Comments on Gracepoint Forum: Gracepoint Berkeley Apologetics MYT: Morality and ...

One way I see this playing out is by appealing to ...

2009-07-10T00:26:04.867-07:00

One way I see this playing out is by appealing to the phrase: "You're cutting off the branch you're sitting on." This is because people who say that morality is a mistake will appeal to this morality the moment wrong is done to them. But I find this logically weak.

But, I think on a stronger note, this would mean that this "mistaken" morality is not at all objective, because it could just as easily have been a different type of morality. This morality does not appeal to any higher sense. This morality is subject to the circumstance that allowed these particular genes survive.

By the way, when I say morality is a mistake, I...

2009-07-08T10:23:08.387-07:00

By the way, when I say morality is a mistake, I'm only talking about human morality. (or whatever animal that seems to have compassionate imperative toward the weak)

Correct. It does not prove that morality could no...

2009-07-08T10:18:49.505-07:00

Correct. It does not prove that morality could not have come from evolution. Like you say, naturalist could simply state that it's just a mistake, which evolution can make.

However, as I stated 10 comments above (I know it can be hard to keep up), it does defang the naturalists' argument that morality is something that evolution can explain away, saying that it's evolutionarily advantageous. I think through this thread, we've made it pretty clear that morality is NOT evolutionarily advantageous.. So that means a naturalist cannot glibly say that morality has been given to us by evolution because it's good for evolution. (which is exactly how they try to establish morality without God.)

Another thought:
If one admits, like Tim says, that morality is a "mistake"...(which is what Dawkins says), what does that mean? Think about the original issue here. We're discussing whether or not morality can be established without God, right? So what are the ramifications of saying that morality is a mistaken hiccup of evolution?

When you say mistake, you mean mistake only for hu...

2009-07-08T00:45:53.098-07:00

When you say mistake, you mean mistake only for humans right?

And if that's the case, I don't see how this is a kink in the logic for naturalists. So it's a mistake. Can't do anything about it. That's just what happened.

Thanks, Mark, for the clarification. But just to ...

2009-07-08T00:15:13.732-07:00

Thanks, Mark, for the clarification.

But just to clarify.. so you're saying that an evolutionist would claim that we are still evolving just as fast as the other animals are evolving?

Also, if human beings have become the directors of our own evolution, then still, our morality becomes the obstacle to that evolution, I would think. Our morality (altruism & compassion) poses an obstacle to natural selection, but I would think that our morality (bioethics) poses an obstacle to unnatural selection as well. So either way, from an evolutionary perspective, human morality would seem to be a mistake.

Daniel, in regard to your comment that "an ev...

2009-07-07T12:50:45.752-07:00

Daniel, in regard to your comment that "an evolutionist would conclude that eventually other animals will catch up," I'm actually not sure whether most evolutionists would necessarily look at it that way. While many will concede that morality, and altruism in particular, has essentially halted our natural selection, they still hold onto the notion that we will evolve into something "higher." However, we have become the directors of our own evolution. You can see where that leads and why a world without God becomes very appealing indeed. Others take a very fatalistic approach and say that we will eventually destroy ourselves because of our adverse effects on the environment and something else will take our place. However, no matter which way you cut it, morality presents a huge problem for the evolutionist.

Thank you for the explanation, Mark. Just to make...

2009-07-06T14:45:10.091-07:00

Thank you for the explanation, Mark.

Just to make things clear, then, are we on the same page about morality in human beings putting the brakes on natural selection for human beings? (and my understanding is that if you put a stop on natural selection, you don't really get evolution, unless there is just a freak mutation that is so powerful that it overcomes natural selection... such as an immortality mutation or something of that sort). I just want to make sure that there aren't any further clarifications necessary, and that we have a correct understanding of natural selection.

Also, in response to Tim's comment, I don't think we can say that morality stopping evolution in human beings is irrelevant since natural selection still had the last say. If humans have stopped evolving because of morality, then an evolutionist would have to conclude that eventually the other animals will catch up (since they are still evolving quickly relative to humans) and would likely surpass humans at a much later time, as long as they don't get caught in the same trap of human morality. So for the naturalistic evolutionist, human morality does become a big problem.. or a big "mistake" as Dawkins puts it.

Does that make sense?

Natural selection is basically defined as a proces...

2009-07-06T13:49:04.557-07:00

Natural selection is basically defined as a process whereby genetic traits of an organism are selected for through environmental pressure. Traits that are advantageous will be selected because those traits increase the organism's survival. The trait(s) will predominate since these organism have a selective advantage and pass down their genes more readily. Natural selection happens by means of the environment acting on random mutations in an organism over a long period of time, and voila! You have macroevolution!

Getting back to the discussion at hand, I think the thing to note is that if you have something like morality that essentially puts the brakes on natural selection and evolution, then there must be another mechanism at play. If the theory doesn't fit the observations, we must rethink our hypothesis.

Someone can comment here to add to this discussion...

2009-07-05T22:41:05.209-07:00

Someone can comment here to add to this discussion, but I am not really sure how evolutionarily kosher it is to call Natural Selection a mere observation regarding certain random mutation's ability to survive longer.

It's more than just random mutation, because many of the random mutation might not actually spell doom or survival for an organism UNTIL natural selection acts upon it. For example, let's say there are white-colored rabbits and dark-colored rabbits. These mutations by themselves don't tell you anything about how long these genetic characteristics will survive. But put these rabbits in the Arctic, and you suddenly get natural selection acting on them, and you can almost "predict" which kind of rabbit is going to survive (therefore, since it has predictive power, I wouldn't call Natural Selection a mere label of observation).. Am I not understanding something here?

I might be mistaken, but from my understanding it ...

2009-07-05T21:37:12.538-07:00

I might be mistaken, but from my understanding it is not "Natural Selection" that makes the strongest survive. It is simply the case that with random mutation, some things live to continue on and some things don't. And this phenomenon is called/labeled as natural selection and was found through observation. So if something continues on, then that something happened to be more advantageous for the species.

And so this altruism that came about might stop natural selection. But this fact is irrelevant because it could just be that natural selection stopped, and this follows with the above statement regarding natural selection simply being an observation. (I think it is important to note that this says nothing about random mutation). Furthermore, Natural Selection might have stopped, but it did have the last say because the strongest won out and [theoretically] will continue to win out (unless some alien species dominates us).

Again, this is just from my understanding, which many people can testify to its imperfection.

I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time followin...

2009-07-05T17:43:04.906-07:00

I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time following you...

You've said, "this morality that came from it does not necessarily have to be a mistake. It might not be advantageous for evolution, but it could be for the human race, which is really what natural selection is all about."

I'm not sure if an evolutionist would make this argument.. but maybe I think that because I'm unable to follow what you're trying to say.. So I need to ask for clarification on what you mean.

Are you saying that morality might not be advantageous for evolution at large, but it could be advantageous for human evolution?

And do you think that an evolutionist would agree with your statement that natural selection is all about human evolution? Or are you saying something else here?

If you were just playing out what a random naturalist might say, and you are not sure about the coherence of what you said, then that's fine.. you don't need to answer. I don't want to necessarily corner you into a position that you were just playing out..

I think the evolutionist might respond by saying t...

2009-07-02T23:39:15.723-07:00

I think the evolutionist might respond by saying that natural selection is not a necessary process. It is simply an effect, or an occurrence given the circumstances. And this morality that came from it does not necessarily have to be a mistake. It might not be advantageous for evolution, but it could be for the human race, which is really what natural selection is all about.

That's right. Even according to evolutionists,...

2009-07-01T13:59:39.148-07:00

That's right. Even according to evolutionists, they admit that this whole human trait of compassion and altruism have, in effect, stopped evolution for the human species.

So let's bring it back to the issue at hand. What does this mean regarding all the naturalistic explanations about virtue and compassion? (i.e., all the attempts at explaining why morality is an evolutionarily advantageous thing for the species)?

It seems to me that it's really a silly and moot point to argue about how morality could have been selected by natural selection... because the simple observation in human beings demonstrate pretty powerfully that morality is NOT advantageous for evolution... since it pretty much stopped evolution in its tracks. So why argue about how morality is good for evolution and come up with rationalizations about reason and such, when it's plainly obvious that our evolution has virtually come to a grinding halt because of morality?

That's why Richard Dawkins calls compassion an "evolutionary mistake".. but he goes on to call it a "wonderful mistake."

This does not, by the way, show that therefore morality could not have come from evolution. It only shows that if it came from evolution, then it is a weird mistake that should not have been selected for... But it DOES defang the whole naturalistic argument that morality is something that is evolutionarily advantageous.

Well, but if Dawkins is right in saying that morality is a mistake, then shouldn't that mistake be corrected, so that evolution can go on its way? Shouldn't we, for the good of our species, recognize that morality is bad for evolution and get rid of it?

How would an evolutionist respond to this?

Perhaps an evolutionist would actually espouse "unnatural selection" as Mark explained... Any problems or thoughts with that?

In regards to Daniel's question, I think most ...

2009-06-30T18:03:09.888-07:00

In regards to Daniel's question, I think most biologists today would argue that human beings have "evolved" beyond a natural selection regime. In other words, we're able to manipulate our environment and quality of life to the point that natural selection no longer works on us. As Tim noted, our own altruism plays a big role. Many who would be considered "weaker" according to natural selection are assisted by medical advances, better nutrition, and overall human ingenuity. Moreover, we also manipulate and artificially select many other species (pets, livestock, crops - it's a pretty endless list) for our own advantage.

Today, we can even artificially select for physical traits in children through genetic testing and in vitro fertilization, although there are clearly serious moral and ethical problems with that. However, it's just an extreme example of how we are now "unnaturally" selecting ourselves. The whole point of natural selection is that a species really doesn't have any control over the pressures that are selecting for it. In many ways, we've pretty convincingly (albeit not perfectly) moved beyond that. Indeed, our "unnatural selection" has reached a wide swath of species on this planet beyond just us.

I'm sorry, I should have clarified to say that...

2009-06-30T14:47:06.916-07:00

I'm sorry, I should have clarified to say that if I was to be a naturalist, I would be forced to say that natural selection is still working but we cannot observe it because the scope of the changes is too large for our point of observation.

But from a purely skeptical point of view, I think that the "development" of altruism has in a way ended or "killed" natural selection because of the points mentioned in my previous comment. What I'm saying is that I think genuine altruism is inconsistent with natural selection. It doesn't make sense because natural selection cannot move on from there UNLESS one concedes the idea that altruism is regressive. But there are many complications in the implications that arise from such a stance, which I think very few people are willing to uphold.

Do others agree that natural selection is still wo...

2009-06-30T11:04:57.753-07:00

Do others agree that natural selection is still working on humans? If it has, has the pace slowed down, remained the same, or sped up?

I'm not sure what Tim means by saying that natural selection is still working (from a naturalistic perspective), but also saying that altruism has "killed the necessity for natural selection."

Can you explain?

From a naturalistic standpoint, i think humans are...

2009-06-30T10:55:57.083-07:00

From a naturalistic standpoint, i think humans are still going through natural selection. The only reason we can't see it is because evolution works on a timescale that is greater than our point of observation.

However, I feel that the concept of altruism has killed the necessity for natural selection. Now (still from a naturalistic view), because humans have become so dominant and because of altruism, it doesn't matter if you're weak in any sense, you're not going to be killed off. And you'll still be able to procreate and your "weak" genes will be passed on theoretically endlessly. There is no more struggle. The only thing I see against this is if some super virus infects the entire world and only people that eat kimchi survive.

Thank you for keeping this up, class. I'm bac...

2009-06-29T21:36:45.703-07:00

Thank you for keeping this up, class. I'm back from Honduras, so will need to jump in here quickly..

Many ideas being tossed around here, many of them quite good. But in order to focus the talk here a bit... It looks like people are tossing around the idea of how evolution could/could not have given us the morality that we have currently, in an objective way. Andrew's last comment playing the atheist also seems to go along this line, talking about rationality as the basis for objective morality without God..

Throughout the other comments, there seems to be an assumption that our current morality of compassion is actually ultimately good for our society, evolutionarily speaking.. Well, some of you guys argue against that, but there seems be a baseline assumption that evolution does provide a viable explanation. That's why many people talk about how self-sacrifice can be good for society, how rationality of moral reasoning can be good, how altruism is good for evolution of the species, etc..

To hopefully clarify the issue, I want to discuss this simple question (from the evolutionists' point of view):

Is natural selection working on homo sapiens today? In other words, are human beings evolving okay today?

Sorry, second post to address dan's statement ...

2009-06-29T15:05:43.661-07:00

Sorry, second post to address dan's statement of infinite regress and authority.

The basis of authority is based on the a priori (pre-existing) knowledge that we have of what reason is and how we might benefit society itself. It is a given that some people will think "it's all about me, I don't care who I mess over in the process", however, the majority of society, guided by rationalism has the ability to say you're wrong. You don't have to "want to" benefit society, it's wired into you via reason. After all, living by saying morals aren't enforcable and relative is the product of a sick, irrational mind.

Sorry, long post, and after the comments were due ...

2009-06-29T14:53:41.180-07:00

Sorry, long post, and after the comments were due anyway :sadness:, but, if anyone wants to continue the debate, I'll try to jump on "alternate atheist" Roy's side for a bit. Hope this isn't too muddled or hard to follow.

Expanding on some of the points addressed above: many rationalist philosophers argue that the basis for objective morality lies in the ability of humanity to reason (see Kant, Nagel, and Rawls for some). Much of the basis for this type of thought lies in Kant's seemingly rehashed "Golden Rule" of "Categorical Imperative", which says that an action will be morally (ethically) good only if the person will "Act only according to that maxim whereby [they] can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." That is, it's not just an issue of mutual benefit, but the ability of human reason to figure out a universal law most beneficial for humanity. This does have fundamental objectivity because it isn't based purely on subjective or situational behavior.

Assuming, for sake of argumentation, that this is true: wouldn't that provide not only an alternative explanation for why human sacrifice can be considered morally superior despite no personal benefit, but also a mechanism with which evolutionary naturalism can still operate? If this sort of collective, societal behavior has been evolutionary hardwired into a person via being able to reason for the survival of the species (through means of universal moral laws) it would mean an evolving particular morality. That is, as we grow more and more evolved we are able to figure out what is most beneficial for society, just as tracy described. This doesn't claim moral relativism, what it's saying is that the fundamental truth about morality lies in what universal morals objectively benefit society, and may be realized only as we adapt and evolve as mankind. Tracy, the question about how we then judge progression versus digression, we would have no way of measuring instantaneous progression. However, if man is predominantly rational and acts via a mode of categorical imperative, then wouldn't it be logical to assume that over time rationality, and thus, progression, would win out to irrationality (i.e. law of large numbers)?

On a side note, I disagree with the examples given regarding such ethical failures as slavery and murder. Based on the reasoning above (as Kant also concludes) no person should be used as a means for an end (as in slavery) due to them being collectively part of the societal whole. Also, the argument that societal adaptation and realization of moral goods such as "slavery is wrong" may lead to us concluding "slavery is good" in the future is also a slippery slope fallacy. Unless it can be shown that we will later conclude "slavery is good", it can't be said that societal "moral evolution" as described above (in a non-relativistic was) is a less logically valid conclusion.

P.S. IMO I like to approach the ideas above on the grounds that the philosophers themselves start with, namely with the question, "well, how does reason exist in the first place?"... which gets us back to the mind body problem...

I think it would be good to keep in mind the origi...

2009-06-29T13:18:07.599-07:00

I think it would be good to keep in mind the original question that was asked(not to throw off people's discussion). This really was, in a subtle way, two questions:

1) Why do I need God to be good?
2) Why do objective moral values require having God?

I think the first is important to answer when we get this question, because the answer is "you don't". Even an atheist can live by some sort of moral code, or in some ways be a good person, without grounding it in God. Given that this isn't even the important question, I think it's fine to tell people that they can be good in some sense of the word without God.

The second question is the one we have been answering so far, and I think there is a good amount of accuracy to what everyone is saying. The question here isn't about whether or not people can be good, it's whether some things are good or bad no matter what time period or people group. The way I would come at it is with the idea that objectivity implies that all people ought to do certain things and ought not do other things; It's an authority question, and usually what the naturalist is missing is the authority that tells us why we should or shouldn't do something. The questioner does try to answer this in their key statement: "I also believe we should treat each other according to moral rules because that benefits me and society in the long run, which is objectively true." So they did present a reason why we should follow moral rules, and it's because it 'benefits' them and society. Now even if you accept that benefiting society is a generally good thing, why should I want to benefit society with what I do? What authority do you have to tell me that I should benefit society, or anything at all? All they have is an unanswerable regress of 'why'.

Since I'm not part of the class, I hope I'...

2009-06-27T16:20:40.234-07:00

Since I'm not part of the class, I hope I'm allowed to comment =).

I agree with what a number of other people are saying that if morality evolves, it cannot be objective. I would also call into question our so-called notion of moral "progress" under this regime. Yes, I suppose one could argue that the abolition of slavery might be an example of how morality evolved, but that still means it's subjective. Rather than always being wrong, at some point in our evolution, we just decided it's wrong. If we follow this logic, that means that at some later point in our evolution, we might decide that slavery (or some other thing that we consider immoral now) is perfectly ok.

I would ask the athiest: If objective moral values...

2009-06-26T18:29:09.886-07:00

I would ask the athiest: If objective moral values exist without God, (that is, it is impersonal and a product of the universe), then why does disobeying these moral laws bring out feelings like shame and guilt that often feel like they are directed toward someone or something?

In response to Roy's comment about moral value...

2009-06-26T16:36:31.319-07:00

In response to Roy's comment about moral values evolving, I would say that this doesn't prove that some kind of objective standard exists. But if there were an objective standard on morality, then it would make sense that there could be a progression towards it, such as in the case of the prohibition of slavery. However, in just the evolution of morals perspective, there's still no standard that this evolution is measuring up to, so how would we know whether or not we're really "progressing"? Couldn't I argue it's just a preference that our society chose to ban slavery, and not necessarily a progression?

From Roy's comment: Societies embraced slavery...

2009-06-26T15:41:09.055-07:00

From Roy's comment: Societies embraced slavery as morally acceptable but today societies condemn slavery. This is evidence for moral evolution... Also, does this change in values mean the prohibition against slavery is not objective?

I can't really follow Naturalism's implications on moral evolution.

Couldn't moral progress threaten Naturalism?

Have the truths of nature changed since the times of slavery? Have the neural computations to process information and external cues changed since the days of slavery to register the opposite moral reaction from people today? Are truths of nature able to discern right and wrong? If the truths of nature can evolve and moral truths can evolve then Naturalists could hold concurrent opposing views of morality on morality.