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

[The Magic Pudding]

*Zips lips*

Don't stop, please.

[McQ]

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

You're also not talking in absolutes, so don't worry.

Don't make me name names! 

It's not you.

[Ali]

As long as it's not me.  Prepare to swim in the shallow end with me.   

Stevil - You mentioned that you think that something is either moral or not - that simple.  Maybe that's (one of the) reasons why we disagree on morality, because I don't see morality as black and white at all.  There are often conflicting morals at play (including "common" morals).  So for example, when you talk about people killing for their morals, such as anti-abortion fanatics -

Morals at play
1.  Murder is wrong - (in regards to the "babies" being aborted)
2.  Murder is wrong - (in regards to the abortion doctors being killed)
2.  What is that old quote - evil happens when good men stand by and do nothing - Imagine you truly, from the bottom of your heart, believed that there was a person who was murdering hundreds to thousands of babies a year (please note that words like "murdering" and "babies" may not be totally technically correct, but that is how they think of it) and no one would put a stop to it.  What if they weren't fetuses, but children who had been born - would you act?  Which would be the worse act, murder, or standing by and allowing someone else to murder?

My point in all of this is that morals are not always so black and white, and that yes, they may bring problems (such as killing abortion doctors) but remember that moral decisions are often based in morals that by and large serve humanity well in regards to survival (such as murder is wrong, and we don't stand by letting people commit evil.)  Sometimes it goes awry, but I don't know that that is the norm.

[xSilverPhinx]

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.

I'm guessing it's me?

In my defense, I'm trying to albeit not very well, articulate how some of the behaviours that evolved that are generally seen as moral by us as a species capable of philosophising have evolutionary explaiantions that are closely linked to social animals.

Altruism, for example, can be detrimental to a solitary animal but enhances survival for animals that live in self-supporting groups.

Just because I use some examples of animals doesn't mean I see morality  in nature. I agree with Too Few Lions who said that it's a human social construct, but unlike Stevil, I don't find it as easy to drop the word.

[Stevil]

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.

I'm guessing it's me?

Hmmmm, maybe its me, I can't work out who McQ is referring to.
However, I don't think you have to be an expert on a topic in order to think about it and express your ideas.
If you are open to discussion and let people know your ideas then they might get challenged and you might learn something.
I think conversation is a great way to go. Especially for non experts, otherwise I'd never be allowed to speak, given that I am no expert about anything. I consider myself a student of life not a teacher.

[Too Few Lions]

I'm guessing it's me?

Hmmmm, maybe its me, I can't work out who McQ is referring to.
However, I don't think you have to be an expert on a topic in order to think about it and express your ideas.
If you are open to discussion and let people know your ideas then they might get challenged and you might learn something.
I think conversation is a great way to go. Especially for non experts, otherwise I'd never be allowed to speak, given that I am no expert about anything. I consider myself a student of life not a teacher.

I was thinking maybe it's me too, and likewise am not sure who it refers to. I think we're having a constructive enjoyable debate, I'm sorry if i've made any glaring face palming errors. I don't think any of us are experts in the field, so I'm sure we're all going to make the odd error or misunderstanding somewhere, or maybe not articulate our thoughts perfectly now and again.

[Twentythree]

My point in all of this is that morals are not always so black and white, and that yes, they may bring problems (such as killing abortion doctors) but remember that moral decisions are often based in morals that by and large serve humanity well in regards to survival (such as murder is wrong, and we don't stand by letting people commit evil.)  Sometimes it goes awry, but I don't know that that is the norm.

You are exactly right there is nothing concrete about morality. Morality is a set of behaviors invented by people. Morality itself is a concoction of the conscious mind and its interpretation of those behaviors. that is precisely why morality is defined differently in different cultures and under different religious belief systems. The predisposition for construction a moral baseline in society has evolved through natural selection but morality itself is subjective and dependent on cultural pressures that operate outside of natural selection.

[Stevil]

Stevil - You mentioned that you think that something is either moral or not - that simple. 

Morals at play
1.  Murder is wrong - (in regards to the "babies" being aborted)
2.  Murder is wrong - (in regards to the abortion doctors being killed)
2.  What is that old quote - evil happens when good men stand by and do nothing - Imagine you truly, from the bottom of your heart, believed that there was a person who was murdering hundreds to thousands of babies a year.

My point in all of this is that morals are not always so black and white, and that yes, they may bring problems (such as killing abortion doctors) but remember that moral decisions are often based in morals that by and large serve humanity well in regards to survival

I think of morals as a categorisation mechanism only.
Lets say you have three buckets, one is the moral bucket, another is the immoral bucket and the last is the neutral bucket.
Then someone gives you a list of actions, it is your job to sort each one putting it into the appropriate bucket.
Some people will pick up their bible and church interpretation and use that to sort out the actions.
Others will use their gut feel, what emotions are aroused when thinking about each action
Some people will use their observations as to what is the norm in society or what is the law.
Some people will think through the consequences of each action and what affect that may have with regards to a certain goal (e.g. humanistic, golden rule)

But however one goes about doing it, you all end up with a moral code, a set of rights and a set of wrongs. These are all generic of course, as you want them to guide you with regards to certain scenarios that you will encounter in future.

Now when a scenario does come up e.g. Person B might ask Person A how they feel about abortions.
Person A then refers to their moral buckets and finds the abortion action in the immoral bucket so they state that it is wrong for people to perform abortions.
Person B then might ask Person A why they think it is wrong.
Person A states that it is wrong because it is immoral. (now I hope you have noticed that claiming it to be immoral has not added any more detail than what Person A has already offered when claiming it to be wrong).
So Person B is now forced to ask why Person A thinks it is immoral.
Now Person A has to go back to the rules used when initially sorting out the actions into the morality buckets. Why was it that abortion was put into the immoral bucket, Person A may conclude "abortion is an act of killing a person and I don't feel that killing babies respects the babies right to live"
So Person B might ask, what if the pregnant mother is 14 and she is pregnant because she was raped would you still consider it wrong to have the abortion?"
Person A might state, "well, that is a horrible situation, although abortion is immoral, I think she should have the choice to have this abortion if she wants to. I can see that this baby could have a large detrimental effect on the mother's life, it could impact her education, her childhood and could be an unwanted reminder of the rape, she didn't choose to get pregnant, it wasn't through her negligence"

Now this last hypothetical statement that Person A states is not a moral judgment, it is a reasoned judgment/decision.
The moral judgement was "it is wrong because it is immoral" which added no value, but only hid the reasons for the judgment. When the reasons are hidden how can Person A decide that the situation is more complex than the original rule which was used to categorise the action into the morality buckets? At what point do they decide, I need to put more thought into this specific scenario?

If they choose to judge other people's actions and simply state, because it is immoral, then how can the judged people accept this judgement? They want to know the reasoning behind this judgement.

I hope you can see from, how difficult it has been for Struggling Atheist to offer his reasoning behind why he thinks the desire for gay sex ought to be counselled out of the immoral gay people, that we ought not let people make judgment or enforce restrictions based on morality. We need to insist on reasoned explainations.

Morality is dangerous, it suspends critical thought, it hides the detail of the judgement, and it often provides the confusion that a person can project their own personal values (morality) onto others. For example xSilverPhinx had agreed with me in a previous thread that her morality was only personal to her and subjective, and yet in this thread she fell into the trap of making a bold objective moral statement with regards to bats and people sharing their food with the sick.

[xSilverPhinx]

For example xSilverPhinx had agreed with me in a previous thread that her morality was only personal to her and subjective, and yet in this thread she fell into the trap of making a bold objective moral statement with regards to bats and people sharing their food with the sick.

Hmmm I see your point.

Yeah I'm starting to think that the whole evolution for the capacity for generally accepted moral behaviors and bats turned out to be a mistake. I didn't mean to say that bats are moral, though, just that a if the same examples were use for a human tribe, most people would (might?) say that sharing food with the sick is a moral/good/right thing to do. Same behaviour, different species and different categorisations.

But that's an easy comparision.

But anyways, I've made a mess of things.

[McQ]

OK, for Pete's Sake!   

Read my post again.

I NEVER SAID people who aren't experts in something couldn't discuss a subject. Please go back and read what I actually wrote.

Additionally, this thread is veering wildly off topic with talk about morals and things that aren't part of evolutionary theory. Put that stuff in the philosophy or religion threads. This is about evolution, supposedly. Last I checked, morality is not part of physical evolution.

So, please stop worrying so much about who I'm talking about.

Only worry if you happen to be declaring things in absolutes without having a clue as to what you're talking about.

That should be true of any topic anywhere. All people can discuss any topic. I can discuss economics with someone. I don't have a fucking clue about economics, but I can participate in a discussion about it. I just can't pass myself off as an expert, nor can I make statements as if I'm an expert.

Does it not bother anyone else when someone talks out of their ass?



Now go back to the Salt Mines, all of you!

[xSilverPhinx]

Come on then, we can all discuss who it is that McQ is referring to in the Salt Mines.

[Stevil]

Additionally, this thread is veering wildly off topic with talk about morals and things that aren't part of evolutionary theory. Put that stuff in the philosophy or religion threads. This is about evolution, supposedly. Last I checked, morality is not part of physical evolution.

Agreed, fair enough.

[yodachoda]

Yeah this is about evolution let's not stray off topic please.  I strongly feel like those who believe evolution to be true and still believe in God at the same time don't have a proper understanding of evolution.  I'm a biology undergraduate btw.  I think these people simply think evolution means "change over time".  Yeah, I mean change can happen over time, but Darwinian evolution is the term people mean (or should mean) when speaking of evolution.  Darwinian evolution is a bit more specific than just "change of species over time". 

The theory really is not even all that complex at all.  It's actually pretty simple, but then again I first heard about evolution and natural selection in like high school and I remained a theist at that time.  Once you sit down and actually learn how evolution works, I believe it'll turn a theist into an atheist after they learn it.  I'm not here to lecture you guys though so I'm not going to actually describe how it works. 

Also, when learning how it works, you should also learn how the DNA molecules interact during meiosis, to produce genetic variability, as well as how sometimes mistakes occur (mutations).  Each of you has on average 6 or so mutations, but most you won't notice because they may not even code a protein (junk DNA).  This is an important part of evolution because it shows how random variability is produced.  Remember, this is the first part of evolution, the second is non-random natural selection. 

Thoughts?

[Ali]

Sorry for the derail.   

What I think is really interesting is the theists who will concede that micro-evolution exists, and yet refuse to believe that macro-evolution (evolution leading to new species) exists.  I always wonder what "barrier" they think stops micro-evolutions from accumulating into macro-evolution.  Also, it blows my mind that "species" is a man-made concept.  WE decided that anything that could mate and produce viable offspring could be called a "species" - we could have not made that designation or set the "line" somewhere else altogether.  So if "species" is a man made concept, what makes them think that nature can't cross it?

[xSilverPhinx]

I keep thinking of Kenneth Miller, who is a biologist and an evolutionist.

Here's a snippet from an interview

How is it possible to believe in the evolution of a complex world and God?


Miller: That's an interesting question. God, for those of us who believe in Him, is the Creator and the Master of the universe. As C. S. Lewis once said, "[God] likes matter. He invented it." [Mere Christianity, Harper, 2001] It seems to me that an all-powerful Creator, who is behind both the material of the universe and the laws that govern the interactions of that material, would be able to accomplish any goal He wanted to in terms of the process, the architecture, or the ultimate fruition of the universe.

Now, what I don't find useful to speculate about are the exact physical, chemical, or biological processes that could be attributed to God, or identified as God working His magic in the world. I think both Western religious tradition and scripture itself tell us that God is very subtle and He can use many ways to accomplish His ends.

I don't see it as very satisfactoy because the metaphysical is immeasurable in any way, but there you have it...a theist, biologist and evolutionist. Looks like a totally backstage god, which looks more deistic than theistic.