Evolution
is amoral. If nature is all there is, then there is really no such
things as good or evil. One man killing another is really no
different than a lion hunting a zebra or an apple falling from a
tree. They are all just descriptions of things that happen without
an interest if they're right or wrong. Of course, we recoil at
comparing murder to an apple falling from a tree. We know, almost
instinctively, that murder is “wrong.”
It's
this built-in sense of knowing some things are always wrong which
suggests that maybe nature really isn't all there is. Maybe there's
an absolute standard of what is right – a transcendent truth that
trumps any individual's opinion. Where might this universal standard
be? Some might suggest that our sense of morality comes from
community. It's a collective agreement on what works best for
society as a whole. Everyone is better off if people don't kill,
steal, and cheat.
When
we start looking to societal norms as “right,” we still cannot
find solid grounds to identify any particular behavior as wrong.
Most people consider slavery to be wrong. However, slavery was
allowed in the US for 400 years – from the time of the early
settlers to the time it was a flourishing, world power. How can we
objectively say that we're right now and they were wrong then? When
the Nazis were being tried after WWII, most of them claimed that
their war “crimes” were legal in their society. Again, who are
we to say that another people in another place are wrong and we're
right? The bottom line is that if there is no immutable law that
transcends human opinion, then might makes right. There are no,
inalienable, God-given rights. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness are only privileges the state lets us have.
I was
on YouTube the other day and I was watching a debate between an
evolutionist (David Silverman) and a creationist (John Rankin). Most
debates of this kind focus on the evidence for or against the
respective theories. However,
this particular debate discussed the question, “Can Darwinian
evolution produce a healthy society?” As usual, Silverman, the
evolutionist argued that our moral values are basically evolved
instincts to do what is best for the community. Blah, blah, blah.
I've
blogged about these types of comments before.
To his
credit, though, Silverman was a little more candid about the idea
that there is no ultimate right or wrong according to evolution. His
opinion was basically, “whatever works is right.” But the most
intriguing thing he said was that it is the very idea of “absolute
truth” that is harmful to society! According to him, it's the
religious zealots, the ones who think they know God's truth, who will
strap bombs to themselves or fly planes into buildings. His is a
clever tactic. Well, maybe not clever but certainly novel. He says
on one hand that whatever provides the most benefit to the most
people is “good” but believing there is a such thing as objective
good is “bad.” Incredible!
I see
a couple of flaws in his approach. Obviously, it contradicts itself.
After all, how can he seriously say in one breath that there is
ultimately no objective right or wrong, then in the next breath say
that believing in an objective moral standard is “wrong”?
But
the thing that really struck me is a point that seems to have
completely escaped Silverman. His claim is that our sense of
morality is an evolved trait that instinctively drives us to act in a
way that's best for society overall. He further claims that
religious dogmatism works against the best interest of society. What
Silverman completely overlooks is that, if evolution were true, then
our seeming irresistible urge to believe in a divine being is also an
evolved trait. The overwhelming majority of people in the world
today – indeed, the majority of people who have ever lived – all
believe in some deity. So then, if evolution is true, there must be
some sort of survival benefit to believing in God (or at least a god
or gods)!
Once
again we see the case of a flawed world view unable to measure up to
its own standards. If our sense of right and wrong is an evolved
trait, then our belief in God, another evolved trait, is
instinctively right. Since the majority of people believe, then
belief seems to be the preferred trait. Therefore, unbelief – aka,
atheism – is morally “wrong.”
What
we have is a paradox; if Silverman is right, then he's wrong.
I think that a sympathetic reading of Silverman would be, not that there are no objective moral principles that are more than mere opinions, but that the idea of a detailed moral code that is permanent and unalterable, in all societies, all times, and all situations, is wrong (because it does not maximize human welfare and minimize human suffering). Also note that complaining about the dangers of moral absolutism, and about how violent zealots can justify themselves by appealing to eternal divine law as superior to human wisdom and symmpathy, is not that novel; I'm pretty sure the argument has been around since at least the birth of utilitarianism some 200 years ago.
ReplyDeleteNote that while in creationism, the source of our moral intuitions is also, directly, the justification of those intuitions and the standard by which they are to be corrected and adjusted; this is not so with evolution. Natural selection is not, itself, the justification or examplar of morality; rather, the human sympathies and reasoning abilities that have been shaped by natural selection are. Moral judgments are not based on how well they preserve copies of our genes, even if our minds were shaped because the mental habits and feelings that shape our moral judgments happened, in fact, to work (more often than not) to preserve the genes for minds that felt and thought that way.
Slavery seems, given your apologetic goals, an odd example of permanent morality, given that the Bible explicitly authorizes keeping foreigners (but not fellow Israelites) as inheritable permanent chattels; both the Old Testament and the New sanction the practice (both Old and New Testaments heap scorn on slave traders, though, implying that the U.S. was at its most biblical regarding slavery between 1807 and 1865). I assume, despite this, that you regard our present fairly extreme anti-slavery stance as correct, not the more moderate biblical stance. I offer this as an example of Silverman's point: if you really tried to follow biblical morality absolutely, you would end up holding some positions you regard as horrifying side by side with those you regard as nigh-impossibly benevolent and beneficial for society.
Now, many evolutionists have indeed suggested that natural selection has shaped, not quite an "irresistable urge to believe in God" as mental habits that predispose us to theism. One explanation is that, because the most important fact in our mental evolution was being able to figure out others' motives, we basically evolved as natural conspiracy theorists. The technical term for this is "over-attribution of agency" -- the assumption that things happen because someone caused them to happen. You're less likely to die young if you're too ready to assume that the rustling in the bushes is an enemy or predator, than you will be if you're too ready to assume it was just the breeze or some harmless animal, for example. Write this trait large, and you end up assuming that the universe exists because Someone made it, and history happens because He wanted it to happen that way. But just as you can check your assumption about the cause of rustling leaves, you can at least question and examine your assumptions about superhuman Agency at work in nature and history.
Steven J,
ReplyDeleteI don't have time to address all your points so let me hit a few. You said, “I think that a sympathetic reading of Silverman would be, not that there are no objective moral principles that are more than mere opinions,...”
Well, Silverman does say that “objective morality is dangerous” See the tape beginning at around 10:10 for one example. In that case, he said it's dangerous “because it gets in the way of growth.”
You said, “but that the idea of a detailed moral code that is permanent and unalterable, in all societies, all times, and all situations, is wrong (because it does not maximize human welfare and minimize human suffering).”
But Silverman believed the Bible is “wrong” for “endorsing slavery” or the stoning of heretics. So he apparently does believe that some societies, in some times, were wrong about certain situations. I ask on what grounds he can say our view of slavery is the “correct” view?
You said, “Also note that complaining about the dangers of moral absolutism, and about how violent zealots can justify themselves by appealing to eternal divine law as superior to human wisdom and symmpathy, is not that novel;”
Silverman seems to be claiming his own absolute sense of morality when saying our understanding of slavery is preferred over the slavery discussed in the Bible. Is his sense of moral absolutism dangerous?
You said, “Natural selection is not, itself, the justification or examplar of morality; rather, the human sympathies and reasoning abilities that have been shaped by natural selection are. Moral judgments are not based on how well they preserve copies of our genes, even if our minds were shaped because the mental habits and feelings that shape our moral judgments happened, in fact, to work (more often than not) to preserve the genes for minds that felt and thought that way.”
If evolution were true, we have no reason to believe our senses are reliable. The things we believe aren't necessarily “true” they are merely “expedient.”
You said, “Slavery seems, given your apologetic goals, an odd example of permanent morality, given that the Bible explicitly authorizes keeping foreigners (but not fellow Israelites) as inheritable permanent chattels; both the Old Testament and the New sanction the practice.”
I need to do a post on this sometime. The laws concerning slavery are like the laws about divorce. Jesus made it clear (Matthew 19:8) that God did not intend certain things but has made allowances for them because of the hardness of our hearts. The enslavement of non-Jews was primarily the result of war. “Slaves” were usually captured enemies. God didn't intend there to be slavery or war. However, when war happened, God gave strict commands as to how to treat defeated enemies.
I'm going to snip the rest of your comments. Maybe I'll revisit them later. Thanks again. God bless!!
RKBentley