Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Jerry Coyne and the contradictions of Darwinian morality

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Among the topics historian Richard Weikart addresses in a recent article is Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne’s contradictory morality:

When it comes to solving the dilemma of morality, Jerry Coyne faces many of the same problems as Russell. Coyne is an emeritus professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Chicago and a prominent atheist. In his 2015 book, Faith Versus Fact, Coyne argues that morality is the product of both evolutionary and cultural processes. He vigorously denies that there is anything fixed or objective about morality. However, despite his moral relativism, later in his book Coyne inexplicably states, “Indeed, secular morality, which is not twisted by adherence to the supposed commands of a god, is superior to most ‘religious’ morality.”Apparently it escapes Coyne’s grasp that for one kind of morality to be superior to another, there has to be some yardstick outside both moral systems…

Coyne embraces the same contradiction when he discusses whether human life has value or purpose. In a YouTube video he states that evolution “says that there is no special purpose for your life, because it is a naturalistic philosophy. We have no more extrinsic purpose than a squirrel or an armadillo.” However, Coyne’s own progressive political and moral views seem to presuppose that human life does have value and purpose.

Richard Weikart, “Whatever Happened to Human Rights?: Morality and C. S. Lewis’s Abolition of Man” at CRI

Being a Darwinist means never having to address inner contradictions. No one who matters asks.

Comments
Here is an argument that is not rooted in just subjective belief or opinion. Let’s begin with a proposition that appears to be self-evidently true from both the theist and non-theist perspective: If the universe is all that exists there is no ultimate purpose and meaning to human existence. However, while that premise is self-evidently true it doesn’t logically follow that the universe is all that exists. But just for the heck of it, let’s try it out anyway by plugging it into a simple argument. Premise #1: If the universe is all that exists there is no ultimate purpose and meaning to human existence. Premise #2: The universe is all that exists. Conclusion: There is no ultimate purpose and meaning to human existence. The argument of course fails because we have no way to prove premise #2 is true and if premise #2 is not true, the conclusion does not follow. Nevertheless, there are at least a couple of implications that we can derive from this so-called argument. First, even though there is no way to prove that Premise #2, “The universe is all that exists,” is true, it’s still possibly true, the same way that the claim that “pink unicorns exist” could be true, though it’s not self-evidently true. So those who claim that it is true have the burden of proof to prove it’s true. In other words, it cannot be claimed as some kind of “default position.” Second, if there is no way to prove Premise #2 then the materialist has no solid basis for knowledge or any claim of truth. The materialist is left with only his opinions and beliefs. This leaves him with an untenable and self-refuting truth claim that must be accepted by faith. That, however, undermines the whole atheistic-materialist project which claims to be based on reason, facts and logic. Furthermore, it doesn’t explain why humans appear to be hardwired to seek higher purpose and meaning that goes beyond the immediate survival needs of an accidently evolved species of hunter-gatherer apes. Why, for example, did the Egyptians build the pyramids? In other words, there is no explanation (other than empty hand waving) for why this should be true from a purely naturalistic evolutionary perspective. So the atheist-materialist is confronted with a second unresolvable metaphysical dilemma: it’s self-evident that humans seek higher meaning and purpose. Why would anyone want to become an atheistic-materialist if it’s a world view which one must accept blindly by faith? Ironically that puts materialism in a category that is worse than the very worst of pseudo- religions. It’s nothing but deluded pretension to argue otherwise.john_a_designer
February 4, 2020
February
02
Feb
4
04
2020
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
John_a_designer:
Please notice that those who believe morality is subjective are making a self-refuting argument. They are arguing that there are no true and “objective” moral values and obligations. But the premise there are no true and “objective moral values and obligations is a universal truth claim about morality. But how can anyone’s subjective opinions and beliefs be universal?
Evolutionism is "self-defeating". It nullifies itself. What a disgrace for humanity.Truthfreedom
February 4, 2020
February
02
Feb
4
04
2020
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
What’s the point of getting involved in discussions or debates with interlocutors who defend moral subjectivism when we have no reason for believing they are being intellectually or ethically honest? The logic here is really very basic and straightforward: If there are no true interpersonal moral standards or obligations how can we trust anything anyone says or asserts? I don’t think that we can. To have an honest discussion or debate you need some kind of interpersonal, or “transcendent,” standard of truth and honesty– even if it’s a traditional or some kind of “conventional” standard. Why would I trust somebody else’s subjective standard for honesty and truth when he is in fact arguing there is no standard of truth or honesty? It would be rather foolish to get involved in that kind of dialogue. Please notice that those who believe morality is subjective are making a self-refuting argument. They are arguing that there are no true and “objective” moral values and obligations. But the premise there are no true and “objective moral values and obligations is a universal truth claim about morality. But how can anyone’s subjective opinions and beliefs be universal?john_a_designer
February 4, 2020
February
02
Feb
4
04
2020
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
"Scientist" Ed George, learn to READ, please. Copied from the OP:
In a YouTube video he (coyne) states that evolution “says that there is no special purpose for your life, because it is a naturalistic philosophy. We have no more extrinsic purpose than a squirrel or an armadillo.”
Saving young minds from these evil, sick, ignorant and twisted people is productive for society. Yes, I agree, coyne and atheism are non-sensical. The philosophy of despair, with nothing to offer.Truthfreedom
February 4, 2020
February
02
Feb
4
04
2020
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
EF
The ones that according to the evolutionist cult prophets (see coyne above, but it includes all atheist materialists): “have no more extrinsic purpose than a squirrel or an armadillo?”.
I’m sure to a big brained philosopher like yourself, this makes sense. But to us run-of-the-mill scientists that actually do something productive for society, I hate to say that it comes across as pompous nonsense.Ed George
February 4, 2020
February
02
Feb
4
04
2020
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
Do armadillos "hallucinate themselves?"
...under atheist “logic” you’re “nothing but a pack of neurons” (Crick), with no free will (Harris), no foundations for ethics (Provine), no guilt nor merit (Darwin, Blackburn) and even rape is just an “evolutionary adaptation” (Thornhill & Palmer) … “Morality is an illusion” (Ruse & Wilson) … Insert another long list of more atheist claims here … in the strange worldview of constant self-contradiction that is atheism, rationality itself does not exist as more than an illusion. You can’t have the self being an illusion (Harris, Hood) without rationality also being an illusion. Strange that these people can’t even figure that out. But not surprising.
https://borne.wordpress.com/2015/05/01/atheists-do-they-exist-are-they-rational-humans/Truthfreedom
February 4, 2020
February
02
Feb
4
04
2020
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
Ed George at 8, and exactly where did Jesus say to jail those who have unmarried sex or for one spouse to beat another or to deny careers based on gender or homosexuality? Can you quote any of the exact scriptures? I am having a very hard time remembering exactly where Jesus commanded any of those things. On the other hand, I can remember several occasions where Jesus had grace when the religious leaders had hatred. For instance,,,
John 8 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. 3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” 6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear. 7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” 8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”
Of related interest:
"What was Jesus writing in the dust?" Caleb Kaltenbach (Parkview Church) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxt2QWszWz0
bornagain77
February 4, 2020
February
02
Feb
4
04
2020
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
EG
You must be a wonderful role model for your students.
The ones that according to the evolutionist cult prophets (see coyne above, but it includes all atheist materialists): "have no more extrinsic purpose than a squirrel or an armadillo?".Truthfreedom
February 4, 2020
February
02
Feb
4
04
2020
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
EF
You know NOTHING and yet, you are always expressing your opinions. Your brain is an evolutionary mess, do not expect rational people to take you seriously.
You must be a wonderful role model for your students.Ed George
February 4, 2020
February
02
Feb
4
04
2020
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
BA77
Just don’t ask the atheist E.G. to justify by which transcendent moral standards, (which are based in Theism), he is making this claim.
I don't need any transcendent moral standard to know that I am better off if I am not jailed for who I have consensual sex with, or to no longer be hit by my spouse, or to have access too careers previously denied me because of my gender or what gender I am attracted to. Do you?Ed George
February 4, 2020
February
02
Feb
4
04
2020
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
as to:
despite his moral relativism, later in his book Coyne inexplicably states, “Indeed, secular morality, which is not twisted by adherence to the supposed commands of a god, is superior to most ‘religious’ morality.”Apparently it escapes Coyne’s grasp that for one kind of morality to be superior to another, there has to be some yardstick outside both moral systems… - Weikart
cue the atheist Ed George
I think it is fair to say that they are better off now that society is questioning some of the religiously dictated values.
Just don't ask the atheist E.G. to justify by which transcendent moral standards, (which are based in Theism), he is making this claim. Then his whole, oft-repeated, anti-Christian rant against 'religiously dictated values' comes crashing down.
If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists: - Peter Kreeft - Prager University - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xliyujhwhNM The Moral Argument (for God) - Dr. Craig - animated video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU
E.G. apparently desperately wants to break away from God grace, yet he is trapped in an irresolvable dilemma in that, no matter what type of argument that he may try to use against God, E.G. needs God just so as to be able to even make a rationally coherent argument against Him in the first place.
The Brat Who Slapped Her Father's Face Once while Van Til was a youth traveling on a train in Holland, he noticed a father with his young daughter sitting in his lap. Apparently, the father urged his daughter to do something when she suddenly slapped her father in the face. Van Til's application? The girl's behavior illustrates rebels who live in God's world and who are supported by God's common grace (Ps. 24:1). They sit, as it were, on the lap of God, and it is precisely because they sit on God's lap that they are able to deliver the slap of ingratitude. Thus unbelievers who toot their own independence and autonomy are only able to do so as they are supported by God Himself (Jn. 19:10 -11). Their denial of God is His affirmation. Atheism does not invalidate theism, but proves it because atheism is only possible given the premise of theism. As the atheist Nikita Khrushchev once described the Soviet Union, In Russia, thank God, there is no God. https://chalcedon.edu/magazine/van-tils-illustrations
bornagain77
February 4, 2020
February
02
Feb
4
04
2020
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
I don’t know whether ...
You know NOTHING and yet, you are always expressing your opinions. Your brain is an evolutionary mess, do not expect rational people to take you seriously. Evos saw off the branch they are sitting on. They undermine their own rationality. This madness has to stop. "And this is your brain on atheism..." https://borne.wordpress.com/2017/11/12/abiogenesis-is-impossible/Truthfreedom
February 4, 2020
February
02
Feb
4
04
2020
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
“Indeed, secular morality, which is not twisted by adherence to the supposed commands of a god, is superior to most ‘religious’ morality.”Apparently it escapes Coyne’s grasp that for one kind of morality to be superior to another, there has to be some yardstick outside both moral systems…
The yardstick is the success and stability of the society and the people within it. I don't know whether Coyne's claim is true or not but for homosexuals, transgendered, women and several other other sectors of society, I think it is fair to say that they are better off now that society is questioning some of the religiously dictated values.Ed George
February 4, 2020
February
02
Feb
4
04
2020
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
Indeed, secular morality, which is not twisted by adherence to the supposed commands of a god, is superior to most ‘religious’ morality.”
Well, this fool coyne guy is mistaken (again), because 'religious morality' is the result of evolution (according to him), therefore 'religious morality' AND 'secular morality' are both the result of evolution. He is saying evolution creates contradictory moral values. Evolution is not reliable.
Apparently, it escapes Coyne’s grasp that for one kind of morality to be superior to another, there has to be sone yardstick outside moral systems…
Most evos do not understand the concept of comparison. It is so sad. These people have not grown up.Truthfreedom
February 4, 2020
February
02
Feb
4
04
2020
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
BobRyan
There is no evolutionary benefit to court systems, since courts stand in the way of the strong dominating the weak, which is found throughout nature.
Well, according to the darwinian cult (and do not be mistaken, it is a cult), there are no "benefits" to anything. "Stuff just happens". Things "happen" and that is all. They are clearly mentally challenged people. https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/Truthfreedom
February 4, 2020
February
02
Feb
4
04
2020
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
As to:
(Coyne) states that evolution “says that there is no special purpose for your life, because it is a naturalistic philosophy. We have no more extrinsic purpose than a squirrel or an armadillo.”
And yet science itself states that our lives have far more purpose, meaning, and value in this universe than is presupposed in naturalism. For instance, the assumption of the Copernican principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity., which holds that " humans (the Earth, or the Solar system) are not privileged observers of the universe.",,,,
Copernican principle Excerpt: In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle, is an alternative name of the mediocrity principle,,, stating that humans (the Earth, or the Solar system) are not privileged observers of the universe.[1] Named for Copernican heliocentrism, it is a working assumption that arises from a modified cosmological extension of Copernicus's argument of a moving Earth.[2] In some sense, it is equivalent to the mediocrity principle. - per wikipedia Mediocrity principle Excerpt: The (Mediocrity) principle has been taken to suggest that there is nothing very unusual about the evolution of the Solar System, Earth's history, the evolution of biological complexity, human evolution, or any one nation. It is a heuristic in the vein of the Copernican principle, and is sometimes used as a philosophical statement about the place of humanity. The idea is to assume mediocrity, rather than starting with the assumption that a phenomenon is special, privileged, exceptional, or even superior.[2][3] - per wikipedia
,,, for instance, the assumption of the Copernican principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity., has now been overturned by General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, anomalies in the CMBR that 'strangely' line up with the earth and solar system, and also by the fact that life is found to exists at the 'geometric mean', or the middle, of all possible sizes in the universe:
November 2019 - despite the fact that virtually everyone, including the vast majority of Christians, hold that the Copernican Principle is unquestionably true, the fact of the matter is that the Copernican Principle is now empirically shown, (via quantum mechanics and general relativity, etc..), to be a false assumption. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/so-then-maybe-we-are-privileged-observers/#comment-688855
For instance in regards to the 'geometric mean' in particular, in the following video physicist Neil Turok states that ““So we can go from 10 to the plus 25 to 10 to the minus 35. Now where are we? Well the size of a living cell is about 10 to the minus 5. Which is halfway between the two. In mathematical terms, we say it is the geometric mean. We live in the middle between the largest scale in physics,,, and the tiniest scale [in physics].”
“So we can go from 10 to the plus 25 to 10 to the minus 35. Now where are we? Well the size of a living cell is about 10 to the minus 5. Which is halfway between the two. In mathematical terms, we say it is the geometric mean. We live in the middle between the largest scale in physics,,, and the tiniest scale [in physics].” – Neil Turok as quoted at the 14:40 minute mark The Astonishing Simplicity of Everything – Neil Turok Public Lecture – video (12:00 minute mark, we live in the geometric mean, i.e. the middle, of the universe) https://youtu.be/f1x9lgX8GaE?t=715
The following interactive graph, gives very similar ‘rough ballpark’ figures, of 10 ^27 and 10-35, to Dr. Turok’s figures.
The Scale of the Universe https://htwins.net/scale2/
Whereas Dr. William Demski, in the following graph, gives a more precise figure of 8.8 x 10^26 M for the observable universe’s diameter, and 1.6 x 10^-35 for the Planck length which is the smallest length possible.
Magnifying the Universe https://academicinfluence.com/ie/mtu/
Dr. Dembski’s more precise interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as the size of a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center, and/or geometric mean, of all possible sizes of our physical reality. This is very interesting for the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions rather than directly in the exponential middle and/or the geometric mean. Needless to say, this empirical finding directly challenges, if not directly refutes, the assumption of the Copernican Principle. Besides the atheist using the false assumption of the Copernican principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity to try to argue that humans have no extrinsic dignity or purpose,, the atheist also tries to use the false assumption of Darwinian evolution to try to argue, as Coyne himself argued, that "We have no more extrinsic purpose than a squirrel or an armadillo.” Charles Darwin himself argued that,
"Nevertheless the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind" - Charles Darwin - Descent of Man
And yet, although the supposed genetic and fossil evidence for human evolution is far more illusory and misleading than many people have falsely been led to believe,
Refutation of human-chimp genetic similarity, i.e. alternative splicing, dGRNs- October 2019 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nathan-lents-plugs-joshua-swamidasss-book-on-adam-and-eve-at-usa-today/#comment-685918 The Missing Link is still missing – October 2019 https://uncommondescent.com/human-evolution/but-if-homo-erectus-was-just-an-ordinary-dude/#comment-686077
Although the supposed genetic and fossil evidence for human evolution is far more illusory and misleading than many people have falsely been led to believe, the one place that even leading evolutionists admit that they have no realistic clue how a particular trait in humans could have possibly evolved is with human language. In 2014, a group of leading 'evolutionary' experts in this area of language research, authored a paper in which they honestly confessed that they have "essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,"
Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language - December 19, 2014 Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,, (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, "The mystery of language evolution," Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).) Casey Luskin added: “It's difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/leading_evoluti092141.html
Best Selling author Tom Wolfe was so taken aback by this honest confession by leading Darwinists that he wrote a book on the subject. Wolfe provided a précis of his argument:
“Speech is 95 percent plus of what lifts man above animal! Physically, man is a sad case. His teeth, including his incisors, which he calls eyeteeth, are baby-size and can barely penetrate the skin of a too-green apple. His claws can’t do anything but scratch him where he itches. His stringy-ligament body makes him a weakling compared to all the animals his size. Animals his size? In hand-to-paw, hand-to-claw, or hand-to-incisor combat, any animal his size would have him for lunch. Yet man owns or controls them all, every animal that exists, thanks to his superpower: speech.” —Tom Wolfe, in the introduction to his book, The Kingdom of Speech
In other words, although humans are fairly defenseless creatures in the wild compared to other creatures, such as lions, bears, and sharks, etc.., nonetheless, humans have, completely contrary to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking, managed to become masters of the planet, not by brute force, but simply by our unique ability to communicate information and, more specifically, infuse information into material substrates in order to create, i.e. intelligently design, objects that are extremely useful for our defense, shelter, in procuring food, furtherance of our knowledge, and also for our pleasure. On top of that, besides the fact that humans have a unique ability to understand and create information and have come to dominate the world through the ‘top-down’ infusion of information into material substrates, is the fact that, due to advances in science, both the universe and life itself are now found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis. As Vlatko Vedral, Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, states,
“The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.” Vlatko Vedral – Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College – a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics.
It is hard to imagine a more convincing scientific proof that we are made ‘in the image of God’ than finding both the universe, and life itself, are both ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and, moreover, have come to ‘master the planet’ precisely because of our unique ability infuse information into material substrates. Perhaps a more convincing evidence that we are made in the image of God could be if God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was indeed God. And that is precisely the claim that is made within Christianity!
Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Quantum Hologram – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5&index=5 The evidence for the Shroud's authenticity keeps growing. (Timeline of facts) - November 08, 2019 What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know - Myra Adams and Russ Breault https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html
Verse
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Psalm 8:4-8 4 What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him? 5 For You have made him a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honor. 6 You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet, 7 All sheep and oxen— Even the beasts of the field, 8 The birds of the air, And the fish of the sea That pass through the paths of the seas. Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
bornagain77
February 4, 2020
February
02
Feb
4
04
2020
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT
Darwinists cannot argue in favor of morality of any kind. It does not exist in nature. A fox is not acting on morality when it kills a chicken. A lion who eats his or her own cub is acting on nothing more than nature. There are no courts in nature and no morality at all. It is only humans who believe in morality, which should not exist if we are nothing more than animals. There is no evolutionary benefit to court systems, since courts stand in the way of the strong dominating the weak, which is found throughout nature. Darwinists, atheists, evolutionists, whatever they wish to call themselves, do not value truth. The ends will always justify the means, which is why they can appear hypocritical to those who do value truth, but they will never view themselves in the same light.BobRyan
February 3, 2020
February
02
Feb
3
03
2020
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply