Scientists find beginnings of morality in other species (evolution, theologians)

[Quagmire]

"Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality."

Precursors? Hell, I wouldn't trust most of my friends with a tazer even if the frig was full.

[Runlikethewind]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality. They further believe that if morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are.

That there is some tasty bait. Oh, go theists, you know you want to...

So tasty....can't resist....must respond!!

So the way I see it is that my faith tells me that God created and sustains all existence and that God's law is written into our hearts. Science tells us that we exist in space and time, that life evolved on earth thought time, and that social/moral behavior can be seen in other species and is a result of (or is at least in some way linked to) the proccess of evolution.

My conclusions are,
1. If we exist in space and time then God's act of creation and sustainment of that creation must be a proccess and not a one time event in the past.

2. If creation is a proccess then evolution could be seen as a manifestation of God's creative work.

3. If God's law is written on our hearts then the writting of that law there will be tied to or the result of the creative proccess of evolution.

4. If creation, evolution and morality are all linked in the ways implied in points 1-3, then biologist will be able to determine certain rules of morality and these rules will be the same that theologians already profess.

So then my faith tells me that the most important commandments upon which all else rests are love of God and love of neighbor (aka the golden rule Mark 12: 29-33). If these are the most important commandments then they ought to be in someway inherent in the human creature and therefore also in other creatures to a degree as well since the writting of these laws on our hearts is linked to the proccess of evolution. This post has implied that altruism toward fellow members of ones species may in fact be a property that increases the survivablity of the species and so they have detected such altruistic moral behavoior in monkies. A monkey drowning to save another or not wanting to shock another can be interpreted as the commandment to love ones neighbor or the manifestation of that command in creatures. Now as to the love of God this is more likely a specifically human charicteristic given the special nature placed on humans in religion and our free will, intellect and reason. Science has already confirmed that the idea of God or spirituallity is a psycological aspect of humanity. Some would describe it mearly as a manifestation of our fear of death or having some other property that increases our survivablity. But the psycological phenomena of God in humans is real. So one might interpret this as the love of God written on our hearts. So maybe biology and science have already found the most important moral rules, love of God and love of neighbor when interpreted through the lenes of faith.

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by Runlikethewind

So tasty....can't resist....must respond!!

So the way I see it is that my faith tells me that God created and sustains all existence and that God's law is written into our hearts. Science tells us that we exist in space and time, that life evolved on earth thought time, and that social/moral behavior can be seen in other species and is a result of (or is at least in some way linked to) the proccess of evolution.

My conclusions are,
1. If we exist in space and time then God's act of creation and sustainment of that creation must be a proccess and not a one time event in the past.

2. If creation is a proccess then evolution could be seen as a manifestation of God's creative work.

3. If God's law is written on our hearts then the writting of that law there will be tied to or the result of the creative proccess of evolution.

4. If creation, evolution and morality are all linked in the ways implied in points 1-3, then biologist will be able to determine certain rules of morality and these rules will be the same that theologians already profess.

First I want to say that although I do not personally subscribe to theistic evolution, it is an idea that I can respect, especially when it is expressed intelligently and thoughtfully. And you did an excellent job in that last post, so I am somewhat disinclined to argue with you. However on the other hand part of this issue is just too “tasty” to pass up. So here I go.

Originally Posted by Runlikethewind

So then my faith tells me that the most important commandments upon which all else rests are love of God and love of neighbor (aka the golden rule Mark 12: 29-33). If these are the most important commandments then they ought to be in someway inherent in the human creature

But what if it’s not? What if science were to discover that the morality that is written into our genes is really not that of love thy neighbour? What if it is really more about the selfish genes acting in a way to preserve their own interests? It could be as Quoth the Raven suggested that Chimps sacrificing themselves to save another are merely following a genetic imperative to preserve other copies of their own genes. What if the socio-biological “morality” of humans is working along those same lines?

What if the morality that scientists discover in our genes is not one of universal (agape) love, but rather about preserving one’s own genetic structure or a concept of practical reciprocity? What if the thing that is written in our hearts, or in our genes, calls for in-group compassion, and out-group hostility? I know you can probably think of examples of someone who has given his or her life to help a stranger, someone who was not related and not in a position to return the favour or reward the act in any way. But when someone does this we call them a hero. We call them a hero precisely because such actions are not common.

What if we have a genetic propensity to talk about universal love, because giving lip service to such an idea is a survival advantage as it can help us in the community? And what if there is also a survival advantage to actually believe in universal love on some level without actually doing it? This would explain why so many people claim to believe in universal love, but so few people actually practice it.

If my admittedly cynical idea proves to be correct, what does that say about human morality, or the concept of morality itself? What would it say about the idea of “the love of God written on our hearts”?

[michel]

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/sc...20e&ei=5087%0A

I should imagine that deciding whether dogs are moral would be pretty dificult. Certainly dfogs have acted in ways that would seem to indicate that they do possess morals (saving drowning people), but what I find wonderful are the Guide dogs for the blind, and those who have no hearing - but I guess the argument would be made that they are not being "Moral" so much as responding to learned responses.

However, there is no denying the loyalty and love of a dog. Would that come under the umbrella of morals ?

[Nick Soapdish]

Very interesting GeneCosta. My fear is that by defining morality based on biological terms and behavioralism is that it changes morality from the "I ought not to do X" to "I did X because ...".

If we define morality based on behavioral mechanisms, how do we ever conclude that an action was immoral if it was always the result of a behavioral mechanism? If we do not appeal to a standard that supersedes behaviorism, then there can be no immoral behaviors, in which case, we would eliminate morality as we knew it.

[yuvgotmel]

WOW... I didn't even see this thread until I had already posted a similar topic to a new thread: Teach Religion to Animals ??

I asked the question, based upon an article about a gorilla, if animals can be taught religion.

[Runlikethewind]

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

First I want to say that although I do not personally subscribe to theistic evolution, it is an idea that I can respect, especially when it is expressed intelligently and thoughtfully. And you did an excellent job in that last post, so I am somewhat disinclined to argue with you. However on the other hand part of this issue is just too “tasty” to pass up. So here I go.

Thanks

Originally Posted by fantome profane

But what if it’s not? What if science were to discover that the morality that is written into our genes is really not that of love thy neighbor? What if it is really more about the selfish genes acting in a way to preserve their own interests? It could be as Quoth the Raven suggested that Chimps sacrificing themselves to save another are merely following a genetic imperative to preserve other copies of their own genes. What if the socio-biological “morality” of humans is working along those same lines?

What if the morality that scientists discover in our genes is not one of universal (agape) love, but rather about preserving one’s own genetic structure or a concept of practical reciprocity? What if the thing that is written in our hearts, or in our genes, calls for in-group compassion, and out-group hostility? I know you can probably think of examples of someone who has given his or her life to help a stranger, someone who was not related and not in a position to return the favor or reward the act in any way. But when someone does this we call them a hero. We call them a hero precisely because such actions are not common.

What if we have a genetic propensity to talk about universal love, because giving lip service to such an idea is a survival advantage as it can help us in the community? And what if there is also a survival advantage to actually believe in universal love on some level without actually doing it? This would explain why so many people claim to believe in universal love, but so few people actually practice it.

If my admittedly cynical idea proves to be correct, what does that say about human morality, or the concept of morality itself? What would it say about the idea of “the love of God written on our hearts”?

I think these are all wonderful questions, well put and insightful. And I think that allot is dependent on how one interprets the biology and genetics. The possibility that the apparent moral behavior might be a selfish gene type instance, where it is not about loving ones neighbor as it is about preserving the genes of the species or group, is right in line with evolution and survivability. However one looks at it, there is still a genetic propensity to helping others even if it is for selfish reasons. Since the process of evolution is still going on and if creation is a process, then this basic form of the law to love ones neighbor has room to grow and become more specific. The more we humans learn about our connectedness to all life on earth through common ancestry and evolution the more we have begun to think about our environment and see the treatment of animals cruelly as immoral. The more we learn about global climate change the more we see our environment as being this whole unified system and that what we do has an effect on it. Perhaps this knowledge and our reaction to it will effect our genetics or at least our social evolution to the point that we see the whole earth as our group and that in order to preserve ourselves and our genes we must preserve all life and the environment etc in order to survive. Humans have the capacity to understand this intellectually and pass our knowledge on to the next generation by means other than genetics, social evolution (which is just as slow or even slower than genetic evolution. How many years did it take to outlaw slavery, and it still goes on to this very day....).

I kind of went off on a bit of a tangent there but the point that I am trying to make is that perhaps God's law is still being written and we only now have the very simple first elements that are rooted in our survival and in a certain selfish gene capacity. If your ideas prove to be correct then I think that it could still be interpreted to show that the humanity still has a long way to go and allot of growing to do. Maybe this even ties into the concept of original sin, that perhaps original sin is a theological concept used to describe this state of human existence where the initial writing of God's law has begun but is not complete to a point in which we can all follow it and so often act in immoral ways and why hero's are the exception to the rule. Maybe that is why we even recognize that sort of activity as heroic because we realize that this is the next step in our evolution on a social level and perhaps it may even effect our evolution on a genetic level in some way too. There are still allot of questions about what might actually cause genetic changes and mutation. Lamarkian ideas of inheritance of acquired characteristics are making a possible comeback in science. Social behavior and social evolution might effect genetic evolution. I think some call it the theory of epigenetics or something. In any event the questions you raised can be interpreted in such a way that my original ideas will still be able to hold water.

Great post, great questions, really got me thinking!

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

What if science were to discover that the morality that is written into our genes is really not that of love thy neighbour? What if it is really more about the selfish genes acting in a way to preserve their own interests?

No thanks. I am not really interested in having ivory tower "experts" tell me what I ought to do and what I ought not do. What you are talking about is not a discovery of morality, but the elimination of it.

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by atofel

No thanks. I am not really interested in having ivory tower "experts" tell me what I ought to do and what I ought not do. What you are talking about is not a discovery of morality, but the elimination of it.

I am not sure if that is the case or not, but it is my fear as well. But the genetic evolutionary component of morality is something that is worthy of further scientific study. I am not the kind of person who will reject an idea just because it makes me uncomfortable or I don’t like the implications.

I also think that understanding our propensity for hatred and violence on a genetic level could help a great deal in our efforts to curb it. There are just too many possible advances in this area of research to just dismiss it because it raises some difficult philosophical questions.

Originally Posted by Runlikethewind

I think these are all wonderful questions, well put and insightful. And I think that allot is dependent on how one interprets the biology and genetics. The possibility that the apparent moral behavior might be a selfish gene type instance, where it is not about loving ones neighbor as it is about preserving the genes of the species or group, is right in line with evolution and survivability. However one looks at it, there is still a genetic propensity to helping others even if it is for selfish reasons. Since the process of evolution is still going on and if creation is a process, then this basic form of the law to love ones neighbor has room to grow and become more specific. The more we humans learn about our connectedness to all life on earth through common ancestry and evolution the