Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Evolutionary Basis for Ethics?
ATheist
Junior Member (Idle past 5044 days)
Posts: 11
From: Notre Dame, Indiana, USA
Joined: 12-20-2009


Message 31 of 57 (540672)
12-27-2009 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by bluescat48
12-26-2009 7:34 PM


I know atheism has no concrete relation to evolution, but there is a remarkable correlation between atheism and an undying fealty towards evolution. So, with that said, I imagine that trend will continue with whomever I speak with in the biology department.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by bluescat48, posted 12-26-2009 7:34 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by bluescat48, posted 12-27-2009 1:19 PM ATheist has not replied
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 12-27-2009 10:03 PM ATheist has not replied
 Message 36 by Nuggin, posted 12-28-2009 1:47 AM ATheist has not replied
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-28-2009 1:57 AM ATheist has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4180 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 32 of 57 (540678)
12-27-2009 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by ATheist
12-27-2009 11:56 AM


I know atheism has no concrete relation to evolution, but there is a remarkable correlation between atheism and an undying fealty towards evolution. So, with that said, I imagine that trend will continue with whomever I speak with in the biology department.
My point is that although virtually all Atheists accept evolution, so do most agnostics, deists and a large percentage of theists.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ATheist, posted 12-27-2009 11:56 AM ATheist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by MikeDeich, posted 12-27-2009 10:08 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 33 of 57 (540706)
12-27-2009 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by ATheist
12-27-2009 11:56 AM


logic ... and a social basis for ethics and morality
Hi FightingIrish, welcome to the fray.
Message 28: I have to agree with you Adequate, they are arguing philosophically about things which have been answered fairly conclusively in scientific study. However, they are leading philosophers, so don't dismiss them as ignoramuses who have no valuable knowledge.
Are you familiar with logic? It is a strong element of philosophy when done properly, and the study of logic involves the identification of certain logical fallacies, such as the appeal to authority.
Message 24: For the most part, they're all Aristotelians (a few Thomists in there, but most certainly not the majority). When I asked them if animals share the same ethical principles as humans, they scoffed resoundingly.
Also please see Pseudoskepticism and logic for some insight on people who dismiss something out of hand without considering the evidence, or who do not provide objective empirical evidence themselves to support their negative position.
I know atheism has no concrete relation to evolution, but there is a remarkable correlation between atheism and an undying fealty towards evolution.
Let's posit two groups -- {A} and {B}.
Group {A} includes people from religions around the world of every stripe and color, and a common feature is that they understand and accept that evolution is a common everyday fact, happening constantly around them. They have no problem with evolution, and no conflict between evolution and their various faiths.
Group {B} includes people that have a problem with understanding or accepting evolution because it conflicts with their faith and beliefs.
Group {B} by definition excludes atheists from their midst, while group {A} by definition does not exclude anyone of any specific belief.
Would you not agree that by definition, Group {A} will always have more atheists (and be more diverse) than group {B}?
The question yet to be asked is whether these philosophers are really religious philosophers - - - presumably you are talking about professors and the university of Notre Dame, a catholic institution:
quote:
In the decade after the Second Vatican Council (1963) the university’s basic Catholicism did not change, but its ways of emphasizing it did. Instead of merely trying to perpetuate the institution and keep its adherents obedient to the institutional church, there was an attempt to develop a laity which is informed and dedicated. Many previously ignored topics such as compulsory celibacy for the priesthood, birth control, and ecumenicity were discussed without limits. Although the faculty was well over 85% Catholic before 1970, search practices have broadened. In recent years about half the new faculty hires have been Catholics, and Catholics now comprise 52% of the faculty.[35]
Could the scoffing be due to the religious biases of the professors, rather than to their knowledge of reality or their stated philosophical position?
Message 1: The basis for ethics I refer to is grounded in our (the Homo Sapiens Sapiens species) ability to stand up and utilize our hands. This was seen as early as Homo Erectus and Homo Hobilis, when they stood up and began to create tools. With the ability to create tools (technology), we gained infinite radiation. This means that as a species, we were no longer confined to a single geographical location. Our ability to make tools allowed us to bypass Darwinian evolutionary theory; instead of our environment changing us, we changed our environment.
(quibbles btw: only the genus name is capitalized: "Homo sapiens sapiens, and it's Homo habilis)
The first hominid ancestor to stand predates "Lucy" and the Australopithecines by several million years. The tracks at Laetoli clearly show habitual bipedal locomotion:
Laetoli - Wikipedia
quote:
The footprint-bearing layers are Pliocene in age, dated by the K/Ar method to 3.6 million years ago (m.y.a.).
The footprints demonstrate that the hominids walked upright habitually, as there are no knuckle-impressions. The feet do not have the mobile big toe of apes; instead, they have an arch (the bending of the sole of the foot) typical of modern humans. The hominids seem to have moved in a leisurely stroll.
Computer simulations based on information from A. afarensis fossil skeletons and the spacing of the footprints indicate that the hominids were walking at 1.0 m/s or above, which matches human small-town walking speeds.[1]
Apes make, and carry, tools for specific tasks, including making sharpened stick spears to hunt monkeys.
Thus the basis of this thesis is wrong from the start.
In addition, as has been posted, there are several other species that exhibit ethical behavior, including dolphins, so the conclusion that ethics follows from walking, talking and carrying big sticks is also wrong from the start.
Now if you want to posit a basis for ethics and morality, I could suggest you start with the fact that apes in general, and humans in particular, are social animals, habitually coexisting in small social groups, and that ethics and morality developed as part of the social ecology of the people.
In this regard, the observed ethical behavior in apes, monkeys and dolphins all fit into the basic thesis: social groups develop social rules for interaction between individuals.
enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ATheist, posted 12-27-2009 11:56 AM ATheist has not replied

  
MikeDeich
Junior Member (Idle past 4549 days)
Posts: 24
From: Rosario, Argentina
Joined: 10-31-2009


Message 34 of 57 (540709)
12-27-2009 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by bluescat48
12-27-2009 1:19 PM


Yea Im gonna have to echo bluescat. While perhaps all atheists accept evolution, not all who believe in evolution are atheists. Aside from myself & a few cousins, My entire family is practicing Catholic....& I can't think of one relative that doesn't accept evolution...except my 90 yr old grandfather. Although, it would be interesting to see the breakdown of religious views & acceptance of evolution. A quick wikipedia search, although hardly reliable, shows several polls that suggest atheists & agnostics are in the minority. Those who believe in evolution, whether guided by a god or not, are not such a small minority.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by bluescat48, posted 12-27-2009 1:19 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Briterican, posted 12-27-2009 10:21 PM MikeDeich has replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3939 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 35 of 57 (540710)
12-27-2009 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by MikeDeich
12-27-2009 10:08 PM


MikeDeich writes:
My entire family is practicing Catholic....& I can't think of one relative that doesn't accept evolution
My family is Christian, but they almost universally accept science and evolution. My mother compartmentalizes, managing somehow to accept both evolution and her beliefs without really pursuing the areas where they disagree. Most of the rest of them are pretty much deists without realising it. They would claim to be Christian, but its more of a cultural identity. In my experience, their actual, reasoned opinions on matters of origin are indistinguishable from deism.
That sounds very similar to what you described, and it makes me wonder how common it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by MikeDeich, posted 12-27-2009 10:08 PM MikeDeich has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by MikeDeich, posted 12-28-2009 11:21 AM Briterican has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2483 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 36 of 57 (540713)
12-28-2009 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by ATheist
12-27-2009 11:56 AM


Atheism/Evolution
I know atheism has no concrete relation to evolution, but there is a remarkable correlation between atheism and an undying fealty towards evolution. So, with that said, I imagine that trend will continue with whomever I speak with in the biology department.
While people who believe in evolution don't necessarily have to be atheists, it's hard to imagine a rational atheist who doesn't accept evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ATheist, posted 12-27-2009 11:56 AM ATheist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 37 of 57 (540714)
12-28-2009 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by ATheist
12-27-2009 11:56 AM


I know atheism has no concrete relation to evolution, but there is a remarkable correlation between atheism and an undying fealty towards evolution. So, with that said, I imagine that trend will continue with whomever I speak with in the biology department.
I think it's more subtle than the question of evolution. I think you'll find that professors at Notre Dame who don't believe in evolution are fairly thin on the ground --- it's not Liberty University, after all.
No, the problem a doctrinally Catholic professor is going to have is with the suggestion that chimps and other non-humans have knowledge of good and evil and are capable of choosing between the two. So long as their behavior was merely instinctual, then the professors would have no worries in admitting that it existed and admitting that it's a product of evolution. But if we say that the behavior is a product of moral choice, then they wouldn't like to admit that even if they were thoroughgoing evolutionists.
It's essentially a theological problem. Even if the fruit of the tree of knowledge is a metaphor, as your professors will believe almost without exception, then they would still say that the meaning of the metaphor was that it was humans that metaphorically ate of the metaphorical fruit, and not also some motley bunch of monkeys and dolphins and elephants.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ATheist, posted 12-27-2009 11:56 AM ATheist has not replied

  
MikeDeich
Junior Member (Idle past 4549 days)
Posts: 24
From: Rosario, Argentina
Joined: 10-31-2009


Message 38 of 57 (540741)
12-28-2009 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Briterican
12-27-2009 10:21 PM


They would claim to be Christian, but its more of a cultural identity. In my experience, their actual, reasoned opinions on matters of origin are indistinguishable from deism.
That sounds very similar to what you described, and it makes me wonder how common it is.
I bet it's fairly common to find this sort of thing. I haven't polled my family or anything but I think there is a general range between the more deists mentality & those who practice religion more for cultural identity. Both of my parents attend church regularly, but my father has a masters in chemistry & math, while my mother studied biology before medical school. I suppose my mother is more the deist, & my father more the cultural practitioner. But neither of them believe that the bible is literal, & both completely accept evolution. If you take literal bible belief out of the equation, then I thinks its not very hard to accommodate both evolution & religious views in ones mind without any cognitive dissonance. Besides even fundamentalists pick & choose how to interpret the bible, even while believing it is literal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Briterican, posted 12-27-2009 10:21 PM Briterican has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by bluescat48, posted 12-31-2009 12:36 AM MikeDeich has replied

  
ATheist
Junior Member (Idle past 5044 days)
Posts: 11
From: Notre Dame, Indiana, USA
Joined: 12-20-2009


Message 39 of 57 (540973)
12-30-2009 12:26 PM


Yeesh!
I wasn't aware I'd be so highly criticized for only a few trends I've merely noticed!
Anyway, Razd, I am familiar with logic. I am also aware of all of the fallacies associated with arguments. I also understand that some of the professors I've spoken with may not have as much scientific knowledge as you may have, which allows you to compartmentalize the crazy Catholics, once again.
I however, will be speaking with the Microbiology department, who are Atheists in general. They would fall into your nicely categorized Group A, filled with all of the evolutionists, and those who have blindly gone along with the theory behind it.
Anyways, believe it or not, there are more enlightenment and modern philosophers at ND than theist philosophers. But, neither a Theist or Atheist could provide us with valuable knowledge as you all view it, so I won't be asking for their opinions anymore (even though Ethics is more related to Philosophy than anything else, especially biology and it's sub-fields).
Sorry for misspelling the Latin names, my mistake. By the way, there are older hominid fossils found than Laetoli (a strange piece of evidence to include none-the-less). For example: Ardi - Wikipedia was just found not too long ago.
As to Mike, there is a difference between believing in evolution because it's all you know (it becomes a fact rather than a belief), and accepting evolution given a philosophical understanding of evolution (pardon my adjective, if you would like, replace philosophical with profound).
Dr Adequate, you hit the nail on the head once again. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the theist philosophers do in order to rationalize the behaviors of monkeys/apes/what have you. Now, once they can rationalize it, then it becomes a philosophical argument again and there's little you can do to argue against their points.
I also agree with your other post, Mike. Most people simply compartmentalize their beliefs: religion has it's own box, evolution another, politics another, etc. But, as you can see, I'm not one for complacency! I want to pile everything into one nice messy box.

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Coyote, posted 12-30-2009 12:48 PM ATheist has not replied
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2010 12:33 PM ATheist has not replied
 Message 53 by jasonlang, posted 01-03-2010 1:35 PM ATheist has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 40 of 57 (540978)
12-30-2009 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by ATheist
12-30-2009 12:26 PM


You might also try...
You might also try the physical anthropologists on campus.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by ATheist, posted 12-30-2009 12:26 PM ATheist has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4180 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 41 of 57 (541062)
12-31-2009 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by MikeDeich
12-28-2009 11:21 AM


I bet it's fairly common to find this sort of thing. I haven't polled my family or anything but I think there is a general range between the more deists mentality & those who practice religion more for cultural identity. Both of my parents attend church regularly, but my father has a masters in chemistry & math, while my mother studied biology before medical school. I suppose my mother is more the deist, & my father more the cultural practitioner. But neither of them believe that the bible is literal, & both completely accept evolution. If you take literal bible belief out of the equation, then I thinks its not very hard to accommodate both evolution & religious views in ones mind without any cognitive dissonance. Besides even fundamentalists pick & choose how to interpret the bible, even while believing it is literal
I agree. My mother was a devote, moderate Christian, that is a believer in Christ but not in the literal Bible. My father, I would call a Christian by rote. He was not particularly religious but sort of went along for the ride. This had a profound effect on my 3 siblings and me. One sister is a devote moderate christian & the other a deist, my brother is Agnostic & I am an Atheist. All 4 of us are science oriented and accept evolution and take the Bible as alleghorical to mythological

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by MikeDeich, posted 12-28-2009 11:21 AM MikeDeich has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by MikeDeich, posted 01-02-2010 8:24 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
MikeDeich
Junior Member (Idle past 4549 days)
Posts: 24
From: Rosario, Argentina
Joined: 10-31-2009


Message 42 of 57 (541289)
01-02-2010 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by bluescat48
12-31-2009 12:36 AM


As to Mike, there is a difference between believing in evolution because it's all you know (it becomes a fact rather than a belief), and accepting evolution given a philosophical understanding of evolution (pardon my adjective, if you would like, replace philosophical with profound).
I agree with you on this, but I fit into both these categories.....While I was never taught to question evolution, I also have an anthropology degree, so I have taken courses & have some real knowledge in the area. You could say evolution is just a theory & not fact, but so is gravity. All most all scientific evidence supports evolution as it supports gravity. While philosophy is all well & good....I see people again & again trying to apply it to gathered scientific data. Identifying a fallacy has nothing to do with observed realities. You could maybe apply this to the interpretation of data but the data itself exists without philosophical justification. Different interpretations are often present in scientific data. People who know the science behind evolution want to be approached with science based counters, not philosophy. while you may want to lump these things together.....philosophy & science are like night and day.....that's not me compartmentalizing, that's a fact. Not trying to criticize, just the world as I see it. One more question, how do you know all these science professors are atheists? Have you polled them? Assuming a supporter of evolution is an atheist is a fallacy in itself, right? atheists & agnostics are a smaller minority of the population compared to those who claim a religion.....but, half or more believe in evolution.....so obviously some people dont see a conflict with believing in both. Such as briterican's, bluescats', & my family members.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by bluescat48, posted 12-31-2009 12:36 AM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by ATheist, posted 01-03-2010 2:31 AM MikeDeich has not replied

  
ATheist
Junior Member (Idle past 5044 days)
Posts: 11
From: Notre Dame, Indiana, USA
Joined: 12-20-2009


Message 43 of 57 (541395)
01-03-2010 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by MikeDeich
01-02-2010 8:24 AM


Since it's a theory, like gravity (a much stronger theory), it is subject to whatever interpretations we can come up with, right? So, if I wanted to apply my philosophical knowledge which deals in absolutes based in empirical observations, then so be it. If I tried to disprove a fact, like 2+2=4, then you'd have a case for me misusing philosophy, but when it comes down to it philosophy is the strongest tool that any scientist can possess if they want to understand an event in the deepest levels of comprehension. Use philosophy like a comb through hair, except instead of hair, it's observations of reality.
Also, I don't know that all of the biologists are Atheist, but I do know that the majority of the faculty at Notre Dame are either Atheist or a religion other than Christianity. Christians, especially Catholics, are a staff minority who's population densities are greatest in the liberal arts (Philosophy, English, Classics, etc). If you'd like, you can look at the different departments faculty's and see for yourself where the religious divide is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by MikeDeich, posted 01-02-2010 8:24 AM MikeDeich has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-03-2010 4:24 AM ATheist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 44 of 57 (541397)
01-03-2010 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by ATheist
01-03-2010 2:31 AM


Since it's a theory, like gravity (a much stronger theory), it is subject to whatever interpretations we can come up with, right?
No, not really. How would you interpret the theory of gravity as meaning that planets should have triangular orbits? How would you interpret evolution + common descent as meaning that intermediate forms shouldn't exist?
I would question your assertion that gravity is "a much stronger theory", but that's another story ...
If I tried to disprove a fact, like 2+2=4, then you'd have a case for me misusing philosophy, but when it comes down to it philosophy is the strongest tool that any scientist can possess if they want to understand an event in the deepest levels of comprehension.
I don't see how philosophy would make much difference, really. In fact, we observe that it doesn't --- when scientists divide into warring camps, it's not Platonist physicists versus Hegelian physicists, or naive realist biochemists versus solipsist biochemists. It's over some actual question in their field. The ultimate nature of reality doesn't enter into it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by ATheist, posted 01-03-2010 2:31 AM ATheist has not replied

  
jasonlang
Member (Idle past 3393 days)
Posts: 51
From: Australia
Joined: 07-14-2005


Message 45 of 57 (541405)
01-03-2010 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Nuggin
12-22-2009 1:14 AM


What happened? The monkeys that were still being rewarded with cucumber refused to collect any more pebbles. There is something peculiarly human about this reaction and the concept of justice it suggests. Mere conditioning, as with Skinner's pigeons, comes nowhere near explaining this.
The key thing to highlight here is from an evolutionary cost benefit analysis it doesn't make sense for them to stop. They are doing a task and getting food. Getting food (of any quality) is an advantage. Stopping the task and therefore getting no food rather than get 2nd place food is not evolutionarily beneficial.
Maybe it doesn't make sense in the short term, looking at energy in-energy out, but perhaps a sense of fairness i.e. getting your "fair share" has long term evolutionary benefits for a social animal, i.e. those who've settled for second best have had less offspring overall. In a longer study, though, they might have caved if the cucumber was the only sustenance on offer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Nuggin, posted 12-22-2009 1:14 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Iblis, posted 01-03-2010 11:52 AM jasonlang has replied
 Message 52 by Nuggin, posted 01-03-2010 12:56 PM jasonlang has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024