Evolution and human morality

[Notedstrangeperson]

The Pope doesn't think evolution is incompatible with Christianity. But what does he know anyhow.

Not so. Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have written that they accept evolution.

 

[er72]

Well he's not the snaziest dresser that's for certain. I think it's perhaps as simple as the facts of evolution are so overwhelmingly evident to those who bother looking with any degree of objectivity that to deny it is to perhaps spit in the proverbial face of God.

I imagine the Church doesn't want a repeat of Galileo. They're already losing business in these modern times, so the last thing they need is to offend potential new converts who happen to be followers of Darwin and science.

Better to be safe than sorry, I suppose.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

I imagine the Church doesn't want a repeat of Galileo. They're already losing business in these modern times, so the last thing they need is to offend potential new converts who happen to be followers of Darwin and science.

Better to be safe than sorry, I suppose.

You know I don't remember if it was just the Catholics, more than likely though. But on offenses against scientific ideas and the RCC the first thing that tends to come to mind for me is atomism. But point taken.

 

[solarwave]

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?

Continuing to use the example of sex before marriage; animals can marry. Animals have little to no moral code to follow because they can't understand it, but when they get to the point when they can understand it then they have a duty to follow it. I hope this answers the problem, but it may not?

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.

Evolution is a scientific theory and so doesn't make value judgements as to whether man is just an animal. I just describes what happens/ happened. Again animals cannot understand the moral law and so it doesn't apply to them.

 

[er72]

Evolution is a scientific theory and so doesn't make value judgements as to whether man is just an animal. I just describes what happens/ happened. Again animals cannot understand the moral law and so it doesn't apply to them.

That's true. I like your terminology there; value judgments. Very nice.

I suppose I could say that I am adding in my own value judgments to say that it's wrong for people to kill, sleep around indiscriminately and to steal. But those judgments come from society, empathy (which could be biological) and conditioning / conscience.

 

[granpa]

morality leads to life and immorality leads to death.
its as simple as that.

Death drive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In classical Freudian psychoanalytic theory, the death drive ("Todestrieb") is the drive towards death, self-destruction and the return to the inorganic: 'the hypothesis of a death instinct, the task of which is to lead organic life back into the inanimate state'.[1] It was originally proposed by Sigmund Freud in 1920 in Beyond the Pleasure Principle, where in his first published reference to the term he wrote of the 'opposition between the ego or death instincts and the sexual or life instincts'.[2] The death drive opposes Eros, the tendency toward survival, propagation, sex, and other creative, life-producing drives. The death drive is sometimes referred to as "Thanatos" in post-Freudian thought, complementing "Eros", although this term was not used in Freud's own work, being rather introduced by one of Freud's followers, Wilhelm Stekel

 

[er72]

morality leads to life and immorality leads to death.
its as simple as that.

Death drive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In classical Freudian psychoanalytic theory, the death drive ("Todestrieb") is the drive towards death, self-destruction and the return to the inorganic: 'the hypothesis of a death instinct, the task of which is to lead organic life back into the inanimate state'.[1] It was originally proposed by Sigmund Freud in 1920 in Beyond the Pleasure Principle, where in his first published reference to the term he wrote of the 'opposition between the ego or death instincts and the sexual or life instincts'.[2] The death drive opposes Eros, the tendency toward survival, propagation, sex, and other creative, life-producing drives. The death drive is sometimes referred to as "Thanatos" in post-Freudian thought, complementing "Eros", although this term was not used in Freud's own work, being rather introduced by one of Freud's followers, Wilhelm Stekel

Correct.

Although I'm not sure how seriously anyone takes Freud.

 

[theFijian]

I imagine the Church doesn't want a repeat of Galileo. They're already losing business in these modern times, so the last thing they need is to offend potential new converts who happen to be followers of Darwin and science.

Better to be safe than sorry, I suppose.

If they're concerned about losing followers then why the stance against homosexuality? Sorry your argument holds no water.

 

[Assyrian]

I'm open to many possibilities and ultimately, the truth - whatever that may be. If evolution were to be true (which I doubt) then it would probably be the end of orthodox Christendom for me. But that wouldn't in any way make me less spiritual or an "atheist" (unless you consider anyone an "atheist" who does not subscribe to your particular brand of Christianity).

Why orthodoxy? If you look back in the history of the church orthodox Christendom was open to a non literal interpretation of Genesis which you see in writers like Origin, Augustine and Aquinas. Others interpreted Genesis quite literally, but it wasn't a problem back then. It is only with the rise of modern Literalism that metaphorical interpretation of Genesis are a problem, if you want to reject 'man's religion' then it is Literalism you need to get rid of not orthodoxy or even evangelicalism. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life 2Cor 3:6.

I just go with the Word of God. I have no reason to accept a fable interpretation of Genesis, any more than I should accept the story of Jesus as a fable and myth.

Don't you accept Jesus told fables and myths, or rather parables? He made up stories to tell us deep truths, but the stories themselves were never meant to be taken literally. Surely a follower of Jesus should not have a problem with parts of the bible being parables and metaphors?

 

[solarwave]

That's true. I like your terminology there; value judgments. Very nice.

Thanks

I suppose I could say that I am adding in my own value judgments to say that it's wrong for people to kill, sleep around indiscriminately and to steal. But those judgments come from society, empathy (which could be biological) and conditioning / conscience.

I'm not sure what to reply to this right now though

Reason can play a part though too.

 

[er72]

Why orthodoxy? If you look back in the history of the church orthodox Christendom was open to a non literal interpretation of Genesis which you see in writers like Origin, Augustine and Aquinas. Others interpreted Genesis quite literally, but it wasn't a problem back then. It is only with the rise of modern Literalism that metaphorical interpretation of Genesis are a problem, if you want to reject 'man's religion' then it is Literalism you need to get rid of not orthodoxy or even evangelicalism. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life 2Cor 3:6.

Origen chopped off his testicles.

Augustine hated women and was a misogynist.

If I got rid of literalism, then I would not be a Christian, because there would be no point in believing a LITERAL Christ, a LITERAL crucifixion, a LITERAL resurrection or a LITERAL heaven or hell. Or a LITERAL God, for that matter.

 

[Papias]

If I got rid of literalism, then I would not be a Christian, because there would be no point in believing a LITERAL Christ, a LITERAL crucifixion, a LITERAL resurrection or a LITERAL heaven or hell. Or a LITERAL God, for that matter.

Or a LITERAL flat earth? Or a LITERAL genetics that works by giving babies attributes based on what their parents see while having sex? Or LITERAL talking animals? Or LITERAL flying thousands of people around on giant eagles? Or LITERAL people walking around with LITERAL animals crammed into their eyesockets?

I hope we agree that whichever of the many different Bibles you use, they all contain plenty of figurative language.

Papias

 

[Assyrian]

Origen chopped off his testicles.

Only according to the claims of an enemy of his.

Augustine hated women and was a misogynist.

Aren't they the same thing? Yes his attitude to women could nave been better, most people's attitude to women back then could have been better, but that doesn't mean there was any problem with his interpretation of Genesis. Unless you are just looking for reasons to abandon orthodoxy.

If I got rid of literalism, then I would not be a Christian, because there would be no point in believing a LITERAL Christ, a LITERAL crucifixion, a LITERAL resurrection or a LITERAL heaven or hell. Or a LITERAL God, for that matter.

Yet you believe in a literal Christ who taught in non literal parables. Did Jesus teach you to take everything literally? Does the bible?

 

[shernren]

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.

I admire the way you post, sir; preemptive ridicule is a particularly stinging tactic. But did I say I knew anything about genetics?

All I said was:

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.

After the question, every statement I have said is empirically verifiable. I am of course referring to the Y-chromosome, as granpa has already guessed. It is true that 100% of adulterers possess the Y-chromosome. It is true that many secondary sexual characteristics coded for on the Y-chromosome enable adultery. It is also true that every creationist I know believes that Adam was created with a Y-chromosome.

Are any of those truths "lies and incorrect information"?

The fact is, er72, any possible human behavior must have a set of genes behind it. The reason I can pick my nose is that there are genes which code for my having arms with muscles and flexible fingers on them, and genes which code for my nose being occasionally runny, and genes which code for receptors in my nose that get irritated when there is too much dried mucus on them, and genes which enable my brain to put together all these systems and respond by completely annihilating my public dignity.

Note that I am not saying that human behavior is programmed by genes. I can have all the genes required for nose-picking, and not pick my nose. Yet, when I do pick my nose, it is only fair to say my genes are partly responsible. If my genes were damaged so that I was born without arms, for example, I would be free of this particular temptation.

This means that genes contain the potentialities of any human behavior. We cannot fly unassisted or breathe underwater, because we do not have genes that enable these activities. However, we can lie and cheat and steal; we can honor honesty and defend property rights. We can practice chastity or fidelity or promiscuity; we can be altruistic or selfish; we can be loving or apathetic. All these must be enabled by genes; even if you believed that all these emotions are purely contained in the non-physical soul, with no physical referent, you would still have to admit that anger often involves the limbs, and fornication often involves the sexual organs, and we would have none of these capacities if not for our genes.

=========

If you are a creationist, you have to believe that God created us with genes that enable us to sin. Note, again, that they enable us to sin; they do not cause us to sin. They hand us the gun; we pull the trigger.

But consider the case of Adam and the Y-chromosome. Don't you believe that God gave him one? So God enabled Adam to have sex with Eve. Very well, then; we are forced to conclude that God also biologically enabled Adam to have sex with any woman he wishes to, even if she isn't Eve. The only way you can escape this conclusion is to believe that Adam's genome contained not only the various genes that enable sex, but also a very specialized set of genes that altogether prevent him from having sexual fantasies about any woman who isn't his wife. (Remember, it counts in the mind, too.) You know much more about genetics than me, er72; surely you can tell me how subtle genes are, and how impossible it is for a gene or complex of genes to have that peculiarly specific effect.

In that case, there is no gene for "Thou shalt not commit adultery"; neither is there any gene for "Thou shalt not murder" or "Thou shalt not steal", to say nothing of "Thou shalt honor the Sabbath". But that logically means that man was created with the biological capacity to break all these commands. Furthermore, Adam would still have found pleasure if he had slept with a woman other than Eve, and that pleasure would have a profoundly biological basis: so not only was there no gene for "Thou shalt not commit adultery", there wasn't even a gene for "Thou shalt not enjoy adultery"!

Let's make this loud and clear:

Creationism entails that God created man biologically capable not only of sinning but of enjoying sin.

Indeed, man proceeded to do exactly that, just after being created perfect, if we read Genesis 1 and 2 literally.

=========

What is the worst evolution can say about man? If humanity evolved from an earlier hominid, then evolution is saying that humanity's gene pool is related to that earlier hominid's gene pool in some very specific ways. Indeed, that is how we test the hypothesis that man has evolved.

Since evolution only claims to explain our genes, any claim that evolution destroys morality must be related to our genes. How might the evolution of our genes go on to destroy morality? The only way I can see that is if an evolutionist points out that our genes enable us to perform all kinds of terrible, wicked things as humans (and therefore there is nothing wrong with actually doing those things).

Of course the creationist will howl in protest - but then he should look at his own position. I repeat, creationism entails that God created man biologically capable not only of sinning but of enjoying sin. How is that any different from what an evolutionist believes regarding our genes? Our God-given genes, even Adam's pristine genes, enable us to perform all kinds of terrible, wicked things as humans.

So if we are relying on biology to tell us what is right and wrong, whether as evolutionists or as creationists, we will find no easy answers. Illicit sex is pleasurable, greed is natural, pride is inevitable - both evolutionists and creationists, on the biological level, will have to agree that all these things are true.

In which case, O man, who are you to judge?
​