You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'morality' tag.
They use it to explain practically everything about human psychology. And when an old idea is disproved, no problem, they explain the new theory in terms of evolution. The notion of free will with an evolutionary psychologist is a non-starter. So, their research tends to follow from that.
The assumption is determinism, that “… every event, including human cognition and behaviour, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.” (1)
The next assumption is that all human behavior serves an evolutionary purpose. Now, let us stop and consider for a moment the societal implications of such a view.
1). Law and its consequences are largely based on the notion of free will.
2). The notion of marriage is a religious institution..or at least that’s how it started.
3). In the US at least, we believe that all people are created equally and have sought to right wrongs against folks who were not treated as if they were created equally.
So, quite simply, one could view the motivation of evolutionary psychology as having the intent (consciously or unconsciously) of undermining the most important elements for the stability of society. Even though these elements would likely be viewed as ‘adaptive’ in allowing the species to survive. As an aside, I wonder what an evolutionary explanation would be for the study of evolutionary psychology (in other words, how is DNA preserved through this pursuit). But I digress….
So from an evolutionary psychology perspective, which has an underlying liberal political perspective in the US, people are not responsible for their behavior (”My genes made me do it!”), marriage is whatever you want it to be, and people with different characteristics could be considered less evolved or at least posing a threat to the survival of the most fit DNA.
Now all of this despite the fact that no simple aspect of human behavior has found to be genetically determined. There’s some evidence for general dispositions (emotional reactivity or sensation seeking), but as for specific behaviors, there is no evidence for any specific behavior that is tied to our genes.
So, I will present some evidence that evolutionary psychology undermines the basis for civilization, if accepted.
Evidence for the undermining of point 1.
Why Men Rape — It helps propagate the gene pool!! It’s not about power, domination, and control. What were you thinking?
Muslims Resort to Suicide Bombing with Hopes of Breeding — See point 4. It asserts that since Muslims are polygymist, that there are less females available. So the the offer of 72 virgins in the after life offers them a chance to finally propogate their genes! So, I suppose the problem of Muslim suicide bombers would be solved by allowing them to rape someone or otherwise propagate their genes. That motivation would completely disappear….right?? If you want to actually learn something about the Arab mind, I recommend ShrinkWrapped’s currently 15 part series.
Crime is the result of men’s competitive desires — See point 7. Those who act violently towards other men, may have been more likely to reproduce! So, next time you feel angry, go ahead and punch the sucker. You’re more likely to have some fun in bed if so, and if you’re lucky, keep the DNA of humans going! Or, play that midnight basketball, that will give you an outlet for you competitive strivings based on our evolutionary history….but I’m not sure how it will help you spread your genes. Worth a try though…who knows, right??
Evidence for undermining point 2.
Humans are by nature polygamist– See point 7. That’s right…and we should pass laws allowing polygamy then! It asserts that men benefit from monogamy…hmmph….and women benefit from polygamy…what?? That doesn’t seem right to me, but what the hey, I’m a man… Now, I really don’t think the government should have anything to do with marriage as it is a religious institution, but that is beside the point. But we’d be fine as far as suicide bombers coming from the US go, because Christianity has no promise of virgins in the afterlife.
Homosexuality and the consolation prize — That’s right…for you homosexual males…your problem is that you can’t find a woman. And ditto (opposite obviously) for lesbians. But, again, I think marriage should be between folk and God. But the government’s involvement has sociological ramifications when they allow gay marriage…. The government should have no part in marriage.
Evidence for point 3.
Asians rock, whites are so-so, and blacks…well… Okay, so it’s just fine to be a racist. Let’s go ahead and kill off those two inferior sub-types…so that we end up with a superior gene pool. I think everyone knows where this type of thinking has led in the past.
So you think evolutionary psychology is cool??? I don’t… I think if it were accepted on large scale, it would undermine the basis of civilization. Not only that, but I think it is blatantly false in almost all of its assertions.
Now, you’ve read atheists assert that there is such a thing as free will, objective morality, and so forth without God. There’s a good post on Uncommon Descent that shows atheists who do no agree with this position. I recommend watching the video, as it is very illuminating.
What happens when we assume there is no design in life?
Here are links to my previous posts on Some Psychological Aspects of Atheism (Part I, and Part II) and Since the atheists are about the only ones commenting on my posts.
You know, I wanted to keep the dialogue focused on psychology….but, I understand that the atheists were not really interested in that. So, let’s open this post wide open. If you are here to read in this post about psychology, please read my other posts. This one will entail theology, philosophy, and science.
Jim Lippard, of “The Lippard Blog,” has delivered a number of intelligent and cogent arguments, that require the use of philosophy (primarily), logic, and science in order to address. I aim to do that to the best of my ability here. Maybe I won’t do philosophy or logic justice, because I am neither a philosopher or extremely educated in all aspects of logic (apart from the intracacies of computer science and cognitive psychology, which includes some of the major logical errors that people make)….but I will do my best.
Jim states:
“Your point 2 is a philosophical claim to the effect that morality requires the existence of at least one god. What is your support for that argument, in light of the fact that of the many meta-ethical frameworks for morality that philosophers have come up with in the last several millennia, the only one that actually requires the existence of a god is the divine command theory, which the vast majority of philosophers (since Plato’s “Euthyphro” 
agree is not a sufficient ground for morality?”
Please feel free Mr. Lipper [slip of the keyboard later corrected to Lippard], to lay out your objective notions of morality apart from God. I am waiting eagerly.
As for “Euthyphro,” I note as an aside, that the issues discussed throughout this fictional account, have to do with problems with one’s father….Seems like I had something to say about that before, but I suppose that has nothing to do with why atheists find it so compelling…since I engaged in “arm-chair” analysis.
So, we come back to naturalism, that everything that occurs is the result of natural law. That everything is the result of matter and energy. There is nothing more to nature than can be explained by the laws of nature.
Now, one law of nature is causality. You have made an unconvincing argument that such a thing as free will might exists apart from the supernatural. I ask you to back up that claim. With nature, the laws of cause and effect are inexcapable. The macroscopic world does not follow quantum mechanics where predictions are probablistic. Quantum mechanical effects occur only in the most controlled of conditions. Even if you make a claim based on quantum mechanics, you would need to make an assertion about how this might result in free will. I assume that you believe that you have logically and freely chosen your atheism. However, this cannot be the case within the worldview of naturalism. If you have a different worldview, please feel free to make it explicit. Within the laws of causality, you have no more chosen to be an atheist than a snowflake has chosen to form, the complexity of which you deem as sufficient for nullifying ideas of intelligent design. From the beginning with the “big bang” all things were set in motion to occur in exactly the way they occured with no possibility for any alternatives, no possibility for any free will.
So, as a result, people who come to believe in God, do so because of how things played out in the evolution of the universe. And people who don’t believe in God, do so because of how things played out in the evolution of the universe. Now if everything occurs in a cause and effect chain, what is your basis for determining anything is moral or amoral? You only say so because of the cause and effect chain. You are just matter and energy, what are the moral imperatives of matter and energy?
Can you explain consciousness? You cannot. Science has not even scratched the surface here. You may make appeals to quantum mechanics, but they are only appeals and unsupported by any objective data. Anything you say that would support free will is only an assertion with no clear empirical backing. So the fact that you choose to be moral in certain ways is only a result of the random interaction of particles and matter. Completely meaningless. If you harm another human being, so what, you’ve possibly changed the state of matter. Big deal. States of matter change all the time. What is the objective moral opposition to murder from a materialistic perspective? “Thou shalt not knowingly change the state of matter???” You may say that you may incur punishment as a result. But what does mere matter and energy care about something that changes it’s state. Apparently it does…
Now, Euthyphro’s dilemma was based around inconsistencies in the Greek pantheon. Yet, you want to apply this dilemma to the beliefs of Christians.
For a discussion of Euthyphro’s dilemma from a Christian perspective, see this link.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47024
So, you accuse me of not providing any evidence for my position, when you have not provided a shread for your own….that atheists can have an objective basis for morality. I eagerly await you and your fellow atheists to provide such an objective basis.
I’m not a member of the APA (the American Psychological Association), because the APA is extremely active in the political arena promoting liberal causes and agendas. They attempt, through political activism, press releases, and even their code of ethics, to push their morality onto society and practicing psychologists.
On Homosexuality
See the following official Q&A portions taken from the APA’s website:
Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?
No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.
Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?
No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.
However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.
What About So-Called “Conversion Therapies”?
Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients’ sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.
The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association’s Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology’s opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client’s right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy would take place in a professionally neutral environment absent of any social bias.
There are some incredible statements in here (people cannot choose their sexual orientation, homosexuals cannot change, and therapy should take place in the absence of any social bias). I’ve worked with a number of homosexuals who did in fact, choose their sexual orientation. I won’t make a blanket statement like the APA does, but there are homosexuals who do in fact choose this lifestyle. Sometimes after living many years as a heterosexual. Now take homosexuals cannot change. This is another remarkable statement from the organization that purports to be at the pinacle of knowledge on changing behavior. They reject studies showing that homosexuals can change by criticizing the research methodology. At the same time, almost anyone who would try to conduct rigorous studies in a university setting would be ostracized and likely labeled as unethical. I don’t mind them criticizing research, that’s fine. But to flatly answer NO to the question of whether people can change their sexual orientation is nothing less than pure politically biased ideology. That brings me to the third remarkable statement, “Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy would take place in a professionally neutral environment absent of any social bias.” First of all, there does not exist a neutral environment, absent of any social bias. Second, if you took the approach advocated by the APA, you would be taking the approach of a liberal political bias. To translate, they are saying, you had better not believe that homosexuals can change, or have the right to seek change. To do so would be “social bias.”
On Abortion
The APA thinks it’s a good thing. Why, look at this study purporting to show that having an abortion has no effect on a person’s well-being, but being an unwed mother (i.e., not choosing to have an abortion) has the biggest negative effects on well-being. Having worked with women who have had abortions, I can tell you that at least sometimes, they carry a heavy burden of guilt and regret that may be expressed in complex psychological forms not necessarily tapped by asking a question about their emotional well-being (as an example psychosomatic symptoms).
The APA is against parental consent in the case of an adolescent seeking an abortion. More on the APA’s support for abortion here with the admission that the mental health effects of abortion are irrelevant because abortion is a “civil right.”
Recent Comments