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]

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.

Do you have some empirical support for this bald assertion, or are we expected to accept it on your word alone?

[scourge99]

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.

This is an evasive and vague reply. You've jumped from your original idea, to evolutionary psychology, and now to neuroscience. We are going to have to agree to disagree.

If no-one extended theories beyond their demonstrated scope, we'd have no progress.

This is both irrelevant to this discussion and a misunderstanding of what I've stated.
There is a difference between investigation/research and asserting certain ideas as true or likely. I am criticizing the notion that morality can be accounted for purely by evolution. I am not criticizing or condemning investigation/research into anything.

Or do you mean to say that evolutionary psychology is all false?

It is deeply flawed and has some major problems to overcome. I don't doubt that there are some diamonds in the rough as with most scientific ideas.

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.

The inability to answer that question is devastating to any EP idea. It effectively kicks the legs out from under it. Without a mechanism then it is like arguing for evolution without natural selection.

I think the idea is that psychological adaptations are rooted in genetic and environmental pressures.

1) Without an explanation about the precise mechanism that explains how genes and environmental pressures directly give rise to moral beliefs then this idea is untenable.

2) It is true that our minds are influenced by genetics and evolution had some role in that but genes do not account for everything. If they did then we would expect to see identical twins think, behave, and suffer from identical psychological disorders at very high rates. We don't. For example, if one twin is schizophrenic, autistic, or ADHD then the other only has about a 50% chance or less of having it. While this is substantially greater than the prevalence in the general population, it demonstrates that there is more than just genes at work. This is precisely where the OP goes wrong. It makes too much of genes and evolution while disregarding individual experiences and self reflective thoughts which directly mold the mind and higher cognitive functions.

[TheJackelantern]

In evolution, morality deals more specifically with behavioral adaptation, especially in social groups and social animals. Humans are not the only ones whom display this.. And I can tell nobody seemed to bother reading my link.. So lets post it here:


Abstract:

References you should get to know and understand:

(noted here in; Digital Physics, Information Entropy, Chaos theory, mass energy equivalence, Capacity, emergence, self-organization, or even in Complex adaptive systems and complex adaptive organizing systems)

Well, lets begin with answering what these fundamental laws are, and they are as follows:

* POSITIVE
* NEGATIVE
* NEUTRAL

These are not only the base laws of existence, they are the attributes to everything, and everything we know of is made of energy. It is thus considered under information theory that Energy =/= information as both substance and value as previously noted above. They are also what makes us so damn "AMAZING" as these are the fundamental properties, attributes, and laws to which are the cause of all causation. Information and energy are thus simply stated as "Cause" since there can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral;

Action
Reaction
Process
Mathematical equation
Answer
Choice
Decision
Intent
Purpose
Moral
Ethic
Emotion
Feeling
Piece of information
State
Function
Ability
Response
System
Feedback
Opinion
Phenomenon
Condition
Ability
Power
Electric Charge
Selection
Adaptation
Mutation
Transformation
Position
Point of view
Observation
Sensation
Perception
Or the relativity of anything above

So How does this work in regards to morality, one of just many on the list above. And it's especially subject to relativity highlighted at the bottom of the list. How does this shape our lives and become the essence of our souls? Well if you would like to find out, and try to understand with the curiosity that drives the force of learning, you can achieve a self-worth greater than any could attempt to take away from you. And this path to knowledge is not that of my own, but rather a path I choose to share with you, a path hard earned by the sheer brilliance of those of our time, and of those before us to which have given us the foundation of our self-education. And thus it is this path I am attempting to lead you through, the rational path, the path to individual freedom of free thought to which is not bound to hide, to look away, bound to obedience without question, or bound to the fear of even the most uncertain of uncertainties. Thus in beginning with Part 3 of this article, I will attempt to help us lift our selves up from our knees of ignorance, and give us something to build a future with to which we can empirically stand on with a rational comprehending mind UN-sacrificed to that of ignorance.



-- PART 3 --

Understanding Moral Evolution: System of behavioral Adaptation:

Morality:

http://www.mukto-mona.com

Moral instinct itself is rooted in the laws of nature (Physics) via the working of the brain. Morality is latent in the laws of nature. It finds expression through the process of evolution...

Welcome to Part 3! To begin here, we will first start by going over the laws discussed in Part 2 to show morality and the moral adaptive systems relationship with information theory and energy to make this section a bit easier to intellectually digest. As you read this section you will find that morality like everything else requires a complex adaptive system with positive, negative, and neutral feedback in order for any such system to exist, evolve, or adapt in any culture, or social group be it in the animal kingdom apart from the human species, or in human nature itself. And as cold as that sounds, it's actually quite amazing since it brings forth all that which we find love in, warmth in, and a sense of security in. It's what gives us a means to further expand our very minds, and imagine wonders beyond the realm of possibility! And when we choose to use our minds, we can see the very simplicity of our nature. We are energy beings made of energy full of vigor and life to which the following properties of our nature allow us to have:

Energy / information has 3 properties, values, and attributes:

* POSITIVE
* NEGATIVE
* NEUTRAL

Ethics, emotion, feelings, morals, and our love all have these 3 properties, values, and attributes:

* POSITIVE
* NEGATIVE
* NEUTRAL

So when we begin to ponder and reflect upon the very truth to who we are, we can take a moment to put it all into a deeper context by exploring the empirical reflection of it's truth by direct example. Below are the links to the previous eight writeup from other sources to which correlate with that of this article to which may help shed some deeper thoughts on this subject, all to which I found quite interesting to read myself:

1. Science, Objectivity &; Postmodernism
2. Science vs. Mysticism &; Philosophy
3. Science, Logic, Faith, Beauty.. etc
4. Science, Miracles &; the Paranormal
5. On the Nature vs. Nurture Debate
6. A Scientific View of Life Death Immortality:
7. Brain and Religion
8. Freewill vs. Predestination

Now I know the above has an incredible amount of information to digest, so I will try to simplify it all so we all can understand it without getting too deep in the philosophical relativity of our morality. So I figured it would be easier and better to understand this by looking at Morality in terms of mental addiction. Here a positive addiction is a beneficial habit--where the benefits outweigh the costs, and a negative addiction is a detrimental habit"where the benefits are not worth the negative financial, physical, spiritual and mental costs. A neutral addiction is a habit in which it is not clear if the organism, species, or ourselves benefits from the activity. None-the-less, even in biology behavioral neutrals, positives, and negatives are always present. So when you see someone asking how does evolution support morality, we can address it because evolution is a positive and negative behavior itself with feedback. We can address it because we can not only understand this, we can physically feel, express, and convey it to others around us! Energy exhibits these traits and dynamics unconsciously as seen in evolution to which doesn't think about morality, it simply just selects from positives and negatives based on pattern interaction with other patterns that influence or exert pressure on any given pattern or set of patterns to swing one way or another. However, those unconscious dynamics are at the very foundation and essence of our ability to consciously express or convey our morality. This is best understood under this section of information theory:

* Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern.

Hence, a species or an organism will either adapt in a positive, or go extinct in a negative if they fail to apply a positive adaptation or behavior. This includes social and cultural extinction, or an outcast of individuals, or groups not seen in conformity to the current moral norms. This is the concept of moral behavior, and the evolution of moral behaviors. We find this sort of thing in every day life.

Thus evolution is a prime example of neutral moral behavior to where it can swing from a positive or to a negative just like a neutral behavioral addiction can swing to a negative addiction, or to a positive addiction. This includes gray areas in between that can make such things vague, relative, or blurred. So our human brains normally evolve to satisfy the above into a positive and beneficial mental addiction that can equate to the source purpose of "morality" within the human species. It's a positive and negative flow, or balance to where one tends to usually be in a state of neutral addiction. A relative abstract perceptual and perpetual pendulum to which is apart of the system of order from chaos.

In layman's terms:

Things either don't change and stay neutral, or they take a positive or negative route! There is no outside to these fundamental rules!. However, I would like to further touch on that subject in Part 4 below in regards to how Chaos theory and evolution works in human behavior.

--Part 4:--

How Chaos theory and evolution works in human behavior and the animal kingdom:

In order to do this, you must first understand Chaos theory. So I am going to kindly provide all of you with "The Secret Life of Chaos"! This series of videos will open you mind to how the world around you works, but also in how Chaos theory works in the evolution of moral behavior within the human species as well as in the rest of the animal kingdom!

The Secret Life of Chaos video:

http://www.viewzu.com/science/the_secre ... chaos.html

Abstract clip:

[youtube][/youtube]


We can also see self-organization in the secret life of ICE:

[youtube][/youtube]

Or you can explore Chaos theory and Cybernetics:

[youtube][/youtube]


So what do these videos have to do with the evolution of morality? Well, these are about systems that self-organize from chaos through the coupling of positive and negative feedback loops. The same processes that drive our own Consciousness, awareness, and behaviors. Without positive and negative feedback there can be no system to support consciousness or the system of Observation and perception of observation to which would allow for the evolution of rules of morality, or ethics. We could have no language, understanding, or ability to even make a choice or decision without the basic 3 fundamental principles (laws) of information theory that so happens to be the same basic principle laws of nature and energy itself.

So to directly demonstrate this, I am going to simply demonstrate how chaos theory and evolution works in human behavior by a direct example. It's a very good example that demonstrates the very essence of moral System of behavioral Adaptation. So let's take two questions asked of me by an inquiring mind about the nature of human equality, and how morality is latent in nature:

Question asked: Human equality?:

TheJackel,

Academically, I am not that strong and never have that chance. I'd like to ask you a question "Are all men created equal?". Please, consider it as a small part of evolution question.

My Reply:

Firstly, you used the term "created" which is an attempt, or perhaps a habit of injecting the assumption of Creation by design. But to answer your question in terms of evolution:

There are many aspects of evolution to which also include behavioral evolution. Much like how fish will swim in schools for protection, man will find social groups to associate themselves with for many of the same reasons.. Human nature will segregate themselves into different social groups to where they never really ever fully equate other people outside their social group as equal. Yes, it can happen, but evolution states that such things as equality as relative.. The other problem is, in chaotic systems such as human behavior, or evolution, there never is equality since everything is a dynamic and continuously emerging property of positive, negative, and neutral actions, reactions, responses, ideas, thoughts, levels of equality, emotion, feeling, adaptations, natural selections, choices, decisions, paths, morals, ethics, abilities, or possibilities of countless probabilities to which can not ever be 100% predictable, or ever be static.

Example:

911 hits, where do I stand on human equality if it were my family killed in Tower 1? What possible routes will the evolution of my morality, ethics, or stance on human equality take me? How much control do I have over this? Would I ever be the same? Sure I can make a choice to a limited degree, but evolution states that everyone isn't the same and will make any possible number of choices and changes because not everyone is the same. Especially in mental stability, states of mind, or in what control they have over their emotions. Thus even though humans are intelligent, the entire system remains Chaotic like to which can not be predicted with any sort of real certainty.

Thus even here we can see why chaos theory holds true even in our human nature, and this is why positive, negative, and neutral in information theory are the foundation, and principle laws to which govern our very choices, decisions, love, and admiration of life. We can call it the keystone of our potential happiness, and the foundation to that of our very future! And so this brings us to the question where I was asked if morality is the goal of the laws of nature, or latent in the laws of nature. Are animals so different from us, and are we not animals ourselves? So lets tackle that question as I see it as a very valid question to answer in more detail!:


Question asked: Morality latent in nature?

Are you claiming that morality is somehow the goal of the laws of nature? How is morality latent in the laws of nature?

My Reply:

What is not a part of nature?

Consciousness can obviously achieve and make goals. And we can address that behavioral evolution since it is listed under the definition of evolution:

Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inheritedtraits found in inter-breeding populations of organisms. Inherited traits are particular distinguishing characteristics, including anatomical, biochemical orbehavioural characteristics, that result from gene"environment interactions. Evolution may occur when there is variation of inherited traits within a population. The major sources of such variation are mutation,genetic recombination andgene flow. This process has produced all the diversity of living organisms.

.[/quote]

Note behavioral adaptation is included in the definition of evolution.. Also, there are many animals that exhibit moral dynamics or behaviors. One of these behaviors is self-preservation that leads to behavioral adaptations within a species to which will benefit it for the survival of the species. Even other primates exhibit many traits of morality that we exhibit:

http://pressblog.uchicago.edu/2009/01/2 ... f_mor.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3014747.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3116678.stm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0630100140.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildli ... wrong.html
http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/v ... ontext=bts
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~cushman/pub ... /PPP_1.pdf

Killer Whales have been found to have social groups or even separation of social cultures in their behaviors:

http://www.whaleresearch.com/PDF/Parson ... aviour.pdf
http://aquaticcommons.org/359/1/MS_Thes ... d_1988.pdf
http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/v ... +whales%22
http://137.110.142.7/uploadedFiles/2010 ... ughter.pdf

Conclusion:

Morality is relatively innate / inherent in nature:

Innate:

inherent in the essential character of something:

Inherent:

existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute

When we are born we begin that trek through life, and we begin to discover the world around us, who we are, where we came from, the rules of society ect. Our morality is essentially shaped through all that we have learned, experienced, witnessed, or have been taught since we were born. All those things add up and shape who we are as individuals as we grow older and wiser. They shape our world view, and we thus shape our own sense of morality and opinions in accordance to all that we have come to learn since we were born. We learn customs, history, and the social norms of our time. We develop our sense of morality in this very fashion. Some of it is Monkey see Monkey do, while some of it is defiant of the the social norms of our society whether it be good or bad.

But in the end it bares down to your own interpretation of the world you see around you, and how you see yourself in that world. All the positive, negative, and neutral feedback shapes your very moral stance in life, and that is relative to each individual while at the same time can share fractal elements amongst your peers.

So think about your life history, your experience, how you felt about what goes on around you, and how all of that shapes your sense of morality. And then ask yourself how that differs from other people and cultures and you will begin to understand what divides us, and what makes us similar

Example:

A cat loving woman / man might see China's boiling of cats alive for food as morally detestable while the Chines see them simply as food to which benefits their survival as we do when we slaughter cows to feed our order for takeout apatite at the nearest Mc Donald's. And what does that say to those who see the cow as a divine creature of worship? What makes them so different from us, you, or I? How are their lives and sense of morality shaped since they were born?

The evidence is overwhelming in favor of evolution, and we are amazing, and we are the essence of self-attaining purpose from amazing processes that gives us our love as that of our own to share. Why is that so many fear that which they are? Why must religion seek to take our individualism and inject it with fear for a bid to our obedience? And where will the future of our human morality end up if we can not see the world around us with a rational mind curious in comprehending without the need for pure ignorance leading to the moral destruction of ourselves?

Just food for thought!

[AquinasD]

Do you have some empirical support for this bald assertion, or are we expected to accept it on your word alone?

A bald assertion? I thought the difference between semantics and syntax were well understood. There is a sign, and then there is its meaning; the sign represents the meaning but is not itself the meaning.

Are you saying that it might be otherwise?

[AquinasD]

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'.

Okay. So what do you make of mathematical truths? No empirical evidence exists for whether 1 + 1 = 2, but I don't think you're going to find a lot of people saying that they don't know if it's true or false.

What of metaphysical truths, i.e. A = A? There's no empirical evidence that could substantiate that a thing is itself.

What of your claim about empirical evidence? Does it have empirical evidence to support it?

Do you have a better method for determining is something is true other than empirical evidence???

You ask this as if there must only be only one possible method for verifying things of the world.

It depends on the nature of the thing. For some things, empirical observation will be a better way of knowing what the world is like. For some other things, empirical observation will be absolutely useless.

[AquinasD]

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.

At least there is someone who recognizes them as problems.

[AquinasD]

However, apart from evidence, there is no way that we can say whether a particular proposition is true, right?

Depends on what we mean by evidence.

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

Thank you for providing a proposition.

Now, here's my question; can (1) be shown to be true? If (1) is true and it can be shown to be such, then there must exist empirical evidence for it. So how can one do that without simply begging the question?

[AquinasD]

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

There are substantial differences between what the reductionist is trying to do and what theists are trying to do.

1) Theists are not trying to "explain away" anything by God

2) Theists don't use God as an explanation of every particular thing

[Adamoriens]

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.

Here's what I was hinting at:

There is a correlation between complexity of brains and complexity of minds. As we progress from the past to the present this correlation begins with simple minds and brains and progresses to complex minds and brains. So, this suggests that as our brains evolved, so did our minds. This doesn't commit us to identifying mind states as brain states, so I take your complaint to be overstated.

[AquinasD]

Here's what I was hinting at:

There is a correlation between complexity of brains and complexity of minds. As we progress from the past to the present this correlation begins with simple minds and brains and progresses to complex minds and brains. So, this suggests that as our brains evolved, so did our minds. This doesn't commit us to identifying mind states as brain states, so I take your complaint to be overstated.

I don't see that anything but humans (in our evolutionary line) has had minds.