Is religion really important in the development of morality ? There is at least room for some debate. Here's an interesting recent article from the NYT.
HTML friendly copy
http://camres.frih.net/resources/biology/evolution&morality.html
original article
url Very interesting article. Seems to make sense to me, but I'm sure others might disagree.
It fascinates me that behavior can be coded genetically. I know it is common in all species, but I haven't a clue as to HOW it works. How does an emperor penguin know that he should hang out with the little one for weeks while the mother goes for food? (Yeah, March of the Penguins as awesome) How does a mother cat know to lick the sac off a kitten so that it can breath? Obviously it happens, but to think that it is all coded in inherently at birth really is amazing.
very interesting post! i am just wondering what will be the reaction from the other people. It would be nice to have this hypothesis finalized and know what the reuslt is. So much information in our genes, hard to believe!!
it seems to make sense.
but i still dont think morales are evolutionary
Its just that people who are kind to other people will live longer (becuase of aid from others and etc.), so in a while, the people who are cruel will mostly die. Then, when they reproduce, they teach their child manners, but the child probably isnt born with manners
Morality is a pretty well documented genetic trait.
Especially in our ancestors, the apes, we see strong social structures that all reward ethics and morals and punish wrongdoing. The apes have no real way to pass down knowledge, as their language is fully guttural, so it makes sense to think that at least a part of our morality comes from our genetics.
Yeah, why not? Makes sense.
Evolution --> Deeper Thinking --> Morality
| Quote: |
but i still dont think morales are evolutionary
Its just that people who are kind to other people will live longer (becuase of aid from others and etc.), so in a while, the people who are cruel will mostly die. Then, when they reproduce, they teach their child manners, but the child probably isnt born with manners |
You answered it yourself. That is precisely how morals could be propagated through evolution. What you described IS evolution.
I don't know if I particularly agree that it's working that way though. I think you refine your morality moreso after your child bearing age. So "good morals" might not be as much of a factor early in life when you're actually conceiving children.
Unless it's not related to genes, and rather related to environment. In that case, the people who live long, have a longer amount of time to pass on a good example to others. If people with poor morals do indeed die earlier, then people are learning from their example as well. | sky217 wrote: |
You answered it yourself. That is precisely how morals could be propagated through evolution. What you described IS evolution.
|
It's important to be clear about this. Evolution (Darwinian Natural Selection) operates on genes so technically things other than genetic effects are not included. Sky is therefore, I believe, quite correct in the assertion that this description IS evolution in the sense described and also quite right in raising a doubt about whether it is possible.
My own opinion is that the case has not been made, but it is a valid hypothesis nontheless.
PS - A non genetic element which can be transmitted (religious faith, for example) is described by R Dawkins as a meme rather than gene (I'm sure sky knows this, but others might not).
Chris. | Bikerman wrote: |
| sky217 wrote: |
You answered it yourself. That is precisely how morals could be propagated through evolution. What you described IS evolution.
|
It's important to be clear about this. Evolution (Darwinian Natural Selection) operates on genes so technically things other than genetic effects are not included. Sky is therefore, I believe, quite correct in the assertion that this description IS evolution in the sense described and also quite right in raising a doubt about whether it is possible.
|
Darwinian natural selection does not require genes. It just requires replicators. Darwin did not know anything about whate we today call genes, but he knew replicators must exist. Genes were discovered by Mendel after Darwin was dead, and DNA was discovered a long time after that.
The case for the Darwinian evolution of morality is very, very strong. See the book "The Origins of Virtue", by Matt Ridley. | BruceThePainter wrote: |
Darwinian natural selection does not require genes. It just requires replicators. Darwin did not know anything about whate we today call genes, but he knew replicators must exist. Genes were discovered by Mendel after Darwin was dead, and DNA was discovered a long time after that. |
Hmm...that is an interesting but debatable point.
Dawkins, for example, is clear and unambiguous in his belief that genes are an essential component of DNS. In fact he goes on to define memes for exactly that reason - as replicators which mimic genes but are not strictly evolutionary. I take the point that Darwin himself was not aware of the precise details and did not know that genes were the mechanism - that is undeniable since it is historic fact. I suppose one could argue that Darwinian natural selection is that system defined by Darwin, as opposed to the more usual meaning - the system of evolution derived from the work of Darwin. In the former case then I would agree with you, but in the latter case not.
| Quote: |
| The case for the Darwinian evolution of morality is very, very strong. See the book "The Origins of Virtue", by Matt Ridley. |
I'll check it out...thanks.
I think a point to watch is that anti-evolutionists are quick to seize on the sort of semantic/historic discussion we are having here as evidence that 'experts' and 'scientists' are divided about the validity of the theory in general when I know that I have no doubts and I suspect you would say the same...
To avoid that I will be clear that neither of us are questioning basic natural selection as the mechanism involved in evolution and (I think) neither of us would say that there is any doubt that the theory is basically correct and certainly the most complete and persauasive of any theory which explains speciation and diversity in the natural world. I hope that I have not mistrepresented you here and if I have then please correct me...
As to the morality specific.....Dawkins would, I think, insist that this was mimetic evolution and not natural selection in the strict sense of the word, but an analogue of it.
I may, of course, be wrong here and I claim no special knowledge or qualification for my opinion.....I have read several of Dawkins works and find him both a reasonable and a persuasive champion of the theory (as opposed to the often repeated picture of him as a humourless and souless scientific technician with no depth or 'spirituality').
On the same theme, I have a couple of Richard D's smaller papers on my site which may be of interest. One on religion in general and the other touching on memetics...
http://camres.frih.net/resources/biology/Dawkins-ImprobabilityOfGod.htm
http://camres.frih.net/resources/biology/Dawkins-Viruses.htmA rather curious thing to ponder indeed... However, I tend to be sceptical about this, personally. The whole thing is a bit too Rousseauan - the notion of inherent good in a human being and all. Certainly, it is rather obvious that social behaviour is coded into the human being's genes, however, morality as a whole is, in my opinion, a complex social construct that developed through the centuries and was refined over and over. Does religion have it's say in it? Hard to say for certain. Quite likely so, as life has been largely influnced by organised religions for many centuries, if not to say millennia. Of course, that is simply my opinion, however, there is a rather, well, simple way to check the assumption of morality coded into our genes.
It would involve an experiment, where several babies would be placed into an environment where they would have things necessary to their survival, however, would have no possible way to have knowledge of morality from the outside. As an evolved species, they certainly have all the base for creating the society, moral code and whatnot else. However, question is, would they establish the said moral code?
Naturally, such an experiment is against the current vision of morality, yet, it would be something that would prove one or the other vision right or wrong.
The evolution has indeed given us capacity for concepts of morality and other such complect constructs, however, one must not discount the thousands of years of social evolution as well.
basically we are all composed of cells and even smaller atoms.
evolution makes true thinking and behaving. but the morality is always closely connected to the social standard.
In the ancient time, maybe i could eat a hare without cooking it ... it is not moral noble any more.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| BruceThePainter wrote: |
Darwinian natural selection does not require genes. It just requires replicators. Darwin did not know anything about whate we today call genes, but he knew replicators must exist. Genes were discovered by Mendel after Darwin was dead, and DNA was discovered a long time after that. |
Hmm...that is an interesting but debatable point.
Dawkins, for example, is clear and unambiguous in his belief that genes are an essential component of DNS. In fact he goes on to define memes for exactly that reason - as replicators which mimic genes but are not strictly evolutionary.
|
I'm pretty sure Dawkins said no such thing. In fact, I think Dawkins said explicitly somewhere, that evolution by natural selection is an algorithm,
and, as such, could be implemented in all sorts of arbitrary mediums, not just DNA. (Maybe I'm remembering something Daniel Dennett said -- either way, one of them definitely said it.) There's a bit in "The God Delusion" where Dawkins talks about memes, and uses the example of the replication of the rules for making an origami ship. The the point is that you need accurate replicators, plus occasional mutation, for evolution by natural selection. It doesn't matter what the replicators are made from. Memes sometimes involve accurate replicators and sometimes unreliable replicators. The existence of the latter means that some memetic evolution (e.g., the evolution of languages) is mainly random drift, rather than an effect of natural selection. Also, memetic evolution often is not driven by random mutations, but by intelligence, which means it can be a lot faster than evolution by natural selection. So, memetic evolution is evolution, but it is often not evolution by natural selection. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Is religion really important in the development of morality ? |
Religion is important to impose morality.Yeah morality is lame, morals should never be absolute. We should be challenging our morality every day. Welcome to ethics. Ethics are good.
| Quote: |
I'm pretty sure Dawkins said no such thing. In fact, I think Dawkins said explicitly somewhere, that evolution by natural selection is an algorithm, and, as such, could be implemented in all sorts of arbitrary mediums, not just DNA. (Maybe I'm remembering something Daniel Dennett said -- either way, one of them definitely said it.) There's a bit in "The God Delusion" where Dawkins talks about memes, and uses the example of the replication of the rules for making an origami ship. The the point is that you need accurate replicators, plus occasional mutation, for evolution by natural selection. It doesn't matter what the replicators are made from. Memes sometimes involve accurate replicators and sometimes unreliable replicators. The existence of the latter means that some memetic evolution (e.g., the evolution of languages) is mainly random drift, rather than an effect of natural selection. Also, memetic evolution often is not driven by random mutations, but by intelligence, which means it can be a lot faster than evolution by natural selection. So, memetic evolution is evolution, but it is often not evolution by natural selection.
|
OK...I'll have to re-read Dawkins and see if I've misunderstood him (quite possible)..
Regards
ChrisEvoulution is just God making the changes that he already knew he was going to make. Just when he created the world and everything in it he was like "Ahhh i'll do that later...it's good like it is"
I can believe/accept that morals are wired within us from the beginning of ory life, but it sounds like a stretch to say that a person knowledge of right and wrong comes from other species. Though it may be that other species do follow there own moral code, but how would one go about proving or observing that one?
In the artical I found the train example humorous. After all, instead of pulling a lever, I'd heard everyone off the track to safety. I guess to me, this one seems like a no-brainer. And if I was on the bridge watching this one, I would know that an object heavy enough to stop a train is too heavy for me to left and throw over, and a throwing fat man over is just messy. Besides, what if such an object hit the all the people below, then it could kill the 5 people plus the engineer.
______________________________
Love God, love people, drink coffee.
www.socialoutcast.co.nr Regardless of what theory you prescribe to, a ‘morality’ is ingrained in the biology of social creatures. Humans being extremely social and socially complex have more complex morals.
The unexplainable or divine conscience, in addition to these morals I think is the question here, such as when a person goes against these biological impulses and intelligence.
Let’s add to the train track example by making the switch operator a moral person, the five people strangers, and the one person a relative or group member of the switch operator. Now what does he do?
You could explain this with logic. Logically, killing you group member compromises yourself. Logically, the switch operator knows that if everyone was only concerned about themselves, he would eventually be on the other end of the switch and a member of the five. Either way, it could be explained with an evolution theory.
There is empathy of course. Atheists love this one even though it is a very poor argument. Empathy can feel strong some times but let’s be real.
Then there is belief in god, afterlife, etc. This is a very prevalent part of Christianity. Sacrificing for others, it is based on the creator sacrificing his son to pay for the sins of the world, for those who do not reject it. The only biological argument I can think of for this is that man is more fit believing in a god and this belief then caused training among the group to go against their own survival mechanisms.
| cloudship wrote: |
b
In the ancient time, maybe i could eat a hare without cooking it ... it is not moral noble any more. |
That's not ethics; that's hygiene...Nonetheless, the more advanced we get, it seems the better are ethics get...Once we thought slavery was acceptable, now that's changed...
Even now, we are starting to see that a healthy sex life is a good thing, rather than a bad one. We even see disagreement as a good thing rather than something that needs to be punished...What's interesting that we aren't as bound to our religions as we used to be. We are still bound somewhat to those religions, but we are more willing to mix them up a bit and see what happens. It will be interesting to see which beliefs will still be around in even a few decades from now...
HM | Bikerman wrote: |
| sky217 wrote: |
You answered it yourself. That is precisely how morals could be propagated through evolution. What you described IS evolution.
|
It's important to be clear about this. |
Heh heh, you call what follows here clear? | Bikerman wrote: |
Evolution (Darwinian Natural Selection) operates on genes so technically things other than genetic effects are not included. Sky is therefore, I believe, quite correct in the assertion that this description IS evolution in the sense described and also quite right in raising a doubt about whether it is possible.
|
You don't make any sense, but you do so in interesting ways.
