11 replies to this topic

[Augustine]

Here is an essay that I typed up really quick for my website. Retrieved from here

Morality, Natural Selection, and Atheism

Timothy H.

I was in a dialogue with an atheist today over the subject of morality. The fellow asserted that certain acts such as killing were wrong. He supported this thesis by appealing to an internal guilt feeling that arises when you do something wrong. I agreed perfectly with him; however his view on morality was inconsistent with his atheism. Why? Because in atheism, you have no reason to be moral. If you’re an atheist, then it is more likely you affirm that evolution is true. A very basic tenet of evolution is natural selection. Natural selection is basically “survival of the fittest”. The weak are gradually killed off while the strong live.

We see around us every day acts of selflessness and generosity that even atheists appreciate. Doctors treat the sick, we give up our seat to the elderly, and we help out a friend in need. Generally, we help others out. We appreciate such acts of kindness and respect those who help us out in our times of need. If you're a Christian, you have a good reason to be moral. After all, we should "love our neighbors as ourselves." But if you're an atheist, you have absolutely no reason to be moral. In fact, it would be irrational for an atheist to be moral.

As previously stated, atheists are likely to affirm evolution, and hence natural selection. Natural selection leaves no room for the acts of kindness that we witness everyday. It's every man for himself, the weak will die and the strong will live. We are to do whatever is necessary to ensure our own survival. Acts of kindness are stupid and irrational because they allow the weak to live, thus placing an unnecessary burden on society to maintain them. Doctors shouldn't treat the people because the sick will be weeded out by natural selection. You should cut the elderly person in line because it ensures your survival. It leaves no room for any acts of kindness.

Yet such a position is untenable in my opinion. Imagine if we were ill and paid a visit to our doctor, only to be turned away with "I'm sorry, but the weak deserve to die." This is a slap across the face for many atheists. When we hear of individuals who gave their lives so that others may live, we treat such people as heroes. Yet the atheistic worldview dictates that such people are irrational fools. They should have done whatever is necessary to save themselves, pushing others out of the way or trampling them if necessary. Yet this is not how we respond. Hence, it is very hard (and in my opinion, impossible) to live true to what atheism dictates.

Now don't get me wrong here, atheists can be moral, but they have absolutely no foundation or justification to be moral. I assume that there are many moral atheists out there who do perform acts of kindness and selflessness, but according to their own worldview, they are fools. They shouldn't have helped the elderly man cross the street, instead they should have left him there to be run over by a car because that's what natural selection is -- the weak die and the strong live. Now does the Christian have a justification or foundation to be moral? That is a definite yes. God Himself tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves. We are obliged to perform such acts of kindness because the trait of a Christian is to love the brethren.

However for most atheists, how they act and what their worldview dictates conflicts with each other. They know that they should be moral yet they have no reason to be moral. Well, if their atheism leads to a conclusion that they know isn't true, why not change their atheism? Atheism gives you no reason to be moral, it's even irrational to be moral in atheism. On the other hand, theism gives you a reason to be moral.

____________________________

©Copyright 2008 SCAE Ministries

Edited by Augustine, 24 May 2008 - 03:59 PM.

[akiratheoni]

Who says you need a justification to be moral? Why do we need a reason to be a certain way? Why can't we just... be that way?

I don't necessarily disagree with you but I think morality is taken more on a case-by-case basis.

[Ziveeman]

I think it really depends to what degree "natural selection" is taken as. You can take it strictly that everything weak must die and everything strong must live, or you can see that natural selection takes thousands of years to take effect and helping the old man across the street or giving that bum a Big Mac and fries isn't really going to affect the process of natural selection significantly.

[Augustine]

Quote

Who says you need a justification to be moral?

You don't, but it strengthens your position if you have one.

Quote

You can take it strictly that everything weak must die and everything strong must live, or you can see that natural selection takes thousands of years to take effect and helping the old man across the street or giving that bum a Big Mac and fries isn't really going to affect the process of natural selection significantly.

Granted, it's still going against atheism even if doesn't have that significant of an impact.

[Ziveeman]

Augustine, on May 24 2008, 06:34 PM, said:

Granted, it's still going against atheism even if doesn't have that significant of an impact.

Thomas Jefferson went against his strict constructionism to buy the Louisiana Territory and it had a bigger impact and people were okay with it.

The only rule that doesn't have an exception is the rule that says that every rule has an exception.

[Aufstand]

Natural selection, morality, and the falsity of atheism don't correlate very strongly.

One, there actually is an evolutionary benefit for seemingly pointless acts of kindness. You help others in your community or nation, and your organization is better, with more people for production, and stronger defense. Back in tribal days, this would mean that your genetic material (communities were generally extended families) would be better protected, as well as that of yourself and your immediate family. And for acts of kindness that do not directly relate to survival, but still put burden on the giver, they reinforce community, and it is better in such a situation for an individual to act in a way that will make him a part of the community. Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, and a united group is stronger than a divided one.

Furthermore, and more importantly, natural instincts do not intervene directly with conscious thoughts. My dog instinctively wants to attack any intruder that steps into our pack territory (house, yard, road). We have taught her to not do so. The fact that she can overrule her natural instinct does not mean that said instinct is wrong or unreasonable (divine, not earthly). It helps her (treats, love, more food) to obey her leaders (us), and she wants to be accepted, so she obeys, even if it conflicts with nature.

Same with humans. As I've said previously, kind actions help protect a community. Perhaps this became so ingrained in our psyche that we continue it, even when it does not provide benefits to the extent as it previously did. And a note about this. Different dog breeds largely gain their personality from their dna and genes. Granted, they are far more directed in their breeding. Still, that seems to establish the fact that morality can eventually become ingrained in the genetic material of a species, even when it is no longer needed. So, physical circumstances can create behavioral changes.

And besides, personality and situation matter a lot. Most people still act selfishly. America is based on this fact. Greed is good, money and power are the ultimate objects of adoration, and the ends more or less justify the means. Individuals choose how to act for themselves. How many people would give up their lives for a stranger? How many people would donate their entire life savings to help some bum on the street? A scientific theory of predation does not and cannot be applied conclusively to explain individual motivations.

The mere fact that humans are not completely and utterly selfish does not mean that atheists ultimately believe in a Godly standard of morality. They just accept that individuals can experience pain, hardships, et cetera. Yes, this is not strictly according to the stringent definitions of self-preservation, but it is actually to a degree (and was far moreso in the past). And it is absurd and presumptuous to draw such a complicated scientific idea into the realm of personal motivation. Of course, researchers do all the time, but they are wrong too.

BTW- I actually do believe that god has provided a true sense of morality, based on more than just earthly standards. However, I have studied biology quite a lot, and your argument, that motivation for any morality must be from a godly sense of conscious, doesn't make sense. Some Muslims believe that unveiling a woman's face is among the most sacrilegious and horrible things. Is that morality emplaced by god? No, societal necessities. This is a way of preventing and inhibiting the chance that another man would sleep with the woman. If you look at many morality systems, they have logical and reasonable societal, economic, physical, cultural, at cetera reasons for being created.

[Augustine]

I'll look at the bigger post tomorrow, as for now, I'll answer this.

Quote

The only rule that doesn't have an exception is the rule that says that every rule has an exception.

Isn't it special pleading to say that rule doesn't have an exception? And also, according to it's own criteria, that rule itself has an exception, meaning that it's self-defeating.

[Ziveeman]

Augustine, on May 28 2008, 07:36 PM, said:

Isn't it special pleading to say that rule doesn't have an exception? And also, according to it's own criteria, that rule itself has an exception, meaning that it's self-defeating.

Of course, that's why it's a saying.

[Augustine]

Oops... I sorta forgot to come here after I posted "tomorrow" Heh, I've so many forums to visit I lose track.


Gedanke, why should natural selection apply to the community? I could understand why a mother would save her children from a burning car because those children share her genes, but what about complete strangers who don't share any genes at all? Natural selection doesn't operate in the level of the organisms but of the genes. If there's someone burning to death in a car and they're not genetically related to you, you have no reason to save him. We make large risks for our children but as the genetics branches out, we make lesser and lesser risks.

It's about genetics, not the community.

[Jikei]

Yeah arright I'll throw something into this one.

Pretty hard to begin, there's a lot to cover. But I'll go for the title first; I'll give my take on how I define each of these terms:

Morality: Very much separates humans from animals, firstly. Second, I consider "morals" to be the thinking that there exists right and wrong in the world, with no chance for something wrong to become right, vice versa. Now, I realize that I may be thinking about this way too in-depth, taking it to a far too basic level, but I actually think the concept of morality also inherently delves into the matters of a soul: what constitutes the soul, what defines something as having a soul, and what that means for real, daily life. Quite honestly, I'm surprised that no real focus was placed on the idea/nature of the soul, considering how very vital they are to each other.

Natural Selection: I'm considering this rule as a relevant term, but not much more, and here's why: When you get to thinking about it, as in serious in-depth analysis, Natural Selection has no real argument for or against Christianity. Now, of course Christianity doesn't mention Natural Selection, but they certainly don't conflict with each other. I refer, of course, to the idea of adaptations, but not evolution. As in, when Noah built his ark and took two of each animal, think about it realistically: He didn't consider two Equus zebra and two Equus grevyi, of course not. Had that been the case, Noah would've had an astronomically large number of crap to haul to safety, yes? I put forth the idea that just having two zebra, and giving them a couple thousand (you could actually better go with couple hundred, since adaptations occur so fast) years to reproduce and run about, would still prove effective, and can very comfortably satisfy the goal of having the animals we do today.
I am, of course, assuming you all got the memo that counting species has become more or less an impossible task for biologists, since the number of species worldwide grows steadily from one moment to the next. I'll give one last example to explain it further (feel I've not done the matter justice...I think I've actually ended up confusing more than clarifying): Hypothetically consider a single herd of wild horse, place them in Europe. Consider them entirely as a single species. Now, split that herd, and have one stay, whilst the other leaves. Adapting to the new environment, the herd that left must either adapt to survive, migrate out, or die. Let's allow them to adapt, and what do we find? The herd in the new environ will surely change things to adapt to a new climate, level of sun exposure, the like. Skin tone and hair colour changes, as do feeding habits, social preferences: You see where I'm getting at, we have just spawned a new species of animal. My point is, Natural Selection does not strictly belong to Evolutionism, Atheism, Intelligent Design or anything like that. Don't get me wrong, it's still relevant to Atheism, Evolutionism, ID etc. as a means to explain why we have all these critter around us, but it really has no argument favoring one religious belief over another.

Atheism: Going with their literal definition, I consider it very strange that people still use this term, mainly because it really doesn't mean much. As in, Christians don't simply define themselves as "theists," not to say we couldn't, but you see that it doesn't exactly help people much with finding out your beliefs. And of course, as well all know, it has become such a problem that atheism has been equated with evolutionism or the like, depending on what you've been taught. Recipe for misunderstanding, if you ask me, and quite a problem to deal with (understand that a Buddhist can rightly consider themselves an atheist, that is unless they've been taught to deify Gautama).

Think that's enough for now. Hope everything makes sense, hope it helps any.
Do svyazi, comrades!

[Temerity]

I don't understand why it is illogical for atheists to act upon their morals. I don't need a book written by 40 different men several thousand years ago to tell me what is right and what is wrong. I don't kill people because it is wrong. I don't insult people because I know that they would be happier if I didn't. I am an atheist, I could not care less about natural selection I just try to do the most good I can and try to treat others the way that they want to be treated. I don't need the Bible to form my morals and ethics.

[GOD LOVES ME]

za morailty isn't moral, za natural selection isn't natural nor selective, and atheism isn't theism... my grandpa would always say