and Moral Nihilism

[Adamoriens]

It is often argued by atheist and theist alike that evolutionary explanations for morality refute the idea that there are any "spooky" moral facts, and that therefore atheists ought to think there are no moral facts. But nobody on this board (so far as I have observed) has actually made a good argument toward this end. Here is the best I can come up with:

The moral beliefs of humans have been created and conditioned by, apart from cultural factors, the impersonal demands of evolution. Thus we find that our moral beliefs tend to facilitate reproduction and the passing of healthy genetic material onto the next generation. The universal tendency to especially value one's own immediate family, offspring and friends, the protection of children and women (chivalry, perhaps), the (general) disgust for murder, rape and incestuous sex, etc. are all explained by evolution's blind selection for adaptive behaviours. Assuming this is true, we can conclude that our moral beliefs are not sensitive to "spooky" moral facts, but rather to the impersonal pressures demanded by survival. And since knowledge requires a causal connection between facts and beliefs, it follows that none of our moral beliefs are knowledge; they have never tracked facts, only evolutionary pressures.

There are two points I'd like to make here. The first is that this challenge to moral beliefs must be met by theists as well; the evolutionary explanations are impersonal, which means that their success in explaining moral beliefs entails that the idea God has endowed us with reliable moral faculties is less probable (probably false). The second is that both the theist and the atheist can conceivably get around the challenge by positing that evolution happened to select for moral beliefs that actually correlate with moral facts; theists might come out in better shape here.

Any thoughts?

[McCulloch]

Well alright, and what they [cetaceans] communicate about?

There's a shark coming. There's good food over there. Let's play. Let's have sex. Remember me, my name is ... .

My argument has only been that there is a substantial difference between man and other animals.

No one will ague again what is self-evident. There clearly is a significant difference between humans and other animals' cognitive abilities. I believe that you used this rather evident fact to argue the need for direct divine intervention.

And of course, I do believe there are other rational beings in the universe; angels, for instance.

Have you met any of these? How do you know anything about angels?

Semantical content is immaterial, not rooted to any particular sign.

So we can think in abstractions. No need to invoke a miracle for that.

If you're going to explain the rational principle by evolution, please do so, with full documentation of how it emerges/reduces to material phenomena. I have already provided the suggestion that semantics is not identical to matter, and that it follows that semantical ability cannot be rooted in matter. Do you have some way of rebutting this?

I cannot. I do not understand how the process happened.

However, I am not quite sure how your argument that you feel needs to be rebutted works. Semantics, in its simplest form, is that we use a word such as red to represent a concept, in this case the color . To my mind, you may as well argue that since thought is not identical to matter, then thoughts cannot be rooted in matter. But that would make you have to deny other animals thoughts.

[AquinasD]

There's a shark coming. There's good food over there. Let's play. Let's have sex. Remember me, my name is ... .

Well none of that is very illuminating and doesn't seem to indicate that animals are aware of semantical content.

Have you met any of these? How do you know anything about angels?

It just goes with the religion.

So we can think in abstractions. No need to invoke a miracle for that.

I think you're not seeing the significance. We perform immaterial actions. This implies we are partially immaterial.

Semantics, in its simplest form, is that we use a word such as red to represent a concept, in this case the color .

Yes, intentionality. What in matter can make one thing be about another thing?

To my mind, you may as well argue that since thought is not identical to matter, then thoughts cannot be rooted in matter. But that would make you have to deny other animals thoughts.

That's what I have been doing.

[TheJackelantern]

I think you're not seeing the significance. We perform immaterial actions. This implies we are partially immaterial.

Saying you are partially nothing makes no coherent sense..

Well none of that is very illuminating and doesn't seem to indicate that animals are aware of semantical content.

Wow, you really know how to keep moving to goal post in this thread... And you are still wrong... Animals have language and do communicate with each other.. You do understand what semantical means right? :

se-man-tic (s-mntk) also se-man-ti-cal (-t-kl)
adj.
1. Of or relating to meaning, especially meaning in language.
2. Of, relating to, or according to the science of semantics.

Dolphins for example qualify.. They even have local dialects:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wale ... 669469.stm

And you can even visit this link:

http://www.speakdolphin.com/ResearchItems.cfm?ID=20
http://speakdolphin.com/ResearchItems.cfm?ID=6

Abstract:

Kassewitz has planned a series of experiments to record the sounds of dolphins targeting a range of objects. Speaking from Key Largo, Florida, he said, Dolphins are able to emit complex sounds far above the human range of hearing. Recent advances in high frequency recording techniques have made it possible for us to capture more detail in dolphin sounds than ever before. By recording dolphins as they echolocate on various objects, and also as they communicate with other dolphins about those objects, we will build a library of dolphin sounds, verifying that the same sound is always repeated for the same object. The CymaScope will be used to image the sounds so that each CymaGlyph will represent a dolphin picture word. Our ultimate aim is to speak to dolphins with a basic vocabulary of dolphin sounds and to understand their responses. This is uncharted territory but it looks very promising.

Dr. Horace Dobbs, a leading authority on dolphin-assisted therapy, has joined the team as consultant. "I have long held the belief that the dolphin brain, comparable in size with our own, has specialized in processing auditory data in much the same way that the human brain has specialized in processing visual data. Nature tends not to evolve brain mass without a need, so we must ask ourselves what dolphins do with all that brain capacity. The answer appears to lie in the development of brain systems that require huge auditory processing power. There is growing evidence that dolphins can take a sonic 'snap shot' of an object and send it to other dolphins, using sound as the transmission medium. We can therefore hypothesize that the dolphin's primary method of communication is picture based. Thus, the picture-based imaging method, employed by Reid and Kassewitz, seems entirely plausible."

The CymaGlyphs of dolphin sounds fall into three broad categories, signature whistles, chirps and click trains. There is general agreement among cetacean biologists that signature whistles represent the means by which individual dolphins identify themselves while click trains are involved in echolocation. Chirps are thought to represent components of language. Reid explained the visual form of the various dolphin sounds, The CymaGlyphs of signature whistles comprise regular concentric bands of energy that resemble aircraft radar screens while chirps are often flower-like in structure, resembling the CymaGlyphs of human vocalizations. Click trains have the most complex structures of all, featuring a combination of tightly packed concentric bands on the periphery with unique central features.

Your argument is again terrible here. And it shows that whenever you are proven wrong, you will try to move the goal post... Well guess what, you're not going to win this debate. "/... You can only really show that we humans just have higher cognitive ability in certain areas.. And I am curious if you believe that you are not an animal when you are..

you can also google animal language.. :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_language

Animals are semantical, but their limits deal with the limits of their brains and their adaptations to their environments.. Just because they don't speak English or build rocket ships, it doesn't mean animals aren't semantical, rational, or have moral rule sets..

It just goes with the religion.

Nice avoidance argument...