Scepticism - http://lms.acsindep.edu.sg/ACSIndep/blogs/BL_ViewBlogPost.aspx?

bid=14&bpid=125

Evolution by natural selection/morality http://lms.acsindep.edu.sg/ACSIndep/blogs/BL_ViewBlogPost.aspx?bid=12&bpid=262#comments Evolution by natural selection is essentially the selection of variants of organisms with biological traits better suited to their environment. As such, organisms better adapted to their environments are likely to survive and increase in population over time, provided they have the capacity to reproduce. While evolution provides a plausible explanation for the existence of morality, it fails to account for any true authority morality might possess. Broadly speaking, morality has two possible origins, based on two opposing worldviews - namely physicalism/naturalism/materialism (the distinctions here are unessential to the origin and authoritative value of morality) and (mono)theism. There are also contentions that moral standards may be independent of God; however, this is in direct contradiction to the definition of God - if God is subject to moral authority, he is no longer the supreme authority of the universe. Thus, if morality is to be considered an immutable, absolute standard, independent of God, he can no longer truly be God - following this, this position is problematic as God and independent moral standards are mutually exclusive. The first origin is based on a physicalistic worldview and suggests that evolution accounts for the existence of morality. The idea of the 'selfish gene', proposed by Dawkins, suggests that genes may promote their own "selfish" survival by engineering organisms to be altruistic. This can be seen in the family unit, as genes which program individual organisms to favour their genetic kin are statistically likely to benefit copies of themselves. The other main type of altruism for which there is a Darwinian rationale is reciprocal altruism which does not depend upon shared genes and is often called symbiosis. For example, the bee needs nectar and the flower needs pollinating. Flowers can't fly so they pay bees, in the currency of nectar, for the hire of their wings. Reciprocal altruism works because of asymmetries in needs and in capacities to meet them. While this presents a compelling case for evolution as the cause for morality, it fails to account for moral authority. In a purely physical universe, existence is in itself contingent and there can be no ultimate reason why one particular arrangement of matter is objectively better than another. As such, although the mechanisms by which genes may perpetuate themselves (e.g. altruism, morality) may be 'good' in the sense that they serve the genes' purpose of self-perpetuation (insofar as something which serves its purpose can be said to be good), such a 'good' is completely subjective and fleeting, lasting only so long as life exists. Even if humankind should survive indefinitely, it is ultimately purposeless meaning and purpose are immaterial and cannot be encapsulated within atoms and quarks. As such, conceptions such as meaning and morality are merely social constructs - the result of emergent properties (e.g. consciousness), and are therefore wholly subjective and consequently lacking authority and immutability. Ergo, while evolution may provide a compelling case for the existence of morality, it fails to provide any grounds whatsoever for moral authority.

The second origin of morality is theistic morality as an absolute and objective standard set in place by an omniscient and omnipotent being. (Monotheism is assumed here as polytheism is definitionally contradictory if no one god has complete authority over all other gods, it cannot truly be said to be a god. Taking into consideration that it is 2.24a.m., other conceptions of God such as pantheism and panentheism will be assumed to be non-existent.) Morality, in this case, possesses authority, as it is premised on fundamental truths (which may relate to the nature or existence of God and so on). Moreover, morality in this case is necessarily immutable, as a standard originating from a God who is omniscient - this characteristic of God makes it inconceivable that He would somehow, at some point decide that some different standard of morality would be superior to the previous one. Granted the existence of God and His essentially sovereign nature and position, it follows that He must be the sole effector behind everything. This does not invalidate the theory of evolution it only necessitates that God is its initiator and its orchestrator (although proponents of the clockwork universe theory might beg to differ on this count). In conclusion, although evolution to the best of humankinds knowledge is sensibly indisputable to a large extent and may account for the existence of morality (defined minimally, as a social construct or ideal, albeit ungrounded), it fails to account for moral authority, which is dependent on the existence or non-existence of God.

(edit- in response to a comment preceding this regarding rejection of the transcendent - I find it intriguing that anyone would choose to reject it based on a lack of physical evidence since it seems rather counter-intuitive to look for the metaphysical in the physical. Granted, the physical world may be that which we perceive the most easily, but that by no means entails that we should limit our quest for knowledge to the material world.)