Evolution Brought About Morality ?

Originally posted by sonship
So someone else can address this question:

If the underlying process of life - Evolution, has no purpose (as most militant atheistic evos say) HOW could it produce any living being with an inherent purpose ?

The process is without purpose.
How can the effect of the process be bestowed with any purpose ?

No purpose + Fear = Self constructed purpose.

Originally posted by sonship
So someone else can address this question:

If the underlying process of life - Evolution, has no purpose (as most militant atheistic evos say) HOW could it produce any living being with an inherent purpose ?

The process is without purpose.
How can the effect of the process be bestowed with any purpose ?

So-called militant atheists may deny purpose but science is silent on this. If matter itself, say the tetrahedral bonding of carbon molecules were much different, evolution could be much different and even inhospitable to life. After all, much of the universe IS inhospitable to life.

What this thread is about isn't whether guided or designed biological evolution occurred, it is about whether evolution of morality occurred. Let's try to avoid topic drift.

Originally posted by JS357
So-called militant atheists may deny purpose but science is silent on this. If matter itself, say the tetrahedral bonding of carbon molecules were much different, evolution could be much different and even inhospitable to life. After all, much of the universe IS inhospitable to life.

What this thread is about isn't whether guided or designed biological evo ...[text shortened]... on occurred, it is about whether evolution of morality occurred. Let's try to avoid topic drift.

So how did a chemical reaction acquire the necessary foundational blocks to even
contemplate what is and is not moral?

Originally posted by KellyJay
So how did a chemical reaction acquire the necessary foundational blocks to even
contemplate what is and is not moral?

Via evolution of course.
It went something like this:
1. Multicelluar life.
2. Differentiated cells.
3. The first cells capable of sending signals (neuron precursor).
4. More sophisticated communication including feedback / control.
5. Even more sophisticated systems capable of what can essentially be called 'thought'.
6. Even more sophisticated thought capable systems to the point where they can be said to 'contemplate' and invent descriptive systems for those contemplation's and call it 'morality'.

Of course actual morality far precedes contemplating morality. I have seen aquarium fish take extremely good care of their young. It is clearly largely instinctual, but is still a form of morality.

Certainly there is no logical reason that you have presented why the above could not occur, and the scientific evidence clearly shows the above did occur. So all you really have is an argument from scepticism driven by a religious motivation.

Originally posted by JS357
So-called militant atheists may deny purpose but science is silent on this. If matter itself, say the tetrahedral bonding of carbon molecules were much different, evolution could be much different and even inhospitable to life. After all, much of the universe IS inhospitable to life.

What this thread is about isn't whether guided or designed biological evo ...[text shortened]... on occurred, it is about whether evolution of morality occurred. Let's try to avoid topic drift.

What this thread is about isn't whether guided or designed biological evolution occurred, it is about whether evolution of morality occurred. Let's try to avoid topic drift.

I really do no think it is a drift away from the topic at all.

From a-moral materials supposedly emerge moral sensibility, by some kind of unguided, un-purposeful, non-intelligent, cascading of "lucky" mutations which enhance survival.

Whether we are talking about purpose, or consciousness, or moral obligation, the issue I think, is pretty much the same.

So-called militant atheists may deny purpose but science is silent on this.

Scientists say things. Science perhaps says nothing. Scientists have a platform to speak their mind. And a scientist such as best selling author Richard Dawkins speaks to the philosophical aspects of life which he claims is informed by his science.

But it is true not all scientists would do this.
But if you do it and do it eloquently, and say something a lot of people want to hear, you can make a handsome profit in book sales.

"Philosophy is dead" - Stephan Hawking.
"We all just dance to our DNA" [paraphrase] - Richard Dawkins
"The universe is all that ever was and ever will be" [paraphrase] Carl Sagan

If matter itself, say the tetrahedral bonding of carbon molecules were much different, evolution could be much different and even inhospitable to life. After all, much of the universe IS inhospitable to life.

I agree with you that much of the universe seems inhospitable to life.
At least we find no other life except on this planet.

Of course it is argued that the universe is fine tuned for life. And many factors seem to be for the benefit of life flourishing for this epoch of time. And I am speaking of such factors as -

nature of our home galaxy
number of super nova stars and distance
nature of our sun
position and nature of the other planets in our solar system.

In other words, though only this little corner of the universe seems the only place we have life, the rest of the whole big thing appears to some to have been orchestrated FOR that rarity.

As a Christian, now, I think God most likely has some future use for all that space.
I do not fight over that speculation over much though.

Now I am drifting a bit.

Did Evolution cause the sense of moral oughtness to emerge in human beings ?

Would a cause and effect string of events beginning from the Big Bang make "choices" from libertarian freedom plausible?

Would such being be "responsible" or "helpless" in moral decisions ?

Are men and women responsible moral agents or just bundles of instincts ?

Are we more like machines then we imagine, governed by natural laws ?

Someone ( a philosopher ) said " our best scientific theories indeed have the consequence that we are not morally responsible for our actions."

Originally posted by sonship

What this thread is about isn't whether guided or designed biological evolution occurred, it is about whether evolution of morality occurred. Let's try to avoid topic drift.

I really do no think it is a drift away from the topic at all.

From a-moral materials supposedly emerge moral sensibility, by some kind of unguided, un-purpos ...[text shortened]... tific theories indeed have the consequence that we are not morally responsible for our actions."

"Are we more like machines then we imagine, governed by natural laws?"

"Natural law" becomes a misnomer in such a situation. They become best called the observed regularities of nature.

Under non-guided evolution theory, the "driver" of evolution is survival and replication of survivors. Those variations that survive and reproduce will be more frequently seen in successive generations.

"Our (so called) best scientific theories" actually would explain why humans everywhere have developed moral codes which internalize self-regulating behavior and utilize emotional responses like guilt, shame, self esteem and pride of reputation to improve the likelihood of individual and species survival. Not all moral codes are equal or permanent in this capability.

Moral responsibility is placed on individuals by the group precisely because it works (to varying degrees) in enhancing survival. Is it a fiction to say it is God-given? If it is, it must be (or must have been) a useful fiction. Will it remain more useful than not? We shall see.

Originally posted by JS357
"Are we more like machines then we imagine, governed by natural laws?"

"Natural law" becomes a misnomer in such a situation. They become best called the observed regularities of nature.

Under non-guided evolution theory, the "driver" of evolution is survival and replication of survivors. Those variations that survive and reproduce will be more frequently ...[text shortened]... must be (or must have been) a useful fiction. Will it remain more useful than not? We shall see.

How did the first desire begin, even eating had to have a cause, where did this right and
wrong start if all that was going on before were chemical reactions?

SOriginally posted by KellyJay
How did the first desire begin, even eating had to have a cause, where did this right and
wrong start if all that was going on before were chemical reactions?

I believe proponents of non-guided evolutionary development of moral systems would say that the earliest survival-enhancing self-replicating processes were not experienced as desires, and were the result of chemical reactions. I don't think there is much to be gained by delving into the psychological motivations of the first self-replicating molecule as it munched on a nearby non-self-replicating prey.

I'm a chemist and may have a different perspective. All this talk about everything being just chemistry or not, smacks of magical reductionist thinking. The level of analysis - be it physics, chemistry, biology, social psychology, or some sort of supernatural psychodrama between good and evil, should be chosen based on the explanatory purposes at hand and their usefulness in achieving those purposes. So, what purposes are best served by the level of chemistry, and what are best served by the level of supernatural psychodrama we know as Christianity?

Originally posted by JS357
I believe proponents of non-guided evolutionary development of moral systems would say that the earliest survival-enhancing self-replicating processes were not experienced as desires, and were the result of chemical reactions. I don't think there is much to be gained by delving into the psychological motivations of the first self-replicating molecule as it mun ...[text shortened]... stry, and what are best served by the level of supernatural psychodrama we know as Christianity?

I wish to avoid the magical and stick completely in the natural...so how does that change
anything with respect to feelings, judgment calls, pondering good and bad? What
chemical combination brought those things about? We do need to get off of the starting
block don't we before we worry about how race ends?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I wish to avoid the magical and stick completely in the natural...so how does that change
anything with respect to feelings, judgment calls, pondering good and bad? What
chemical combination brought those things about? We do need to get off of the starting
block don't we before we worry about how race ends?

At the chemical level called chemistry (basically, chemical bonds and their formation etc.) we can explain a lot about neurochemistry, hormones, etc that affect emotion which can explain motivations and decision making in some ways. For example some people have a neurological hormone deficiency which can affect their mood to the point of affecting their beliefs about the motivations of people they encounter (paranoia.)

I don't know of any grand unifying scientific theory that reliably explains those aspects of human thought and behavior in terms of the formation and action of specific chemicals. At the basic level, there is more understanding of how, for example, a tiny organism can be caused to move toward or away from a light source.

So I would say in terms of getting off the starting blocks, in the past few decades we are off the starting blocks in explaining how chemistry affects biology and psychology. But the analogy of science to a foot race is faulty because there is no finish line.

Originally posted by JS357
At the chemical level called chemistry (basically, chemical bonds and their formation etc.) we can explain a lot about neurochemistry, hormones, etc that affect emotion which can explain motivations and decision making in some ways. For example some people have a neurological hormone deficiency which can affect their mood to the point of affecting their belie ...[text shortened]... psychology. But the analogy of science to a foot race is faulty because there is no finish line.

I don't think that there's even a particularly convincing explanation for why all biological molecules are left handed. But I don't think that the theistic objection is against any particular faculty evolving, but against the notion that matter can become animated without some divine spark, this is the real threat that science poses to the theists, at least in their minds. The real argument is about the necessity of God for consciousness, things like morality are just mental faculties to argue over.

On a tangent, in one of your earlier posts you mentioned the tetrahedral structure of Carbon and how changing that would pretty much prevent life. Altering the charge on an electron would change the size of orbitals rather than the shape and because the charge to mass ratio of protons would change stellar evolution would be different, life might exist but we probably wouldn't. The tetrahedral structure depends on electrons having two spin states and spherical symmetry. The only way that can change is if quantum mechanics were not at least a good approximation or if the number of dimensions were different - so I don't think altering the tetrahedral structure of Carbon represents a small change.

Originally posted by JS357

Under non-guided evolution theory, the "driver" of evolution is survival and replication of survivors. Those variations that survive and reproduce will be more frequently seen in successive generations.

You have here a creature MAN who considers that he has value. In fact he considers that he has more RIGHT to survive than any of the other animals.

I say the value of man is derived from His Creator.
I say the rights of man are also derived from His Creator.

I heard that the framers of the US Constitution took a smart fellow, Thomas Jefferson, put him into a room and told him not to come out until he could tell them exactly WHERE these rights came from anyway.

He came out of the room with an answer - "We hold these truths to be self evident." We humans get these inalienable rights from man's Creator.

Now I am not saying the US Constitution is the word of God.
But Jefferson (and I know he was a Deist) attributed value, rights in man to a Creator.

What are the Evolutionists saying ? This value emerged from materials which have no value. These rights emerged from materials which know nothing of rights, or worth, or dignity.

"Our (so called) best scientific theories" actually would explain why humans everywhere have developed moral codes which internalize self-regulating behavior and utilize emotional responses like guilt, shame, self esteem and pride of reputation to improve the likelihood of individual and species survival. Not all moral codes are equal or permanent in this capability.

Sure, differences in expressions occur over cultures.
To show RESPECT in one culture is by a hand-shake.
To show RESPECT in another culture is with a low bow.

Different expressions of what one OUGHT to do.
The common ground - both are about showing RESPECT, acknowledging the dignity of the other person. The manner in which it is done differs from culture to culture sometimes.

Over the parochial manner of showing the other has value and dignity is the universal moral sense in ALL men that others have value and dignity. Therefore there is an objective standard of moral OUGHTNESS.

Moral responsibility is placed on individuals by the group precisely because it works (to varying degrees) in enhancing survival. Is it a fiction to say it is God-given? If it is, it must be (or must have been) a useful fiction. Will it remain more useful than not? We shall see.

That is a nice bit of wishful thinking on your part, that God will become obsolete.

You won't be the first or the last to try to write God's obituary. Time Magazine splashed its headlines across the front page "Is God Dead?" Yet this was only make another issue some decades latter about "God making a comeback" or something like that.

Some of your Evos who will get sick and tired of humans messing up the environment will eventually argue against "Specieism" like Racism or Sexism. Even now some naturalists are discarding the notion that some animals are "higher" and others are "lower" on the evolutionary ladder.

They say animals have rights too. Of course the Bible says a few things about the ethical treatment of animals.

My point is that when you discard the innate dignity of humans because they are created in the image of God, you are on the road to losing the value divinely bestowed on man above the other animals.

You affirm rights and dignity because of that value bestowed upon man because of God. Attempt to take away God and thank a valueless evolutionary process for man's value and you are on moral quicksand.

Originally posted by sonship

Under non-guided evolution theory, the "driver" of evolution is survival and replication of survivors. Those variations that survive and reproduce will be more frequently seen in successive generations.

You have here a creature MAN who considers that he has value. In fact he considers that he has more RIGHT to survive than any of the othe ...[text shortened]... y God and thank a valueless evolutionary process for man's value and you are on moral quicksand.

So we as a species need belief in God. I agree. I do not wish it away. I don't know where you got the idea that I would have this belief be radically different than it is. We appear to need it, at present, although we also seem, here and there, to accept non belief, or partial belief, per your Jefferson reference, and elsewhere we torture nonbelievers. I just lack belief that belief in God is based on evidence of the actual existence of God. I lack it. Get it?

Oh. and edit, what I believe or not is not very important.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Altering the charge on an electron would change the size of orbitals rather than the shape and because the charge to mass ratio of protons would change stellar evolution would be different, life might exist but we probably wouldn't.

That is a common error (not one you are making) I see in discussions about life - the assumption that we are the only possible form of life. The claim is typically that if you change anything about the universe then 'life' wouldn't exist. The reality is just that we wouldn't exist. In fact, it would only take one change in one molecule in some distant ancestor of ours for us to not exist because our exact configuration is at least in part random. What we don't know for sure is what rule changes would stop all possible life existing and we don't know what other possible life forms have been ruled out by the current universe configuration.

I have played around with a cellular automaton called Conways Game of Life. At first you might think that Conway chanced upon a special configuration that leads to particularly interesting structures. But if you fiddle with the rules a bit you find that almost any rule set leads to interesting 'life' forms many and some rule sets are actually considerably more productive than the one Conway used.

Originally posted by JS357

So we as a species need belief in God. I agree.

If you believe that is true, where do you think this need came from ?
Why should be have such a need if we do ?

I do not wish it away. I don't know where you got the idea that I would have this belief be radically different than it is.

This is getting a little foggy.
It seemed that attributing something to God was to you a kind of necessary nuisance, a slight bother, but not really true.

That was the tone to me.

We appear to need it, at present, although we also seem, here and there, to accept non belief, or partial belief, per your Jefferson reference, and elsewhere we torture nonbelievers.

This is getting a little foggy to me.
If by "torturing non-believers" you are referring to something like the Spanish Inquisition, this to me is a statement on man's sinfulness. It is not a statement on God's non-existence.

Sinful man would lay hold on that which is most true, holy, beautiful to distort it to dignify his baser motives and evil intentions for power.

If on the other hand the "We" means some Christians believe the Bible in its speaking of eternal damnation, I would say this is not "we". And I would say that God informs man in terms which none can hardly misunderstand, an existence in perpetual revolt against God will not be enjoyed.

On the contrary - to remain unredeemed and unreconciled to God seems to lead to God letting the sinner know just what He things about his continued love of sinning.

you may keep your sinful nature. But that existence will be such that God will ever let you know just what He thinks about your sinning on and on - eternal punishment.
This is indeed terrible.

I just lack belief that belief in God is based on evidence of the actual existence of God. I lack it. Get it?

I get it. And I lack belief that there are actually that many real fools alive on earth. Perhaps there are some real fools. But the Bible says -

" The fool says in his heart, There is no God." (Psalm 14:1)

The operative phrase there is "in his heart". This is not a matter of his posture before his fellow man. This is a matter of him actually in his heart of hearts believing that "there is no God".

This most subjective attitude of the heart is said to be the saying of a fool. I lack belief that there are really THAT many fools. But there are many who profess to be Atheists.
My opinion is that I don't really know what they say in the heart. I know their preferred outward show.

I suspect that many are really not fools.
I was never this kind of person. Although I definitely WAS a person who did not believe the Bible at one time. But I thought there must be SOMETHING of a final reality. Even if it were a great huge cosmic question mark.

For me it was more about a definition of "G - O - D". What does it mean anyway ??

Now for those who would reply - "No. You really don't get it. I say IN MY HEART - there is NO God. I know it."

To them I have nothing to say. Just - "Okay."
But I lack belief that there are actually many real fools in this regard.

I mean, have you been EVERYWHERE, in ALL Time, throughout the entire universe? Is it possible that there is God somewhere ?

If they answer " NO. It is not possible - period! " I just have to say "Okay."
I had periods of skepticism and unbelief in my days. But I never went this far to say "No possibility of God anytime, anywhere, anyhow!"

I do not have that experience. I do have the experience of being publically unbelieving about most of the Bible's claims. But I always thought there must be SOMETHING - a Vibration, a Force, a big cosmic Question Mark, something where the cosmic buck of reality stopped.

Oh. and edit, what I believe or not is not very important.

This sounds like the Absurdism that LJ was talking about and the despair of trying to cope with meaninglessness and vanity - "It doesn't matter whether I believe or do not believe."

Do you believe that a person could be afraid to have assurance of something ?