Evolution and Sociology on Religion and Morals

[Rabbicator]

I had written an article on evolution’s impact on religion and morals. Tell me what you think about it.
The general idea is that evolution created religion and morals for the sake of humanity’s survival.

Full article:
vlujunbaga.blogspot.com/2007/07/v-xi-goddam-evolution.html

If you disagree, feel free to make me look stupid.

 

[Random]

The general idea is that evolution created religion and morals for the sake of humanity’s survival.

I haven't read your blog article, but I agree with the above to a certain extent. Still, the essential gnosticism of occult religious roots and the relative value of evolved morals make it unlikely that these forces, if seen through to their natural end and fulfilment, would remain selectable in the interests of humanities survival...

If you disagree, feel free to make me look stupid

Generally, that's not the way it works around here. Thanks for the OP.

 

[s2a]

Hello Rabbicator,

I do so love invitations of rational debunking from "hit and run" posters like yourself...

Citing your referenced link i the OP...

Goddam evolution.

Evolution is the process in which organisms are to survive, in a foolproof method.

Oh...

Let me emphasize the 'fool' in foolproof. A foolproof method is a method that is designed to withstand the incompetence of fools.

Sounds akin to democratic elections of our esteemed representatives...

Therefore, it must be primitive enough so that even a fool could follow through it. Follow through, because everything is explained.

Interesting...

I hope my caveman sensibilities can stoop low(brow) enough...

I am going to distinguish between the 'Human race' and the 'Human individual'. The Human race is the group of Human individuals that make it up.

• The Human race (as far as evolution is concerned) has an interest in surviving, i.e. making sure that there will always be Human individuals, with no preference of one over the other.

Interesting. What does "evolution theory" cite as validation of this conclusion?

• The Human individual (as far as evolution is concerned) has an interest in surviving, i.e. making sure that it and it sufficiently, will always be.

Survival instincts/behaviors/reactions are existent within every living organism. Conscious thought or sentient awareness is hardly requisite to innate instincts of survival.

The clash of interests is quite obvious. The Human race would sacrifice few individuals for the sake of the survival of the race.

Oh? What if that (species') survival were predicated upon a faith-based belief of redemption/deliverance? Human history reflects ongoing instances/examples of "ethnic cleansing", religious persecution, and "martyrdom" (with associated sacrificial "collateral damage" on the part of a great many (otherwise) disinterested individuals.

There are those that would argue that human embryos should be "sacrificed" to facilitate advances in medical science and treatments. Is not increased longevity and enhanced health an insurer of both individualistic and specie survival?

The Human individual would sacrifice the whole race for the sake of it's own survival.

I would not. But then, as you say...you are a nihilist. I would not expect you to understand why most "individuals" would not merrily forfeit the lives of their families and loved ones just to spare themselves.

Of course, if the Human individual would have it his way, kill other humans for his own survival (and therefore would not reproduce), would live long, and the human race would die along with him. Evolution cannot have this.

Evolution is not a conscious entity.

So evolution found a very handy technique that ensures the survival of the Human race. Evolution hard-wired emotions into the Human individual.

Interesting. Where might I read up on this stunning and peer-reviewed scientific conclusion?

These emotions such as pity, empathy and grief, which became morals, ethics and religion- unified the interests of the Human race and of the Human individual.

Cats and dogs are empathetic, and react (emotionally) to grievous loss/injury/pain. Yet both four-legged species unabashedly lick their own anuses to regularly clean themselves. Does this behavior qualify as some foundation of ethics/morals?

As can be seen, the hard-wired emotions are astonishingly effective.

Please either define or illustrate some examples of evolutionary-derived "hard-wired emotions". May I suggest the three most prominent examples as a starting place?

These emotions are seen in almost every human individual. Pity, empathy and grief ensure a secure bonding of social groups (races, colonies and families) through commitment to one another in a very gross fashion.

So might hunger, lust, fear, and love.

Of course, making it grossly wide-spread is essential to make it foolproof- it's the only way that the human race can suvive as I have explained earlier.

Should we assume that biological evolution has now ceased with the advent of the human species?

Note that these emotions do not directly benifit the individual. They benefit the human race as a whole, if enough individuals practice them properly.

That's a handy "IF"...

Thus making that any individual with morals are just another product of evolution.

So how does "evolution" then explain human immorality? Is it a defect in the human "emotional hard-wiring"? Is it a genetic aberration, or a mutation?

Thus, my classic example of voting in a large democracy.

I can't wait...

In a normal modern democracy, an individual's impact on the system is so minute, as to be undetectable, and usually, totally ineffective. In order for the system to function properly, enough individuals must practice the voting.

Not really, no. If only one person votes, then their lone vote carries the day. That's how the "system" works...

Therefore, voting is an action beneficial for the system, and not for the individual.

Is "the system" an autonomous, self-interested entity unto itself? Or, is "the system" comprised of sentient and ethical/moral individuals, seeking to promote/insure their own personal interests?

When all individuals have been brainwashed to vote, they are serving the system, and not themselves.

Idiocy.

1) This so-called "brainwashing" you suggest is alarmingly ineffective. Less than 50% of registered voters even bother to go to the polls in national elections (and significantly less in State and local elections). Is not the systemic "status quo" best served when the least few vote for any change?

It can easily be said that not fulfilling the system's needs (such as morals, or voting) does not in anyway whatsoever affect the individual.

Easily said...yes. Demonstrably presented...no.

If there is a person (and there is, me being a living example) that does not have morals, the Human race still survives, and therefore there is no need for the individual to be a victim of evolution's mass stupiditization (as in stupidity).

If you deem yourself as amoral, then bully for you. No doubt you experience the fullness of existence beyond compare or accountability.

If you wish to assert that stupidity runs rampant amongst our species, you'll invoke little dissent from me.

I wrote this article after seeing some religious people. I was really ****** off at seeing how people can be so stupid.

I remind myself that even really stupid people often have enlightened friends...and therein lies the sustaining hope...;-)

But of course, I can't blame them, they were just victims of mass stupidization... So if you believe in morals or are religious, or vote, don't worry, you're not stupid, you've been brainwashed.

Your consolations are noted, and shall be lent their appropriate consideration.

 

[s2a]

PS. As an atheist myself, I have long recognized that faith-based beliefs are not measured matters of either intellect, or intelligence. Virtually any "religion" is but an appeal to human emotion, 'tis true...and many "believers" are indoctrinated at early age into the folds of faith-based beliefs. Many are "stupid", as you suggest; many others, are not.

Faith is no more a valid measure of intellect, than any measurable aspects of heightened intelligence might serve to qualify/validate an individual's piety. One of the best ways to eventually appreciate this numbing fact is to spend more time amongst enlightened and probative thinkers (believers and skeptics alike). These forums (in RF) are a good place to expand upon such possibilities...

Further, do not equate rationalization with reason. The cosmos is a pretty intimidating concept to swallow wholeheartedly...either emotionally or intellectually.

(Individual) sentient humans don't exist very long. Each of us is but one of billions of others of virtually identical DNA composition. We reside upon a planet that orbits an otherwise unremarkable star, within a galaxy of approximately one hundred billion other stars, within a cosmos of perhaps 100 billion, to one trillion other galaxies of similar volume/composition. In cosmological terms...humans are as insignificant as the fart of a mayfly. Hominids have been around for a few hundred thousand years...dinosaurs reigned for hundreds of millions...

...and yet, each of us dares to think that our brief flicker of existence earns a greater measure of significance and meaningful impact than hundreds of billions of other galaxies in maintaing their own inexorable mindless courses. Only truly stupid people feel neither awe nor wonder in the face of such infinite phenomena...

The cosmos exacts neither rewards nor punishments for human sentience/consciousness. The cosmos doesn't care one whit about humans. But...we can choose to care about ourselves...and the others that coexist in this momentary blip of shared time/existence...and the emotional capacities of happiness, joy, and love are not the exclusive domains of our own selves, or even our species...

It's neither crazy, nor stupid, to wish that any personal existence persist...with relevance, boundaries, and objectives (attainable or not). But then...wishful thinking alone has never served to establish any validated fact...though wishful thinking does permit untold numbers of unsubstantiated claims. borne solely by faith-based beliefs alone.

Note: "Evolution theory" may be easily and readily debunked by anyone that can produce evidence of a fossilized hominid skeleton within the fossilized bowels of dinosaur (as one example). The fossil record (to date) suggests that such a find is impossible....just as you might rightfully doubt any geologic age ascribed to the Great Pyramids, if you somehow unearthed a 1967 VW Beetle buried under Tut's Tomb.

Evolution (theory) isn't about faith, or "belief" -- it's only about what the available evidences suggests is established reasonable fact as concluded upon by the available and compelling burdened proofs it presents as substantiation.

If "Evolution theory" is bunk, then it should be EASY enough to provide compelling evidence to utterly falsify it's otherwise evidenced conclusions.

Show me the Beetle.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The general idea is that evolution created religion and morals for the sake of humanity’s survival.

evolution created'

Evolution "creates" nothing.​

'for the sake of'

Evolution has no intentionality.​

Evolution is a sieve, not a ladder.

 

[yossarian22]

I agree with a part of your thesis, but none of your arguments.

The drives to survive, eat, have shelter, and reproduce are instinctive to every normal human. It does not matter HOW we accomplish those tasks, so long as we perform them. The problem with this is that a group of humans in an area with scarce resources will tear itself apart. Religion, or any other form of control, is advantageous to the group, and therefore to the individual because it ensures the survival of the group. The result is traits which favor this form of control are passed on.

Religion or government could have appeared this way.

I disagree with morals being evolutionary, as there is little advantage to having morals. Morals are created by religion to enforce control.

I wrote a paper on this for some class. I forget where it is though...

 

[rojse]

I disagree with morals being evolutionary, as there is little advantage to having morals. Morals are created by religion to enforce control.

I think that morals could be explained through social evolution. The people that cooperated, worked together, and were moral towards eachother had a better chance of reproducing. They shared food, resources, and helped eachother hunt larger game. All of this would have been beneficial to survival.

 

[painted wolf]

moral evolution can be seen in any social animals... and all animals are social.

How does your 'thesis' cover civilizations/ cultures/ religions that don't have central governance? Many cultures were/are socialistic witout any particular ruler.

Are you suggesting that some humans are 'more evolved' than others?

wa:do

 

[UnTheist]

Morals are evolutionary, whether you like it or not. If morals are only enforced by religion, then Atheists would be more immoral than Theists. But in my experience, it's exactly the opposite...

 

[s2a]

Hi Nihilo,

You said:

Morals are evolutionary, whether you like it or not.

If you mean to say that societal mores change over time, that's not an especially profound observation.

If you are suggesting that human morality/ethics are the result of biological evolution, you've yet to lend any substantive support to that claim (other than your insistent say so).

If morals are only enforced by religion, then Atheists would be more immoral than Theists. But in my experience, it's exactly the opposite...

It might be more accurate to say that "religion" outlines/defines the standards and boundaries of morality addressing it's own sectarian adherents, which may coincide with other localized cultural practices/traditions.

Civil/criminal law outlines and enforces communally acceptable human behavior, not individualistic morality. Adultery and divorce may be immoral by some religious perspectives, but it's certainly not illegal in the U.S.

Conversely then, laws can not, and do not, "make" people be or become moral or ethical persons.

Atheists are not bound to adherence of religiously ideological dogma/dictates of outlined morality/ethics. While I am of the considered (albeit, purely anecdotal) opinion that many atheists tend to retain higher personal standards of morality/ethics than many given individuals that espouse faith-based rationales/strictures for their own behavior (and motives), I would not claim any absolute that atheists are "more" moral/ethical than religionists/spiritualists, either in part, or as a whole. The only difference is that atheists are less likely to be exposed as ideological hypocrites to others, or of themselves.

 

[yossarian22]

I think that morals could be explained through social evolution. The people that cooperated, worked together, and were moral towards eachother had a better chance of reproducing. They shared food, resources, and helped eachother hunt larger game. All of this would have been beneficial to survival.

Yes, but the opposite could be true. A group enforced rigid control over society and forced them to work together, creating morals to back up there argument. If morals were evolutionary traits, then almost everybody would have them. Looking at human history shows that we definitely were NOT nice to each other.

 

[yossarian22]

Morals are evolutionary, whether you like it or not. If morals are only enforced by religion, then Atheists would be more immoral than Theists. But in my experience, it's exactly the opposite...

Whether I like it or not?
Slavery far outdates known history. We probably were taking slaves the moment somebody realized that if you poked somebody with a sharp stick, you could kill them.

 

[UnTheist]

Whether I like it or not?
Slavery far outdates known history. We probably were taking slaves the moment somebody realized that if you poked somebody with a sharp stick, you could kill them.

What does this have to do with anything?

The fact that I can be a nice person without the threat of torture or death shows that I have the innate ability to be moral.

 

[yossarian22]

What does this have to do with anything?

The fact that I can be a nice person without the threat of torture or death shows that I have the innate ability to be moral.

No, it just means where you grow up MADE you moral.

Furthermore, if people were innately moral, I hardly think they would be taking slaves, making war, and pillaging for millenia.

 

[Yerda]

Furthermore, if people were innately moral, I hardly think they would be taking slaves, making war, and pillaging for millenia.

What does moral mean in this sentence?

 

[yossarian22]

What does moral mean in this sentence?

I assume that the OP means the idea of morals that society is most used to. Killing is bad, helping people is good etc

 

[Yerda]

I assume that the OP means the idea of morals that society is most used to. Killing is bad, helping people is good etc

How would you propose to determine whether they are innate in humans?

Is the fact that many 'morals' like the ones you described are found in many widespread cultures relevant to such determination?

 

[yossarian22]

How would you propose to determine whether they are innate in humans?

I do not argue that morals are evolutionary. Morality is far to fluid for it be set in genetic code. There is no way to test for it.

 

[Yerda]

I do not argue that morals are evolutionary.

I know. I was asking how you would determine if they were, but as you wrote:

There is no way to test for it.

Which is fair enough. I disagree. Sampling from world wide cultures seems to me to be a means of relevant testing.

 

[yossarian22]

Which is fair enough. I disagree. Sampling from world wide cultures seems to me to be a means of relevant testing.

The problem with sampling from modern worldwide cultures is that globalization has led to Western philosophy to permeate in every major modern culture. Furthermore, our records of cultures is skewed because most observations were made by westerners. Hopefully there is a way around these problems