Does The Theory of Evolution Lead to Immorality? (choice, faith)

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Willamena

Perhaps they all learned from each other?

I would doubt that very much. Some populations have been isolated from one another for of thousands of years.
Yet, if you go to any part of the world you will be able to relate to the people there in the most basic ways. So, I'm not talking about cultural differences like what people do after a meal, or the correct way to say thank you.
But in the simple behaviours that are typical of a human being.

Smiling, laughing, empathic compassion, tribal loyalty, sporting competitiveness, crying when sad etc etc etc...

Much of our behaviour, I believe, is pre-programmed.

[gnomon]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Does the theory of evolution lead to immorality or other ills? Why or why not?

According to one former member the TOE does indeed lead to immorality. Specifically, that individuals who accept the TOE as valid are also racist. I can't tell the why because the argument for that was so convoluted I can't detail it. It's an old thread on here somewhere.

Many people do believe that those who accept such a theory deny the religious foundation of social morality. Accept of TOE equals denial of God and therefore denial of God's laws. Of course, they ignore the concept of culture based morality and social contracts.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by camanintx

Do I have to wait until God is dead or can I preemptively kill my neighbor and take the ox now?

As soon as you accept the ToE the ox is yours.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Reverend Rick

Can I kill the OX and take my neighbor?

The ToE actually mandates that this is the better option.

[Francine]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

As soon as you accept the ToE the ox is yours.

The ToE that can be stubbed is not the true ToE.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Francine

The ToE that can be stubbed is not the true ToE.

Wow! I never realized before that I am a ToEist! Thanks!

[Captain Civic]

I think ToE CAN lead to immorality, based on the conclusions people make from it. But, that's not any different to the conclusions people draw from the Bible that they claim is "moral."

[astarath]

that is a dangerous tangent you tread on. i am forced to agree about the stubbed ToE.

[Somkid]

No I don't think so however, I was reading an article the other day while I was doing some research about philosophy of time, temporal mechanics and quantum theory and a scientist was talking about warping space and time which I won't get into and he mentions Star Trek and "warp drive" which is not a good term to describe bending space but anyway just ignore that part, most of us realize that Star Trek is only science fiction???

"The biggest obstacle to doing this is the tendency of many people today to think of physics as a kind of religion, demanding preaching, faith, formation of fixed opinions about the universe and strict adherence to them, and solidarity and the stamping out of heresy. There will be no hope at all for warp drive (or for any other major breakthrough), unless we remember that science really is a voyage of exploration, that we still live in a world of uncertainty and mystery and “wildcat drilling,” and that we really need to learn a certain kind of strategic thinking in order to probe the space of possibilities".

"Overconfidence, pride and narcissism will not give us warp drive. We need enough self-confidence to ask the big questions, but enough humility to know that we don’t have them yet. It is very sad these days when some adult scientists treat the scientific method the way some Mafia “Catholics” treat the words of Jesus Christ. Everything we know is rooted in experience of some kind – empirical data in the laboratory, or subjective experience. Science demands that we periodically ask ourselves what we really know and what we don’t know, based on shared laboratory experience. (Life is more than science, but to achieve warp drive, we would have to know new things as part of science.) We need to always keep asking what the alternatives are. In sum, we need to remember all that old stuff we learned from the history of science, and from the thinking which led up to Francis Bacon’s proposal for a Scientific Method. We also need to understand how science has changed, since the mathematics became more difficult and our knowledge became more complicated. We need to aspire to the kind of mathematical thinking that Von Neumann espoused – not handwaving bullshitting with equations (which often reminds me of medieval “proofs” of the existence of God, complete with a thousand angels and renormalizations on the head of a pin), not excessive formalism, but an effective (and strategic) use of logic to try to achieve clear understanding. And now, because physics is even more complicated than it was in the time of Von Neumann, we need to learn how to work together more, by opening ourselves up to the kind of discussions which once could fit within a single brain. And we need to try to listen to a broader community, more than just one discipline".

If you managed to read all of that and not fall asleep, I think the writer has some valid points of science being full of itself and being almost like a religion in some cases dumbing us down. At that point I think it would "warp" (pun intended) our morals and rationality.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

I would doubt that very much. Some populations have been isolated from one another for of thousands of years.

Still, they have mommies and daddies, who had mommies and daddies...