A local atheist and I had an impromptu debate on Wednesday about the basis of ethics: Can morality be an evolved trait? With his kind permission, I reproduce the debate here in an easy-to-read format.
Since we debated through Twitter, our replies had to be kept to that software’s 140-character limit. That was a challenge, considering the topic!
I debated Andy Welfle, whom I met in 2006 while he was working at The News-Sentinel as a writer and copy editor. (That’s a photo of him.) He’s a former Roman Catholic (baptized as a child, I presume) and he’s now managing director of the Fort Wayne Dance Collective — and is a member of FreeThought Fort Wayne, which, as far as I can tell, is a group dedicated to freely thinking about everything in the same naturalistic way.
I’ve rearranged the order a little, combined quotes a bit and lightly edited to more closely follow the line of argument. (Andy is welcome to correct me if I got something wrong.) And I’ve deleted some “rabbit trails” — questions that were left unanswered just because the conversation went elsewhere.
awelfle: Huh. Katharine Hepburn was an atheist. She had a great quote about that: http://tinyurl.com/8mxd5w
jonswerens: That’s nice and quaint, but how does she know we should be kind to one another? Is she smuggling in some Christian ethics?
awelfle: You think that the golden rule is an idea original to Christians? Its an evolved trait, and has to come from within.
jonswerens: You mean: Evolved as in we slowly crafted it from older rules, or we slowly realized the rule as though it always existed?
awelfle: I think that as we starting existing in complex societies, we developed altruism because it makes it easier to coexist. For the most part, that is. There are always exceptions. I’m just saying religion isn’t necessary for morality.
jonswerens: OK, there are always exceptions. By what standard are exceptions to the rule OK? And by what standard do you oppose Prop 8?
awelfle: And my personal opposition to Prop 8 stems from my want to see gay ppl be able to marry who they want.
jonswerens: What if Calif. hasn’t evolved enough yet and won’t evolve enough for 500 years? By what standard do you say Prop 8 is wrong?
awelfle: How did Prop 8 get mixed in here? (-:
jonswerens: Prop 8 got mixed in here because it’s a case of how your “evolution of morality” doesn’t work. Why does what you “want” matter?
awelfle: So you’re saying that morality is dictated to me by an invisible man in the sky? That humans are intrinsically bad and have to follow what is written in an old book or else we’re condemned to ETERNAL punishment? Sorry, I don’t buy that.
jonswerens: We’re talking about what you believe, not me. If morality evolves, how can you say the Prop 8 vote is bad or wrong?
awelfle: It seems to me that your argument assumes there is some sort of end-goal in evolution. When in fact, it is just a gradual adaptation to circumstances that is encountered at that particular epoc in time.
jonswerens: Um, actually, no, that’s not my argument. I thought that was *yours*.
awelfle: But intrinsically, morality is a personal thing. If God dictates morality, why do I feel one way, and you another? How could there be a sociopath with no moral structure? Did he make a conscious decision to abandon God; and that’s why he’s the way he is?
jonswerens: OK, so then, this Golden Rule. It doesn’t necessarily apply to all cultures or all times. That’s what you’re getting at?
awelfle: And yes, but I think that there would have to be a vastly diff. world than ours if the Golden Rule wouldn’t be appropriate.
jonswerens: I think the very fact of this debate proves that there is something beyond mere matter. Where do the rules of logic reside?
awelfle: Where do the rules of logic reside? I don’t think I understand the question. Do you mean where they are based? In the human mind, I guess. Or mathematically, depending on what sort of logic.
jonswerens: So, is math something that’s universal? Or can one of your alternate worlds feature math in which 2 + 2 = 7 1/2?
awelfle: People can disagree with my morality because we’re all different. Different genetics, different life experiences, different situations. And at the risk of getting too extentialist, I don’t think we can say that anyone is is *truly* right or wrong.
jonswerens: But if I say 2 + 2 does equal 7 1/2, can I claim my different life experience led me to that conclusion? In other words, are there any universal standards at all? If every human died today, would 2 + 2 still equal 4?
awelfle: Morality isn’t as clear-cut as math. Moreover, what is a “2″ to me, may not represent the same thing to someone else.
jonswerens: Ah, so how about words? Or do you doubt that what your typing is understandable to me?
awelfle: Re: 2+2 if every human died today, it wouldn’t matter. and re: your last tweet, that’s a leading question. (con’t…)
jonswerens: What’s wrong with a leading question?
awelfle: …We have to make some assumptions about understandability, otherwise, we’d never be able to communicate.
jonswerens: Sorry, but I don’t accept your assumptions without some proof.
awelfle: Then I guess we’re at an impasse. My expertise at this doesn’t allow me to prove to you that we’re speaking the same language … without actually speaking the language.
jonswerens: Actually, starting with your philosophy, no, we do not even have language, let alone a conversation. By assumptions, you mean what we Christians call “faith.”
awelfle: Please explain how making assumptions about communicating ideas translates into faith.
jonswerens: Well, what is faith? Bible says: “Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” So the obvious attack on Christianity — I believe something I cannot prove — is moot. We *all* believe things we cannot prove. So, when I look across this world with strange beings and curious activities, what assumptions make the most sense? I posit that the atheist cannot stay true to his beliefs. If he does, he loses logic, language and love, because they, like anything else worth living for in this world, are not “provable.”
awelfle: But I wasn’t going after Christian faith — I was going after a god-defined morality!
jonswerens: Ah, and I was going after a so-called godless morality, which can evidently be one thing on Monday and something else on Thursday.
awelfle: Well put, re: atheists cannot stay true to his beliefs. We should pick this up another day. Tho atheism is the LACK of a belief, specifically in a god. God cannot be the only answer for logic, love, etc.
Thanks for the debate, Andy. I hope we can pick this up again soon.
That was tedious to read. Twitter is definitely NOT a good medium for debate. Anyway;
Andy’s idea that morality evolved originates from Richard Dawkins and a book called “The Selfish Gene.” One of the ideas in that book, and later supported in biological studies, was that animals had established altruistic behaviors that appeared to benefit their survival–sometimes, of course, as there are many other means and necessities of survival in the animal kingdom.
But those animals whose survival benefited from their naturally altruistic behaviors would have their genes replicated moreso than those animals who were more sociopathic or even non-altruistic.
One problem with the objections you raise–like this silly idea of where the Prop 8 ethic evolved from–is that evolution does not make such major changes in such short periods of time.
The only ethics you could gleam as evolutionary are the most basic of ones, such as caring for offspring (those who did passed on their genes, remember).
Now, with that foundation intrinsic to most mothers as a product of evolution (and very basic evolution, at that), you have humans creating ethics. Honor thy father and mother, etc.
And that’s it. Yes, most ethics, for most atheists, are subjective. It doesn’t make them arbitrary–they often have complex reasoning behind their ethics, working their way back to basic principles, like treat others as you would like to be treated, the propagation and survival of the human race is valued, pain and suffering are undesirable for anyone, and the idea of fairness for everyone (includes individual freedoms, etc.).
No, there is no “proof” for these ethics. The kind of proof your asking for is nonsensical. How do you provide proof for an agreeable principle?
Even if a god were to provide these laws, even instill them in us like programs on a computer, would you not still have to explain their “goodness” or “prove” them to a sociopath? Someone who’s programming is broken? If god messed up with him, how would you explain to him that he should choose to follow the ethics you do?
Maybe you wouldn’t, and you would simply write him off as unethical, but then that makes you ethical only because of your lucky circumstance, the spiritual batter god poured into your biological husk. You’re a robot. A nice, non-killing robot, but a robot nonetheless, and you are no more good than you are programmed to be, or inasmuch as you choose to follow your programming (I suppose this is where freewill comes in).
Atheists choose their ethics, as do most people. That’s why you’ll see tons and tons of unethical religious people. People are a product of upbringing, selfishness, chemical imbalances, and their will to overcome all of the above. Sometimes that will works well, sometimes not, depending on how you look at it (ethically).
The idea is to do what we’ve already done as a society: come up with a set of principles and values we all mostly agree on, and enforce them. This is what we’re already doing, and churches may claim to be the originator of these ethics, but they have proven over and over again to be a poor source for progress and ethics in general.
The Catholic Church stayed silent on WWII for too long, most religions were initially against abolition as they are currently against gay rights, the subjugation of women was (and still is) built into scripture.
There are a ton more examples of course. And there’s not “other” side to have to choose or support in this base, as atheists are not united and never have been. There is no set of atheist ethics.
There are just ethics, and then systems of ethics, and philosophies of ethics, and schools of thought and whatnot. We have to choose as a society what works for us–and it may well be different for different cultures. (I am NOT going to get into a debate about cultural relativity, I can and so judge other cultures’ ethics to be wrong or right, and I provide reasoning).
To try and pigeonhole the ethics debate into a matter of “sources” is to be entirely lopsided and handicapped in your ability to discuss the thing at all. But when you’ve been brought up to believe, incorrectly, that your ethics all come from one source, you tend to require things like absolutes and authority figures. The world, and even your own life, is much more complicated.
Oh, and atheists do not “lose” logic because they cannot open a door and show you syllogisms floating around in a cloud of ether. Logic is logical principles, which can be communicated in many languages and so are not subject only to language, but, like math, is something like a universal language. Something even more basic than the simplicity of a word (sound) and its referent. But it does still all exist in the mind; it’s just that we’ve all come out the same in such a way that we have similar abilities, like counting, that allow for most of us to understand this language.
There’s much more to be said about that last bit, but I suggest you take a course in symbolic logic.
And this idea that we have to prove an emotion like “love”–we all get by with the necessary amount of understanding, or level of “proof” that we need. If we need or want more, we seek it out. We probably cannot prove to a scientific degree everything we regularly observe or feel to be true. We simply have to assign a probability (a non-quantified measure of certainty or skepticism), like “I’ll bet on that” or “I need more proof” to get through our day-to-day life reasonably safe and productive.
To demand the atheist prove something like “love” or “logic”, when we use or experience both regularly (hopefully), is annoying. (I would put much more emphasis on the use of logic, since that can be demonstrated.) The is especially annoying when you are not concerned with such an inquiry, but rather just assign it to god and go about your merry way.
Very well, if we must examine and inquire about every aspect of our lives that we do not know with 99% certainty, then so must you. And the second you posit god, you lose, because then you’re going to spend the rest of your life trying to prove he/she/it/they/whatever exists.
Simply establishing a need for or a question of certainty does not provide proof or even evidence of a god. Just because you think you have an explanation doesn’t mean it’ll satisfy the rest of us.
I mean, maybe if you could do experiments with god, repeat results, show SOME kind of manipulative force.
But, no, you can’t. *sigh* A basic philosophy course would answer all the questions you posed up there. And Andy, though I love him, should probably stop with the evolution of ethics bit, since so many people really, really misunderstand it.
Also, please forgive my many typos in that post, I posted hastily.
I would like to clarify what I said about everyone getting by with the understanding they have. I did not mean to advocate that learning new things or understanding things we know better is pointless or unnecessary, if that’s how I came across. Certainly most everything in life does merit examination.
I was more trying to get across the frustration that believers will often lob complex issues, such as ethics, or how we got here, or how it all began, or what’s the meaning of life, etc. etc., and expect a tidy and complete explanation (since they feel they have one).
I myself may have many ideas about all of the above, but I am not necessarily decided on them all, and some I simply don’t (and probably never will ) have the scientific expertise to answer. I enjoy debating or discussing these questions, but I dislike having to eventually somehow arrive at a same level of certainty like “God did it!”
That believers can even pass off this idea, or an idea like faith, as satisfactory, and then push for me to define in detail my ideas–which they feel plenty free to nitpick at–is what’s so frustrating. They take an easy, unexamined, unexplained, unspecific explanation as their own, but demand a detailed, logical, complex explanation from others.
“dedicated to freely thinking about everything in the same naturalistic way. ”
That’s an awesome way of putting it. Very subtle swipe, my favorite kind of humor