Posted on 11/05/2009 8:51:47 AM PST by SeekAndFind
All evolutionary attempts to explain morality ultimately miss the point. They seek to explain morality, but even at their best what they explain is not morality at all. Imagine a shopkeeper who routinely increases his profits by cheating his customers. So smoothly does he do this that he is never exposed and his reputation remains unimpeached. Even though the man is successful in the game of survival, if he has a conscience it will be nagging at him from the inside. It may not be strong enough to make him change his ways, but it will at least make him feel bad and perhaps ultimately despise himself. Now where have our evolutionary explanations accounted for morality in this sense?
In fact, they haven’t accounted for it at all. These explanations all seek to reduce morality to self-interest, but if you think about it, genuine morality cannot be brought down to this level. Morality is not the voice that says, “Be truthful when it benefits you,” or “Be kind to those who are in a position to help you later.” Rather, it operates without regard to such calculations. Far from being an extension of self-interest, the voice of the impartial spectator is typically a restriction of self-interest. Think about it: If morality were simply an extension of selfishness, we wouldn’t need it. We don’t need moral prescriptions to tell people to act for their own benefit; they do that anyway. The whole point of moral prescriptions and injunctions is to get people to subordinate and curb their selfish interests.
There is a second, deeper sense in which evolutionary theories cannot account for human morality. We can see this by considering the various attempts to explain altruism in the animal kingdom. I recently came across an article in the London Telegraph titled “Animals Can Tell Right from Wrong.” I read with interest, wondering if animals had finally taken up the question of whether it is right to eat smaller animals. After all, the greatest problem with animal rights is getting animals to respect them. Alas, the article was unilluminating on this point. Even so, it provided examples of how wolves, coyotes, elephants, whales, and even rodents occasionally engage in cooperative and altruistic behavior. Perhaps the most dramatic examples come from the work of the anthropologist Frans de Waal, who has studied gorillas, bonobos, and chimpanzees. According to de Waal, our “closest relatives,” the chimpanzees, display many of the recognized characteristics of morality, including kin selection and reciprocal altruism.
Yet de Waal recognizes that while chimps may cooperate or help, they have no sense that they ought to help. In other words, chimps have no understanding of the normative basis of morality. And this of course is the essence of morality for humans. Morality isn’t merely about what you do; mostly it is about what you should do and what it is right to do. Evolutionary theories like kin selection and reciprocal altruism utterly fail to capture this uniquely human sense of morality as duty or obligation. Such theories can help to explain why we act cooperatively or help others, but they cannot explain why we believe it is good or right or obligatory for us to do these things. They commit what the philosopher G. E. Moore called the “naturalistic fallacy” of confusing the “is” and the “ought.” In particular, they give an explanation for the way things are and think that they have accounted for the way things ought to be.
But if evolution cannot explain how humans became moral primates, what can? Now it is time to test our presuppositional argument. The premise of the argument is that virtually all conceptions of life after death, especially the religious conceptions, are rooted in the idea of cosmic justice. Consider Hinduism: “You are a greedy and grasping person in this life; very well, we’ll be seeing you as a cockroach in the next one.” Buddhism has a very similar understanding of reincarnation. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, by contrast, uphold the notion of a Last Judgment in which the virtuous will be rewarded and the wicked will get their just deserts. The Letter to the Galatians contains the famous quotation, “Whatever a man sows, that he will also reap” (6:7). And here is a similar passage from the third sura of the Koran: “You shall surely be paid in full your wages on the Day of Resurrection.” In all these doctrines, life after death is not a mere continuation of earthly existence but rather a different kind of existence based on a settling of earthly accounts. These doctrines hold that even though we don’t always find terrestrial justice, there is ultimate justice. In this future accounting, what goes around does come around.
Now let’s make the supposition that there is cosmic justice after death and ask, Does this help to explain the great mystery of human morality? It seems clear that it does. Humans recognize that there is no ultimate goodness and justice in this world, but they continue to uphold those ideals. In their interior conscience, humans judge themselves not by the standard of the shrewd self-aggrandizer but by that of the impartial spectator. We admire the good man, even when he comes to a bad end, and revile the successful scoundrel who got away with it. Evolutionary theories predict the reverse: If morality were merely a product of crafty and successful calculation, we should cherish and aspire to be crafty calculators. But we don’t. Rather, we act as if there is a moral law to which we are accountable. We are judged by our consciences as if there is an ultimate tribunal in which our actions will be pronounced “guilty” or “not guilty.” There seems to be no reason for us to hold these standards and measure our life against them if the standards aren’t legislative in some sense. But if they are legislative, then their jurisdiction must be in another world since it is clearly not in this world. So the presupposition of cosmic justice, in an existence beyond this one, makes sense of human moral standards and moral obligation in a way that evolutionary theories cannot.
Ironically it is the claims of atheists that best illustrate the point I am trying to make. In the last pages of The Selfish Gene, a book devoted to showing how we are the mechanical products of our selfish genes, Richard Dawkins writes that “we have the power to turn against our creators. . . . Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs.” A century ago Thomas Huxley made the same point in regard to the cosmic process of evolutionary survival. “Let us understand, once for all, that the ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but in combating it.” Now these are very strange demands. If we are, as Dawkins began by telling us, robot vehicles of our selfish genes, then how is it possible for us to rebel against them or upset their designs? Can the mechanical car turn against the man with the remote control? Can software revolt against its programmer? Clearly this is absurd.
Why, then, would Dawkins and Huxley propose a course of action that undermines their own argument and seeks to runs athwart the whole course of evolution? If we stay within the evolutionary framework, there is no answer to this question. There cannot be, because we are trying to understand why dedicated champions of evolution seek to transcend evolution and, in a sense, subvert their own nature. We don’t see anything like this in the animal kingdom: Lions don’t resolve to stop harassing the deer; foxes don’t call upon one another to stop being so sneaky; parasites show no signs of distress about taking advantage of their hosts. Even apes and chimpanzees, despite their genetic proximity to humans, don’t try to rebel against their genes or become something other than what nature programmed them to be.
What then is up with us humans? What makes even the atheist uphold morality in preference to his cherished evolutionary paradigm? Introduce the presupposition of cosmic justice, and the answer becomes obvious. We humans — atheists no less than religious believers — inhabit two worlds. The first is the evolutionary world; let’s call this Realm A. Then there is the next world; let’s call this Realm B. The remarkable fact is that we, who live in Realm A, nevertheless have the standards of Realm B built into our natures. This is the voice of morality, which makes us dissatisfied with our selfish natures and continually hopeful that we can rise above them. Our hypothesis also accounts for the peculiar nature of morality. It cannot coerce us because it is the legislative standard of another world; at the same time, it is inescapable and authoritative for us because our actions in this world will be finally and unavoidably adjudicated in the other world. Finally, the hypothesis also helps us understand why people so often violate morality. The reason is that our interests in this world are right in front of us, while the consequences of our actions in the next world seem so remote, so distant, and thus so forgettable.
When Einstein discovered that his theory of relativity could explain something that Newton couldn’t — the orbital precession of the planet Mercury — he was thrilled. He knew about the “gap,” and he was able to close it not within the old framework but by supplying a revolutionary new one. Now, within the new paradigm, there was no gap at all. In this essay we have identified not a mere gap but a huge chasm in the evolutionary paradigm. This is the conundrum of human morality, the universal voice within us that urges us to act in ways contrary to our nature as evolutionary primates. There have been supreme efforts, within the evolutionary framework, to plug the gap, but, as we have seen, these have proven to be dismal failures. Our rival hypothesis of cosmic justice in a world beyond the world fares vastly better. It provides a way to test our hypothesis of life after death by applying it to human nature and asking whether it helps to illuminate why we are the way we are. In fact, it does. Taken in conjunction with other arguments, this argument provides stunning confirmation that the moral primate is destined for another life whose shape will depend on the character of the life that is now being lived.
— Dinesh D'Souza is the Rishwain fellow at the Hoover Institution. This the third of a three-part adaptation from his just-published Life after Death: The Evidence.
Fool. Study at Harvard or Yale they can explain why putting an infant down a garbage disposal is not only sane but in it’s way humorous.
Oh no. Not *another* fallacy used by believers in evolution...
C. S. Lewis covered this with amazing clarity in “mere Christianity”.
>>Oh no. Not *another* fallacy used by believers in evolution...<<
Man, that statement is pretty hard to argue with. ;)
>>As opposed to an invisible sky man implants a moral soul into a human embryo sometime between conception and birth... depending on who you ask?<<
Who on earth believes that? Is it something from native indians or africa?
if there’s no God, then Hitler’s genocide, the torture of children, and the rape of one’s mother are just socially unacceptable, but are not anymore morally incorrect than putting too much salt on your food is.
I think everyone knows way deep inside such things are moral abominations.
I was involved in a huge discussion of the ‘is’ and ‘ought’ in a philosophy forum once- the naturalists tried turning the ‘ought’ into a subjective determination, but failed miserably- their main argument was that ‘people hwo grow up in primitive surroundings aren’t ‘saddled with’ the same oughts’ as civilized people’- this moronic statement was quickly refuted- but the naturalists insisted everythign is subjective and that there are no universal moral codes despite evidence that even peopel in ‘primitive cultures’ KNOW the oughts, but simply learn to ignorte them in favor of subjective ‘shoulds’ which cater to their lust for sin
Thomas Sowell explains development of morals in his book : “A conflict of Visions” through social evolution. It has nothing to do with “Darwin origin evolution”.
This article line of thinking is stupid(as are evolutionists that speculate about this) . Morals are social based. In Islam countries it is moral to beat your wife, if necessary. So what?
Well said Dinesh. C.S. Lewis stated: “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
Athiesm fails miserably to explain Morality. Even worse though, most Athiests don't even believe the implications of Athiesm and will, on one day, argue vigorously that absolute good and evil don't exist, and then the very next express outrage at some evil going on in the world.
[[I think everyone knows way deep inside such things are moral abominations.]]
That’s the key- people know deep down their arguments against universal moral codes is wrong, but they’re determined to kill that still small voice, and to try to convince everyone else that morals are nothign more than subjective choices- that’s the only way to kill God
[[Morals are social based. In Islam countries it is moral to beat your wife, if necessary. So what?]]
That’s BS- and it’s proven out by the fact that former Muslims spoke about having to act OUTSIDE of their conscience in order to ‘accept’ the social ‘norm’- the argument that morals are social falls flat on it’s face I’m afraid-
[[Even worse though, most Athiests don’t even believe the implications of Athiesm and will, on one day, argue vigorously that absolute good and evil don’t exist, and then the very next express outrage at some evil going on in the world.]]
Bingo- pure hypocrisy on their part- they try to convince everyone that morals are nothign but subjective interpretations by individuals, then turn right around and try to impose their ‘subjective’ interpretation on everyone else, making it an ‘objective’ rule- they can’t even be consistent in their faux ‘subjective’ outrage
Why is an explanation even necessary?
What’s interesting is that even though many atheists are quite bright and can sometimes possess exceptional intellects, they often are moral cretins. Sad, but true.
In short, an atheist is a serial killer that didn’t plan the murders yet but would if he felt like it.
If one believes that God truly has a plan for mankind, and if God really is capable of anything, maybe He puts different moral codes into different people in order to fulfill that plan? After all, look at the world’s history, there’s an awful lot of good and bad stuff that has happened, and no one has figured out why yet. The good stuff we attribute to God, the bad stuff to evil. Maybe He did it that way on purpose? He must have known what satan was going to be all about, didn’t He?
Talk about BS, now you are claiming there are some universal set of morals that you identify as universal ‘conscience’ (which just coincidentally are the same as your beliefs, how lucky is that??) while the real morals which are culture based you call social ‘norm’.
If your idiotic theory is true, why have religious schools? Why oppose evolution taught in schools? Why teach the Bible ? YOUR universal ‘conscience/morals’ will fix that all.
Neanderthals were placing flowers, among other items, in graves dug out for their “people” some 60-80,000 years ago, which would tend to show their recognition of “something” beyond this life. How this affected their “moral” senses is unknown, but would at least seem to bear on levels of “abstrction” in their thinking.
He couldn’t quite bring himself to say “God exists”, could he?
“Western civilization was the child and product of reason - via ancient Greece. In all other civilizations, reason has always been the menial servant - the handmaiden - of mysticism. You may observe the results. It is only Western culture that has ever been dominated - imperfectly, incompletely, precariously and at rare intervals - but still, dominated by reason. You may observe the results of that.
The conflict of reason versus mysticism is the issue of life or death - of freedom or slavery - of progress or stagnant brutality. Or, to put it another way, it is the conflict of consciousness versus unconsciousness.”
From Ayn Rand, “Faith or Force: the destroyers of the Modern World.”
You still have not answered the question :
Is wife-beating or child-sacrifice REALLY evil, or is it just a matter of social preference, much like I prefer the color blue and you prefer the color red ?
How do you know He even made universal laws for each of us? Perhaps He deals with each of us on an individual basis when He creates us?
Someone here is a murderer... let us consult the bones!
Just because it seems contradictory to us humans, doesn’t mean it is to Him, does it?
and then telling Jerry Falwell the true reasons behind it.
Now you are throwing in another so called ‘universal’ term you call ‘really evil’. So we had ‘morals’ then moved to ‘conscience’ and now ‘evil’
Is socialism evil? Is redistribution evil? Is social security evil? Is beating your wife when you catch her cheating on you evil? How about racial profiling? Affirmative action? How about invading Iraq and not finding WMDs?
It all depends on what CottShop; SeekAndFind believe.
Islam says the west is ‘evil’. But many here say “islam “ is evil.
[[If your idiotic theory is true, why have religious schools?]]
Awwww- isn’t that cute? Little playground taunts (that lack the intellectual superiority your seem to htink you have- as proven out by your rediculous statement) The answer to your silly naieve ‘question’ should be obvious to you- but apparently it isn’t- and should you continue your silly line of accusations, you’ll leanr that your argument falls flato n it’s face (provided you can even cede the obvious- which I doubt you’ll be able to)
incase you really don’t understand how silly your statement is, I’ll spell it out- since people don’t want ot be held to universal moral codes because it goes agaisnt hteir subjective desire, they fight agaisnt it- that sir is why bible schools are needed- with good, evil fights against it- which, further goes to highlight the good which stands against it. Wihtout evil, good is nothign but robotic obeying- hence free will to bring out the love fro mthose who listen to the code-
Perhaps you should bone up on philosophy before goign into the deep end of the pool- unless you don’t mind looking silly?
[[while the real morals which are culture based you call social ‘norm’.]]
Sorry- but your ‘real morals’ arguemnt has been thoroughly refuted as nothign more than subjective interpretations which ignore the obvious objective morals system fro mwhich they are derived- albeit in an inferior code system- I’ll wait itll you’ve examined the arguments more thoroughly before biting off more than you can chew again.
The vast majority of moral cretins are religious. If you want to meet some enthusiastic religious people, visit a jail.
[[If one believes that God truly has a plan for mankind, and if God really is capable of anything, maybe He puts different moral codes into different people in order to fulfill that plan?]]
the evidnece from all over hte world, in all manner of different societal systems doesn’t bear this out- the evidence for a universal moral code is overwhelming as attested to by the testimonies of htose who cofnessed that acceptign hteir ‘social norms’ was soemthign that violated their conscience- but which they learned to suppress (although they were never truly able to fully ignore- that ‘still small voice’ still was present)
[[The good stuff we attribute to God, the bad stuff to evil.]]
God isn’t hte author of evil- He does however turn evil to good for His purposes- Satan may win minor skirmishes, but He WILL lose the overall battle
[[He must have known what satan was going to be all about, didn’t He?]]
Yes- See above- TRUE love comes ONLY when someone has the opportunity to either accept or reject it in favor of somethign else- the only way for Free will to exist is to have temptations present to prove which the person is REALLY in love with- if no other choice is available, the love is simply a static empty love- Satan works by deceit- causing the pewrson to beleive that ‘freedom’ means doing whatever one wants whenever they want- but in the end- this is a VERY shallow path, selfish path, that leads to a bitter, empty end- only htose strong enough to resits know of TRUE freedom, and know TRUE love-
so yes, God did know Satan’s plan well in advance, but again, what Satan intends for evil, God turns into the greater good for htose who trust Him
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2379234/posts?page=30#30
But is all resolved by magical ‘conscience’ that automatically tells us the absolute ‘morals’ that tell us what is ‘evil’.
So a child can be raised in a jungle with apes and automatically knows to go to church and knows that Darwin is evil, with no training, brilliant. No one has to read the Bible, our concience is our Bible. LOL
You creationists (anti-Darwinsist) are just so clever.
[[The vast majority of moral cretins are religious. If you want to meet some enthusiastic religious people, visit a jail.]]
It’s true that when people hit rock bottom, that they see how far they have sunk, how empty their life really is, and how shallow their pursuits really were- The alcoholic doesn’t admit how far they’ve sunk until they finally hit rock bottom- many folks in prison have finally hit that bottom, and realize their MUST be a better way- they are right- there is a better way- self indulgence only satisfies for a season- TRUE love endures forever- and it’s only when peopel have hit rock bottom through their sefl-indulgent behavior, that they begin to understand this- but you can’t tell them that if they haven’t hit that bottom yet- they are in denial- just ask any alcoholic- they’ll tell you that they ‘don’t have a problem’, all the while their whole lives, and everythign around htem is crumbling to pieces- marriages failing, finances hitting the skids, kids hating their parents violent behavior, etc etc etc. Sin is fun, and one can even convince themselves that universal morals don’t evist while indulging in these sins, BUT, in the end, once these folks admit their problems caused by their subjective indulgences, they reralize that their ‘fun’ was only for a season, and that the still small voice that is based o nthe universal moral code, that lies within htem, was right all the time
[[So a child can be raised in a jungle with apes and automatically knows to go to church and knows that Darwin is evil, with no training, brilliant. No one has to read the Bible, our concience is our Bible. LOL]]
Wow- you really don’t get it do you? I told you to research this before posting again, but apaprently, you don’t mind looking silly- You statement proves that all on it’s own. I’ll give you one more try- research universal moral codes- go to the philosophy forums, before posting again so you can avoid silly statements liek you just made
[[You creationists (anti-Darwinsist) are just so clever.
]]
Someone living in a glass house should NOT be throwing stones oh ‘wise’ one
[[So a child can be raised in a jungle with apes and automatically knows to go to church and knows that Darwin is evil, with no training, brilliant. No one has to read the Bible, our concience is our Bible. LOL]]
And btw- you ARE defeating your own argument with statemenbts like that lol- as I said, research the issue to spot your mistake- I’ll wait- hopefully you’ll see your mistake, but I’m not holding my breath lol
That’s a cliche. I know you’ve never thought of this before, but Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot were all atheists and killed more people in one day than the “so called” alleged inquisition did in 300 years.
It’s true.
As for those jails... Aren’t jails filled with criminals? Aren’t most criminals con men? Don’t criminals pretend to be religious to help in getting paroled? Of course. The answer is yes.
Faking religion ain’t religion. And even misbehaving religious people can always repent. The atheist sneers at doing the right thing and calls honest people suckers.
However, I want you to know that I mean no offense to any atheists out there.
correct- those arguing that ‘some societies don’t follow universal morals’ is a strawman that has fallen flat on it’s face tiem and time again- The arggument that some societies don’t follow a universal moral code is NOT proof that a universal moral code exists, but rather is proof that .... shock of all shocks.... man prefers sin over righteousness. Golly, whoda thunk it? But again, testimonies from poeple who have renounced their societal ‘norms’ are more proof that universal moral codes DO infact exist, and that these folks simply conditioned themselves to suppress this righteous moral universal code ‘for a season’ while they indulged their preferences for sin which they KNEW was wrong, but which they prefered to ignore.
I'm an atheist, am unusually honest, and can't recall ever thinking an honest person a sucker. There's much more to morals than having a religious basis or motive. Most human genetic and cultural traits, including morals and religion, can be traced to their advantage in tribal warfare. Immoral and nonreligious tribes tend to not fight as well during war, so have gotten killed off.
Maybe the evidence you speak of, is just the way God designed those individuals? Have you queried everyone that has ever existed?
Perhaps what we as humans perceive to be evil, isn’t that at all? If God is the creator of all, and He can’t create evil, then maybe evil is just a human thing, and God doesn’t see it as evil?
RE :”universal moral codes’
Why dont you post your ‘universal moral code’ reference evidence that shows that a baby is born (better yet conceived) with these universal moral codes. Most people have a pretty good idea what set of codes Babies are born with, none! That is why there is Church and the Bible. Very similar to Lord of the Flies.
Quit arguing against the importance of the Bible,
Spend some time at the links below and you may be able to come up with some less ignorant comments and more cogent questions. :)
October 2009 Continuing to November 2009
<>
I really don't love entering these posts but so often they are so silly like this one. My guess is they believe it's conception. And it just so happens the ‘universal morality” aka ‘universal conscience” is exactly what they think is right and wrong. Who would have guessed?
These morons don't even argue that Christianity morals are superior to others, which there is a case for. They argue we are all born believing Christians (why get baptized??) and creationists too.
How about Lord of the Flies? Thomas Sowell does a great job on “Social Evolution” vs intellectual Morality in his book “a conflict of visions”.
If we use your own criteria, then Darwin doesn't exist because I never saw him.
That would also be the burden of proof fallacy for requiring a higher level of empirical evidence for someone else's belief than the question-begging et al that you accept for your own.
Fallacy. The evo logic that just keeps on giving...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.