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?

[Moses Yoder]

From Post 8:

If morals are evolved, wouldn't eveyone feel about the same way?

Does everybody look the same?


Most of the people I see look the same. They have 2 hand, 2 feet, a mouth, nose, 2 eyes, 2 ears, etc. There are some birth defects. Are you saying the criminal gene is a birth defect? If it is not a defect, how come we don't have dufflepods running around?

I must ask the question then, what happened to Jack the Ripper and Jeffrey Dahmer? Did evolution pass them by?

If we assume both of these folks were humans, then yeah, there's a veritable mountain of scientific data to support the notion that they were the product of evolution.

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."

My wife works in a department store, and they regularly find an old pair of shoes in a new shoe box in the shoe department. What do you think happened?

God put 'em there to test our faith?

God cannot sin or do something wrong. 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. God can't steal, because it's wrong. Ergo, God did not put the old shoes in the new shoe box.

Did evolution pass them by?

Shoes are not biological entities and so are not under evolutionary pressure (except as relates to trends in human fashion).

Please provide proof that shoes are not biological entities. 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.

They have self checkouts there, and the other day a lady scanned $110 worth of groceries, bagged them, then walked out of the store without paying. She intentionally made it look like she was paying for the groceries, and walked out without paying. This is premeditated theft. Did evolution pass her by?

Was she ugly? If so, yeah, it's apt to pass her right on by. Unless she buys the alcohol, at which point, have 'er give me a call.

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.

That said, there is quite the scientific literature to support the notion that she was a product of evolution.

Before you say these things are done by poor people who can't afford to pay for their stuff, you have to keep in mind wealthy people steal stuff as well.

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

Point being?

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. If morals "evolve" then the assumption is that people are becoming better. If they come from an absolutely moral being which I call GOD, then morals will devolve as people turn away from God. It is not a simple argument.

I've been told by some theists that my consumption of alcohol is "immoral". Wait'll them and their god find out I've been a-cookin' it too.

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.

The only thing that prevents them from committing crime is the fear of getting caught.

I don't rape because I understand a woman has a right to her own body. If I felt otherwise, you can bet your fourth point of contact I'd be the most prolific rapist on this planet. I don't plunder because we're tryin' to have a society.

If we are here accidentally, why would we have "rights"? What would our purpose be?

Much of what you're getting at here, misconceptions and all, could be understood quite easily if you were willing to explore such ideas as sociobiology or evolutionary psychology. 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.

Theists are the same way, except they believe there is a God up there who sees everything they do, which is a very effective deterrent to crime.

Though the theist can't show God's up there, or that he has an opinion on the thoughts or actions of humans.


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

I don't believe man has an innate knowledge of right and wrong. I believe right and wrong was defined by God in the Bible...

"Believe" does not mean "danged if God didn't define it". Notice, that which is unconfirmed - as evidenced by the use of the word "belief" - is placed within the god concept.

As I have told you repeatedly, it will all be confirmed when you die. There is no other way to reach the alternate universe where God resides than to die. It's the only way to get there, excpet for one man whom according to the Bible God transported (not Jesus.)

...and has been taught to people for so long that it seems to be an innate knowledge.

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. If you can prove some sort of start without God, and the evolution of life on earth, I will disavow my Christianity instantly. In my opinion the believers in evolution have more faith with less evidence than I do in Christianity.

[Autodidact]

If morals are evolved, wouldn't eveyone feel about the same way? I must ask the question then, what happened to Jack the Ripper and Jeffrey Dahmer? Did evolution pass them by?

No, it doesn't follow. Reality, empiricism, is about tendencies, not absolutes. OTOH, if God gave us all morals, wouldn't everyone feel about the same way? What happened to JtheR and Jeffrey Dahmer? Did God pass them by? (btw, in your belief system, Jeffrey Dahmer is at this moment sitting at the right hand of God, having sincerely repented and placed his faith in Jesus before dying. Not sure about Jack the Ripper.)

My wife works in a department store, and they regularly find an old pair of shoes in a new shoe box in the shoe department. What do you think happened? Did evolution pass them by? They have self checkouts there, and the other day a lady scanned $110 worth of groceries, bagged them, then walked out of the store without paying. She intentionally made it look like she was paying for the groceries, and walked out without paying. This is premeditated theft. Did evolution pass her by?

No, did God?

Before you say these things are done by poor people who can't afford to pay for their stuff, you have to keep in mind wealthy people steal stuff as well. In fact, with the athiests I have seen, they figure if they can get away with it then it wasn't wrong. The only thing that prevents them from committing crime is the fear of getting caught. Theists are the same way, except they believe there is a God up there who sees everything they do, which is a very effective deterrent to crime.

Apparently your own morality includes prejudices lies about a group of people about whom you know nothing. It is empirically NOT the case that atheists are less moral than Christians, quite the opposite.

I don't believe man has an innate knowledge of right and wrong. I believe right and wrong was defined by God in the Bible, and has been taught to people for so long that it seems to be an innate knowledge.

So people who believe the Bible are therefore more moral than those who don't? Is this what we actually observe? For example, who gets more divorces, Christians or Athiests? Who is more often convicted of crimes, Christians or Atheists? Who commits more murders, Christians or Atheists?

It would be nice if you could just argue the issue without telling outright lies about other people. Doesn't speak well for Christian morality.

[Autodidact]

Two, most people who are claiming to be Christian do so simply because their parents claimed to be Christian. Most people who claim to be Christian don't know the first thing about theology. I would wager that the majority of them don't even know such a word exists. So to say that there are more "Christians" than "atheists" in prison is like throwing a dart while blindfolded.

So, when I meet someone, and they claim to be Christian, I should assume that they are lying or deluded? Because most of them can't even accurately tell me what their own beliefs are?

[Clownboat]

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?

My thoughts are that humans are pack animals. There are many instances of pack animals taking care of each other.

While the social structure might always be changing, they live as a family and they do take care of each other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llama

[Clownboat]

If morals are evolved, wouldn't eveyone feel about the same way?

If Christianity has evolved for 2,000 years, shouldn't all versions be the same?

Well, of course not. This also applies to morals.
Not everyone is the same.

[Adamoriens]

Does that help answer your question? Or, I fear, does it only increase the confusion?

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. Richard Joyce puts it thus in The Evolution of Morality:

Can we make sense of its having been useful for our ancestors to form beliefs concerning rightness and wrongness independently of the existence of rightness and wrongness? Here I think the answer is a resounding Quite possibly. Cast your mind back to the whole complex story that was presented in previous chapters concerning why it might have been systematically useful for our ancestors to form beliefs about moral rightness and wrongness (among other things). It was no background assumption of that explanation that any actual moral rightness or wrongness existed in the ancestral environment. Whether we assume that the concepts right and wrong succeed in denoting properties in the world, or whether we think that they suffer from a referential failure that puts them on a par with the concepts witch and ghost, the plausibility of the hypothesis concerning how moral judgment evolved remains unaffected. (p. 183)

But if we have a good explanation for the development and content of our moral intuitions that does not require sensitivity to actual moral facts in the world (if our moral intuitions would've developed regardless of whether there are moral facts), then we have no good reason to think our moral intuitions actually indicate anything true about world. Given that moral realists rely on our moral intuitions to have moral "knowledge", and that moral intuitions do not track truth, it follows that no-one has moral knowledge. This challenge persists for both the atheist and the theist.

I can think of some ways to get around this. For example, suppose that evolution selected for behaviours and intuitions which also, incidentally, correlated with moral facts! Suppose that our faculty to experience pain and pleasure were developed by evolution for survival value; it seems plausible to think that sensations of pain and pleasure discourage and encourage, respectively, death and failure to pass on genes into the next generation, and lots and lots of sex and warm fuzzy feelings when we look at babies. And suppose that pain and pleasure are what make certain actions right or wrong, and that evolution pressures us to develop moral intuitions which generally favour pleasurable acts over painful ones. Here we have moral intuitions that closely correlate with moral facts. There might be more elegant ways to make this work, but you get the idea.

I'm not sure what to do for specifically theistic accounts of morality. For the divine-command theorist, I suppose that evolution could go on it's merry way while God controls moral facts to reflect whatever evolution comes up with. Or, God could control evolution so that it comes up with intuitions that track moral facts (this would be preferable for theists who are true moral realists)- bit of difficulty here, though, as our theories of evolution are inherently unguided.

[Adamoriens]

If morals are evolved, wouldn't eveyone feel about the same way? I must ask the question then, what happened to Jack the Ripper and Jeffrey Dahmer? Did evolution pass them by?

That's a good question. I've always been very interested in psychopathy, and I should point out that psychopaths are not mentally ill in the sense that they are disconnected with reality. Indeed, they are in generally quite rational, highly intelligent, and superficially charming; their psychology just doesn't include a moral sense, and it can't be taught to them. In fact, psychopathy may well be advantageous for a small amount of individuals if everybody else follows the rules. There's also evidence to suggest that people with certain psychopathic traits, like narcissists, have more sexual partners. This would explain why convicted criminals, of which a disproportionate number are psychopaths (25%, I think), also have more sexual partners.

I don't believe man has an innate knowledge of right and wrong. I believe right and wrong was defined by God in the Bible, and has been taught to people for so long that it seems to be an innate knowledge.

I don't think evolutionary psychology suggests that all moral beliefs are innate. Most humans are born with a sense of empathy, which is the bedrock for all moral beliefs (psychopaths who lack it are amoral). I think your view is implausible, mainly because there were societies before the Bible's compilation and after it which independently developed a sense of right and wrong.

[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.