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?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 14:

Most of the people I see look the same. They have 2 hand, 2 feet, a mouth, nose, 2 eyes, 2 ears, etc.

You and the missus there, both of ya strip down.

Do you both look the same?

Look real careful now, your answer here may reveal more about your situation than you might like folks to be a-knowin'.

There are some birth defects.

Many of which are genetic mutations.

Are you saying the criminal gene is a birth defect?

Not near as much as I'd say what constitutes criminal behavior is essentially a moral question.

If it is not a defect, how come we don't have dufflepods running around?

Dufflepods seem not to have gained a foothold.

I believe there is very little evidence to support evolution.

Again with "believe". The science is in.

There are a lot of assumptions made then assumed to be right because "scientists" don't accept any alternatives, thus they pat each other on the back and say "Yea, that must be it."

While I agree the ToE is built on assumptions, I contend they are reasonably and logically derived, based on virtual mountains of data. Let's compare your statement here to your very next'n...

God cannot sin or do something wrong.

Are you not doing some pretty fancy assumin' yourself?

If not, then surely it would be a simple matter of presenting some means of confirming the veracity of your claim.

To take a new pair of shoes and replace them with an old pair of shoes, or to put them in a new box to make it appear as though that was what happened, would be stealing.

Unless one owned all the shoes involved.

But now I get your point. Theft is wrong.

What if someone stole a biscuit to feed their starving child?

I say it's wrong.

What you reckon that kid's gon' say when he gets that biscuit swallered?

God can't steal, because it's wrong.

It'd be pretty hard for something that wasn't there to steal, wouldn't it?

Ergo, God did not put the old shoes in the new shoe box.

I was being facetious.

Please provide proof that shoes are not biological entities.

Ever been wanderin' through the wilds and run up on a pair of 'em having sex? Ever had to wash your car because of all the shoe pollen all over it?

If you question whether shoes are biological or not, I fear the observer may dismiss anything you may ever say.

My shoes smell like they died some time ago, and in order for that to have happened they must have been alive at some point.

That smell can be the result of bacteria, fungus or even possibly a disease. Dr. Scholl may well be your new best friend.

What you appear to have stated here is that you would trade your body for monetary gain, which is the same thing a gigolo does. Please clarify.

I said I'd trade it for alcohol. I'm a slut, not a whore

Notice here though, we have a great example of morality at play. I see nothing wrong with sexing up an ugly chick who brings me alcohol, but others may think my doing so is "immoral".

So we see that im/moral behavior spans the economic spectrum.

Point being?

Across the economic spectrum, im/moral behavior spans, we see.

In fact, with the athiests I have seen, they figure if they can get away with it then it wasn't wrong.

A simplistic argument devoid of any understanding of just why atheists don't feel the need to run around rapin' and plunderin'.

This is in fact not a simplistic argument. It is very complex.

It's only as complex as we make it. The fact is that I don't go around rapin' women because I have some sense that they might not 'preciate my doin' it.

That and getting thrown out of parties or bars for copping a feel leads me to some understanding that such actions are frowned upon in polite comp'ny.

If morals "evolve" then the assumption is that people are becoming better.

Two things...

First, your own God's morality "evolved", if Christian claims are to be believed.

Second, evolution doesn't hafta be towards "better".

If they come from an absolutely moral being which I call GOD, then morals will devolve as people turn away from God.

How might'n folks keep up with a God that changes his morals?

It is not a simple argument.

I concede the point as it relates to the issue of morality.

The theists who told you the consumption of alcohol is wrong were wrong. The Bible says Jesus turned water into wine, and God cannot sin. I consumed an excellent jack & coke myself last night; it takes a good Christian to really appreciate the fruit of the field.

Party at Yoder's !!!

If we are here accidentally, why would we have "rights"?

"Accidentally" implies something got fouled up along the way. As a species, we "just are".

We as individuals, and as expressed through society, determine what rights we have. Notice the continuing effort by some Christians to deprive certain segments of society the right to marry the one they love.

What would our purpose be?

What we make it. Or ask Navin Johnson and see what he has to allow.

...
I'd be willing to help ya along there best I can if you're interested.

Yes. And I would be more than willing to help you with your misconceptions. Looks like an impasse to me.

Perhaps only in the mind of the theist could two folks trying to help each other ever be considered an "impasse".

Please capitalise all words which refer to God in any form, such as He, out of respect for my religion.

Your god is not worthy of my respect.

I'll use what punctuation and capitalizationin' I deem fit.

As I have told you repeatedly, it will all be confirmed when you die.

So you claim.

I find this one of the most despicable ploys of religious proselytizin'.

There is no other way to reach the alternate universe where God resides than to die.

I challenge you to show there's an alternate universe.

I challenge you to show that's where your god hangs his hat.

I challenge you to show folks'd get there when they die.

I challenge you to show you speak truth.

It's the only way to get there, excpet for one man whom according to the Bible God transported (not Jesus.)

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.

Something - "God defined it" - that can't be shown to be a true statement hardly qualifies as knowledge. Notice also the use of "seems". Again we see the theist will store all of their unconfirmable 'knowledge' in the god box.

Please provide an explanation and proof of how the universe came into existence.

No.

I will not be drawn into supporting claims I've not made.

If you can prove some sort of start without God, and the evolution of life on earth, I will disavow my Christianity instantly.

You can remain a Christian till I start liking rap for all I care.

In my opinion the believers in evolution have more faith with less evidence than I do in Christianity.

Opinion noted.

Now, are you willing to support the claims I've challenged, or are you most comfortable leaving the observer considering if an opinion or position based on bald assertion is worthy of adopting?

[scourge99]

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?

I think it should be made clear that the theory of evolution only accounts for changes in physical traits. The ToE does not address changes of ideas and cultural phenomena such as morality (memetics). Though memetics has gained popularity it is still speculative. I think it would take a major breakthrough in our understanding of the brain/mind before memetics could be supported with anything more than circumstantial evidence and speculation.

So, while it may be interesting to discuss the consequences of morality being a product purely of evolution, i think its a bit hasty to presume that this is the only reasonable possibility.


What is a "spooky" moral fact?

[AquinasD]

I don't think it quite answered my question. If we take evolutionary explanations for our moral beliefs to be compelling over-and-above other accounts, we are challenged by the fact that our moral beliefs were selected for their utility in survival, reproduction and prosperity. They were not selected because of their truth.

Sure, I'm quite alright with that. I've never believed that evolution explains everything that is human and our "moral intuitions" aren't adept anyhow. Maybe they provide a beneficial impetus in some cases, but there are other cases where they provide no beneficial, and perhaps even a malignant, consequence.

Evolution doesn't select for truth, I thought this was something already widely accepted. It selects for survivability and breedability, neither of which are intrinsically truth-seeking functions. They're syntactical operations.

[AquinasD]

Can you offer some means to confirm God is the "fount of all possible happiness"?

God founds all possibilities; this includes the set of everything which serves to make moral creatures happy. It's purely analytic.

Given that mankind has been at war lo these many eons, is it now fair to say that all war is moral?

Maybe my use of the word "nature" strays from the colloquial to the technical, at occasion, where it is warranted.

[Adamoriens]

I think it should be made clear that the theory of evolution only accounts for changes in physical traits. The ToE does not address changes of ideas and cultural phenomena such as morality (memetics). Though memetics has gained popularity it is still speculative. I think it would take a major breakthrough in our understanding of the brain/mind before memetics could be supported with anything more than circumstantial evidence and speculation.

So, while it may be interesting to discuss the consequences of morality being a product purely of evolution, i think its a bit hasty to presume that this is the only reasonable possibility.


What is a "spooky" moral fact?

I'm talking about evolutionary psychology, not memetics. By "spooky" I mean to refer to non-natural or supernatural moral facts.

[Adamoriens]

Sure, I'm quite alright with that. I've never believed that evolution explains everything that is human and our "moral intuitions" aren't adept anyhow. Maybe they provide a beneficial impetus in some cases, but there are other cases where they provide no beneficial, and perhaps even a malignant, consequence.

It's one thing to say that moral intuitions aren't adept; another to say that they intuit nothing at all.

Evolution doesn't select for truth, I thought this was something already widely accepted. It selects for survivability and breedability, neither of which are intrinsically truth-seeking functions. They're syntactical operations.

Actually, evolution probably does select for truth-tracking cognitive faculties in most cases, where truth-tracking benefits survival, but that doesn't seem to be the case with regard to morality.

[Flail]

Moses Yoder wrote:

I appears to come from the people who didn't fill out the mulitiple choice question, or perhaps claimed other religions like Buddhism who I don't think believe in a christian type God. have no idea how they came up with the determination that .21% of the inmates were athiest, as it is not an option on the multiple choice question. That statistic

I have represented thousands of people accused of crime in my day, mostly despicable criminals, and almost all of them were Christians.

[Flail]

Moses Yoder wrote:

I believe there is very little evidence to support evolution. There are a lot of assumptions made then assumed to be right because "scientists" don't accept any alternatives, thus they pat each other on the back and say "Yea, that must be it."

You apparently are not familiar with the scientific process, nor do you know any scientists. Your statement here is completely false. Scientists must, to be taken seriously in the scientific community, submit all hypotheticals and the verifiable testing of them to the scientific community at large via publication in order that theories may be subjected to continuous re-testing and critical analysis.

[AquinasD]

It's one thing to say that moral intuitions aren't adept; another to say that they intuit nothing at all.

Well consider.

A trolley running down the tracks. It's going to kill five people, unless you hit a switch that will change it course. However, then it will kill one person. What's the right thing to do?

Suppose you accept that the right thing to do is to hit the switch. (Even if you don't know, your moral intuitions will be reeling.)

What if it is the case that there isn't a switch, but a very fat man who you can push into the way who you know will cause the train to stop before it kills those five people?

Our "moral intuitions" tend to be very confused in these sorts of cases.

I could point to more controversial cases. Consider how in the 19th century many found racism perfectly acceptable; it didn't confuse their moral intuitions in the least. In the modern day, our moral intuitions are completely opposite; racism is deplorable.

Or, consider the moral intuitions people possess about premarital sex. Abortion. Homosexuality. War. Capitalism. Government. Anything.

There are lots of places where people's moral intuitions reflect no underlying principles, and appear to be culturally conditioned. Eating a cow? A lot of Hindus would tell you they find it not merely wrong in the abstract sense, but intuitionally deplorable. And so on.

Actually, evolution probably does select for truth-tracking cognitive faculties in most cases, where truth-tracking benefits survival, but that doesn't seem to be the case with regard to morality.

My conscious awareness is not a product of evolution, though, and that is where truth-tracking occurs. If there were some way to go around my conscious awareness of my environment to the formulating of a decision about how to react, to go straight from stimuli to response, that would be more evolutionarily adapted than our slow ratiocination.

Even if it were the case, that doesn't mean our ability to track the truth of predators in the bush translates into our ability to track the truth of, say, mathematical and metaphysical truths.

[Adamoriens]

It's one thing to say that moral intuitions aren't adept; another to say that they intuit nothing at all.

Well consider.

A trolley running down the tracks. It's going to kill five people, unless you hit a switch that will change it course. However, then it will kill one person. What's the right thing to do?

Suppose you accept that the right thing to do is to hit the switch. (Even if you don't know, your moral intuitions will be reeling.)

What if it is the case that there isn't a switch, but a very fat man who you can push into the way who you know will cause the train to stop before it kills those five people?

Our "moral intuitions" tend to be very confused in these sorts of cases.

I could point to more controversial cases. Consider how in the 19th century many found racism perfectly acceptable; it didn't confuse their moral intuitions in the least. In the modern day, our moral intuitions are completely opposite; racism is deplorable.

Or, consider the moral intuitions people possess about premarital sex. Abortion. Homosexuality. War. Capitalism. Government. Anything.

There are lots of places where people's moral intuitions reflect no underlying principles, and appear to be culturally conditioned. Eating a cow? A lot of Hindus would tell you they find it not merely wrong in the abstract sense, but intuitionally deplorable. And so on.

This is very funny, and I don't mean that maliciously. My original argument was against our having moral knowledge on the basis of intuitions; you appear to be handing me nails as I close up the coffin. Is that moral realism dead and done with, then?

My conscious awareness is not a product of evolution, though, and that is where truth-tracking occurs. If there were some way to go around my conscious awareness of my environment to the formulating of a decision about how to react, to go straight from stimuli to response, that would be more evolutionarily adapted than our slow ratiocination.

Even if it were the case, that doesn't mean our ability to track the truth of predators in the bush translates into our ability to track the truth of, say, mathematical and metaphysical truths.

The original challenge was against an intuitionist account of moral knowledge, where knowledge of basic moral facts like "it is good for a being to be satisfied or at peace with it's nature" is acquired through a faculty sensitive to the moral realm. By contrast, evolution would favour at least rudimentary knowledge of mathematical facts and the laws of logic, since this knowledge is required for any coherent thought (which is surely advantageous) and for any assurance that it is three tigers, not two, that are chasing you.

But I agree that the human mind is subject to a number of vagaries which probably have the messy process of evolution as their ultimate source, and that it takes a great amount of conscious effort and learning to overcome them.