Why do we have a conscience?
Another example of creationists mixing biology and ethics is the essay “Why do we have a conscience” by John Adam and also from Dr. Dino’s site. Although perhaps in this case it would be more accurate to say mixing biology and cultural anthropology.
In his essay Adam asks the question “In a struggle for survival, will the existence of a conscience help or hinder one's survival?”
He then proceeds to answer this question in the negative by asserting that the individual with no conscience is free to do whatever he pleases without constraint while the individual with a conscience is hesitant and soul searching. Therefore, “The conscience serves as a detriment to survival,… Unless the universe has been created by God who has established inherent values of right and wrong.”
Well, not really. First of all Adam needs to define what he means by a conscience. The most direct and to the point definition of conscience I’ve ever seen is “Conscience is the awareness that an action conforms to or is contrary to one's standards of right and wrong.”
The big question about conscience is whether it’s inborn or learned. Adam assumes that it’s inborn and each of us “seem to have an innate sense of right and wrong” which had to either “evolve” or “always exist.”
The reality is that a conscience is learned as is the definition of right and wrong. What Adam ignores is the development of society and the emergence of socialization. Socialization brings with it an understanding of acceptable behavior and often a set of penalties for unacceptable behavior. Over time this understanding becomes a moral code that carries with it a definition of right and wrong which is drummed into members of the society from a very early age.
That most societies have come up with similar definitions of right and wrong isn’t terribly surprising. Peace and co-operation tends to enhance a society’s chance of survival while conflict tends to reduce its chance of survival. Therefore things that would tend to cause conflict, such as murder and theft, would tend to be declared taboo while things that enhance peace and co-operation, such as respect for the elders and respect for the gods, would tend to be declared virtues.
At least this would be the case WITHIN the society. Extending ones moral code to outsiders has always been problematic in human society. If one reads the Tanakh carefully, one realizes that the code of conduct laid out in the laws and commandments applies to OTHER HEBREWS ONLY and not to members of other races.
That there have been significant variations in the codes of conduct developed by different societies indicates that there is no absolute definition of right and wrong instilled in mankind by a creator. The definitions must be learned from society. If an understanding of right and wrong is innate, why did Moses need those stone tablets?
Anyone who has raised a child knows that the very young have no moral conscience. A child does what is pleasurable without regard to right or wrong UNTIL its behavior is restricted by the imposition of penalties for unacceptable behavior and rewards for acceptable behavior.
As this idea of good versus bad becomes etched into the child’s brain, an understanding of right and wrong develops. If our conscience, our awareness of how well our actions line up with that understanding, is facilitated by certain genetic characteristics, such as intelligence, and if there is a survival benefit to a conscience, then natural selection would tend to favor those genetic characteristics that enhance our awareness of how well our actions line up with society’s code of conduct. In other words, we would evolve toward a stronger conscience.
This doesn't happen through gene intelligence or magic, it occurs simply because those that have a better survival chance, have a better chance of reproducing and passing their genes on to the next generation. If a society decided that red haired children were the descendents of demons and immediately killed any children with red hair, you can bet that the number of red haired children born would approach zero within a few generations.
So, does accepting a code of conduct and adhering to it have survival benefits? You’re damn right it does especially when there are penalties for violating it. In a complex society a conscience, rather than being a hindrance can be a benefit! Individuals that break the taboos of their society tend to be ostracized, ejected or even killed. Even those without much of a conscience might think twice about breaking the more serious taboos. Therefore those that break society's taboos can have their chances of reproducing, and thus passing on their genes, severely reduced or eliminated (it's a little hard to have offspring when you're missing your head). So over time, if there are genetic factors relating to how law abiding one tends to be, natural selection would tend to favor the more law abiding folks; the ones with the most well developed consciences or at least those most concerned about the consequences.
A wise man once said that the true measure of a man is how he would behave if he were absolutely certain no one would find out. This implies that our actions are controlled often by the fear of reprisals or humiliation rather than due to our conscience.
Therefore I would say that Adam is wrong on all accounts. First of all, the definition of right and wrong is learned and not innate. Since the definition is learned, until that foundation is established, what is called a conscience cannot emerge and must also be learned. Second, since there are very definite survival benefits in adhering to society’s code of conduct, if there are genetic factors relating to consciences, natural selection would tend to evolve stronger ones.
In his essay Adam asks the question “In a struggle for survival, will the existence of a conscience help or hinder one's survival?”
He then proceeds to answer this question in the negative by asserting that the individual with no conscience is free to do whatever he pleases without constraint while the individual with a conscience is hesitant and soul searching. Therefore, “The conscience serves as a detriment to survival,… Unless the universe has been created by God who has established inherent values of right and wrong.”
Well, not really. First of all Adam needs to define what he means by a conscience. The most direct and to the point definition of conscience I’ve ever seen is “Conscience is the awareness that an action conforms to or is contrary to one's standards of right and wrong.”
The big question about conscience is whether it’s inborn or learned. Adam assumes that it’s inborn and each of us “seem to have an innate sense of right and wrong” which had to either “evolve” or “always exist.”
The reality is that a conscience is learned as is the definition of right and wrong. What Adam ignores is the development of society and the emergence of socialization. Socialization brings with it an understanding of acceptable behavior and often a set of penalties for unacceptable behavior. Over time this understanding becomes a moral code that carries with it a definition of right and wrong which is drummed into members of the society from a very early age.
That most societies have come up with similar definitions of right and wrong isn’t terribly surprising. Peace and co-operation tends to enhance a society’s chance of survival while conflict tends to reduce its chance of survival. Therefore things that would tend to cause conflict, such as murder and theft, would tend to be declared taboo while things that enhance peace and co-operation, such as respect for the elders and respect for the gods, would tend to be declared virtues.
At least this would be the case WITHIN the society. Extending ones moral code to outsiders has always been problematic in human society. If one reads the Tanakh carefully, one realizes that the code of conduct laid out in the laws and commandments applies to OTHER HEBREWS ONLY and not to members of other races.
That there have been significant variations in the codes of conduct developed by different societies indicates that there is no absolute definition of right and wrong instilled in mankind by a creator. The definitions must be learned from society. If an understanding of right and wrong is innate, why did Moses need those stone tablets?
Anyone who has raised a child knows that the very young have no moral conscience. A child does what is pleasurable without regard to right or wrong UNTIL its behavior is restricted by the imposition of penalties for unacceptable behavior and rewards for acceptable behavior.
As this idea of good versus bad becomes etched into the child’s brain, an understanding of right and wrong develops. If our conscience, our awareness of how well our actions line up with that understanding, is facilitated by certain genetic characteristics, such as intelligence, and if there is a survival benefit to a conscience, then natural selection would tend to favor those genetic characteristics that enhance our awareness of how well our actions line up with society’s code of conduct. In other words, we would evolve toward a stronger conscience.
This doesn't happen through gene intelligence or magic, it occurs simply because those that have a better survival chance, have a better chance of reproducing and passing their genes on to the next generation. If a society decided that red haired children were the descendents of demons and immediately killed any children with red hair, you can bet that the number of red haired children born would approach zero within a few generations.
So, does accepting a code of conduct and adhering to it have survival benefits? You’re damn right it does especially when there are penalties for violating it. In a complex society a conscience, rather than being a hindrance can be a benefit! Individuals that break the taboos of their society tend to be ostracized, ejected or even killed. Even those without much of a conscience might think twice about breaking the more serious taboos. Therefore those that break society's taboos can have their chances of reproducing, and thus passing on their genes, severely reduced or eliminated (it's a little hard to have offspring when you're missing your head). So over time, if there are genetic factors relating to how law abiding one tends to be, natural selection would tend to favor the more law abiding folks; the ones with the most well developed consciences or at least those most concerned about the consequences.
A wise man once said that the true measure of a man is how he would behave if he were absolutely certain no one would find out. This implies that our actions are controlled often by the fear of reprisals or humiliation rather than due to our conscience.
Therefore I would say that Adam is wrong on all accounts. First of all, the definition of right and wrong is learned and not innate. Since the definition is learned, until that foundation is established, what is called a conscience cannot emerge and must also be learned. Second, since there are very definite survival benefits in adhering to society’s code of conduct, if there are genetic factors relating to consciences, natural selection would tend to evolve stronger ones.
posted by Alencon at 4:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home