Refuting Creationism - Moral Values Are The Cyclical Product of Human Biology, Not God-Given Objectivity

Christians displaying Medieval 'objective morals'.

People’s moral values change with the seasons

Although religions claim ownership of human morality and demand the 'God-given' right to dictate right and wrong to the rest of us, there is no evidence at all that being religious make a person more moral than others.

The children's story-teller and self-proclaimed Christian apologist, C.S. Lewis, once claimed to have found proof of the Christian god in the 'fact' then he could tell right from wrong. He reasoned that because he had no objective way of doing so, he must have been given his morals by a god - who of course was assumed to be the one he was promoting. Sadly, he had failed to establish a priori, that any such god exists, so his argument was never more than the intellectually dishonest circular reasoning and the false dichotomy fallacy, coupled with the arrogant assumption that he had the 'right' morals, so demonstrating the exact opposite of what he claimed as his 'proof'.

'Objectively moral' American far-right Christian Nationalists during the Jan. 6, 2021, failed violent coup d'etat

In fact, the evidence is that antisocial, far-right extremists are much more likely to be hiding behind religion, merely using it as an excuse for hate and violence. The same can be said for the Christian priests, prelates and nuns who routinely used their supposed high moral status to gain trusted access children and vulnerable adults and to cover up and facilitate the sexual abuses of others around them. Meanwhile the pro-social center-left are more likely to be Atheist/Agnostic and are demonstrating a much higher regard for others.

And now, new research involving long-term study of a cohort of 230,000 Americans has shown that moral values are, at least in part, influence by seasonal changes - people are more likely to enforce moral values that improve social cohesion in spring and autumn, than in summer and winter. A similar pattern was found in smaller studies in Australia and Canada.

The research, by Ian Hohm and Professor Mark Schaller of the Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada and assistant professor of psychology, Brian A. O’Shea of the School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, is the subject of a paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)

Firstly, as a fascinating background to the subject of moral values and how they originate and impact on society, here is a dialogue with AI ChatGPT 4.0:

Q1* In what way do a person's moral values affect their daily lives, and what is the evidence that they are either the result of cultural evolution or are the 'objective' constructs of a supernature deity? A1.

Moral values profoundly influence a person's daily life, shaping decisions, behaviors, and interactions with others. These values serve as internal guidelines that dictate what individuals perceive as right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable. The effects of moral values can be seen in various aspects of daily life:

Impact of Moral Values on Daily Life:
1. Decision-Making:
   • Personal Choices: Moral values guide choices in personal life, such as honesty, integrity, kindness, and respect. For example, a person who values honesty may choose to be truthful even when lying would be easier or more beneficial.
   • Professional Conduct: In a professional setting, moral values influence ethical behavior, such as fairness in business, respect for colleagues, and responsibility in completing tasks.
2. Interpersonal Relationships:
   • Trust and Respect: Relationships are often built on shared moral values, which foster trust, respect, and understanding. A person who values loyalty may prioritize maintaining strong, dependable relationships.
   • Conflict Resolution: Moral values can also dictate how individuals resolve conflicts. Those who value empathy and forgiveness might approach conflicts with a desire to understand and reconcile rather than retaliate.
3. Community and Social Behavior:
   • Social Norms and Laws: Moral values contribute to the formation and adherence to social norms and laws. Individuals who value justice and fairness may actively engage in promoting social equality or upholding the rule of law.
   • Altruism and Charity: People with strong moral values often participate in community service or charitable activities, driven by values like compassion and generosity.
4. Self-Perception and Mental Health:
   • Self-Esteem and Integrity: Living according to one’s moral values can enhance self-esteem and a sense of integrity. Conversely, acting against these values may lead to feelings of guilt, shame, or cognitive dissonance.
   • Resilience: A strong moral foundation can provide resilience in the face of adversity, offering a sense of purpose and guiding principles during difficult times.

The Origins of Moral Values: Cultural Evolution vs. Objective Constructs:

The origins of moral values are debated, with two main perspectives: cultural evolution and objective constructs (often tied to the belief in a supernatural deity).
1. Cultural Evolution:
   • Theory: Moral values are the result of social and cultural evolution. As human societies evolved, certain behaviors and norms were found to be beneficial for the survival and flourishing of the group. These behaviors became codified into moral values, passed down through generations.
   • Evidence:
     • Anthropological Studies: Research shows that moral values differ across cultures and historical periods, suggesting they are shaped by social and environmental contexts. For example, values like individualism and collectivism vary greatly between Western and Eastern cultures.
     • Evolutionary Psychology: Some theories propose that moral values emerged as adaptive traits that helped early humans cooperate, build social bonds, and survive in groups. Behaviors like altruism, fairness, and reciprocity can be seen in other social animals, indicating an evolutionary basis for these values.
     • Cultural Transmission: Moral values are often taught through socialization processes, including family upbringing, education, religion, and media, further supporting the idea that they are culturally constructed.
2. Objective Constructs (Supernatural Deity):
   • Theory: Moral values are objective truths established by a supernatural deity, often believed to be absolute and unchanging. According to this view, moral laws are given by a higher power and are universal, applicable to all humans regardless of cultural context.
   • Evidence:
     • Religious Texts and Traditions: Many religions claim that moral laws are divinely revealed through sacred texts and prophets. For example, the Ten Commandments in Christianity or the concept of Dharma in Hinduism are seen as universal moral laws given by a deity.
     • Philosophical Arguments: Philosophers like Immanuel Kant have argued for the existence of objective moral values that are independent of human opinion. The Moral Argument for the existence of God suggests that if objective moral values exist, then a moral lawgiver (God) must also exist.
     • Cross-Cultural Consistency: Proponents of this view argue that certain moral values, like prohibitions against murder or theft, are found across different cultures, suggesting an objective foundation. However, whether these are truly universal or culturally influenced remains debated.

Conclusion:

Moral values significantly impact daily life, guiding personal decisions, social interactions, and societal norms. The debate over whether these values are the product of cultural evolution or objective constructs tied to a supernatural deity is ongoing. Evidence from anthropology, psychology, and religious philosophy informs both perspectives, but the ultimate origins of moral values may depend on one's worldview and philosophical stance.

Q2. In general, how have moral values changed over human history and can 'objective' morals change?

A2.

Moral values have evolved significantly over human history, reflecting changes in social structures, economic systems, political ideologies, religious beliefs, and technological advancements. These changes illustrate how moral values are dynamic and influenced by a variety of factors.

Changes in Moral Values Over Human History
1. Ancient Societies:
   • Tribalism and Survival: In early human societies, moral values were closely tied to survival and group cohesion. Tribalism, loyalty to one's group, and hostility toward outsiders were common. Values such as bravery in battle, protection of the tribe, and obedience to leaders were emphasized.
   • Religious and Mythological Influences: Ancient moral codes often derived from religious or mythological beliefs. For example, the moral codes in Mesopotamia, ancient Egypt, or early Greece were heavily influenced by religious doctrines and myths. The Code of Hammurabi in Babylon, for instance, laid down a set of laws and moral guidelines believed to be sanctioned by the gods.
2. Classical Antiquity:
   • Philosophical Rationalism: In ancient Greece and Rome, philosophers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle began to explore ethics through reason rather than solely through religious or cultural tradition. They proposed moral values based on ideas of virtue, justice, and the good life.
   • Civic Virtue: Roman society placed high value on civic duty, honor, and public service. Morality was tied to one's role as a citizen, emphasizing loyalty to the state and the common good.
3. Middle Ages:
   • Religious Dominance: During the Middle Ages, particularly in Europe, moral values were largely dictated by religious institutions, especially Christianity. The concept of sin, divine law, and the moral teachings of the Church shaped societal values, such as chastity, humility, and obedience to God.
   • Feudal Hierarchies: Morality was also linked to the feudal system, with an emphasis on loyalty to one's lord, protection of the weak, and the duties of different social classes.
4. Enlightenment and Modernity:
   • Human Rights and Individualism: The Enlightenment brought a shift towards individual rights, equality, and the idea of universal moral principles based on reason. Thinkers like John Locke and Immanuel Kant argued for inherent human rights and moral duties independent of religious dogma.
   • Secularization: As society became more secular, moral values increasingly became grounded in humanistic and rational principles rather than religious authority. The 19th and 20th centuries saw movements for abolition, women's rights, and civil rights, reflecting changing moral views on equality and justice.
5. Contemporary Society:
   • Pluralism and Relativism: In today’s globalized world, moral values are more diverse, reflecting a range of cultural, religious, and philosophical perspectives. There is greater acceptance of moral pluralism and moral relativism, where different cultures and individuals are seen as having valid moral systems.
   • Human Rights and Social Justice: There is a strong focus on human rights, environmental ethics, and social justice, with values like equality, freedom, and sustainability becoming central to global moral discourse.
   • Technology and Ethics: The rise of technology has introduced new moral questions, such as those related to privacy, artificial intelligence, and bioethics. Society is continually grappling with these issues, reflecting an ongoing evolution of moral values.

Can 'Objective' Morals Change?

The question of whether objective morals can change is complex and depends on how one defines "objective morals."

1. Objective Morals as Immutable:
   • Divine Command Theory: If one subscribes to the view that moral values are objective because they are decreed by a supernatural deity, then these morals are seen as absolute and unchanging. In this view, moral truths are eternal and independent of human opinion or cultural context. For example, many religious traditions hold that moral commandments like "Thou shalt not kill" are timeless and universally applicable.
   • Philosophical Absolutism: Some philosophers argue for objective moral truths based on reason or natural law, which are also seen as immutable. Kant’s categorical imperative, which suggests that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, is an example of an unchanging moral principle.
2. Objective Morals as Context-Dependent:
   • Evolving Interpretation: Even within frameworks that claim objective morality, interpretations of these morals can change over time. For example, religious texts have been reinterpreted in light of new knowledge and social changes. The concept of "just war," originally a doctrine of permissible war under certain conditions, has evolved in its application.
   • Contextual Objectivity: Some theorists propose that while certain moral principles may be objective, their application can vary depending on context. For instance, the principle of fairness might be objective, but what constitutes fairness could change as society evolves.
3. Moral Realism and Constructivism:
   • Moral Realism: Moral realists believe that objective moral facts exist independently of human belief. However, even within moral realism, there can be debate about whether our understanding of these facts can change as we gain more knowledge or as societies evolve.
   • Moral Constructivism: This view holds that while moral values might be constructed by societies, once established, they can have an objective-like status within that context. For example, human rights can be seen as socially constructed but treated as objective within a global moral framework.

Conclusion:

Moral values have undergone significant changes throughout human history, adapting to shifts in societal needs, religious beliefs, and philosophical thought. While some argue that certain moral values are objective and unchanging, others believe that even these so-called objective morals are subject to reinterpretation and evolution over time. The question of whether objective morals can change depends on one's philosophical or theological perspective, with views ranging from strict immutability to contextual flexibility.

Q3. In other words, to believe that 'objective morals' can be flexible, requires a flexible definition of the term 'objective'?

A3.

Yes, that's correct. To believe that "objective morals" can be flexible does indeed require a more flexible or nuanced definition of the term "objective."

Understanding 'Objective Morals':


1. Traditional Definition of Objective Morals:
   • In the strictest sense, "objective morals" refer to moral truths that are absolute, universal, and independent of human opinions, beliefs, or cultural contexts. These moral truths are considered to be unchanging, much like the laws of mathematics or physics are understood to be consistent regardless of human interpretation.
2. Flexible Interpretation of Objective Morals:
   • A more flexible interpretation allows for the idea that while moral principles may be objective in some foundational sense (e.g., rooted in reason, human nature, or divine will), their application or understanding might evolve over time.
   • This approach suggests that the underlying moral truths remain constant, but our understanding or interpretation of how these truths apply in different contexts or situations can change as society evolves, as we gain new knowledge, or as we encounter new ethical challenges.

Examples of Flexible Objectivity:

• Human Rights: The principle that all humans have inherent dignity and rights could be seen as an objective moral truth. However, the specific rights that are emphasized and how they are protected may evolve over time. For example, the concept of privacy as a human right has become more prominent in the digital age, reflecting new interpretations of an underlying moral principle.
• Moral Progress: Some people argue that human history shows moral progress, where societies increasingly align with certain objective moral standards (like equality and justice). This suggests that while the core moral values might be objective, our social practices and laws evolve to better reflect these values over time.
• Religious Interpretations: Even within religious traditions that hold to objective moral truths, interpretations of these truths can change. For instance, many religious communities have reinterpreted teachings on issues like slavery, women's rights, and LGBTQ+ rights in ways that align with modern understandings of justice and equality, while still claiming to adhere to the objective moral principles derived from their religious texts.

Conclusion:

To maintain that "objective morals" can be flexible requires a departure from the strict, immutable definition of objectivity. It involves acknowledging that while certain moral truths may be considered foundational or objective, the application, understanding, and contextualization of these truths can and do evolve. This approach retains the concept of objectivity but introduces flexibility in how these objective morals are applied or understood in different contexts, recognizing the dynamic nature of human societies and moral reasoning.

Q4. Which makes 'objective' functionally indistinguishable from 'subjective'!

A4.

You're touching on a critical point in the philosophical debate over moral objectivity and subjectivity. If the concept of "objective morals" becomes flexible enough to adapt to changing interpretations, applications, or contexts, it indeed starts to blur the line between what is considered "objective" and what is "subjective." Functional Indistinguishability:

1. Objective vs. Subjective:
   • Objective Morals: Traditionally, objective morals are seen as universal truths that exist independently of human beliefs or experiences. They are often thought to be unchanging, applying universally across all cultures and times.
   • Subjective Morals: Subjective morals, on the other hand, are based on personal or cultural beliefs, experiences, and preferences. They are seen as variable, dependent on individual or collective human perspectives.
2. Blurred Lines:
   • When the application or interpretation of so-called "objective" morals changes over time due to societal evolution, new knowledge, or cultural shifts, it raises the question: How different is this from subjective morals, which are understood to be shaped by context and perspective?
   • If what is considered morally "right" can evolve, even if the underlying principles are claimed to be objective, the distinction between objective and subjective starts to diminish. The moral truths may be labeled as "objective," but their flexibility in application makes them functionally similar to subjective moral values that also adapt to context and perspective.
3. Philosophical Implications:
   • Moral Relativism: This is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (such as that of a culture or individual). If "objective" morals can change, it can be argued that they are just another form of relativism, albeit one that starts from a supposedly fixed point.
   • Moral Realism vs. Anti-Realism: Moral realism asserts that there are moral facts, and they are independent of human beliefs. Anti-realists deny this, suggesting that morals are human constructs. The more "objective" morals are seen as adaptable or evolving, the closer they get to the anti-realist view, where morals are seen as human interpretations rather than independent truths.

Conclusion:

If "objective morals" are allowed to evolve in their application or interpretation, they indeed become functionally similar to subjective morals, which are inherently flexible and context-dependent. This raises significant questions about the usefulness and validity of the term "objective" in moral discourse if it cannot be clearly distinguished from "subjective" in practice. The challenge then becomes whether we can maintain any meaningful distinction between objective and subjective morals, or whether all moral values are ultimately shaped by human context and interpretation.

The research is explained in a University of British Columbia University news release:

People’s moral values change with the seasons

---

A new UBC study reveals seasonality in people’s moral values, which has potential implications for politics, law and health—including the timing of elections and court cases.

---

A new UBC study has revealed regular seasonal shifts in people’s moral values.

The finding has potential implications for politics, law and health—including the timing of elections and court cases, as well as public response to a health crisis.

The research published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) analyzed survey responses from more than 230,000 people in the U.S. over 10 years and revealed that people’s embrace of certain moral values fluctuates depending on the time of year. The seasonal patterns also emerged in smaller data samples from Canada and Australia.

People’s endorsement of moral values that promote group cohesion and conformity is stronger in the spring and fall than it is in the summer and winter. Moral values are a fundamental part of how people make decisions and form judgments, so we think this finding might just be the tip of the iceberg in that it has implications for all sorts of other downstream effects.

Ian Hohm, first author Doctoral student
Department of Psychology
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Since 2009, a website established by social psychology researchers has been collecting survey data that measures participants’ endorsement of five moral values:

1. Loyalty: Valuing devotion to one’s group and maintaining strong group bonds.
2. Authority: Respecting and following leadership and established rules.
3. Purity: Emphasizing cleanliness, sanctity and upholding tradition.
4. Care: Prioritizing kindness and preventing harm to others.
5. Fairness: Ensuring equal treatment for everyone.

Loyalty, authority and purity are referred to by researchers as “binding” values because they encourage conformity to group norms. They also align closely with modern political conservatism. Care and fairness may be considered more liberal values, with their focus on individual rights and welfare. All have been shown by research to guide people’s judgments about right and wrong.

The researchers found that respondents endorsed the “binding” values more strongly in spring and fall, but not as much in summer and winter—a pattern that was remarkably consistent over 10 years.

Source: Evolutionary Social Cognition Laboratory

They also found evidence that the summer decrease in endorsement of binding moral values was more pronounced in areas with more extreme seasonal climate differences.

Anxiety a possible explanation

The study observed a potential link between these seasonal moral shifts and levels of anxiety, using large-scale data on seasonal anxiety provided by Dr. Brian O’Shea, a co-author of the paper and assistant professor of psychology at the University of Nottingham.

We noticed that anxiety levels peak in the spring and autumn, which coincides with the periods when people endorse binding values more strongly. This correlation suggests that higher anxiety may drive people to seek comfort in the group norms and traditions upheld by binding values.

Professor Dr. Mark Schaller, senior author
Professor of psychology
Department of Psychology
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Implications for politics, law, health, social relations

The findings have wide-reaching implications, with potential examples including:

• Elections: The timing of elections could have an impact on outcomes, as shifts in moral values influence political opinions and behaviours.
• Legal judgments: The timing of trials and legal decisions could be influenced by seasonal variations in moral values, because those who endorse “binding” values tend to be more punitive of those who commit crimes and violate social norms.
• Disease response: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the extent to which people followed social distancing guidelines and were vaccinated was influenced by their moral values. Knowing these values change with the seasons could help tailor more effective health campaigns.
• Intergroup prejudice: Seasonal changes in moral values might affect how people view outsiders or those who don’t conform to group norms.

The research team plans to delve deeper into the connections between anxiety and moral values and to investigate how these seasonal patterns influence prejudices and legal judgments.

Significance
We report evidence that people’s moral values change with the seasons. Analyses of a decade of data (232,975 questionnaire responses from 2011 to 2020) revealed a consistent seasonal cycle in Americans’ endorsement of moral values pertaining to loyalty, authority, and purity (with stronger endorsement in spring and autumn and weaker endorsement in summer and winter). This seasonal cycle was partially explained by an analogous seasonal cycle in Americans’ experience of anxiety. Similar seasonal cycles were observed in data from Canada and Australia (but not the United Kingdom). These findings have implications for attitudes and actions that can be affected by moral values, including intergroup prejudices, political ideologies, and legal judgments.

Abstract
Moral values guide consequential attitudes and actions. Here, we report evidence of seasonal variation in Americans’ endorsement of some—but not all—moral values. Studies 1 and 2 examined a decade of data from the United States (total N = 232,975) and produced consistent evidence of a biannual seasonal cycle in values pertaining to loyalty, authority, and purity (“binding” moral values)—with strongest endorsement in spring and autumn and weakest endorsement in summer and winter—but not in values pertaining to care and fairness (“individualizing” moral values). Study 2 also provided some evidence that the summer decrease, but not the winter decrease, in binding moral value endorsement was stronger in regions with greater seasonal extremity. Analyses on an additional year of US data (study 3; n = 24,199) provided further replication and showed that this biannual seasonal cycle cannot be easily dismissed as a sampling artifact. Study 4 provided a partial explanation for the biannual seasonal cycle in Americans’ endorsement of binding moral values by showing that it was predicted by an analogous seasonal cycle in Americans’ experience of anxiety. Study 5 tested the generalizability of the primary findings and found similar seasonal cycles in endorsement of binding moral values in Canada and Australia (but not in the United Kingdom). Collectively, results from these five studies provide evidence that moral values change with the seasons, with intriguing implications for additional outcomes that can be affected by those values (e.g., intergroup prejudices, political attitudes, legal judgments).

Hohm, Ian; O’Shea, Brian A.; Schaller, Mark (2024)
Do moral values change with the seasons? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121(23) e2313428121. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2313428121

© 2024 PNAS.
Reprinted under the terms of s60 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.>

An interesting thing, tucked away in the details, is that this finding was found to be true for Canada and Australia, but not for the UK. In the UK, the seasons tend to be more moderate and not subject to the extremes found in Australia and Canada, or parts of the USA where more extreme weather in summer and winter seem to increase anxiety - thought to be the underlying cause of seeking greater social cohesion.

If human moral values were objective moral values from the Christian god, they should be universally true and not subject to variation dependent on how much the weather affects a person's anxiety.

The fact of changing moral values over time and the fact that it can be influenced by environmental factors is compelling evidence that moral values are from the culture and so are subjective and situational, not objective and independent of culture and environmental factors.

Creationist frauds will need to reject this finding and ensure their cult rejects it too, because it undermines their pretense of moral superiority that they use to justify their smugly condescending bigotry, their demand for a privileged position in society and the right to legislate over others.

---

Advertisement

Ten Reasons To Lose Faith: And Why You Are Better Off Without It

This book explains why faith is a fallacy and serves no useful purpose other than providing an excuse for pretending to know things that are unknown. It also explains how losing faith liberates former sufferers from fear, delusion and the control of others, freeing them to see the world in a different light, to recognise the injustices that religions cause and to accept people for who they are, not which group they happened to be born in. A society based on atheist, Humanist principles would be a less divided, more inclusive, more peaceful society and one more appreciative of the one opportunity that life gives us to enjoy and wonder at the world we live in.

Available in Hardcover, Paperback or ebook for Kindle

Advertisement

Thank you for sharing!

Tweet Link