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?

[McCulloch]

Man possesses a rational principle. And that is what makes man rational.

My sense of rational here is precise, and doesn't mean just "smarter."

Thank you for that link.

In Meditation II of Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes arrives at his famous "I am, I exist" claim. He then goes on to wonder "What am I?" He considers and rejects, "rational animal":

Shall I say 'a rational animal'? No; for then I should have to inquire what an animal is, what rationality is, and in this one question would lead me down the slope to other harder ones.

It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this. – Bertrand Russell

Hardly a lot of support for your assertions there.

So, the human brain is big enough and complex enough to perform activities that smaller brained animals cannot. The human brain has developed to a complexity whereby it has gone beyond some threshold below which there is no ability to do complex abstractions, create symbolic language, understand metaphysics. So what? That is still no evidence of divine intervention. The elephants' trunk similarly has developed into a complexity and size whereby it has gone beyond some threshold below which there is no ability to manipulate objects or act as a liquid reservoir.

[AquinasD]

Hardly a lot of support for your assertions there.

I didn't cite it in order to support my claim, only to help provide definition. I have already provided a great deal of support for my claim.

So, the human brain is big enough and complex enough to perform activities that smaller brained animals cannot. The human brain has developed to a complexity whereby it has gone beyond some threshold below which there is no ability to do complex abstractions, create symbolic language, understand metaphysics. So what? That is still no evidence of divine intervention. The elephants' trunk similarly has developed into a complexity and size whereby it has gone beyond some threshold below which there is no ability to manipulate objects or act as a liquid reservoir.

If you're going to explain the rational principle by evolution, please do so, with full documentation of how it emerges/reduces to material phenomena. I have already provided the suggestion that semantics is not identical to matter, and that it follows that semantical ability cannot be rooted in matter. Do you have some way of rebutting this?

[AquinasD]

I might be in danger of appealing to ignorance here, but it is theoretically possible that other animals (for example, cetaceans) may possess the rational principle, however, their brains may function in such a way as to leave us unable to detect their rational principle. Our understanding of the human brain is very little, and we understand far less about the brains of, for example, orcas and dolphins.

To be rational is to have things to talk about. Cetaceans lack things to talk about. Therefore, it follows by modus tollens that cetaceans are not rational.

Fair enough. However, I still do not feel we have enough evidence to confidently state that man is the only animal to possess the rational principle.

Sure. There may be rational aliens out there. Maybe at one point in time there existed elves and gnomes, who would probably be rational.

Also, even if we ARE the only animals on earth to possess the rational principle, why must we then conclude that our brains are of supernatural origin? Why couldn't a rational brain evolve via purely naturalistic processes?

Semantical content. If semantical content is not identifiable to matter in some way (spoiler: it isn't), then it follows that semantical content cannot be explained by a material process (i.e. evolution).

We have no way of knowing whether or not we "understand the world for what it is in all its metaphysical grandeur . . .," because if there are phenomena we are unable to grasp with our brains, we would by definition never become aware of them.

Metaphysics has nothing to do with phenomena. It is pre-phenomenal.

Who is to say that the same situation doesn't exist with us? Hypothetically, there may be some advanced race of aliens out there with far more advanced brains than humans, who have capabilities for rationality far exceeding ours and grasp metaphysical concepts of which we cannot even conceive.

This is a tangential topic, but I'd note my disagreement. To be rational is to be able to conceive whatever is possible.

[Haven]

I might be in danger of appealing to ignorance here, but it is theoretically possible that other animals (for example, cetaceans) may possess the rational principle, however, their brains may function in such a way as to leave us unable to detect their rational principle. Our understanding of the human brain is very little, and we understand far less about the brains of, for example, orcas and dolphins.

To be rational is to have things to talk about. Cetaceans lack things to talk about. Therefore, it follows by modus tollens that cetaceans are not rational.

Science has shown that many cetaceans possess a kind of language (as pointed out in prior posts). Who is to say that they have nothing to talk about?

Fair enough. However, I still do not feel we have enough evidence to confidently state that man is the only animal to possess the rational principle.

Sure. There may be rational aliens out there. Maybe at one point in time there existed elves and gnomes, who would probably be rational.

My point with that statement is that you cannot claim with confidence that humans are the only rational beings within the universe. To do so is to make an unjustified assumption and to appeal to ignorance.

Also, even if we ARE the only animals on earth to possess the rational principle, why must we then conclude that our brains are of supernatural origin? Why couldn't a rational brain evolve via purely naturalistic processes?

Semantical content. If semantical content is not identifiable to matter in some way (spoiler: it isn't), then it follows that semantical content cannot be explained by a material process (i.e. evolution).

I fail to see how this implies that our brains' ability to produce semantical content could not have evolved through natural selection. Do you have an argument for the inability of a naturalistic process to produce semantical content?

This is a tangential topic, but I'd note my disagreement. To be rational is to be able to conceive whatever is possible.

How would we ever know if we were "rational" on your definition? If our brains were not capable of conceiving whatever is possible, we would never know our own limitation. [/i]

[Artie]

@AquinasD

Our brain develops along with the rest of our organs. Is there something in our DNA that couldn't possibly have been a result of evolution and that has resulted in our brain developing these "unique" abilities? If not, where do these "unique" abilities come from?

[AquinasD]

Science has shown that many cetaceans possess a kind of language (as pointed out in prior posts). Who is to say that they have nothing to talk about?

Oh, cetaceans, not crustaceans. Those are different, and I mistook one for the other.

Well alright, and what they communicate about?

My point with that statement is that you cannot claim with confidence that humans are the only rational beings within the universe. To do so is to make an unjustified assumption and to appeal to ignorance.

I never made that claim. My argument has only been that there is a substantial difference between man and other animals.

And of course, I do believe there are other rational beings in the universe; angels, for instance.

I fail to see how this implies that our brains' ability to produce semantical content could not have evolved through natural selection. Do you have an argument for the inability of a naturalistic process to produce semantical content?

Semantical content is immaterial, not rooted to any particular sign.

How would we ever know if we were "rational" on your definition? If our brains were not capable of conceiving whatever is possible, we would never know our own limitation.

That there might be "a reality beyond which we can conceive" is nonsense. How could one know that it is there, unless they were to be able to conceive, by which it follows that it is not inconceivable?

Besides, it has to do with what I believe grounds our ability to conceive; namely, our intrinsic knowledge of being.

[TheJackelantern]

If you're going to explain the rational principle by evolution, please do so, with full documentation of how it emerges/reduces to material phenomena. I have already provided the suggestion that semantics is not identical to matter, and that it follows that semantical ability cannot be rooted in matter. Do you have some way of rebutting this?

Animals can not be irrational in regards to their environment and selves. What part of this did you not understand? Yes humans can be 'more" rational than most animals, but to say they lack rationality is a pretty poor argument. Animals do to irrationally interact with their environment. Basically you are just expressing your need to feel more important and special than a animal whilst ignoring you are an animal.

And sorry, it can be rooted in matter.. all of it is based on information science, and information can not be made of nothing. There can only be material value since immaterial value is literally zero.. You can not have informational value from a position of literal nothing.

Energy is the capacity of information, and we already know this.. I can even physically effect your sense of rationality via drugs, alcohol, or even your conscious state via centrifugal force.. There is no evidence to suggest what you are claiming.

We convey, experience, and feel things in a physical sense.. It's all physical phenomenon.. Hence try feeling angry or conveying it without physically feeling it and physically conveying it. There is a reason why the experience is a physical one. Consciousness is a physical phenomenon simply because it has to be. And things like morality have already been outlined quite clearly in my other posts.

[spoirier]

What about the evidence here and there that animals have souls and an afterlife too ?

[Artie]

What about the evidence here and there that animals have souls and an afterlife too ?

135 million years worth of dinosaur souls now that's a sobering thought...

[ZeroII]

Humans are humans and not identifiable in significant ways to the limited cranial capacity in the animal kingdom. There would be a far more blurred line between the range of behavior attributable to humans and that of any animals otherwise.