In the US context, at least, differences in moral interpretation has a political dimension: “In a large Web survey, Haidt [ can't find the exact link, but see: http://people.virginia.edu/~jdh6n/science.html ] found that liberals put a lopsided moral weight on harm and fairness while playing down group loyalty, authority and purity. Conservatives instead place a moderately high weight on all five. It’s not surprising that each side thinks it is driven by lofty ethical values and that the other side is base and unprincipled.”

And, of course, there’s a religious context too: “Putting God in charge of morality is one way to solve the problem, of course, but Plato made short work of it 2,400 years ago. Does God have a good reason for designating certain acts as moral and others as immoral? … Suppose that God commanded us to torture a child.”

Pinker’s conclusion is that scientific investigation of what we know as morality will strengthen it, rather than destroy it: “Far from debunking morality, then, the science of the moral sense can advance it, by allowing us to see through the illusions that evolution and culture have saddled us with and to focus on goals we can share and defend.”

It's worth repeating: expanding our knowledge of where our sense of morality comes from will help us to find commonality with people whose moral views differ from ours, rather than describing each other as gorillas and frauds, or firing off loopy lines like “If you are a consistent evolutionist you would be glad that the Nazis killed six-million Jews”.

So far as I can see, there is no reason why the human race should continue to exist. That is, there is no obligation to procreate. But there is reason not to kill or harm those who do exist. (You do not need to prove that causing pain is wrong. It just is.) If the only way we could preserve the race were to send a space ship off to a distant solar system; and the money to pay the immense cost of doing so could instead be used to alleviate pain or save lives, it would be wrong to build the space ship.

Adopting the theory of evolution does not imply accepting that whatever happens is good. I can't for the life of me see how that confusion could arise. To borrow an example, evolutionists have no requirement to think it a good thing that bacteria are evolving which are drug resistant.

You can't base morality on religion, because you need morality in the first place in deciding what you should believe. How can Christians understand the atonement at all, without bringing moral values into their thinking?

The Bible contains too many contradictions to be simply said to be true. Try comparing Genesis chapters one and two, and determine what the order of creation was. Look at the inconsistent moral views of the gospels. You need to determine which bits are true. "Simple faith" which ignores these problems is intellectual dishonesty.

Pelican, As this is a discussion between a theist and some atheists, your point about “religious differences” is very interesting.

bushbasher, Fractelle, Yabby and AJ Philips, Please excuse me for not giving separate replies. This topic began with my post on Friday, in which I was focused on O’Donnell’s assertion that evolution can explain morality. (I wasn’t commenting on his whole article.) On this aspect, the onus is on him and you.

The discussion has not been about the credentials of theistic or scriptural morality – where the onus would be on me. I understand that burden, and I know it’s no longer a dream run.

I have been at pains to draw out how the “moral” phenomena evolutionists identify are actually good, and all I’m getting is that they happen which I already knew. There is no explanation of their value. The nearest we get is that the human species needs to survive, but this is different from saying it should, or that’s it’s good that it does. Still, it seems to be the best explanation on offer. I was hoping someone would at least say humans are a good or valuable species – which I would say – but no-one did.

Ozbib, If evolutionists don’t regard every evolved event as good, then from where do they get their criteria – for a good event and a bad one?

Yabby, Yes I wonder if some of the spark was distributed more widely than theists traditionally think. Interesting idea.

Pax,

Goodthief, groups were important for the survival of the human species. If group members didn’t look after each other the group wouldn’t survive. If a group didn’t survive, then individuals wouldn’t survive. According to Darwin, the most altruistic groups have an advantage over selfish groups.

To reply to your question, when I said ‘selfish and inconsiderate’ this was from a functional POV of a group/community. Selfish behaviour by group members would damage the survival of the group because it caused the group to be dysfunctional because selfish behaviour increased risks for anyone in the group- so in that sense it would be ‘bad’ to encourage selfish behaviour over altruistic behaviour.

Human beings are not considered by anyone else but human beings themselves.
All species have an innate need to survive, that's all.
If you’ve watched “March of the Penguins” you know what sacrifices species are willing to make because their need to survive is so strong.

So, I’d say that human beings ‘should be’ considered by human beings because of the need to survive... for self-preservation.
There is no reason from an evolutionary POV why humans have more value than any other species or more right to survive.
Only species that adapt to the environment survive.
If human beings end up surviving longer than other species this is not because a god finds them special or they have a spark but merely because they can adequately adapt to their environment and can often even adjust their environment to suit their needs.

Jpw, I love your posts and will read the links you provided when I get some free time later today.

<Pelican, religion, politics and sex are the only really interesting topics to talk about :)>

Yvonne, you might have a point there.

Goodthief, I mentioned religious differences to point out that even people of faith cannot agree there is not much chance for theists and atheists to acknowledge the other's point of view.

I do believe strongly that humans are inherently 'good' without the need for belief in the supernatural. As someone already mentioned altrusitic societies are destined to succeed over others societies. Maybe that is the biggest difference between theists and atheists is that one simple premise of human nature.

And the question of Why should we survive is superfluous. We should survive simply because we are here and to live is better than not to live and for the future of our children.

The real question that should be asked is Will we survive rather than Why we should. If we abuse, exploit and pollute our planet much further perhaps we won't survive indefinitely. No-one can predict the future.

“If evolutionists don’t regard every evolved event as good, then from where do they get their criteria – for a good event and a bad one?” (Goodtheif).
That is not putting a question – rather it is a statement of utter confusion as to what evolution is all about.
For most species, at any one time there are millions of individuals. There is minor variation in the make-up of almost all individuals. Elements having similar characteristics might be favoured in the reproductive stakes under particular circumstances. Those will be the most prominent representatives until a fundamental change in their environment winnows them out in favour of others having different characteristics. It is a matter of being in the right place at the right time with the right goods. Evolution by chance, not design: what is “success” today might be utter failure tomorrow.
For frogs, evolutionary morality had nothing to do with males having slippery backs while females do not. It was the evolutionary necessity of not wasting their “seed” by throwing it indiscriminately around, even if not “casting it upon the ground” like Onan.
In the case of birds and mammals, there is no shortage of demonstration of morality’s existence. Altruism has evolved as a necessary component of dolphins and dogs; humans and other primates. From the god Thor, to the Buddah, to the godless, it is varyingly manifest in interesting stories. And the three monotheist tribes want to cosset it to themselves? – the arrogance