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]

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."

Yeah, those dumb old scientists, they never figured anything out. Why do they even bother devoting their lives to advancing human knowledge, when the scientific method clearly does not work? If it did, we would know that the earth was round and revolves around the sun. Who believes that nonsense? What has science ever discovered? Name a single thing that science has learned? Compare that to the Bible--that's where we find out what's really going on. The earth is flat, and rain falls when holes are opened in it to allow the waters above to fall down. Duh.

[scourge99]

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.

I'm talking about evolutionary psychology, not memetics.

Even so the criticisms still apply. Evolutionary psychology makes some hefty assumptions about the nature of mind and then extends evolutionary theory to a domain beyond its demonstrated scope.

E.G., physical evolution occurs because gene variations result in physical differences. This has been demonstrated with an abundance of evidence and a precise understanding of the mechanism (DNA). What is the mechanism which facilitates psychological evolution? How does the mechanism operate and what evidence supports such a conclusion?

[Oldfarmhouse]

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.

I'm talking about evolutionary psychology, not memetics.

Even so the criticisms still apply. Evolutionary psychology makes some hefty assumptions about the nature of mind and then extends evolutionary theory to a domain beyond its demonstrated scope.

E.G., physical evolution occurs because gene variations result in physical differences. This has been demonstrated with an abundance of evidence and a precise understanding of the mechanism (DNA). What is the mechanism which facilitates psychological evolution? How does the mechanism operate and what evidence supports such a conclusion?

There are numerous psychological conditions that have been shown to be heritable traits. The mechanism is the same -- genetics.

[scourge99]

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.

I'm talking about evolutionary psychology, not memetics.

Even so the criticisms still apply. Evolutionary psychology makes some hefty assumptions about the nature of mind and then extends evolutionary theory to a domain beyond its demonstrated scope.

E.G., physical evolution occurs because gene variations result in physical differences. This has been demonstrated with an abundance of evidence and a precise understanding of the mechanism (DNA). What is the mechanism which facilitates psychological evolution? How does the mechanism operate and what evidence supports such a conclusion?

There are numerous psychological conditions that have been shown to be heritable traits. The mechanism is the same -- genetics.

I don't doubt that there may be psychological conditions that are heritable. For example, we notice that schizophrenia tends to run in families. The question is how the psychological condition jumps from physical (genes) to the mental (the mind). We can observe that there are particular physical differences surrounding a condition but that tells us nothing about HOW the physical differences (if any) result in mental differences. That distinction is key. Until there is a clear mechanism to link mind and brain (or something else altogether) then we cannot claim to know that relation.

For example, in Alzheimer's patients we observe the degradation brain nerves and synapses but we don't have a clue about why such a degradation results in dementia. All we can do is observe that when the brain does suffer from such a disease then dementia occurs. If we understood the mechanism of brain/body then we would be able to predict (and possibly treat) why and how nerve and synapse degradation results in dementia. We don't and this lack of knowledge is why we struggle treating many psychological problems.

[AquinasD]

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?

Moral realism isn't dead and done, it just isn't rooted in our intuitions.

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.

I'd agree with your assessment on the matter.

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.

In order for there to be truth, there must be true propositions. But our ability to form and express propositions (which happen to be true) requires that we are minds with a nature to understand (semantical) significance. (Materialistic) evolution can only help put in place syntactical engines, Chinese rooms operated by blind, dead computers.

[Goat]

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.

That is the claim. But is it the truth? That is the predetermined answer that some people used when they constructed their arguments. But is it factual? Can you show this statement is something more than just option, or an attempt to rationalize a certain set of beliefs?

Can you show empirical evidence of that?

[Artie]

I don't doubt that there may be psychological conditions that are heritable. For example, we notice that schizophrenia tends to run in families. The question is how the psychological condition jumps from physical (genes) to the mental (the mind). We can observe that there are particular physical differences surrounding a condition but that tells us nothing about HOW the physical differences (if any) result in mental differences. That distinction is key. Until there is a clear mechanism to link mind and brain (or something else altogether) then we cannot claim to know that relation.

For example, in Alzheimer's patients we observe the degradation brain nerves and synapses but we don't have a clue about why such a degradation results in dementia. All we can do is observe that when the brain does suffer from such a disease then dementia occurs. If we understood the mechanism of brain/body then we would be able to predict (and possibly treat) why and how nerve and synapse degradation results in dementia. We don't and this lack of knowledge is why we struggle treating many psychological problems.

Genes and environmental factors determine the development and functioning of the brain, brain functioning produces the "mind". Nerve and synapse degradation results in dementia because the brain can no longer connect nerve cells or nerve cells themselves get damaged and the "mind" suffers.

[Adamoriens]

Even so the criticisms still apply. Evolutionary psychology makes some hefty assumptions about the nature of mind and then extends evolutionary theory to a domain beyond its demonstrated scope.

Evolutionary psychology makes no hefty assumptions about the nature of mind that neuroscience does not. If no-one extended theories beyond their demonstrated scope, we'd have no progress. Or do you mean to say that evolutionary psychology is all false?

E.G., physical evolution occurs because gene variations result in physical differences. This has been demonstrated with an abundance of evidence and a precise understanding of the mechanism (DNA). What is the mechanism which facilitates psychological evolution? How does the mechanism operate and what evidence supports such a conclusion?

You'll have to look to individual arguments from evolutionary psychologists to answer that question properly. I think the idea is that psychological adaptations are rooted in genetic and environmental pressures.

[Adamoriens]

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.

In order for there to be truth, there must be true propositions. But our ability to form and express propositions (which happen to be true) requires that we are minds with a nature to understand (semantical) significance. (Materialistic) evolution can only help put in place syntactical engines, Chinese rooms operated by blind, dead computers.

Interestingly enough, that view entails that quite a few different animals have minds. Reading off the wikipedia page for animal cognition: elephants, rhesus monkeys, chimpanzees, pigeons, ants, yellow mealworm beetles honeybees have all demonstrated some mathematical ability.

[AquinasD]

Can you show this statement is something more than just option, or an attempt to rationalize a certain set of beliefs?

What could I possibly say that would ever get a different response?

Can you show empirical evidence of that?

Can you show empirical evidence that there ought to be empirical evidence of that?