In Defense of Evolution

[Ten thumbs]

The question is whether god is interested in people.  Does god care if you go into a building with stained glass windows and say a little poem every seven rotations of the earth?  Does god care if you have sex without going into a similar building and reciting another little poem?  Does god care if you touch yourself in the wrong place?  That is where the bronze age superstitions we call religions become absurd.  Of course the universe seems to be ordered and can be described by simple mathematical formulae.  If you define that as "god" then I have no argument.  If god says that if you follow a little book of rules you will live forever in some vaguely defined paradise, well they would put you in a mental hospital for that belief system, unless you say your god is called "Jesus."

The purpose of the little book of rules is to prevent civilization from collapsing. The main problem with holy books is that these rules are crystallised in a way that prevents them evolving in changed circumstances. The difficulty with not having them attributed to a god is that we, especially as children, tend to question these rules. We tend to forget that the majority are not intellectually minded and need strong guidance. God acts as a strong guide who cannot be questioned. Another alternative is an authoritarian state. If the rules break down so does society.

[drogulus]

That only applies if humans created God.

     The part that shows up is the part we made. The assumption that there's another part beyond space and time is just that, an assumption, and we made that, too.

Quote from: drogulus on 27 August 2008, 22:58:47
The sum total of "The existence of God" consists entirely of what humans are up to.

Well, as we know:
Theists who believe in God believe what you say here.
Deists who believe in God do not - they see God as the creator of all things, but that is all.  God for the Deist has no involvement in the care or affairs of humans.
Pantheists believe God is omniscient in everything and through everything (more naturalist) - they in particular do not believe God will intervene or even be interested in human affairs, or in punishing the wrong-doers, etc. 
Only one of these 'religious models' follow your statement drogulus.

     All of them do, and all other ones. All the models are assumptions without evidence. You need evidence for something to be other than just what you think. Stating you "believe" otherwise doesn't change that.

     

The purpose of the little book of rules is to prevent civilization from collapsing. The main problem with holy books is that these rules are crystallised in a way that prevents them evolving in changed circumstances. The difficulty with not having them attributed to a god is that we, especially as children, tend to question these rules. We tend to forget that the majority are not intellectually minded and need strong guidance. God acts as a strong guide who cannot be questioned. Another alternative is an authoritarian state. If the rules break down so does society.

     I think you're right that this rationale undergirds the resistance to merely explaining gods in the most efficient manner, as holdovers from a prescientific past. The modern view isn't so much wrong as dangerous. Obviously this can't be explicitly acknowledged since institutions can't turn on a dime like that, after 2,000 years of commitment to "don't tell the kids". The swerves towards "who's being good" that take place in these discussions are motivated in part by concerns like this, and are not just the usual ad hominem attacks. The issues about truth get tangled up in this fear of the consequences.

     If this is true then the one possibly (or at least arguably) verifiable fact in the religious arsenal is that the beliefs are useful as a means of social cohesion, and that a scientific/philosophical standpoint suitable to a small class of educated persons can't serve in this capacity, and that it would be utopian to believe otherwise. I don't think this argument is a knockdown, but it's not fanciful, and it might turn out to be difficult to refute from historical examples. It doesn't change the value of the kind of arguments I make, because they are existence arguments and not value of religion arguments. But such considerations have a hidden effect.

[Lilas Pastia]

Funeral rites seem to have been common in Neanderthal culture. There is also some evidence of religious rituals (that's between 60000BC to 25000BC). Long before any sacred book was written. The Great Beyond seems to be an inbred feature of human (in this case proto-human) mind.

[M forever]

That's what I find so interesting and fascinating about religion from an anthropoligical point of view. People most likely have had religions for a very, very, very long time, and some echoes of these earlier religions are probably resonating in the known currently exisiting or at least documented (like the ancient Egyptian) religions, echoes from a deep, deep past way beyond anything that has been historically recorded. Of course, that also makes the current religions look all the smaller because they are all very recent inventions.

[Lilas Pastia]

Although it's a very long article about Native Spirituality, I recommend reading it to understand the difference between spirituality and religion.

Here are a few excerpts for those discouraged by the length of the text:

Native spiritual traditions are passed down orally through generations. Although North American Indian traditions vary considerably across the continent, they still have much in common. Central to many cultures is a belief that the Great Spirit created the Earth and its people. Others believe that humans came from a sky-world, that the Earth is the Mother of all life, and that plants and animals have spirits that must be respected, honoured and cared for. It is a holistic concept of not only human life but also the life of the world and all things in it, both animate and inanimate, wherein all things are related and interconnected through a "circle of life." The concept is reflected and explained by the shaman's medicine wheel.

The medicine wheel demonstrates how all life is interconnected and embarked on in a circular journey. The four cardinal directions, each of which has a guiding spirit and unique attributes, symbolize the stages of the life journey. The East, direction of the daily birth of the sun, represents a child's birth and first few years of life. The South relates to childhood and intellectual growth. The West is symbolic of adulthood and introspection. And the North represents the elder phase of life and the spiritual aspects of it. The centre of the wheel is symbolic of Mother Earth and the Creator and their role in the beginning and continuation of life.

Many North American Indian traditions revolve around spiritual and personal development, an understanding of the Great Spirit and Mother Earth, and an appreciation of the nature of life and surrounding environment.

Native spiritual and cultural traditions are passed down orally. First Nations have generally avoided writing down details of rituals in the belief that doing so counteracts the very meaning of a ceremony.

Although there is no specific moral code, some aspects of belief and behaviour are common or widespread:

    * The Earth is understood to have intrinsic value, and humans must care for it as its custodian.
    * All living things and objects have a spirit.
    * Families are valued greatly, including extended families and other individuals who may be considered family.
    * Respect must be shown to every individual, especially adults and children.
    *While individuals control their own behaviour, they should do so in consideration of the community in which they live.*
    *A person should strive to be good, and this can be achieved in part through participation in ceremonies.
    *All sacred objects must be treated as such by anyone touching them.
    *All individual spiritual beliefs should be respected.

These are very ancient beliefs that predate all of today's organized religions.

[Ten thumbs]

I must say that the Theory of Evolution does not seem to pose much of a threat to codes of morality.

[M forever]

There are some that think that though. Their view is that if there is no "higher authority", then there are no absolute values. I have always found it interesting that those people who have so much "faith" in some sort of deity do not have any "faith" in the moral qualities inherent in us human beings. Sure, we are full of contradictions and the potential for enormous cruelty and violence, and it is easy to see that at some point in our development, it was necessary to control these elements of our behavior - or at least steer them in the desired direction, namely against the neighbors - by telling the people that the world order is god-given and that those in charge of applying it are therefore not to be questioned.
But I think we should be beyond that stage in our cultural development. We have civil laws now and people should be able to develop a moral code of behavior out of themselves and their interactions rather than simply following some rules from old books, interpreted for them by whoever is in charge at that point. All that is nothing but hypocrisy anyway since declaring to be a good follower of the true faith has nothing to do with actually behaving morally (whatever exactly that may mean).

[drogulus]

I must say that the Theory of Evolution does not seem to pose much of a threat to codes of morality.

      If evolution can produce social beings with high intelligence then moral codes will develop, too. It's inconceivable that humans could exist without codes of some kind to regulate reproduction, raising of children, rules of the tribe, warfare, property. You don't need a UFO to come down and give us these things.

There are some that think that though. Their view is that if there is no "higher authority", then there are no absolute values. I have always found it interesting that those people who have so much "faith" in some sort of deity do not have any "faith" in the moral qualities inherent in us human beings. Sure, we are full of contradictions and the potential for enormous cruelty and violence, and it is easy to see that at some point in our development, it was necessary to control these elements of our behavior - or at least steer them in the desired direction, namely against the neighbors - by telling the people that the world order is god-given and that those in charge of applying it are therefore not to be questioned.
But I think we should be beyond that stage in our cultural development. We have civil laws now and people should be able to develop a moral code of behavior out of themselves and their interactions rather than simply following some rules from old books, interpreted for them by whoever is in charge at that point. All that is nothing but hypocrisy anyway since declaring to be a good follower of the true faith has nothing to do with actually behaving morally (whatever exactly that may mean).

    The only point where I would differ is the relative weight of tradition. I think there are good reasons for morality to "lag" behind the most advanced views. A great number of people with "progressive" views a century ago endorsed eugenics programs that would horrify similar progressives today. Not all moral innovations should be welcomed, and not all "old-fashioned" values should be discarded. Just because a god is believed to be the source of a rule doesn't mean it isn't a good rule.

[Lilas Pastia]

Sorry, but I thought this thread had gone beyond the narrow focus of 'evolution'. True, what I posted has nothing to do with the initial subject. Sorry about that. Really, really sorry.

Regarding 'moral codes', the subject has been broached very simply by the apostle Paul 2000 years ago. He recognizes that Man has an inbred 'moral law' that requires no religious beliefs or God-given order to enable a functional behaviour. I have always found it interesting that those people who pretend to have no 'faith' readily acknowledge that moral qualities are inherent in human beings. "Unlike animals" is implied. Right? A last twist of the evolutionary process, then?

[drogulus]

Sorry, but I thought this thread had gone beyond the narrow focus of 'evolution'. True, what I posted has nothing to do with the initial subject. Sorry about that. Really, really sorry.

Regarding 'moral codes', the subject has been broached very simply by the apostle Paul 2000 years ago. He recognizes that Man has an inbred 'moral law' that requires no religious beliefs or God-given order to enable a functional behaviour. I have always found it interesting that those people who pretend to have no 'faith' readily acknowledge that moral qualities are inherent in human beings. "Unlike animals" is implied. Right? A last twist of the evolutionary process, then?

     It's an oversimplification to say unlike animals. The more developed the brains of social beings, the more hardwired behavior is handed off to learned behavior, then rule-governed behavior. I don't think chimps have all the features of a moral code, because they don't have the abstract thought that a "rule" suggests. When one chimp steals from another and the victim yelps in outrage we recognize the gestures, and know the meaning we attach to them when we use them, though chimps don't have all these meanings. The meanings arrive later with bigger brains and language.

[M forever]

I have always found it interesting that those people who pretend to have no 'faith' readily acknowledge that moral qualities are inherent in human beings. "Unlike animals" is implied. Right?

Dunno. I don't think that follows necessarily. I don't understand what you mean by the first sentence. Saying that moral qualities might be inherent has nothing to do with faith in the conventional sense. Not even faith in humans or in evolution. If that is really inherent or if morals are simply a result of evolving intelligence is hard to say. The whole point of morals is to behave in ways which are effective for us and the group we live in. The ability to see beyond that is obviously not yet fully developed in us.

[scarpia]

I have always found it interesting that those people who pretend to have no 'faith' readily acknowledge that moral qualities are inherent in human beings. "Unlike animals" is implied. Right? A last twist of the evolutionary process, then?

Just shows how far you are from understanding any of these arguments.  Of course, animals have "moral"  behavior programmed in the form of instincts.  Birds feed their young, lions hunt in prides, elephants, defend each other from attack, etc.  Man has its own set of instinctive "moral" behaviors, but since man also has rational judgment superimposed on this set of instincts, he needs something to justify instinctive behavior.  That something is god, which is commanding him to do what he is actually programmed to do by his instincts.

[Joe_Campbell]

The meanings arrive later with bigger brains and language.

Don't you think that is a bit of an oversimplification?

[Lilas Pastia]

Dolphins have bigger brains and a quite complex language.

[Joe_Campbell]

Yea...something went awry ages ago, and now we unfortunately exist as well.

[Lilas Pastia]

Just shows how far you are from understanding any of these arguments.  Of course, animals have "moral"  behavior programmed in the form of instincts.  Birds feed their young, lions hunt in prides, elephants, defend each other from attack, etc.  Man has its own set of instinctive "moral" behaviors, but since man also has rational judgment superimposed on this set of instincts, he needs something to justify instinctive behavior.  That something is god, which is commanding him to do what he is actually programmed to do by his instincts.

Yeah, sure, "of course", as you say. Moral behaviour programmed as instinct. Why didn't I think ot that? Probably because it's such a gross anthropomorphic trap. It's their instinct that leads animals to hunt and kill. It's the female Preying Mantis' instinct that makes her eat her mate alive right after breeding. It's also its instinct that makes the Cuckoo lay its egg in another bird's nest, and the chick push the other eggs and chicks off to a speedy death. For some reason I fail to see any of these instinctive acts as moral. But I suppose that's not what you meant, right? I hope not.

[scarpia]

Yeah, sure, "of course", as you say. Moral behaviour programmed as instinct. Why didn't I think ot that? Probably because it's such a gross anthropomorphic trap. It's their instinct that leads animals to hunt and kill. It's the female Preying Mantis' instinct that makes her eat her mate alive right after breeding. It's also its instinct that makes the Cuckoo lay its egg in another bird's nest, and the chick push the other eggs and chicks off to a speedy death. For some reason I fail to see any of these instinctive acts as moral. But I suppose that's not what you meant, right? I hope not.

That's the beauty of it.  Religion allows the faithful to behave morally towards friends and demonize enemies.  Afterall, the Nazi's derived their demonization of the Jews from Catholic theology.  The Serbians thought their conduct in Bosnia and Kosovo were justified to preserve their holy sites.  Religion justifies the highest and basest instincts of man.  It is civilization which suppresses the base aspects of the human nature.

[mahler10th]

Yeah, sure, "of course", as you say. Moral behaviour programmed as instinct. Why didn't I think ot that? Probably because it's such a gross anthropomorphic trap. It's their instinct that leads animals to hunt and kill. It's the female Preying Mantis' instinct that makes her eat her mate alive right after breeding. It's also its instinct that makes the Cuckoo lay its egg in another bird's nest, and the chick push the other eggs and chicks off to a speedy death. For some reason I fail to see any of these instinctive acts as moral. But I suppose that's not what you meant, right? I hope not.

Instinct in nature is diverse.  Some of it we see as good, some of it we see as bad.  Our human instincts thankfully can tell the differece.  That is what makes us a cut above the rest of the animal kingdom.  Looks like you have selectively chosen some percieved 'bad' ones to put forward a counter argument.  Thankfully, in the main, human behaviour from instinct is not that of a Cuckoo or a Mantis.  They are encoded with their own insticts and behaviours.  And so are we.
I hope that is exactly what Scarpia meant, although he used the word God to describe what it is to be human, which I can't possibly agree with. 

[M forever]

I hope that is exactly what Scarpia meant, although he used the word God to describe what it is to be human, which I can't possibly agree with. 

Why not?

[Ten thumbs]

Yeah, sure, "of course", as you say. Moral behaviour programmed as instinct. Why didn't I think ot that? Probably because it's such a gross anthropomorphic trap. It's their instinct that leads animals to hunt and kill. It's the female Preying Mantis' instinct that makes her eat her mate alive right after breeding. It's also its instinct that makes the Cuckoo lay its egg in another bird's nest, and the chick push the other eggs and chicks off to a speedy death. For some reason I fail to see any of these instinctive acts as moral. But I suppose that's not what you meant, right? I hope not.

Yes, this is the trap. To look at morality with human eyes. The behaviors of the mantis and the cuckoo are moral in the sense that they promote the individual specie. Humans continually kill millions of other creatures every day and we call that moral (and I don't mean just for food) and we will happily turn birds out of their nests if we want to build on the site of them.