For those who hold a belief in naturalism--the theory that all phenomena can be explained mechanistically in terms of material causes--issues of philosophy are always problematic. When it comes to issues of metaphysics or epistemology, the naturalist can often simply ignore the fact that their beliefs can't be explained using their starting premise. On ethical matters, however, they have a more difficult time being so intellectually passive.
Many naturalists (and I include most atheists in this category) who have give sufficient thought to the issue invariably concede that morality is purely relative. Others, however, have a difficult time conceding that morality is rooted in nothing deeper than personal preference. As a commenter on one of my previous posts noted:
Universal morals can start with the golden rule. That exists pretty much throughout all cultures and even into higher order primates. It doesn't take a rocket science, or an omniscient being, to figure out that you shouldn't do to people what you wouldn't want to have done to yourself.
The implication of this claim is that since the "golden rule" is a universally held belief, it must be explainable by purely naturalistic processes. My contention is that belief is false and that this moral principle could not have been developed by natural selection.
But before I can prove my point, we must first define what we mean by the Golden Rule.
The Golden Rule Theorem
Harry Gensler's provides what is probably the most simple and concise summary of the Golden Rule that we could find:
Our golden rule theorem says: "Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation." To apply GR, I'd imagine myself in the other person's place on the receiving end of the action. GR forbids this combination:
* I do something to another.
* I'm unwilling that this be done to me in the same situation.GR doesn't tell us what specific act to do. And it doesn't replace regular moral norms. It only prescribes consistency -- that we not have our actions (toward another) be out of harmony with our desires (about a reversed-situation action). To apply GR adequately, we need knowledge and imagination.
If we're conscientious and impartial, then we'll follow GR -- since then we won't do something to another unless we believe it would be all right -- and thus believe it would be all right to do to us in the same situation -- and thus are willing that it be done to us in the same situation.
In order to understand whether the GR could have developed as a product of evolutionary processes, we must turn for help to evolutionary psychology, the field that examines how behavior evolves. Leda Cosmides and John Tooby have produced an excellent primer on the subject so we will use that as a point of reference throughout this post.
If naturalism is true then the brain is nothing more than a physical system whose operation is governed solely by the laws of chemistry and physics. Information is collected by our senses and translated into chemical reactions in our head. These cause the firing of neurons which collect into neural circuits which ultimately generate behavior.
The �Eat Dung and Die� Principle
To say that the brain is functioning "properly" means that it produces behavior that is appropriate to a specific environment. Naturalism, of course, claims that our brains were "designed" by the blind process of natural selection and that there is no ultimate purpose behind the behaviors we develop.
Natural selection does not work "for the good of the species", as many people think. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is a process in which a phenotypic design feature causes its own spread through a population (which can happen even in cases where this leads to the extinction of the species).
In the meantime (to continue our scatological examples) you can think of natural selection as the "eat dung and die" principle. All animals need neural circuits that govern what they eat -- knowing what is safe to eat is a problem that all animals must solve. For humans, feces are not safe to eat -- they are a source of contagious diseases. Now imagine an ancestral human who had neural circuits that made dung smell sweet -- that made him want to dig in whenever he passed a smelly pile of dung. This would increase his probability of contracting a disease. If he got sick as a result, he would be too tired to find much food, too exhausted to go looking for a mate, and he might even die an untimely death.
In contrast, a person with different neural circuits -- ones that made him avoid feces -- would get sick less often. He will therefore have more time to find food and mates and will live a longer life. The first person will eat dung and die; the second will avoid it and live. As a result, the dung-eater will have fewer children than the dung-avoider. Since the neural circuitry of children tends to resemble that of their parents, there will be fewer dung-eaters in the next generation, and more dung-avoiders.
As this process continues, generation after generation, the dung-eaters will eventually disappear from the population. Why? They ate dung and died out. The only kind of people left in the population will be those like you and me -- ones who are descended from the dung-avoiders. No one will be left who has neural circuits that make dung delicious.
In other words, the reason we have one set of circuits rather than another is that the circuits that we have were better at solving problems that our ancestors faced during our species' evolutionary history than alternative circuits were. The brain is a naturally constructed computational system whose function is to solve adaptive information-processing problems (such as face recognition, threat interpretation, language acquisition, or navigation).
Over evolutionary time, its circuits were cumulatively added because they "reasoned" or "processed information" in a way that enhanced the adaptive regulation of behavior and physiology.
Our neural circuitry, however, is designed only to solve adaptive problems. These are problems that occur repeatedly throughout the developmental history of a species and their affects the reproduction of individual organisms. Differential reproduction--rather than survival--is the true engine that drives natural selection. As Cosmides and Tooby make clear, the only kinds of problems that natural selection can design circuits for solving are adaptive problems.
The GR and Adaptive Problems
Now that we understand what types of problems natural selection can solve it becomes clear that the GR is not an evolved behavior. In order to apply the GR, our ancestral hunter-gather (we'll call him Ugh) needs to possess knowledge of a cause and effect relationship (i.e., if he bashes his neighbor, Zog, over the head with a rock then Zog will die), the ability to imagine himself in the same situation (putting himself in Zog's hidebound shoes), and self-reflection in order to choose one behavior or the other based on his knowledge and imagination. Because the GR requires all of these components to be in place already, the necessary brain circuitry required for this principle could not have developed as a response to a single adaptive problem.
But if we assume that these features are already in place, is it reasonable to believe that the GR could have eventually developed? Before we search for an answer we must first keep in mind that naturalism assumes that the human brain evolved very slowly:
Generation after generation, for 10 million years, natural selection slowly sculpted the human brain, favoring circuitry that was good at solving the day-to-day problems of our hunter-gatherer ancestors -- problems like finding mates, hunting animals, gathering plant foods, negotiating with friends, defending ourselves against aggression, raising children, choosing a good habitat, and so on. Those whose circuits were better designed for solving these problems left more children, and we are descended from them.
This is an important fact to keep in mind as we examine the type of problems that Ugh is likely to have faced.
Applying the GR to Adaptive Problems
Let's see how the GR could be applied to an adaptive problem, one that includes the two criteria listed above. One of the most obvious and persistent problems is the need to acquire food. Since the allocation of scarce resources is a problem that modern man has been unable to solve, it would surely have been an issue for Ugh and his kin. This problem is both persistent and affects differential reproduction. But how would the GR affect this particular problem?
The GR would fall into one of the following categories:
1. Applying the GR always leads to an increase in reproductive success.
2. Applying the GR never leads to an increase in reproductive success.
3. Applying the GR sometimes leads to reproductive success and sometimes it does not.
4. Applying the GR has no effect on reproductive success.
If the answer is (2) or (4) then the GR falls into the same category as the male nipple; it becomes a feature that developed but has no importance to survival. It could simply be dismissed as irrelevant.
If the GR always leads to reproductive success then we should not be able to find any counterexamples when it would not be beneficial. In fact, we don't have to look far before we find some rather obvious situations where the GR would lower reproduction.
Imagine that Ugh and Zog, two widowers with two children each, find themselves with only enough food to feed four people. The children are too young to hunt and would quickly starve to death if their fathers were not around to feed and protect them.
Ugh is stronger than Zog and could easily kill him and cause his family to starve to death. But his neural circuitry is programmed to behave in a manner consistent with the GR and so chooses not to kill Zog. Because he refuses to save his own family at the expense of Zog's, all but one of the children will starve to death. Since there are not enough males and females to propagate the race, both families eventually die off.
Admittedly, this is belaboring a rather obvious point: that following the GR could sometimes lower the changes of differential reproduction.
That leaves us not only with the only remaining category but also with a necessary condition for the development of the GR. The GR could have developed only as a response to adaptive problems where following the rule increased or had no effect on survival. When it hindered survival it was ignored (otherwise it would have caused the downfall of the species)
A Non-Teleological Ethics?
Obviously, though, this isn't what people mean when they talk about the GR. If it is abandoned whenever it is believed to hinder an individual's chances of successful reproduction, then the rule will be of limited value. While it would exclude killing another person for no reason, it could not be used to bar such actions as rape and theft of food.
As the American jurist Richard Posner rightly notes,
The majority of educated Americans believe that nature is the amoral scene of Darwinian struggle. Occasional attempts are made to derive social norms from nature so conceived, but they are not likely to succeed. It is true that a variety of widely accepted norms, including the keeping of certain promises, the abhorrence of unjustified killing of human beings, and perhaps even the sanctity of property rights, promote the adaptation of human species to its environment. But so does genocide. (1)
This is, in fact, what we should expect to find. Evolution is a blind process that has no teleology. Whatever behavior works is the behavior that survives. The main problem for naturalistic ethics is trying to establish moral norms without smuggling in a guiding purpose.
For example, we can't say that since cooperation helps us survive that it is a "good" behavior. Nature doesn't really care if we survive or not. Even our own genes don't really care if we pass them on to further generations. We either do or we don't. When we do we call it survival. When we don't we call it extinction. Nature doesn't care which event actualizes.
But, the naturalist will protest and argue that we do care if we survive? True. But so what? If nature doesn't care then why should we? But, they will stammer, we can't help but care about our survival. If that is true, then the will to survive is our main preference. Our morality should therefore be structured in order that this instinct is preserved. We should adopt whichever set of behaviors increases our individual chances of survival.
If cooperating with my neighbor in a particular situation helps me to survive then I should do that. If killing my neighbor is more beneficial to my survival then I should do that instead. Since nature does not provide an objective moral standard I must make an existential choice about what is right and wrong.
Few naturalists, though, have the courage of Nietzsche and will undoubtedly choose to retain a "slave morality" regardless of whether they have sufficient and necessary epistemic reasons for doing so.
What they fail to realize, though, is that there preference isn't any more moral than the actions of a psychopath. When they say this is right they are merely saying this is my preference. Perhaps they don;t think it is right to herd Jews in concentration camps and kill them. That is their preference. If Nazis, on the other hand, have a different preference then that is also a valid existential choice.
Since there is no being that has an ontological existence higher than the individual human, there is no objective standard by which we can discern which preference is right and which is wrong. Both are equally valid. In fact, the Nazi's preference to kill the Jew and the Jewish person's desire not to be killed are equal. Neither can be considered more right than the other.
In an ethics rooted in naturalism, morality is simply the name given to the set of preferences of the person or group with the most power. Nature respects power but has no place for morality. Most followers of religion subscribe to the Golden Rule because it is a refection of their Creator. If believers in naturalism were consistent they would do the same and adopt the Red Rule. After all, their Creator is none other than Nature, red in tooth and claw.
(1) Qtd. by Philip Johnson, "Nihilism and the End of Law"
1
Most followers of religion subscribe to the Golden Rule because it is a refection of their Creator.
I'd like to get into your piece more deeply, but for now I'll address this one point. I find it deeply troubling that intelligent people only act along the lines of the golden rule because they believe their god told them to. It is not enough for you to simply address the fact that you wouldn't want the same acts perpetrated against yourself. Instead you decide to cross reference a given religious book to see if it is okay to supercede that thought in deference to a particular point in your dogma. If you need a diety to tell you that you shouldn't steal from your neighbor, kill your neighbor or rape your neighbor that's fine. It's disappointing, but if that's what keeps you adhering to the golden rule that's fine.
posted on 07.13.2004 7:25 AM2
A thoughtful post Joe. The GR meme causes no end of speculation among evolutionary psychologists. The adaptive value of altruism was a hot topic even before Dawkin's popular book(s).
Yes, religion provides great utility in society. The Abrahamic faiths come replete with a code of behavior as do most religions.
A code of ethics, one which engenders co-operations across kin-bonds, is indispensiable in large cultures.
But is morality, that is right and wrong, an absolute or a relative parameter?
The position for the absolutist can be a thankless one fraught with peril, for the relativist need show only one condition under which the absolutist 'changes gears' so to speak. Yet as recognized we must not be able to break the code of ethics easily and casually or it's value is lost.
I take it no one here wants to be killed? The GR would thus say no here should kill.
Perhaps a fruitful question for the forum would be for each member to answer the question: Is killing an absolute wrong under any and all circumstances?
3
I'll amend what I said. It doesn't even take intelligent people to act along the lines of the golden rule. Later hominids also showed the ability to operate successfully in relatively large groups. Certain primates function in group mechanisms akin to hominids but not as advanced. Initial studies on these primates are showing that an inherent concept of fairness already exists at that mental level. These are not self aware species with consciousness. These are still creatures mostly driven by their naturalistic mechanisms. Somehow they've figured out the basic concept of fairness laid out in the golden rule. It's a shame you think humans required divine intervention to achieve a similar feat. Of course which god? Since the golden rule exists across almost all religions, were all these religions divinely inspired? If not, were these human designed moral codes that have been given a mystical air that it shouldn't afford? If it is simply a human invention then where did this mechanism come from in their own minds? If high order primates can figure out the basics, why do you think it is impossible for self aware and intelligent creatures to move it forward that one small step?
posted on 07.13.2004 7:38 AM4
Mr. Moderate: I find it deeply troubling that intelligent people only act along the lines of the golden rule because they believe their god told them to.
First of all, you misunderstand the religious position. We follow the GR because it is part of the design of our moral conscience given to us by our Creator. The whole point of the post is that your position (that we should just act that way because, well, that’s what intelligent people would do) isn’t even coherent under a naturalistic worldview.
It's disappointing, but if that's what keeps you adhering to the golden rule that's fine.
So what keeps you adhering to it?
D.S: But is morality, that is right and wrong, an absolute or a relative parameter?
Objective morality has (at least) four components. For an act to be objectively moral it must be the right action, at the right time, to the right degree, for the right reason.
The position for the absolutist can be a thankless one fraught with peril, for the relativist need show only one condition under which the absolutist 'changes gears' so to speak.
I have to disagree with you there. The moral absolutist case can be rather nuanced. It isn’t just a matter of applying a specific deontological rule since the situation an determine what rule and to what degree it would be applicable.
The relativist is the one, in my opinion, who has the more difficult task. If the absolutist can find just one absolute moral standard that is always applicable, then the relativist position falls apart.
posted on 07.13.2004 7:54 AM5
So what keeps you adhering to it?
Because I recognize that my actions have consequences for other people and I weigh whether I would like those consequences to have occured to me. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
posted on 07.13.2004 7:57 AM6
First of all, you misunderstand the religious position. We follow the GR because it is part of the design of our moral conscience given to us by our Creator.
"We" do? Which creator? Your statement makes the great supposition that your version of god is the correct one. Great for bolstering your own faith but BS for those who believe otherwise. Do Hindus act morally because they are trying to adhere to the principles of your god? Come on...
The whole point of the post is that your position (that we should just act that way because, well, that’s what intelligent people would do) isn’t even coherent under a naturalistic worldview.
Stop confusing our thought process for naturalistic processes. Evolutionary process is not a conscious thing but simply a function of these predator/prey-style systems. I don't need a naturalistic or theological reason to excuse me not wanting to kill my neighbor or steal their things. It is simply that I wouldn't want those actions perpetrated against me.
posted on 07.13.2004 8:03 AM7
Joe: Objective morality has (at least) four components. For an act to be objectively moral it must be the right action, at the right time, to the right degree, for the right reason.
Who decides what is the right act, at the right time, place, and for the right reason?
Maybe a real life example would help me here.
Can you provide an example in which killing is always right?
Can you provide an example in which killing is always wrong?
Can you provide an absolutist framework I could use to determine when one or the applies in novel circumstances?
8
Mr Mod--In your post it sounds like you are saying that the ability to work in large groups is the essence of the Golden Rule. I am not sure that this hypothesis plays out very well. There are many examples of human groups (Nazis, Communists, Al Queda, the Spanish Inquisition, the Roman Empire) that were able to work quite effectively in large groups, but very few would agree that they practice the GR. Your example of primates following the GR is also confusing. The primate groups that I am aware of (granted, I'm not a biologist, nor do I play one on TV) usually have one dominant male or female that rules pretty ruthlessly. They control food, sex, and group heirarchy. Challenges to their dominance usually result in combat with the loser being forced out of the group, killed, or at least demoted. That doesn't sound like it approaches the GR.
posted on 07.13.2004 8:20 AM9
Incidently, my position makes no assumption that there is a guarantee that people will act appropriately towards each other at all times. Unlike most dogmas there is no delusion that accepting this one prinicple will create a human world devoid of theft, murder, genocide or other calamaties. No system can ever achieve this goal because human consciousness is inherently incapable of always performing within the bounds of any construct. The "naturalistic" explanation is not a way of coddling ourselves into believing that we can make people always act a certain way by getting everyone to agree to the same rule book. Instead it is a warning that although humans have been able to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and provide concrete thoughts on the concepts of fairness and ethics, we can all too quickly revert back to more animalistic instincts. No one religion or philosophical system can insure against that. Proof again is how quickly people from all religions and backgrounds have reverted back when the situation becomes destabilized enough.
posted on 07.13.2004 8:40 AM10
Mr Mod--It appears that what you are saying is that the GR only really applies within one's own group and then only as long as it is useful as a tool to foster positive group dynamics. That is a pretty narrow reading of the GR.
posted on 07.13.2004 8:42 AM11
Joe, are you saying, "We follow the GR because it is part of the design of our moral conscience given to us by our Creator.", includes me, as a non believer, and you, as a believer, and every other human being? Are we both designed with the same "moral conscience" given by the god of the bible? If that is what you are saying,how does people who seem to find it very easy to break these moral codes fit into this equation? People who can murder, steal, rape without feelings of guilty. Could you give me your explanation as to why I, as a non believer, can be as gentle, compassionate, and generous as I am, yet a particular believer can be vindictive, abusive, and greedy? I may be asking the wrong questions or not asking them properly. These are just things that came to mind as I read your post.
posted on 07.13.2004 8:47 AM12
Rob,
In reality we do only apply the golden locally, not globally. It would be nice if we could apply it globally but such a concept is a bit much for the human mind to grapple with. Sometimes we have a brief moment of awareness of the global scene and apply it in such a way, but that isn't a case of individual human actions but instead some large scale government or organizational action. Then it occurs if and only if the aggregate decisions of the individuals are still applying the golden rule. You have the same problem with all moral systems.
posted on 07.13.2004 8:51 AM13
bob--I will try fielding that if you don't mind. The "moral conscience" Joe describes could also be described as a "knowledge of good and evil". In Christian (and Jewish) dogma, we (even unbelievers) are all born with this knowledge, and we have free will to choose to do good or evil. You don't have to be a believer to do good, and by the same token a believer can be capable of great evil. In Christian dogma, God gave us a standard that we are expected to live by, the Golden Rule, which could also be written as "love thy neighbor as thy self", but that is only half the equation, the other half being to "love the Lord your God with all your heart...". Also in Christian dogma, it is impossible for us to perfectly meet God's standard (which requires complete purity of thought and action), so God sent his Son to pay the price.
posted on 07.13.2004 9:04 AM14
the GR is basically empathy. empathy is key to all higher order thinking. it is a tricky thing because my cats can be very sweet and loving to me, but feel nothing about killing a cute little bird. they have empathy to me, maybe becasue i feed them and pet them, but could care less aobut the bird becuase they have that instinct to kill. do humans innates have an instinct to kill without forethought? i don't really think so. considering our poor adaptation tot he environment, need to clothing, shelter, we had to learn to work together pretty quickkly and efficiently.
show the verse in the bible that spells out the golden rule. christians would like to think that they are center of the culture and civilization on the planet, yet the code of hammurabi (from pagans - many gods) was in place while the jews were out making sacrifices to their 'one' god.
posted on 07.13.2004 9:18 AM15
"Joe, are you saying, "We follow the GR because it is part of the design of our moral conscience given to us by our Creator.", includes me, as a non believer, and you, as a believer, and every other human being? Are we both designed with the same "moral conscience" given by the god of the bible? If that is what you are saying,how does people who seem to find it very easy to break these moral codes fit into this equation? People who can murder, steal, rape without feelings of guilty. Could you give me your explanation as to why I, as a non believer, can be as gentle, compassionate, and generous as I am, yet a particular believer can be vindictive, abusive, and greedy? I may be asking the wrong questions or not asking them properly. These are just things that came to mind as I read your post."
Yes. EVERY single human being that is made in God's image has a conscience - God's law written on their hearts. Although some may feel/believe they don't have a conscience.
You as an unbeliever have a God-given conscience. You react or respond (I presume) positively and in accordance with you conscience that God gave you. Some don't. Everyone has the ability and can choose to deny their conscience to do evil. Just like you can choose to deny God. Some obey it often or most of the time. Some deny it's there or it's importance. Others even enjoy opposing it. Just because you have a conscience doesn't mean you have to follow it. You'd agree with that right?
I personally believe the more evil one does, the more there conscience becomes irrelevant and seemingly non-existent. Once at this point these people will often say there is no such thing as a conscience because, "they don't have one."
I'm willing to wager if you go back in that person's past when he was 7 years old and he threw a rock at a car, shattering the window and causing them to wreck into a telephone pole, a little something inside of him "told" him that was an evil thing to do. So the boy grows into a man all the while continually denying his conscience, after a while, in his intelligent, logical mind, he's convinced there is no such thing as a conscience.
16
Well, it didn't take someone very long to bring up the higher primates, did it? I got into these comments specifically looking for the higher primates ruse.
Before making my ultimate point, let's discuss primate research a bit. Probably the most popular topic in primate research is language, so let's begin there. It's the "Time" magazine topic. Every so often, a mature primate is trained to manipulate symbols having a primitive grammar using tens of thousands of Skinnerian trials, and this is construed as evidence that primates have language. Or they are watched closely by a devotee of primatology for any sign or behavior that can, under the loosest criteria, be construed as "language" (with the broadest possible definition). The results are trumpeted as "primates can do language". Of course, this is poppycock. Naturally, smarter animals can be trained to do more complex tricks (I don't expect sea slugs to learn complex enough tricks to qualify for "Time"). Consider the human standard. Babies begin acquiring language at a very early age. We can't "train" them to do it, frankly, because we don't really know how they do it. Language acquisition is one of the enduring puzzles in cognitive psychology. Toddlers even develop their own languages, in rare cases, like twin talk. This is not just quantitatively different from the primate case, it's qualitatively different.
Consider TGR. I expect it's possible to find cases of TGR-like behavior in animals (in fact, ethologists have documented altruistic-like behavior in ants). But cherry-picking behavioral simulacra from the animal kingdom implies, in my opinion, a kind of intellectual desperation.
So, if it is an evolutionary matter, why are we so different? After all, our middle ears, rods and cones, fingers and noses are all features we share with some lower animals. And, given its apparent aribitrariness (it just happened?) why is it so prevalent? Surely, other things that are equally impossible for us (and following TGR has been achieved by, at most, One) - like levitation (although we can all perform a weak version, albeit brief and subject to the laws of gravitation, of true levitation) - have not become so socially ingrained that they have achieved the status of law.
Moreover, I am not aware of any reference to such a rule in any culture before Christ. (This historical singularity is one in which I have great interest and would appreciate being enlightened if I am wrong.) TNR goes far beyond the "social rules" in the 10 Commandments and requires that we do more than refrain from stealing, killing, etc., but actually raise other persons - all persons - to the level of value one holds for oneself.
No, I don't think bonobos or chimps do this. Although they may toss the extra banana over to the adjoining branch on occasion.
posted on 07.13.2004 10:37 AM17
"show the verse in the bible that spells out the golden rule. christians would like to think that they are center of the culture and civilization on the planet, yet the code of hammurabi (from pagans - many gods) was in place while the jews were out making sacrifices to their 'one' god. "
Exactly. Thanks for your support. The "pagans," with their "code of hammurabi" you seem to hold in such high esteem, have a God-given conscience instilled in them. Where do you think they came up with their "code" anyway? Maybe voted on it?
posted on 07.13.2004 10:38 AM18
One problem with the naturalistic view you were describing is that it isn't a ground of morality. It explains why we have moral beliefs. It doesn't ground morality in the sense of explaining why our moral beliefs are true. I'm not exactly sure why you attribute to the evolutionist the view that if it's in nature it's therefore good and if it's not then it's bad, thus grounding moral choices in which things are in nature. The evolutionist is engaged in descriptive work. It's a separate issue whether what's in nature is good. Aristotle thought being in nature is sufficient, but Christian natural law theorists factor in the fall. Naturalists, as far as I can tell, don't have any reason to add moral value to any factual status of an action.
I don't think your Golden Rule principle is the same one Jesus gave. He said to do what you would have others do to you. This is stronger than your one (I believe found in some eastern religions) that we merely shouldn't do what we don't want others to do to us. You're right that the weaker one doesn't guide action but merely puts limits on it. The stronger principle does guide action, though. Why a naturalist would think it's true, I have no idea. The person you quote thinks it's true, but I don't know of a naturalistic basis for it that doesn't already assume a moral principle, which you can't do if you're in the business of grounding morality.
posted on 07.13.2004 10:50 AM19
A couple of the comments seemed to me to be making a mistake. Joe wasn't saying that someone needs to be a Christian to have a conscience. He's just saying that as a Christian he believes God to have given us a conscience, all of us, including Hindus and atheists. It's on the basis of our God-given conscience that we have a somewhat reliable guide to right and wrong. The Christian story also involves the fall, which limits the conscience as a guide to morality, but Christians do have a story about why we have a somewhat reliable guide to morality. Joe's claim is that everyone has this guide and relies on it, including those coming from a naturalistic perspective. Christians have an explanation for why this might make sense. Atheists don't, assuming he's right about naturalistic explanations for belief in the golden rule. Even if there's a naturalistic explanation for why we believe the golden rule, that doesn't explain why the golden rule is morally right anyway. There's no evolutionary explanation for that.
posted on 07.13.2004 11:00 AM20
As an aside; a couple of Muslim commentators are advancing this precise argument on an Islamic Forum. "Allah is the source of marlity and without Allah there is none".
BTW many other claims I hear from the Christian Community about why a specific deity is the only 'valid' one are used virtually word for word by people of vastly divergent faiths. First Cause being the most common. You've never really seen this until you've had a Hindu challenge you to explain how the universe originated and conclude it HAD to be Vishnu right after a Christain did the exact same thing, both smug that with no explanation on your part, they're right...
When I mentioned that Christians use it also, they were split between agreeing with them on the broad concept of a necessary supernaturally inspired morality and explaining why it only applies to Islam.
One guy stated that Christians 'stole it' from Islam and perverted it for their own false faith.
No doubt that ruffles some feathers. How dare they pressuppose their specific (False) faith has a monopoly on God's/Odin's/Ganesh?insert deity here ___ Word right? :::wink:::
posted on 07.13.2004 11:16 AM21
-continued-
“yet the code of hammurabi (from pagans - many gods) was in place while the jews were out making sacrifices to their 'one' god."
I think you should be sure, 100% without a doubt that the "one god" you keep slighting isn’t real. Without going into fire and brimstone (cause that really angers you guys), you should be a wee bit more careful. :)
For a minute, let’s just assume the hundreds of eye-witnesses were telling the truth that Jesus Christ DID raise from the dead, thus proving his divinity and the Christian God is who He says He is. I know it sounds fantastic – it is. I’m sure it was fantastic to believe the Earth was round at some point too. Anyway, you would benefit greatly if you were to search the scriptures…. just in case, in the FAR OFF chance these hundreds of millions of people since Earth was formed might, just might, be on to something. Including the ones who were persecuted and crucified, burned alive, tortured, maimed, force to watch their own children raped, burned, and brutalized (this is still happening and will until Christ comes again). During this and under the threat of this, they never renounced Christ. Why? Please people, ask yourself honestly…why? These people, especially these people, maybe, just maybe they KNEW their Redeemer Christ lives! I ask you, I plead with you, to consider eternity under His wrath.
Would you really assume this would be a waste of your time to check out? Instead, it seems, that most atheists are content with looking at Christian A or B over there and saying, “See! God is not there. Look at his followers!” “Hmmph! Such hypocrites!”
When you stand before the Judge, the last thing you will be thinking about are His chosen, and how they may or may not have treated you.
In eternity it will be:
Just..........you...........and............Him.
22
Jeremy,
I don't think your Golden Rule principle is the same one Jesus gave. He said to do what you would have others do to you. This is stronger than your one (I believe found in some eastern religions) that we merely shouldn't do what we don't want others to do to us.
I agree and probably should have been clearer about what I actually believe. I think Jesus command is often unfairly lumped in with the GR because it is similar. Because of our ability to intuitively know natural law, I think everyone can know the GR. But, like you point out, Jesus gives us a command that is more action oriented and demanding.
posted on 07.13.2004 11:20 AM23
"Exactly. Thanks for your support. The "pagans," with their "code of hammurabi" you seem to hold in such high esteem, have a God-given conscience instilled in them. Where do you think they came up with their "code" anyway? Maybe voted on it?"
Hammurabi created that coda, actually. A ruler of Babylon. Just FYI.
Interesting debate. I believe that there is no inherent Golden Rule in nature of humanity. It is a taught and acquired thing.
Also, morality is relative, as is write and wrong, good and evil.
By "Do to others as you would have done to yourself", is that simply other humans? If so, the Golden Rule cannot be applied to cannibalistic tribes. Of course, there are some which saw cannibalism as an honour, however, others were pureply predatory tribes. Would they have been eaten themselves? Only "moral" society today has the Golden Rule, or so it would seem.
As for good and evil, what I consider to be good and proper is different from any other. My views may correlate with some, however, not perfectly. Thus, what I consider to be fine, may be terrible by another's stadards. Like homosexuality. I am absolutely fine with Gay Marriage, however there are groups that state Homosexuality is evil, against God's will and corrupting mankind.
I would argue that their God is supposed to be all-forgiving, however, that isn't the argument in question.
My right is their wrong. Thus, relative right and wrong.
I know I may have left holes in my argument, but I'm tired. I may comment more fully later.
posted on 07.13.2004 11:24 AM24
I understand Jeremey but saying Christians have an 'explanation' for why we have a sense of right and wrong, and atheists don't, is a stretch.
Christians have a claim for why we have this distinction which relies on supernatural magic, whereas naturalists look at nature and nurture.
As an atheist I could just as easily make an unsubstantiated claim about the origin of morals and pass it off as an explanation.
25
"You've never really seen this until you've had a Hindu challenge you to explain how the universe originated and conclude it HAD to be Vishnu right after a Christain did the exact same thing, both smug that with no explanation on your part, they're right..."
Ok Hindu, Muslim, or whatever. Where is Mohammed or Buddha? Or any other “holy” prophet?
In a grave people. In a grave.
Jesus Christ is glorified. Rose from the grave just as he and others before him prophesied he would. Eyewitness after eyewitness. Testimony after testimony. Christianity is rooted in evidence and is verifiable by archeology and history.
Christianity is faith in evidence. Not blind faith in ooooh I wish, I wish I wish, I want God to be thus...so *poof* God is such.
Others are from man's imagination with no evidence to back up their claims.
26
George,
Moreover, I am not aware of any reference to such a rule in any culture before Christ.
Are you refering to the golden rule in stating you don't see any references before Christ? We have it mentioned in Confucionism in the Lun Yu written within 70 years of Confucius's death--therefore no later than 400 BCE. It is mentioned in the Hindu Mahabharata which existed in many forms but was solidified into a sacred text around 350 BCE. It existed in the pagan religions of Rome and was written down in that time as well. You really think that it exists only after the life of Jesus?
posted on 07.13.2004 11:37 AM27
Jesus Christ is glorified. Rose from the grave just as he and others before him prophesied he would. Eyewitness after eyewitness. Testimony after testimony. Christianity is rooted in evidence and is verifiable by archeology and history.
Wasn't Elijah brought into heaven body and soul according to your scriptures? I guess he wasn't the first then. Furthermore, despite the best attempts by the apologists the best they can say is that "we don't think it's possible for there to be that much distortion so quickly." Watch the news in the present day, where everything can be recorded for a post-event objective review. We have distortion occuring on the order of months, not years or decades. Having a "mere" several decades between the writings of Mark and the supposed death of Jesus is more than ample time for distortion to set in with such a superstitious and illiterate society.
posted on 07.13.2004 11:43 AM28
Christianity is faith in evidence. Not blind faith in ooooh I wish, I wish I wish, I want God to be thus...so *poof* God is such.
Others are from man's imagination with no evidence to back up their claims.
Funny, that's just what everyone else claims. Of course they can prove it. You can too? Of course...so we are back to square one. Thank you for playing "nah nah, my religion is better than yours is."
posted on 07.13.2004 11:49 AM29
Others are from man's imagination with no evidence to back up their claims.
That's word for word what a Muslim just told me about Jewish and Christian faiths last night. My response is the same. Produce the evidence which supports your specific superntural entity.
Anyway, to get this bus turned around and back on Joe's original point, the argument that morals work might work best when they are said to originate from a Divine source, or if they really are from said source, is sound imo.
I don't know if that was the primary thrust of Joe's post, but that much I agree with.
posted on 07.13.2004 12:17 PM30
Last I knew evidence was simply what you know, and hypotheses were what you think might be true that, if true, would explain that evidence. Calling for evidence to prove a hypothesis that is offered as a way to explain the evidence is a little odd. Very rarely do you find a hypothesis that can be proved without a doubt. You have various hypotheses, and some of them are better than others based on various criteria for evaluating which hypotheses are better ones to believe. If you want to keep the discussion along those lines, that's fine. Changing the subject to talk about which hypotheses can be proved absolutely based on the evidence is the road to skepticism about the external world, causation and scientific laws, the past, and anything else that we can't prove to be correct.
posted on 07.13.2004 12:42 PM31
cdm,
'I think you should be sure, 100% without a doubt that the "one god" you keep slighting isn?t real. Without going into fire and brimstone (cause that really angers you guys), you should be a wee bit more careful. :)'
so who is 'you guys?' i never anounced myself as an athiest. i simply don't think that christians have a corner on the morality market. buddism seems to be a much more moral religion to me.
i don't even have a problem with christ (i was raised in an evengelical church and went to an evengelical school k-12), and could even concede that god could send someone as a sacrifice for humanity's sins. i do have a personal relationship with god, and it happened long after i stopped going to church. it had more to do with fasting in the desert for a week (funny, sounds like what christ did also to communicate with god). christians would be a lot closer to christ if they actually follwed the practices of christ, instead of sitting in church and believing what someone else tells them about how to interpret the scriptures.
but don't start saying christian came up with the original law, 10 commandments, old testament, what have you, because it was in place from long, long before then. see mr. moderate's above comments for reference.
mr. moderate,
'You really think that it exists only after the life of Jesus?'
yes that is exactly what was taught to me in sunday school. i figured out by middle school that this wasn't the case, but sadly many christians never move past the point of questioning their sunday school books to take a good look at history. moreover, god forbid they would study any other other major religions to see the similaries with their own, that would be blasphemy to the one true god.
black and white, black and white, keeps me sleeping safe at night.
32
Another point that's worth mentioning is that when someone gives an argument against naturalism, it's a dodge to say that no one has proved Christianity out of all the possible religions. An argument against naturalism is an argument against naturalism, not an argument for Christianity. Pretending it's an argument for Christianity and then acting as if naturalism isn't thereby disproved is intellectually dishonest. The only way to prove that naturalism isn't disproved is to show what's wrong with the argument. Some of the comments here have tried to do that. Others have changed the subject to avoid answering the question.
posted on 07.13.2004 12:45 PM33
In order to apply the GR, our ancestral hunter-gather (we'll call him Ugh) needs to possess knowledge of a cause and effect relationship (i.e., if he bashes his neighbor, Zog, over the head with a rock then Zog will die), the ability to imagine himself in the same situation (putting himself in Zog’s hidebound shoes), and self-reflection in order to choose one behavior or the other based on his knowledge and imagination.
On the contrary, it is the innate characteristic that has to generally be present. It is not our conscious decision to grow body hair in a particular way, or webbed feet, that makes us more adapted toward swimming than primate species, we are swimmers because of these traits. Similarly the mechanism is there subconsciously, not consciously. That is not to say that the GR is ingrained in Ugh's head, but instead that the basic principle is. Does he decide to use it in the case of Zog? Maybe, maybe not. Whether that characteristic has any bearing on Ugh's direct survivability is undetermined. However the lack of that principle can have a great impact on the cohesiveness of groups of Ugh's species. That lack of feature if it causes breakdowns at crucial points in time will make their groups survivability generally less favorable than those groups that do possess that innate characteristic. Over time therefore that group's proportion of the population can become less and less dominant, and may even disappear all together.
Over time eventually people started writing this stuff down, especially coming up with stories about where they got the idea from. This is the point where the innate characteristic that forms the core of GR gets codified and then passed into a basic system of laws.
(Sorry rough sketch...I'm working on this during a quick break at the office...)
posted on 07.13.2004 12:47 PM34
Mr. Moderate,
I On the contrary, it is the innate characteristic that has to generally be present. It is not our conscious decision to grow body hair in a particular way, or webbed feet, that makes us more adapted toward swimming than primate species, we are swimmers because of these traits.
Okay, if we accept that as true it only moves it to the next step.
Whether that characteristic has any bearing on Ugh's direct survivability is undetermined.
You make that sound as if it is an unimportant issue. But the only way that the behavior will be passed on is if it is useful in survival/reproduction.
However the lack of that principle can have a great impact on the cohesiveness of groups of Ugh's species. That lack of feature if it causes breakdowns at crucial points in time will make their groups survivability generally less favorable than those groups that do possess that innate characteristic. Over time therefore that group's proportion of the population can become less and less dominant, and may even disappear all together.
As I pointed out, though, the GR is either useful for survival or it is nothing more than a “behavioral male nipple.” I think we are in agreement that cooperation can be useful. But that doesn’t move us from “is” to “ought.”
Over time eventually people started writing this stuff down, especially coming up with stories about where they got the idea from. This is the point where the innate characteristic that forms the core of GR gets codified and then passed into a basic system of laws.
But you still haven’t explained why GR has any bearing if it impedes our survival.
posted on 07.13.2004 12:57 PM35
You make that sound as if it [Ugh's survivability] is an unimportant issue. But the only way that the behavior will be passed on is if it is useful in survival/reproduction.
Actually no it doesn't individually matter whether Ugh survives despite this defect or not. It only matters in the summation over multiple generations of the species. If Ugh doesn't encounter scenarios where this lack of the GR precursor mattered then his survivability isn't impacted. It will get propagated down into future generations. Their individual survivability then only becomes an issue when compared to the survivability of those that do have the characteristic. Do Ugh's descendants than only have birth rates at half that of those that do have the characteristic? Does Ugh's descendants' groups dissolve under times of strife unlike those that inhereted the innate characteristic? If Ugh's group is less efficient in these two cases and still competing for the same resources as the group that does have the charateristic then they will represent smaller and smaller minorities of the population and may even (probably) be selected out.
But you still haven’t explained why GR has any bearing if it impedes our survival.
Who said that the innate characteristic behind GR impedes survival? Many of our mechanisms can impede survival yet they are still here. Whether something impedes survival or helps survival is scenario dependant. Likewise I think I've described a potential mechanism above for what you are trying to get at.
posted on 07.13.2004 1:14 PM36
Can someone explain what Philip Johnson means when he says that "[genocide] promote[s] the adaptation of human species to its environment."
I'm frankly baffled by this. How would the extermination of a group of people with, e.g., certain religious beliefs, promote the adaptation of humans to their environment?
Does Phillip define what he means by "environment" in this circumstance? That's rather important, I think, for evolutionary biologists when they postulate why or when certain adaptations to an "environment" arose.
posted on 07.13.2004 1:16 PM37
Joe:
*Sigh* Where to start? How about with the first sentence?
For those who hold a belief in naturalism ... issues of philosophy are always problematic.Oh? Issues of philosophy aren't problematic for those who hold a belief in supernaturalism? Wow, I wasn't aware that non-naturalists had everything all figured out. I guess you learn something new every day.
Many naturalists (and I include most atheists in this category) who have sufficiently thought about the issue invariably concede that morality is purely relative. Others, however, have a difficult time conceding that morality is rooted in nothing deeper than personal preference.And let the straw enter the equation, shall we? Belief that morality is relative does not equate to belief that morality is simply "personal preference." That would be like defining legality as personal preference -- there's more to it than just what person A thinks. But such complications take away your easy target, so you'll never acknowledge that.
Naturalism, of course, claims that our brains were “designed” by the blind process of natural selection and that there is no ultimate purpose behind the behaviors we develop.Another misstatement. Unless you define "ultimate purpose" on a universal scale, of course. A purely biological "ultimate purpose" would be to survive, mate, and ensure the survival of your offspring.
Natural selection does not work "for the good of the species", as many people think.Straw man again. I wasn't aware that anyone was claiming that natural selection works "for the good of the species." Natural selection, in and of itself, is without purpose.
Our neural circuitry, however, is designed only to solve adaptive problems.This statement appears to be the crux of your entire argument, and yet I don't see any justification of that statement. It seems that to make your case, you need to resort to boiling extremely complicated processes down to "simple" elements that no longer accurately describe the process.
The problem here is this: let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you're right. Your solution to the problem you pose is, "God did it." It's no different than people in ancient times thinking that thunder meant the gods were fighting, or people in the middle ages thinking that the plague was punishment from God.
In other words, you're taking a "god of the gaps" approach to the whole thing. And in so doing, you're making a critical error that's been made countless times before, and that humanity at large has yet to learn from: just because I can't explain it right now does not mean that it cannot be explained.
The fact that I cannot explain, in detail sufficient for your approval, how morality could evolve by purely natural processes does NOT mean that the explanation does not exist. It only means that I don't have one. And the "explanation" you offer is no better, and in fact, it's worse. Because your explanation is that an all-powerful, all-knowing being, who exists by means you cannot explain, somehow imposed or created "morality," also by means you cannot explain.
The end result is this: neither you nor I can explain precisely how morality developed. The difference is, you superimpose a higher power to "explain" it without really explaining anything at all.
posted on 07.13.2004 1:18 PM38
"but don't start saying christian came up with the original law, 10 commandments, old testament, what have you, because it was in place from long, long before then. see mr. moderate's above comments for reference."
Who said that? God is the orginator. As I've already said all humans have a conscience so it's no wonder we all share a similar moral code. Why is it atheists look at older groups of people or religion and that is somehow bad for Christians and the Bible's authority?
posted on 07.13.2004 1:23 PM39
Mr. Moderate,
If Ugh doesn't encounter scenarios where this lack of the GR precursor mattered then his survivability isn't impacted. It will get propagated down into future generations.
You make it sound as if Ugh lives in the suburbs. Surely you can’t really be claiming that in a hunter-gatherer society, consistently acting on the GR would not have an impact on survivability? You also seem to be dismissing the fact that, for Ugh, the GR would only apply to his kin or his tribe. If interlopers arrived, he would probably have no qualms about bashing them over the head. But the GR isn’t a pick-and-choose behavior.
Once again we are stuck with the fact that the only form of the GR that could have “evolved” is one that is only followed when it does not negatively impact survivability.
If Ugh's group is less efficient in these two cases and still competing for the same resources as the group that does have the charateristic then they will represent smaller and smaller minorities of the population and may even (probably) be selected out.
Granted my example is rather simplistic. But it doesn’t require much thought to find that following the GR consistently (as would have to happen for it to have been an adaptive behavior) would detrimentally impact survival. Heck, it would have a negative impact now and we live in much kinder times.
Who said that the innate characteristic behind GR impedes survival? Many of our mechanisms can impede survival yet they are still here.
Such as…?
posted on 07.13.2004 1:24 PM40
Mr. Moderate:
I'm afraid you've fallen into a trap. You see, Joe and his ilk can't explain why morality exists any better than you can. But they dodge this by trying to shift all of the burden of proof onto you. So while you spin your wheels vainly trying to come up with a naturalistic explanation that they'll never accept anyway, they just hide behind their "God did it" philosophy, never bothering to address how they know this or how they can be so sure their "God" is even the right one (assuming there is exactly one).
posted on 07.13.2004 1:32 PM41
You make it sound as if Ugh lives in the suburbs. Surely you can’t really be claiming that in a hunter-gatherer society, consistently acting on the GR would not have an impact on survivability?
If there are no pressures on the necessary resources for survival it can have little to no impact. It also would have no pressure if there are no threats from other predators. If the resources are limited in comparison to the demand than Ugh's survival would be directly impacted by his ability to apply the precursor to the GR principle. That doesn't mean he will. It also dosen't mean that in the mean time he hasn't already produced offspring that may or may not be missing this characteristic to certain degrees.
You also seem to be dismissing the fact that, for Ugh, the GR would only apply to his kin or his tribe.
Why is that a problem? It is this fact which will accelerate the selection criteria as groups who can stay more cohesive will have a higher rate of survivability.
If interlopers arrived, he would probably have no qualms about bashing them over the head. But the GR isn’t a pick-and-choose behavior.
Again why is this a problem in terms of survivability. Certainly in modern times we've decided to take the GR principle and try and apply it across all persons saying they all are our neighbor. The human precursors and other species that use group behavior to enhance survivability didn't see it this way. This makes the benefits of the GR precursor even more important to the survival of the groups, not less.
You want an innate characteristic that can impede survival? For starters will take our limited night vision. Our vision has sacrificed night vision for color vision in a particular part of the EM spectrum. This makes our species less survivable in areas where vision in low lighting conditions is more important than color differentiation. Similarly in areas where EM spectrum variation occurs abundantly near the edge of our vision or beyond it our survivability could equally be compromised. Whether that becomes a survivability issue is determined by how much weight that variable has on our total survivability, whether that condition occurs for long enough periods of time and if we aren't able to compensate for it in other ways.
posted on 07.13.2004 1:36 PM42
So, is the Golden rule "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "don't do unto other's unless you would want them to do the same unto you"? I like the positive construction much better, sounds more like Jesus' message of love and sacrifice.
Joe, why do you insist on trying to debunk everyone else's beleif system? Can your faith not stand the existence of other faiths?
Is it really not ok with you that everyone does not think the same way you do about religion?
About 1/2 the athiests i know have no problem with other people's faiths. The other half can be just as disparaging and condescending as you can be with other's who don't believe as you do.
Ususally those guys say that they are sick of Christians trying to force Christianity down their throats.
I wish some Christians would care less about debunking other religions or belief systems and care more about how they treat others.
posted on 07.13.2004 1:39 PM43
tgirsch,
Yeah you're probably right. Nothing I put forward will convince them of the possibility that it could have evolved--even if they ultimately conclude that's not what happened. I'm in a similar boat that they have yet to convince me that their particular theology isn't what happened either. It's still nice to exercise my brain on the matter. Helps shore things up for the next time some one comes along with an "ah ha" style statement like this. It does so by both pointing out potential short comings in my position and areas that need better development. Unlike some of the people in this board I don't believe my ideas are perfect and need no refinement since it comes from some omniscient being.
posted on 07.13.2004 1:43 PM44
Still, no atheist can tell us why it is wrong if we rape, murder, and steal. Just cause "I don't want it to happen to me." What a joke. What a lame, sad, sad joke. What if another monkey-person A disagrees with this "moral code", why would this make monkey-person A wrong? Maybe his moral code evolved ahead and is better than the other apes...
Why is it wrong? Says who? Why should I listen to that who?
If we insist on more planet of the apes philosophy, then please clarify:
When did these things become wrong? Was it when we became monkeys? You'd all admit it was OK when we were pre-human monkeys (I assume). So when did it become wrong to do these things? When we shed the fur? When we started to use vocal chords? When? Also, why such moral outrage do us smarter monkey's experience at the site of horrible events. Such bitter and horror we feel when our children are murdered for example? Anyone know what I mean?
Am I reading this stuff right to assume that because we all "naturally" evolved in a certain, random way that this process alone makes all this stuff wrong. If so, why can't we just deny such primitive emotions and declare it monkey business?
I apologize if this is unclear in the midst of all my monkey jokes. :)
posted on 07.13.2004 1:48 PM45
Joe: Such as…?
Such as an ordinary citizen charging into a burning house to save someone Joe. I'd want someone to do that for me, so it fits the GR. It's also of questionable, direct, adaptive value for our hero; unless the victim happens to share the hero's down range linneage.
Humans engage in many activities which carry no clear survival value for the individual involved.
Substance abuse, sky diving, rock climbing, not to mention warfare or working in a clinic full of people with terminal, communicable, disease.
Why?
Plasticity of behavior from an evolutionary vantage is what you're asking about here along with the variation therein.
How long can behavior K selected for in generation A work for generation Z when the environment for generation Z has chenged by X?
Why might we have behavior which is a less than optimal solution to a problem? Could it be that, like our genotype, our memotype is subject to selection using what already exists rather than what would work the best?
Good questions, very complex, little in the way of answers are available.
posted on 07.13.2004 1:55 PM46
tgirsch,
Oh? Issues of philosophy aren't problematic for those who hold a belief in supernaturalism?
I’m not saying that non-naturalistic systems do not have problems. But at least they have categories to explain certain phenomena (i.e., the mind) without resorting to calling such features “illusions.”
Belief that morality is relative does not equate to belief that morality is simply "personal preference."
If there is no objective standard, then there is not “right” and no “wrong” outside of what the individual person believes those terms to mean. There may be an aggregation of aggrement. But that does not make it anything less than a personal preference.
That would be like defining legality as personal preference -- there's more to it than just what person A thinks.
I think you picked the wrong analogy. Man-made law is simply what people have chosen (aggregate personal preference) and agreed to back up by force of power.
Another misstatement. Unless you define "ultimate purpose" on a universal scale, of course. A purely biological "ultimate purpose" would be to survive, mate, and ensure the survival of your
offspring.
You have a misunderstanding about evolution. We don’t even have the “purpose” of trying to survive, mate, and ensure the survival of our offspring. Those behaviors occurred and they had the side effect of increasing the chances of survival. But that is a fortunate accident. Nothing more. Evolution has no purpose. None. Zip. Zilch.
Like I said, naturalist are always attempting to smuggle in a teleogy.
Straw man again. I wasn't aware that anyone was claiming that natural selection works "for the good of the species." Natural selection, in and of itself, is without purpose.
But you just said that it had a “purely biological” purpose. Which is it?
This statement appears to be the crux of your entire argument, and yet I don't see any justification of that statement.
Justification? I thought you had faith in science?
It is important to realize that our circuits weren't designed to solve just any old kind of problem. They were designed to solve adaptive problems. [emphasis in original] (Cosmides & Tooby)
The problem here is this: let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you're right. Your solution to the problem you pose is, "God did it." It's no different than people in ancient times thinking that thunder meant the gods were fighting, or people in the middle ages thinking that the plague was punishment from God.
First of all, when we talk about any feature created in the natural (or supernatural) world the theist is saying “God did it.” Science is simply the explanation of “how He did it.”
In other words, you're taking a "god of the gaps" approach to the whole thing. And in so doing, you're making a critical error that's been made countless times before, and that humanity at large has yet to learn from: just because I can't explain it right now does not mean that it cannot be explained.
Actually, you are the one making the critical error. I am only saying that is couldn’t have developed by natural, undirected causes (i.e., natural selection). That is not saying that in the future we won’t be able to discover the “how it was designed.”
Your position is the more untenable one since it makes the a priori claim that it had to have developed by undirected causes because God doesn’t exist.
The fact that I cannot explain, in detail sufficient for your approval, how morality could evolve by purely natural processes does NOT mean that the explanation does not exist. It only means that I don't have one.
You can’t explain it because it is not possible to get an objective standard from purely subjective experience.
And the "explanation" you offer is no better, and in fact, it's worse. Because your explanation is that an all-powerful, all-knowing being, who exists by means you cannot explain, somehow imposed or created "morality," also by means you cannot explain.
If you want to adopt such radical skepticism you have to discount science as well as God. You cannot explain where the “laws of nature” come from either but you assume they exist (though, that can’t be proven).
The end result is this: neither you nor I can explain precisely how morality developed. The difference is, you superimpose a higher power to "explain" it without really explaining anything at all.
Here is the difference in our positions. I believe a moral Being designed us to also be moral beings. You, on the other hand, believe that pure chance and matter “designed” us to have some sort of meaningful morality. I am already conceding a lot of ground (i.e., that the terms “morality” and “purpose” have actual meaning) that cannot be deduced under naturalism.
posted on 07.13.2004 1:56 PM47
Joe, this is slightly off -topic, but realted inthat this post of yours is yet another in a long line of posts that amount to attacking others belief systems.
A quick search showed me that it is in fact the positive construction that is what is meant when one speaks of the Golden Rule.
If you beleive that it originated with Jesus, it means so much more than don't kill someone, don't steal from them--those were already part of the ten commandments. What Jesus' golden rule means is that you must ACTIVLEY treat others as you would want them to treat you. So it's not as simple as living a life where you aren't actively harming anyone--it's a command to go out and heal, comfort, and sacrifice for others. and I wonder if by constantly attacking the beliefs of athiests and agnostics on your site; you aren't either breaking your God-given Golden Rule, OR, you want athiests and others who don't beleive what you believe to attack and put down your beliefs as you do to theirs. I think you may begin by thinking you are challenging people and helping to open eyes, but your arguments, especially when you pull out that undisprovable [and unprovable]trump card of "God did it" are just so insulting. Are these kinds of attacks and arguments really what it means to bring someone the Good News?
posted on 07.13.2004 1:57 PM48
God is the orginator. As I've already said all humans have a conscience so it's no wonder we all share a similar moral code. Why is it atheists look at older groups of people or religion and that is somehow bad for Christians and the Bible's authority?And with that, cdm has made debate impossible. All discrepancies can be explained (away) within the framework of the Christian God, therefore all objections are irrelevant.
And while we're at it:
Why is it wrong? Says who? Why should I listen to that who?So what you're arguing, in effect, is that the only reason it's wrong if we rape, murder, and steal is because God says so? If God changed His mind, these things would be okay? Are you really arguing that morality is nothing deeper than God's personal preference?
Presumably not. Presumably you can come up with other reasons (besides "God said so") as to why those things are "wrong." And presumably you can explain why those other reasons lose all validity in the absence of God.
posted on 07.13.2004 1:58 PM49
Still, no atheist can tell us why it is wrong if we rape, murder, and steal. Just cause "I don't want it to happen to me." What a joke. What a lame, sad, sad joke.
Sadder still is that you have to wait for directions from a book written thousands of years ago by a supposedly, taken on faith, divine being to figure that out for yourself. I ask that queston for theists--is the only thing keeping you from murdering or raping your neighbor the fact that you found that tidbit in your favorite religious book?
What if another monkey-person A disagrees with this "moral code", why would this make monkey-person A wrong? Maybe his moral code evolved ahead and is better than the other apes...
If the "moral code" has no overlap with the life of someone else then why should you even care? Is it wrong to miss church on Sunday, drink alcohol, gamble or have oral sex with a non-spouse? If it has no effect on your life why do you bother worrying about it?
posted on 07.13.2004 2:00 PM50
It is important to realize that our circuits weren't designed to solve just any old kind of problem. They were designed to solve adaptive problems. [emphasis in original] (Cosmides & Tooby)
Do you actually know what that is saying? It's saying that we are not designed for a particular scenario and that instead our structures exist as they are as the product of adapting to developmental pressures over multiple generations. We are the way we are because that's the path our evolution took, not because that's the path that we had to take.
posted on 07.13.2004 2:04 PM51
DS,
Such as an ordinary citizen charging into a burning house to save someone Joe.
I'd want someone to do that for me, so it fits the GR. It's also of questionable, direct, adaptive value for our hero; unless the victim happens to share the hero's down range linneage.
I agree, but, then again, I don’t think we evolved such behavior. We can’t just resort to begging the question in order to prove that such behavior could have developed.
Humans engage in many activities which carry no clear survival value for the individual involved. Substance abuse, sky diving, rock climbing, not to mention warfare or working
in a clinic full of people with terminal, communicable, disease. Why?
You are looking for a purpose behind behavior. According to naturalism, there isn’t any. Behavior just is. Some forms (such as sky diving) may impede our chances of survival and never be seen again (like eating dung). Others may have no effect at all (behavioral male nipples, if you will).
The overall point is that when behavior doesn’t have an ultimate purpose, then morality is a meaningless concept. Like Camus, we are forced to become existentialists (though wearing black and listening to The Cure is optional).
posted on 07.13.2004 2:05 PM52
cara,
If you beleive that it originated with Jesus,…
I don’t believe it did since it was around centuries before his birth.
and I wonder if by constantly attacking the beliefs of athiests and agnostics on your site; you aren't either breaking your God-given Golden Rule, OR, you want athiests and others who don't
beleive what you believe to attack and put down your beliefs as you do to theirs.
I don’t’ “attack” people’s beliefs. I provide arguments for why I think they are flawed. Whether my belief system is right or not, there is at least one that is more correct (i.e., corresponds to reality) than others. I don’t see the harm in testing these worldviews to find their weaknesses.
I think you may begin by thinking you are challenging people and helping to open eyes, but your arguments, especially when you pull out that undisprovable [and unprovable]trump card of "God did it" are just so insulting.
Why is that more insulting than saying “blind chance did it.” I’ve never seen random chance create anything orderly (and neither has anyone that has ever lived). Yet many people throughout history claim to have experienced a Deity. I think saying that a feature was ultimately designed by God is a whole lot less insulting than asking people to believe the nonsensical idea that randomness has a creative ability.
Are these kinds of attacks and arguments really what it means to bring someone the Good News?
Why is it an “attack”? I honestly don’t see what you mean. Should we refuse to discuss such issues because some people might disagree?
posted on 07.13.2004 2:15 PM53
The overall point is that when behavior doesn’t have an ultimate purpose, then morality is a meaningless concept. Like Camus, we are forced to become existentialists (though wearing black and listening to The Cure is optional).
If the ultimate purpose is simply that it produced enhanced survivability at one point, does this remove the need to become existentialists? If humans have no ultimate purpose do we again have to become existentialists? Is it not possible for humans to come up with purposes for themselves to live based on even if in the grand scheme of things they are meaningless? We've invented entire areas of mathematics, linguistics and science. Our impact on the universe is still insignificant--even if one of us was to do something as stupid as vaporizing the entire planet. Does that mean that our individual lives must therefore have no purpose?
What is our ultimate purpose as defined in your version of Christianity?
posted on 07.13.2004 2:16 PM54
tg-Mr Mod did indeed fall into a trap, but it is not the trap you think it is. It is the trap all atheists fall into. How do you get from nothing to everything? The Heavens in all their glory, life in all its complexity comes from what, a little space dust and a couple billion years? Chirstians don't hide behind their "God did it philosophy", we revel in it, we loudly proclaim it. It is not a shield or a hut, it's a trumpet. You look at morality and say it's merely one of many survival mechanisms that evolved over time. The implication being that it can be discarded as soon as it is no longer useful, like a prehensile tail. We (Christians) look at it as a way to honor and serve our Creator and our fellow man. It's not optional and it is universal (granted, we rarely live up to the ideal), it is also unchanging. Your way is the graveyard, our's is a "shining city on a hill".
posted on 07.13.2004 2:21 PM55
Rob Smith,
And we've now jumped from needing simply a religious base to needing the Judeo-Christian base. I wonder if Joe holds a similar position. It all works out again to the notion that you and your religion is morally superior to others who hold differing religious beliefs. Which version of Christianity are you selling to make sure we get the one with "the right" morals?
posted on 07.13.2004 2:24 PM56
Mr. Moderate,
If the ultimate purpose is simply that it produced enhanced survivability at one point, does this remove the need to become existentialists?
Sure, if you say that evolution has the teleological purpose of enhancing survivability. But then you wouldn’t be a naturalist anymore.
If humans have no ultimate purpose do we again have to become existentialists?
Not necessarily. You still have the option of becoming a nihilist.
Is it not possible for humans to come up with purposes for themselves to live based on
even if in the grand scheme of things they are meaningless?
Um, yeah, that’s called existentialism.
We've invented entire areas of mathematics, linguistics and science.
Did we “invent” math, linguistics, and science or did we discover them?
Our impact on the universe is still insignificant--even if one of us was to do something as
stupid as vaporizing the entire planet. Does that mean that our individual lives must therefore have no purpose?
I would say so. Where would we even get the idea of “purpose” if it isn’t found in nature and nature is all there is?
57
cara:
I don't quite understand why you think Joe is attacking other peoples' beliefs. It looks to me like he is going out of his way to have an interesting debate in hopes of bringing clarity to some position. He has posited a theory and then stuck around to field criticisms of that theory. If he was trying to attack others, I'm sure he could take a much more direct approach than this...
I find Joes' kind of debate very interesting. It feels to me a bit like the Sherlock Holmes method - eliminate all the impossiblilties and what is left is what actually happened: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. -- Sherlock Holmes: "The Blanched Soldier"
Keep up the good work Joe!
posted on 07.13.2004 2:31 PM58
Mr. Moderate,
Could you be a bit more specific in your references? It's not that I don't take your word for a pre-Christian golden rule (i.e., "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" with the implied "every human must have value in my heart equal to myself"). I just like to read these things for myself and I don't really have time to read entire volumes of all the works you cite unless they're really short. And you were a bit vague about the Romans.
Specifically, I'm talking about: the Lun Yu written within 70 years of Confucius's death, the Hindu Mahabharata, and the pagan religions of Rome.
posted on 07.13.2004 2:39 PM59
Joe:
You throw around the term "aggregate personal preference" readily enough, but then claim that there's no difference between this and individual personal preference. If that's the case, why the need for the term "aggregate" at all? You may technically be close, in that it may boil down to personal belief, but that's a different thing than preference. I may believe that something is immoral while simultaneously preferring that it were moral.
If there is no objective standard, then there is not “right” and no “wrong” outside of what the individual person believes those terms to mean.I still disagree with this, because others can and do judge what that individual does, and those judgments can have very real consequences for the individual in question.
But there is some truth to what you say: stealing an analogy from there is no "right" and no "wrong." If you were to put the entire world -- people and all -- into a grinder, and grind it all up into finest grains possible, and then sifted through those grains, you would not find a single grain of "right" or "wrong" or "morality" in the entire mess.
Man-made law is simply what people have chosen (aggregate personal preference) and agreed to back up by force of power.The only practical difference between law and morality that I can discern is that law has been exhaustively codified and morality has not.
Evolution has no purpose. None. Zip. Zilch.I agree. But you wouldn't find any grains of "purpose" in the dust described above, either. "Purpose" is nothing more than a man-made construct, like laws and morality. But never mind that: why must life have a purpose? Your need to believe that your life has meaning does not make it so.
Personally, I believe my life has whatever purpose I decide to give it. Now it could be that my will in the matter is merely an illusion, or it could truly be my will -- I don't know, and I don't much care. But I'm not willing to accept my personal beliefs on the matter as gospel truth, and I don't expect anyone else to, either.
But you just said that it had a “purely biological” purpose. Which is it?Please stop misstating my arugments. I said that mating, etc. could be considered a purely biological purpose of life. At what point did I equate life with natural selection? The two terms are not interchangeable, and yet you resort to trying to interchange them to "debunk" my point.
I am only saying that is couldn’t have developed by natural, undirected causes (i.e., natural selection).Yes, that's what you're saying but you do very little to actually back this up. Rejecting various explanations of how such things may have developed naturalistically is not the same thing as demonstrating that they could not have developed in such a way.
Your position is the more untenable one since it makes the a priori claim that it had to have developed by undirected causes because God doesn’t exist.Really? That's news to me. Gee, I thought all this time my position was that God wasn't a necessary component for the development of morality. Now I find out that apparently my point was that morality must have developed naturally because God doesn't exist. I'm sorry, but none of my positions are of the type "X must be so (or cannot be so) because God does not exist." In fact, you'll find that the existence of God is irrelevant to most of my positions, unless the actual topic at hand is whether or not God exists.
You can’t explain it because it is not possible to get an objective standard from purely subjective experience.So sayeth Joe. So must it be! Except that I've been arguing all along that there is no truly objective standard for morality. It is only you who demand that such an objective standard must exist.
If you want to adopt such radical skepticism you have to discount science as well as God.See, that's the point. And that's what you hide behind. Because you have "faith," it's somehow okay to hide behind it when you don't fully understand or can't fully explain something. But the naturalist, because he or she claims that there's no such higher power to hide behind, must be able to explain everything to you in perfect detail, or concede that their position is wrong. You needn't be able to explain anything, other than to say "I have faith that God is responsible." Anyone who disagrees with you must be able to explain everything, and for the first thing they can't explain, you proclaim "Aha!" as if you have then somehow defeated them. This is why I told Mr. Moderate that this is a trap, and why I classify your position as a "god of the gaps" argument.
I believe a moral Being designed us to also be moral beings.But how did this moral Being come into existence? And how can you demonstrate that this moral Being exists?
You, on the other hand, believe that pure chance and matter “designed” us to have some sort of meaningful morality.Sorry, but "design" is your word, not mine. You may not be comfortable with the idea that our existence might not be part of some "grand design" or master plan, but I have no problem with that concept. I feel no compunction to hide behind philosophical mumbo-jumbo to explain away those things that I can't actually explain. I'm perfectly content with "I can't explain it." posted on 07.13.2004 2:41 PM
60
Mr Mod--I think I have always (since becoming a Christian) been consistant in my belief that the Christianity is morally superior to all other religions. I assume most Christians would agree, though I don't claim to speak for Joe. As to which sect is right, I am rather eccumenical on that issue. I think that Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, etc. can all be good Christians. I will further concede that other religions may have some truth in them, but they are not the Truth.
posted on 07.13.2004 2:44 PM61
Sure, if you say that evolution has the teleological purpose of enhancing survivability.
I wasn't speaking of evolution, I was speaking of the given characteristic. Evolution is a process. In it certain characteristics can enhance survivability at certain times, or they can hinder survivability at certain times.
Where would we even get the idea of “purpose” if it isn’t found in nature and nature is all there is?
We invented it. Is it an artifact of an egocentric self awareness? Is it a byproduct of some other evolutionary formation? I don't know. As I asked before, what is our ultimate purpose as defined in your brand of Christianity?
posted on 07.13.2004 2:44 PM62
George,
Here are two sites you can start your search from. I would have e-mailed it to you, but you aren't listing that in yoru information:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm
http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html
posted on 07.13.2004 2:46 PM63
Rob Smith:
How do you get from nothing to everything?Who said we needed to? You claim that God created everything, but who created God? You'll likely answer that God has always existed. To which I'd respond that "everything" (matter, anyway) has always existed, and I don't need the extra "God" step.
Chirstians don't hide behind their "God did it philosophy", we revel in it, we loudly proclaim it."We can't explain it, and we're proud!" That's nice!
You look at morality and say it's merely one of many survival mechanisms that evolved over time.Actually, I'm not sure if morality is a survival mechanism, frankly. It could be one, or it could play a part in one, but it doesn't need to be one. It could be totally irrelevant to survival, although common sense seems to indicate otherwise. Not everything that develops naturally has to have a "purpose," as you might define that term.
Joe:
Sure, if you say that evolution has the teleological purpose of enhancing survivability.You are the one who really introduced teleology into the discussion. I think most naturalists would agree that "design" and "purpose," as you would describe them, aren't even a part of the equation. We may occasionally use the term "purpose," but we are incorrect in doing so, because purpose implies intent. Thank you for pointing out that semantic flaw in my argumentation, and in Mr. Moderate's argumentation. Where you talk about the "purpose" for something, we talk about the reason for it (definition 3, sometimes 7).
That said, my life can still have a purpose. I merely contend that it need not be God who gives it that purpose. It can be a purpose of my own choosing.
Um, yeah, that’s called existentialism.OK, but I fail to see why "existentialism" is a dirty word, even if it isn't purely accurate. I see nothing in Mr. Mod's description that implies isolation -- as I understand it (admittedly poorly) a key component of existentialism -- but I can buy the freedom of choice and responsibility aspects.
Did we “invent” math, linguistics, and science or did we discover them?A little of both, actually. Linguistics, I would argue, is purely invention. With math and science, we invented the mechanisms for describing naturally occurring phenomena we've discovered.
Where would we even get the idea of “purpose” if it isn’t found in nature and nature is all there is?The same place we get the idea of "wookies," or of jawas, or insert fictional construct here.
Big Bob:
I find it more than a bit amusing that you cite Sherlock Holmes, the creation of Arthur Conan Doyle, whose critical thinking skills were so advanced, he was duped by two teenage girls into believing that fairies existed and had been photographed. Of course the flaw in that Holmes logic is that we cannot always know with certainty what is possible versus impossible, and eliminating "the impossible" does not always leave us with one "improbable but possible" explanation.
George:
Concerning earlier citations of the Golden Rule, I submit to you: And then God Said, "Let there be Wikipedia," and lo, it was good. The idea, if not the exact wording, date back to at least 1640 BCE.
posted on 07.13.2004 3:07 PM64
Before tgirsch is converted into a flaming evangelical Christian, I just thought I'd try again to resuscitate this sub-topic:
Can someone explain what Philip Johnson means when he says that "[genocide] promote[s] the adaptation of human species to its environment."
I'm frankly baffled by this. How would the extermination of a group of people with, e.g., certain religious beliefs, promote the adaptation of humans to their environment?
Does Phillip define what he means by "environment" in this circumstance? That's rather important, I think, for evolutionary biologists when they postulate why or when certain adaptations to an "environment" arose.
posted on 07.13.2004 3:12 PM65
"House on fire...hero"
Joe said: I agree, but, then again, I don’t think we evolved such behavior. We can’t just resort to begging the question in order to prove that such behavior could have developed.
Let us speculate about the adaptive value of that behavior?
In the example our hero ran into a burning house to save a stranger. On the surface, that looks like a futile, needlessly dangerous activity with no evolutionary value.
Well, unless our hero gains social status from the act. Then he may have access to resources and more importantly mates he wouldn't otherwise have had.
Now the hero is looking like a 'good catch' and his behavior, which he and everyone else assumed was a selfless act made with no conscious decision to serve his own interests, has in fact resulted in greater reproductive fitness. Neat eh?
Yeap, that was a tiny bit of set-up Joe. Done to demonstrate that not knowing why or how the behavior exists is not the same as saying it has NO classic adaptive value AND must therefore derive from non-naturlistic processes. That is an argument from ignorance.
You are looking for a purpose behind behavior. According to naturalism, there isn’t any. Behavior just is. Some forms (such as sky diving) may impede our chances of survival and never be seen again (like eating dung). Others may have no effect at all (behavioral male nipples, if you will).
Nope. I'm looking for past or current conditions under which similar behavior MIGHT have been adaptive to explain current behavior which has no obvious adaptive value. In evolutionary terms there is a huge difference between having no current adaptive value and never having any adapative value ever. And with human behavior one no longer needs huge macroscopic changes in the genome to produce widely divergent actions. Yuo can make those changes ina few generations. Thus, if culture changes quickly, one might exopect to see widespread vestigial behaviors, co-opted nebahiors, etc, which once carried adaptive value perpetuated via simple social inertia.
The overall point is that when behavior doesn’t have an ultimate purpose, then morality is a meaningless concept. Like Camus, we are forced to become existentialists (though wearing black and listening to The Cure is optional).
LOL. Nicely put. Nice thread you have going here incidentally.
I do agree morals which seem to (or even really do) derive from Divine sources might carry more weight in a culture and thus be more effective in lending their adaptive value to that society.
66
"The primate groups that I am aware of (granted, I'm not a biologist, nor do I play one on TV) usually have one dominant male or female that rules pretty ruthlessly. They control food, sex, and group heirarchy. Challenges to their dominance usually result in combat with the loser being forced out of the group, killed, or at least demoted."
Exactly. And which males survived? We are not talking about a harem with only one male. This is a social "tribe" with a large number of males & females. The other males had to learn to accept on some levels a submis