Evolutionary Ethics
July 13th, 2007 by 
drunkentune
After speaking with believers for some time, I’m often asked So where does morality come from? Why be compelled to be good without belief in God? Some times the questioner is genuinely naïve and cannot understand how I can function without belief in a god; other times the questioner believes he has stumbled on a fatal flaw to my worldview: while I may have valid points about epistemology or faith, naturalism fails at explaining ethics.
Of course, I respond with: So you have me to believe that without belief in God, you would kill, rape, enslave and torture others with impunity? If so, please by all means continue to believe. But if not, sophistry doesn’t make an argument.
There are numerous other objections to the claim that belief in God or religion provides a foundation to morality that I won’t tear into (it’s likely we’ll hit into them in the comments section), but instead, I’d like to explain that I do have an answer (So where does morality come from?), and while it may not be satisfactory for some, I think it provides a basis for a naturalist system of ethics.
Radio Lab has provided a superb synthesis of several scientific explorations into morality. While I’m sure most have heard of these thought experiments before, the neuroscience behind them is brilliantly conveyed in only an hour. Of course, it’s only a brief overview of a hefty subject. You can hear an .mp3 of it here.
And while you’re at it, you didn’t hear it from me, but someone’s leaked The Atheist’s Bible (.pdf)!
Posted in ethics, naturalism | 
July 15th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Several years ago I read a great book called “Peace Child” about some missionaries who brought the gospel to stone age cannibals in the remote mountain valleys of New Guinea. One really funny anecdote was when the missionary family was sharing a big bowl of noodles they had cooked. A native was spying on them from outside the hut, and ran back to the others with the report that the white people ate human brains as a delicacy also!
It would appear that naturally speaking, our genus loves eating one another: http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human%20Nature%20S%201999/neanderthal_cannibalism_at_moula.htm . In fact, those guys seemed to eat more from their own kind than even the deer and goats they got. So, tell me that you have a naturally derived moral system, and I’ll tell you it is one or more steps derived from something only understood from divine revelation. If a purely naturally derived moral system is so great, I wonder why the author of “Peace Child” didn’t find a wonderfully moral group of people living in such spendid isolation?
July 15th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Ed. Nobody is claiming that genetic factors are the sole cause of ethics. Cultural conditioning also plays a big role (and is natural, as opposed to super-natural). Children (starting with certain genetic predispositions) also learn morality from their parents and their interactions with the culture at large. The study cited by drunkentune is purely about the genetic factors, but this in no way suggests that those factors operate to the exclusion of others.
July 15th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
So, demonstrate to me a human culture which attained high moral development in the absence of any belief in the supernatural and in isolation from significant influences from another culture that claimed supernaturalism.
Of course, cultural influences are critical, but my point is that they don’t seem to have done much apart from supernatural revelation to lift moral ideas. At best, they can serve as conduits for supernatural revelation to serve its role, and at worst they serve to pull us back down to barbarism. Today, there are 27 million people held as slaves http://www.iabolish.com/slavery_today/index.html . 200 years ago, when Wilberforce managed to get the slave trade abolished, there were 24 million, http://www.antislavery.org/2007/about.html#whynb .
July 15th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Ed,
(1) belief in the supernatural doesn’t make you more moral than me (the converse is true as well);
(2) thus, cultures that follow supernaturalism are not inherently more moral than cultures that follow naturalism;
(3) supernatural ‘revelation’ — divine command theory — is without justification and does not provide a moral system anyone is really willing to follow (we’ve been over this before. I have no need to detail how or why since we’re both familiar with arguments against it, but when I return, should I recap?);
(4) show your work. You’ve got the premise, now give the proof. Until you do, it’s just hot air, not an argument. As an analogue, it’s as if I said At best, supernaturalist ‘revelation’ can serve as a conduit for already existing, evolved systems of natural ethics, and at worst supernaturalism serves to pull us back down to barbarism. and ended it there. It’s the beginning of a thesis paper. Follow it up with the proof, such as fMRI studies of the brain. Like what Joshua Greene did.
(I’ll be out for two weeks as of now. I’m sure godma can keep you occupied, Ed. He sounds like a smart guy.)
July 16th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Don’t change the subject. I asked for one example of a human culture which ignored the existence of the supernatural and also developed a great moral system. You gave me some scientific bases upon which ethical behavior may be hypothesized to originate from our genetic endowment. So, show me one out of the thousands of human cultures that have developed that followed that wonderful course of a morally good philosophical naturalism that was not contaminated by religion.
It seems if you cannot, then my point would be that indeed, cultural influences are necessary to the development of a moral society. And, if our genetic endowment never seems to bring about great moral systems, then from whence do such systems emerge? The universal answer of history seems to be human spirituality as expressed via religion is the mechanism by which cultures understand morality. I’m not talking about atheists standing proudly on the smoldering ruins of religions that have served to “enlighten” them to the point of proclaiming religion unnecessary. I’m talking about any human tribe or people that were utterly free from religion, and developed this great moral system on their own. There are tens of thousands of years and six continents and hundreds of islands for you to choose from, just show me one.
July 16th, 2007 at 12:20 am
BTW, I happen to have had Joshua Green’s preceptor Jonathan Cohen as a professor in my residency training. The work he is doing sounds interesting, but is pretty narrowly defined for use in our discussion here. I don’t think either of us ought be surprised that there may be a biological signal from the working of the mind, whether on smelling a fart or considering a great moral choice. Comparative neurobiology among sociopathic people, normal controls, and great apes might help us understand the biology, but it won’t help us explain the history of the development of moral systems, for which degrees in comparative religion and anthropology are likely more useful
July 16th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Ed,
Honestly, I do not see how your argument is relevant. No one disputes that culture shapes the moral zeitgeist. Can you name me one culture — one — that was moral and didn’t believe that 1 + 1 = 2?
Now, does that mean that mathematics makes one moral? I think not. Mathematics and morality are likely to have emerged together, near the beginnings of humanity’s existence, and have continued to develop. The same can be said of religion and morality (Dan Dennett provides an excellent scientific timeline of the evolution of religion in his most recent book, Breaking the Spell).
That doesn’t make morality dependent on either mathematics or religion. If you’d like to respond to my points, I’ve got some time before I’m off.
July 16th, 2007 at 12:43 am
Ed,
Also, the history of developing moral systems is far different than morality. I’ve provided several sources that demonstrate that we can gradually build up (instead of learning from on high) a profound natural system of ethics that is the result of selective evolutionary pressures. Yet, it only provides a foundation for ethics and morality. It’s the beginning, not the end of morality; as I said in the post, ‘ it provides a basis for a naturalist system of ethics’. That was the intent of the post, where I responded to the claim So where does morality come from? Why be compelled to be good without belief in God?
July 16th, 2007 at 8:59 am
The history of developing moral systems seems highly pertinent to your topic: evolutionary ethics. So, come on, find some lost Atlantis or native tribe that came up with a strong moral system without any religion but a purely philosophical basis. If you cannot, then why should I be convinced that future evolution would have any predictability using a completely different philosophical and epistemological basis? You seem to be working against our biological basis in your proposal.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Ed,
If you cannot understand my analogy, I don’t know how we can continue. Can you think of any culture that developed a moral system without basic mathematics? If you cannot, that doesn’t mean that morality and mathematics are intertwined, only that they emerged around the same time because we’ve got large frontal lobes.
Now, I’m off.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Your analogy makes sense, but only proves that higher level reasoning powers are a necessary condition for development of morality. However, the prevailing content of religious systems interfaces with moral systems more than math does. In fact, when you ask most religious people the origins of their morality, they don’t mention quadratic equations, but some religious teaching.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Have a great two weeks away. I hope you find a great example for me, rather than more ways of changing the subject.
July 16th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
I have no examples of civilizations that arose without a belief in the supernatural, let alone whether they attained what you call “high moral development” (how would we judge such a thing, anyway?).
What can one reasonably infer from this? Surely (as drunkentune explained very well) not that morality, or any other cultural quality REQUIRES as a necessary precursor the belief in the supernatural. All we can infer is that supernaturalism was immensely popular for ancient humanity, not that it was actualy required for anything. Maybe there were other paths that would have lead to cultural rules of morality, but no culture took them. We’ll never know.
So maybe it actually was a required precursor. Maybe no culture could ever have attained the concept of morality without first passing through a “supernaturalism” phase. It’s certainly possible. But even if we could somehow know that supernaturalism is an actual pre-requisite to a culture developing standards of morality, even this wouldn’t come close to suggesting that supernaturalism continues to be an ongoing requirement. This supposed “ongoing requirement” is what drunkentune was addressing in the current post, not the mere “historical precursor requirement” that you allege.
Just because something is required as a precursor does not mean it’s required forever.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
1. When I have a discussion with another supernaturalist, like an Orthodox Jew, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Wiccan, or a Native American religionist, as a Christian I can relate to their moral systems and seek accommodation in our interactions. There is no reason why I cannot do the same with a philosophic naturalist or a materialist or utilitarian atheist. However, with any of them there are potential factors that forestall being able to work together: intolerance and disrespect.
2. When atheists assert that supernaturalism is no longer required the onus is on them to show that their novel ethical system works. Kohlberg and his coleagues tried to come up with a secular, rational system under ideal conditions (i.e. in mostly Western, civilized cultures) and failed. Show me one disciple of John Rawls who travelled to a tropical jungle and got cannibals to give up their dietary patterns, and I’d be more impressed. The communistic totalitarian states of the twentieth century tried the same thing, and we’ve buried them.
3. Atheists love to note that better educated people make up a greater percent of their ranks. Well, then, please, show me how your new secular, non-supernatural ethics system can work to turn around the lives of alcoholics, drug addicts, former criminals, prostitutes, and so on. When they can have testimonies like we hear all the time in the church, I’ll be impressed. Until that, your system may be fine for well educated rich people without addictions, but will lack the universal appeal of many religious moral systems.
4. There are many kinds of supernatural moral systems, and it is my view that some existed to serve as precursors to later advances. This is my view of Jewish-Christian partial accommodation to slavery in the until 1800 or so. Just because something is religious does not make it required, right, permanent, or respectable in my eyes. Mankind may make a great leap forward in morality in the twenty-first century based upon the high ethical/moral teachings of drunkentune, but in the twenty-second it could be ideas inpired from the Buddhist or Christian tradition. So, we may want to be careful, lest we throw away the baby with the bathwater. But there are plenty of both religious and atheistic teachings that are just smelly old bathwater.
July 16th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
When atheists assert that supernaturalism is no longer required the onus is on them to show that their novel ethical system works.
How can we measure this? What does “working” look like?
Maybe some cultures still need it more than others. I’d be willing to concede that supernaturalism might be advantageous (on balance) to certain cultures at certain times. That wouldn’t make it true, of course…
Does the (technically) secular government of U.S.A. not “work” for you? Why not?
But just to bring it back to the topic of the post…this was about the origin of man’s moral inclinations, not about what kinds of moral systems are most useful to a given society. What might be best for a given society has no bearing on the question of where morality comes from.
Are you changing the subject on purpose? As drunkentune said several comments back:
“the history of developing moral systems is far different than morality”.
Let’s get back on topic, because this track you’re on is irrelevant to the original point we started with.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
I love the USA, it works for me, I’m a member of the ACLU.
Now you are confusing me, “this was about the origin of man’s moral inclinations” and “the history of developing moral systems” are not relevant to one another? They certainly are. I’d posit that morality is about 10% inherited and 90% learned in the nature vs. nurture dichotomy. Looking at past human experience is one way of helping us sort this all out. It was drunkentune who kept trying to divert attention from the lack of non-supernatural moral systems in the past. You’ve been far more willing to acknowledge this factor, and I’d like to thank you from the bottom of my heart that you are willing to concede a value to supernatural belief at certain times and places. That seems far more than the other atheists on this blog have been willing to go, and reaffirms my hope that atheists can appreciate and respect my theism without believing it. After all, I appreciate and respect your atheism, while remaining a Christian.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:48 am
Thanks, Ed. In responding, let me just recap a couple of key points from this thread in the hope that it clears up where we crossed paths.
1.The thread started on the topic of what the foundation of morality is. In other words, what causes people (and some other animals) to act in a way that we interpret as moral?
2.Later on, you issued this challenge:
[…]demonstrate to me a human culture which attained high moral development in the absence of any belief in the supernatural and in isolation from significant influences from another culture that claimed supernaturalism.
My point in response is that you’re talking about something else here, of dubious relevance to the issue on the table. On the one hand (1) we have the question of what causes people to behave morally. But on the other hand (2) we have the question of why certain kinds of moral systems have predominated across culture historically. These are two different questions and can easily have different answers.
To confuse the answer to one for that of the other is to miss at least these specific distinctions:
1. The distinction between why we actually are moral and what stories people have historically come up with to explain their moral behavior. Of course, just because people have historically thought something is not itself evidence that this something is true.
2. The distinction between why individuals behave morally and why a society chooses to enshrine and enforce certain behaviors as moral and others as immoral. Societal leaders have their own reasons for wanting the people to follow certain rules, and society itself wants certain rules as well. These might very well be different from the personal moral inclinations of any individual.
I’d posit that morality is about 10% inherited and 90% learned in the nature vs. nurture dichotomy.
You didn’t leave room for the supernatural…or is that wrapped up in the “nurture”? Incidentally, I’d probably guess some breakdown like this as well…maybe 25/75, but I do think it’s mostly nurture anyway. So I’m curious…if you’re comfortable with a breakdown like this, then it seems that you should easily be able to imagine how morality can thrive in a secular culture, so long as it does a good job of the nurture part.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Did you have 3 points? I see your point, but would maintain that individual morality is very much a result of socialization into one’s culture. The construction/destruction of culture over time can help us understand our moral ideas. For example, my mother nearly starved during the Great Depression, so part of my moral training was that it is wrong to waste food. Now, I’ve got too much waist! So, drunkentune’s morality is much less an adult choice of philosophy than it is what was transmitted to him by his upbringing.
Sure, morality can thrive in a secular culture, in fact, I would guess that a truly free society with many religious and secular beliefs/traditions would be optimal. There is likely a greater borrowing and mutual challenge in a society with such competition of ideas of morality, so long as each group respects and tolerates the others, and good dialog occurs.
I do doubt that atheist belief systems will meet the needs of everyone in any given society. The communists tried it, and failed. Plus, as you’ve acknowledged, there is not an example of a society emerging in the past without supernaturalism as part of its belief system. If a godless moral utopia is possible, my advice is to let a few hundred thousand years pass, and see if it evolves naturally. And, good luck!
July 18th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Ed–”So, demonstrate to me a human culture which attained high moral development in the absence of any belief in the supernatural and in isolation from significant influences from another culture that claimed supernaturalism.”
I cannot think of a single culture who attained high moral development, with or without belief in gods or supernaturalism, can you? I don’t believe it’s possible to achieve. (I should point out that my definition in this instance of ‘high moral development’ means a society of Cleaver and Nelson family clones)
One would think that Adam and Eve should have been instilled by their creator with high moral development but it didn’t take them long to lose interest in the splendor of Eden and cast their lot with the snake and the forbidden tree. Then they became miserable examples as parents to their sons, one of whom became the first murderer. But this was several generations before Moses got the stone tablets with the laws, so who knew?
I think a majority of humans lead moral lives out of fear of retributions they are not willing to endure. Theists fear hell as punishment from their creator, atheists fear penalties enacted by the state for crimes again laws created by man. There are exceptions on both sides who think they have some sort of teflon shield which gives them authority to force their will on others though. I’d say our moral compass is not predisposed but is a learned cultural behavior we choose in order to live in relative harmony with others.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Hi, Infidel,
Actually, there has already been quite a bit of discussion about moral development in our ion from last December: http://philaletheia.thetruthtree.com/2006/12/18/the-ethics-of-pleasure/#comments . What I would add to your thinking is that morality seems like a learned cultural behavior, but seems different than some other learned cultural behaviors. For example, what is a perfect piece of music? Well, different cultures over history would have very different ideas, and even within our culture there are individual concepts of perfect music. Certainly, different cultures have different concepts of a perfect morality, as do individuals within cultures. But with morality, there is an abiding sense that no one I know, including myself, has come close to perfection, nor has any culture. Certain mythical (or historical if you accept the gospel record as accurate) figure(s) we read about can possess perfect morality, so there seems to be an elusive perfection out there. And that, I believe, is the prevailing attraction to Christianity (and to a lesser extent, other religions). I think drunkentune is trying to say that perhaps an atheistic philosophy might be able to define such a perfection in the absence of religion. I say good luck, perhaps this can be done in a theoretical manner, but the proof is in its appeal to humanity in general. Because no one moves along Kohlberg’s stages (see above link) unless challenged and engaged by experiences, which religion does effectively to great varieties of people. And, I would argue Christianity does best when applied as it ought be applied.
July 20th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
But with morality, there is an abiding sense that no one I know, including myself, has come close to perfection, nor has any culture.
But the same thing seems true with respect to music (or anything else)? I don’t see how morality is special in this way. I certainly don’t feel a sense that we’ve come close to attaining the perfect work of art, music, or engineering, etc.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
My point about perfection in these realms is that there seems an objective, universal ideal in the realm of morality. In contrast, the concept of perfection in the other areas you mentioned seem always subjective. For example, Handel’s Messiah is nearly perfect to me. But to a Chinese person, it may seem quite far from perfect. However, I would not deem the Chinese person any less a judge of music. Her judgment of a piece of music from her culture being next to perfect would be subjectively valid for her. Not so for morality.
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:11 pm
there seems an objective, universal ideal in the realm of morality.
I see your point that human standards of morality are more similar across cultures than their aesthetic standards are. However, it’s incorrect to infer from this a universal, objective moral standard that exists independent of humanity. All you can say is that certain moral inclinations tend to span cultures. Human nature is far from infallible, and even when it happens to be correct, it’s wrong to jump to the conclusion that this applies anywhere other than within the context of humanity’s unique history.
For example, there are certainly lots of common human intuitions that we know for a fact are false.
Take the fact that all humans see colors only within the same narrow range of wavelengths of light. Our intuition would tell us that this narrow band of colors comprise an objective, universal ideal of some sort. But in this case we now know this is false. Evolutionary pressures just didn’t favor eyes (for our ancestors) that could see outside this color range.
Same goes for our moral inclinations. What indication is there that these are not also embedded in and relative to the human condition as much as any other common human tendency?
July 27th, 2007 at 11:09 am
The indication is that moral ideas are changing far more rapidly than other biological features in human beings. For example, when we get enough samples of extinct homo or austrolopethecines to get DNA, I’d be shocked to discover they could see electromagnetic waves out of the spectrum we see.
On the other hand, we see this: those buggers ate each other, apparently with great frequency. A few thousand years ago, our most recent, genetically similar humans began to bury their dead with artifacts for an afterlife. Then, more elaborate conceptions of religion resulted in all kinds of temples, pyramids, and elaborate social structures. But, still, much immorality of cannabalism and killing innocents persisted. Finally, a new religion emerged that now spans the globe, and whose teachings (when applied) demand we stop eating each other and live in peace. Its tenets can be understood by a child, but provide lifelong study for an academic. And, while a few of its followers have come to approach an objective moral goodness, its main utility has been in lifting many boats from the mucky swamp of barbarism than an elite few to the clouds. It may not be the only religion to do this, but so far, there seem only a handful that appeal widely, and no atheistic philosophy has yet to show such widespread efficacy.
A modern day atheist has had the advantage of being socialized as a child by a society that has been constructed on this foundation. So, when this atheist insists their morality is from their own choice of some philosophy, I say it is only partly that choice that defines their morality. Just as my choice to be called a Christian only partly defines mine. There are many influences upon my moral choices that are not derived from my religion, just as some of yours may derive from my religion, even if you don’t recognize their origin.
July 27th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Agreed. But that doesn’t indicate anything objective about the moral code.
Also, there’s a distinction to be made between
1) how certain moral standards came to be
and
2) how we justify and evaluate continued adherence to a given set of moral standards
It might very well be the case that our culture’s collective sense of morality was influenced by Christianity. I don’t have a problem with that. Likewise, Christianity was influenced by other moral systems.
But when an atheist says they are moral not because of God but because of their own reasoning, they are probably not talking about where the origin of these cultural standards of morality came from. Rather, they are talking about how they justify their own moral standards and what guides them in making adjustments to those standards.
I suspect you are confusing or conflating the two.
July 27th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Nope, no confusion here.
Your atheist saying they are moral and are ignoring the origins of that moral sense reminds me of a kid with blue stains all around his mouth. His mom says, “Have you snuck a piece of that blueberry pie I made for tonight’s dessert?” His reply, “Can I go out to play?”
In other words, the two aspects, origin and current justification/adaptation are so interwoven, that to attempt to separate them is nonsensical. It is like trying to understand why I continue to speak English everyday. I certainly choose to speak it, and I modify my use of it, even as it is slowly modified by the larger society, but I cannot ignore its origins. Even my accent gives away where I lived as a child!
We’ve had a discussion about whether there are objective moral laws in the last segment, but it seemed drunkentune was saying the opposite of your position. His main emphasis seemed to be on attacking Christianity as not possessing these absolute, objective moral attributes rather than arguing against their existence. So, it seems there is disagreement between the two of you on this issue. Rather than going over the Christian perspective on absolute moral law, which you are likely familiar with, why not have a discussion with him when he is back on why his philosophy of atheism is distinct from yours.
July 28th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
I’ve returned and am comfortable speaking with godma on whatever topic he chooses. However, the differences between two atheists when it comes to anything other than atheism is quite large, but has little to do with nonbelief. He may be white, I may be black; he may be liberal, I may be conservative. Or not. Perhaps he and I do agree on most everything, but choose a different nomenclature. Perhaps not. But it doesn’t interest me much.
(1) There are objective truths (we may not just know them yet), thus I think that some cultures are objectively better than others — the culture of ancient Greece (and what we take ancient Greece to stand for) is demonstrably better than the culture of the Goths (and what the barbarians stand for). We can always do better, though.
(2) During our last discussion, I believe the point was that Christianity claims knowledge an an absolute, objective moral system; however, if there is an absolute moral system, Christianity isn’t it: it is self-contradictory on several points (I explained one of these) and does not coalesce with much of the scientific enterprise.
(3)
We are all a product of our genes and culture. But is that a veiled threat of selective determinism I hear? Cannot I say ‘A modern day Christian has had the advantage of growing up in the light of many a freethinking philosopher, such as John Locke, Voltare, or Diderot. So, when the Christian says his morality comes from his faith, I say it is only partly true!’
Oh, the banality!
July 29th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Here you go, Ed. This is from the NPR series, “This I Believe” where contributors submit affirmative essays on this subject for consideration. The featured essay in this clip is entitled “There Is No God” by Penn Jillette (Via NPR)
[listen to this in his own words here *wmp]
July 29th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Oops! I have a terrible time getting my links cut and pasted from one place to another. Here’s the full text of the essay:
“I believe that there is no God. I’m beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy — you can’t prove a negative, so there’s no work to do. You can’t prove that there isn’t an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word “elephant” includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?
So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power. All the people I write e-mails to often are still stuck at this searching stage. The atheism part is easy.
But, this “This I Believe” thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life’s big picture, some rules to live by. So, I’m saying, “This I believe: I believe there is no God.”
Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I’m not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it’s everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I’m raising now is enough that I don’t need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.
Believing there’s no God means I can’t really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That’s good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.
Believing there’s no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I’m wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don’t travel in circles where people say, “I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith.” That’s just a long-winded religious way to say, “shut up,” or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, “How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do.” So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that’s always fun. It means I’m learning something.
Believing there is no God means the suffering I’ve seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn’t caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn’t bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.
Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.”
July 29th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Welcome back, drunkentune!
Ed,
In other words, the two aspects, origin and current justification/adaptation are so interwoven, that to attempt to separate them is nonsensical. It is like trying to understand why I continue to speak English everyday. I certainly choose to speak it, and I modify my use of it, even as it is slowly modified by the larger society, but I cannot ignore its origins.
I’m not asking you to ignore the question of origins. I’m just saying that it is a different question from that of justification.
I agree that the two are interwoven…that the historical origins of a tradition influence many people’s later justification for continuing that tradition. That is all perfectly fine, but my point is that, although they are interwoven, they are not the same. People are perfectly free to justify their traditional behaviors on something other than tradition. They do it all the time.
That’s my point.
July 30th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Thanks for that essay Infidel, that was a wonderful read.
July 30th, 2007 at 11:34 am
“I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.” So, what of my daughter with Down Syndrome? Do I tell her she’s lost the lottery?
The problem with the optimism of such essays is they are easy to write when the sky is blue. But what if you are the family of Pat F-ing Tillman? What if life is characterized by senseless suffering? Sorry, most people hold up better in adversity with hope for an afterlife. For example, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_3-4_40/ai_54710020 . Also, the two people I’ve known who had near-death experiences had absolutely no fear of adversity or death: they were convinced of a better day. Indeed, the twelve apostles showed no fear of punishment, hardship, or death, since they were witnesses of the resurrection. The other aspect of this relates to morality: they stood by their moral code, refusing to tell a temporary “white lie” to save their skins. What aspect of an atheist’s moral code would adhere to such a standard? If you were unjustly imprisoned and threatened with death by an inquisitor, what would keep you from telling a white lie like “I love God” to be set free and get away? I mean, you only have one life, why not tell a lie for a day, and gain years?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
So, what of my daughter with Down Syndrome? Do I tell her she’s lost the lottery?
Depends on whether she’d benefit from hearing it or not. I certainly don’t think she won the lottery, but there are certainly worse genetic outcomes than Down Syndrome, right? She came in nearly first, by the fact that she’s human. But most humans are genetically ahead of her.
most people hold up better in adversity with hope for an afterlife.
Perhaps, but that doesn’t even begin to argue for the actual existence of an afterlife. Plus, it ignores all the negative effects of religious faith…including that it promotes the unwavering belief in falsities.
Just what was your point in writing this - to argue that religion has some benefits? I don’t think anyone here is contradicting that.
If you were unjustly imprisoned and threatened with death by an inquisitor, what would keep you from telling a white lie like “I love God†to be set free and get away?
Nothing. I would lie to get away. No question.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
godma,
The more interesting question to me would be if living in a dystopian, vile, atheistic future — something we’d expect to see without religion to bind us together(!), Ed would deny the existence of God to the inquisitor.
So many martyrs took that path: willing to die for their beliefs (there are secular analogues, of course; those willing to die for Democracy, or Freedom, or Justice, or the Party, or other abstractions), but many more throughout history were willing to kill for them.
Would we kill for our beliefs?
I know I wouldn’t.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:24 pm
I’m not going to jump into the comment debate, but I just wanted to say I finally downloaded the podcast the other day and listened to it this morning, and wow! Thanks for this.
Though I will say that personally I’m perhaps most interested in the subjective end of ethical inquiry — issues surrounding how we as people pay or don’t pay attention to the “inner chimp” vs. the “accountants,” etc. and sort it all out — as opposed to the objective/scientific end that the show focused on, but they’re both equally important.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:16 pm
None of us can now deny the existence of a God: the Republican National Convention of 2008 is scheduled for Minneapolis-St. Paul. Why, of all the rickety bridges from neglect of the infrastructure by the main ruling party of the past 27 years did the bridge collapse on the doorstep of the RNC? There can be only one answer