Filed under: atheism, religion | Tags: atheism, Dawkins, evil, Hitchens, immorality, morality, naturlism, problem of evil, proof of God, Sam Harris
More often than not in the discussion of the existence of God someone inevitably brings up the question – “If God is real why does he let people do bad stuff?” While this is a simplistic question that’s been answered countless times it put the theist on the defensive. A better (and certainly more interesting) question is – If God doesn’t exist why is there evil?
If God were absolutely removed from the picture it would probably not mean that everyone would automatically join the KKK or pillage their neighborhoods. Likewise, I have no doubt that Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins have contributed to charity or helped little old ladies cross streets.
The theist and the atheist agree that humanity experiences a sense of morality distinct from belief in God. One could argue that this is a result of strictly naturalistic means such as social norms or evolutionary biology. These are the stock answers from a naturalist.
But the problem is not just an innate sense of morality but, conversely an innate sense of immortality. While we have lofty moral goals such as altruism and peace we more regularly observe in human nature exploitation, greed and rage. (And no doubt the list of human failures could be much longer.)
So, the fact that I have within me two distinct and clear voices presents an interesting dilemma: Which is a result of social norms and evolutionary biology? If the answer is both, then which is the “right” one to choose? Or what makes choosing the other “wrong”?
If the answer is, “only the good is a result of naturalism” then where did the other come from?
If atheism can only point to instinct developed through evolution for moral guidance then I have a problem because those instincts are at war.
Furthermore, how is it irrational or wrong for someone to dismiss social conventions and do what they want? The atheist has no way to say that they’re wrong for doing so. In fact the atheist is left with nothing but evolution to explain why someone would cast off the social norms that are supposed to have guided naturalistic morality. So evolution makes the retro-assumption that people should be moral and then has nothing to say about those who choose not to be normal according to naturalistic standards. Quite a quandary.
Theism explains the dual nature of our morality and clearly upholds one and discourages the other. While the believer may fall short on a regular basis but yet the ideal, and the means to reach the ideal, remain. I can get back up dust myself off and be a better person.
In a world without God the existence of those ideals living side by side with human failure seems pointless. Evolution has granted us conflicting instincts and often the much stronger one is precisely the one we should be ignoring.
All in all evil is really more of a problem for an atheist than a believer
Filed under: evolution
In the movie “Fracture” a Ryan Gosling portrays a prosecutor that is convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt of a defendant’s guilt. The problem is that there’s no evidence that will legally stand up that proves that guilt. Gosling is enticed by a detective to use planted evidence in order to ensure a conviction. If Gosling doesn’t use the planted evidence, he loses the case and the antagonist (Anthony Hopkins) goes free. If he does, he’s sacrificed his personal integrity and manipulated the legal system but ensures that the bad guy pays for his crimes. The movie, in part, wrestles with this moral dilemma – Is it OK to deceitfully manipulate the evidence to convince someone of the truth? I think this is a great question that has to be posed in the ID/Evolution debate.
I can say from personal experience that Christians have been quite guilty of providing completely false evidence to bolster what they believe in an ultimately true claim. There are endless e-mails that circulate that serve as evidence of this. The “Missing Day”, the “man who was swallowed by a whale and lived”, “Darwin’s deathbed confession” These and other equally erroneous pieces of evidence are used in the Christians arsenal to move faith from beyond the shadows of doubt into the light of empirical evidence. The problem is that they’re patently false and those that propagate them are either deceitful or ignorant, neither of which is a particularly confidence-inspiring trait to be found in a Christian. If anything they ultimately serve to weaken rather than bolster the faith.
My question is this – Has the same thing happened in the evolution debate? In a zealous desire to see the what is considered an unassailable truth (evolution) has deceit been used in conjunction with the ignorance of those being propagated?
If you’re steeped in evolution and it’s defense you’ll cringe at the mention of the name I’m about to write, but I think it’s a fair target for such a discussion. The drawings by Earnest Haeckel of developing embryo’s seem like a clear example of such a deceit. Haeckel drew his infamous embryo’s in 1874. Astonishingly, despite the fact that they were proven erronous and dismissed by Haeckel’s contemporaries within a few short years, they’ve continued to show up in textbooks published as late as 2004!
Even in 2000 Stephan Jay Gould, certainly no friend of Intelligent Design, noted his disapproval of the perpetuation of Haeckel’s drawings used in textbooks. Gould mentioned that it was possible that the textbook writers were “probably quite unaware of their noted inaccuracies and outright falsifications”. This may be even more disturbing. It means that either these drawings are used with the full knowledge of their fraudulence or they’re being used ignorantly. Either way it doesn’t inspire much confidence.
Haeckel’s embreyo’s are by no means the only misleading images being used to prop up evolution. Dr. Well’s in his book “Icon’s of Evolution” list a number of false and misleading images.
- a laboratory flask containing a simulation of the earth’s primitive atmosphere, in which electric sparks produce the chemical building-blocks of living cells;
- the evolutionary tree of life, reconstructed from fossil and molecular evidence;
- similar bone structures in a bat’s wing, a porpoise’s flipper, a horse’s leg, and a human hand that point to their origin in a common ancestor;
- fruit flies with an extra pair of wings, showing that genetic mutations can provide the raw materials for evolution;
While Haeckel and others may be dismissed by the scientific establishment they’re still being used in many current textbooks. If we truly want the best current information why are these images still being used? Doesn’t it undermine the cloak of impenatrable and unbiased science that seems to surround the discussion of evolution?
Furthermore the perpetuation of these images serves as a reminder that deceit can be passed off as evidence, even to those who should know better, even for decades. How are we to know that many of the “commonly held” facts about evolution that are offered today are true? I’m not advocating being overly skeptical of every and all claims but a quick, “everyone know this is true” from a scientist in a lab coat is no longer good enough. If we are to believe we need good, clear and obviously true, evidence.
This is not an attack on evolution itself but upon the way evolution is propagated. I think it’s fair to expect clarity and truth (from both sides) in the discussion of such a subject. It’s fair to point out it’s flaws and strengths. It’s not fair to plant evidence and hope nobody notices or to be offended when the falsehood is pointed out. I’m just as offended by the ridiculous e-mails of modern Jonah’s and NASA finding a missing day as I am with Haeckel and his drawings. Extraordinary claims require proof that is above suspicion.
Worshiping at the feet of naturalism.
If evolution is defined broadly enough there’s little doubt it occurred, and no one really argues it’s existence. But with evolution we’re not simply talking about a variety of beetles or the length of beaks on finches. There’s is a great deal more to the Design/Evolution debate than meets the carefully cultivated caricature of the creationist. (How’s that for unintentional alliteration?)
If evolution simply means – “evolution of a sort has been known to occur (i.e. finch beaks, and pepper moths) and that natural selection has an observable effect upon the distribution of characteristics within a population” then there’s nothing to dispute or argue. We can easily distinguish “macro” and “micro” “evolution”, and they should be distinguished, in fact the word evolution should be reserve specifically for changes of the micro-variety and another words should be coined to described mutations of the macro sort. Calling them both “evolution” makes it seem like the vast chasm between these ideas is much smaller than it really is.The distinguishing claim of evolution as it’s popularly understood is that not just limited to observable changes occur in within a species but that we can extrapolate from that to a theory of how moths, trees and finches came into existence at all.
The problem then is that we should reasonably expect the evidence to support these assumptions clearly, even overwhelmingly. And it should be clearly demonstrated in experiments and fossil records.
Science cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection. In fact the fossil record is so grossly unhelpful that all the major steps in the process must be assumed to have occurred within it’s gaps.
Evolution is an extraordinary claim and thus requires extrodinary evidence.
I have no problem with theory – but I do take issue with dogma disguised as rational science. Thus we have to separate science from philosophical naturalism.
When serious challenges are leveled at the feet of orthodox evolution a wink and a “cough” aren’t enough to dismiss it.
Irreducibly complex organisms, huge holes in the fossil record and a failure to demonstrate random mutation in the creation of complex life are serious and potentially lethal challenges.
The only way they are currently dismissed is through a dogmatic and, dare I say, occasionally rabid adherence to the religion that worships at the feet of naturalism. It’s fine to believe these things but it’s not OK to say they are more than a belief system.
Let me sum up by saying that none of this by itself means that one must assume that life is the result of intelligence. We just have to be open to the idea that maybe the theory is not as open and shut as we’d like people to believe.
There was a time when organized religion was the system of thought that could nudge it’s buddies and laugh at “crazy old Galileo” but I think it’s demonstratable that to a similar degree philosophical naturalism disguised as evolution has taken it’s place and know is nudging and laughing at serious questions that are lodged against it’s beliefs. The challenges aren’t so ridiculous (nor have they been adequately answered) that naturalism can continue to get away with such a flippant dismissal without raising questions of it’s own validity.
