Evolution, Morality And The Origins Of The Universe

[SairB]

Okay, I realise I have left this one pretty broad. However, that may not be such a bad thing. I am keen to find out others' views on this area of understanding that seems to be fairly problematic for humanists, atheists and agnostics who still feel that morality is important.

 

Allow me to provide some context. My thinking on this subject was inspired by having my claims to morality challenged by Catholics (in the online forum that I have been trolling). As usual (*sigh*) the comment was made that without God there could be no morality. One antagonist even claimed that the term 'humanist morality' was an "oxymoron".

 

When I questioned the existence of God, however, I was met with the argument that God must exist, because according to the laws of physics, there must be cause and effect; ergo, the universe must have had a "first cause". I was challenged to offer an alternative first cause to God, because according to this particular poster, no philosopher or scientist had ever disproved or successfully challenged this apparent 'proof' of the existence of God.

 

That can of worms having been opened, I plunged into the fray with a general statement that scientists had been searching and continuing to search for clues to the origins of the universe. I, however, am not a physicist, so I don't feel qualified to attempt to explain the progress of science towards understanding how time began. Furthermore, I pointed out that I did not feel it necessary to understand the origins of the universe in order to behave in a moral fashion. Human beings evolved as social creatures, and certain restraints and expectations on our behaviour were and remain necessary to maintain harmonious relationships amongst our own societies and the wider world. Thus, the origins for morality can be found in the human mind and collective consciousness.

 

So much for my argument. Again I was pestered to explain the source for this innate sense of 'goodness' that humans supposedly possess. Obviously the social evolution argument doesn't hold much water with hardcore Christians. So, like a good little agnostic with an enquiring mind, I went off in search of an alternative theory regarding the origins of the universe, since that seemed to be what they wanted from me. A brief trawl of the Intarwebs led me to this: http://www.generationterrorists.com/quotes/abhotswh.html - apparently a series of excerpts from Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time. Not being a physicist, I must admit I struggled with many of the concepts outlined here, but what I did find, unmistakably, was an alternative origin theory that seemed to me to be at least as plausible as the notion that God was the first cause. Haven't tried this one out on the Catholics yet, though I still maintain that knowing the 'first cause' or the origins of the universe and the beginning of time are not necessary to understand why humans are able to conceive of a code of ethics with which to regulate our behaviour.

 

So, what do people think? I realise that my knowledge of physics is quite limited, and my knowledge of evolution is not that of a scientist but merely an interested reader. I would love to find out what others think about the possibility of morality without God, and the idea that human ethics must have a source outside of human knowledge, wisdom and experience. All comments and discussion most welcome!

 

Cheers

s.

[SairB]

Incidentally, the Stephen Hawking quotations led me back to a site called Generation Terrorists - http://www.generationterrorists.com/ . There were links to a few articles on subjects relating to the science vs religion/faith question.

 

Haven't had a chance to explore it yet, but it looks interesting.

[scitsofreaky]

When I questioned the existence of God, however, I was met with the argument that God must exist, because according to the laws of physics, there must be cause and effect; ergo, the universe must have had a "first cause". I was challenged to offer an alternative first cause to God, because according to this particular poster, no philosopher or scientist had ever disproved or successfully challenged this apparent 'proof' of the existence of God.

The concept of a "first cause" kind of violates what they are arguing. What caused God to exist? It is amusing and pathetic when people try to use science to "prove" something "supernatural." It cannot work because science does not deal in the supernatural, which is why we end up hearing these nonsensical arguments about how god must exist. I just tell them there is no reason to suppose the physical laws we know to day applied before the "big bang." The singularity would have had laws that are alien to our everyday experiences because essentially the only interactions were on the quantum level, which is as counter intuitive and crazy as it gets. Because of this, we do not need to assume there was a "first cause" since the laws of physics were much different.

[Ouroboros]

If God is the cause of everything, then what is the cause of evil and sin?

[HelloWorld]

Allow me to provide some context. My thinking on this subject was inspired by having my claims to morality challenged by Catholics (in the online forum that I have been trolling). As usual (*sigh*) the comment was made that without God there could be no morality. One antagonist even claimed that the term 'humanist morality' was an "oxymoron".

 

If you don't mind me asking, was the forum Catholic Answers? Just wondering because I go on there all the time. I actually used to post there quite a bit when I was Catholic. Now I pretty much just go there to read. It is part of my de-conversion process. Sort of like I develop an idea about something on my own and then go see what the Catholic response or Catholic view would be. Or I go there to try to find topics and argue (to myself) against the Catholic position...trying to find inconsistencies, insanity, and other problems.

 

If the forum is Catholic Answers, would you mind sharing your screen name? I would be interested in reading some of your trolling posts and what the answers were. Have the recognized you as a troll yet? In my experience, they seem to take great pride in weeding out trolls.

[HelloWorld]

I believe that human beings are selfish. I want to be happy. I want my life to be good.

 

One might say that this selfishness would lead us to do whatever would be best for us or would make us most happy. Do I lots of money fast? Fuck work, I will just rob a bank. My neighbour is getting on my nerves? Screw him, I will just take him out.

 

Thing is, if everyone operated like this, nobody would be happy. We would always be at the mercy of someone else's quest for happiness. So, individuals realize that the best way to make themselves happy is in fact to act in a way that respects other people's happiness. What we have judged to be right and wrong maps directly to what will make us most happy, even if it does not appear to make us the most happy at that time. What do you think the motivation behind the golden rule is?

 

So yeah. I don't think there is any real altruism. I think every choice we make and every action we take is motivated by selfishness.

 

Not really sure if that is what you were looking for, but yeah.

[SairB]

If the forum is Catholic Answers, would you mind sharing your screen name? I would be interested in reading some of your trolling posts and what the answers were. Have the recognized you as a troll yet? In my experience, they seem to take great pride in weeding out trolls.

 

I'm just Sair on CAF - this particular topic sprung up in a thread titled, "Can someone help explain why abortion is worse than the Iraq war?" *headdesk* I swear, you only need to mention the word 'abortion' and most Catholics become apoplectic with rage. I still can't quite get over the fact that they have been labelling Obama "the most pro-abortion president in America's history" - as if that is the only thing he stands for.

[agnosticator]

SairB,

 

I don't see any way that ethics/morality can relate to the origin or first cause of the universe. Neither does evolution relate to it. A study of life (i.e. living things, sentient beings) evolving is where morality comes into play. The origin of the universe doesn't care. An intelligent catholic would know the difference. Besides, many catholics accept and believe in evolution! They believe god used evolution, hence morality evolved according to god's plan. But it was a wasteful process...

[SairB]

SairB,

 

I don't see any way that ethics/morality can relate to the origin or first cause of the universe. Neither does evolution relate to it. A study of life (i.e. living things, sentient beings) evolving is where morality comes into play. The origin of the universe doesn't care. An intelligent catholic would know the difference. Besides, many catholics accept and believe in evolution! They believe god used evolution, hence morality evolved according to god's plan. But it was a wasteful process...

 

Even when I was a catholic, I wondered what all the fuss was about regarding the 'god vs science' conundrum. I didn't see why so many people seemed to think it was necessary to discount evolution in order to believe in god. However, I was also employing a much broader possible conception of god than the one presented in the Bible, which still too many people take as the literal truth.

[Asimov]

When I questioned the existence of God, however, I was met with the argument that God must exist, because according to the laws of physics, there must be cause and effect; ergo, the universe must have had a "first cause". I was challenged to offer an alternative first cause to God, because according to this particular poster, no philosopher or scientist had ever disproved or successfully challenged this apparent 'proof' of the existence of God.

 

That poster is either stupid or has never read any rebuttals of the cosmological argument if he makes a claim like that. One only needs to look towards theories proposed by physicists such as tegmark, bojowald, veneziano, linde or steinhardt and turok to understand that there are many propositions.

 

The laws of physics do not necessitate cause and effect, as quantum mechanics has demonstrated.

 

You have to understand that time isn't an empirical phenomenon. It's a concept of measurement we use to distinguish between events, and is based off of concepts in the real world. Much like the absolute meter is the 'distance travelled by light in free space in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second' (source: International Bureau of Weights and Measures), a second is the 'the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.[1]' (source International System of Units). We have used these measurements that are useful to us, but they are abstract mathematics and don't necessarily apply to the real-world.

 

So, what I'm really saying is that time cannot "begin", because it isn't a thing. Time and space are coordinate functions, like longitude and latitude on a globe, that are used to denote the relative position of an object to other things.