Morality, Evolution, and God

Dr. Michael Ruse wrote an interesting article on the Huffington Post about Darwinism and Morality.  It is not a great article, but addresses some interesting ideas, mainly the presence of a natural morality.  Some scientists and philosophers have argued for a naturalistic/materialistic explanation for civilized society.   On the other hand, some regard religion with sole possession of behavior.  As we find in the conflict of science and religion, the truth tends to combine both positions.  Religion provides the cultural guidelines for us to follow, while science explores the anatomical basis for society.

I often hear from some Christians that without God there is no morality.  The meaning changes according to context, but mostly means that without a knowledge or recognition of God we lack morality.  I have always found such arguments absurd.  I know many atheists who are high-caliber people, act honorably, and make great citizens.  On the other hand, I know many Christians who are hate-filled, nasty people.  Most of us fall somewhere in between.  The point remains, people can be good without God.  We should approach the conversation as Jesus provided a template to live our lives and commands us to love one another.  We shouldn't just assume that all non-Christians are hedonistic barbarians.


Some too readily associate science with atheism and connect evolution with morality.  Some creationist groups suggest that before evolution was taught in school all children behaved and everything was perfect (the good ole days).  They blame all of society's ills on either the teaching of evolution or the end of school-mandated prayers.  A lot has happened since evolution took center-stage in biology classrooms.  The changes to our schools have more to do with cultural shifts than subject matter.  


For another complaint, creationists claim that evolution could not explain why people are good.  Their understanding of evolution limits the topic to survival of the fittest, kill or be killed, winner take all.  We those description only work with a larger understanding of the game being played.  The game of life is played to survive and reproduce.  Sometimes, cooperation benefits a group more than competition.  Cooperative groups share scarce resources and can flourish while in other situations a competitive attitude would hurt all individuals.  Human evolution and culture shows that a cooperative strategy best suits our species and our societies.  Just as some species work together, we can help each other through the hard times.


Dr. Ruse discusses a moral organ in his article and moves on, but I shall continue it.  When comparing the brains of humans and other primates, one major aspect stands out.  Ours is bigger.  But ours is also bigger in certain places- especially the Frontal Lobe.  The frontal lobe holds our movement, personality and judgements.  In primate species, as the frontal lobe increases, so does the troop size.  An expanded brain allows the organism to better remember others in your group- specifically how other organisms have acted towards you.  If you know people will remember you, you tend to behave.  Anonymity leads to immoral behaviors- thinking you won't get caught.  Psychopaths have no concern for others in society and feature distinctive signs in their frontal lobes.  So maybe the human brain is the moral organ of humanity.


Most cultures/religions feature some version of The Golden Rule.  As Christians, Jesus commanded us to love our neighbors, even our enemies.  As social animals, cooperation among individuals decreases the competition for scarce resources and promotes altruism.  In this case, both science and religion favor a cooperative approach to human society.