david f, All I mean by “evolutionist” is someone who not only believes evolution occurs, but believes that that fact is all we have to go on when we try to establish values. That person is likely to be an agnostic or even an atheist, but they might not bother to say so. (I believe in evolution, but because I’m a Christian I see it as a part of what I have to consider, and by no means my source of values.) I think that, if evolution is all there is, then it’s difficult to develop values. Unless you think survival imperatives are values. This is what leads to the question, “SHOULD the human species survive?”. What do you think of that question, it’s what GP was getting onto.

csteele, I like that “ah now”. Yes, we have discussed this where you say, and there was an earlier discussion on <Morality and the 'new atheism' by Benjamin O’Donnell.> In that earlier discussion, I was told things like “Nothing significant about us [humans], just a bit larger brain than other species and superior vocal chords” – and – “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 [point-of-view] why humans have more value than any other species or more right to survive.”

If you’re saying humans are great but no greater than any other species (is this what you’re saying?), then –

i) How far “down” the development chain or foodchain does this go? Where is the line drawn, if one is drawn at all?

ii) If we’re no better than a gnat or a dolphin or a chimp, then how does humanism get underway?

iii) If we and other species are of equal value, then what do we mean by “justice” and “equality”?

iv) If everything that lives has equal value, what is that value? If high, what makes its value high?

Pax,

Einstein was no God-Botherer according to an ABC piece this morning, quoting a letter of Einsteins up for sale that has been in a private collection for 50 odd years.
Seems the Atheists are in good company...

GP, "That statement implies that perpetuating our genes is a good thing". It might do, depending on whose definition of "good" you use. Which once are you using? Jesus's, Mohammad's, Zeus's, or something you made up? You are probably appealing to something you believe exists - an "absolute definition of good", which you think exists and everybody would agree to if we could only just find it. This is where we differ - I don't believe such a thing exists.

There is however a very simple definition of "good" that we can all agree exists - and that is the definition our genes have. Anything that perpetuates them is good - at least to them. Its not of course a universal definition as it makes no sense for everyone to adopt it, so you won't like it. But it is roughly the definition evolutionary science uses, your comments notwithstanding.

It is also a very selfish definition. It is amazing to me that out of such a selfish thing all sorts of behaviours that we see as anything but selfish arise. Things like mother raising child, husband supporting mother, neighbour helping neighbour. To me seeing such complexity arising our simple rules is a thing of beauty - more inspiring than any fable passed down between the generations. That is another difference between us I guess.

Moving on from the beautiful to the ironic. You too are a product of evolution, as is your belief in absolutes - ironic because that belief causes you to disavow the process that created you. That belief must of served your forebears well - probably because it helped them form a united front to the adversaries they confronted. I am not so sure it serves you well now though. In fact if it means to you that your absolute religious belief must dominate over science, then it doesn't. That is that dogma the understandably pisses Richard Dawkins off.

Okay goodthief,

i) How far “down” the development chain or foodchain does this go? Where is the line drawn, if one is drawn at all?

Since evolution is more of a tree than a chain it is rather hard to draw a line. If the water levels were a thousand metres higher we might have to give the badge of best developed to our friends the dolphins “Goodbye and thanks for all the fish!” What if you had control of the God button and had to make a decision of removing humanity or the rest of the life on earth which would it be? You know my answer.

ii) If we’re no better than a gnat or a dolphin or a chimp, then how does humanism get underway?

Surely humanism is just a reflection empathy. It can be understandably species specific but when fully developed can embrace more of the life we share this orb with.

iii) If we and other species are of equal value, then what do we mean by “justice” and “equality”?

I don’t see why justice and equality can’t be thought of as formalized expressions of empathy.

After Mikolka had finished beating the mare to death why would Dostoevsky have written ““No mistake about it, you are not a Christian,””? Grown from empathy it was a recognition of the gross injustice they had witnessed.

iv) If everything that lives has equal value, what is that value? If high, what makes its value high?

Value is relative. A mother’s distress at being separated from her calf illustrates the value she has placed on her young but if I value a slice of veal every now and again who is to say my values out-weigh hers? Ultimately I do or else I wouldn‘t eat it, but my empathy affords me the good grace to realise how egocentric that decision is. My empathy for the suffering of penned sows has driven me to forego pork for the moment. Am I engaging in a moral act? Is it of greater or lesser import than that of an observant Jew?

goodthief, welcome back. i welcome your contributions, but, as before, i think you're missing the point. i also think csteele is right, that you at least misrepresented the tone of the previous discussion, but i'm not fussed. i know you write in good faith.

GP and davidf say it much better. but here goes:

you define “evolutionist” as "someone who not only believes evolution occurs, but believes that that fact is all we have to go on when we try to establish values."

well, you're free to define words to help discussion. but if your word is used by others with another meaning, then you're not helping much! and, though you may find an "evolutionist" or two, i don't think they're thick on the ground.

evolution says nothing of ethics or values. even if altruism is an evolutionary construct, the science of evolution does not say that altruism is "good", just that it is adaptive. morality is simply not something evolutionary theory can, or attempts to, deal with.

yes, Man has evolved. at a deeper level, we're a bunch of atoms. maybe at a deeper level we're a jumble of strings. but none of this, no matter what you believe, matters a jot to morality. none of it tells you how to deal with your consciousness, or the awareness that other beings are also conscious.

i am hugely confused by concepts of morality. before that, i am hugely confused by consciousness. i simply have no understanding of my place in the universe, on the feeling that it's "my" universe, but with the recognition that others exist to see it and feel it from their perspective. on the appropriate thread, i am happy to engage with you on such questions. plenty of room for gods in that discussion!

evolutionary theory is behind the instincts we have, it may constrain the way we tend to interact with others. but we're here with our brains, ready to think about how we think, and think about how we feel. and those who believe in evolution are just as capable of that as anybody else.

All that we believe is based on faith
faith based on what we believe is most logical

So this debate is biased on both sides by what we of our freewill chose to believe ,the high priests of science are as blinded by their science as the religions are blinded by their holy texts.

If there is a solution let science first create its own life [then dare to prove how it was done] i would advise they first create their own dust [because despite all its theory it is even now yet unable to replicate its own cell membrane ,yet dares to speculate how that first cell evolved.

A quick studdy reveals genomic stasis is reflected in all life [darwins pigions [and his finches] were all yet pigions [and finches] that any species can micro evolve in its own genome is beyond dispute ,as witnessed by our many breeds withing any given specie genome [read cats breed cats , dogs breed dogs , pigions breed pigeons humans breed humans and apes breed apes]

Science has claimed intermediates [but none living] ,nor has it made any virus become a bacteria ,nor made birds become snakes ,it is a theory ,ok sure we can randomly add a strand of this or that to an egsisting 'life' but it didnt create it [just as faith based religion dares to speculate on a judgmental god wrongly ,science dares to speciate without science proof.

If you look at a flower long enough you see what god is teaching us just in the one flower ,then in time through all flowers , if you look at one science long enough you know that one has not got all the answers ,just as if you know enough about your own belief you soon find no belief has all the answers

god sent many messengers , many flowers , many living things each has their own teachings ,they when joined reveal a living loving god ,but no one belief [nor one science] can reveal the glorious truth of the whole story of itself alone.