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?

[Autodidact]

The last sentence is a bald, and also false, assertion.

Okay, how do you get from matter to semantics?

? The question is, how do you show that evolution cannot account for thought.

[Artie]

Could you provide a simple example of what humans do that animals don't?

That was my example. Humans can perceive and understand semantics, or meaning. Animals cannot. This is not a difference of degree, but of quality.

"Semantics ... is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relation between signifiers, such as words, phrases, signs and symbols, and what they stand for, their denotata." Wikipedia. Such as when dolphins understand symbols? http://www.helium.com/items/2094495-ani ... ad-symbols

[AquinasD]

? The question is, how do you show that evolution cannot account for thought.

Add a bunch of matter, of any complexity you want, and you don't get thought. You can have subtle and dynamic syntactical rules, but this doesn't make it the case that the symbols mean anything.

[AquinasD]

"Semantics ... is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relation between signifiers, such as words, phrases, signs and symbols, and what they stand for, their denotata." Wikipedia. Such as when dolphins understand symbols? http://www.helium.com/items/2094495-ani ... ad-symbols

Classical conditioning. The ability to react to stimulus in order to receive a reward does not amount to demonstrating understanding of the semantics involved.

[Goat]

"Semantics ... is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relation between signifiers, such as words, phrases, signs and symbols, and what they stand for, their denotata." Wikipedia. Such as when dolphins understand symbols? http://www.helium.com/items/2094495-ani ... ad-symbols

Classical conditioning. The ability to react to stimulus in order to receive a reward does not amount to demonstrating understanding of the semantics involved.

To me, this statement looks like the classic denial of fact. Can you point to a peer reviewed scientific journal that makes that point for the scientific studies? Can you show that point to studies that show that the information is incorrect?

I mean, people can hand wave evidence away all they want. However, this points to an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal. As anybody in science knows, that is the start of the peer review.. and people then examine the claims, and publish criticisms about it. Can you show any articles that point out inconsistencies with the conclusions?

Support your claim that it is 'merely classic conditioning', or show how it is classic conditioning from the original article, and point out the exact flaws. Back up your point, or withdraw it.

[Autodidact]

? The question is, how do you show that evolution cannot account for thought.

Add a bunch of matter, of any complexity you want, and you don't get thought. You can have subtle and dynamic syntactical rules, but this doesn't make it the case that the symbols mean anything.

This is what I mean by a bald, unsupported and false assertion. From what we observe, empirically, thought appears to be an emergent property of brain, which is matter. Brains appear to think, certainly cause behavior that seems to be caused by thinking, while thought has never been observed apart from a brain.

[Autodidact]

"Semantics ... is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relation between signifiers, such as words, phrases, signs and symbols, and what they stand for, their denotata." Wikipedia. Such as when dolphins understand symbols? http://www.helium.com/items/2094495-ani ... ad-symbols

Classical conditioning. The ability to react to stimulus in order to receive a reward does not amount to demonstrating understanding of the semantics involved.

Maybe you need to share your definition of thinking. It seems to involve semantics, for some reason?

[AquinasD]

Support your claim that it is 'merely classic conditioning', or show how it is classic conditioning from the original article, and point out the exact flaws. Back up your point, or withdraw it.

1) The dolphins are presented with a stimuli

2) They react appropriately

3) They are rewarded for their behavior

This is what we call, in psychology, conditioning.

Conditioned behavior is not indicative of understanding of semantic content. It only demonstrates the ability to respond appropriately to stimuli where a reward is involved.

[AquinasD]

This is what I mean by a bald, unsupported and false assertion. From what we observe, empirically, thought appears to be an emergent property of brain, which is matter. Brains appear to think, certainly cause behavior that seems to be caused by thinking, while thought has never been observed apart from a brain.

This has nothing to do with what I'm challenging.

I'm challenging the notion that the human brain's ability to understand semantical content is not due to evolution.

Evolution is a purely material process. Material processes are syntactical systems. Syntactical systems are not in-themselves semantical.

When are you going to provide evidence for your own position, i.e. that syntactical systems can, by themselves, have semantical content "emerge?" You just keep saying "That's a bald, unsuppoted assertion," or else something along the lines of "Prove it." Well, I have offered my line of reasoning. Syntactical systems semantical content. Simple as that.

Please try and provide support for your claim besides "Well, we have noticed an association between syntactical systems (the brain in regard to its evolution) and semantical content; therefore, they must be be essentially equivalent." This is not a persuasive argument, because it is not always the case that correlation is due to causation. There is a correlation between brains and semantics, I'm not doubting that; I'm only doubting that brains have a causative feature in semantics (in regards to purely material considerations).

[Goat]

Support your claim that it is 'merely classic conditioning', or show how it is classic conditioning from the original article, and point out the exact flaws. Back up your point, or withdraw it.

1) The dolphins are presented with a stimuli

2) They react appropriately

3) They are rewarded for their behavior

This is what we call, in psychology, conditioning.

Conditioned behavior is not indicative of understanding of semantic content. It only demonstrates the ability to respond appropriately to stimuli where a reward is involved.

And, how is this referencing what was done in the experiment? How is that eliminating 'thought'? I just see unsupported claims trying to support unsupported claims.

I mean, you could say the same thing about college students in class. Does that mean college students don't think ??

Or, we can say that is the same as Christians behavior in church. Does that mean Christians don't think?

I could make the same observations of people who fall down and twitch in pentecostal religious ceremonies. That just shows your observations are extremely incomplete, and not backed up.