Morality is a Logical Consequence of Evolution, not Creation

Hello Slevesque,I've had some trouble lately in finding the time to get on evcforum, but I thought I might make some short comments on your post.You have given two examples of moral dilemmas where the two approaches to morality allegedly diverge. However, you are mistaking an evolved sense of morality for a 100% pragmatic one. Indeed, culling the weak from the herd may seem the most practical choice. However, there are two big reasons why we would not expect this to agree with our morals.- First off, it is almost universally detrimental for society that we kill members of our social group. It is not strange that we feel a strong aversion to killing other humans. Before modern medicine, people would not have lived as long and would not have burdened society as much in their elder years, so their not have been much selection for the kind of morality that culled the weak.- More importantly, we humans possess empathy to a much greater extent than most other other animals do. We are able to imagine ourselves in each other's shoes, and we understand that we might very well find ourselves in them one day. Social insects like bees may have no problem throwing the males out in the snow during winter (as the drones aren't needed and consume precious food), but they do not possess intelligence or empathy.As such I think your examples aren't as relevant as you intended. Let me provide a few examples where biblical morality and actual morality do diverge:- Killing witches. The Bible commands it, so it is good. Yet we do not feel compelled to burn witches today.- Abortion. Many evangelical Christians are pro-life and believe it is morally wrong to perform abortions. Yet many are performed every day. If we had as strong an aversion to this as killing a developed human being, it would probably not be happening. If God gave us an aversion for murder, why not the same for abortion?- Homosexuality. People throughout history have practiced it, and most people do not believe it is good to kill the homosexual, nor that is bad to be one. Once again, our inherent morality diverges from biblical morality.- Worshipping other gods/idols. There are billions of people in the world who do not worship the Biblical God, yet they do not feel immoral for this reason.So, while morals that benefit society or arise from empathy for other humans (don't lie, steal, kill etc.) are inherent in the human species, Bblical commands are not. Why is this?Respectfully,-Meldinoor

Thank you for your response slevesque,I'll be responding to your Message 12 as well in this post as both posts addressed similar issues. Empathy is a product of our intelligence. I have an understanding of what it's like to be my grandparents, because I can imagine myself in their shoes. When I break a fish's neck I feel a tinge of reluctance, because I can imagine the pain of being hooked in the mouth and having my neck twisted. When I see a playful dog, I understand that it's happy. When a dog whines and looks at me with sad puppy eyes, I might feel compelled to give it what it wants.This is because I am able to imagine myself in other situations, a trait that we share with only a few other creatures on this planet. And without exception, all other animals that share this trait are intelligent.Did our evolution favour intelligence? Undoubtedly, as a study of hominid brain capacity clearly indicates. I could go off on a tangent and discuss why we have become so darn intelligent (that is a better question IMO), but I think we should stick to the question of morality.Do you agree that empathy, as it exists in apes, dolphins, certain birds etc. is a product of intelligence? (Dolphins and Apes are also both excellent examples of cross-species empathy) Chimpanzees, dolphins and elephants are other species I can think of right off the bat that also care for their sick and injured. It turns out, if you have a gene that makes you care for your sick and injured relatives, you will be promoting the survival of that gene in your family, and eventually it may become prevalent in the population. Back when we evolved these traits, we didn't have a large retired population to support. Most of the sick and injured were probably young enough to reproduce and benefit the tribe. (According to wiki, life expectancy during the paleolithic was in the low 30's) Neither does it follow that, just because people salivate in the presence of a yummy steak, that we'd salivate at a picture of a nice rare barbecued steak. Yet we do. And we're wasting saliva... Stupid, stupid evolution. Why didn't we evolve a brain that didn't react to pictures of food?! And how silly of evolution to have us react positively to little chubby things with big eyes and big heads. Now we think puppies and baby chickens are cute too! What a waste of... adoration, or something.
And empathy, why didn't evolution make us understand each other perfectly, while making us completely unaware of the emotions and thoughts of other animals?! I mean, surely, there's no benefit in knowing what that hungry predator is thinking, is there?Just because we can think of ways that our evolution could have taken a different route, doesn't mean it had to have taken it. There is no reason for evolution to restrict our empathy to only our species. Once we had empathy enough to understand and feel for each other, it follows that we'd also have empathy for other, similar creatures. Exodus 22:18
"Do not allow a sorceress to live" The history of abortion stretches way back into prehistory, with many different cultures using various natural abortifacents and techniques to perform them. I think it would depend on the tribe, and the circumstances. Was the woman raped? Was she raped by a man from another tribe? *gasp!*Believe it or not. Your aversion to abortion also stems from social conditioning. The Baruya people of Papua New Guinea have made fellatio a central part of their culture. Young males perform fellatio and drink the semen of older males as a sort of rite of passage, and also (according to wiki) to "re-engender themselves prior to marriage". While this is not homosexuality per se, I think Moses would have blown his top if he had come across this behaviour.Apparently, inherent morality has not prevented such disgusting (by our standards) practices among the Baruya people. Hmm... it would seem that many other animals, including other apes, birds etc. do not consider it unnatural. How many biblical commands do you follow on a daily basis. Out of the grand total, that is And besides the obvious ones.Respectfully,-Meldinoor Civ 4 is an awesome game! Do you play any of the expansions as well, or just the original?---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABE: By the way, this post does not take a personal stance on any of the moral issues discussed. The examples are merely to point out that certain morals are inherent, while others are not.Edited by Meldinoor, : Added a note

I'm surprised this thread didn't catch on better than it has.It seems to me there are only a few possible positions to take on the morality issue:1. Morality is God-given and inherent in all human beings.2. Morality is God-given, but must be learnt from the Bible.3. Some kind of mix of the first two.4. Human morality is a result of evolution by natural selectionOftentimes you'll see Creationists postulating that the inherent morality we humans have, can only be explained with the inclusion of a divine lawgiver. I find it strange then, that most of the commands put forth in the Bible are not inherent in the human species.Do not kill, do not steal and do not lie are fine. We'd expect morality requisite for functional social behaviour to be inherent. Other commandments like "do not worship idols" or "you must only worship God (the same one that authored the commandments)" are not inherent in the human being. Otherwise millions of hindus would be walking about feeling guilt for worshiping idols and rejecting their Creator.So when a Creationist talks about our morality being inspired by a "divine lawgiver", what morals are they talking about? What position do you take, slevesque? And how does one hold non-christians accountable for sins, when none of their moral code go against it?
For instance, how can it be a sin to worship Shiva, if the hindu has no inherent morality to tell him otherwise. What about stem cell research, abortion, homo sexuality, taking the Lord's name in vain, etc? Someone who doesn't hold to Christianity or any religious framework that condemns these things would have no way of knowing that what he/she is doing is wrong. How then can they be held accountable?If humans were created supernaturally, would we not expect all morality to be inherent, rather than just some of it?Respectfully,-MeldinoorPS. I gave it some thought, and came up with an allegory related to this topic.
An immigrant to the United States commits a crime, and while before the judge confesses that he didn't know US law, and therefore was unaware that he had committed a crime. The jury will still hold him acountable for the crime, even if he broke the law unwittingly.
However, the accused recognizes the existence of the jury, the US code of law, and the United States. He also recognizes its authority and is therefore fully able to read the law and understand what is legal and what is not.
For a non-Christian, the Bible would not be recognized as an authority on morality. Breaking a biblical commandment would be about as immoral as it is for a Christian NOT to pray to Allah five times a day.