Darwinism and Morality

"Darwinism asserts that only materials exist, but materials don't have morality. How much does hate weigh? Is there anatom for love? What's thechemical composition of the murder molecule? These questions are meaningless because physical particles are not responsible for morality. If materials are solely responsible for morality then Hitler had nor real moral responsibillity for what he did - he just had bad molecules." (' I Don't have Enough Faith to be an Atheist' - Geisler and Turek)

Comments

Anonymous said…
This is just over simplistic – the kind of reasoning you might find in the school room. What is rather frightening about this kind of reasoning, like much that is voiced in conservative Christian circles these days, is that it is intentionally divisive; it is assuming or implying a polarity that just isn’t there. Where does Darwinism assert that only materials exist? Even if ‘it’ did, morality is not really the concern of Darwinism is it? If you trained as a car mechanic you’d not discuss morality or wonder where the soul of a car dwelt would you? What Darwin’s great mind devised is built on empiricism – what can be seen, he wasn’t interested in figuring out morality, that was the concern of the philosophers.

What Geisler and Turek fail to mention (in the above excerpt anyway) is that even morality evolves. Evidence for this can be found in the Bible. Slavery was happily endorsed in the Bible, as was what we would call paedophilia. When the churches were fuller and the Bible was better known the morality of England was a good deal less fair and caring than it is today. Hence it is obvious that if morality was a constant, as Geisler and Turek are suggesting, then why, even in ‘Christian’ societies, does morality change.

Evolution can explain love, hate, philanthropy, altruism; I think you really need some works on evolution – especially socio-biology - rather than being duped by the self-satisfied smugness of this epistemologically flawed little tome.

Of course if we all read our Bibles and all went to church and gave our lives to Christ, we’d all be moral creatures, knowing right from wrong and our societies would become more moral... you might find this post of mine on this subject: http://faithisnotthesameasreligion1.blogspot.com/2011/06/irony-is-it-like-zincy-or-coppery.html


Regards

P
P You start off by stating that this post is simplistic, then state that Darwinism is not concerned with morality and in the next breath declare that evolution is concerned with love hate etc. Given that love and hate are at the centre of morality there seems to be a contradiction here. The point about Darwinism and materials is that it does not allow for the spiritual. Evolution certainly can no more satisfactorily explain morals, love etc than it can explain the existence of you and me!
"What Geisler and Turek fail to mention (in the above excerpt anyway) is that even morality evolves"

Of course they discuss the idea that morality evolves (by the way is it micro or macro evolution?). My observation is that the human sense of morality does not evolve at all. Where is the evolved morality that allows millions of murdered babies in the mother's womb every year?
The truth is there is absolute moral law and therfore a law giver.
Anonymous said…
Neil

Just reading over the above I think I say ‘What Geisler and Turek fail to mention (in the above excerpt anyway) is that even morality evolves.’ You may have noticed the use of parenthesis ‘in the above excerpt anyway’ – which means I am conceding it may be elsewhere in the book – clever thing English, you can say all kinds of things, the only real weakness is when people chose not to comprehend. I note you haven’t posted my comment from last week. However take heart; your post did indeed inspire me to write a post of my own touching on your topic.

http://faithisnotthesameasreligion1.blogspot.com/2011/06/cheap-moral-stands.html

Many thanks – I won’t have been able to do it without you!

P.
Anonymous said…
Neil

I have spent the past year working with a small Evangelical community/church that holds very conservative views, but its members spend most of their time trying to share the good news of the gospel and helping the destitute and those in need – and 40% live in community (including families) from a common purse. They purposefully don’t receive money from the government to do this work (unlike many faith-based orgs). Personally I find their theology, worship and worldview bizarre. Yet I have a great respect for their work and integrity. They don’t want to be thought of as something special and they don’t bore society with ‘we know best coz we’re Christians’.

It is certain Christians per se ‘don’t always know better’; indeed if Christianity was so wonderful, why did we need a welfare state in the first place? Why was the lot of the majority of people in the UK a good deal poorer and less ‘moral’ when the churches were full and the Bible better known? Esp. re: health, opportunities, access to law, good housing, employment rights, fair wages etc. & there were high rates of syphilis, child sex, prostitution, sex before marriage (parish registers show a 1/3 of conceptions took place before marriage in the 19th century) – all in all, there was & has never been some halcyon period in the past of moral perfection! Yes, there were some Christian voices of protest, but these were few and many of the reforms of the 19th century were achieved by Christians and humanists working together to force reform. I know many Christians have the belief that everything that is good in society is the result of their work – but I think this self-congratulation is actually just a case of confusing wishful thinking with historical fact – see the bibliography at the end of this post http://faithisnotthesameasreligion1.blogspot.com/2011/06/does-religion-really-do-anything.html when you have read as much as I have on the history of Britain’s welfare system you might not be so self-praising of Christianity’s influence! Some did great work; the majority liked the status quo and many fought reform (remember it was mainly the middle and upper classes that filled the pews)!

I agree abortion is morally suspect; but the only way to lessen the abortion rate is to promote good sex education and to have a tolerant attitude to sex and sexuality. The Netherlands has one of the lowest abortion rates in Europe – yet it is a liberal and secular society. The alternative, a strong religious influence in social policy just results in lots of teenage pregnancy – the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in the USA are found in the Bible Belt States (as are high rates of single parent families (highest in the Western world!), high rates of divorce and serial marriage (higher than many ‘liberal’ states), violent crime, murder and large divides between rich and poor); there are also high rates of teen pregnancy in many overtly Christian societies. So if you’re really concerned about abortion, lobby your MP for better sex education in schools.

But no, it is the usual cry of ‘abortion morally wrong, blah blah blah... sexual immorality is wrong, the Bible says so, blah blah blah. Yet few Christians seem willing to really do something about this other than the usual and ineffective method of saying ‘Thou Shalt Not...’. If you want a fairer, more caring and equal society, with fewer teenage pregnancies, a lower divorce rate, a lower rate of violent crime and greater social cohesion and responsibility, go for a secular, liberal democratic system of government. Societies with strong religious values just don’t come up with the goods! And ironically secular liberal societies are more likely to support religious rights of the individual. If you want the statistics...

Here’s a good place to start:

http://faithisnotthesameasreligion1.blogspot.com/2011/06/irony-is-it-like-zincy-or-coppery.html
http://faithisnotthesameasreligion1.blogspot.com/2011/05/curiouser-and-curiouser.html

Regards:

P.

Popular posts from this blog

Where does the ability to love come from?

Hedonist in the Making

Be careful who you offer to pray for!