Are Evolution & Morality Mutually Exclusive?

by shadow 57 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  From an evolutionary perspective, it makes complete sense that ethics and morals will also evolve.

  Personally, from my JW perspective of absolutes with everything being black/white, the concept of ethics and morals changing becomes an earth-shattering crisis. How do we take bronze age laws of the OT and pretend that it was a good thing that a girl had to marry her rapist... as his punishment for the crime? When issues of right and wrong came up if field serve-us, it was mental gymnastics to try and fit some cherry-picked scriptures to conform to what is clearly acceptable/unacceptable in modern society.

  As far as slavery, it ended, not because there was "new light" in the bible, it was the evolution of economics, recognition of the abuses, and plenty of other reasons. Slavery still exists, but it's gone from being the accepted standard to something considered evil.

  As far as "spreading genes", it used to be advantageous to have many children from many mates, regardless of whether you are debating religion or evolution. Life used to be full of peril, disease, and many threats that made abundance an advantage to survival. With the evolution of society, it became more advantageous to have few children, well educated and also marrying well, and with strong emotional ties in the family. An evolutionary point of view wouldn't just say to spread more genes by random breeding. It would be about assuring the survival and prosperity of the children carrying my genes. Evolution, and common sense, would dictate that I'd be better off with a couple healthy, smart kids that I'm very close to, rather than a bunch of strangers that are struggling for their own survival.

  As far as women's rights, that's gone back and forth through history. The modern trend of better educated women with more rights, authority, and options, has resulted in greater productivity, longevity, improved infant survival, etc.

  As far as gay rights, why stone to death that lesbian aunt or gay cousin? From an evolutionary point of view, and maybe also from my point of view, they will give my kids gifts and affection and support for their education and success. Gay rights might not be supported by biblical religious "morality", but from an evolutionary POV, let them have their rights. Let them marry/divorce/live in peace. It doesn't take away any of my rights.

  Now that my JW perspective has been replaced by "worldly" ideas of evolution and atheism, I don't see my ethics as being weak or unreliable just because I'm not afraid to debate or change. I see them as something that will evolve. I don't want my morals to be dictated by ancient and questionable standards set by the bible. Perhaps others see it as meaningless tyranny by the majority. The fact is that the issues challenged as right/wrong often begin with a minority, followed by increasing understanding and support, then it can become the view of the majority... sometimes not.
• 

  adamah

  Heh, heh: the irony of Bible believers pointing out how people are going to commit adultery and blame it on evolution.

  Apparently they haven't read the OT, where even despite God establishing monogamous marriage with Adam and Eve, there were subsequently various accounts of polygamy amongst the OT men of God, who managed to "spread their genes" via buying female slaves (AKA concubines):

  http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html

  Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives. In 2 Samuel 12:8 , God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, said that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (essentially wives of a lower status), according to 1 Kings 11:3 .

  Love how they spin it as "wives of lower status", as if to dismiss the fact they were slaves.

  Fact is, women were mere possessions/chattel under Mosaic Law, and maybe that's what these believers are secretly hoping for: a return to the Good Ol' Days, when one could have all the wifes they could buy? Do they want 'superior morality', or morality that allows them to buy women?

  I'd say a better question for the thread should be:

  Are theism and morality mutually-exclusive?

  Adam
• 

  Oh Gawd

  Thomas Jefferson wrote about this concept when trying to gain support for his idea of freedom of church from the State.

  Basically, Jeffersom argued that it was in the States best interest to allow people to chose whatever religion they wanted, even if all were worshipping a God that never existed, because many people, and especially those of lower inteligence, had higher morals because of religion itself. In other words, religion makes it easier for the government to control people because they are more likely to obey the laws of thier religion than the laws of their government. And since most religions require people to behave in such ways that are consistent with what government needs, then promoting religion is a good idea for the State.

  The underlying theme to Jefferson's point is that no society can exist without laws, but it's easier to get people to obey the laws if they think some higher power will send them to Hell or worse.
• 

  LisaRose

  It's not surprising that some people believe that without the concept of God, people will not have morals. What they really mean is THEY would not act in a moral way without the fear of eternal damnation, so they cannot fathom that anyone else would.

  That goes along with Jefferson's idea that some people need a God delusion to have a reason to obey the rules.

  I lost my belief in God, but I saw no reason to change my morals, they are values I grew up with and have served me well since then. My atheist son is just as moral as my believing daughter.
• 

  adamah

  Oh Gawd said-

  The underlying theme to Jefferson's point is that no society can exist without laws, but it's easier to get people to obey the laws if they think some higher power will send them to Hell or worse.

  Yeah, I can see that being perhaps a valid argument before Darwin, but we're living in 2013 where atheism (blasphemy) is NOT considered a criminal offense, and God's non-existence is the worst-kept 'secret' out there.

  Being that studies have shown a much lower rate of atheists vs theists in prison, I can't imagine the deterrence value of a fear of Hell is compelling, since sociopaths and murderers aren't deterred by a fear of God (esp if they think they can repent at the last minute before execution and go to heaven, as Xian convert Jeffrey Dahmer apparently had a conversion in prison before his execution).
• 

  Oh Gawd

  adamh,

  To further your point, the least regilious countries in the World are the safest countries. They also happen to be the happiest countries.

  As to Jefferson, it's important to remember his opinion was that governments went bad trying to control people by forcing them into religions they didn't believe in. At some point, those people either caused great harm to the government or replaced government altogether. Therefore, he felt since religion could help government achieve it's goals why not promote all religion.

  Based on his thinking, Jefferson would love the JWs. They control the crap out of people and discourage them from becoming involved in the affairs of the State. If you're Jefferson, this is the perfect scenario.
• 

  budbayview

  Evolution is a broad term. If discussing Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, I believe it still fits into intelligent design. The premise for survival and adaptability was programed in from the beginning, so the behaviors that support that are engineered from the grand designer. There is no other way to support a diverse biology and ecology. Change is in enviable, and we see evolution all around.

  Now, cross species evolution, I am not so much a fan. I realize this is off topic, but I can even wrap my head around the big bang theory, as long as it was God pulling the trigger.

  Concerning morality, I do not understand the connection to evolution? However, I will add this. If you had to govern a small community, how would you keep anarchy at bay, how would keep everyone safe, and provide fair justice? Religion and God have nothing do with morality, it did not stop Cain from killing Abel did it? You can argue where your morality (sense of right and wrong) comes from, but justice (dealing with consequences of moral infringements) is completely different. Take a look at The Code of Hammurabi for further information on how to govern your community.
• 

  yadda yadda 2

  It is quite simple, intuitive, and religion is not needed.

  The basis of all morality is compassion, sympathy, empathy for the suffering of others. We all know that it could easily just be us who are suffering as someone else. Seeing the terrible suffering of others we love feels as if we ourselves are suffering. But we do not limit our compassion and empathy to just our immediate families but for the entire human family.

  Morality is simply avoiding all speech and action that causes harm and suffering to others.