Hi UnDisfellowshipped,
You're covering old ground here. Nevertheless, I'll bite.
: I think what I was getting at is, if we humans are simply higher forms of animals -- do apes feel that it is morally wrong to hurt (or steal from) other apes simply because they themselves do not want to be hurt (or robbed)?
Never having conversed with an ape about such problems of morality, I cannot say what they feel. However, some apes do steal from each other, kill one another, kill each other's babies, make war on other ape clans, and so forth. By most human standards they don't appear particularly moral, any more than many humans do.
But that's not really your question. What you really are asking about is whether apes have feelings about morality. The answer is: No one knows. However, my suspicion is that apes have little capacity for introspection, or at least have far less capacity for it than do humans. So I doubt that apes concern themselves with such things as stealing or hurting each other.
Your line of questioning is an attempt to show that there can be no such thing as morality without God.
: If not, why did humans develop this?
Probably for survival value as a social species. Likely it's bound up with the evolution of religious capacity. There is an interesting new book by one Pascal Boyer called Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought that tackles this question. I've only read a few dozen pages, but it gives some interesting thoughts on how religiously based morality developed due to evolutionary pressures.
Let me pose a side-thought for you: Since we differ from one ape species, the chimpanzees, by only about 2% in our DNA, how is it that so great a gap in mentality, emotions, morality and so forth can exist?
: I personally feel that those things are wrong for different reasons:
: * The same as you (I don't want them done to me)
Good!
: * My conscience
Yet another interesting consequence of social evolution.
: * God forbids those things
Ah, the crux! But Bible believers have a terrible problem here: If, as you told expatbrit, God defines morality, then whatever God says is moral, is moral. And whatever he says isn't, isn't. But this notion immediately throws out the idea that morality can exist independently of God, and so we have no basis for judging for ourselves that God is moral. I.e., if "moral" is what God says is moral, then everything God says or does is by definition "moral" -- otherwise God would be self-inconsistent, and we can't have that! Thus, if God says that killing people on a whim is moral, then it is. And if God says that eating your neighbors' babies is ok, then that's fine too.
Do you see where this is leading? Do you see why it's old ground?
The bottom line is that if God defines morality, then God-given morality has no more or less meaning than does 'ape morality', if you will, since both appear rather arbitrary. But if morality exists independently of God, then God is irrelevant to it, since we would be able to judge for ourselves whether any particular act by God is itself moral.
So asking leading questions like "Why do humans have morality" really accomplishes nothing, since none of us really have any good answers. Evolutionary scientists certainly can't trace its development, and a religious person's saying, "God did it" really gives no information except that the person has faith that God did it.
According to various biblical accounts, God is changeable to the point of arbitrariness with regard to certain things we consider moral questions. This is particularly so with respect to how those who claimed to be God's servants treated those who didn't, especially in many Old Testament stories. God's servants were not allowed to kill each other, steal goods from each other, steal each other's wives (note the sexism here), and so forth. But God's servants were not merely allowed, but often encouraged, according to these ancient stories, to do such things to whoever they considered God's enemies. Naturally the people who justified their cultural traditions in these stories presented excuses as to why they could properly kill other peoples, steal their women and so forth, but we today generally do not accept such excuses from anyone, except that some religious people make exceptions for the characters in those ancient stories. Why the double standards by some religious people? Because they cannot see beyond their narrow religious cultures, and to admit of the inconsistency would necessitate abandoning their religion.
Just to forestall the question, I am not an atheist. I am a thorough-going agnostic. I mean this in the sense that I cannot prove that any God or Creator or supernatural being or super-being or anything like that exists or does not exist. I simply do not know. Nevertheless, I am fairly sure that nothing like the God of the Bible exists. This biblical God seems quite out of its mind, but the physical universe, while surprisingly strange, is not out of its 'mind', and it does not seem possible to me that an insane God could create a sane universe.
You made some comments and posed some questions to other posters, and I will comment on a few of those.
: Why do most humans have morals and don't want to hurt other humans, when most animals simply live by "survival of the fittest"?
Most animals are not particularly introspective, and live by instinct. Instinct is the programming that governs much of animal behavior, including the behavior of humans. Recent studies have shown that an amazing amount of human behavior is governed, not by learning, but by instinct. We have little idea how much of our supposedly altruistic behavior is governed by instinct and how much is learned. Human cultures tend to teach that much of it is learned, but many animal species -- even relatively "simple" ones such as ants and bees -- illustrate how much of altruistic behavior can be built-in, or instinctual.
Furthermore, what is your justification for implying that living by "survival of the fittest" necessarily entails hurting other humans? People tend to know, apparently often by instinct, that survival of the group implies survival of self, and vice versa. Studies during the past 30 years have shown that many animal species do not live exclusively by "survival of the fittest" on an individual basis, but also on a species basis. The notion is that by helping the species survive, an animal is helping its own genes to survive, and therefore to propagate, which is the most basic of evolutionary ideas. That evolution is largely about the propagation or reproduction of genes is about the most basic of modern evolutionary notions.
You said to MrMoe:
: Since atheists believe there is NO God/Creator.... If there is NO Intelligence guiding Evolution, how does Evolution "choose" how to evolve certain species?
: How does Evolution "know" that a certain animal needs to evolve differently?
Your questions show that you have not actually studied the subject at all, at least, apart from the stereotypical anti-evolutionary writings of people like the JWs, various Fundamentalists, and perhaps even the relatively recent "intelligent design creationists". If you have, then do inform me of the works you have studied that are not from the above people.
Since no sane scientist who studies evolution would say that evolution is an entity that should be described by a capitalized and anthropomorphized term such as "Evolution", and no such scientist would describe evolution as "choosing" anything at all, your question is entirely off the mark. According to modern theory, evolution works by several different mechanisms, including a bit of random "genetic drift", the traditional slow and gradual evolution that tends to pick out individuals who are best at surviving until somewhat past the onset of reproductive maturity, and by a rather faster mechanism usually put under the umbrella term "punctuated equilibrium". Many scientists allow that other, as yet undescribed mechanisms, may be at work. Therefore there is no "Evolution" that can "choose" anything at all.
According to modern evolutionary theory, species often gradually drift away from their present norm of morphology. This drift can be seen in the fossil record (references given upon request). Given a stable environment, species can remain morphologically stable for tens of millions of years. Nothing says that a species must evolve or must remain stable -- what happens is what happens, and most of the time we have no idea of the specifics involved.
You should rephrase your questions in a more precise fashion, and then people will be able to comment more precisely.
In case you object to my request that you phrase your questions more precisely, think about the following scenario: Suppose that you as a Christian apologist are asked to defend the history of Christianity. How would you answer the following questions? How did the many existing sects of Christianity evolve? What force was involved in their evolution? Since they are all in conflict to some extent (otherwise they would be united), how can it be said that Christians are not all a bunch of apostates, as the Jehovah's Witnesses teach?
I look forward to your answers. When such are forthcoming, I have many other questions for you.
AlanF
