Pondering Atheism, Evolution, and Morality.

[JanisChambers]

My experience with theists and their buss stop sermons have kept me thinking for some time. It turned just recently to "needing God to be moral" and also a story that was told during a recent episode of Skeptics Guide to the Universe. I can't remember it completely, but it told about Starbucks cups that said something along the lines of "Scientists have ignored the moral impact of Evolution" and of course, it was written by some joker from the Discovery institute.

So do we really need a God to be moral? So is Evolution really the acid of morality that Creationists attempt to make it out to be? I couldn't disagree more, I may not be a anthropologist or an evolutionary biologist but just a few moments of thinking about it shows me that our morality and our evolution are closely linked. Just think about it for a moment... Humans are weak, thin skinned beings with no claws, dull teeth, and a thin fur layer. The only power we have is in our numbers and working togeather. Social order, language, and the communication of ideas in general allowed us to overpower other creatures that evolved to be stronger and faster than we ever were.

As weak primates we were a group of underdogs against beings that evolved towards the use of power. We worked together to take down mammoths and dangerous hunters. To some extent we began to understand that unity was far more useful than a claw or a strong arm, but it wouldn't stop there. Our minds grew more powerful and so we began to augment ourselves with use of weapons and clothing, we no longer needed the harsh selective powers of the wilderness to strengthen our collective might. Individual ideas and insights were also respected in time by at least some of our ancestors. Slowly and with several bumps along the way we learned that we could become stronger by harvesting ideas and thoughts amongst one another. Our diversity lead to more and more invention, our unity lead to combining those threads of knowledge into yet more 'fitness'.

So, ultimately it comes down to my personal conclusion. There is two ways you can live your life, by power or by harmony. Try to live by power and you live a very unstable life. You can't always be the strongest or the most cunning. Living by power is buying into a world that cares nothing for you, and remember this.. Even a fool can stab the king in the back.

To lean on God as the moral authority is to buy into power. What *he* says is moral not because it works but because *he says so*. The "because I said so" morality seems to rub off. When I was young I don't know how many times I heard those four words, my parents couldn't give me any solid *reason* for pretty much anything they found moral. I can't find the harmony in that way of thinking, it's all about who has the biggest God.

I have no God, I have no authority telling me what I should and should not believe. I understand that it's a long and hard process to learning what works best, and some may find other paths. The only thing that is really solid I believe should be shared between us is that unity that allowed us to take down giants.

 

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Richard Dawkins believes that the moral code of religion is actually influenced by society, instead of influencing society. He calls it the 'moral zeitgeist'.

It makes sense if you think about it. According to the bible, slavery is completely acceptable, as is killing your disobedient children. Society has evolved to the point that it considers these things immoral, and religion has followed.

If anything, atheists know that there is no forgiveness, and that there is only one shot at life. Every minute counts.

 

[The_Animus]

I would say it works both ways. It is probably influenced by society and also influences society.

In any case there is no need for God to have morality. A simple hypothetical situation shows this.

God suddenly showed himself to the world today and declared that the old commandments are wrong and that To kill is actually a good thing and that people should kill each other often. Would you then think its okay to kill people? I doubt it. I think most people would still believe to kill another person is wrong. If this is the case then there must be some set of moral rules that exist outside of God.

 

[Dogdoctor]

From an atheist perspective god is imaginary and therefore morality exist without god. It is humans who are moral and we do so because we want to. No one is forcing us to be moral. My theory is that it is a set of inherited behaviors that we have and following them does 2 things. One it smooths out interactions with our fellow humans and the other is it makes you feel good so there is some immediate positive reinforcement. There are philosophers who show us that morality also has a logical basis such as Dawkins, Shermer, and Paul Kurtz^WP.

 

[triadboy]

JanisChambers,

I've got the perfect book for you:

On God, Religion and Morality [Steve Allen] I loved it.

 

[Puppycow]

I went and posted this in another thread, but actually I think it works just as well as a response to this thread. Somehow I hadn't noticed this thread. Basically, I agree with the OP:

One of the important implications of atheism is that we don’t have to turn to any authority such as a cleric or book which claims to speak on behalf of The Creator for moral guidance. We are free to make up our own morality, just as we are free to choose what kind of music we like to listen to. However, just as with music, we do seem to have evolved certain collective norms and preferences. Some people like Country music and others Rock & Roll, but most people don’t like the sound of fingers on a chalkboard or discordant noise. Melodious and harmonious music follows certain rules. Certain notes sound good together, while others do not. It may not be possible to ‘prove’ that one sound or mixture of sounds is agreeable while another is not, but most people know it when they hear it.

I think something similar can be said of morality. Just because atheism implies that you can make up your own moral code, doesn’t mean that atheist would tend to be all over the place in what they come up with. Most reasonable people agree on certain basic things like that deliberate cruelty, killing and stealing are wrong. The ‘golden rule’ (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) seems to be the most common basic principle of morality. However, there is a certain amount of variation among ‘moral tastes’ of reasonable people. Some may accept certain acts that others condemn. Some prefer to be left alone most of the time while others crave company. But the point is that it is subjective.

Broadly speaking, there are two possible sources for morality: nature (evolution) and nurture (culture). Most people, I believe, have a natural aversion to aggressive behavior because they don’t want to be the victim of it. Sympathy and empathy may also be adaptations that help us protect our kin, and thus help ensure the reproduction of our genes and those of our close relatives. This is not to say that natural sympathy and empathy are only limited to our close relatives, but only that that is where they tend to be the strongest. For example, we feel sympathy for our pet dogs, because we live in a symbiotic relationship with them, although they are not our close genetic relatives. Groups of humans that can cooperate effectively also increase their collective chances for survival. Culture is also a tool by which we increase our collective chances for survival, so we tend to be predisposed to absorb our native culture.

So basically, morality is something we evolved for our collective protection. Those whose morality differed from the norm by too great a degree tended to have somewhat lower odds of surviving and passing on their genes. So, moral behavior is mostly the same as the behavior that tends to maximize your evolutionary ‘fitness.’ It varies according to the situation.

 

[fishkr]

There are philosophers who show us that morality also has a logical basis such as Dawkins, Shermer, and Paul Kurtz^WP.

Look at The Moral Animal by Robert Wright - been a while, but I recall him mentioning a computer model called "Tit for Tat" which examined cooperative vs. exploitive modes of behavior. Suggestive of the underpinnings of morality.

 

[Puppycow]

Look at The Moral Animal by Robert Wright - been a while, but I recall him mentioning a computer model called "Tit for Tat" which examined cooperative vs. exploitive modes of behavior. Suggestive of the underpinnings of morality.

Right. I'm a bit of a fan of Bob Wright myself.
Basically, it is possible to explain morality in terms of game theory. 'Tit for tat' is one strategy in game theory. Help those who help you, and punish those who betray you. Of course real life scenarios tend to be more complicated than the simple games in game theory, but something like 'tit for tat' still seems to work fairly well in many real life situations.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Look at The Moral Animal by Robert Wright - been a while, but I recall him mentioning a computer model called "Tit for Tat" which examined cooperative vs. exploitive modes of behavior. Suggestive of the underpinnings of morality.

Ok. I saw this book for sale at Borders. I guess I will have to go buy it now but it sounds like this is a theoretical basis for morality which means little to me. Scientific American has been reporting for a long time about competitions between computers where what is favored is very similar to Tit for Tat with the initial interaction being beneficial. Very interesting stuff but it is computers and not humans so not directly transposable to human interaction.

 

[Puppycow]

Ok. I saw this book for sale at Borders. I guess I will have to go buy it now but it sounds like this is a theoretical basis for morality which means little to me. Scientific American has been reporting for a long time about competitions between computers where what is favored is very similar to Tit for Tat with the initial interaction being beneficial. Very interesting stuff but it is computers and not humans so not directly transposable to human interaction.

You can read lengthy excerpts of another book by Bob Wright called Nonzero here.

 

[fishkr]

The concept of "kin selection" is also important in understanding how the "game theory" abstraction of "tit for tat" may apply to moral evolution.

It is somewhat un-obvious how an individual may benefit from altruistic behavior without this puzzle piece.

Dawkins and others do a good job of connecting dots between genetic influence (nature), and the memetic/cultural (nurture).

IMHO these ideas have more than enough mass to tip the scales against the need for religion as the source of morality. That, and the fact that there is no God, of course.

 

[arthwollipot]

The history of the Prisoner's Dilemma game and the "Tit for Tat" programme can be found in Douglas Hofstadter's Metamagical Themas, a compilation of the columns he wrote for Scientific American, with much additional new material.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Even if it were the case that athiesm/evolution/whatever was something that undermined the moral framework of society (which it isn't) doesn't the fact that its simply correct mean that we would have to simply acknowledge it and move on with our lives as best we could?

Do we really advocate that scientific reasoning should be filtered through a sieve of 'what we are happy to believe' before it is accepted?

This seems to be what some religious people would have us do but would seem to go against the very essence of what science is for.

 

[Sinisterdan]

We have certain natural tendencies that we have incorporated into behavior and eventually called moral.

The religious laws of various societies sprung from this, humans created our own ethics and used gods as the hammer of authority.

There is no thought in the mind of a god that wasn't put there by a wee, little person with a pen and some paper. If anyone wants me to accept the moral authority of their god, they first should be able to prove that their god exists.

*the sound of crickets deafens us all*

 

[fishkr]

The history of the Prisoner's Dilemma game and the "Tit for Tat" programme can be found in Douglas Hofstadter's Metamagical Themas, a compilation of the columns he wrote for Scientific American, with much additional new material.

Thanks for the reference. Is this still in print?

 

[arthwollipot]

So far as I know it is. But it may not be. Try Amazon (I can't access it from where I am).