Morality: Evolved or Created?

“All sects are different, because they come from men; morality is everywhere the same, because it comes from God.” – Voltaire

“Morality is herd instinct in the individual.” – Friedrich Nietzshe

“What is morality in any given time or place? It is what the majority then and there happen to like, and immorality is what they dislike.” – Alfred North Whitehead

If you watch a debate with Christopher Hitchens involved, you will see an interesting argument that surrounds the issue of morality, and ethics in general. Mr. Hitchens, an Atheist, will say that he does not need God to know what is good and to do good. He states that he can just as easily send a check to a poverty stricken area, just as much as any religious person. He would say that he can feel empathy for those hurting, just like Christians. If he can figure this out on his own without religion, then why do we need a God for our moral standard?

In one respect Mr. Hitchens is right, that a committed Atheist can do good acts just as much as a religious person. An Atheist can also lead a “good” life just as any Christian could, and act just as nice as any Wiccan or Muslim. The goal of this post is not to prove the idea of a Christian God, but to demonstrate in some instances that to have any consistent morality within society it presupposes a God or Intelligent Designer.

One could spend an entire book on the subject of morality in general, and many have, but since this is a blog, it needs to remain more concise and just impose some thoughts as to why there has to be a God for morality to even exist. Can there be any sustaining morals that are standard for every society if there is no God? If there are, how do we go about figuring out what those are?

C.S. Lewis on his journey to become a Christian dealt with this from one direction. One of his biggest struggles was the issue of evil and how can an all Good God allow evil and suffering in the world. The more he pondered this, the more he started to wonder how he knew something was evil at all. If there was no ultimate ideal of good then how can one know there is evil? Don’t read this argument too fast, and take time to let it sit in, because it is very deep, though only a few sentences long.

Every culture does not like to have their stuff stolen, and feel that it is a “bad” thing to have happen. Yes, I know there are cultures out there that have a “share” mentality, in that if it is out in the open within the tribe then it is the tribes as a whole and anyone can take it. But. . .if someone outside the tribe were to do this then it would be seen as an unjust act by the clan. Again, they see stealing as an act of evil done against them. Even cannibalistic societies view the murder of their own tribes as an evil and will seek revenge against the other tribe. These are just two examples of “evils” that can be seen across cultures around our world. There are many more when taken to their core meanings.

Going back to C.S. Lewis, how do all these societies know that having something stolen from them is evil? How do we know it? You can try to say that we were taught it, but it started somewhere and again this crosses all cultures, so it is not just some random rule brought about by a majority vote somewhere and imposed on society. No, we naturally do not like things being stolen from us. Just look at a child and how fast they learn the phrase “mine!” They were not taught that, as most parents teach the opposite, to share their things. Where did the natural concept of “mine” come from? The child feels there is an evil committed, because someone took something from them without their permission, which is the basic definition of stealing. How does the immaterial emotion evolve? Was there a time in history where there were no emotions like this? History does not seem to think so, as there have been wars and turmoil over such things as far back as we can trace human history, no matter where you draw your sources.

These moral laws seem to be natural and ingrained in us from our beginning. If they are ingrained or natural, and we naturally make these moral standard arguments, then maybe there is within us a natural inclination toward the ultimate good. An infinite Good that we base these ideals on whether we want to admit it or not. Maybe think of it like this: You walk into someone’s house and you see this 52” flat screen TV hanging on the wall. You say, “That is the biggest TV I have ever seen.” Why did you make the statement? You based it on other TV’s that you have seen. You based it off an ideal of a TV that was in your mind. And saying “that you have seen” clarifies that there could be bigger out there, but you have not seen it yet. There could be some TV out there even bigger and not just based on what is seen before you.

Now take it a step further and while you were there someone else came in and started to unhook the TV and remove it off the wall. They tell you that they are going to take it because in their culture stealing is alright. What do you say? Okay, since that is your culture, then I cannot judge you and you can take the TV. No way, you call the police or take the matter into your own hands, because you know that stealing is wrong. I bet many of you even reading the part of the sentence, “because in their culture stealing is alright,” even had a hard time computing it. It just does not read right and immediately red flags go up in your head. Why, if morals are culture based? Again, you can’t say because it is ingrained in you, as I just go back to the two year old that knows intrinsically about stealing without being taught. I will even argue that a nine month old realizes this when you try to take their favorite toy. They will cry, making grunting noises and even shake, because somehow they are mad that something was taken from them that is theirs. How?

The only way any of the above makes sense is if it was engrained or designed into our programming. There is no evolution of this moral, as we see it from the beginning of recorded history, and those that purport evolution know that there is a lot of time needed for things to evolve. There has not been enough time within human history for this type of evolution. It also doesn’t answer why it evolved into everyone knowing some things are wrong, as stealing and murder. Other emotions are demonstrated in people, as what people enjoy as hobbies or the type of personality they attract to. There are differences, but we see within morality there appears to be some set principles that cross all cultures.

I leave you with this to ponder, and it made me think more on this as well. If morals are society based and not drawn from an infinite good, then why is slavery not still around? Every culture had slaves, from England to America, from Africa to South America. It was so common that there was basically no serious debate about it for many years and then we see people like Mr. Wilberforce start to raise questions about its moral implication on the slaves. Why? He would have been brought up in a society that accepts it, taught that it was okay and that it was even very economic for the country he grew up in at the time. What made him change? Wasn’t culture or the majority changing, as it took him over twenty years to finally get the amendment passed. There had to be some set standard to compare it to, and in this case it was the God of the Bible who says to love your neighbor as yourself, and that we were all created by God deserving of the same rights as everyone else.

What if one day the majority says that it is now okay for slavery again, and it doesn’t matter what race they choose? Would those that accept culture, majority or societal morals then complain? How can you if it is what they choose? What are you deriving your concept from? You have preconceived ideas of good, but you could not trust those if there is no Infinite on which to base it. You are stuck within your own rules of majority vote. Seems to be a true slippery slope belief system because in the end it allows for everything, because without a set standard there is nothing in the end that one can truly say is wrong or right, but only what man/woman decides. Now, that is a scary thought, because we have seen what man does when they attain too much power and set the standard.

“There are two sorts of hypocrites; ones that are deceived with their outward morality and external religion; and the other are those that are deceived with false discoveries and elevation; and men's own righteousness, and talk much of free grace; but at the same time make righteousness of their discoveries, and of their humiliation, and exalt themselves to heaven with them.” – Jonathan Edwards

The Red Herring

“A red herring is a smelly fish that would distract even a bloodhound. It is also a digression that leads the reasoner off the track of considering only relevant information” (http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Red%20Herring).

Have you ever thought that rationality and logic are things of the past? Just watching and listening to politicians will definitely give indication of this. It seems to me that today more people have given up on thinking critically through arguments. Instead they would rather just “believe” what they “feel” is right or take the word of a professor that they know little about besides in the classroom. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of great professors out there who would make great mentors as well, but you should still think through their reasoning behind what they are teaching.

Some time ago a college student approached me and we ended up getting into a conversation about creation/evolution. I am not going to debate either right now in light of right and wrong, because there is not enough space to give my argument. It would also be me moving into a red herring, as I would be redirecting the topic to something else, however it was the central topic of our discussion. Plus, you will get an idea of my view just from the conversation.

It ended up that he could not understand why I would believe in creation, and that evolution was obviously the answer and proven. I asked how he knew this and what evidence he had. He just stared at me, and instead asked another question, because he had no idea how to respond. Instead he tried to defend his side by just throwing out a name used by many who do not actually study because everyone uses it and almost all basic science classes use his name. He asked me about Charles Darwin. Now, he did not give any evidence that Darwin gave, just asked me about him. I said I did not agree with his premises and that many scholars, even in evolutionary thought, no longer hold to much of his arguments. I then asked him if he has ever read Charles Darwin at any time in his life. Again, he stared at me and said he has read some quotes. I am betting all my evolution and creation friends are now rolling their eyes.

I moved forward and asked if he knew of the theory regarding Darwin’s Black Box, because anyone that has done some study has heard of this in one form or another. He said no, so I explained to him that Darwin himself theorized that if the eye were more than just a gelatinous ball, his very own theory of evolution would crumble. I asked him if the eye was more then just a gelatin ball. Instead of answering rationally, he says “yes.” Are you serious? I actually asked him that. The eye is made up of cones, rods, and retina and many other parts and is not just a gelatin ball in our heads.

Here is the red herring. Instead of saying he did not know as much as he thought about evolution and would have to go and think about my questions and come back with an answer, and I did ask him about fossil records and transitions and he could not answer or give any credible evidence, he tried to redirect the conversation. His answer was that he thought religion was just an invention so people could figure out how the world began because they did not know prior. Did you catch it? I never brought up religion, but he knew I was a Christian so he used it. He tried to move to religion in general because he could not defend a position that he held so tightly. It was a self-protective mechanism that many use when they know they are caught in a debate.

The second statement was an even more overt red herring. He told me that as an educated man that he can’t understand how I would believe this, even though he could not defend the position for me. Again, instead of answering the topic he attacked my education background. I did not bite, though I wanted to respond to him. I would have said, “Actually it should tell you something that I have a Ph.D. and believe in creation, and you do not even have a Bachelors and you do not believe in it.” Now that would be me giving a red herring back, as it has nothing to do with my or his education, because it is either true or it is not. Has nothing to do with me or him. I never gave religious answers to the creation account, but scientific arguments against the evolution account. I used more of the Intelligent Design arguments (please check before you comment, because there are many non-Christians in this movement as well). I could have given the religious arguments, but wanted to stick to his theories that he did not understand.

I can’t tell you how many times I have seen Christians use this as well when debating others. I have done it myself when I got flustered, or just did not realize until I was taught about it. We are not teaching high school or college students how to critically think and how to debate with someone, and I won’t even get started on the lack of respect being shown to elders either in this regard. We need to teach that just spouting our professors’ beliefs is not enough, and we should work through these arguments ourselves. These are important matters. Either evolution is true or creation is. Either there is a God or there is not. Either all ways lead to God or they don’t. Either Jesus is Savior and Lord or He is not. These questions cannot be answered by simple little cliché statements that you have not studied or learned how to answer and then counter-answer arguments regarding the issue, regardless of where you stand on the spectrum.

Lastly, I do want to say that I have debated many on the other side who do debate very well and have their arguments very concise, both within the Christian circle and without. It seems though it is becoming a far less occurrence then a norm though. Time to get rid of some of the junk liberal classes that everyone has to take and replace them with logic, critical thinking and philosophy, at least at the basic level in order to teach our younger generation how to think critically and for themselves.

Proverbs 23:23, “Buy the truth, and do not sell it, Also wisdom and instruction and understanding.”