Does a true understanding of Darwinian evolution corrode religious morality?

[aneeshm]

Simple enough question.

Suppose that there is a person X, who is religious (in this context, Judachrislamic) in the sense that his worldview and moral code have many assumptions rooted in his religion, but he is not really fanatical about religion - it is simply another part of his life - and who till now has not really paid any attention to the theory of evolution. He studied it in school, didn't really bother much with it, learnt enough to pass the test, and later archived it in his head as "the way things came to be", and forgot about it.

Now, because of the controversy surrounding the Creationism vs. Evolution debate, he decides to read material from both sides of the issue. He is a person who has been wary of the people associated with Creationism - he doesn't believe in their brand of aggressive, intolerant religion. He does not really understand what the fuss is all about, and why they claim that "Evolution destroys religion and morality".

So he goes online, researches a bit, and picks a few books from "Answers in Genesis" (and other similar institutions), and from the other side of the debate, Richard Dawkins' books on evolution (NOT "The God Delusion - assume this was before that book was published).

First, he reads the books from the Creationist camp. He finds that they re-affirm his morality, but do not really enhance his understanding.

Then, he starts to read the books by Dawkins. He finds that though his understanding of how the process of the creation of of humanity and all other life came about is far clearer, he has lost the foundations of his morality. His belief in:

a) The kindness of God,
b) The consistency of God,
c) The existence of the type of God he had envisaged, and
d) The uniqueness and exaltedness of Man as something above an animal

are all shattered. He has completely lost the foundations of his morality. Though he will continue to behave the same way he did through sheer force of habit, the justification, the spark, the life, his sheer conviction in his own actions' goodness is now gone. Even though the first three points were just in the background for him throughout his life, the fourth one was the one which caused the maximum disruption, as it was the foundation of the morality he had built up throughout his entire life, as he had believed that he was himself innately good. He now knows that he was neither good nor bad - he simply had genes that knew how to survive and reproduce.

An understanding of evolution forced him to discard his notion, as he now knew that it was not goodness or anything related to morality which underlies man (and himself) - it is survivability, devoid of all compassion and pretty much everything, in fact.

This caused his morality to collapse. It also caused him to give up the search for meaning - he knew that there was no "higher purpose".














The question here is: is the above scenario plausible?

Is it that a real understanding of evolution is corrosive to a morality founded on religion, and on an idea of man's identity as an innately moral being?

[Lorizael]

Read Starchild's sig.

[BeBMan]

Club thread!

[Cort Haus]

Oh no, not again.

[Japher]

is the above scenario plausible?

Of course it is, it happens all the time to those of little faith and an analytical mind.

Is it that a real understanding of evolution is corrosive to a morality founded on religion, and on an idea of man's identity as an innately moral being?

No. An understanding of a theory cannot corrode religious based morality. Only by acceptance of that theory or by admittance that such a theory is more plausible than that suggested by the faith would that persons moral ground be in question.

[aneeshm]

Actually, I'm pro-truth. Which means an acceptance of truth as it is, without emotional opposition.

I don't found my morality on religious beliefs the way most people understand them, so I don't feel in the least bit threatened by evolution. In fact, I find it supports my ideas. I find it rather cool, because it's so elegant.

So I don't really mind if others' moralities collapse when faced with something that they cannot reconcile with them. That's their problem, not mine.

I just wanted to know whether or not such an understanding had a corrosive effect on a morality founded on any of the premises I outlined above. As mine isn't, it's an academic question for me, but as it's so serious for so many, I thought I'd open up a discussion.

[Japher]

Even though the first three points were just in the background for him throughout his life, the fourth one was the one which caused the maximum disruption, as it was the foundation of the morality he had built up throughout his entire life, as he had believed that he was himself innately good.

Actually, this one right here would be the crux and be a sign of his inperfect faith. IF this person were a Christian and a Creationist he would definitly not consider himself "innately good" since man was born to sin, and because of sin imperfect. Thus, this person was never what they thought they were in the first place.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Japher

No. An understanding of a theory cannot corrode religious based morality. Only by acceptance of that theory or by admittance that such a theory is more plausible than that suggested by the faith would that persons moral ground be in question.

I should have made it explicit that he accepted it.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Actually, I'm pro-truth. Which means an acceptance of truth as it is, without emotional opposition.

I don't found my morality on religious beliefs the way most people understand them, so I don't feel in the least bit threatened by evolution. In fact, I find it supports my ideas. I find it rather cool, because it's so elegant.

So I don't really mind if others' moralities collapse when faced with something that they cannot reconcile with them. That's their problem, not mine.

I just wanted to know whether or not such an understanding had a corrosive effect on a morality founded on any of the premises I outlined above. As mine isn't, it's an academic question for me, but as it's so serious for so many, I thought I'd open up a discussion.

I think finding a way to rationalize or justify any belief within the framework of an already existing belief system is just as bad as not being able to accept new ideas; you're still deluding yourself.

Do you have the intellectual honesty to radically change your beliefs when you encounter facts that contradict them?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Japher


Actually, this one right here would be the crux and be a sign of his inperfect faith. IF this person were a Christian and a Creationist he would definitly not consider himself "innately good" since man was born to sin, and because of sin imperfect. Thus, this person was never what they thought they were in the first place.

Good point.

However, many people, both religious and non-religious, base their morality on an idea that they are innately good. It's an idea which has permeated the common culture very thoroughly. What happens when they realise that they are innately nothing, except superb replication machines?

Also, consider the Muslim. He has no concept of original Sin. What of him?

Also, consider a person who is actively Chriatianly religious, and believes in the first three? What of him?

[Shrapnel12]

Darwin's theory and the existence of God are not mutually exclusive. I don't believe there are two sides. I believe they both are possibly true. I think it's stupid activists on both sides that have split the issue into the two main viewpoints that have developed.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Lorizael

Do you have the intellectual honesty to radically change your beliefs when you encounter facts that contradict them?

Yes. I have done it (multiple times) before, and will do it again as necessary.

The point is that the idea of evolution does not, in fact, contradict anything in my current view of the world. In fact, it makes many things clearer, which I found difficult to understand before I truly appreciated and understood it.

I also, however, understood how badly it could mess up someone who had an idealistic or naive view of the world, and who had built up his entire mental framework around that view.

[Japher]

People without knowledge of either religion or evolution can still have morals so I don't see why learning something would crush someones moral nature rather than change them or build upon them. It is what we mean when we say things like "my, has he changed". He hasn't really "changed" only he has changed his focus and learned to value something other than what he currently was. Maybe this is morally based, however, I also feel that at the core of all people is the desire to do what makes them feel good. Thus, all morals are more of a value than a virtue.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Japher
People without knowledge of either religion or evolution can still have morals so I don't see why learning something would crush someones moral nature rather than change them or build upon them.

Certainly, but most people lack the intellectual rigor to actively and thoroughly pursue a new moral system if their current one is no longer satisfactory. Most people will simply latch onto the next idea they find for fear of being without a moral center.

[Impaler[WrG]]

The theory of Evolution is just one of many things which can lead a rational person to discard the god theory (others include the existence of numerous conflicting gods and, the existence of evil in the world).

This leads to Nietzsche's "death of god" in which one rejects god for the higher truth of atheism out of intellectual honesty as you call it or the "Will to Truth" as Nietzsche called it. In reality that will to truth is the real morality you follow and is the core of the Christian morality which we affirm when when sacrificing god himself. Thus atheism far from being the rejection of Christianity is in fact its ultimate fulfillment!