Can An Atheist/Evolutionist Be An Environmentalist?

[buzzripper]

So here's something I've been thinking about for a while and wanted to get an atheist's point of view on. I'm a Christian, but an inquisitive one and interested in the intellectual questions of my faith. This might be be bush league stuff for this group, I don't know, but hey, it's my first post....

Ok, so the question is: can an Atheist/Evolutionist also be an environmentalist? Pick an example... say, that it's not right to wipe out the rainforests to do stip mining, because it destroys the natural habitat of other species and might even cause them to go extinct. Now, if he says that, has he not made a judgement that it's better for those species to live than not? If so, on what grounds? The history of evolution is filled with countless species that have gone extinct, many times because of the behavior of other species, have they not? If so, why are humans exempt from this? Why shouldn't we be able to clear those rainforests for our own benefit, just like some bird species that, say, developed longer beaks which made them able to eat all the seeds that some other species were living on, and wiped out the other species? With animals, we just say it's evolution. Why not humans? Why shouldn't the evolution of our brains and intellect earn us the same benefits as the long-beak birds? Why are we subject to a different standard? If we're truly no different from animals, if there really is only the physical world, indeed if we're all just the result of random chemical reactions, what is the justification of environmentalism's complaints? If you say, well, if humans keep doing this to the earth they'll eventually make the planet uninhabitable. To this I say, so what? It's better for me, right now. The bird doesn't rationalize, he just eats the seeds, it's better for him right now. Who knows, maybe those seeds have some element in them that will eventually kill off that species in 100 years. They don't know, don't care. But for some reason we're different. Our intellect? Why does higher intellect make us responsible for other species? If we're to be consistent, it doesn't follow. How is higher intellect different from longer beaks? I think evolutionists don't think big enough in this regard. The atheist's mantra is that there is nothing more, nothing special about man. Why are humans not then included in natual selection? Why is our intellect above natural selection?

Of course the real underlying question I'm asking here is: how does an atheist rationalize value judgements? The envrionmentalist example is just to illustrate. If you truly believe that there is nothing but the physical world, nothing beyond what science has or will eventually discover, then how do you justify any value judgement? What basis are your values based on? Especially if you say we all make our own values, that it's up to us to grow up and make our own determinations, and not be like the pathetic masses who make up gods to make themselves feel better. Ok then, but now you have no right to judge my values, right? By definition, you have eliminated your ability to judge me, because I must make my own set of values, and you make yours, there are no absolute, external values. And maybe my values say it's ok to wipe out the rainforest. What right do you have to say I'm wrong? Survival of the species? What's so special about that? Why is that an absolute? How can there be any absolutes if we're all just random chemical reaction by-products? Not trying to be glib, that's a serious question - how do you say this is 'better' than that, about anything? Seems to me an atheist is completely free - in fact must be free - from anything resembling judgement. He is free to live in a wild-west world, where he can take whatever he wants whenever he wants as long as he's - the fittest.
But that's why I'm posting, I actually do want to learn from this, not just trying to pick a fight. I'd love to hear what an atheist has to say about all this. It's fascinating stuff....


Peace,
buzz

[Laser Sailor]

Have you thought that perhaps preserving the biodiversity and habitable natural protions of the Earth IS by itself in humanity's best interest? I think having a living breathing planet far outweighs running the rainforest over for a strip mall.

[Whitney]

There is a lot in there to respond to and it's late for me...so I'm going to let someone else field this one.

[Tom62]

Welcome to the forum, Buzz.

The only difference between an atheist and a theist is, that an atheist doesn't take the existence of gods for granted. Evolution has nothing to do with Atheism, because evolution is just a natural process (like gravity). There are millions of Christians, who don't have any problems to reconcile their believes with evolution (and gravity   ) either. To keep a long story short, neither atheists nor theists use evolution as a basis for any moral decisions or judgments.

[SSY]

Laser sailor has it exactly right, there is a benefit to strip mining (lots of coal), but there is also a benefit for leaving the rainforest (oxygen for one), in this case, I would prefer to have a rainforest over coal, it not even really altruistic.

Your more general points, well, I don't think there are absolute values, so I value the things that make me happy, that satisfy me and fulfil me, you are of course, free to value whatever you want, I can't say it's wrong, just voice my disagreement. Any matter of fact though, I can claim you do be wrong.

[The Magic Pudding]

Especially if you say we all make our own values, that it's up to us to grow up and make our own determinations,

Yes that's me.
I appreciate the value of beauty.
I value the Amazon rainforest, though I'll never go there.
I acknowledge you can make your own determinations.
You may reach different conclusions to me, but I am free to stop you doing wrong as I see it.
Wrong in my view includes raping a child or a forest.
Just because we are free to determine our own values, doesn't mean I am obliged to respect yours.

[Sophus]

Hello buzzripper. I'll do my best to answer as many of these questions as I can. Hope I don't bore.

Ok, so the question is: can an Atheist/Evolutionist also be an environmentalist?

I myself would identify as all three.

The history of evolution is filled with countless species that have gone extinct, many times because of the behavior of other species, have they not?

Something like 99% of the species that have ever existed have gone extinct. There are several different reasons for this. The enviornment for one. If something makes the species' habitat uninhabitable and it cannot move/make the necessary changes then it will die. Another reason is that species evolve into a different species. Unless the "living fossil" survives it naturally goes extinct. I'm not an expert but my guess is that these two scenarios are mroe common than, say, the foxes eating all the rabbits, in which case they both might go extinct.

If so, why are humans exempt from this?

Well, we will  go extinct eventually. Until then we all possess a strong will to survive.

Why shouldn't we be able to clear those rainforests for our own benefit, just like some bird species that, say, developed longer beaks which made them able to eat all the seeds that some other species were living on, and wiped out the other species?

The beauty of a rainforest is beneficial to the eyes.  :raised:

The atheist's mantra is that there is nothing more, nothing special about man. Why are humans not then included in natual selection? Why is our intellect above natural selection?

The atheist does not demand that man is not special. The atheist (or most of them anyways) would only say that the universe doesn't think we're special. It is free of opinions. As for us being above natural selection: we're not. No animal is "above" or below it, we're all a part of it, and humans still continue to change. So I'll assume you're refferring to the "survival of the fittest" (although it was Spencer's and not Darwin's). That doesn't mean the most aggressive. It means those most well adapted to survive. And, needless to say, if we destroy our planet we won't survive.

If you truly believe that there is nothing but the physical world, nothing beyond what science has or will eventually discover, then how do you justify any value judgement?

First, there are many stereotypes here. A number of atheists believe in objective morals. Ayn rand's Objectivism being one of them. I am, however, an Existentialist. You may wish to read an exellent essay by the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre on this issue called Existentialism is a Humanism. In short he says that by choosing what we see best for ourselves we choose for all of mankind. Also I'll add merely because the universe doesn't care if you kill a man doesn't mean that I wouldn't. A good moral compass operates on empathy, not world-view.

What right do you have to say I'm wrong?

I can say that it will have the consequences stated above and if you were to disagree you would be wrong. But morally speaking, you're not "wrong", just dangerous and destructive.

[Sophus]

Wrong in my view includes raping a child or a forest.

Raping a forest?

[The Magic Pudding]

Raping a forest?

I have seen the word used in this context many times.
WordWebs says -
(2) Destroy and strip of its possession
"The soldiers raped the beautiful country"

"rape of forest" and you will get examples of this usage, and some conventional ones.

[Sophus]

Raping a forest?

I have seen the word used in this context many times.
WordWebs says -
(2) Destroy and strip of its possession
"The soldiers raped the beautiful country"

"rape of forest" and you will get examples of this usage, and some conventional ones.

Oh God, actually that google search turned up a number of cases of rapes which took place in forests. I know what you mean though.

[KebertX]

What better reason to be an environmentalist? You know how delicate the ecosystem is, and how irreplaceable different species are. You know God isn't going to help save the world from environmental problems, and you don't believe it's all going to end in the rapture regardless of what we do.

An Atheist Evolutionist has every reason in the world to contribute to swift and decisive action to preserve the balance of life on the planet, more so than a Theist/Creationist, that's for damn sure.

[KebertX]

EDIT: I was tired last night, I feel I can do better.

Why shouldn't we be able to clear those rainforests for our own benefit, just like some bird species that, say, developed longer beaks which made them able to eat all the seeds that some other species were living on, and wiped out the other species? With animals, we just say it's evolution. Why not humans? Why shouldn't the evolution of our brains and intellect earn us the same benefits as the long-beak birds?

Because we are able to think about it.  Our intellect was selected for, naturally, because it was the best tool that we had for surviving. We sharpened sticks and made fires, and our species thrived.  We are smart enough to manipulate our environment because of this adaptation.  Because we can think about it, and come to the conclusion that it is harmful to wipe out other species, we have a responsibility to NOT KILL OTHER SPECIES.

Why are we subject to a different standard? If we're truly no different from animals, if there really is only the physical world, indeed if we're all just the result of random chemical reactions, what is the justification of environmentalism's complaints? If you say, well, if humans keep doing this to the earth they'll eventually make the planet uninhabitable...

To this I say three things:
1) We're no different than animals, therefore we shouldn't act intelligent. This argument is reminiscent of...http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155360
2) Random chemical reactions? 3.5 billion years of evolving from vacuoles of genetic material isn't random, it's fine tuned.
3) So you admit that we're able to see that we are eventually going to make the planet unlivable, but you don't think there's reason enough to make the moral judgment that we should stop it if there is no God making us behave?  :hmm:  :hmm:  :hmm:

so what? It's better for me, right now. The bird doesn't rationalize, he just eats the seeds, it's better for him right now. Who knows, maybe those seeds have some element in them that will eventually kill off that species in 100 years. They don't know, don't care. But for some reason we're different. Our intellect? Why does higher intellect make us responsible for other species?

The sparrow with it's beak doesn't care if it is going to make the species go extinct in 100 years, because it lacks the ability to determine that there is a risk. We can think, and determine that by harming the ecosystem, we will eventually make the planet unlivable.  Because we can think, we must protect our species in the long run.  We're smart enough to see the danger, and capable of doing something about it. It would be irrational and illogical to say we shouldn't because evolution dictates that we behave like mindless animals!

If we're to be consistent, it doesn't follow. How is higher intellect different from longer beaks?

Well, a longer beak helps you pick up seeds, and a higher intellect helps you drill oil out from under two miles of solid earth. Higher intellect helps us rip into mountains and extract minerals. Higher intellect helps us rip up trees and pollute our skies.  Higher intellect also helps us to determine that these things are harmful actions in the long run. Not just for our own species, but everything on the planet.

Our moral community doesn't just encompass our own species, it's every species what's future we take into our own hands. Dogs are a great example: We domesticated them, we have the responsibility to make sure all the dogs don't die. Sure, if you see a dog and a human dangling off the cliff, save the human. But if we all started starving our dogs, and shooting them in the streets, it would be unacceptable, because we have taken the lives of domestic dogs into our hands, and it's irresponsible to leave that which is dependent on our actions for survival.

For similar reasons, every living thing at the risk of dying because of our impact on the environment is our responsibility, because we got them into that mess, and their survival is dependent on our reaction to that responsibility. Because we have the mental faculties to determine this, we have an obligation to oursleves, and every living thing (who we take responsibility for when we manipulate their habitats) to preserve the environment.  The simple ability to think that we are responsible for the lives we impact makes it so.

By definition, you have eliminated your ability to judge me, because I must make my own set of values, and you make yours, there are no absolute, external values. Seems to me an atheist is completely free - in fact must be free - from anything resembling judgement.

See my quote at the bottom: Reality is that which when you close your eyes it does not go away. Reality is external. A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if no one believes it.  Reality is externally verifiable. Reality is absolute truth, like the law of gravitation. Or the fact that 2+2=4. It will continue to be true, even if no one in the universe exists to perceive it. That is what science is for: Helping us to learn the absolute reality of the world around us. There are absolutes, and it does not matter what forms our minds take, that continues to be true.

Atheists, FREE of judgment? Quite the opposite. We make judgments based on logic, which is the best form a judgment can possibly take. We can analyze your morality, or beliefs, or (for this example) desire to destroy the rain-forest, and determine whether or not they are well founded, cogent, or in any way valid.

How can there be any absolutes if we're all just random chemical reaction by-products?

There are external values, but they are defined by society, not God.  We do make our own values, but we make them based on reason. And our reason is mainly a source that tells us not to harm the others in our society. We are social animals, an inclination to harm others in a society makes the society as a whole weaker. Makes the species weaker. For this reason, it alienates the wrongdoer, decreases his/her chances of passing on their genes, and over several thousand years, prunes the Human mind into a psychology with what we consider to be a conscience. In fact, there is every logical reason to behave morally, because it's helpful to society. Not harming the society is the ultimate moral rule: Do not cause suffering to others. If you prefer a more religious version: "An ye harm none, do what ye will."  That is morality, not the rules laid down in the Holy books. There is a difference between external morality, and a set of rules.

He is free to live in a wild-west world, where he can take whatever he wants whenever he wants as long as he's - the fittest.

You are under the assumption that Atheists draw their morals from evolution. By the way,

The only things any reasonable human being should value are things that benefit our species.

... This is not true. We have minds, you can say Humans are animals, but it's not fair to say we're just animals.  Humans have higher intelligence than any known animal on the planet. Dolphins, Chimps, Elephants, they are smart, and even show hints of morality, but they can't think about themselves thinking. And they have no ability to determine that their actions are harmful to other species, (not that they manipulate their environments in a way that might make other species die out.) We're animals that have done a complete overhaul of the planet, and also animals that have the ability to determine for themselves that it is immoral to cause suffering to other creatures.

A good moral compass operates on empathy, not world-view.

Exactly! Saving the environment isn't just an imperative that makes sense evolutionarily (we're really just trying to save ourselves...) It's a matter of empathy. We are mentally capable of caring what happens to other lifeforms, that's all the reason we need to commit an act of altruism.

~

Maybe I'm over-simplifying an atheist's position. Or maybe I'm just over-simplified.

YES!

But that's why I'm posting, I actually do want to learn from this, not just trying to pick a fight. I'd love to hear what an atheist has to say about all this. It's fascinating stuff....

I will continue to give as full an answer to your topic as I can, because I'm taking you on your word that this is true.

[Tank]

Buzzripper.

You have made this exact same post in three places now, here, Rational Skeptics and a blog. You have started your membership with a copy pasta. I will answer your post in detail if you explain why you are interested in an answer other than the one you provide yourself in your own post. I'm not going to waste my time answering your post until I understand your intent and also see evidence that you're not simply a 'drive by' Christian spammer.

Regards
Chris

[NothingSacred]

So here's something I've been thinking about for a while and wanted to get an atheist's point of view on. I'm a Christian, but an inquisitive one and interested in the intellectual questions of my faith. This might be be bush league stuff for this group, I don't know, but hey, it's my first post....

Ok, so the question is: can an Atheist/Evolutionist also be an environmentalist? Pick an example... say, that it's not right to wipe out the rainforests to do stip mining, because it destroys the natural habitat of other species and might even cause them to go extinct. Now, if he says that, has he not made a judgement that it's better for those species to live than not? If so, on what grounds? The history of evolution is filled with countless species that have gone extinct, many times because of the behavior of other species, have they not? If so, why are humans exempt from this? Why shouldn't we be able to clear those rainforests for our own benefit, just like some bird species that, say, developed longer beaks which made them able to eat all the seeds that some other species were living on, and wiped out the other species? With animals, we just say it's evolution. Why not humans? Why shouldn't the evolution of our brains and intellect earn us the same benefits as the long-beak birds? Why are we subject to a different standard? If we're truly no different from animals, if there really is only the physical world, indeed if we're all just the result of random chemical reactions, what is the justification of environmentalism's complaints? If you say, well, if humans keep doing this to the earth they'll eventually make the planet uninhabitable. To this I say, so what? It's better for me, right now. The bird doesn't rationalize, he just eats the seeds, it's better for him right now. Who knows, maybe those seeds have some element in them that will eventually kill off that species in 100 years. They don't know, don't care. But for some reason we're different. Our intellect? Why does higher intellect make us responsible for other species? If we're to be consistent, it doesn't follow. How is higher intellect different from longer beaks? I think evolutionists don't think big enough in this regard. The atheist's mantra is that there is nothing more, nothing special about man. Why are humans not then included in natual selection? Why is our intellect above natural selection?

Of course the real underlying question I'm asking here is: how does an atheist rationalize value judgements? The envrionmentalist example is just to illustrate. If you truly believe that there is nothing but the physical world, nothing beyond what science has or will eventually discover, then how do you justify any value judgement? What basis are your values based on? Especially if you say we all make our own values, that it's up to us to grow up and make our own determinations, and not be like the pathetic masses who make up gods to make themselves feel better. Ok then, but now you have no right to judge my values, right? By definition, you have eliminated your ability to judge me, because I must make my own set of values, and you make yours, there are no absolute, external values. And maybe my values say it's ok to wipe out the rainforest. What right do you have to say I'm wrong? Survival of the species? What's so special about that? Why is that an absolute? How can there be any absolutes if we're all just random chemical reaction by-products? Not trying to be glib, that's a serious question - how do you say this is 'better' than that, about anything? Seems to me an atheist is completely free - in fact must be free - from anything resembling judgement. He is free to live in a wild-west world, where he can take whatever he wants whenever he wants as long as he's - the fittest.
But that's why I'm posting, I actually do want to learn from this, not just trying to pick a fight. I'd love to hear what an atheist has to say about all this. It's fascinating stuff....


Peace,
buzz

The only things any reasonable human being should value are things that benefit our species . It can be demonstrated that religion (for the most part)has failed in that respect and the good things about religion exsist without religion. The reason I can deem things that further humanity as good is because I have evolved a will to survive. In the interest of surviving it's probably a good idea to take care of the ecosystem that supports human life and take care of other human life because we depend on one another to survive.

[hismikeness]

The atheist's mantra is that there is nothing more, nothing special about man.

I'm not sure there is an atheist mantra, so to speak, but I think I understand what you mean. Atheists might be more inclined to believe that we are just one of millions of inhabitant species on this planet, with no higher spot on the pecking order because we were favored by a deity. That doesn't mean we aren't special. Obviously, the creations of humankind are indeed special (and they in turn make us special), like the computer on which I write, the community in which I live, countless technologies, religions (yes... created), and not to mention language just to name a few. These things separate humans from the animal world.

Why are we subject to a different standard?

Who's to say we are subject to a different standard. If the clearing of said rain forest was indeed essential to the continuation of the species, you best believe I would be on the front lines, chain saw in hand. However, at this point it isn't. There are other means to whatever end the proposed strip mine might produce. But humans are subject to a different standard, in my opinion, in most ways among the animals. To the best of my knowledge, no other species has nursed an endangered one back to thrivelyhood (I made that word up). Humans have. Again, to the best of my knowledge, a goose will not travel to another state just to visit another goose. Humans do this all the time, whether it's family or friends they are visiting. If we behaved like the animal kingdom, that is to say acting only and instinctively with a means to survive, then I would just have to kill every family that moved in to my neighborhood, because they might pose a threat, right?

Anyway, I hope Tank doesn't turn out to be right and you're not a drive by poster, because I actually think this could spark a very interesting discussion if you have followup points to make. I'm skeptical though...

By the way, what is a Chritian? I   Can there really be that many internet connected computers that don't have spell check? Because as I type this the red squiggly under thrivelyhood, buzzripper and chritian  throughout my reply are driving me crazy.