PZ Myers Responds in a Self-Interested Way to Local Conditions

What else could he do? He is bound by Darwinism to do so and so he does so.

At least celebrity atheists agree and are consistent.

I love it when Darwinism is applied to anything and everything because there is absolutely nothing that cannot be “explained” by stating evolutiondidit. Morality? Evolutiondidit. Immorality? Evolutiondidit. Good? Evolutiondidit. Evil? Evolutiondidit. “A” and not “B”? Evolutiondidit. Oh, its actually “B” and not “A”? Evolutiondidit. The universe? Evolutiondidit. Life? Evolutiondidit. Monogamy? Evolutiondidit. Promiscuity? Evolutiondidit. Rape? Evolutiondidit. Theism? Evolutiondidit. Atheism? Well…sure why not? Evolutiondidit. It is just great; the story telling possibilities are endless.

This time PZ Myers sat his adherents down and told them a story about morality in Morality doesn't equal God:

…First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless place where most things wouldn't mind killing you if you let them.
No one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder spree, and all that is stopping you is your self-interest (it is very destructive to your personal bliss to knock down your social support system) and the self-interest of others, who would try to stop you.
There is nothing 'out there' that imposes morality on you, other than local, temporary conditions, a lot of social enculturation, and probably a bit of genetic hardwiring that you've inherited from ancestors who lived under similar conditions.

This is what happens when a biologist makes the mistake of speaking on subjects which have nothing to do with his field of research.
First, there is no moral law and apparently the evidence is that the universe is a nasty, heartless place where most things wouldn't mind killing you if you let them:
I am not certain to which theology, epistemology or for that matter biology or cosmology he is appealing in order to draw a correlation from a “moral law” to an application of it to the universe and “most things.” The concept of a “moral law” does not take into consideration the explosion of supernovae, hurricanes, parasitic wasps, infectious bacteria, etc. They apply, by definition, to moral agents who have the capability to choose for or against.
Fine, let us restate the thought thusly, there is no moral law and apparently the evidence is that some human personages wouldn't mind killing you if you let them. Yet, this would say nothing about a moral law except that it functions according to free will; that people break the law does not mean that there is no law—is there no law against drunk driving simple because people do it anyway?

No one is compelled to be nice:
Yet, a law does not compel (to force) rather, a law prescribes. A law represents letters written upon a spirit—the spirit of the law is the parchment upon which the letter of the law is written.

you or anyone could go on a murder spree, and all that is stopping you is your self-interest (it is very destructive to your personal bliss to knock down your social support system) and the self-interest of others, who would try to stop you:
This is a, no less than frightening, window into the heart, mind, soul and worldview of PZ Myers. He has determined that there are two reasons that “you or anyone” (meaning all human beings) do not “go on a murder spree” as “all that is stopping you” is; 1) it would be like a major bummer dude, it would like totally destroy “your personal bliss” maaaaaaan and 2) someone might attempt to stop you which apparently implies that you could be hurt of incarcerated. Note that 1) assumes that I have a social support system or that I have one that I want to keep. In fact, many gangbangers commit murder in order to gain or replace a social support system—their gang.

This is a classic false dichotomy whereby the question would be posed “Why are you not going on a murder spree? Because your self-interest or your self-interest in not wanting to get hurt or caught?”

Sir, please speak for yourself. I do not go on a murder spree because 1) I do not want to murder anyone, 2) because I love people and empathize with even the most difficult of them, 3) because if I murder someone for something there surely are other doing the same and so murder does not solve anything, 4) because people need education and love more than they need to be murdered, 5) because they were created in God’s image, 6) because God loves them, etc.
Now, of course, while I would not murder anyone I would kill someone at the drop of a self-defense hat whilst protecting my family, for example.

It is shocking to learn that the only two reasons that PZ Myers is not going on murder sprees is because he is blissful and is afraid that he would get caught. What if, God forbid, he someday finds that his bliss has dulled, his social support system waned and he no longer cares about getting caught? In such a case 1) there is no moral law, 2) the universe is a nasty, heartless place, 3) no one is compelled to be nice, 4) you or anyone could go on a murder spree and 5) there is nothing “out there” that imposes morality on you but some abstract arbitrary social constructs based upon our ancestors figuring out at whom to fling their fecal excreta.

If you do good for good reason then when you do not do good you are violating the very premise upon which you base the very concept of goodness in the first place.
If you do good for no good reason then when you do not do good you are violating nothing at all.

PZ Myers withholds from murder for reasons that are arbitrary and tentative therefore…one shutters to think. More troubling still is that he takes a myopically parochial view of why he, personally, withholds from going on a murder sprees and applies it to “you or anyone” and it is because his atheistic-Darwinian-Myersian worldview calls for no other option.

Now, keep in mind what some of us have known all along when we grant such a view. PZ Myers states something to the likes of,

Christians have advocated slavery, have murdered people for the awful crime of miscegenation, have decreed that people who don’t have the kind of sex they prefer are second-class citizens. Christians are thieves, murderers, rapists, and jay-walkers…

What he is stating, at the very most, is that according to his self-interest which is the apparent bliss which he feels by besmirching Christians is based on local, temporary conditions, a lot of social enculturation, and probably a bit of genetic hardwiring that he inherited from his ancestors who lived under similar conditions.
Thus, the cosmically insignificant bio-organism known as “PZ Myers” has determined that his particular bio-chemically educed thought processes have lead him to personally prefer to call such actions “evil,” “wrong,” etc. and nothing more—nothing at all.
Do not think that he is joking when he, in part, describes his writings on his blog as “random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal.” Here ejaculations is employed according to the definition of a sudden short exclamation. He recognizes that he is merely a bio-organism responding in a self-interested way to local conditions and giving voice to bio-chemically induced collocations of matter.

Of course, this lack of murder due to self-interest makes perfect sense as per according to PZ Myer’s worldview the only option is Darwinian survival which amounts to self interest. But what is Darwinian-self-interest? What′a′ya′got?
Morality? Darwinian-self-interest. Immorality? Darwinian-self-interest. Good? Darwinian-self-interest. Evil? Darwinian-self-interest. “A” and not “B”? Darwinian-self-interest. Oh, now its “B” and not “A”? Darwinian-self-interest. Monogamy? Darwinian-self-interest. Promiscuity? Darwinian-self-interest. Rape? Darwinian-self-interest.
You name it.
Reciprocally and altruistically getting along with your neighbors? Darwinian-self-interest. Going on a murder spree, eating your neighbors and taking what they have? Darwinian-self-interest.

At least celebrity atheists agree and are consistent:
Richard Dawkins,

nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous—indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.[1]

…evil and suffering don’t count for anything, one way or the other, in the calculus of gene survival. Nevertheless, we do need to consider the problem of pain. Where, on the evolutionary view, does it come from? Pain, like everything else in life, we presume, is a Darwinian device, which functions to improve the sufferer’s survival.[2]

No wonder that when told (by Justin Brierley), “Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we've evolved five fingers rather than six.” Richard Dawkins answered, “You could say that, yeah.”

Dan Barker,

There is no moral interpreter in the cosmos, nothing cares and nobody cares...what happens to me or a piece of broccoli, it won’t [matter]. The Sun is going to explode, we’re all gonna be gone. No one’s gonna care.[3]

Since he believes that,

there are no action in and of themselves are always absolutely right or wrong. It depends on the context. You cannot name an action that is always, absolutely right or wrong, I can think of an exception in any case.[4]

He argues that even rape is not absolutely immoral.
He also states “Darwin has bequeathed what is good,” “abortion is a blessing” and that Jesus was “a moral monster.”

William Provine,

there is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans either.

And oh, by the way, don’t forget to me “nice” because they say so (in the manner of a non-sequitur).

[1] Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden – A Darwinian View of Life (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1995), p. 96
[2] Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth (New York, NY: Free Press, 2009), p. 393
[3] During his debate with Paul Manata
[4] During his debate with Peter Payne