Evolution and Evil

[Hnefi]

You must realise there is a difference between a fox killing a hen, and me killing your children.

From my perspective, sure. But that's not a valid comparison. Compare instead my perspective of you killing my children with the hens perspective of the fox killing its chicks. What's the difference then?

An animal lives on instinct. Humans live with the knowledge of right and wrong.

That's not relevant to the argument. I only chose poultry and foxes in my example because they are well-known examples; I might as well have chosen chimpanzees or a hypothetical, hyper-intelligent alien species. Or I might have chosen tapeworms. The point remains the same.

Is not about how I think people see things. I'm asking you as an atheist, is the murder of millions of Jews just part of natural selection?

It is, by definition, not part of natural selection since it was an artificial process.

 

[Gary51]

Sin doesn't really have meaning outside of a religious context.

In fact, I don't think evil does either.

What evolution would predict, however, is that, overall, humans will be 'evil' when it pays off to do so and 'good' when it pays off to do so.

So if it pays off to be evil, as it is a natural part human evolution... why has man divised laws prohibiting the use of evil. Is that not going against evolution?

 

[consol]

I'm just wondering what the position is from an atheists point of view is on the subject of evil.

The world is full of sin and evil. Is this just a natural part of human evolution?

For a start, sin is a religious word, there is no sin outside of religion,
and what is a sin in your religion is not a sin in another religion,
so anything you consider to be a sin, depends on which religion your parents signed you up for,
because sin, like religion is a man made concept.

Even the bible says things like, thou shalt not kill,
then it says, go forth and kill your enemies.

Evil is also relative, is it evil to attack the other village and bring back the heads of the
men and hang them on the walls of your hut? of course it's not, that's the way it's always been.
was it evil to try and annihilate the Nazi and the Japs? of course not, are our troops being evil when they go to war?
if you tracked down and killed the person who killed your son, would you be evil or justified?

Evil depends on where you were brought up, and what you were taught when you were young,
killing baby seals for their fur is evil, Eskimos killing them for their fur and to eat is not.

I think perhaps it's about time you started to rethink what it is you believe, because seeing things
the religious way is not the only way to see things.

And if you are talking about morality, that again depends on where you were brought up, and by whom.

 

[consol]

error

 

[Hnefi]

So if it pays off to be evil, as it is a natural part human evolution... why has man divised laws prohibiting the use of evil. Is that not going against evolution?

Read my post above. It does not, in general, pay off to be evil. That is the reason why evolution has made us moral, compassionate beings - it is advantageous. Our laws are a consequence of that, and a prerequisite for creating our vast, complex societies, which in turn are beneficial and affect our evolution in the long term.

 

[Gary51]

That's right, because those are terms imposed from the outside upon us.


A generally agreed-upon system of behavior for encouraging cooperation and preventing conflict. The purpose of morality, in essence, is to allow humans to live well together. And this leads naturally to a number of moral rules (such as the rule of reciprocity, i.e. "do unto others...", or the value of supporting equal opportunity for all persons, regardless of birth).

Remember that just because we don't believe morality is imposed externally doesn't mean we don't believe in morality. Because we are human, we believe in morality (barring a few who have antisocial personality disorder, but that's not really relevant to the topic at hand).

The difference, essentially, is that we don't believe in following legalistic rules, but rather we care about how our actions impact those around us. Furthermore, we tend to allow the evidence of how our actions affect others dictate which things we should and should not do. For example, instead of just thinking, "Stealing is wrong because X says so," we think, "I would not like to have things stolen from me, so I should not steal." The result is a much better system of morality than anything imposed externally could ever be.

I don't think that the six million Jews murdered by Hitler, considered his behaviour encouragiing. And I don't think they wanted to cooperate with his way of preventing conflict.

Was the holocaust natural selection... yes or no?

 

[Hnefi]

I don't think that the six million Jews murdered by Hitler, considered his behaviour encouragiing. And I don't think they wanted to cooperate with his way of preventing conflict.

I don't understand why you keep bringing up the holocaust. How is the actions caused by one insane christian and his lackeys an argument against the subjectivity of evil? If anything, it should be an argument FOR the subjectivity of evil. After all, you don't really believe that Hitler or his aides considered themselves evil, do you?

Was the holocaust natural selection... yes or no?

I already answered that, and the answer is no, because it was an artificial process. It is, therefore, not part of natural selection per definition.

 

[IzzyPop]

This is very interesting... because you don't believe in God... you don't believe in sin.

That is correct. There is no god in my world view. This means I cannot make transgressions against his word if he does not exist to speak.

I can't really get my head around this. You consider sin to be subjective,

No. I said sin does not exist, not that it is subjective. Sinning is a violation of God's law, correct? That would be objective. The interpretation of God's law would be subjective.

and you say you may not see evil the in the same way that I do.

That may be so. I do not know what you consider evil. If you believe in an objective capital-E Evil, then yes, I do see it as different than you.

How do you see the holocaust. Six million Jews were murdered. Are you saying that event bore no evil?

Not at all. I see it as a gross evil. Inexcusably horrendous. But it in no way has anything to do with a concepts of 'Evil'.

Are you saying it was just part of evolution.... survival of the fittest... natural selection. Tell me?

No. It was a power-hungry madman that did what he did because he had no moral or ethical standard other than what was best for him. Hitler and friends were examples of broken humans. Something was not right with them. Psychotic, sociopathic, something.

 

[consol]

sorry.

 

[Dal M.]

why has man divised laws prohibiting the use of evil. Is that not going against evolution?

Lots of human inventions were designed to "go against evolution." Vaccines, for example.

Was the holocaust natural selection... yes or no?

The Holocaust was more similar to genetic drift, as its victims were selected based on social, not genetic, factors.

 

[thaumaturgy]

So if it pays off to be evil, as it is a natural part human evolution... why has man divised laws prohibiting the use of evil. Is that not going against evolution?

When will this particular cannard die away?

Humans are social animals. Ergo, we cannot be purely lone-acting ultra-hedonists, we must cooperate and work for the greater good of our society in order to survive.

Just like herd animals can't destroy the herd, because that will open them up to attack by predators, we must have a safe and stable society to protect us from the elements (owing to our lack of speed and big sharp teeth).

I do believe that people are hedonists as are all animals, in that we do that which will maximize our pleasure (in this case survival) and minimze our pain (in this case grisly death on the savannah). To that end it is imperative that I work to maintain a stable, equitable and safe society for me, my family and my fellow people.

Laws are a way to maintain this. It is our way of "screening" those members of society who prove themselves incapable of running their hedonistic calculus such that they don't hurt others and destabilize society.

Evil? Sure there's evil. But evil has a particular meaning to us that is not necessarily universal. It would be evil if I went over to my neighbor's house and ate their beloved pet bird even if I had plenty of food at home. But would it be "evil" if my cat, Mr. Gompers, went over and did that?

We define evil predicated on what we value and de-value, we define morality predicated on what will assist us in maintaining our own survival and that takes in direct account the safety and stability of our social group.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Was the holocaust natural selection... yes or no?

What kind of logic drives people to argue against evolution by asking this type of question? How many logic fallacies can you tumble into one question?

The holocaust was no more "natural selection" than the pogroms in Europe during the middle ages were a defining part of Christianity.

Why do anti-evolution groups insist on tagging every known evil in humanity on evolution? Why?

I don't get it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do anti-evolution groups insist on tagging every known evil in humanity on evolution? Why?

I don't get it.

I do --- if we want to know their "language," we're expected to learn such terminology as:

• hunter-gatherer
• fight-or-flight
• natural selection
• survival of the fittest

Then when any example of the above manifests itself, evolutionists do verbal cartwheels to detach the effect from the cause.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I do --- if we want to know their "language," we're expected to learn such terminology as:

• hunter-gatherer
• fight-or-flight
• natural selection
• survival of the fittest

Then when any example of the above manifests itself, evolutionists do verbal cartwheels to detach the effect from the cause.

Please show me how any of the above applies to the holocaust.

 

[LordoftheScythe]

Tell me something, Gary51. If I were to take the elevator down to the 1st floor and, soon as the door opened, was shot dead by some crazy person, would that be natural selection? I think not. Would I be considered NOT fit to survive? Perhaps; I mean, my skin wasn't bulletproof, was it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Please show me how any of the above applies to the holocaust.

No, thanks --- the German Holocaust is not worth defending --- nor is the American Holocaust.

 

[AV1611VET]

Tell me something, Gary51. If I were to take the elevator down to the 1st floor and, soon as the door opened, was shot dead by some crazy person, would that be natural selection? I think not. Would I be considered NOT fit to survive? Perhaps; I mean, my skin wasn't bulletproof, was it?

What if you were shot dead by a sane person?

Does shooting you dead automatically make the shooter a "crazy person?"

 

[MrGoodBytes]

No, thanks --- the German Holocaust is not worth defending --- nor is the American Holocaust.

I didn't ask you to defend the holocaust. I asked what the holocaust had to do with hunter-gatherers, natural selection, fight-or-flight responses or survival of the fittest.

 

[LordoftheScythe]

I do --- if we want to know their "language," we're expected to learn such terminology as:

• hunter-gatherer
• fight-or-flight
• natural selection
• survival of the fittest

Then when any example of the above manifests itself, evolutionists do verbal cartwheels to detach the effect from the cause.

Seems more like creationists *try* to use said terminology, fail, then complain to us when we correct them.

 

[gamespotter10]

I do --- if we want to know their "language," we're expected to learn such terminology as:

• hunter-gatherer
• fight-or-flight
• natural selection
• survival of the fittest

Then when any example of the above manifests itself, evolutionists do verbal cartwheels to detach the effect from the cause.

even if those were results of the ToE being true, they have absolutely no bearing on the validity of the ToE.