Evolutionary explanation of morality self-refuting?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Hello, first time posting here. I'm coming very close to switching over to atheism. I grew up as a fundamentalist, and defended my beliefs based on the arguments of the usual group of Christian Apologists such as Craig and the rest. But in the past year, more and more about my worldview was making less and less sense. I think what ultimately drove me to seriously consider atheism (or some form of non theism at least) was the work in new testament history and composition by people such as Robert M. Price (which ironically I was made aware of by their loudest opponents such as Habermas).

But anyway, one of the things that is keeping me from leaving theism or at least Christianity is an issue of morality. A typical notion I read is that morality is simply tendencies in humans caused by evolutionary processes. But W.L. Craig (and probably others) say this is self-refuting:

Given the truth of naturalism, all our beliefs, not just our moral beliefs, are the result of evolution and social conditioning. Thus, the evolutionary account leads to skepticism about knowledge in general. But this is self-defeating because then we should be skeptical of the evolutionary account itself, since it, too, is the product of evolution and social conditioning! The objection therefore undermines itself (On Guard, 2010, p. 144).

I'm sure this argument has been dealt with elsewhere but I haven't been able to find any refutations as of yet.

[genkaus]

Hello, first time posting here. I'm coming very close to switching over to atheism. I grew up as a fundamentalist, and defended my beliefs based on the arguments of the usual group of Christian Apologists such as Craig and the rest. But in the past year, more and more about my worldview was making less and less sense. I think what ultimately drove me to seriously consider atheism (or some form of non theism at least) was the work in new testament history and composition by people such as Robert M. Price (which ironically I was made aware of by their loudest opponents such as Habermas).

But anyway, one of the things that is keeping me from leaving theism or at least Christianity is an issue of morality. A typical notion I read is that morality is simply tendencies in humans caused by evolutionary processes. But W.L. Craig (and probably others) say this is self-refuting:

Given the truth of naturalism, all our beliefs, not just our moral beliefs, are the result of evolution and social conditioning. Thus, the evolutionary account leads to skepticism about knowledge in general. But this is self-defeating because then we should be skeptical of the evolutionary account itself, since it, too, is the product of evolution and social conditioning! The objection therefore undermines itself (On Guard, 2010, p. 144).

I'm sure this argument has been dealt with elsewhere but I haven't been able to find any refutations as of yet.

What's there to refute?

Firstly, Craig's assertion that evolution and conditioning always lead to skepticism is false. Waves of theists rise in evidence against this claim. If skepticism were the automatic result of evolution and social conditioning, then everyone would be a skeptic.

Secondly, even if that assertion was true - so what? Skepticism doesn't mean that you shouldn't believe anything, it means that you shouldn't believe anything without sufficient evidence. So, even the claim that our belief system is a result of evolution and social conditioning requires evidence and given the preponderance of evidence for it, you should believe it.

[Tempus]

But anyway, one of the things that is keeping me from leaving theism or at least Christianity is an issue of morality.

Do you believe in Christianity? Do you believe in any god? If you don't then I'd suggest sticking with those concepts simply because you don't like the alternative (a lack of 'objective' morality) is a poor reason. Besides, let's say god(s) exist - how does that make the morality sanctioned by them objective? Because they created us? Because they're powerful enough to enforce it? Ultimately I've found that 'objective' morality tends to break down when you think about it too hard.

A typical notion I read is that morality is simply tendencies in humans caused by evolutionary processes. But W.L. Craig (and probably others) say this is self-refuting:

I'm not usually so dismissive like this, but seriously - do yourself a favour and don't waste time with W.L. Craig.

Given the truth of naturalism, all our beliefs, not just our moral beliefs, are the result of evolution and social conditioning. Thus, the evolutionary account leads to skepticism about knowledge in general. But this is self-defeating because then we should be skeptical of the evolutionary account itself, since it, too, is the product of evolution and social conditioning! The objection therefore undermines itself (On Guard, 2010, p. 144).

I'm sure this argument has been dealt with elsewhere but I haven't been able to find any refutations as of yet.

I doubt it's been dealt with because it makes no sense. It's an observable phenomenon that human psychology is/can be greatly affected by conditioning social and otherwise. But let's pretend this argument (which as far as I'm concerned isn't even an argument at all) is vaild. Let's change the terminology around:

Given the truth of Christianity, all our beliefs, not just our moral beliefs, are the result of God. Thus, the Christian account leads to skepticism about knowledge in general. But this is self-defeating because then we should be skeptical of the Christian account itself, since it, too, is the product of God! The objection therefore undermines itself.

As you can see the argument cuts both ways.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

...

What's there to refute?

Firstly, Craig's assertion that evolution and conditioning always lead to skepticism is false. Waves of theists rise in evidence against this claim. If skepticism were the automatic result of evolution and social conditioning, then everyone would be a skeptic.

Secondly, even if that assertion was true - so what? Skepticism doesn't mean that you shouldn't believe anything, it means that you shouldn't believe anything without sufficient evidence. So, even the claim that our belief system is a result of evolution and social conditioning requires evidence and given the preponderance of evidence for it, you should believe it.

Hmm. I think what Craig is trying to say is that the argument suffers from similar problems that a statement such as "everything is subjective" suffers from which is a self-refuting statement since the claim itself is objective. I don't think he's saying that evolution leads to skepticism in itself. He's saying that using evolution to explain moral tendencies and only moral tendencies is an arbitrary stopping point because there's no reason not to then ask "...is reason merely the result of evolutionary processes too?" Basically, he thinks this boils down to equivalent of saying "everything is the result of evolutionary processes" which would supposedly then makes this statement self-refuting because "everything" includes knowledge, reason, truth, etc, which the statement itself is trying to use to prove its point.

[The Grand Nudger]

There isn't any reason to stop there, we do ask that question, the answer is a resounding yes. Our ability to reason is a product of evolutionary processes (and a very specific one at that). This ability isn't our sole domain, though we do seem to have a particulaer talent for it, and all creatures that exhibit such a talent have a very specific thing in common (though they are sometimes from wildly divergent evolutionary pathways and we often downplay one creatures ability while overplaying our own).

[genkaus]

Hmm. I think what Craig is trying to say is that the argument suffers from similar problems that a statement such as "everything is subjective" suffers from which is a self-refuting statement since the claim itself is objective. I don't think he's saying that evolution leads to skepticism in itself. He's saying that using evolution to explain moral tendencies and only moral tendencies is an arbitrary stopping point because there's no reason not to then ask "...is reason merely the result of evolutionary processes too?" Basically, he thinks this boils down to equivalent of saying "everything is the result of evolutionary processes" which would supposedly then makes this statement self-refuting because "everything" includes knowledge, reason, truth, etc, which the statement itself is trying to use to prove its point.

I still don't see any problem here. The statement "everything is subjective" is self-refuting because with that premise the opposite "everything is not subjective" becomes equally true. And who's stopping at morality? Evolutionary scientists try to find the evolutionary basis for all human behavior, not just morality. Further, I showed you why the statement "everything is a result of evolutionary process is not self-refuting" - though that statement is certainly not true. Only human capacities would be the result of evolutionary processes, that is only our capacity to reason, to know, to be moral etc. Knowledge and truth would still be independent of evolutionary process.

Finally, I think you are trying to indicate circular reasoning here. That's wrong as well. Evolutionary processes gave rise to our reasoning faculty. Using our reasoning faculty, we can actually verify the previous statement. That is not circular, because the first statement does not form a part of the second.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Hmm. I think what Craig is trying to say is that the argument suffers from similar problems that a statement such as "everything is subjective" suffers from which is a self-refuting statement since the claim itself is objective. I don't think he's saying that evolution leads to skepticism in itself. He's saying that using evolution to explain moral tendencies and only moral tendencies is an arbitrary stopping point because there's no reason not to then ask "...is reason merely the result of evolutionary processes too?" Basically, he thinks this boils down to equivalent of saying "everything is the result of evolutionary processes" which would supposedly then makes this statement self-refuting because "everything" includes knowledge, reason, truth, etc, which the statement itself is trying to use to prove its point.

I still don't see any problem here. The statement "everything is subjective" is self-refuting because with that premise the opposite "everything is not subjective" becomes equally true. And who's stopping at morality? Evolutionary scientists try to find the evolutionary basis for all human behavior, not just morality. Further, I showed you why the statement "everything is a result of evolutionary process is not self-refuting" - though that statement is certainly not true. Only human capacities would be the result of evolutionary processes, that is only our capacity to reason, to know, to be moral etc. Knowledge and truth would still be independent of evolutionary process.

Finally, I think you are trying to indicate circular reasoning here. That's wrong as well. Evolutionary processes gave rise to our reasoning faculty. Using our reasoning faculty, we can actually verify the previous statement. That is not circular, because the first statement does not form a part of the second.

But, from an atheistic perspective, if reason is the result of evolution, then how do we know that the process of evolution has given us the faculties to properly know what really is true? Perhaps it has given us faculties that cannot discern what is really true because it was better for our survival? From a theist perspective, they think God would have (assuming they're theistic evolutionists) guided evolution to give man the ability to know truth. From a theists point of view, in purely naturalistic universe, there's no guarantee that evolution would give us the ability to know truth (because delusion might be better for survival).

[genkaus]

But, from an atheistic perspective, if reason is the result of evolution, then how do we know that the process of evolution has given us the faculties to properly know what really is true? Perhaps it has given us faculties that cannot discern what is really true because it was better for our survival? From a theist perspective, they think God would have (assuming they're theistic evolutionists) guided evolution to give man the ability to know truth. From a theists point of view, in purely naturalistic universe, there's no guarantee that evolution would give us the ability to know truth (because delusion might be better for survival).

The proof is in the pudding - not the making of it. You don't ask the cook exactly how he made the pudding to judge whether it is tasty or not, you eat it and find out.

How can we know that evolution has given us the faculty to know the truth? Because we can actually find out the truth by using it. It works.

Could this faculty have been absent or completely opposite given a different course of evolution? Ofcourse. The multitude of animals who don't have the same faculty are evidence of that.

Is there a guarantee that evolution would always give us the ability to know the truth? No. In fact, it'd be highly unlikely. Why would that matter?

Can we rely on this faculty of reason given that the chances of this faculty emerging in another evolutionary chain are extremely low?
Why not? Does the man who wins the lottery refuse to take the money because the chances of his winning were extremely low? The only thing that matters is that it works. Use it or lose it.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

But, from an atheistic perspective, if reason is the result of evolution, then how do we know that the process of evolution has given us the faculties to properly know what really is true? Perhaps it has given us faculties that cannot discern what is really true because it was better for our survival? From a theist perspective, they think God would have (assuming they're theistic evolutionists) guided evolution to give man the ability to know truth. From a theists point of view, in purely naturalistic universe, there's no guarantee that evolution would give us the ability to know truth (because delusion might be better for survival).

The proof is in the pudding - not the making of it. You don't ask the cook exactly how he made the pudding to judge whether it is tasty or not, you eat it and find out.

How can we know that evolution has given us the faculty to know the truth? Because we can actually find out the truth by using it. It works.

Could this faculty have been absent or completely opposite given a different course of evolution? Ofcourse. The multitude of animals who don't have the same faculty are evidence of that.

Is there a guarantee that evolution would always give us the ability to know the truth? No. In fact, it'd be highly unlikely. Why would that matter?

Can we rely on this faculty of reason given that the chances of this faculty emerging in another evolutionary chain are extremely low?
Why not? Does the man who wins the lottery refuse to take the money because the chances of his winning were extremely low? The only thing that matters is that it works. Use it or lose it.

You seem to assume that our faculties can know truth though. I'm asking how can we know that we can know what's true. For instance, maybe 'x' can really equal 'non-x' in reality but because of evolutionary processes, we can't comprehend that truth because it wasn't beneficial to our survival. Theists would say that because God is good and that God is truth, he'd ensure mankind would have the ability to know truth. I'm not seeing any such guarantee from a naturalistic point of view.

[The Grand Nudger]

You aren't getting any gaurantees from theism in that regard either. You've invoked a veiled form of solipsism. That isn't troubling for everything but god, it's troubling for everything including god.

We do have plenty of examples where our faculties are defective btw, many times due to the evolutionary pathway taken to develop them. Our minds aren't exactly immune to this. Thats why we've developed some interesting systems for sorting the signal from the noise. Course, we could be wrong about those as well.........