Over at the thread on The Panda’s Thumb, Dan S. posted a long response to my comments. Since my response is even longer, and this particular debate is off topic for that particular post, I’ve decided to post my response here.

Dan S. wrote:

“If evolution is true, then there is no such thing as a “gold standard” of morality. There is only what we can get away with.”
While this is straying wildly off topic (*WARNING*), the view you express is one that I deeply dislike.  It may be an accurate description of your beliefs, or even your situation.  Objectively, it’s poppycock.  Balderdash. Bunkum.

That’s our basic disagreement in a nutshell. Is there an “objective” source for moral standards? My contention is that evolution disallows any such objective standard.

Dan S. wrote:

I think one of the problems (for many people expressing this view, at least I dunno ‘bout you) is that, imagining science to be opposed to religion, they assume it’s a mirror -image opposition.

First of all, I should point out that I make a distinction between honest science (searching for the truth) and junk science (the appearance of honest science but distorted to support a previously chosen conclusion). I have absolutely no problem with honest science. In fact, I’ve been working on a post for my blog which shows that the Bible encourages honest science. I would point you to it, but it’s not finished yet. On the other hand, I contend that evolution is not honest science because evidence which shows that evolution could not have happened is routinely ignored, distorted, discarded and attacked.

Second, it is illogical for a religion to say one thing about certain facts and science to say something different about those same facts. In other words, a statement like this would be illogical:

A = B and B = C and A ≠ C.

(In case it doesn’t work for some reason, that last equation is A is not equal to C.)

In logic, this statement violates the Law of Noncontradiction. Quite simply, it means that two conflicting statements cannot both be true. Period.

In the case of evolution and Christianity, the Bible says that God exists and that He created everything in six literal days, (the language used is very explict about the 6 days being six 24 hour days) and evolution says that we appeared by mere chance without the intervention or action of any God. Obviously both cannot be objectively true.

Admittedly, creation is a single point in the Bible. It’s the ramifications of what it means if the Bible is wrong that makes this disagreement such a big issue.

The first ramification is quite simply whether or not the Bible is trustworthy. It is supposedly God’s communication with us about who He is, what exists beyond the physical world that we can touch and examine, and what He demands of us. If the Bible is inaccurate it leads to two possibilities: 1) God lied and is untrustworthy, or 2) the Bible is mistaken and cannot be trusted to be accurate in any point. Either way, the Bible becomes nothing more than a smorgasbord of ideas from which we can pick and choose what we want to believe and disbelieve because it’s no longer even possible for someone to accept it all, nevermind being required to accept it all. That leads right back to each person choosing their own moral standards—just like under godlessness.

The second ramification is that almost everything the Bible teaches is based on the dual concepts that God exists and that He created everything. Removing everything based on God’s existence, creation and similarities to creation (supernatural events) from the Bible would leave it in tatters, removing the majority of the Bible’s content; something Thomas Jefferson supposedly did.

Dan S. wrote:

People  who believe evolution is true have *other* sources of morality, *including* for many, belief in God.  (For many people the two are entirely consistent.

As I said, without an absolute standard, a North Star of morality, each person can choose their own moral values and no one else has a right to tell that person they’re wrong. This holds true even if someone’s chosen morality says they need to destroy all other humans for some reason.

Can you name any religions (other than humanism) which does not conflict with the theory of evolution?

Dan S. wrote:

Individual experience:  I believe in evolution.  Many of the people posting on this site believe in evolution! There are people all around you that believe in evolution!!!  Nevertheless, I’ve never thought the things you imagine to logically follow from this belief.  I doubt most of them have either. Nor do I act in this fashion.  In fact I deeply care about all these things, and try to act accordingly, as do many other evolutionists.

Yes, most people (at least in this country) tend to share fairly similar moral values. But what is your logical, objective basis for those values? It’s safe to say that you and I agree that murder is wrong. I can state the logical underpinnings of why I’m certain that it’s wrong. Can you?

You expressed outrage at the idea that anything and everything is permissable if there is no objective basis for morality. Have you considered why? I think it’s probably because that idea justifies actions you consider reprehensible. Yet if you cannot state a logical, objective reason why your personally chosen moral code should apply to every single person on the planet, then you allow the possibility that the person committing the reprehensible act is legitimately free to choose a moral code which disagrees with yours; one which allows such acts.

Dan S. wrote:

You seem to say that belief in evolution -> disbelief in God and Meaning ->without a Higher Purpose (and afterlife w/rewards&punishment?) people will have no morals, and we will all revert to a savage and lawless ‘every person for themselves and only the strong survive!’ existence.

Not quite. I’m not saying that godlessness automatically leads to a complete lack of morality. What I am saying is that it allows a complete lack of morality. The two are vastly different.

Dan S. wrote:

Regardless of the answer to that old question - are people naturally good or bad or what? - I don’t know, but we mostly seem to be wired/raised to function within a moral system involving others.

That’s what the Bible says:

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

(Rom. 2:14-15, NIV)

Dan S. wrote:

As an atheist, I don’t believe in God or Higher Purposes, etc.  But this *is* the only life I have! Why wouldn’t I want to make the best of it?  Expecting memory to vanish after death (along with consciousness) such selfish pleasures are merely fleeting; my only hope for ‘survival’ (of a sort) after death is in the good I’ve done, and in the memories of friends and loved ones.

That idea is the basis of my questions. If this life is all there is; if your consciousness simply evaporates when you die; if your body is destined to be nothing more than worm food; what do you gain by being fondly remembered after you die? The answer: Not a blasted thing! You’re gone! You don’t get the warm fuzzies whenever someone says “Dan was a great guy.” You don’t get a residual check every time someone thinks of your name. You get nothing, a big, fat zero.

In fact, if you sacrifice your life, you may get praised more by those who are still alive, but you yourself have taken a sucker’s deal. You’ve given up absolutely everything and gained… well… total destruction.

If this life truly is all there is, then isn’t it logical to maximize what you get (“He who dies with the most toys wins.” “If it feels good, do it.”) by any means possible? If you don’t then you’re just frittering your life away by letting a self-imposed moral code get in the way.

Dan S. wrote:

C.S. Lewis has written, awesomely, of the sheer wonder of living in a world (as he believed) where our friends, lovers, co-workers, folks we pass in the street, are all immortals with unbelieveable potential for good or evil.
…
There are things with value in themselves (at least as experienced): sunrises and kittens and sloths and asters and friends and love and and and …

Frankly, it has always seemed to me a rather joyless and despairing view that can’t even imagine any sufficient positive value to such things as truth/beauty/goodness in and of themselves

It’s obvious that you’ve read C. S. Lewis’ “The Weight of Glory”. It’s just as obvious that you’ve completely missed the point.

Christianity does not deny the value, joy and beauty of those things you’ve listed. Just because they come from God does not make them any less valuable. To be honest, I simply cannot conceive how the idea that something beautiful came from God could in any way reduce the value of what was given. If anything, it increases the value.

Let’s assume for a moment that you’re into hot rods. Let’s also assume that you don’t have the mechanical skills to build one. So you go to a shop and have them build one for you. After many months (and a severe drain on your checking account) you have your new toy. It’s very valuable and you get a lot of pleasure from driving it around and generally doing what you like with it. You’ve received pleasure and joy from owning a very cool car. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Now imagine that you get a call from a close friend telling you that you need to visit his house right away. When you arrive, your friend takes you out to the garage and shows you the hot rod he has secretly been building for the past three years. Then he hands you the keys and tells you that it’s yours. He built it just for you.

Which hot rod will be more valuable to you? (For the sake of this illustration, assume both rods are identical.) The one built by your friend should be more precious. It represents endless hours of work done for no other reason than to give it to you. Not only would you get the same joy from it as the one you had built, you would also be reminded of your friend’s generous love for you at the same time.

That’s how it is for Christians. Not only do we enjoy the beauty we see around us, we also see the love and care of God which prompted that beauty. Furthermore, God has promised that the beauty we see in this world is merely a reflection of even greater beauty to come. The joy you experience in watching a kitten play with a piece of string is merely a down payment on even greater joys that God has planned. The quiet conversation with a friend over a cup of coffee which tends to linger on in golden tinged memory is a promise of future conversions. Imagine talking with a friend without pressures such as the need to rush off to work or bed, or painful subjects cropping up to destroy your peace of mind.

That’s what C. S. Lewis was trying to describe: not that the beauty of nature is worthless, but rather that nature’s beauty has great worth, yet it only scratches the surface of what is in store.

Throughout this response, I’ve asked four basic questions. To summarize, those questions are:

1. Is there an “objective” source for moral standards?
2. Can you name any religions (other than humanism) which does not conflict with the theory of evolution?
3. Most people tend to share fairly similar moral values. What is your logical, objective basis for those values?
4. If this life truly is all there is, then isn’t it logical to maximize what you get by any means possible?

Dan, what is your answer to these questions?