Thursday, January 16, 2014

Evolution Professor: There is No True Morality

And You’re Disgraceful For Doubting This Truth

In his New Republic piece from this week Paul Bloom makes the point that evolution explains morality. Evolution co-founder Alfred Wallace was wrong about morality and wrong about God. And similar sentiment today, such as from Francis Collins, is equally flawed. The research is in and human morality is not a divine gift but rather is best explained by secular accounts. “It would be big news indeed,” writes the Yale Psychology Professor, “if it turned out that the enactment of the Moral Law didn't involve the brain, but exists in a special spiritual realm. But, of course, this isn't the case.” It is true that humans have an enhanced morality but it is the product of evolution’s natural selection and of culture. And of course culture itself is ultimately a product of evolution. And as Bloom reminds us, evolution is beyond question. For while design makes for a powerful argument, Darwin changed everything with his mechanistic account for complexity:

The theory of natural selection has been supported by abundant evidence from paleontology, genetics, physiology, and other fields of science, and denying it now is as intellectually disgraceful as denying that the Earth orbits the Sun.

It is not too surprising that Bloom finds morality to be explained by evolutionary mechanisms. After all, he finds evolution itself to be beyond any reasonable doubt.

It is also not too surprising that Bloom is oblivious to the pickle he has put himself into. For evolutionists never quite seem to understand that their relativism doesn’t support their judgments. When evolutionists such as Bloom speak of a moral law, they mean that evolution and culture caused certain molecular arrangements in our heads that induce certain feelings we call “right” and “wrong.” But there is no basis for true “right” and “wrong.” It is all just opinions.

But when Bloom castigates anyone who would so much as doubt evolutionary claims, he means it. This is where evolutionists make the value judgments. These are no mere opinions. Doubt evolution and you are bad and, as Bloom puts it, “disgraceful.”

Such contradictions are common in evolutionary thought. Why should anyone listen to Bloom’s value judgments and castigations if, according to Bloom, they are mere opinions.

Someone else could just as well say that skepticism is virtuous. It is not healthy to question scientific theories? Is it not good for at least some people to doubt even well accepted conclusions?

Such questions seem particularly apropos in this case as what Bloom is claiming to be such an obvious no-brainer is nothing less than the spontaneous origin of the world (yes, that is what evolution claims).

Not only is this not supported by the empirical evidence, as Bloom imagines it to be, but Bloom’s very denial of any true moral law inevitably amounts to a denial of knowledge as well. For if all we have is our brains for reasoning power, and if our brains are nothing more than a collection of molecules luckily assembled by evolution, then it is not just our morality that reduces to relativism. Our reasoning and conclusions are also just a reflection of molecular arrangements in our heads. There need not be any correspondence between those cranial arrangements and facts about the outside world. Bloom would be in no position to make hard and fast conclusions about what certain evidences say about our origins.

Indeed, Bloom seems to be modeling his beliefs rather well as his reasoning and conclusions, in fact, have no such correspondence with the outside world. Paleontology, genetics, physiology, and “other fields of science,” as Bloom puts it, do not provide undeniable evidential support for evolution as he thinks, but rather one after the next evidential challenge. Even the evolution of a single protein is astronomically unlikely.

Bloom’s article is an example of where evolutionary thinking leads. Religion drives science, and it matters.

27 comments:

  1. http://wp.me/p31wDP-3T

    Karl Popper and the ‘nightmare of the physical determinism’

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Orlando: Karl Popper and the ‘nightmare of the physical determinism’

      J: And yet if Scott is right about Popper, Popper ended up just as utterly non-sensical as a physical determinist.

      Delete
    2. Karl Popper has been misinterpreted, but this not the occasion to discuss it. Popper was a Kantian, and I understand why Kant is not very well appreciated by conservatives. But he was a defender of liberty and freedom, not a determinist.

      Delete
    3. Orlando: Karl Popper has been misinterpreted..

      Indeed.

      Orlando: But he was a defender of liberty and freedom, not a determinist.

      Physicist David Deutsch, who is a Popperian, points out that things can be physically determined, yet unpredictable in the mid to long range. This is due to our inability to predict the impact of the growth of knowledge.

      See: https://vimeo.com/22099396

      Delete

    4. “Physicist David Deutsch, who is a Popperian, points out that things can be physically determined, yet unpredictable in the mid to long range. This is due to our inability to predict the impact of the growth of knowledge.”

      1/ The fact David Deutsch calls himself “Popperian” does not imply he is Karl Popper himself.

      2/ David Deutsch's argument is ad Ignorantiam (it is a fallacy). From the fact that we cannot know beforehand the truth about the future does not mean that it is because we do not bear the alleged “growth of knowledge”. Furthermore, the argument is circular (another fallacy). Physicists should do physics, not metaphysics.

      3/ Let me please refer here two great Americans: Larry Stockmeyer and Albert Meyer, who demonstrated that the logical verification of only 558 theorems needed a computer so big as the size of the entire universe. I mean: if each theorem is fractionated in all possible logical fractions, comparing all conclusions, syllogisms and sorites, and examined as far as any contradictions are concerned, we should have fractions in a dimension of 10^168 (1 followed by 168 zeros).

      Even a computer as big as the entire universe would be overloaded with the verification of the 559th theorem if it would try to examine all logical conclusions regarding all affirmative propositions, as far as any possible contradictions are concerned.

      Furthermore, only a small list of 100 affirmations is enough to obtain an astronomical number of fractions: to assume the verification of the 101st affirmation, this one must be examined in relation to more than 10^30 (1 followed by 30 zeros) fractions of the list.

      So, the only way that David Deutsch should be right about his theory should be by putting the entire universe inside his lab.

      Delete
    5. 1/ The fact David Deutsch calls himself “Popperian” does not imply he is Karl Popper himself.

      I’m not following you. I didn’t conclude you thought Poppper was Kant himself because you called him a Kantian.

      2/ David Deutsch's argument is ad Ignorantiam (it is a fallacy). From the fact that we cannot know beforehand the truth about the future does not mean that it is because we do not bear the alleged “growth of knowledge”. Furthermore, the argument is circular (another fallacy). Physicists should do physics, not metaphysics.

      I’m not following you here either. Did you actually watch the video? Nor is it clear why Deutsch's argument is a fallacy. Please be specific.

      Again, Deutsch is a Popperian in that he isn’t a determinist in the sense that it’s commonly used. IOW, the universe can follow physical laws, yet aspects cannot not be predicted (determined) ahead of time since we cannot predict the impact new knowledge will have on the future. We don’t know because the knowledge in question hasn’t been created yet. It’s an emergent property.

      As for the rest, you seem to be presenting an argument as if Deutsch isn’t a Popperian and holds a position he does not actually hold.

      Delete
  2. "The theory of natural selection has been supported by abundant evidence from paleontology, genetics, physiology, and other fields of science, and denying it now is as intellectually disgraceful as denying that the Earth orbits the Sun."

    What is being selected? one of two what? why would it not be one of two designs?

    when i throw some grass seed on the lawn and one variety thrives in a shady spot and another variety thrives in a sunny spot, that doesn't mean one variety evolved from another. It just means I have slightly different grass seed in the bag and one variety does better under one set of conditions than the other. It may even mean there is only one variety and there is some epigenetic selection going on.

    Either way, natural selection doesn't prove evolution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A: Either way, natural selection doesn't prove evolution.

      J: Right. Natural selection tells us nothing about whether the posited lineages could occur, much less in the posited time-frame. Consequently, it has no implications relevant to SA vs. UCA.

      Delete
    2. awstarJanuary 16, 2014 at 5:45 AM

      [...]

      Either way, natural selection doesn't prove evolution.


      Quite right. A theory is not evidence of itself. Natural selection is now just one component of current evolutionary theory. We have plenty of evidence selection happens. Animal and plant breeders were using it for hundreds of years before Darwin published his theory.

      Delete
  3. CH: For evolutionists never quite seem to understand that their relativism doesn’t support their judgments.

    Just so I’m following you correctly, not only do evolutionists think we need to reconciles God's wisdom, dignity and sovereignty and that everything spontaneously arose, but also must be moral relativists as well?

    I think evolutionary theory is the best explanation or the biological complexity we observe, yet I do not ascribe to any of these things. So, I'm not an evolutionists?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott:

      I do not ascribe to any of these things

      So if you don't believe the world spontaneously arose, then you must believe there was some assistance along the way somewhere. Can you describe that?

      Delete
    2. CH: So if you don't believe the world spontaneously arose, then you must believe there was some assistance along the way somewhere. Can you describe that?

      That’s the false dilemma I’ve mentioned elsewhere. It’s false because you’re treating “assistance” as an immutable primitive or a black box that we cannot make progress on.

      Specially, consider all of the conceivable transformations of matter. In this group, there are transformation that are prohibited by the laws of physics, such as traveling faster than the speed of light, and those that are possible. Of the latter, there are two types: transformation that occur spontaneously, such as the formation of stars from gravity, hydrogen and other stellar materials and transformations that only occur when the requisite knowledge is present, such as the transformation of air, water. etc., into plants, trees, etc.

      Before I continue, is there something about the above that you are confused about or disagree with? Did I miss a type of transformation?

      Delete
    3. Let me rephrase...

      Do organisms currently receive "assistance" when building copies of themselves?

      Delete
  4. i study biology and i think i have very strong evidence for design in nature

    a) we know that a self replicate robot that made from dna need a designer

    b) from a material prespective the ape is more complex then this kind of robot

    a+b= the ape need a designer

    or even a self replicat watch .the evolutionist always says that a watch need a designer because it cant self rplicat. so if we will find a self replicat watch(or robot) we need to say that is made by itself.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Quite entertaining. Reading creationist interpretations of evolution is like watching Rocky movies for a boxing tutorial.

    ReplyDelete
  7. CH: Bloom’s article is an example of where evolutionary thinking leads.

    Not only is this not necessarily true, as I've pointed out, but it represents the fallacy of appealing to undesired consequences. The fallacy files uses this very sort of argument against evolution as a textbook example of this very fallacy.

    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adconseq.html

    As such, it would seem that Cornelius was correct in tagging this post with the keyword "fallacy".

    ReplyDelete
  8. Amen.
    Morality is from the God of the bible.
    I say that. I guess everyone should prove their point if demanding they are right.
    This Bloom guy is another example of the wrong person in top schools.
    Thats why there is a slowdown in greatness these days relative to what it should be.
    ID(and YEC) thinkers and researchers will be famous in the near and far future for overthrowing wrong ideas in science and putting forth better ideas.
    Even if defeated ID/YEC leaders will be famous when documenting the intellectual status of our times.
    ITS win win. I think these others will only matter as protagonists in the story here.
    That these people must so assertively insist evolution is TRUTH could only only be a recognition of a threat to this truth by people they really do think matter.
    Just like the host of this thread. Academic position and status matters to them and ID is led by these types. YEC has not been as much though we are in the right.
    Bloom knows their is a blooming threat in these days.
    however mere words won't save them.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Evolution Professor: There is No True Morality

    What is "True Morality"?

    Can a moral claim, which is prescriptive, be true or false in the same sense as a factual claim - which is descriptive? If it can't be true or false then on what grounds can one moral claim or code be elevated over all others?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is "True Morality"?

      The qualifier is redundant but necessary since evolutionists speak of morality and moral laws as labels for mere opinions. Genuine, or true, morality is not relativism. It is a moral code that transcends opinion. Evolutionists harshly judge those who don't buy their dogmatic truth claims that there is no truth.

      Delete
    2. ChThe qualifier is redundant but necessary since evolutionists speak of morality and moral laws as labels for mere opinions. Genuine, or true, morality is not relativism. It is a moral code that transcends opinion.

      Then that eliminates religion, unless you believe the same as a Moslem

      Delete
    3. I: Can a moral claim, which is prescriptive, be true or false in the same sense as a factual claim - which is descriptive?

      J: Yes, it can, if benevolent/competent theism is true. Because that means that justice will be done. And that's just another way of saying the only way you know prescriptive claims are knowably meaningless is if you know people aren't motivated/demotivated by pain and pleasure. But I could have swore Z insists that atheists learn to keep their hand off a hot stove. Hmm.

      Delete
    4. V: Then that eliminates religion, unless you believe the same as a Moslem

      J: What would that be? And isn't Islam a religion?

      Delete
    5. Jeff January 18, 2014 at 7:35 AM
      I: Can a moral claim, which is prescriptive, be true or false in the same sense as a factual claim - which is descriptive?

      J: Yes, it can, if benevolent/competent theism is true. Because that means that justice will be done. And that's just another way of saying the only way you know prescriptive claims are knowably meaningless is if you know people aren't motivated/demotivated by pain and pleasure. But I could have swore Z insists that atheists learn to keep their hand off a hot stove. Hmm


      I endorse the correspondence theory of truth which, as you know, holds that a claim is true to the extent it can be shown to correspond with the phenomenon it purports to describe. On this view, moral prescriptions are neither true nor false as they offer no descriptive claims for which correspondence to observed reality can be measured. The existence of a "benevolent/competent theism" simply has no bearing on this. if you have a different concept of truth which embraces moral claims and is dependent on the existence of a "benevolent/competent theism" you need to set it out in more detail.


      Delete
    6. “Can a moral claim, which is prescriptive, be true or false in the same sense as a factual claim - which is descriptive?”

      We would firstly define “fact”, not in juridical terms, but in metaphysics: “a fact is something that had acquired a structure in our conscience”.

      Since Kant that we know that the CAUSE of a phenomena is an idea that only exists in our brains. It is not possible seeing the Cause of a phenomena in any place; the Cause only exists in our thoughts, i.e., the cause must be interpreted. So, a “factual claim” is an interpretation, and if it is universally considered true, then it is also CULTURALLY prescriptive.

      The biggest faith that exists is that one of the scientist because it is unconfessable. For a scientist, a science's “factual claim” (for example, a Law of Physics) is so prescriptive as one the Ten Commandments, because that “factual claim” contributes somehow to the definition of his Weltanschauung (world view and ethics).

      Kant called it “The Scandal of Reason”: the fact that we (alone) cannot find out ourselves a conclusive proof for an evidence so simple as the existence of an exterior world. Karl Popper put it in a slightly different way: “the exterior world is a working hypothesis for the sciences of nature”.

      It is true that facts are data from experience (for example, in experimental science), but facts are not ONLY data from empiric experience but also from subjective experience which turn out universal by means of intersubjectivity. For example, it is a fact that the logical axioms are not physical (in the sense that they are not constituted of matter).

      This means that any moral claim is a fact or a “factual claim”. What we must do is verifying whether a moral fact is rationally interpreted or not (true of false). For any valid moral interpretation (i.e., “moral claim”), VALUES ought to be considered, and values (as well as the logical axioms) are nor physical.

      Values exist by themselves independently of any utility: for example, the value of Justice exists by itself apart from any utility. The Decalogue contains VALUES: the ethical/moral values ought to be universal, TIMELESS and rationally determined (as it also happens with the Laws of Physics).

      So: an empirical “factual claim” can also be prescriptive. And a moral claim can be true or false depending upon a rational interpretation.


      Delete
  10. Jeff:V: Then that eliminates religion, unless you believe the same as a Moslem

    J: What would that be? And isn't Islam a religion?


    You would have to ask DrHunter," Genuine, or true, morality is not relativism. It is a moral code that transcends opinion."

    Yes,Islam is a religion, but unless every religion agrees what is moral, religion does not transcend opinion. So per DrHunter religion can not an arbiter of moral code .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. V, when CH says:

      "Genuine, or true, morality is not relativism. It is a moral code that transcends opinion."

      ... he is not saying that morality is NOT inductively learned (if it is, there will be some difference of opinion, just as there is about a-moral inductive inferences). He's merely saying that relativism is not what most people mean by "human" morality. If a "human" morality exists (however imperfectly we inductively infer the particulars of it) as a real normative state of affairs, then relativism is false.

      Delete