If the place of indiscriminate killing in the evolutionary realm was comparatively clear, and the place of theft was a little more muddied, then the place of rape is considerably more complicated. Once again, since we are trying to understand it in evolutionary terms, we must try to work out the nature of the motivation in the first place, and only then try to work out whether this amounts to a benefit or otherwise for the species.

There is much controversy in the psychological and legal communities regarding the extent to which rape is sexually motivated and the extent to which it is power-driven. We can surely say without reams of evidence that neither in isolation is anything like a satisfactory solution. Sexual desire exists in virtually everyone, and hardly ever manifests itself as rape; the desire for power exists in many people and doesn’t usually result in such extreme harm. There is also the question, in the latter case, of exactly what sort of power rape confers on the rapist. If it does confer power, it is only of the most worthless kind (as opposed to, say, owning a multinational company or being the President of France), and we therefore must conclude that the person who desires this sort of power is suffering some kind of mental imbalance. But neither are the two in combination quite a satisfactory solution, for the problems that attend them individually exist in combination, too. [Read more →]

Or, at least, a guess at what it might consist of.

There’s an interesting debate going on between Jerry Coyne and P. Z. Myers on the provability of God’s existence. The standard atheist position on this matter seems to be disbelief for lack of evidence to the contrary, but that in principle it might be possible to conjure some piece of evidence that might prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that “God” exists. Coyne offers, as an example, a series of highly unlikely events, all perpetrated by a being calling himself Jesus. Myers rightly insists he still would not believe in God or Jesus if these happened. [Read more →]

There is something rather premature about the recent “controversy” over Hawking’s statements on God’s existence. Firstly, there is nothing at all new in what we know of Hawking’s views. Theists (and believers of all varieties in a creator) might have held open the possibility of Hawking’s agnosticism, but this agnosticism was only ever a purely theoretical one anyway. The hope seems to have arisen largely from the concluding paragraph in A Brief History of Time:

However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would know the mind of God.

“The mind of God” is naturally an alluring term that sounds like the product of an agnostic brain. It carries with it an appeal to our civilization-long search for the answer to the question, why are we here? But it really only shows the usefulness of God as a metaphor. “God” is simply the origin of all our laws—and clearly, if this was all that a theist believed in, he would be no theist at all. [Read more →]

Is theft really so bad? Perhaps, but only if ownership is so good.

In the last discussion, it did not appear to take too long, or require too much marshalling of evidence, to conclude that no moral system can sustain the instinct to murder: either the species dies out, or the instinct does. However, it turns out that this instinct may be the only one that can be dealt with so summarily, since it is the only one that deals directly with survival. When dealing with theft, we are instantly confronted with a problem of definition. The connotations of the word “theft” are too strong to use without question. It would perhaps be more accurate to think of theft as one kind of taking, and specifically one which implies the existence of, and tacit social agreement to, the idea of ownership. [Read more →]

If we are to work towards an objective understanding of morality, and more specifically a scientific understanding that justifies thinking of moral codes as being good or bad, then the best way to start is to perceive morality through an evolutionary lens. Let’s assume for the sake of argument—as surely we must—that there is nothing about our human morality (taking certain precepts, like “thou shalt do no murder”, and so on, as being broadly representative of this) that is superior or inferior to the morality of other species, real or imagined. We only really need one assumption to compare different moral systems in a way that affords no room for subjectivity: they all evolve, and those that are unsuccessful will not last very long. [Read more →]