Religion, gods, and the moral imperitive in evolution
wrote this as a reply to an article i read by some Christian about how only true-believers in Christ can ever be moral because true morality comes from god and ONLY from god; so Muslims and other non-Christian religious people can never be as ‘moral’ as Christians, and atheists and agnostics can never be moral at all. Fun times….
so basically, this is an intellectual exercise, just to prove there are other potential sources for morality. In real life i can’t claim to go through anything this complex when deciding what to do, mostly i just do what feels right.
morality is easy for an atheist, and far more logical then it is for a theist. let me explain
points:
1 – there is no creator-deity who sprang magically from nothing and created everything, and that all life is the result of evolution, not the handiwork of said deity.
2 – this process of evolution occurs in groups (as proven by Peter Kropotkin in his classic “Mutual Aid, a Factor in Evolution), not individuals; and is therefore a social process.
3 – accordingly, the continued vitality of this social process is a pre-requisite for the the continued health, welfare, and even existence of our species – and every other species for that matter.
4 – the basic biological imperative of every species (though not necessarily every member of every species) is to perpetuate itself. the competition for resources created by this drive is the engine of natural selection and evolution.
5- In keeping with this basic evolutionary imperative, breeding groups – be they tribes, clans, or nations – determine values based on their own local circumstances and their survival needs in order to increase the likelihood that the group will compete effectively for resources. Those things which contribute to the survival of the group are “Good” and those which harm the groups chances for survival are “bad.”
By way of evidence, virtually all religious “morality” claims can be directly traced to this source. murder and intra-group violence are frowned on in most societies because they are seen as hurting the solidarity of the group and lowering everyone’s chances for survival. Inbreeding is discouraged in most societies because it harms the genepool. the jewish Kosher rules on preparation of food were an early attempt to codify sanitation in food preperation. restrictions against homosexuality were put into place in the abrahamic religions because of concerns that it would decrease the number of children being born and thus negatively impact the growth of the breeding group – an argument still heard in courtrooms in the US when christians argue that Gay marriage should not be legalized. Whether that argument is actually relevant or meritorious at this point in history is, of course, another matter entirely; but it originated with the evolutionary imperative – not by divine decree.
On a larger scale, Genocide – such as the one committed by the Nazis against the Jews, Gypsies, and others, by European immigrants against the indigenous peoples of this continent or the one one currently being perpetuated by European immigrants of jewish descent against the indigenous people of Palestine – are all immoral because at the point where entire breeding groups can be wiped out no breeding group is safe. In other words, as an evolutionist my self-interest dictates that I look out for the self-interest of my neighbors because if I fail to do so I have no right to expect them to look out for mine. True believers, by contrast, have failed to oppose every single one of these genocides, and in fact have used their religions to justify them. Even now fundamentalist jews in israel and christions in the united states support the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestine under the justification that “god” gave the land of Israel to the jews thousands of years ago.
I could continue but by now you should get the point.
Incidentally, the fact that in 2006 orthodox Jews won’t eat cheeseburgers because a two thousand + year old instruction manual for sanitation in food preparation says you shouldn’t mix meat with dairy points towards a major argument against the usefulness or organized religion. Codified written religions – such as those in the Abrahamic tradition and as opposed to traditional tribal / ethnic religions – are based on the idea that “revealed” truths are eternal and unchanging and thus must be codified and followed to the letter regardless of changing circumstances. This insistence on preserving outdated and irrelevant facets of value systems which evolved under radically different conditions then those which now prevail is a clear and present danger to meaningful morality in a contemporary setting because it discourages people from rationally assessing their surroundings and deciding what is right and wrong for themselves, and insists that instead they should GIVE UP THEIR CAPACITY TO REASON and delegate responsibility for their actions to a predetermined code of laws which may or may not actually meet their needs or the needs of the groups to which they belong.
Further, the practice of giving up ones moral autonomy and letting someone else determine what is right and wrong for you is a necessary pre-requisite for authoritarianism of all kinds. Atheists – particularly atheists raised within the Abrahamic tradition – are not immune to this tendency, of course, but this practice clearly originates with the rise of codified static universalist religions. The famous “I was just following orders” originates HERE. By stripping the individual of his or her right and ability to determine right and wrong as an individual Theism de-humanizes them and renders mankind into a society of robots programmed only to enact someone else’s prefabricated code of values – whether those values are programmed in by the parish priest, the rabbi, the local sheik, or the ruling Party.
In other words, if God is everything then man is nothing. The existence of a omnipotent omnipresent being who fascinates himself by keeping track of our every move and then weighing our performance according to his values – rewarding some with paradise and condemning others to an eternity of torment – renders our lives meaningless. We have as much value in this scenario as the lego men I played with a child who did what I wanted them to do and were discarded when i grew tired of them.
By contrast, the rational atheist following the evolutionary imperative must assess each situation for his or her self and ask, how will this action impact the groups with which I identify? How will it affect my family? What about my children? and my children’s children’s children’s children? A person who genuinely derives their morality be assessing for themselves (within their culturally determined framework of values) what actions are most likely to have the most positive effect on their nation, community, and family (the groups with which they identify) is compelled to weigh each action carefully for all of its implications. Of necessity such a person becomes an environmentalist, a feminist, an advocate of racial and ethnic equality, of cultural tolerance, of socio-economic justice, etc; all because a person looking at the long-term implications of their actions with an eye towards preserving the welfare of their community MUST take all of these things into consideration. Here the individual comes into his or her own as a fully conscious thinking being. Removing God from the equation is thus an incredibly liberating process, and as long as god remains part of the equation “morality” cannot enter into it since as long as we defer our right to separate right and wrong to deity we can never be moral beings since we are failing to ever make moral judgments of our own.
To conclude: religion does not create or reinforce morality, religion destroys morality. If we delegate to God – any god be it Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, or Krishna – our ability to differentiate right from wrong we sacrifice our own humanity in the process. A person who is incapable of evaluating such basic questions for themselves is hardly even a person – they are an automaton, a rag doll on a string. Such a pathetic creature can never be “moral”, it can never even understand what the word means. The necessary pre-requisite to leading a moral life is to deny God that divine prerogative and asserts your own right to determine your own values. Doing so does not automatically make one moral of course, living a moral life is perhaps the most difficult thing any human can do in a day and age like ours, but it is the first step on a very long journey.
I cannot prove that the Gods (any and all of them) do not exist, but if I by some odd chance I found myself dragged before Yaweh, the God of Abraham, for judgment I would be morally compelled to denounce him as a cruel, inhumane, petty despot. I would rather burn in the hell I am fairly sure does not exist and maintain my own integrity then grovel at the feet of such a monster and go to heaven.
Posted: December 21st, 2006 under culture war, gods & religion.
Comments: 5
Comments
Comment from myspace comments
Time: January 21, 2007, 4:17 pm
**A man is known by his words and deeds. Beautiful is the new sun sailing in the river of sky in the boat of morning. Beautiful is man in his moments in time, a thousand beads of thought on a white string. Darkness gives way to light, dumbness to speech, confusion to understanding. **Awakening Osiris by Nomandi Ellis.
The god in the bible is a devil
I know you well enough to trust you and know you to be a wonderful human bean ..even without a god
http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/books/Osiris_45.html
Posted by Star Sailor Cat on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 at 7:46 AM
[Remove] [Reply to this]
Hilde
A very thoughtful and though-provoking (and beautifully written, as usual) outburst. I agree with everything you say, except one thing: I think even tribes or clans are capable of acting against their collective self-interest due to circumstances and possibly lack of understanding. For example: Somalia doesn’t have a permanent (legitimate) government, hasn’t had one since 1991. Large portions of its population are organized in family-based clans. Because of scarce resources, there is a lot of fighting among the clans and a lot of killing. In this case, although the fierce competition is a natural result of the circumstances, it would probably have benefited the clans if they were able to cooperate more with each other in order to more efficiently extract/distribute resources… but the family ties and blood feuds are tough to ignore.
Anyhow, I used to play a lot with Lego too! I always wished that they could move themselves. I agree that it is silly to cling to outdated norms, and it certainly is absurd to treat religious texts as living legal codes, considering how outdated even our 230 year old constitution is.
Thanks for your insight again! Hilde 
Posted by Hilde on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 at 11:02 AM
[Remove] [Reply to this]
emcee lynx
hilde,
i absolutely agree that people are capable of acting against their self interests, whatever kind of social structure they have. hell, we do it all the time. the point of differentiating between tribal religions and codified religions is that one is dynamic and adaptable and the other is static and inflexible. that doesn’t mean that the dynamic value system will always produce perfect results, just that it is capable of adapting and over time will probably get closer to ‘perfect’ through trial and error if nothing else.
somolia is kind of a special case. tribalism is definitely part of the issue, but as i understand it imperialism and conquest have played a huge role in creating the situation that exists now. though i can’t claim to be an expert.
anyway, thanks for coming by, and thanks to everyone else too! it’s cool to see something i wrote provoke responses as thoughtful as the ones you-all contributed. =) makes me feel all warm and fuzzy and shit, hehe
Posted by emcee lynx on Thursday, December 07, 2006 at 3:23 AM
[Remove] [Reply to this]
Insurrection
I think even tribes or clans are capable of acting against their collective self-interest due to circumstances and possibly lack of understanding.
Not necessarily. Social conflict is inevitable with all the social animals. It”s how each sorts to relieve the tention and whether it chooses an approach that seekes to eliminate the violence – or not as case be – but neither means they are acting against self – interest. The best way to explain where I’m coming from is it with the example of our close cousins who are the same kind of chimpanzee – but each living in different enviromental conditions – while the common chimpanzee resolves its conflict violently – be it males challenging the dominant male for his (privileged) position and the violent sort to keep the social hierachy – will not mean that in occasions where they will face external threat as a troop they will not co-operate to turn against the outside threat as a troop – they will and then resume the inter conflict again when it arises. How is it in self-interest for the members of the troop who are on the low ranks (and have to feed as last with the shitty leftoevers) – it’s the exchange for the for the brute force of protection (reminds one of government and army and police?) against external threats (thus the anti-immigration sentiments steadily whipped up and bogey manned up by those on top of pyramid of hiearchical order).
Now, let’s go to bonobos, they resolve their conflicts by preventing violence by being sexual pleasers – you pissed off your mate – you start stimulating their pleasure centers – to turn their potential aggressivity and thus a threat into causing pleasure and switching their mode of response. Also they do so before they feed, and they share food without violence – they make each other happy and when one feels happy one is more likely to share than when one is pissed off. Their social order is looser.
Both adapted uniquely to the conditions of their enviroment and by the choice of social order they adapted by in self interest – as means of social order that serves their self-interests the best.
Humanity struggles against the conditions of its material conditions also – it does so in terms of self-interest whether it chooses the hiearchal social order or the more loose social order that is based on ‘doing to each other as one would like to be done under the same circumstance’ to the protection they invest in keeping rigid hiearchy. Those who benefit from rigid hieararchy (those on top) will big up the threats, increase the violence (so to make the other members in line – complying with the socially designated place) of establishing its position within a group. The rest will comply because they will believe that such social order protects them from being annihilated by the threats. Those in whose self – interest it is to have looser hiearchy and to choose the violent conflict and more peaceful redistribution will rgue the same – again from self-interest – because for them survival in such way is the one in their self-interest to adapt to survive.
Somalia doesn’t have a permanent (legitimate) government, hasn’t had one since 1991
Goverments as parts of hierchical order do not resolve violence – the more rigid hierarchy (we elect you to protect us because you are the stronger and we are the weaker and we exchange the privilege of being protected with giving your prilege – first one to feed) the more violence there will be, the looser social order (based on the social contract of ‘I’ll be nice to you and you’ll be nice to me’), the lesser. Therefore solving a problem of violence by government is stabbing oneself in the arm just to stop bleeding.
————————-
it’s interesting to read this blog while reading Kropotkins’ Anarchist morality. It’s great to see how the compassionate thinker I respect influences those whom I respect. Nice one Lynx.
Posted by Insurrection on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 at 1:46 PM
[Remove] [Reply to this]
I’m sorry it’s late and I posted before edited and English is not my first language, I have to correct me typos and put in the words I ommited (and which would change what the fuck i’m trying to say)
–
This paragraph was supposed to be like this:
Humanity struggles against the conditions of its material conditions also – it does so in terms of self-interest whether it chooses the hierarchal social order or the more loose social order that is based on ‘doing to each other as one would like to be done under the same circumstance’ instead of investing in the protection they would in keeping rigid hiearchy. Those who benefit from rigid hierarchy (those on top) will big up the threats, increase the violence (so to make the other members in line – complying with the socially designated place) of establishing its position within a group. The rest will comply because they will believe that such social order protects them from being annihilated by the threats. Those in whose self – interest it is to have looser hierarchy and to choose to eliminate the violent conflict and move towards the more peaceful redistribution will argue the same – that such is best – again from self-interest – because for them survival in such way is the one in their self-interest to adapt to survive…
———————-
Posted by sam random
[Remove] [Reply to this]
your ramblings belie a certain condecension- despite your argument for well informed rational moralism, underneath i see a certain contempt for organized religion. by denouncing it as irrational gibberish purported by ruling classes to continue the paradigm of inequality and repression, you simultaneously set yourself apart from those that have faith by way of making your own perspective inherently superior. such reasoning is poisonous to the soul…
in particular i find your final words most comical. would you denounce yahweh as a petty despot? you might as well shake your fist at the heavens and curse your own mother for having borne you in the first place.
for my own part, i am myself an agnostic just as you are. however, i recognize that those that have faith, whatever it may be, are in a certain sense affirming that the world is bigger than themselves, that life is mysterious because it is so complex, that morality cannot be rational because there are just too many factors to take into consideration.
to sum up, by denouncing theism, you only serve to alienate theists. to what end?
Posted by sam random on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 at 1:17 PM
[Remove] [Reply to this]
emcee lynx
heya sam, long time no see.
how goes it in the great midwestern metropolis? for the record i didn’t actually say anything at all about religion as a tool of ruling classes, not sure where you got that except maybe you expected it to be there. as for denouncing yaweh, why shouldn’t i? if we assume for the sake of argument that the christians are right and we’ll all have to stand before the tyrant some day for judgement then why shouldn’t i speak my mind to him? and if the christians are wrong the point is moot.
in any case, the point isn’t to denounce theism, per se, so much as to do exactly what i said the article was written to do at the beginning: to refute the claim made by a specific theist in the article I’m replying to that athiests and agnostics can never be moral because morality comes from God (and ONLY from god).
as far as why alienate theists, they come pre-alienated, i don’t have to do anything. according to the latest surveys athiests are the single most hated and feared group in america – more then any racial or religious group. so what do i care if i ruffle their feathers a little bit? they already think i’m going to burn in a lake of fire for eternity, fuck ‘em.
Posted by emcee lynx on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 at 9:07 PM
[Remove] [Reply to this]
pleh!
Good post. The only thing I disagree with is that Kropotkin proved evolution happens in groups and is a social process.
Some contemporary evolutionists suspect evolution is a process of competing genes.
Posted by pleh! on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 at 6:37 PM
[Remove] [Reply to this]
Insurrection
Evolution plays on more levels, many contemporary evolutionary biologist have a lot to say on social evolution and it’s actually pretty much confirming what Kropotkin had to say. Biological evolution does not happen by simple competition either. Darwin very clearly shown that it depends on more processes than just that – it’s not just via competition but also variantion and mutation and inheritance etc. If it’s so on base level, it’s not going to differ on the other levels. Social evolution points that natural selection favours both mutually benefitial or selfish behaviours – evolutionary process is not exclusive of one or the other. Kropotkin simply stack his head out that the mutually benefitial behaviour is the one that is more benefitial to the species as the whole.
Posted by Insurrection on Thursday, December 21, 2006 at 9:48 AM
[Remove] [Reply to this]
pleh!
The point I was trying to make is that if the gene-centric view of evolution is correct, biological evolution hinges on the genes and not individuals let alone social groups.
Whatever insights Kropotkin may have had in regards to social evolution, they have little to do with biological evolution.
Posted by pleh! on Thursday, December 21, 2006 at 6:09 PM
[Remove] [Reply to this]
Insurrection
Biological evolution does not negate social evolution. Findings in biological evolution do not negate findings in its subdivision – social evolution here. Biological evolution does dictate social behaviours also – as in kin selection etc. Genes don’t simply only compete as had been said, they work by more processes than just one. So neither they will produce biological behaviour of the whole organism only in lieu of one of its processes. So the complete divorce between those two fields of study of evolution is not there either. Natural selection at the base level as in all the other levels occurs as a result of many processes, not simply genetic competition. In field of social evolution Kropotkin wasn’t off the mark, again as many of today’s scientists will confirm – be their evolutionary biologists, anthropologists etc.
Comment from Nathan_here_nor_there
Time: January 21, 2007, 6:10 pm
So, are you suggesting that “man” is the main character in evolution? In other words, everything that has ever happened has gotten “man” to this point in time?
Comment from circlealpha
Time: January 22, 2007, 1:46 am
not at all, I never said or implied that man was the end goal or main character in anything; only that morality is evolutionarily advantageous, and thus does not require diety as a point of reference.
Pingback from Ameoba Morality
Time: December 9, 2007, 8:47 am
[...] I’ve written a fair bit on this blog about evolution, biology, sociability, and morality (1 2 3). It’s a favorite theme of mine both because of the fact that so many Theists argue that [...]
Pingback from Ethics, Atheism, and Anarchism | Soundtrack for Insurrection
Time: November 1, 2008, 8:04 pm
[...] written a bit on atheism & ethics on this blog (1, 2, 3, 4), it’s a topic that’s come up in the past because soem theists (christians, [...]
Write a comment