Evolution and Evil

[Freodin]

Evil exists, because there are moral agents (in our case: humans) who make the judgement of "evil".

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Like others here, I believe "evil" only exists within a philosophical moral context (whether religious or not). Likewise, I think it's no coincidence we only attribute "evil" to human actions and not to nature. Hence, "evil" is dependent on subjective human reasoning and philosophy.

Sin is strictly a religious construct and therefore does not exist beyond that context.

 

[flicka]

Sometimes people do bad things. But I don't call it "sin". I might use the word "evil" (little 'e') to describe something extremely bad. I avoid the word "sin" because it has religious connotations and means something very specific to Christan's, a meaning I don't share. But there is no mystery to it, nobody is claiming that there aren't bad people doing bad things. I think these questions are mostly word games and people trying to read hidden meaning into something.

 

[Chalnoth]

I am simply trying to understand how an atheist views the nature of man. Humanity has the knowledge to know the difference between right and wrong. An animal does not know the difference between right and wrong, animals live by instinct…

This is incorrect. Social animals have a sense of morality as well. We can see this by observing "pecking order" in various animal groups, by observing animals getting upset at the actions of other members in the group, and by observing animals comforting one another. The other great apes, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, are, next to humans, the animals with the keenest moral senses. Dogs, by contrast, only have the most rudimentary moral sense.

Now don’t go rushing off to tell me your dog knows when it has done something wrong, your dog has just learnt to know what displeases you…

This is the most basic form of morality, though: understanding what actions others like and do not like. It's on par with the morality of a small child, before that child has learned to internalize morality (internalization=do things because they are believed to be good or bad, not because of reward/punishment).

Humanity is forever at war… it never seems to learn that war is bad. Again don’t go running off saying that most wars are caused by religion, so it is religion that’s bad. According to you guys God does not exist, so humanity must have invented God, so humanity invented religion.

Well, first of all, I don't think anybody would state that religion is the cause of all war. War is, fundamentally, caused by irreconcilable differences. And any kind of dogmatism is liable to cause irreconcilable differences. Religion is only one form of such dogmatism.

And yes, the natural conclusion is that war is, ultimately, a product of mankind's stupidity. It's a product of systems that our ancestors set up in ignorance, and poor decisions made by ourselves in the present. But don't you see? The realization that it's all man-made gives us license to change it. This is why rationalism is so much more uplifting than any religion: it rests upon the idea that all dogma is wrong, because it is inflexible, that we should be flexible and understanding, and base our beliefs upon evidence. No war, after all, was started because people were too reasonable.

You will all have answers as to how and why religion evolved, but what is its purpose for it evolving? How is it beneficial to humanity when it poses a threat of total destruction from nuclear conflict?

There are a couple of things to recognize here. Anything that evolves evolves for the sole purpose of propagating itself. Parasites simply do not care for the wellbeing of their hosts: they only want to replicate. Sometimes a parasite will harm its host horribly (as with any disease). Sometimes a parasite will help its host to survive (as with the bacteria in our gut). Whether the parasite helps or arms all depends upon how it propagates itself. Typically parasites that are transmitted vertically (from parent to child) are benign or helpful, because their own survival depends upon their host's survival. Thus, most of the time, religion that is passed from parent to child is beneficial (this doesn't make it correct, nor does it mean we can't find the beneficial aspects and use those without the dogma).

By contrast, parasites that are passed through parallel transmission, and not from parent to child, tend to be extremely harmful, because they tend to exploit their hosts for their own gain. We see this sort of thing all the time in the animal kingdom, where, for example, a parasite-infected animal's behavior is changed so that that animal is more likely to be eaten (so that the parasite can move on to its next host). For example, this parasite, when it infects a rat, overrides that rat's natural fear of cat urine, and causes it to instead be attracted to the smell. We see this parallel in cults in particular, which tend to be highly exploitative of their members, even to the point of death.

But these are only general guidelines, not hard and fast rules. The ultimate selective pressure for the religion, after all, is that religion's own survival, not any benefit to ourselves. And, as a result, religions have no restriction against sacrificing our own lives for the religion to survive or spread (as we see with Muslim suicide bombers). Most important of all, though, the actual truth of religious claims is in no way selected for, and therefore there is no reason whatsoever to believe that religion is actually correct, even if some practices (e.g. the formation of churches) are beneficial to humans.

There is evil in this world… how can it be denied… it’s all around us. I just heard on the news tonight that a baby was torture to death by it’s own father. I’m sorry but that kind of thing really upsets me in a big way. What will you guys say… the father is mentally ill… maybe he is… or maybe he is just evil.

There are things we all believe are morally wrong. But to call something evil adds connotations of absolute morality that are just invalid. Granted, some still do use evil to relate to our own, subjective morality (I have done it myself on occassion), but really it's just a statement that we agree that not everybody performs actions which are in accordance with our own built-in morality, either through ignorance as to what the impact of those actions are, through bad cultural conditioning, or through simply not having the normal built-in morality.

 

[consol]

.and when another comet hits the earth or the sun burns out, everyone and everything dies,
and all of their imaginary Gods will die with them.

I agree with all of it except the last 2 lines.

It is generally known that at least two comets or large asteroids have hit the earth since life began,
so why would you think it won't happen again? there is stuff flying around in space just looking
for something to hit, something hit Jupiter a couple of years ago.
And you can't possibly think that the sun is going to carry on shining forever?

All the religions in the world are man made,
Islam is approximately 14 or 15 hundred years old,
Christianity is approximately 2000 years old,
Mormonism is approximately 150 years old,
think how many people died worshipping the Inca sun God, how many were killed in the name of a their God?
which died when the Inca civilisation died.
so when there are no people left on this planet, the Gods will disappear along with everything else.

 

[Phred]

It is generally known that at least two comets or large asteroids have hit the earth since life began,
so why would you think it won't happen again? there is stuff flying around in space just looking
for something to hit, something hit Jupiter a couple of years ago.
And you can't possibly think that the sun is going to carry on shining forever?

All the religions in the world are man made,
Islam is approximately 14 or 15 hundred years old,
Christianity is approximately 2000 years old,
Mormonism is approximately 150 years old,
think how many people died worshipping the Inca sun God, how many were killed in the name of a their God?
which died when the Inca civilisation died.
so when there are no people left on this planet, the Gods will disappear along with everything else.

Since mankind is 100,000 or more years old in our present form and Christianity is at best 2,000 years old then there are 98,000 years of people just like us worshiping false gods. And someplace, sometime, in between those years... when we speciated and became fully homo sapiens sapiens... at what point did we supposedly get souls?

Special creation is proven false and with it the concept of the soul and heaven and hell. Sure, you can manufacture a moment in time or you can say we've always had souls... but then so does every living thing. Welcome to the Force, Luke.

A literal reading of the Bible gives us things that are directly contradicted by facts. Thus, it is not perfect and wonderful unless you interpret it. Once you start down that road it's dependent upon the reader, not upon the author and it's no longer heaven-sent. That's what all these creationists are fighting so hard against. The inevitable uselessness of their book as a historical text. And with that the end of its authority.

 

[Blayz]

It is generally known that at least two comets or large asteroids have hit the earth since life began,
so why would you think it won't happen again? there is stuff flying around in space just looking
for something to hit, something hit Jupiter a couple of years ago.
And you can't possibly think that the sun is going to carry on shining forever?

Well firstly there is alot less stuff flying around in erratic orbits than there was, secondly the gas giants act as gravity shields and help soak up said debris. Lastly, the sun will shine for another 4 billion years or so. If we have not got off planet by then, we deserve to crisp.

 

[Quasarsphere]

Does everyone agree with this Guy?

I do.

 

[Chalnoth]

Well firstly there is alot less stuff flying around in erratic orbits than there was, secondly the gas giants act as gravity shields and help soak up said debris. Lastly, the sun will shine for another 4 billion years or so. If we have not got off planet by then, we deserve to crisp.

The time span for major asteroid impacts right now is about one every hundred million years. Such an impact won't be a planet-killer, but would likely kill everybody on one continent, or everybody within a few hundred miles of the shore on multiple continents if it strikes the sea, and cause dramatic climate change. But, given that it's highly unlikely to happen within the next few centuries, we should certainly have the technology to detect and stop something like that by the time it happens. Unless we get unlucky, and it happens sometime within the next few years, that is.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There are posts flying about all over the place, and they are not all in agreement.

Should they be? Atheists are only united by their lack of belief in deities, not their morality.

There are too many of you firing answers at me, its hard to keep track of who said what.

I recommend PMing the ones with the best points.

I am simply trying to understand how an atheist views the nature of man. Humanity has the knowledge to know the difference between right and wrong. An animal does not know the difference between right and wrong,

An atheist would, by and large, disagree, as would I. Humans certainly ascribe judgement to actions, but that does not constitute "the knowledge to know the difference between right and wrong". And who's to say that other animals don't do something similar?

animals live by instinct…

As do humans.

Now don’t go rushing off to tell me your dog knows when it has done something wrong, your dog has just learnt to know what displeases you…

And how is that different from knowing it's done something wrong.

Humanity is forever at war… it never seems to learn that war is bad.

Oh, humans know war is bad. But those who go to war consider it the lesser of two evils, and those who declare war rarely do so for

Again don’t go running off saying that most wars are caused by religion, so it is religion that’s bad.

Why not? Correlation may not imply causation, but a causal relationship can be demonstrated. Thus, organised religion, as a root of almost all warfare and bloodshed in human history, can be deemed 'bad' by this virtue.
Oh, it may be comforting, but any religion that begets suffering and anguish can be deemed bad (unless your definition of 'bad' doesn't include said suffering and anguish).

According to you guys God does not exist, so humanity must have invented God, so humanity invented religion.

Strong atheists say that deities do not exist, and weak atheists have no position as to whether deities exist or not. There's a difference.

That said, I've yet to meet an atheist of either caliber that considers religion to be more than a human pastime (albiet one done with unparalleled fervour).

You will all have answers as to how and why religion evolved, but what is its purpose for it evolving? How is it beneficial to humanity when it poses a threat of total destruction from nuclear conflict?

Dawkins has an explanation of this in his The God Delusion,
Basically, religion is a detrimental by-product of neurological and psychological traits that are otherwise beneficial. For example, it is beneficial for children to unquestioningly believe what their parents and elders tell them, but it is clear how this trait would lend itself towards the formation of religion.

Humanity appears to have an illogical attitude to progress.

That's hardly unexpected: humans are irrational, emotional, hormone-driven organisms.

As for atheist reason to what many of you claim, that evil does not exist… well it’s beyond me.

Noone has denied the existance of evil. What has been denied, however, is the objective nature of morality. Almost all moral subjectivists (and objectivists, for that matter) label the Holocaust as evil, but they do so because their personal moral codes deem it so. My moral code deems it so. Your moral code deems it so. The difference is that you think that everyone has the same moral code, but this is demonstratably false.

 

[Gary51]

Wiccan_Child said, "Humans live by instinct" as animals do.

Many humans have given their lifes for the sake of others. They have gone against the natural instinct of survival and choosen death.

Can animals do that?

 

[plindboe]

Wiccan_Child said, "Humans live by instinct" as animals do.

Many humans have given their lifes for the sake of others. They have gone against the natural instinct of survival and choosen death.

Can animals do that?

Never heard of bees before?

Peter

 

[Gary51]

Never heard of bees before?

Peter

You're saying bees make an informed choice to die for the sake of other bees?

Are you now saying bees do not live by instinct?

 

[UncleHermit]

Many humans have given their lifes for the sake of others. They have gone against the natural instinct of survival and choosen death.

What makes you think that it isn't instinctual to risk one's life for the lives of others?

 

[Gary51]

What makes you think that it isn't instinctual to risk one's life for the lives of others?

That would mean instinct going against instinct.

 

[trunks2k]

That would mean instinct going against instinct.

He's asking what makes you think it's going against instinct? Why can't self sacrifice be instinctual? Or why can't instincts be in conflict with one another? I may have an instinctual response to want to have sex with someone, but that could be in conflict with my instinct to not have sex with someone other than my partner.

It makes sense for social animals to be self sacrificing on some level.

 

[plindboe]

You're saying bees make an informed choice to die for the sake of other bees?

Are you now saying bees do not live by instinct?

Nopes, I just answered the question you asked. Perhaps you should read your post again if you have forgotten what question it was you posed.

Peter

 

[plindboe]

That would mean instinct going against instinct.

As with bees, survival instinct of the individual vs. instinct to protect the hive.

Peter

 

[Gary51]

Nopes, I just answered the question you asked. Perhaps you should read your post again if you have forgotten what question it was you posed.

Peter

Oh I am very sorry... I didn't answer you question.

Yes I have heard of bees before!!!

 

[Gary51]

As with bees, survival instinct of the individual vs. instinct to protect the hive.

Peter

Is that relevant to a human making an informed choice to go against his natural instinct and give up his life for the sake of others?

Do you have an example from a higher species?