A lot of people object to the theory of evolution on normative grounds, that is, because evolution says that people should behave in certain ways. To take a radical example, according to the theory of evolution men who rape has gained some sort of evolutionary advantage, and that is why the behavior still exists in many different species today. Speaking in evolutionary terms an individual can gain fitness through rape. Confused people (Russ Tanner in this video is confused on other issues besides this) who mistakenly thinks that the theory of evolution is normative goes on to argue that according to the theory of evolution, rape is good.
This is of course wrong. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about how we should behave. The theory of evolution, in other words is descriptive. It describes what the world is like and the mechanisms that are at work, it doesn't say what the world should be like or whether status quo is good or bad.
So independent of whether you want a communist or a liberal society, whether you want like or dislike a certain behavior that the theory of evolution predicts. Independent of what your opinion is, the theory of evolution can help you get you where you want to go because you can learn important lessons about human nature. Ignoring or trying to deny our natural instincts will just make things harder for you…
Go save the world, but do it using what you know about human nature
Ps: Also see my post "Ethics of an atheist"
Anders,
SvaraRaderaNice blog! I appreciate that there is actually dialogue between those with differing views, rather than hostility and ranting. Thanks for moderating the discussion in this way.
Some background: I am an Evangelical (non-fundamentalist) Christian who accepts the general validity of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.
I didn't watch the video link you provided but I turned it on long enough to know that I would disagree with what was said. The truth of evolution does not depend on whether it produces "good" people. Arguing in the extreme that evolution produces rapists and murderers does not logically negate the theory. Assuming that rape is "bad," which is the view of most societies, does not mean that if evolution produces "bad" people then it didn't happen. It would be entirely consistent logically if rapists were favored by evolution (descriptively) and most people believed rape to be morally/ethically wrong.
The interesting question to me is why most societies view rape and murder as "wrong" and "bad."
This question is amplified by your "Ethics of an atheist" post. First, grouping all "religious people" together as being "good" only to gain access to heaven and avoiding "evil" only because they fear hell is misguided. There are undoubtedly people who think this way, but they are not representative of true Christian doctrine or the best of Christian thought and articulation. In fact, in Protestant Christianity salvation can never be merited by any amount of doing good. Dawkins uses the same caricature of "religious people," and it smacks of a straw man.
Theists do question atheists on the basis of morality and ethics, but not because they think heaven and hell are necessary to motivate right behavior. The question is why is anything good or bad, right or wrong. For the Christian, the moral order is objective and rooted in the nature of God.
For the atheist, right and wrong are simply social constructs. One may come up with an ethical system that can be used to determine right behavior, but what makes one system better than another? You mention utilitarianism and the "original position," but why is there such a thing as "happiness" and why is it better than despair? Why is eliminating suffering for the poor and oppressed to be desired? What inherent value do they have that we should give up some of our happiness so that they do not suffer?
I am not familiar enough with these ethical systems to know how the atheist answers these questions. I am very interested in finding out. I hope you will share with me some of your thoughts on the matter.
Kyle, all of those questions - about why happiness is good, etc - have their answers in evolutionary theory. Please read the rest of my comment knowing I'm simplifying things a lot, though.
SvaraRaderaFirst of all, happiness/pleasure and depression/pain are the mechanisms by which your brain rewards you for good behaviour and punishes you for bad behaviour. If an action makes you happy or is pleasurable, chances are it's also good for you from an evolutionary perspective. For instance, finding food with a lot of sugar and fat used to be difficult, but in small doses well worth it, which is why we're predisposed to indulge now that it's widely available. Similarly, pain is your body's way of teaching you to stay away from things that hurt you physically.
Secondly, ethics are not "simply" a social construct, but are based on instincts we humans, being social animals, are born with. Because we are entirely dependent on being part of a functioning group to survive and procreate, doing things that harms other members of the group will be bad for you. Hence we are born with a moral imperative not to hurt those who are part of your "tribe". In former days the tribe was much smaller than it is now - I consider my tribe to be all of humanity.
This means that there is no such thing as an objective moral system, BUT, there is an intersubjective one. By intersubjective, I mean that although morals are invented by us, all of us invent roughly the same morals. The vast majority of societies have rules against murder, theft, etc. (For the record, rape within marriage isn't considered "bad" in a lot of patriarchal societies where women are considered the property of their husbands. It's considered not to exist, as husbands have the right to their wife's body. This behaviour can also be easily explained with biology, but that obviously doesn't make it acceptable.) This is a good foundation for our morals and something we can then build upon.
Also, all atheists don't think religious people are good because they want to get into heaven or avoid being bad because they're afraid of hell. I think you strive to be good because, like me, you were born with those instincts. You're a moral animal whether you like it or not. ;) Let me ask you a question: Could God, if he wanted, change his mind about what is good and bad? Could God reverse his commandments and for instance make murder morally defensible?
Maybe a bit off topic, but today i ask non-religious people, what they see as good intentions
SvaraRaderaWhat is your opinion of Noah's ark. Do you believe that it actually happened? Did God do the right thing when he committed mass genocide?
SvaraRaderaWhat a debate! I feel too ignorant to comment, but I've given you a link: visit me and let me know if you want to reciprocate. ciao :)
SvaraRadera