Evolution and human morality

[er72]

If we are to take the assumption that evolution is true (particularly, human evolution) then where does any semblance of morality come in? More specifically, where does sin fit into this equation? Think about it - religion tells us that certain acts or things are "sin." For instance, having sex outside of marriage is said to be sinful by most religious people. However, in light of evolution, the premise behind all lifeforms is to reproduce offspring for the next generation as much as possible. This is by God-given design, according to the evolutionists anyway. So, how can we condemn such behavior when it originated from evolution, which is apparently God's design or idea in the first place? You see the contradiction?

The entire supposition of evolution is that man is an animal, nothing more, and is designed to survive, even at the costs of eliminating others in order that he may survive. It is the opposite of altruism, which ironically, is said to be a teaching of God, especially in the New Testament. Why would God create, sorry evolve, us one way, then change His mind and give commands and edicts which completely contradict His very design and nature He gave us all? This does not make any sense.

In light of evolution, morality relativity and laxness works. There can be no question. However, within the context or organized religion and Christianity, there is a large paradox presented here.One I cannot possibility reconcile.

 

[Mallon]

Evolution, as a scientific theory, has nothing to say about morality. NOTHING in science has anything to say about morality. Asking evolution to speak to morality makes no more sense than asking atomic theory to speak to morality. Morality is an issue for philosophy and religion, not science.

 

[er72]

Evolution, as a scientific theory, has nothing to say about morality. NOTHING in science has anything to say about morality. Asking evolution to speak to morality makes no more sense than asking atomic theory to speak to morality. Morality is an issue for philosophy and religion, not science.

So, you feel it's perfectly moral to have sex with as many females as possible to produce as many healthy offspring as possible then? What about self-promotion over helping others? Is that moral too?

Because evolutionary theory clearly teaches that these actions are normal, natural and part of the process.

 

[wpage]

Survival mentality and spiritual are mutually exclusive...

Sport vs. genius. Everyones choice.

 

[Mallon]

So, you feel it's perfectly moral to have sex with as many females as possible to produce as many healthy offspring as possible then? What about self-promotion over helping others? Is that moral too?

Because evolutionary theory clearly teaches that these actions are normal, natural and part of the process.

Sure, they're a normal part of nature. But there's nothing about the theory of evolution that says we must behave according to our natural instincts. Evolution just tells us how things are, not how they should be. It's the job of religion to tell us how things should be. There's no conflict between the two because evolution and religion generally seek to explain very different things.

 

[er72]

Sure, they're a normal part of nature. But there's nothing about the theory of evolution that says we must behave according to our natural instincts. Evolution just tells us how things are, not how they should be. It's the job of religion to tell us how things should be. There's no conflict between the two because evolution and religion generally seek to explain very different things.

So, you believe God gave us instincts (via evolution) that are not good then? Doesn't that make Him, in a sense, responsible for "sin" then? After all, He designed us in such a way that we would sin, by nature.

There is a problem when you attempt to synergize science with religion. It doesn't work, quite simply.

 

[Mallon]

So, you believe God gave us instincts (via evolution) that are not good then? Doesn't that make Him, in a sense, responsible for "sin" then?

The Bible is clear that God gave us free will to be able to choose whether to glorify Him or not. But ultimately, we are the ones responsible for our sins because we are the ones who choose to disobey God. He doesn't force us to. The Bible is also clear that we are not to simply follow our animal instincts.

 

[er72]

The Bible is clear that God gave us free will to be able to choose whether to glorify Him or not. But ultimately, we are the ones responsible for our sins because we are the ones who choose to disobey God. He doesn't force us to. The Bible is also clear that we are not to simply follow our animal instincts.

Why are we not to follow them?

I see nothing wrong with it, especially seeing as how it was (apparently) God who gave us said instincts in the first place? Think about it - if you NEVER followed your instincts, you'd be dead. You would not eat and thus, you would die.

Also, where do you get this idea of God giving us a "free will?" Science does not mention a free will.

 

[Mallon]

Why are we not to follow them?

I see nothing wrong with it, especially seeing as how it was (apparently) God who gave us said instincts in the first place? Think about it - if you NEVER followed your instincts, you'd be dead. You would not eat and thus, you would die.

Also, where do you get this idea of God giving us a "free will?" Science does not mention a free will.

Are you a Christian, er72? Who cares if science doesn't mention "free will"? No one here is advocating scientism (unless maybe you). Science is a tool for understanding the natural world, but there is more to life than just the natural world, so we must look outside science to understand it.

 

[er72]

Are you a Christian, er72? Who cares if science doesn't mention "free will"? No one here is advocating scientism (unless maybe you). Science is a tool for understanding the natural world, but there is more to life than just the natural world, so we must look outside science to understand it.

That's picking and choosing what you believe.

Every Christian I know is an ardent Creationist. They accept the Bible as the whole revelation of God, not the teachings of men.

What do you define as a Christian? I have to ask before I can give you the best answer possible. I have to say that if evolution is true, then I cannot see how it is compatible with Christianity at all. You can't reconcile sin with evolutionary theory and have a cohesive belief system.

 

[chris4243]

If we are to take the assumption that evolution is true (particularly, human evolution) then where does any semblance of morality come in? More specifically, where does sin fit into this equation? Think about it - religion tells us that certain acts or things are "sin." For instance, having sex outside of marriage is said to be sinful by most religious people. However, in light of evolution, the premise behind all lifeforms is to reproduce offspring for the next generation as much as possible. This is by God-given design, according to the evolutionists anyway. So, how can we condemn such behavior when it originated from evolution, which is apparently God's design or idea in the first place? You see the contradiction?

Why would God create, sorry evolve, us one way, then change His mind and give commands and edicts which completely contradict His very design and nature He gave us all? This does not make any sense.

Are not all our sins based on an excess of something we have built-in? Eating food is good, gluttony bad. Rest&recuperation good, sloth bad. Can you name one sin that is not based on something that, in a different light, is good?

The entire supposition of evolution is that man is an animal, nothing more, and is designed to survive, even at the costs of eliminating others in order that he may survive. It is the opposite of altruism, which ironically, is said to be a teaching of God, especially in the New Testament.

CB411: Evolution of altruism

In light of evolution, morality relativity and laxness works. There can be no question. However, within the context or organized religion and Christianity, there is a large paradox presented here.One I cannot possibility reconcile.

Some Christian sects claim that all are sinners and can only be justified by grace, and therefore sin doesn't matter. Even hard-core atheists do not take this stance!

 

[er72]

I'm familiar with empathy and supposedly learned or evolved "altruism". The problem is, for the Christian, we are saying God made man one way, then decided randomly to change His mind and tell us "not" to be like the animals anymore. That simply does not follow logic.

So, sex is okay, as long as it isn't excessive? Most churches would disagree.

 

[Mallon]

That's picking and choosing what you believe.

In what way? If science concerns the natural world and religion concerns the world beyond nature, why can't I accept the teachings of both? It's like saying you must choose between using a hammer and a screwdriver, but you can't use both. That's ridiculous.

Every Christian I know is an ardent Creationist.

Then you obviously don't get out much.

They accept the Bible as the whole revelation of God, not the teachings of men.

I accept the Bible as the revelation of God, too. That doesn't mean I have to read Genesis 1 and 2 as historical accounts, though. God doesn't limit Himself to speaking in only one literary genre. Gen 1 and 2 quite obviously aren't historical accounts in their own right, anyway.

You can't reconcile sin with evolutionary theory and have a cohesive belief system.

Stick around. You might learn something.

 

[er72]

In what way? If science concerns the natural world and religion concerns the world beyond nature, why can't I accept the teachings of both? It's like saying you must choose between using a hammer and a screwdriver, but you can't use both. That's ridiculous.


Then you obviously don't get out much.

That's ignorant.


I accept the Bible as the revelation of God, too. That doesn't mean I have to read Genesis 1 and 2 as historical accounts, though. God doesn't limit Himself to speaking in only one literary genre. Gen 1 and 2 quite obviously aren't historical accounts in their own right, anyway.


Stick around. You might learn something.

I'm waiting for someone to provide me with satisfactory answers that don't make me doubt my faith entirely.

So where does the Bible start to become "literal" history then? Exodus? The prophets? Matthew? Or does it happen at all?

 

[Mallon]

That's ignorant.

It's ignorant if you've never heard of a Christian who also accepts evolution. That's the position of the majority of Christians in the world.

I'm waiting for someone to provide me with satisfactory answers that don't make me doubt my faith entirely.

What is your faith founded on? Christ? Or creationism? If the former, then what do you have to fear from evolution?

So where does the Bible start to become "literal" history then? Exodus? The prophets? Matthew? Or does it happen at all?

Do you believe that parts of the Bible are literal and parts are non-literal? If so, I might ask you the same question! How do you make the distinction?

In my view, there's probably no easy answer to this question. The Hebrews and early Christians simply didn't distinguish between "literal" and "non-literal" the way we do in our post-Enlightenment world -- they freely mixed the two (just look at the genealogies of the NT). That said, many Bible scholars appear to agree that "history" in the Bible begins with the story of Abraham. Anything before that is probably a mix of history and legend, all of which was inspired by God.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Morality is a very big puzzle for evolution. Morality is about what you should do rather than what you can do. Evolution relies on what is effective rather than what is right - if looking after your offspring puts you at an advantage that's acceptable, if eating your rival's offspring puts you at an advantage that's acceptable too.

Evolution does give us the ability to be moral though. Social animals often have their own 'laws' which if broken can lead to reprisals. Mate with the alpha male's females and be expelled from the group, for example. Evolution may not tell us what is right and wrong, but it has given use the ability to understand the rules - and break them. If we could not understand the concept of rule-breaking morality probably wouldn't exist.

 

[granpa]

we have evolved morality.
we domesticated ourselves didnt we?

 

[shernren]

e72, how would your beliefs change if I told you that there is an entire chromosome for adultery? 100% of men who commit adultery possess this chromosome in their genome, and many of the traits coded for on that chromosome are directly responsible for the physiological and psychological causes of adultery.

Not only that, every creationist I know believes that this chromosome was divinely created and placed in Adam.

How would that affect your beliefs?

 

[granpa]

let me guess.
100% of men have the y chromosome which produces testosterone.

 

[er72]

e72, how would your beliefs change if I told you that there is an entire chromosome for adultery? 100% of men who commit adultery possess this chromosome in their genome, and many of the traits coded for on that chromosome are directly responsible for the physiological and psychological causes of adultery.

Not only that, every creationist I know believes that this chromosome was divinely created and placed in Adam.

How would that affect your beliefs?

No, because I don't buy into lies and incorrect information.

I would write you off because I know that genetics do NOT operate in the way you posited. The relationship between genes and behavior is incredibly complicated and deep.