Trying again--why is God silent?

[Bluegoat]

You can be an ethical materialist.

 

A materialist society can be an ethical society.

 

Religion does not have a monopoly on ethics.

 

Well, but the question is really, what does that look like?  Calling things religion or non-religion or is less than useful I think, it actually obscures the question - no one is simply "non-religious" or simply a theist or atheist.  Unless they are signularly dull, people have a worldview, how the think reality hangs together.

 

Any worldview can have what we might call an ethics or a morality, a right way to behave or right willing based on the nature of things.  But we have to look at our particular view of reality and see what ethics come out of it.

 

When people say there is no such thing as a concept of the good or justice apart from physical reality, which tends to be the position that materialism is logically forced to take, it is very difficult to say that materialst ethics will be one that demands justice or fairness, or that it values the "personhood" of all people.

 

When people say materialism or atheism is immoral, what they mean to say I think is that the ethical principles that would logically come out of it are ones that most people would find immoral. 

 

In my experience, it is quite unusual that people who want to adhere to a materialist reality are willing to give up all of the moral principles that would come out of immaterial concepts such as justice.  Quite a few tend to identify with progressive values that are very dependant on those ideas.  And the question of how they reconcile those things tend, quite wrongly I think, to be dismissed rather than really examined or refuted.

[Free]

This is what I'm wondering.  What does this look like?  What does growing up mean?  How do we determine what is meaningful and beneficial?  Is it no pain? Is it no death?  Is it the flourishing of the largest group at the expense of the fewest?  How do we determine who should "pay" for this flourishing?  Can we come up with a system where there is no suffering at all?  When it sometimes seems that suffering produces growth in character and understanding, do we want to eliminate it altogether?  What parameters do we use?  Are all laws up for a democratic vote?  What is assumed at the beginning that is non-negotiable?  Why would there be non-negotiables?  "Accountability is a good thing."  Accountability to who or what?  

 

I understand the appeal of an objective standard which defines good/bad , right and wrong. Things would be so much more simpler if we could reduce decisions to right / wrong questions on a checklist. But I wonder if such a standard by the very nature of its inflexibility won't end up more immoral than a system that is more subjective and nuanced and will take into account the circumstances surrounding the question for which the answer is sought. In fact I am pretty convinced, going on the evidence from various world religions, that dogmatic adherance to any set of rules results in more harm than good.

 

Further more, if there exists an unambiguous and clear set of parameters that can define right/wrong, good/bad I reject that those parameters can be found in any of our current world religions. Else we would not have needed to wait until 1893 for women to get a right to vote, or until 1967 to see an end to miscegenation laws in the US or as recently as 1991 to see an end to Apartheid in South Africa.

 

I would not be surprised if a hundred years from now, the people from the future look back at us as an example of a primitive immoral society which would not grant equal rights to LGBT.

 

It is interesting that two answers contradict each other.  One says higher ideals can only be achieved by throwing off superstitious religious beliefs and another says that higher ideals are merely a construct of religion.  If higher ideals exist, then there is something outside of ourselves that we are responsible to live in obedience to.  If higher ideals do not exist, then there is nothing to move towards and therefore all actions are ultimately meaningless. 

 

I think you misunderstand me. I did not say higher ideals are a construct of religion, but rather they are a construct of men. We value ideals such as compassion, love, freedom and equality and we seek to live up to these ideals, but these ideals did not come to us from some divine being. We arrived at them through our collective experiences.

 

I would like to recommend a wonderful wonderful TED animation of a socratic discussion between Steven Pinker and Rebecca Goldstein on the moral progression of human societies. Highly recommended.

 

https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_and_rebecca_newberger_goldstein_the_long_reach_of_reason

[Cricket]

That would assume that civil disobedience in modern Europe always ends badly. As an example in my lifetime: the protests against the 'poll tax' in the UK led to the repeal of the law and, ultimately the downfall of the government.

 

I am still concerned that you think atheists do not have consciences. I'm thinking that this may be a terminology difference: for me, a conscience is not a god-given thing, but rather a social construct formed by upbringing and societal pressure. Yes, atheists feel guilt. I was brought up without a god, as were my children. We definitely feel guilty when we have transgressed the golden rule and its outreach.

I know atheists have consciences. We all do! And I agree that our consciences can be developed. But what principles do we use to develop the conscience? We are still left with the problem that right and wrong can only be subjective and no right or wrong can ever be universal. We are left with the idea that the ultimate authority in what is right and wrong is popular opinion in democratic societies or whatever governing force that exists and can never be more than that. By what authority can we tell someone they are wrong?

[Χά�ων]

I know atheists have consciences. We all do! And I agree that our consciences can be developed. But what principles do we use to develop the conscience? We are still left with the problem that right and wrong can only be subjective and no right or wrong can ever be universal. We are left with the idea that the ultimate authority in what is right and wrong is popular opinion in democratic societies or whatever governing force that exists and can never be more than that. By what authority can we tell someone they are wrong?

The bolded has always baffled me. I have raised my son without ever telling him what he is doing is wrong by any external standards. Actually, as a parent I feel I would be a failure if they only reason my child grew up to be nice to others was because of external forces. My goal has been to raise a child with a strong internal moral compass that has a strong foundation built on empathy and compassion.

 

 

Example:

At a McDonalds playplace when DS was 6

DS and another child are playing. Another child wants to play. DS says "No, we are playing".

I call to DS and ask to come over so I can speak to him.

Me "How would you feel if you were that child and someone says that to you?"

DS reflects and goes over and invites the child to play. 

 

Lather rinse repeat as needed. No need for anger. No need for punitive interventions.

 

No shaming

No external force

Empathy

 

Was it instant? No. 

 

Would it have been faster to just have a hard and fast rule to include? Only in the short run. 

 

Some kids need more help than others. Mine internalized empathy for others at a young age but that has a lot to do with his natural personality and temperament. Other kids may take longer and that is ok because they are young. 

I would not be surprised if a hundred years from now, the people from the future look back at us as an example of a primitive immoral society which would not grant equal rights to LGBT.

 

 

And, a hundred years in the future, Christians will take credit for having worked to secure LGBT rights, because of that one Episcopalian bishop.

[albeto.]

I wish I could figure out the way to break up a quote.   :glare:

 

Copy the entire quote. Paste. The software allows something like ten quotes, but I'm not positive. Delete the words you aren't replying to.

 

I don't really understand how higher/lower or more/less are different.  If we are determining one behavior to be more ethical than another, we are comparing and contrasting with a concrete idea of what is ethical behavior, aren't we?  Or are we only comparing and contrasting with the two behaviors?  But then we still have to know what end of the spectrum we are placing the behaviors: to the more ethical end or the less ethical end. So we still have to start with an idea of what is ethical.  That's what I meant by reasoning from point A to point B.  We can't get to the conclusion (point B) of what is more ethical if we don't start from point A (what ethical actually is).  If our idea of ethical is the well-being of an individual, then the door is wide open to all kinds of behaviors that are not in the interest of someone else's well-being.  (Not that all behavior benefiting one inevitably harms another, but some kinds of behavior are at the expense of others.  Are those behaviors unacceptable from the beginning of deliberation?)

 

You can no more determine ethical behavior with precision than you can morality, but that doesn't mean you have nothing to go on, or even very little. Have you ever noticed that what seems the moral option in one circumstance isn't so in another? We face many such problems in life. There is no concrete state of healthy, but we know which behavior is healthier than another when compared side by side. There is no concrete state of polite, but we know which behavior is more polite than another when compared side by side. Ethical behavior works the same way. When given an option to behave, one chooses the more ethical behavior over the less.

 

Determining which behavior is more ethical given a choice is similar to determining which behavior is more healthy given a choice. You recognize what kind of goal "healthy" promotes, then work towards it. There exist such goals with regard to ethical behavior. I agree with Harris in that referencing one's well-being, physically, emotionally, and mentally are good standards by which we can gauge our decisions. If a choice brings pain or distress to another person without justification, it is not as ethical as one that does not bring pain or distress. Calling you a stinkin' rotten potato might create some measure of emotional upset for you. It would be difficult to justify this behavior. Suggesting religion is ultimately magical thinking and thus is based on an irrational, delusional belief system may create some measure of emotional upset, but in the context of discussing the mechanics or merits of religion, it's justified in that it is a factual statement that can be argued objectively, doesn't relate to anything about you as a person, your value or your character, and provides some measure of emotional comfort to those who suspect such a thing but never felt confident enough to really analyze it (that whole conditioning thing - which is unethical when it amounts to brainwashing through fear). Besides, censorship for the sake of emotional sensitivity isn't logical. Information is no good if it's not known, and by whose standard of sensitivity do we decide what is appropriate? In the context of asking what science curriculum is better, this Christian one or that Christian one, the argument would be less justifiable (or less tolerable) in this community, but conversations like this or similar ones, the potential emotional distress is arguably justified. 

 

I suspect this is why most Christians stop reading threads like this by now. Hearing certain arguments might cause one to doubt her faith, and doubting faith can create even more emotional distress. But then, if a religions's strongest argument is, "Do what we say [maintain this belief] and you won't get hurt," then how ethical is that, really? Is it not more ethical to challenge an unethical, immoral bully and lend support to the victim? 

 

Re: selfish gene, if altruism is simply a genetically-based behavior, then by what reasoning do we extrapolate that into a way of life?  That's kind of what I was asking with overriding their biology.  If people are acting in a non-altruistic way, then are they acting in a way that violates their biology or is their biology just screwed up?  Why were early civilizations so barbaric according to our standards?  Were they suppressing their biology?  Why would they do that?  Wouldn't biology eventually triumph over thought?  Has it taken 200,000 years for biology to win? 

 

I don't think any behavior is simply explained. Altruism is a biologically driven instinct, but so to is self preservation. This creates a conflict of interest in the same body, and certainly in a single community. Religion explains this tension as the result of an invisible force called "sin." The problem with this explanation is that there is no evidence for such a force, and indeed, there is no accepted definition of the thing from which to begin research. The only definitions offered refer to another variable that is totally out of reach of science, God. So right there we've got an explanation that doesn't have any means by which to test for accuracy, presents no evidence, and falls apart when argued logically, and is immune from any accountability. There exists no reality check. Science offers another explanation, one that is based on data and constantly reassessed, explored, researched, analyzed, and researched some more. The frontal cortex of the brain is responsible for making split second decisions based on variables we don't even consider when contemplating choices. Such variables include emotions, memories of past events and those assigned emotions, pattern recognition and prediction of likely outcome, internal pressures such as heart rate, oxygen levels, and countless other variables. Simply explained, the brain weighs pleasure against pain and chooses to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Because we can see patterns and predict likely outcomes and think critically about the future, we learn that by suppressing immediate pleasures, or even tolerating some measure of pain, we may experience greater satisfaction in time. So this conflict is ongoing, in each one of us, in each one of our families (personally, I think this explains teen conflict in families), and in our communities, immediate and national. 

 

Biology drives these things, but don't forget our minds are driven by biology, too. What we feel, what we think, what we hope for, and what we fear are all driven by biology. The mind is a construct of the brain, and the brain is a biological organ. We know that damage to the brain can alter the mind. Certain damage eliminates the ability to resist certain temptations, for example. I watched one documentary about three people who suffered some kind of brain damage and survived, but their personalities were permanently changed. One man was compelled to paint, another compelled to play piano. One woman was compelled to have sex. The men lost their jobs and ultimately their families. The woman's husband stayed near by to keep her out of trouble because she couldn't go to the corner market without finding someone who would accept her invitation. In any other way, each person was still the same as they ever were, but these particular impulses were now impossible to suppress. We're just now learning how to uncover the mystery of the mind, but there should be no reason to expect this one organ is any different from all our other biological organs - designed to perform certain jobs as evolution steered them to.

 

There's no "win" with biology. Did the slug "win" because it evolved the way in which it did? What about the humble nautilus? Did it "loose" because its form has undergone very little change in the last umpteen million years? Biology simply is. Evolution is simply a series of cause and effect in biology over long periods of time. 

 

 If we were less understanding of biology in our beginnings as a human race, why were we so able to use our wills and minds to overcome our biology and act in more non-altruistic ways than we supposedly do now?  Are we more willing to conform our minds to our biology since we understand more how biology works?  Were we significantly different genetically-wise from, say, the ancient Sumerians?  

 

We didn't "overcome our biology." How does that even work? Biology is the study of living organisms on the planet, and we are living organisms. To what would we evolve after biology? 

 

Conditions in ancient Sumeria are not present in modern day New York City, so our solutions will reflect the problems we face today. We are not, as I understand, significantly genetically different from our ancient Sumerian ancestors, and therein lies one major problem with the Christian religion (as well as the Jewish and Muslim). The religion was developed in a different culture, under completely different circumstances, with different needs in mind. To apply that today is problematic, and by applying these religious values today, we create unjustifiable [and avoidable!] problems that do in very concrete ways, undermine the well-being of many, many people (entire populations, an entire gender, all children). 

[Laura Corin]

I know atheists have consciences. We all do! And I agree that our consciences can be developed. But what principles do we use to develop the conscience? We are still left with the problem that right and wrong can only be subjective and no right or wrong can ever be universal. We are left with the idea that the ultimate authority in what is right and wrong is popular opinion in democratic societies or whatever governing force that exists and can never be more than that. By what authority can we tell someone they are wrong?

 

As I said: the golden rule.  It's common to many (most?) religions and societies.  

 

I went into more detail about how to raise a moral atheist in this post.

[Free]

I know atheists have consciences. We all do! And I agree that our consciences can be developed. But what principles do we use to develop the conscience? We are still left with the problem that right and wrong can only be subjective and no right or wrong can ever be universal. We are left with the idea that the ultimate authority in what is right and wrong is popular opinion in democratic societies or whatever governing force that exists and can never be more than that. By what authority can we tell someone they are wrong?

 

What principles do you suggest we should use to inform ourselves whether something is right or wrong? I suppose we could use principles from an ancient book but how do we know the principles therein are sound?

 

[Frances]

What principles do you suggest we should use to inform ourselves whether something is right or wrong? I suppose we could use principles from an ancient book but how do we know the principles therein are sound?

 

And which principles in such an ancient book are agreed upon by all believers of the religion based on the ancient book?

[Free]

You might say justice is real within you, or within your social group, though how you would define it might well be a problem.  But you could certianly could not claim any kind of universal applicability that applies in a more general way.  If another society or person thought that it was right and just or useful to euthanize infants with disabilities, or oppress a particular group (women, lower classes) you could really make no moral argument against that - their "morality" would be as real and valid as yours.  Any sort of disgust or emotion you felt about that would be no indication of anything but your own physiological responses.

 

There can, I think, be a kind of utilitarian ethics brought out of a system like this.  But typically it isn't one that most people who want to identify with this partclar way of thinking would really like.  There is no intrinsic value in fairness, in the brotherhood of all people, in equality.  These might or might not be useful to a society or within a group, but the question is utilitarian, not about justice. It is clearly good for those likely to be opressed to believe it is useful to be fair.  But then there is no clear reason we should care about them any more than about a weak individual cut out the herd to make it stronger - especially if they might be competing with ourselves and our blood relatives for resources.

 

Why should materialism necessarily lead one to conclude that there are no universally applicable human values?

[Bluegoat]

You can be an ethical materialist.

 

A materialist society can be an ethical society.

 

Religion does not have a monopoly on ethics.

 

Well, but the question is really, what does that look like?  Calling things religion or non-religion or is less than useful I think, it actually obscures the question - no one is simply "non-religious" or simply a theist or atheist.  Unless they are signularly dull, people have a worldview, how the think reality hangs together.

 

Any worldview can have what we might call an ethics or a morality, a right way to behave or right willing based on the nature of things.  But we have to look at our particular view of reality and see what ethics come out of it.

 

When people say there is no such thing as a concept of the good or justice apart from physical reality, which tends to be the position that materialism is logically forced to take, it is very difficult to say that materialst ethics will be one that demands justice or fairness, or that it values the "personhood" of all people.

 

When people say materialism or atheism is immoral, what they mean to say I think is that the ethical principles that would logically come out of it are ones that most people would find immoral. 

 

In my experience, it is quite unusual that people who want to adhere to a materialist reality are willing to give up all of the moral principles that would come out of immaterial concepts such as justice.  Quite a few tend to identify with progressive values that are very dependant on those ideas.  And the question of how they reconcile those things tend, quite wrongly I think, to be dismissed rather than really examined or refuted.

[Bluegoat]

Why should materialism necessarily lead one to conclude that there are no universally applicable human values?

 

For the same reason it leads materialists to conclude there are no gods.  Show me evidence of a "value". 

 

The ancient Platonists called god The Good - that is, a universal, a first principle, which is above all other material and non-material things - it is what all these other things derive their nature from and it is what holds them together. Because it is logically prior to everything that exists and they are dependant, it can provide a universal principle.

 

In materialism, if they allow for a first principle at all, it is generally stripped of moral qualities.  With the idea that moral principles can arise within individuals, which was the specific claim in this case, the main problem is that no idea that comes out of one person or even a whole community determines or has any necessary logical hold on any other person or community.  If the nature of the universe is that X is good, well, that is going to be a universal value.  But the fact that I think X is good does not make it a universal value for all - how could it?  Other people and humanity are in no way dependant on any sort of ideas I create.

 

The only universal values you could come up with in a materialist construct would be the ones evident in the natural world - things like scientific laws.  They might in some cases seem to include things that look like values - say, cooperation, truthfulness, justice - but it would also include things like competing for resources and war and survial of the fittest.  Any strategy that proved an effective one for survival of your genetic material over the long term.  And there is nothing to say that the limits of "your" has to be the human race.  Nature plays no favorites among or within species. 

[Matryoshka]

Why should materialism necessarily lead one to conclude that there are no universally applicable human values?

 

What I'm trying to understand now is how materialism has anything to do with atheism or theism or anything.  We live in a horribly materialistic society.  Most of the people leading the charge (lobbyists, the senators and congressmen who they pay off, the people running the corporations, writing the ads aimed at our kids screaming consumption, consumption). 

 

I don't think they're all atheists.  Quite to the contrary, in fact.  And I see lots of people using religion to excuse horrible behavior, not prevent it. 

 

I'm not a full-on atheist, but I don't look to a 'higher power' or authority or book to tell me right from wrong.  I might read things others have thought.  But what resonates with me has nothing to do with feeling like someone ordered me to, or being worried about 'salvation'.

 

Buddhism is a very peaceful philosophy that has not run around killing people to convert them or starting wars, and among its highest principles are alleviating suffering and denying material things.  And it has no God or higher power to answer to.

[Free]

When people say materialism or atheism is immoral, what they mean to say I think is that the ethical principles that would logically come out of it are ones that most people would find immoral.

 

We work with what we have. That's an "ism" called Pragmatism. It may not be perfect but it sure is better than basing our entire beliefs and values on an imaginary entity just so that we can feel good about our moral absolutism.

[Bluegoat]

Morality is a matter of socially acceptable behaviors. Humans, like other animals, are innately drawn to certain behaviors, including pleasing and trusting our care-givers as children, and taking care of our young as adults. This isn't limited to humans, or even primates. We don't plan it, we are instinctively driven to it, and evolutionary biology offers explanations for various details. Morality looks different in different cultures because different events inspire different socially accepted behaviors. It's one reason the bible is so morally bankrupt today - it promotes a morality that was perfectly acceptable thousands of years ago in a vastly different culture (ie, Might Makes Right). Many of these moral codes are no longer acceptable to us, and are in fact boldly considered immoral (ie, human trafficking). 

 

To answer your question about why morals matter, it's because humans are social creatures. One of the evolutionary advantages for social creatures is working together to protect the community and necessary resource that support the community. Because we have developed the capacity to see patterns, make predictions, think critically, and communicate with each other, the ways in which we've developed cooperation is complex and intricate. But it's not mysterious. I would suggest reading the Selfish Gene by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins for an explanation supported by data for those curious about a natural explanation for these questions and curiosities. 

 

 

Moral principles grow out of social needs and biological drives. This explains why the moral concepts surrounding the allocation of resources looks different in a small village with indigenous people in Peru than it does in a large, ancient city in China, or Israel 4000 years ago from Lapland today. It also explains why different religions develop different moral codes, but all reference the same general, instinctive social drives, like fairness, protection, and some kind of social order. Why do you suggest materialists cannot look to the fabric of reality to give us morals? What does that mean, "the fabric of reality"? What else would materialists reference if not that which is real? 

 

 

Atheism is no more a moral philosophy than non-alchemy is a moral philosophy. Or to put it more clearly, atheism is no more a philosophy or belief than bald is a hair style. Your posts suggests a misunderstanding of what atheism is, how it might inspire one's philosophy, and have no idea what you're talking about with a moral problem for materialists. What problem do I have precisely? 

 

This "atheism isn't a philosophy is't a negative statement" stuff is bogus, and no, that is not a misunderstanding on my part.  Atheism is a general designation which describes a range of worldviews, just like theism is.  Some of them are related closely, some have little in common.  But they absolutly are making a positive statement about the nature of reality, that the universe operates in a particular way, that meaning will exists in such a system in a particular way.  And if you want to say that atheists can have morals without being irrationals, then you had better think it is possible to derive a moral system from a reality in at least some atheist worldviews. 

 

Honestly it drives me absolutly nuts that people say "atheism isn't a philosophy" and then go on to talk about theism as if it is any less a general catagory, or even worse tar "theism" with the bad aspects of every particular theistic religion or individual (and often even the non-theistic ones) while saying that atheism has no intrinsic relationship to the evil perpetrated based on actual atheistic worldviews.  It's nothing but sloppy thinking and really sloppy use of language and sloppy reading of the history of philosophy. 

 

On another note: The idea that we can derive an objective morality, one we can use to measure others,  based on our feelings about what is right or makes us feel good is not, I think, very robust.  Yes, working in a society that is sucessful can feel rewarding, caring for our children feels rewarding, having a fair justice system can even help have a society that is harmonious and can put a lot of energy into other things.

 

By the same token, all kinds of other behaviors are quite natural and pleasurable  o human beings and can also bring sucess to the   individuals and families and cultures that practice them.  Genocide can actually be a pretty effective way of having your relatives and social groups prevail over others.  Gang rape of defeated soldiers has historically been a pretty consistant part of human warfare. Unfaithfulness in marriage can be very beneficial, biologically speaking, for both men and women. I am pretty sure any reasonably literate person can fill in more.  Many of these behaviors not only feel good and right to people, they can be effective biological strategies.

 

There really is no basis in an ethical system like his to say - my communities feelings about rape in war are more right than your communities feelings about it. 

 

And you know, I don't see any great numbers of people following through on the logic of these things.  I don't even generally see them saying - oh well, we will call genocide a war crime because we think that it is a better human evolutionary strategy to not allow it to happen.  And obviously many people feel it is quite ok, we can't realistically claim that it has been universally and everywhere reviled. 

 

Even if we could show that it was quite a resonable evolutionary strategy, I have a neaking suspicion that most people would still call genocide a horrible war crime, say it is against some kind of universal human value.  But I don't see how that can possibly be maintained as a moral position - as opposed to a this is what i would like position - in a materialist system.

 

 

 

[albeto.]

The fabric of reality - you could call it the nature of things.  The underlying laws of the universe that make it one thing and not another, that move it and determine its form.  Materials say that it doesn't have a metaphysical aspect, that all that exists is expressed materially.  But that cretes particular difficulties when we want to talk about abstractions that are not clearly instantiated physically - justice, say.  What is justice in nature? 

 

You might say justice is real within you, or within your social group, though how you would define it might well be a problem.  But you could certianly could not claim any kind of universal applicability that applies in a more general way.  If another society or person thought that it was right and just or useful to euthanize infants with disabilities, or oppress a particular group (women, lower classes) you could really make no moral argument against that - their "morality" would be as real and valid as yours.  Any sort of disgust or emotion you felt about that would be no indication of anything but your own physiological responses.

 

There can, I think, be a kind of utilitarian ethics brought out of a system like this.  But typically it isn't one that most people who want to identify with this partclar way of thinking would really like.  There is no intrinsic value in fairness, in the brotherhood of all people, in equality.  These might or might not be useful to a society or within a group, but the question is utilitarian, not about justice. It is clearly good for those likely to be opressed to believe it is useful to be fair.  But then there is no clear reason we should care about them any more than about a weak individual cut out the herd to make it stronger - especially if they might be competing with ourselves and our blood relatives for resources.

 

These are the kinds of basic questions that come up in the study of ethics, dismissing them out of hand just seems to me like a way to avoid thinking clearly about the implications and demands of our worldview..

 

Your conclusions suggest tying together ends that lack significant information, such as the evolution of the human species. It's like asking how a car engine runs while being ignorant of the concept of energy. It won't ever make sense until you have and understand pertinent information.

 

As to the bolded, arguments that support this concept are readily challenged by issues of empathy and understanding of well-being, both explained by natural means. 

 

 

Well, but the question is really, what does that look like?  Calling things religion or non-religion or is less than useful I think, it actually obscures the question - no one is simply "non-religious" or simply a theist or atheist.  Unless they are signularly dull, people have a worldview, how the think reality hangs together.

 

Any worldview can have what we might call an ethics or a morality, a right way to behave or right willing based on the nature of things.  But we have to look at our particular view of reality and see what ethics come out of it.

 

When people say there is no such thing as a concept of the good or justice apart from physical reality, which tends to be the position that materialism is logically forced to take, it is very difficult to say that materialst ethics will be one that demands justice or fairness, or that it values the "personhood" of all people.

 

When people say materialism or atheism is immoral, what they mean to say I think is that the ethical principles that would logically come out of it are ones that most people would find immoral. 

 

In my experience, it is quite unusual that people who want to adhere to a materialist reality are willing to give up all of the moral principles that would come out of immaterial concepts such as justice.  Quite a few tend to identify with progressive values that are very dependant on those ideas.  And the question of how they reconcile those things tend, quite wrongly I think, to be dismissed rather than really examined or refuted.

 

I suspect your experience is interpreted against the backdrop of a faulty understanding of any philosophy that rejects certain faith-based assumptions. The comment in bold ignores societies that do in fact develop codes of ethics and justice and fairness without appeal to magic or mythology. It also ignores societies that develop codes of ethics including justice and fairness and the value of people despite maintaining faith-based beliefs that are diametrically opposed to one another. Jews oppose the claim that the messiah has come. Christianity is founded on this very belief. Muslims have another interpretation altogether, and yet societies all over the world who adhere to and/or support these religious beliefs have successfully developed codes of ethics including justice and fairness and the value of people despite fundamental disagreements about rudimentary concepts. 

 

The problem with appealing to mythological constructs is that empathy is reserved for those who seemingly deserve it, and that depends on capitulation to an invisible, inaudible, unsearchable, character that just so happens to speak through the very clergy that benefits the most from a unique and conveniently protected position of authority. That means empathy is turned off against those who are understood to not deserve it, whether it's a matter of perceived guilt or "tough love," the fact is, empathy and well-being are ignored when religious considerations are upheld as more important. Because these considerations have no means of accountability, they are no more than venues of oppression and tyranny, creating marginalized groups without moral, ethical, or even reasonable justification. 

[albeto.]

I know atheists have consciences. We all do! And I agree that our consciences can be developed. But what principles do we use to develop the conscience? We are still left with the problem that right and wrong can only be subjective and no right or wrong can ever be universal. We are left with the idea that the ultimate authority in what is right and wrong is popular opinion in democratic societies or whatever governing force that exists and can never be more than that. By what authority can we tell someone they are wrong?

 

Why do you need to appeal to authority? Why not appeal to knowledge, information, logic and rational, critical thought? 

 

By what authority does one know which authority is trustworthy?  ;)

[albeto.]

What I'm trying to understand now is how materialism has anything to do with atheism or theism or anything.  We live in a horribly materialistic society.  Most of the people leading the charge (lobbyists, the senators and congressmen who they pay off, the people running the corporations, writing the ads aimed at our kids screaming consumption, consumption). 

 

I don't think they're all atheists.  Quite to the contrary, in fact.  And I see lots of people using religion to excuse horrible behavior, not prevent it. 

 

I'm not a full-on atheist, but I don't look to a 'higher power' or authority or book to tell me right from wrong.  I might read things others have thought.  But what resonates with me has nothing to do with feeling like someone ordered me to, or being worried about 'salvation'.

 

Buddhism is a very peaceful philosophy that has not run around killing people to convert them or starting wars, and among its highest principles are alleviating suffering and denying material things.  And it has no God or higher power to answer to.

 

In this sense, materialism refers to the idea that the world is made up of material, or natural elements exclusively, as opposed to supernatural. A philosophy based on a material understanding of the world would not appeal to a religious authority, as that religious authority assumes the existence of a supernatural reality. 

 

Buddhism has its own history of violence in response to adhering to ingroup biases. The problem isn't any particular religion, it's appealing to certain claims as being true, including the claim that vengeance is justified, in opposition to available evidence, despite evidence to the contrary, and regardless of ethical considerations. Religion just applies these things in ways we experience painfully today, but it's not the only system that does, and it certainly didn't invent this stuff. 

[Bluegoat]

I actually posed the question earlier in the thread, what about those of us who do not hold to a metaphysical idea of "good" and "evil."  Like Rosie, I tend to think of human behavior in terms of healthy versus unhealthy, social versus anti-social, balanced versus unbalanced, etc. 

 

For example, the crimes I mentioned earlier being committed by Islamic and Christian fundamentalists in the Middle East and in Africa -- when I think of these heinous activities, I do not think in terms of "They are evil."  I do not think they are motivated by metaphysical "darkness" or evil.  I think they are motivated by a combination of regressive social influences, unfettered base hostility and aggression, animalistic drives to fight others over resources, etc.  Of course, these actions are given sanction by the larger community using metaphysical morality as the underlying reason for why they are doing these things.  

 

By the same token, other opposing communities condemn them and appeal to the same authority -- it's evil, it's morally wrong, it's an offense to God and the heavens for them to kill, rape, torture, and commit endless other war crimes.

 

To me, it's like 15 different groups tell me they all believe that the animal, the unicorn, exists. But, one group says unicorns are just glorified goats with a single horn. Another says unicorns are 6 - legged creatures that breathe fire. Still another says unicorns are horse like creatures, with horns, but are winged and completely elusive.  Another group says unicorns have no form at all, and it's a sin to imagine what one looks like.  And so on.

 

That is what "objective morality" looks like to me.  Supposedly, because so many people claim it exists, it must therefore be real. But, when one attempts to determine what its shape and form and characteristics are, there is no universal definition.  It's amorphous.

 

I believe that theists and atheists are actually dealing with exactly the same problem.  Both are trying to define something -- what is morality, what does it look like-- but one group claims to know what it is based upon spiritual/ supernatural/ metaphysical evidence that cannot be examined or tested by human senses.  

 

The other group claims to base morality upon human nature  -- which although it is observable -- is still a very deep and barely plumbed.  We don't really know ourselves yet, and so we don't have definite, hard lines defining what is "good" and what is "evil."  We have a range, a scale of "positive/ affirming" to "negative/ destructive," and a lot of grey in between.

 

I know many theists would jump on my last statement and say, "Ah ha! So, since humans really are just mucking about, trying to figure out what's up from down, don't you think it's wiser to look to something above/ outside yourself for reference?"

 

And my reply is, my senses do not perceive anything out there to look to. There is no unicorn there.  I can't see any evidence of any objective morality being written in the heavens or here on earth.  What's more, perhaps the one characteristic distinguishing humans from other mammals on earth is our developed rationality.  To me, surrendering my judgment to the auspices of another, to determine what and how it is I should conduct myself in relation to other human beings, is to give up the the thing that makes me human.  

 

If morality is indeed a human construct, it can only ever be fully developed, fully realized when humans are living with an unfettered, unhindered rationality.

 

I don't know that it matters much that theists, or anyone else for that matter, disagrees on the details of what is actually moral or immoral.  The question of whether there is any kind of outside source for it, maybe we can call it "right behavior" does not depend on everyone getting it all right.  And I think we can allow too that right behavior can be a complex system, that under different circumstances may not look quite the same even when it is working ideally.  For example, in your idea of deriving morality from human nature, it would still I think be quite possible for someone to derive a principle in a mistaken way, but that would not mean that human nature does not in fact exist.

 

I think you know part of the difficulty in this discussion is that many people don't really have a very clear idea about what God is in a developed theological system, or how it relates to the rest of us, or the material universe.  There seems to be some idea that it is just some big guy seperate from the physical world but imposing some arbitrary ideas on it for indicernable reasons.  That's a bit of a crude way of putting it, but I think that is the direction of the difference in understanding.

 

When you talk about deriving morality from human nature, a theistic ethical system would tend to agree that what is moral for human beings is moral because that is our nature.  It also however sees human nature as an expression of the nature of the universe, the nature of reality, the fundemantal truth which bounds reality.  To really understand human nature we have to look at what it is based  in, and also how it is related to the rest of nature. 

 

When a scientist is looking for a mathematical equasion that describes whatever it is that is the grounding of the observable universe, what brings eveything into being, that is very much what theists are looking at when they talk about God, or the logos, or Tao, or whatever you want to call it.  That is the thing which creates isness, it is the thing that makes us human, and it is from that ultimatly that morality comes from.

 

One of the typical features of an organized religion, theistic or not, is that is lays out these relationships, and some rules for right living and how to discern what is right, in an organized way.  Depending on the religion in question they will put it differently, or be more detailed, but the idea is never that the rules are ultimatly arbitrary (though they may be in a limited way in some religions) but that they derive from the nature of reality. 

 

I think that this is little different than what you are talking about - mining human nature for universal moral truthes - except from a materialist perspective the whole idea of human nature becomes a difficult one.  And I don't really see any reason to think the emperical approach to doing this has been very sucessful so far - if you strip away all the language it borrows from religion and philosophy, it is barely able to even talk about ethics, much less give us ethical direction.  The problem I think is that is cannot attribute value, and until that happens, there is no way to have an ethical system.  The closest it gets is to a kind of utilitarianism or social darwinism.  Value is by nature an abstraction beyond what is exists physically.

 

On the other hand, in the case of those who want to derive values and ethics from individual humans, I think that seems to be a clearly quite inadaquate system because it is imposible not only to asign value but to suggest any kind of universal application, unless we are willing to accept the kind of morality that we see in what many would think of as extreme ethical systems - Neitcheism, objectivism, some kinds of existentialism, and the like.  TBH I have a kind of real respect for most people willing to really live with those systems, I think it take a kind of real disapline and courage of conviction for anyone who isn't actually a sociopath.  But I don't know that most people would want to accept that kind of morality, even apart from their emotional reaction to it.

 

 

[Free]

For the same reason it leads materialists to conclude there are no gods.  Show me evidence of a "value". 

 

The ancient Platonists called god The Good - that is, a universal, a first principle, which is above all other material and non-material things - it is what all these other things derive their nature from and it is what holds them together. Because it is logically prior to everything that exists and they are dependant, it can provide a universal principle.

 

Show me evidence of a "god".

 

The only universal values you could come up with in a materialist construct would be the ones evident in the natural world - things like scientific laws.  They might in some cases seem to include things that look like values - say, cooperation, truthfulness, justice - but it would also include things like competing for resources and war and survial of the fittest.  Any strategy that proved an effective one for survival of your genetic material over the long term.  And there is nothing to say that the limits of "your" has to be the human race.  Nature plays no favorites among or within species. 

 

Which human being (or animal for that matter) when making any decision at all, has ever pondered whether that will result in better survival of one's genetic material? I mean, I cannot think of one decision made in my lifetime where I gave even one moment's consideration to my genetic material. The idea that materialism will somehow lead humans (or animals) to be overly obsessed with their genes is bizarre and it is a non-sequitur. Materialism is simply an idea that everything that exists is material in nature. But just because we are made of atoms, and just because our emotions and thoughts are borne out of electrical impulses, it does not automatically follow that we would simply behave like a cloud of charged particles. That would be a bizarre misinterpretation of both science and materialism.

 

The idea that only an instinct for selfishness / competition/ war can result in success of a species is also a misinterpretation of science. What is more, humans have evolved enough that we are no longer driven purely by instinct. I would argue we depend more on our capacity to reason that on our primal animalistic drives. We are moral animals because we have evolved a moral sense. Whether it is adaptive, or maladaptive time will tell, but considering the success of our species, I should think evidence points in the direction of adaptive.

[Bluegoat]

Show me evidence of a "god".

 

 

Which human being (or animal for that matter) when making any decision at all, has ever pondered whether that will result in better survival of one's genetic material? I mean, I cannot think of one decision made in my lifetime where I gave even one moment's consideration to my genetic material. The idea that materialism will somehow lead humans (or animals) to be overly obsessed with their genes is bizarre and it is a non-sequitur. Materialism is simply an idea that everything that exists is material in nature. But just because we are made of atoms, and just because our emotions and thoughts are borne out of electrical impulses, it does not automatically follow that we would simply behave like a cloud of charged particles. That would be a bizarre misinterpretation of both science and materialism.

 

The idea that only an instinct for selfishness / competition/ war can result in success of a species is also a misinterpretation of science. What is more, humans have evolved enough that we are no longer driven purely by instinct. I would argue we depend more on our capacity to reason that on our primal animalistic drives. We are moral animals because we have evolved a moral sense. Whether it is adaptive, or maladaptive time will tell, but considering the success of our species, I should think evidence points in the direction of adaptive.

 

I am not sure why you are asking for evidence of God, it seems rather a non-sequiter.  You aksed about materialists having values - if a materialist is going to require clear physical evidence for the existence of a thing with little rom for universalizing that into an abstraction, you are going to have a problem talking about any universal values.

 

The question of whether a behavior has evolutionary value comes directly from the claim that we can look at human behaviors to derive a morality.  THis is straight from the selfish gene approach that some of the popular materialists like Harris and Dawkins use to say a materialist ethics, one which looks a lot like western progressivism no less, comes from. Albedo has been arguing much the same thing. Human beinngs have developed a particular biological natures and it is from this that morality is and can be derived.  Behaviors like altruism, care for the young, cooperation, are selected for because they work for us as a species.  You don't have to think "I will care for my baby because it will help my genes spread".  You just have to think, I love my baby.  the claim is that "love" exists because it is useful in a utilitarian sense, and that we can and should consider it a good moral value because it is "real".  We can see it and measure it, both the chemicals in your brain that make you feel that way, and we can see how it affects the survival of the individual, family, and species.

 

 

No one I think has said that war etc have positive effects on survival.  The point is that, just as love or empathy be sucessful strategies, so can things like aggression, or decitfulness.  If we are claiming or morality should be based on what is observable about human nature, why do we accept some good strategies but not others?  And it is not just that in many cases people feel that they like negative behaviors, from a "rational" as you say or utilitarian perspective they can also be very sucessful.  This happens in other parts of nature all the time, so why would we think only traditionally "positive" charachteristics are good in this sense?  (And honestly it is a pretty historicallt naive view too.)

 

I would be interested to know, if you actually think we are really just a bunch of atoms, how it is you think we could behave as anything other than a bunch of atoms?  What sort of physical mechanism is there that allows us to escape the determinism of physics?

[Bluegoat]

Your conclusions suggest tying together ends that lack significant information, such as the evolution of the human species. It's like asking how a car engine runs while being ignorant of the concept of energy. It won't ever make sense until you have and understand pertinent information.

 

As to the bolded, arguments that support this concept are readily challenged by issues of empathy and understanding of well-being, both explained by natural means. 

 

I suspect your experience is interpreted against the backdrop of a faulty understanding of any philosophy that rejects certain faith-based assumptions. The comment in bold ignores societies that do in fact develop codes of ethics and justice and fairness without appeal to magic or mythology. It also ignores societies that develop codes of ethics including justice and fairness and the value of people despite maintaining faith-based beliefs that are diametrically opposed to one another. Jews oppose the claim that the messiah has come. Christianity is founded on this very belief. Muslims have another interpretation altogether, and yet societies all over the world who adhere to and/or support these religious beliefs have successfully developed codes of ethics including justice and fairness and the value of people despite fundamental disagreements about rudimentary concepts. 

 

The problem with appealing to mythological constructs is that empathy is reserved for those who seemingly deserve it, and that depends on capitulation to an invisible, inaudible, unsearchable, character that just so happens to speak through the very clergy that benefits the most from a unique and conveniently protected position of authority. That means empathy is turned off against those who are understood to not deserve it, whether it's a matter of perceived guilt or "tough love," the fact is, empathy and well-being are ignored when religious considerations are upheld as more important. Because these considerations have no means of accountability, they are no more than venues of oppression and tyranny, creating marginalized groups without moral, ethical, or even reasonable justification. 

 

I have no idea what you mean by tying together of ends here. 

 

Empathy does not give an answer.  Some people feel empathy, and that is no doubt useful.  Some people do not, and that is useful as well.  This does not provide some kind of moral force when I tell a bully to stop being a jerk.  The best we can do there is a kind of utilitarianism, and a degraded kind at that, because it does not even admit the universal appreciation of the human. 

 

Please, do tell me - because so far you have danced around it - a great many human behaviors are rooted in sucessful behaviors from an evolutionary behavior.  If these are the basis of our morality, why should we oppose any of them?  Other societies have taken them as normal.  Why is it that this morality of human nature seems to mirror so closely the values of the 21st century west?  That seems terribly convienient.  Why would this create anything other than social darwinism?  Or should we be willing to say that infanticide or aggresion can be just as moral as caring for the young or empathy?

 

I dount that I would ignore the idea that there are moralities outside of mythology and magic, since I don't believe that, and shocking as it may seem to you I am actually aware that many systems with different ideas have some similar ideas about things like justice.  This is in fact perfectly sensible from within the framework of pretty much every major historical belief system, both religious and non-religious, theistic and non-theistic.  So no, I doubt that is the reason for my perspective.

 

The idea that "mythology" by which I take it you mean things made up by religion (no something an actual expert in mythology would say)says that only some people are deserving of empathy is completely ridiculous.  Some mythologies do say that, but many do not.  Many have very much the opposit intent, reccomending a much more universal empathy than is natural to most people, and even minimal reading will show that.  TRy looking at other animals that live in fairly complex social groups without faith, or magic, or mythology, and see if you find them very open to members of other groups.

 

 

[Joanne]

Show me evidence of a "god".

 

 

 I mean, I cannot think of one decision made in my lifetime where I gave even one moment's consideration to my genetic material.

 

 

Married to my first husband, I gave a great deal of thought to our genetic material, and whether it was ethical to conceive, gestate, birth, and rear children who were very likely to be predisposed to addiction.

[Joanne]

Just an fyi, when I use 'materialist' in this context, I don't mean 'consumerist' :) I mean that I don't believe in an invisible soul.

 

I honestly don't know how to continue in this conversation, if we don't all have as a starting point that values are culturally, and not metaphysically, derived. Which seems obvious. Just as it seems obvious that different cultures can both positive and negative values, and that no one culture - and I would describe Christianity as a collection of cultures - has a monopoly on positive values, or an absence of negative values.

 

I am pretty sure that if we all wrote down a list of the positive and negative values we hold, many of them would observably come from non-religious sources ( and not all on the negative side either! ).

 

 

(using as a talking point)

 

The above is why I don't believe in "Christian principles." There is not one "principle" associated with Christianity that is not a principle found outside of Christianity as well.

[fraidycat]

Yes, it seems like a very arrogant view point, to assume that all morals are derived from YOUR god and everyone else is deluded. It's fairly clear that other religions and cultures share moral principles derived from sources other than Christianity.

 

It also seems divisive, and seems to encourage the categorisation of people into 'Us' and 'the others', which is not a moral stance I think is particularly helpful to humankind.

You mean to say that modern day Japanese, Chinese, Indian, any other non-Christian country or person, et al aren't just barbaric, immoral, ethically void almost humans?

 

What the what!?!

[albeto.]

I am not sure why you are asking for evidence of God, it seems rather a non-sequiter.  

 

The external, extra-worldly source of morality is integral to your argument. Indeed, this is the essence of your argument. Asking for evidence for such a thing is hardly a non-sequitur. 

 

The question of whether a behavior has evolutionary value comes directly from the claim that we can look at human behaviors to derive a morality.  THis is straight from the selfish gene approach that some of the popular materialists like Harris and Dawkins use to say a materialist ethics, one which looks a lot like western progressivism no less, comes from. Albedo has been arguing much the same thing. Human beinngs have developed a particular biological natures and it is from this that morality is and can be derived.  Behaviors like altruism, care for the young, cooperation, are selected for because they work for us as a species.  You don't have to think "I will care for my baby because it will help my genes spread".  You just have to think, I love my baby.  the claim is that "love" exists because it is useful in a utilitarian sense, and that we can and should consider it a good moral value because it is "real".  We can see it and measure it, both the chemicals in your brain that make you feel that way, and we can see how it affects the survival of the individual, family, and species.

 

"Love" is not considered a good moral value because it is real, but because it is beneficial to the species both individually and as a whole. Beneficial because instinctive behaviors inspired by this complex social/emotional behavior are more likely to contribute to survival and be passed on to subsequent generations than behaviors that lack these instincts. 

 

No one I think has said that war etc have positive effects on survival.  The point is that, just as love or empathy be sucessful strategies, so can things like aggression, or decitfulness.  If we are claiming or morality should be based on what is observable about human nature, why do we accept some good strategies but not others?  And it is not just that in many cases people feel that they like negative behaviors, from a "rational" as you say or utilitarian perspective they can also be very sucessful.  This happens in other parts of nature all the time, so why would we think only traditionally "positive" charachteristics are good in this sense?  (And honestly it is a pretty historicallt naive view too.)

 

Aggression and deceitfulness are considered positive behaviors in certain contexts. Steve Jobs is hailed as an innovator and business role model. Arguably, he exhibited these behaviors in spades. I can think of very few people who shake things up and make history don't exhibit aggression and deceitfulness in some measure over the general population. There are some really interesting studies about deceitfulness, and the role it plays in social interactions, and pose fascinating possibilities for explaining social scenarios. Aggressive people get sh!t done, if you will. It's usually considered negative when it conflicts with our own self interests. Simply look to opposing sides of any conflict and you'll see the hero on either side most likely exhibited aggressive behaviors. We just attribute the concept of "villain" to the aggressive person on the side of conflict not in our favor. The same behavior is subjectively assigned value according to all kinds of variables. 

 

I would be interested to know, if you actually think we are really just a bunch of atoms, how it is you think we could behave as anything other than a bunch of atoms?  What sort of physical mechanism is there that allows us to escape the determinism of physics?

 

Thus far there is no support for any supernatural explanations, therefore natural elements are likely at play. Who knows what we'll uncover in the future, who knows what the next Higgs Boson discovery will be or how it will contribute to our understanding of the natural world (including human behavior). What we do know is in the history of knowledge, no mystery has ever been reliably and accurately explained by magic. There is currently no evidence for the existence of magical forces at play in nature. It's far more plausible to assume the next discoveries will be similarly natural in origin. 

[albeto.]

I have no idea what you mean by tying together of ends here. 

 

Conclusions you make, such as the inability to judge moral arguments when rejecting supernatural claims insofar as providing information about the natural world. 

 

Empathy does not give an answer.  Some people feel empathy, and that is no doubt useful.  Some people do not, and that is useful as well.  This does not provide some kind of moral force when I tell a bully to stop being a jerk.  The best we can do there is a kind of utilitarianism, and a degraded kind at that, because it does not even admit the universal appreciation of the human. 

 

Empathy is one variable at play when considering ethical choices. It is not the only by far. I linked a 20 minute video that addresses just this question. 

 

Please, do tell me - because so far you have danced around it - a great many human behaviors are rooted in sucessful behaviors from an evolutionary behavior.  If these are the basis of our morality, why should we oppose any of them?  Other societies have taken them as normal.  Why is it that this morality of human nature seems to mirror so closely the values of the 21st century west?  That seems terribly convienient.  Why would this create anything other than social darwinism?  Or should we be willing to say that infanticide or aggresion can be just as moral as caring for the young or empathy?

 

Upthread I mentioned conflict between altruism and self-preservation. These are both instinctive drives in humanity. The reason a society may oppose any behavior will depend on many factors, such as environmental resources, political history, knowledge, access to alternative moral codes, etc. The reason any individual may oppose any behavior will no doubt be highly influenced by the culture in which they find themselves. If you argue that human nature seems to mirror so closely the values of the 21st century western civilization, I'd encourage you to consider the ethnocentric value of that argument. Not all cultures are impressed by certain values culminated in the 21st century western world, such as high crime, violence, lack of respect for the older generation, lack of respect for traditional manners, and all kinds of things that are not valued. Nevertheless, all cultures develop behaviors that appeal to instinctive drives like conformity, security, fairness, etc.

 

The idea that "mythology" by which I take it you mean things made up by religion (no something an actual expert in mythology would say)says that only some people are deserving of empathy is completely ridiculous.  Some mythologies do say that, but many do not.  Many have very much the opposit intent, reccomending a much more universal empathy than is natural to most people, and even minimal reading will show that.  TRy looking at other animals that live in fairly complex social groups without faith, or magic, or mythology, and see if you find them very open to members of other groups.

 

If we understand mythology to refer to the collected myths of a group of people, their body of stories which they tell to explain nature, history, and customs (wiki), then the stories of your religion qualify just as the stories of the ancient Greeks and Romans do. Personal belief doesn't determine if a collection of stories are considered mythological or historical, evidence does. What I mean by suppressing empathy can be seen in any religious wars in history, the Protestant/Catholic conflict in Europe, practices of colonization as justified specifically through religious beliefs, marginalization of certain groups, and denial of civil rights based on religious beliefs.

 

To quote Sam Harris in response to the tsunami in Japan, 

 

“Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn't care to, or he doesn’t exist. God is either impotent, evil, or imaginary. Take your pick, and choose wisely.

 

The only sense to make of tragedies like this is that terrible things can happen to perfectly innocent people. This understanding inspires compassion.

 

Religious faith, on the other hand, erodes compassion. Thoughts like, 'this might be all part of God’s plan,' or 'there are no accidents in life,' or 'everyone on some level gets what he or she deserves' - these ideas are not only stupid, they are extraordinarily callous. They are nothing more than a childish refusal to connect with the suffering of other human beings. It is time to grow up and let our hearts break at moments like this.†

 

This is not to say all religious people are callous, or that religion doesn't teach empathy. It is to say at some point, in some measure, religion includes the concept of a chosen people, and the subsequent ingroup bias rationalizes unequal behavior, and consequently unequal sympathy. It may be as strong as believing vengeance is justified, or as subtle as believing some people somehow bring suffering upon themselves. From the subtle belief about which children deserve breakfast, or the shrugging of shoulders and gentle tsk-tsking in response to clergy sexual abuse, to the "tough love" approach to LGBTQ children (a quarter of homeless teens are on the streets for precisely this reason), to the ability to ignore the idea that a parent, grandparent, beloved friend or otherwise nice enough neighbor is suffering unspeakable torture in hell right now, faith-based beliefs are invoked as reasons to separate "them" from "us," and "us" just so happens to be more deserving of "blessings" and other cosmic favors. 

[Free]

The point is that, just as love or empathy be sucessful strategies, so can things like aggression, or decitfulness.  If we are claiming or morality should be based on what is observable about human nature, why do we accept some good strategies but not others?  And it is not just that in many cases people feel that they like negative behaviors, from a "rational" as you say or utilitarian perspective they can also be very sucessful.  This happens in other parts of nature all the time, so why would we think only traditionally "positive" charachteristics are good in this sense?  (And honestly it is a pretty historicallt naive view too.)

This all sounds pretty much like some chicken and egg problem :) Were humans moral before they decided what constitutes morality? If not, then how did they decide what is moral?

 

But not only did humans arrive at a system of morality, infact they arrived at multiple systems of morality in various cultures and at various times and yet these systems look remarkably similar. And they did this while relying on human instinct for compassion, empathy and reason (as well as fear and superstition).

 

Human instincts are far from infallible and have generated some spectacularly good and some spectacularly bad ideas and I am certain there are philosophers out there debating and trying to sieve out the good from the bad. There should be no reason to assume that materialists and atheists cannot participate in the debates about which values produce better outcomes.

 

So also, most certainly there must be theists out there who value competition, aggression and war and atheists who value love, cooperation, stability and peace. So again there should be no reason to assume that materialism will make one particularly attracted to only the bad ideas.

 

We live in a marketplace of ideas and some ideas will turn out to be particularly good at maximising what we consider as human well-being. They will capture the public imagination and spread. The ideas of equality and freedom did not become popular until mid 18th century for example. Other ideas will be tested and discarded - some forms of socialism for example. Some ideas which we thought were good will be challenged - unbridled, unregulated free market capitalism for example. It is an ongoing cycle...but again there should be no reason why we cannot arrive at a set of universally applicable principles. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

is a step in that direction after all.

 

It is a messy process no doubt with no end point in sight. There will always be new ethical challenges to debate. The tools we have to answer these questions have always been, and will continue to be are our own instincts tempered with science, reason, deliberation and debate.

[Carol in Cal.]

QUOTED FROM ABOVE:

 

The only sense to make of tragedies like this is that terrible things can happen to perfectly innocent people. This understanding inspires compassion.

 

Religious faith, on the other hand, erodes compassion. Thoughts like, 'this might be all part of God’s plan,' or 'there are no accidents in life,' or 'everyone on some level gets what he or she deserves' - these ideas are not only stupid, they are extraordinarily callous. They are nothing more than a childish refusal to connect with the suffering of other human beings. It is time to grow up and let our hearts break at moments like this.†

 

 

BIBLICAL QUOTES THAT ARE DIRECTLY RELEVANT:  (ETA:  Sorry about the weird formatting.  I don't have time to clean it up right now.)

 

Matthew 5:  ⁴³ â€œYou have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ ⁴⁴ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, ⁴⁵ so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust."  --Jesus

 

 

 

 

Matthew 15:

 

 

 

 

²⁹ Jesus went on from there and walked beside the Sea of Galilee. And he went up on the mountain and sat down there. ³⁰ And great crowds came to him, bringing with them the lame, the blind, the crippled, the mute, and many others, and they put them at his feet, and he healed them, ³¹ so that the crowd wondered, when they saw the mute speaking, the crippled healthy, the lame walking, and the blind seeing. And they glorified the God of Israel.

³² Then Jesus called his disciples to him and said, “I have compassion on the crowd because they have been with me now three days and have nothing to eat. And I am unwilling to send them away hungry, lest they faint on the way.â€

 

 

[albeto.]

 

QUOTED FROM ABOVE:

 

The only sense to make of tragedies like this is that terrible things can happen to perfectly innocent people. This understanding inspires compassion.

 

Religious faith, on the other hand, erodes compassion. Thoughts like, 'this might be all part of God’s plan,' or 'there are no accidents in life,' or 'everyone on some level gets what he or she deserves' - these ideas are not only stupid, they are extraordinarily callous. They are nothing more than a childish refusal to connect with the suffering of other human beings. It is time to grow up and let our hearts break at moments like this.†

 

 

BIBLICAL QUOTES THAT ARE DIRECTLY RELEVANT:  (ETA:  Sorry about the weird formatting.  I don't have time to clean it up right now.)

 

Matthew 5:  ⁴³ â€œYou have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ ⁴⁴ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, ⁴⁵ so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust."  --Jesus

 

 

 

 

Matthew 15:

 

 

 

 

²⁹ Jesus went on from there and walked beside the Sea of Galilee. And he went up on the mountain and sat down there. ³⁰ And great crowds came to him, bringing with them the lame, the blind, the crippled, the mute, and many others, and they put them at his feet, and he healed them, ³¹ so that the crowd wondered, when they saw the mute speaking, the crippled healthy, the lame walking, and the blind seeing. And they glorified the God of Israel.

³² Then Jesus called his disciples to him and said, “I have compassion on the crowd because they have been with me now three days and have nothing to eat. And I am unwilling to send them away hungry, lest they faint on the way.â€

 

 

 

Loving your enemies and praying for those who persecute you doesn't address how much sympathy should be extended to them (ie, "let the dead bury the dead"). 

 

Besides, biblical love is less than comforting. For God so loved the world, he drowned everyone who didn't love him back, kwim? 

 

The problem with quoting portions of the bible that support one's own theology is that it cannot help but neglect other theologies of the bible, portions that others don't neglect. The bible is full of reasons to support a kind of brotherhood of mankind, but it also, simultaneously supports exclusionary membership and limited empathy ("their blood shall be upon them"). 

 

And that whole part about the Father who makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust is simply more reason to argue the god of the bible isn't a moral god, he's a biblical god. The two are not synonymous, no matter how much one may wish it (and not all Christians do wish it, as that is understood to be capitulating to modern, cultural versions of good and evil, a version corrupted by sin). 

[5of5]

 

I would be interested to know, if you actually think we are really just a bunch of atoms, how it is you think we could behave as anything other than a bunch of atoms?  What sort of physical mechanism is there that allows us to escape the determinism of physics?

 

There are a number of ways to respond to this.

 

First, maybe we haven’t!  There is one school of thought which posits that free-will is an illusion.

 

Second, quantum physics doesn’t hold that physics is strictly deterministic.  However, I don’t know that randomness at the sub-atomic level has been shown to scale up.

 

Third, there is a theory that free-will could be some kind of emergent property.  For example, water has properties that that neither hydrogen nor oxygen alone have, and a brain has properties (free-will) that its components do not have.