As an atheist, I don't have any problem in stating the evolution has caused humans not to kill members of their group, usually a tribe comprising no more than about 150 individuals, for genetic reasons, based on variations in frequencies of unknown but potentially knowable variants of genes.We know very little about the group dynamics of prehistoric man- that's what "prehistoric" means. The extent to which human behavior is genetic is hotly debated, and it's unclear how much of a role cultural learning vs natural selection played. I'm unaware of genes that cause or prevent in-group killing.
And all scientific speculation involves "unknown but potentially knowable" entities. Not much science and less logic there, and pretty thin gruel on which to base an understanding of moral law. Nice story, though.
Humans without this genetic aversion to intragroup murder would cause the destruction of the group. Everyone outside the group being regarded as 'fair game'.Actually, throughout human history there have been lots of cultures in which in-group killing is common and even integral to the social structure. Patriarchal polygamous societies intriniscally tend to this: if the alpha male has 10 wives, nine guys do without. Gets pretty violent. One might say that in-group and out-group killing has characterized many human societies.
Of course, you can explain this as evolution- the alpha male spreading his genes. Evolution explains nothing, because it can explain anything.
With civilization, the idea of the size of the group has progressively increased, hopefully to include the entire human population for most individuals.There are countless millions of people who would like to kill you. And me. Some human societies are less violent than in the past, some are more violent. Take a walk at midnight in bad neighborhoods of Baltimore or Chicago, or go to Mecca, touch the Kabba, and then announce that you're an infidel, and you'll get up to date on recent trends in violence.
I can well imagine that if civilization broke down, perhaps due to a global environmental disaster such as a global nuclear war, the size of the group inside which murder was discouraged would rapidly drop back to 150 or less, and it wouldn't matter whether they were theists or atheists, once it becomes a matter of survivalMaybe. There have been any number of disasters- wars, famines, natural disasters- in which your theory can be tested now. What's the data? Evolutionary stories are charming.
You still didn't address my point in my post on atheism and moral law:
Do you really believe that murder isn't wrong objectively and intrinsically, independent of evolution or of our opinions?
"Morality" itself is a tool invented by man, to be used by man, to help mankind live better lives. Within that framework, one might argue that one particular rule or another is so plainly beneficial as to be "objectively" true.
ReplyDeleteIf something were objectively true in the sense I think you are trying to use, then that would mean it's true independent of the state of mankind. Therefore, by your logic, even if mankind suddenly ceased to exist (say, a black hole swallowed up Earth), murder would still be wrong. Yet without any human beings around to define murder and right and wrong, the concept of murder (and concepts in general for that matter) ceases to exist.
Therefore all moral rules exist only relative to humanity. This renders your original question ("Do you really believe... of our opinions?") as inappropriate as, say, asking "if pigs can fly, why do you think the sky is green?"
Even the terms, "objective," and "subjective," represent human concepts... they are tools humans use to help us understand the universe by breaking it down into categories. Categories which are subjective to our own experience, by the way.
So do I think murder is wrong? I would say it is objectively wrong to the extent that it is defined as such. And that definition is subjective to humanity, not god (who does not exist anyway). That's a nonsensical answer, but that's what you get when you ask a nonsensical question!
This renders your original question ("Do you really believe... of our opinions?") as inappropriate as, say, asking "if pigs can fly, why do you think the sky is green?"
ReplyDelete'This'= Atheist dogma.
A similar effect is in all disciplines when 'atheism' is applied. Inconvenient truths are 'rendered' into madness. Reason is used like a rope to hang the idea it was intended to hoist up.
Brilliant illustration of 'double-think', Mac.
BB would be proud!!
Michael,
ReplyDeleteActually, you're wrong when you state that we know very little about prehistoric humans. The highland tribes of Papua-New Guinea were only discovered to everyone's shock and surprise in the 1930s so we have an extremely good idea about how tribal society worked. And it worked in the way I stated; intragroup conflict was minimal and intergroup conflict was infrequent but deadly when it occurred resulting in significant mortality in the males.
Also archaeologists are quite capable of studying previous human societies including early tribal ones.
Thinking that humans ever had a system based on alpha males and harems of females is a misreading of primate biology. Human tribal societies are egalitarian. Common chimps have alpha males, but no exclusive access to females. Bonobos have a female hierarchal system. Gorillas have the closest to your alpha male/harem model, but they diverged 10 MYA.
Actually, you've destroyed your argument by noting that there are some people in some parts of the world who'd be quite happy to kill you because you're an infidel in their eyes or because you've got a watch and wallet that they'd like to acquire. This is perfectly explicable on the basis of what the perpetrator regards as the size of the 'group' but not on the basis that all morality is divinely inoculated into all humans as objective fact.
The genetic basis of neural development leading to empathy, which is the basis of morality, the ability to feel other people's pain, is currently unknown, but it's knowable, so I stand by that assertion. I think it's much more likely that we'll work out which combination of the roughly 23,000 genes in the human genome determine morality or empathy before we'll find a God center in the brain.
Already, we have FOXP2 gene as the gene for language acquisition.
Your final question, yes I think murder is objectively wrong, but for evolutionary reasons. I wouldn't murder kin or close companions, and culturally I've developed such that I regard all humans on Earth to be 'group'.
You don't have to look at current breakdowns of society to see what would happen following a future global climate catastrophe. Just consider what happened in Leningrad in the Second World War when the theistic Germans decided as a deliberate policy to besiege the atheistic city of Leningrad with its 3 million population to get rid of most of the population by starvation over the harsh Russian Winter, not even willing to accept a surrender. There were plenty of cases of random acts of kindness but there were also frequent cases of cannibalism, which were harshly dealt with by the authorities. Leningrad was the perfect example of what the group size becomes when catastrophe happens.
"Do you really believe that murder isn't wrong objectively and intrinsically, independent of evolution or of our opinions?"
ReplyDelete"Murder" itself is a subjective thing. It is a form of killing of human beings that society has deemed unacceptable, even while that same society may deem other forms as acceptable.
Even the Bible has some instances of killing that were deemed acceptable at some point, but are no longer considered acceptable. Take for example the instructions in the Bible to stone one's own children if they happen to be consistently disobedient. This was presumably compatible with "Thou shalt not kill/murder".
Today, this would be considered murder. Was this because the tome of objective morality, the Christian Bible, re-defined it? Or was it because human consensus on the subject (which is after all just "opinion") changed?
@creeper:
ReplyDelete[Even the Bible has some instances of killing that were deemed acceptable at some point, but are no longer considered acceptable.
Today, this would be considered murder. Was this because the tome of objective morality, the Christian Bible, re-defined it? Or was it because human consensus on the subject (which is after all just "opinion") changed?]
Good question.
Human consensus certainly has changed. Whether objective moral law exists is not decided by the fact that humans change opinions. Those who deny objective moral law have more logical problems than those who attend church.
As to the disturbing Old Testament morality, I of course an a Christian, and consider the teachings of Christ the fulfillment of moral law.
I don't like or completely understand Old Testament morality (killing enemies, stoning children, etc). There is of course much more morality in the Old Testament than that-- the Ten Commandments, the Prophets-- and much of it is very good morality.
My view is that portions of the Old Testament are special situations restricted to a Chosen People recently raised from barbarism, with a job that they need to accomplish. A parallel might be raising a child to be a free person. The process of raising the child necessarily involves some things that violate that freedom, but are necessary to accomplish the final goal of freedom.
The denial of objective morality that exists independent of human opinion is a much more deeply problematic matter than a couple of verses in the Old Testament.
Mike,
ReplyDelete"As to the disturbing Old Testament morality, I of course an a Christian, and consider the teachings of Christ the fulfillment of moral law."
It is the same God, is it not? It is the same narrative, right? The OT and the NT are connected, and Jesus is the savior predicted in the OT?
You seem to believe in an objective morality. Do you believe that the Bible reflects this objective morality?
Does this objective morality come with an expiration date?
"My view is that portions of the Old Testament are special situations restricted to a Chosen People recently raised from barbarism, with a job that they need to accomplish."
This objective morality seems strangely relative, or should one say situational. Do different kinds of objective morality apply under different circumstances? Sometimes it's okay to kill your child, sometimes it isn't?
On the whole, an atheistic explanation of morality - that it is a kind of human consensus of how we can best live together as a society - seems more in line with observable reality, including the evolution of the moral behavior of Christians themselves over time.