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]

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?

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?

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.

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.

[Artie]

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?

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?

People are different. There will always be people displaying extremely deviant behavior caused by ignorance, mental or physical illness, narcissism, terrible upbringing, or any number of other reasons. Evolution works on populations not individuals and is still working of course.

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.

No it's not. It's a terrible deterrent. A poll on the religious affiliation of prison inmates in the US in 1997 showed that 83.761% of the inmates who answered were Judeo-Christian and 0.21% were atheist. Without religious people US prisons would be practically empty. http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

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.

Actually it's the other way around. Man has always had an innate knowledge of right and wrong because of evolution as so eloquently described in the quote in my latest post. Christ understood that and preached those morals. Organisms started co-operating long before they thought up religions so morals must be a product of evolution.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 8:

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

Does everybody look the same?

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.

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?

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).

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.

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.

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'.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

...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.

[Flail]

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?

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?

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.

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.

The fact that morals evolve (change somewhat over time if they prove insufficient) is quite a different matter from the evolution (biological) of people. Apples and oranges. Morals are not innate (unless you are speaking more generally of the survival instinct etc)...morals are developed as mankind evolves.

[Moses Yoder]

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.

No it's not. It's a terrible deterrent. A poll on the religious affiliation of prison inmates in the US in 1997 showed that 83.761% of the inmates who answered were Judeo-Christian and 0.21% were atheist. Without religious people US prisons would be practically empty. http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

I notice something on your statistics. There is no group called "atheist" for people to claim, or at least not that I can find. Apparently, they gave a group of people who are so stupid they are serving time in prison a multiple choice question and had them fill it out. I 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 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.

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.

[Artie]

I notice something on your statistics. There is no group called "atheist" for people to claim, or at least not that I can find.

Atheist 156 0.209% between scientology and hindu.

That statistic 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.

Atheist 156 0.209% between scientology and hindu. Buddhist 882 1.180%

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.

No it's not. Please read the statistics again more carefully this time. A Christian is a person who claims to be Christian. Who are we to say to someone that he isn't a Christian because we think he knows nothing of theology? He's a Christian not a theologian. I see you didn't comment on my other points. That's ok.

[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