Evolution does not reconcile with Acquisition of Morals

I would assume that some people today are concerned with the question of that if religion were gone, whether naturalistic evolution – from an atheistic perspective – has the ability to take the responsibility of imparting values into society. Although the question of morality with regard to evolution is a manifestation of society’s concern with social well-being, which is a good sign, people must understand that evolution does not say anything about how we should live our lives. Put this dilemma in a broader view of reality, science itself does not teach or impart values into people – only knowledge.

Reconciling evolution and morality is not, in any way, similar to reconciling religion and morality. Evolution is a scientific theory, an explanation of biological emergence through common ancestry, which is verified based upon widely accepted systematic techniques of research. All evolution does is give us a better understanding about biological existence. Religion, on the other hand, is a supernatural grounded theory that is based upon a holy book – a book that is circularly true, and satisfies the question of origins and placement by introducing general explanations of life and fundamental values. In fact, people should avoid comparing evolution to religion because this is a logical inconsistency. It was as if one were trying to compare the quantum properties of an electron to the properties of propaganda. What should be done is to compare religion’s role in morality to something equivalent but different form of philosophy, such as humanism – and not to a scientific theory.

So what do supporters of evolution say about morality? Simply put, they say that morality is a mental construct that evolved together with our emerging intelligence – the increase of surface area of the brain and the complexity of blood vessels, all contributing to humans’ ability to enquire and be conscious. Richard Dawkins would most likely refer to the emergence of the morality to the transmission of memes – in his book “The Selfish Gene.” Through explanations coming from the theory of games, sociobiology, evolutionary psychology etc, one could understand why the emergence of morality to place. However, the knowledge gathered in the respective fields is not supposed to cause us to judge our dearly held moral values. What all these fields – with respect to evolution – do is bring us a greater and improved understanding of why we are the way we generally are.

So instead of wondering if evolution can substitute religion, wonder instead of humanism versus religion. Can humanism substitute religion? Here I shall briefly discuss the different positions of religion and humanism.

Humanism embraces and lives the life of the human mind. Its ultimate goal is to improve the human condition, and believes that only humans can seek truth, not divine revelation or any other form of supernatural intervention. Humanists search for the strengths of an individual, and bring these strengths to its optimal level. Though, humanism does not necessarily state the presence of an authority who decides what values are humanistic and moral, looking from a evolutionarily psychological view, we humans still have the capacity to decide on our own what is moral or not. Skeptics of religion often even quote that religious moral values are in fact created by humans themselves, and then later in history recorded and with along with other religious stories, compiled together to be called a sacred book. This follows that humanism is often related to atheism and science. Nonetheless, humanism consists of some of the good values of religion, such as love thy neighbor as thyself, but not extremist ones such as Deuteronomy 21:18-21, “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him… [t]hen all the men… shall stone him to death…”

Religion (Christianity in the following argument) is a dogmatic system, which does not necessarily strive to improve the human condition – according to the King James Bible. Instead, it requires the obedience to a supernatural being and for some of its proposed values do in fact violate reason beyond conventional belief. This shall one of the topics to be discussed in one of my articles.

To end without getting off the subject of my argument, the differences between humanism and religion, evolution cannot be associated with the impartation of moral values, because it is illogical to do so. It is better to ask if humanism can substitute religion in terms of the implementation of values.