Skip to main content

Can Morality come from Evolution Alone?

My Dear Atheist,

You wrote me to explain why you think it is no longer necessary to believe in God. I appreciate that. It was a friendly gesture. I hope you don't mind if I return my own thoughts - especially in response to what you wrote on morality and ethics. You say,

Altruism is an evolutionary response to the pressures of competition in the world – we can’t help but find it enjoyable

So, according to your theory, we act in a moral way because evolution has designed it that we get pleasure from doing so. Please let me briefly share four issues I have with your new theory. 

Animal Morals?
First of all, when some of our 'evolutionary animal cousins' eat their own children or when a male forces sex on a female, is this morally wrong? Can animals act in an immoral way? You argue for a universal moral metric stick. But given the evolutionary process, how? Was there a definite moment in history when the organic motions we call cannibalism and rape became ‘wrong’? If it's ok for some animals (and they seem to enjoy it) when did it become wrong for us? 

Past Morals?
Secondly, if altruism evolves, what does this mean for people who do not share our modern, Western moral standards? What about Ghengis Khan and crew? Did they act that way because they lived 900 years ago and evolution had not advanced their altruism enough yet? Are we morally superior because 900 years has biologically advanced us? What about ISIS? They do similar things to the Khans. Are they genetically inferior to you and me? If our species is to advance, should we get rid of these altruistic retards?

But then, if morality comes from our evolution, why berate immoral people? Why do you give, as you did in your letter, the ancient Israelis such a hard time? They were just doing what genetically gave them pleasure. You might as well call salmon to repent for not having legs.

Future Morals
Third, if altruism has developed to where it is now to help our species survive, we should expect it to change in the future. Right?

What if our hard wiring changes so that we see evil as what we now see as good – and vice versa? What if we start getting pleasure from other sorts of behaviours? Birth rates in the West are low. Perhaps our hardwiring will change in order to increase our offspring. It may have us do things to our women that we now consider unethical so that they will have more babies. What if ISIS and their sex slavery, instead of being backwards, is really the next step in the evolutionary process to replenish the species and make a stronger race?

If morality evolved, then that means morality changes. Your eternal standard - which you say evolution can provide - is a concept foreign to the material universe you live in. The current morals of homo sapiens are just a stopover on the road to something else. No use in getting too attached to them.

Fun Immorality
Lastly, why should I be moral? Because it gives me pleasure? Really? I'm sure I could find many things pleasurable that we would generally consider to be immoral. So could you. In a given situation, why should I obey the 'altruism impulse' which you say that evolution gave me, but not my impulse for sexual satisfaction or longing for power. Evolution gave me those impulses too. Why is it 'wrong' to follow the one but not the other?

I leave it with you to respond. 
(Please Share)
bkCan Christians have best friends of the opposite sex? Check out Forbidden Friendships - available on Amazon in Paperback and Kindle in the USA and the UK.


Popular posts from this blog

Dear Pro-Gay Christian Friend

[Response to the letter Dear Non-Affirming Christian]
Dear Pro-Gay Christian Friend,
Thank you for taking the time to write me. Sadly, it seems you misunderstand why I met with you for coffee. Please let me explain my motives by defining the words in my salutation above. Would this be too terrible a way to go about it?
Let’s start with ‘friend’ shall we? You rightly question this term as an accurate description of our relationship. For now, let's simply say I mean it as an expression of good will - but will return to it again at the end of the letter. Then there's this term, 'pro-gay'. By this, I don't mean your personal sexual urges. There have historically been – and are today – countless godly leaders in the church who have deep sexual and romantic attractions to people of the same gender. In spite of their desires, they remain celibate and teach orthodox views of gender and sexuality. In your letter, you repeatedly refer to me as a ‘non-affirming Christian’, but I …

Jezebel: Our Whorable Queen

[Extract from the bookElijah Men Eat Meat]

Ahab married Jezebel, then he proceeded to worship Baal.’ -1Kg 16
Queen Jezebel is a Baal-snogging, fake-teaching, boob-flaunting, pride-marching, man-manipulating, Yahweh-blaspheming, prophets’ blood-drinking monstrosity of a female.
And that’s being nice.
This daughter of Ethbaal, the Phoenician King, grows up surrounded by power, education, luxury, and evil. Of course, she doesn’t think of it as evil. No one sees their culture’s sins for what they are. It is like air to a child or water to a fish: it’s so much a part of us that we don’t even know it is there. She thinks her culture is the rule by which others should be measured. Yes, Israel is used to being surrounded by pagan neighbours and their debauched royalty. But now we have a problem. The problem is that this ghoulish gal now has a throne in the midst of God’s holy nation. It’s one thing for a boat to be in the sea. It’s quite another thing for the sea to be in the boat. And the nati…

Driscoll Returns, ‘Christian Today’ Melts.

Sometimes in the course of events, a peculiar thing happens that then triggers a response more peculiar still. This is what we now see with the return of Pastor Mark Driscoll to the church scene.
For those unfamiliar with the drama, Mark Driscoll was a church planter and Bible teacher who made a big impact in the least churched city in the USA: Seattle. Thousands professed faith in Christ through his ministry. But he left the church that he had started under dark circumstances. No, it wasn’t adultery as is so often the case with some of these big-name preachers. Rather, it was heavy-handed leadership―resulting in many spiritually crushed church members―that drove him to resign.
Now, three years later, he is leading a new church and many are downloading his sermons once again. This is not without some valid controversy―for reasons we’ll mention soon. But what is most noticeable is not his peculiar return. It is the reaction among those who lean left of classical Christian teaching: the …