A vast majority of scientists are atheists/agnostics who believe in evolution?

Question

Evolution is an enabler of atheism. How does this affect a persons world view? If we are merely the products of random, purposeless evolution what do the terms “good” and “evil” mean? Their morality and how they are able to perceive "evil" and "good"? Without a measuring stick (e.g. God's Nature) they have no basis for saying something is "good" or "evil". It is just an opinion, which really has no weight in judging how they act or how they judge the acts of others. And while atheists and evolutionists can certainly lead moral lives, if they were true to their beliefs they would have no reason to, nor would they have any basis to judge the actions of those they determine to have done something “wrong.”
But if there is a God who created us in His image, then we are not only created with a sense of what is right or wrong, but we also have an answer to “Says who?” Good is what comports with God’s nature, and evil is anything that does not.

Atheists and believers alike.. opinions?

Phoenix: I never called anybody immoral. You are just reading too far into it.

Mel: Morality can come from something than religion. But with evolution there is no basis for it. What I am saying is that atheists and evolutionists have morality only from what they have been taught in a society that largely acknowledges God. So they have no foundation as to judge others on what is right or wrong. They follow established norms in society to form their morals and ethics NOT from evolution which has no basis for morality!!

BTW Mel you can't be a true christian and believe in evolution at the same time.

Answer 1

If God does not exist and we are here as a blind cosmic accident, then there is no such thing as right and wrong. It would be no more wrong for the innocent to suffer than for the ice to melt or the sun to burn. If there is no God, then there is no Supreme Being to which we must give an account—no Judgment Day, no heaven or hell. If this is just a great cosmic accident, then there is no such thing as morality (there is no good or evil). We should just live by the saying, “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.”

Some day, we are going to find out for sure who is right (the day we die). And the funny thing about the creation/evolution debate is, if the creationists are wrong, it doesn't matter or make any difference. But, if the atheists are wrong, it makes all the difference in the world. As the saying goes: If you are living as if there is no hell, you had better be right.

I wonder, if they truly believe that when you die there is nothing and nothing mattered, then why do they fight and argue so hard against creationism/Intelligent Design? What are they so worried and upset about? Why spend so much of their time trying to persuade others and themselves that it's not right? If there is no meaning to life, why would you care if people are deluded? I think there is something else... deep down in their hearts.

Answer 2

You're making an awful lot of assumptions. I am a Christian, and also majored in Evolution. They're not mutually exclusive, in fact when you really know what you're talking about they fit together quite nicely. But first you have to be open to learn what they both really say - too many people on both sides just make assumptions. I get equally angry at scientists who say you can't believe in both - they're just atheists who have anger toward organized religion.

Evolution is not random or purposeless. Morality has been around longer than the bible - humans have always had cultural norms to help us measure what is "good" and "bad" (though those concepts obviously change over time). Even if you only believe in evolution, it certainly doesn't mean you have no reason to lead a moral life. I don't act morally because I'm afraid of the consequences, I act morally because it is the right thing to do for my fellow human beings.

I highly recommend you study evolution in-depth. If you still want to argue against it, at least you'll have a strong argument. I'll get you started:

Evolution doesn't deal with creation. That's microbiology.

Evolution does not state anywhere that we came from monkeys.

Evolution has a LOT of supporting evidence, and many evolutionary records (the eye, whales, etc.) are relatively complete.

Evolution is used by believers and non-believers every day. For example - hybridization (beefalo, ligers, brocciflower), or simply breeding your animals for certain traits (prize-winning livestock, different dog breeds, etc.). This is all evolution.

It's not scary, it's advantageous, and simply ensures that life will continue in a constantly changing world. That's all evolution is - a mechanism to adapt to changes. Life takes on different forms, and when a disaster occurs, many of those forms may die but with diversity, there's a greater chance that one or two will continue on. I think that's much more amazing than believing that God created a static universe that never changes.

Answer 3

There were atheists long long LONG before Charles Darwin was even born. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with it.

It's a simple concept really. Take an island that is overrun by a certain breed of snakes. They are small, bright green, and have small heads. At some point, while certain ones breed, something weird happens with their chromosomes and a few darker green ones are born. Those darker green ones blend in with the foliage and their surroundings better, thus aren't picked apart by predators as easily. The darker green ones, over a lot of time, thrive.

Then let's say that, after more time, something else weird happens with the chromosomes of some of the snake-babies and some are born that have larger heads than normal. At about that same time, something weird happens with the chromosomes of the rats on the island that are the snake's main prey. The rats get bigger, and the smaller snakes with smaller heads have a hard time catching them. The dark green snakes with big heads thrive.

There will still be small, bright green snakes just like in the beginning of the island BUT after a while there will be an entire new breed of the bigger, darker, large headed ones because natural selection made it so.

That's evolution. What's not to believe about that?

Answer 4

You are right that there is no absolute standard without god. Even Plato's Absolute Ideas need the mind of God in which to reside. However, there are plenty of workable empirical relative standards of good and evil. The best definition of evil is "consciously chosen selfish behavior that harms others."

Its foundation is actually a scientific observation by Darwin that animal behavior is innately selfish. From there, one makes a philosophical observation that man has always wanted to rise above all other animals. Then, the way to do that is through behavior that is ever more altruistic, though no behavior can be completely altruistic.

Next, one tests the definition of evil. Unfortunately, even today slavery has not been extinguished, but for illustrative purposes, consider the examples below before 1863. The definition says that slave owners were evil, while atheistic abolitionists were among the best people. Why? Slave owners selfishly abused slaves for their own greed. Atheistic abolitionists risked life and limb to help others who could not possibly return the favor. In addition, they had no hope of an eternal reward from god. Altruistic to be sure, but not perfectly altruistic, because they got a feeling of intense satisfaction from helping the most needy who could not help themselves.

Other observations. The definition says Jesus was extremely good. Hitler was extremely evil, exactly as most people believe.

However, the definition does not support the Biblical claim that homosexuality is evil. Thus, we atheists are tolerant and loving of those with unusual sexual practices. How unlike the Bible, whose only argument is that homosexuality displeases God. But if there is no god, there was no revelation and we are stuck with an intolerant man's opinion. Why give that credence? What we want from the Bible is what atheists have given us, a self-consistent definition of good and evil that would allow us to judge various behaviors.

The simplest explanations why an atheist would choose to be good are that it is essential to human happiness and it is dishonorable to be evil. Honor is much dearer than life to atheists who are "happy nihilists." A world full of evil is a terribly violent and unhappy world. No one-not even Nietzsche-could be happy in such a world.

Here's to secular humanistic enlightenment. Good is conducive to everyone's happiness, although too much good can be fatal in our not so good world (Socrates and Jesus in the ancient world. Gandhi and MLK in the modern world).

Answer 5

Why can't you use human society as your measuring stick? Morality is doing the right thing in regards to other people. There is nothing in atheism or science that says you should only care about yourself. People were moral for a long time before anyone invented the concept of god or religion. After all, societies before Christianity weren't wiped out by the members murdering each other, were they?

Answer 6

I don't think the question is IF evolution ocurred as the evidence seems to support it. The question remains as to if the evolutionary process was unguided, unintended and uncaused, or in other words, had no external, higher or divine, purpose. THAT is, I think, the fundamental question at hand. Atheists think that evolution and all of creation just happens to be, or that this universe and everything in it can explain itself, without outside explanation. Believers do not agree with that conclusion. I think it is a completely tenable position to hold that evolution occured under the guidance, intentionality and purpose of the Divine. That it (evolution) was, as it were, a "tool" of creation, neither strips humanity of objective morality nor does it render God or humanity any less than they already, respectively, are. It is merely a different way of looking at the process of creation than one did before.

So one is left with two opposing worldviews about this universe, which one will you concede to?

Answer 7

40% of the scientific community believes in a personal god.

Google search reveals a study that has been repeated at least 3 times in the past century, producing the same general figure - 4 out of 10 "believe." Most recently, this was confirmed in an article published in Nature, from a 1997 survey.

Answer 8

1. Evolution is NOT random. It is the furthest thing from being random.

2. Who says you can't have a measuring stick without a god. This is a false dichotomy logical fallacy.

3. I have no choice but to be moral. I have evolved Empathy which heavily constrains my actions.

Answer 9

Well first off anyone that says evolution is random doesn't understand the basics of it. Evolution moves species in what ever direction makes them better able to survive.

Second morality is explained by evolution. We wouldn't survive long as a species without it. That makes it a necessary direction for evolution to go in.

Answer 10

Good and evil are common human views. There is no set right and wrong, so we appeal to the natural morals set forth for humans. How did everyone get along before religion, hmm? I also find it horrendously rude that you would call us immoral for not believing in your book, by the way.