Is there a secular explanation for conscience?

[dstebbins]

There's almost always a secular explanation for just about anything that religions prefer to attritube to God. Atheism is now a socially acceptable personal policy, due to the atheistic explanations that science has provided for such previously-inexplicable phenomena as... weather... day and night... seasons... and the presence of petroleum on our planet.

 

Some people like to claim that science only shows how God did it, rather than disproving that God exists altogether. I'm not here to discuss that. Maybe science is God's method for creating the universe; maybe science created itself. For the purposes of this thread, I do not care in the slightest.

 

What I'm here to discuss is.... where is the secular explanation for why humans have a conscience? The only explanation I've ever heard for why humans have conscience is... humans have a soul. However, the idea of a soul is wholly incompatible with atheism (notice, I said it's incompatible with atheism, not science; as the above paragraph explains, science and religion are not necessarily incompatible), because to accept the existence of souls necessarily requires us to accept the existance and legitimacy of some supernatural diety, and also (at least potentially) an afterlife.

 

Has anyone ever offered a secular explanation for the human conscience?

 

Keep in mind, the conscience is one of very few traits of humans that are almost entirely universal among humans, yet exclusive to them. We are the only species in the world - and, based on paleontological research, we seem to be the only species in the history of the world - with a conscience. No other animal has one. Service animals, when being trianed, do not learn right vs. wrong; they learn "this gets me punished" vs. "this earns me a treat." If a police dog is ordered by a human cop to attack someone, it doesn't consider whether the person it's been sicked on deserves to be bitten; it just does it... with machine-like obedience.

 

Humans, however, will indeed defy their superiors from time to time. One such instance that I recently saw came when I was re-watching a movie from my childhood: Disney's "The Hunchback of Notre Dame." Frollo - the villain - had just locked a family in their own home by barricading their only door. He had ordered Phoebus to burn the house down; Phoebus responded by sticking the torch inside a water barrel, extinguishing it. Why did he do that? Because he has... drum roll... a conscience! And only humans seem to have one!

 

And yet, despite humans being the only species - past or present - to have a conscience, so too is it universal among them. Literally every person, alive or dead, past or present, has a conscience, even if our lusts and evil ambitions can override from time to time. There has never been a single solitary documented case of a human who was confirmed to be completely devoid of conscience.

 

So... a conscience is both exclusive to humans, and universal among them. I've not seen any other human trait that is like that. We have hearts, lungs, brains, but a ton of other animals have them too. Marriage? No go. There are plenty other animals that mate for life as well. Civilization? Well... although humans have the most advanced civilizations, there are animals who have heirarchies and social circles, even if they're crude and primitive in comparison to those of humans. Hell, even the most important human skill of all - the ability to make tools - is not exclusive to humans, not even if you include our direct evolutionary ancestors; even today, chimpanzees can create tools, even if they're inferior our's. Likewise, no other trait that is exclusive to humans is actually universal among them. Case in point: The capacity for conversation (btw, speech is different from conversations. Parrots can "speak," but cannot carry deep conversation, so they don't count). Even though humans are the only creatures capable of conversation, not all humans share this capacity.

 

So, if you wish to offer a secular explanation for the human conscience, you must also explain away how the trait is both universal among humans yet exclusive to them. It seems too convenient to have happened by sheer coincidence. Most religions like to say that the conscience is universal & exclusive because we are God's ultimate creation.

 

I'm not here to start a pissing match over whether or not God is the entity directly responsible for conscience; I'm asking if there has ever been a plausible explanation even so much as offered that both A) actually makes sense, and B) doesn't involve Intelligent Design.

 

Has there? If so, what is the explanation.

[tomgwyther]

"A secular explanation for human conscience" As a question doesn't make a great deal of sense.

 

Secularism is the principle of separation of government institutions, and the persons mandated to represent the State, from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief.

 

Whereas

Conscience is the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience.

 

The question might be better phrased as...

"In the absence of a God/Gods or other similar divine agent(s), From where does human morality originate?"

I would answer that morality, altruistic behaviour and conscience have evolutionary roots, especially in species which tend to live in herds or packs. Humans being one example of such a species, many other animal species exhibit similar altruistic behaviours also.

[dstebbins]

Well, I mean "secular" in the sense that... it has nothing to do with religion.

 

 

I would answer that morality, altruistic behaviour and conscience have evolutionary roots, especially in species which tend to live in herds or packs. Humans being one example of such a species, many other animal species exhibit similar altruistic behaviours also.

 

I'd like to see that. After all, I just specified that conscience is "both exclusive to humans, and universal among them."

[John Cuthber]

There is a non-religious basis for it.

To be simplistic, it's your mother telling you to think "what would happen if everyone did that?"

[hoggy]

Conscience is just simply an extension of altruistic behaviour. Aa for your example of the police dog just doing as it is told i would argue that the dog is doing as it is 'trained' . If the dog is told to jump onto a raging fire im sure it would have the semblance of a conscience not to do it. We are simply more advanced rather than Gods chosen ones.....

[StringJunky]

There is a non-religious basis for it.

To be simplistic, it's your mother telling you to think "what would happen if everyone did that?"

 

I think that about nails it. It is down to what is acceptable for everybody without long-term detriment to the group.

[Bill Angel]

And yet, despite humans being the only species - past or present - to have a conscience, so too is it universal among them. Literally every person, alive or dead, past or present, has a conscience, even if our lusts and evil ambitions can override from time to time. There has never been a single solitary documented case of a human who was confirmed to be completely devoid of conscience.

How about Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, and several others members of the Nazi hierarchy?

[John Cuthber]

I realise that it's not quite the same thing but there's plenty of evidence for animals displaying apparent altruism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals

 

It seems to me that, at least the forerunner of conscience was present in our ancestors long before we invented God to explain it.

 

I'm pretty sure that no group of humans would survive for long without a system of working together that could be called a conscience.

If anything, it seems most likely that we had a conscience; and religion copied it into their "holy books" because it would be silly to leave it out.

Any society that didn't understand that you should "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" wouldn't last long enough to found a church.