News:

The default theme for this site has been updated. For further information, please take a look at the announcement regarding HAF changing its default theme.

Main Menu

If you accept evolution, how do you NOT become an atheist?

Started by yodachoda, January 17, 2012, 01:39:29 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Whitney

Quote from: yepimonfire on January 17, 2012, 11:22:35 PM
[i'm not entirely sure that having a moral sense and all of the complex emotional functions along with them is necessarily beneficial to our survival.

I don't think most children would make it to adulthood if their parents didn't have a strong moral sense of it being wrong to murder.  ;D

Ali

Quote from: yepimonfire on January 17, 2012, 11:22:35 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 17, 2012, 09:54:35 PM
I think the question in the OP has been adequately answered. Furthermore, it may be that evolution by natural selection working on random mutations is the only or best way to create beings such as ourselves with a moral sense. The struggle involved in evolving has left us with the sensitivities and values that we have.


i'm not entirely sure that having a moral sense and all of the complex emotional functions along with them is necessarily beneficial to our survival.

Elaborate?  Which morals and emotions are detrimental to our survival?

Twentythree

I think that evolution is routinely misunderstood as something getting better. The truth is that nothing gets better in evolution, things just oscillate between stability and instability. Through this oscillation complexity is accumulated so at the end of the day you have basically the exact same stable chemical reaction there are just more steps to reaching the goal which is high fidelity copying of genes. This is commonly referred to as the red queen: It's a symbolic reference made to the red queen and Alice:

"Well, in our country," said Alice, still panting a little, "you'd generally get to somewhere else — if you run very fast for a long time, as we've been doing."
"A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"

The easiest way to illustrate that is the development of camouflage mimicry and the development of an eye. Just imagine a basic eye, it sees in only black and white and has virtually no depth perception. The eye is used to find insect prey. All the insect prey looks about the same and are easy to spot with a very unsophisticated eye. If one of those insects is born with a  mutation that makes it even a bit more difficult to see then that insect is less likely to get eaten, meaning it has more children and so the mutation is passed on. This mutation will eventually become widespread throughout the population which will in turn reinforce any mutation toward a more acute vision in the predator species. So basically with every improvement in prey there is improvement in predation. But at the end of the day balance or equilibrium is achieved so there is no real winner or loser. There is no better or best just stability.
This red queen effect can take hold in single species competition as well. It's the old saying you know, "I don't have to run faster than the bear, I just have to run faster than you." So in early human cultures if deception evolves as a means of competition for the same resources then so does deception detection. If truth telling is successful on one hand then lying is successful on the other. It is easy to see how all of our current moral inclinations are just very complex forms of deception and deception detection. In group and out group preferences and altruism that over eons of accumulated complexity driven by the red queen now appear to be "better" It is not by definition any better because at the end of the day it is still accomplishing the same goal. The propagation of genes.
I feel as though we really need to start looking at ourselves in terms of evolved attributes and even the tendency to think of our complexity as being better had to be evolved. Our arrogance had to be evolved. Our self deception and interpretation of our own importance had to be evolved. It began by giving us the tools to survive in hostile external environments and now it has evolved and will continue to evolve in order for us to survive in this complex social environment that we have created to insulate ourselves from the wilder environment that we all think we are "better" than. There is no better in evolution there is only what works to establish stability for the time being.

yepimonfire

Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 11:39:36 PM
Quote from: yepimonfire on January 17, 2012, 11:22:35 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 17, 2012, 09:54:35 PM
I think the question in the OP has been adequately answered. Furthermore, it may be that evolution by natural selection working on random mutations is the only or best way to create beings such as ourselves with a moral sense. The struggle involved in evolving has left us with the sensitivities and values that we have.


i'm not entirely sure that having a moral sense and all of the complex emotional functions along with them is necessarily beneficial to our survival.

Elaborate?  Which morals and emotions are detrimental to our survival?

i didn't say any of them were detrimental.

Stevil

Quote from: Ali on January 17, 2012, 11:39:36 PM
Elaborate?  Which morals and emotions are detrimental to our survival?
The ones that impel a person to pick up a gun and kill other people. e.g. anti abortionists, terrorists, anti euthanasiasts, anti gay activists.
The ones that impel people to enforce oppression into law e.g. Arabian laws against female education, Catholic denial of sex education, laws against gay sex or gay marriage.

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Too Few Lions on January 17, 2012, 11:05:38 PM
Surely all animals should end up evolving a moral sense if that's the purpose of evolution.

Other social animals do have a sort of moral sense, they just don't philosophise over it, nor does it need to get very sophistcated.

There's a species of bats, for instance, where all bats are expected to bring food back to the weak, sick, or any other that for some reason was unable to go out in search of food. A bat that fails to do this is ostracized by the whole group, labelled as a cheater, and because of its 'social death' its chances of survival are diminished.

And bats aren't even considered to be a 'higher intelligence' mammal such as apes or dolphins.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Stevil

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 02:02:25 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on January 17, 2012, 11:05:38 PM
Surely all animals should end up evolving a moral sense if that's the purpose of evolution.

Other social animals do have a sort of moral sense, they just don't philosophise over it, nor does it need to get very sophistcated.

There's a species of bats, for instance, where all bats are expected to bring food back to the weak, sick, or any other that for some reason was unable to go out in search of food. A bat that fails to do this is ostracized by the whole group, labelled as a cheater, and because of its 'social death' its chances of survival are diminished.

And bats aren't even considered to be a 'higher intelligence' mammal such as apes or dolphins.
Morality is debatable. I am of the current understanding that it doesn't exist. It is a high level human devised concept which is used to simplify the real underlying reason for certain observed behaviours.

Most behaviors, IMHO relate to survival. Social animals realise that antisocial behavior lessens their own chances of survival, protecting each other from dangers or looking after the weak improves chances of survival. Belonging to a society improves chances of survival, oppressing groups within society reduces chances of survival.

xSilverPhinx

#22
Quote from: Stevil on January 18, 2012, 03:14:35 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 02:02:25 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on January 17, 2012, 11:05:38 PM
Surely all animals should end up evolving a moral sense if that's the purpose of evolution.

Other social animals do have a sort of moral sense, they just don't philosophise over it, nor does it need to get very sophistcated.

There's a species of bats, for instance, where all bats are expected to bring food back to the weak, sick, or any other that for some reason was unable to go out in search of food. A bat that fails to do this is ostracized by the whole group, labelled as a cheater, and because of its 'social death' its chances of survival are diminished.

And bats aren't even considered to be a 'higher intelligence' mammal such as apes or dolphins.
Morality is debatable. I am of the current understanding that it doesn't exist. It is a high level human devised concept which is used to simplify the real underlying reason for certain observed behaviours.

Most behaviors, IMHO relate to survival. Social animals realise that antisocial behavior lessens their own chances of survival, protecting each other from dangers or looking after the weak improves chances of survival. Belonging to a society improves chances of survival, oppressing groups within society reduces chances of survival.

I just find it difficult to drop the word 'morality', and I agree that it is a human philosophical question (the whole 'ought' from 'is'). My point was that some behaviours that give rise to what's commonly accepted as moral, such as altruism, do have a clear evolutionary explanation. But like I said, bats and other animals don't philosophise over what's moral, what isn't, and if there even is a thing called morality in the first place. That as far as we know is exclusively human.

Replace 'bats' with 'people' in the above scenario. Within a tribe some people go out to hunt and bring back food for those that for some reason weren't able to hunt for themselves, such as the old, sick or children. It goes without saying that for both solitary bats and people, sharing food with others causes an individual disadvantage. Less food for the person or bat that shares might mean less ability for the solitary individual to survive.

Moral?

That comparison might actually help with your philosophical interpretation, since bats and other social animals are seen as amoral, hardly any questions asked. ;D    

(Of course, there are whole other aspects, such as neurological, which we share with some animals, most among animals closest to us such as chimps, which give us the capacity for what's generally accepted as moral behaviour.)

QuoteIt is a high level human devised concept which is used to simplify the real underlying reason for certain observed behaviours.

I don't see this to be the case, morality is a very complicated subject IMO with it's many angles.  
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Stevil

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 03:43:58 AM
Replace 'bats' with 'people' in the above scenario. Within a tribe some people go out to hunt and bring back food for those that for some reason weren't able to hunt for themselves, such as the old, sick or children. It goes without saying that for both bats and people, sharing food with others causes an individual disadvantage. Less food for the person or bat that shares might mean less ability for the individual to survive.
Sorry, I disagree.
Everyone get's sick at some point. Everyone has the misfortune of becoming dependent. If there isn't a culture of banding together to support the weak then what chance do you have when it is your turn to be weak. Taking care of your weak, will help to strengthen your society. More people will survive hence you have a bigger, stronger society. Other's will remember your generosity and will likely support you when you are weak. Besides you may have some strong emotional bonds with family and friends whom find their lives more enjoyable and more survivable with you around to support them.
We can think through these scenarios and it becomes clear that you are better off giving some of your food up to support the weak.
I am not sure how much capacity bats have to think this through, but some habits are hard wired. But regardless, these do count to improve chances of survival.

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 03:43:58 AM
QuoteIt is a high level human devised concept which is used to simplify the real underlying reason for certain observed behaviours.

I don't see this to be the case, morality is a very complicated subject IMO with it's many angles.  
Morality is simply wrong (immoral) and right (moral), how more complex does it get?

yodachoda

First of all, isn't the definition of God a creator or a designer?  If evolution is true, we weren't created or designed, we evolved.  There are two ways to create a complex thing, such as a human being.  The first is design, which implies a mind behind it.  The second is evolution by natural selection, which requires no mind behind it. 

Also, since mindless naturalistic processes can turn a self replicating single cell into humans and all other life we see, doesn't it suddenly seem less ridiculous that natural processes could also have turned regular molecules into a self replicating one?  Also, couldn't mindless natural processes have created the whole universe and earth as well?

The human being is so complex that it's almost beyond comprehension.  The difference in complexity between a bacteria and a human is huge.  It's much larger than the difference in complexity between regular molecules and a self replicating molecule IMO.  Yet we don't yet have a solid theory to explain how a self replicating molecule could have arisen from a regular molecule.  This is because you need skeletons to fossilize, so we can really only make conjectures about how life could have arisen from non-life. 

xSilverPhinx

#25
Quote from: Stevil on January 18, 2012, 04:22:14 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 03:43:58 AM
Replace 'bats' with 'people' in the above scenario. Within a tribe some people go out to hunt and bring back food for those that for some reason weren't able to hunt for themselves, such as the old, sick or children. It goes without saying that for both bats and people, sharing food with others causes an individual disadvantage. Less food for the person or bat that shares might mean less ability for the individual to survive.
Sorry, I disagree.
Everyone get's sick at some point. Everyone has the misfortune of becoming dependent. If there isn't a culture of banding together to support the weak then what chance do you have when it is your turn to be weak. Taking care of your weak, will help to strengthen your society. More people will survive hence you have a bigger, stronger society. Other's will remember your generosity and will likely support you when you are weak. Besides you may have some strong emotional bonds with family and friends whom find their lives more enjoyable and more survivable with you around to support them.
We can think through these scenarios and it becomes clear that you are better off giving some of your food up to support the weak.
I am not sure how much capacity bats have to think this through, but some habits are hard wired. But regardless, these do count to improve chances of survival.

That's why they're a good case for the evolution of altruism, which co-evolved with social species. Living in a group is a whole different playing field from a solitary animal. Makes total sense that a group of bats would refuse to help a cheater. I also doubt that they think about it...

But anyways, many social animals do this. Hunting dogs do as well who as as a result of their success live in huge groups.  

The difference between altruism between social animals and solitary animals is that in the latter, it can actually be detrimental. That's why such behaviours are closely linked to groups, and morality as well.

Quote
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 03:43:58 AM
QuoteIt is a high level human devised concept which is used to simplify the real underlying reason for certain observed behaviours.

I don't see this to be the case, morality is a very complicated subject IMO with it's many angles.  
Morality is simply wrong (immoral) and right (moral), how more complex does it get?

That's more like the theistic version of fixed, objective and black-and-white morality. Any subjective interpretation is dependant on many angles which is incompatible with objective morality, since it's sort of like trying to see all a cube's sides at once, without the aid of reflective surfaces. Can you for instance say that what's good/moral/right for one person is necessarily good/moral/right for another?

You would have to define what's right and what's wrong and why. For many cases you're still stuck with different sides of a cube, except for the more obvious 'right' and 'wrongs' such as having to do with mutually perceived definitions of harm.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Too Few Lions

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 02:02:25 AM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on January 17, 2012, 11:05:38 PM
Surely all animals should end up evolving a moral sense if that's the purpose of evolution.
Other social animals do have a sort of moral sense, they just don't philosophise over it, nor does it need to get very sophistcated.

There's a species of bats, for instance, where all bats are expected to bring food back to the weak, sick, or any other that for some reason was unable to go out in search of food. A bat that fails to do this is ostracized by the whole group, labelled as a cheater, and because of its 'social death' its chances of survival are diminished.

And bats aren't even considered to be a 'higher intelligence' mammal such as apes or dolphins.
I agree that some social animals can show altruism, but lots of animals don't. As a Christian, Bruce was saying that he reconciles evolution by natural selection and his god by viewing evolution as the means by which said god produces moral creatures like ourselves. I was pointing out that if morality is the purpose of evolution then all animals should evolve to be more moral, and that's not the case.

I also have to agree with Stevil, morality is a human construct of claiming certain things are 'right' or 'good', and other things are 'wrong' or 'evil'. It derives from the Latin word moralitas which means 'proper behaviour'. I think it's something different from altruism, although some people may see altruism as morally correct behaviour. I don't see morality in animals' behaviour, even when it's altruistic behaviour.

The Magic Pudding

Quote from: Too Few Lions on January 18, 2012, 09:43:33 AMI was pointing out that if morality is the purpose of evolution then all animals should evolve to be more moral, and that's not the case.

God didn't want morality for all creatures.
Beasts being beastly is an admonitory lesson for us.




McQ

Taking off Mod Hat for a moment in order to comment.

When people start talking out of their depth, are they aware that they're doing it? Just a bit of a face palm, exasperated post here. Please, I beg of you. If you don't have a freaking clue about how evolution works, can you just stop acting like you do? Or at least try to be aware that you don't know, and stop making absolute starements, based on nothing more than an uneducated opinion? Please? Pretty please?

Not pointing out particular names, but it should be obvious. If the shoe fits...

Damn, I need more coffee.


Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

Ali

Damn.  I'm continually out of my depth talking about morality with Stevil but I like it because it's thought provoking.  *Zips lips*