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?

[AquinasD]

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.

Computers have mathematical ability; I wouldn't say they have minds.

It is the forming of propositions, and understanding their significance, that is key. Having a program that automatically executes to have a different response to different quantities does not demonstrate understanding of significance.

[Artie]

It is the forming of propositions, and understanding their significance, that is key. Having a program that automatically executes to have a different response to different quantities does not demonstrate understanding of significance.

Sorry for this digression but when you said "having a program that automatically executes" just reminded me that people growing up in the west seem to be automatically programmed by environmental pressures to become Christians and believe in God and the Bible and people in Iraq seem to be automatically programmed by environmental pressures to believe in Islam and the Quran like a computer is programmed.

[Goat]

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?

You could.. like provide evidence. I personally see the possibility of a universe without the need for a 'deity' except as a concept. Therefore, since that possibility can be proposed, it gives lie to the statement 'God is in all possibilities'.

One also might say that 'God is not possible in any possibilities' .. with equal amount of evidence.. that is to say 'none what so ever'.

I would say that what you could do to get a different response is 'PROVIDE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE'. Since it is your claim, what kind of empirical evidence might be possible is up to you.

Can you show empirical evidence of that?

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

Nope, because I don't think it is possible to have empirical evidence for things that are merely conceptual, rather than grounded in reality.

[Adamoriens]

Computers have mathematical ability; I wouldn't say they have minds.

It is the forming of propositions, and understanding their significance, that is key. Having a program that automatically executes to have a different response to different quantities does not demonstrate understanding of significance.

At any rate, animals appear to have minds and intelligence, to a lesser degree then we do, and the primates in close relation to humans display intelligence that is a primitive form of our own. It seems reasonable to think, then, that our intelligence has evolved with the increased complexity of our brain, even if we don't know quite how.

[AquinasD]

Nope, because I don't think it is possible to have empirical evidence for things that are merely conceptual, rather than grounded in reality.

You clearly don't understand the nature of my request, because here you would be saying that your call for empirical evidence is arbitrary. For as stubborn as you are, I wouldn't expect it. Allow me to try and explain what I'm pointing out.

Do you accept this as a true proposition?

1) If something is true, there would exist empirical evidence for it

If not, could you submit a proposition (1') that you accept as true that states your belief about the necessity of empirical evidence?

[AquinasD]

At any rate, animals appear to have minds and intelligence, to a lesser degree then we do, and the primates in close relation to humans display intelligence that is a primitive form of our own. It seems reasonable to think, then, that our intelligence has evolved with the increased complexity of our brain, even if we don't know quite how.

I'm wary of this sort of voodoo. "Just add complexity," and *poof*, a reductive/eliminativist/emergentist explanation of some phenomena that one wishes to explain away.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 46:

I'm wary of this sort of voodoo. "Just add [strike]complexity[/strike] God," and *poof*, [strike]a reductive/eliminativist/emergentist[/strike] an explanation of some phenomena that one wishes to explain away.

FTFY

[Goat]

Nope, because I don't think it is possible to have empirical evidence for things that are merely conceptual, rather than grounded in reality.

You clearly don't understand the nature of my request, because here you would be saying that your call for empirical evidence is arbitrary. For as stubborn as you are, I wouldn't expect it. Allow me to try and explain what I'm pointing out.

Do you accept this as a true proposition?

1) If something is true, there would exist empirical evidence for it

If not, could you submit a proposition (1') that you accept as true that states your belief about the necessity of empirical evidence?

Well, I will say 'if there isn't empirical evidence for something, it would not be possible to say if it was true or not'.

Do you have a better method for determining is something is true other than empirical evidence??? How can you show that any argument is just a matter of making things up and opinion unless you can test the premises and the result?

[scourge99]

At any rate, animals appear to have minds and intelligence, to a lesser degree then we do, and the primates in close relation to humans display intelligence that is a primitive form of our own. It seems reasonable to think, then, that our intelligence has evolved with the increased complexity of our brain, even if we don't know quite how.

I'm wary of this sort of voodoo. "Just add complexity," and *poof*, a reductive/eliminativist/emergentist explanation of some phenomena that one wishes to explain away.

While i don't agree that reductionism/eliminativism/emergentism are dirty words or pejorative (as it would appear some theists do), I wholeheartedly agree that the critical problems are ignored. When these discussions do arise, proponents don't comprehend these fatal shortcomings or brush them off as inconsequential.

[McCulloch]

Do you accept this as a true proposition?

1) If something is true, there would exist empirical evidence for it

I would not accept this. I believe that there are many more things which are true than there is available evidence. However, apart from evidence, there is no way that we can say whether a particular proposition is true, right?

1) If something can be shown to be true, there must exist empirical evidence for it.