Atheist Ethicist: Evolution Accounts for Morality?
Alonzo Fyfe is amazing, and this is so eloquently stated and clearly correct there is nothing more I can add to it.
Consider this:
The fact is, evolution can't account for morality.
Neither can religion, by the way. This is not an either-or question. Evolution cannot account for the size of the Earth or the existence of the moon, but this does not imply that we must turn to scripture to find the answers. There is a third alternative.
Morality requires a community of two or more individuals engaged in intentional behavior (beings acting on beliefs and desires). It requires that some desires are malleable - they can be changed through interaction with the environment.
Once you have these elements, then you have a situation where one member of the community has reason to alter the environment in such a way so as to cause others to acquire desires useful to an agent. A community engaged in using environmental factors (e,g., praise, condemnation, reward, punishment) to promote desires generally useful and inhibiting desires generally harmful is a community with a moral system.
Have you ever noticed that when someone indicates that evolution accounts for morality, the immediate objection is that if that's the case, then there would be anarchy? It's odd that this claim almost always comes from a theist (generally a Christian apologist, who is indicating that God is necessary for objective, universal moral values). It may be an oversimplification, but it's certainly true. Alonzo is spot on when he indicates that "morality requires a community of two or more individuals...", in fact, he could have labeled his post "Evolution Accounts For Morality?" and literally just said, "No, it doesn't, because morality requires nothing more than a community of two or more individuals engaged in intentional behavior (being acting on beliefs and desires, and it requires that some desires are malleable." That's it, the argument was actually over before it began. Why? Because the entire basis for the idea that evolution can account for morality is based on things that happened to us (genetically) in our past. But the above statement cuts that argument down at the knees. How you ask? Imagine two beings (agents who have intentional behavior) and they are (to some degree) open to changing their desires. These two beings are in a room together. What else do you need for morality to exist? Morality is really just a word for the actions of these agents which affect each other. Alonzo was correct in pointing out that it may be true that the agents are the product of evolution, but that isn't relevant to the question of morality.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Letter To CARM (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry)
This is the first letter I've sent to CARM. This is an organization run by Matt Slick, radio host, pastor. author and public speaker. Given that many Christians don't really know very much about the Bible, other than what they've heard in Church, I've found it's nearly impossible to get authoritative answers to questions I have about Christianity, so I sent this email to CARM to see if they would respond (they did, and I will share that soon).
Letter Number 1:
=========================================
Hello,
I can't really say I'm an atheist, but I can't rightly classify myself as a theist, so I guess I'll go with agnostic (say, on the scale of 1 to 10, where 1 knows God exists and 10 completely denies that God exists, I'm like a 7.5 or so). In any case, I have a few questions, none of which I've seen on the site by searching (though they've been tangentially discussed). I truly hope you can answer these questions, they've been a huge source of frustration and as many Christians as I've asked to answer them, generally speaking, either the Christians (that I've asked) have either misrepresented my questions OR they've found a reason not to answer. Anyhow, here goes:
1) I have a five year old child, and he's pretty much the most important thing to me in the world. I, like many other parents, would die for him if it would save his life. In the area discussing why God is considered a monster in the Old Testament for ordering the slaughter of children, you indicated that 2 Samuel 12 indicates that a child that dies before an age where they could understand the sacrifice of Jesus would go to heaven (I believe the phrase you used was, they would "be with God"). My fear (if I accept that the Christian worldview is true) is that my child could grow up and fall in with the wrong crowd (for example, with people like me who don't really believe God exists). So it stands to reason that if I value my child more than myself (both in life and in the afterlife), I should kill him now to guarantee that he goes to heaven. Now, as an agnostic/atheist, this isn't really a tough question. Life isn't, in my view, a doormat to eternal life and bliss (or suffering). However, if I accept the Christian worldview it seems to me that killing him would be sacrificing myself for him. Now, I certainly don't think most (Christian) parents love their child(ren) any less than I do, so I have to question whether or not they truly accept the Christian worldview. In any case, my question is, if your worldview is correct and I'm willing to sacrifice myself for my child, why wouldn't I kill my child at age five?
2) I read your well thought out statement on Euthypho's Dilemma Your claim, if I understand it, is that the question (Socrates posed to Euthyphro, amidst a barrage of sarcasm) is a false dichotomy You suggest that an act is good not because God loves it, nor does God love an act because it is good, but rather that good is based on God's nature and thus the question doesn't really make sense. My question is this, doesn't this just push the question back? At this point, I would ask, "Is God's nature the way it is because it is good or is God's nature good simply because it is God's nature?" If the former, the goodness of God's nature is independent of God, if the latter then God's nature is arbitrary (and we could say that murder and rape are good if it was God's nature.
3) In one of your videos ("A question for atheists regarding free will and rationality") you ask whether free will and rationality can exist if our brains are purely chemicals. I don't know if I could answer that question because "free will" is kind of a loaded term, but I would argue that we can use logic and rationality (and we have moral values) in a purely materialistic world. First, we apply the law of the excluded middle. That is, we either can use logic/rationality in a purely materialistic world or you cannot. So if I can show that your position (that you cannot) is false, my position is true because there is no third option. I would argue that you are creating a fallacy of composition. That is to say, you are making the case that the whole is nothing more than the sum of it's part, ever. Another version of your argument would be syllogistic:
A is composed of B
B has only property C
Therefore, A only has property C
But surely you don't believe this, or you would have to believe the following:
Cats (brains) are composed of atoms (chemicals)
Atoms (chemicals) are invisible to the naked eye (do not have rationality/logic on their own)
Therefore, cats (brains) are invisible (do not have rationality/logic)
What you refer to our "free will" and our moral values may come from something transcendent, but in order to believe that they only come from (and are dependent on) something transcendent you'd have to believe two very strange things. First, you'd have to believe that past experience plays no role in your rationality and/or moral values. You'd have to say, unequivocally, that your experience with your parents as a child, had no role in how you formed your moral values and rationality. If you attribute ANY of it to your experience then your claim is instantly refuted. Second, you would have to believe that a person who has never interacted with any other people, is not aware of God and is isolated would have logic, rationality and moral values. Obviously that's absurd, but I think it demonstrates that we gain some of our logic, rationality and moral values from our experiences, even if our brains are "merely" chemicals. My question is, do you believe that your experiences played no role in your rationality and/or moral values?
I can't really say I'm an atheist, but I can't rightly classify myself as a theist, so I guess I'll go with agnostic (say, on the scale of 1 to 10, where 1 knows God exists and 10 completely denies that God exists, I'm like a 7.5 or so). In any case, I have a few questions, none of which I've seen on the site by searching (though they've been tangentially discussed). I truly hope you can answer these questions, they've been a huge source of frustration and as many Christians as I've asked to answer them, generally speaking, either the Christians (that I've asked) have either misrepresented my questions OR they've found a reason not to answer. Anyhow, here goes:
1) I have a five year old child, and he's pretty much the most important thing to me in the world. I, like many other parents, would die for him if it would save his life. In the area discussing why God is considered a monster in the Old Testament for ordering the slaughter of children, you indicated that 2 Samuel 12 indicates that a child that dies before an age where they could understand the sacrifice of Jesus would go to heaven (I believe the phrase you used was, they would "be with God"). My fear (if I accept that the Christian worldview is true) is that my child could grow up and fall in with the wrong crowd (for example, with people like me who don't really believe God exists). So it stands to reason that if I value my child more than myself (both in life and in the afterlife), I should kill him now to guarantee that he goes to heaven. Now, as an agnostic/atheist, this isn't really a tough question. Life isn't, in my view, a doormat to eternal life and bliss (or suffering). However, if I accept the Christian worldview it seems to me that killing him would be sacrificing myself for him. Now, I certainly don't think most (Christian) parents love their child(ren) any less than I do, so I have to question whether or not they truly accept the Christian worldview. In any case, my question is, if your worldview is correct and I'm willing to sacrifice myself for my child, why wouldn't I kill my child at age five?
2) I read your well thought out statement on Euthypho's Dilemma Your claim, if I understand it, is that the question (Socrates posed to Euthyphro, amidst a barrage of sarcasm) is a false dichotomy You suggest that an act is good not because God loves it, nor does God love an act because it is good, but rather that good is based on God's nature and thus the question doesn't really make sense. My question is this, doesn't this just push the question back? At this point, I would ask, "Is God's nature the way it is because it is good or is God's nature good simply because it is God's nature?" If the former, the goodness of God's nature is independent of God, if the latter then God's nature is arbitrary (and we could say that murder and rape are good if it was God's nature.
3) In one of your videos ("A question for atheists regarding free will and rationality") you ask whether free will and rationality can exist if our brains are purely chemicals. I don't know if I could answer that question because "free will" is kind of a loaded term, but I would argue that we can use logic and rationality (and we have moral values) in a purely materialistic world. First, we apply the law of the excluded middle. That is, we either can use logic/rationality in a purely materialistic world or you cannot. So if I can show that your position (that you cannot) is false, my position is true because there is no third option. I would argue that you are creating a fallacy of composition. That is to say, you are making the case that the whole is nothing more than the sum of it's part, ever. Another version of your argument would be syllogistic:
A is composed of B
B has only property C
Therefore, A only has property C
But surely you don't believe this, or you would have to believe the following:
Cats (brains) are composed of atoms (chemicals)
Atoms (chemicals) are invisible to the naked eye (do not have rationality/logic on their own)
Therefore, cats (brains) are invisible (do not have rationality/logic)
What you refer to our "free will" and our moral values may come from something transcendent, but in order to believe that they only come from (and are dependent on) something transcendent you'd have to believe two very strange things. First, you'd have to believe that past experience plays no role in your rationality and/or moral values. You'd have to say, unequivocally, that your experience with your parents as a child, had no role in how you formed your moral values and rationality. If you attribute ANY of it to your experience then your claim is instantly refuted. Second, you would have to believe that a person who has never interacted with any other people, is not aware of God and is isolated would have logic, rationality and moral values. Obviously that's absurd, but I think it demonstrates that we gain some of our logic, rationality and moral values from our experiences, even if our brains are "merely" chemicals. My question is, do you believe that your experiences played no role in your rationality and/or moral values?
4) I won't argue that if God created the universe AND God knew what would happen throughout all time when he created the universe we can only make decisions that he created us to make, just as if I program a VCR to start recording MacGyver at 8pm, the VCR wouldn't be responsible for recording it. I would argue that if I concede that God is good (by nature) and can be nothing else, then God can only take actions which are the most good. Is this not the case? If that is the case, it seems to me that God could never make any choice. That means that God doesn't (and cannot) have free will. The corollary to that is that since God is constrained on EXACTLY what he can do, he could only have created the universe and us one possible way, which means that we are bound to that path and we have no possible choice in the matter. Do you believe God has free will, and if so, how?
Anyhow, those are my questions. I truly would appreciate answers to these questions but would understand if it's not possible.
Take care, and thank you for your time,
Michael
=========================================
Anyhow, those are my questions. I truly would appreciate answers to these questions but would understand if it's not possible.
Take care, and thank you for your time,
Michael
=========================================
If you have comments and/or questions, please feel free to post them, just keep it respectful.
Introduction To This Blog and Why It Exists
Hi everyone.
My name is Michael. I'm, for lack of a better term, atheistic agnostic (my take on this is sort of summarized here, in a great talk by Astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson) . My parents were not particularly religious, and encouraged me to study the subject myself, so I've spent a good portion of my life studying religion (in particular, the Judeo-Christian faiths, but more generally all religions). In High School I spent more time reading about religion and philosophy than doing pretty much anything else. To me, these are the single most important questions that we can answer. I also tend to discuss these conversations as often as possible, whereas most people (even very religious people) don't really like to talk about their beliefs. So this journey started about 30 years ago, and in that time I've read the Bible (in it's entirety) about 16 times, the New Testament (in it's entirety) about 30 times and the Gospel of Matthew (for example) at very least 50 times. This doesn't include just reading it as a reference, when I'm given one verse or passage, I always read at least the entire chapter. I've read commentaries, articles, discussed subjects vital to the Bible and Christianity with experts and also argued with people who aren't (including both religious and non-religious). I don't do this to beat up on Christians, in fact, there are positive features of Christianity, and I have a reverence for certain aspects of the belief system (and even more so with Judaism, as my Mother was Jewish, even if not observant). Some people don't like talking about their beliefs, and even more people don't like debating the subject (even in a respectful manner), which I find both puzzling and frustrating. Why puzzling? Because I can't imagine believing (I mean truly believing, not just half-heartedly accepting) Christianity without taking it very seriously. I like to think that if I truly believed Christianity to be true, I would feel obligated to make it my life's mission to promote it, because according the Bible (and Jesus in the Gospels specifically) Christians should be focusing their life on spreading the "good news"). I'm frustrated because most Christians have never actually read the entire Bible, which to me is beyond strange. Imagine that you are given two contracts and you have to sign one of them. Both of them explain what will happen to your eternal soul. Would you skim through them, only hearing about what they say on Sundays from someone else, or would you carefully read both? Heck, I'd spend 30 years reading them, I'd discuss it with knowledgeable people and I would truly seek to know what they both say, but sadly, people don't do this that often. What's even worse, most religious folks claim they want to discuss their religion, but what they really mean is that they want a one way form of communication where the goal is to only for the listener to accept their beliefs. Many atheists do the same thing, which is also pointless and usually results in both people losing out. The best way to discuss this subject, in my experience, is not preaching (from either side), but to simply ask and answer questions, be respectful, present your case and truly listen and be interested in what the other person has to say. At the end of the day I acknowledge that I could be wrong, so before engaging with someone on this topic you should ask yourself, "is it possible I'm wrong about this"? If you can't, I wouldn't discuss it with anyone. Anyhow, that's my take.
Regardless, the reason for this blog is keep a record of some of my discussions with other people on the subject of religion. So please enjoy.
Michael
Regardless, the reason for this blog is keep a record of some of my discussions with other people on the subject of religion. So please enjoy.
Michael
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)