If you haven’t read the first post, you can find it here. Otherwise, I’ll assume we’re all on the same page. Here’s question 2:
2. You behave ethically. I suggest that is because you were brought up christian. Most atheists choose to behave reasonably ethically, but why? Are some things really right and wrong, if so, how come in a physicalist universe? If it is just their personal choice, how can they criticise anyone who chooses differently? For example, I just read a newspaper article about rape as a weapon of war in Mali. You and I would both find that abhorrent, yet it makes sense on evolutionary terms – impregnate the women of your opponent and maximise your own genes. So how does all that fit together?
It’s true that I was raised in Christianity, so it’s impossible for me to say that I would be just as moral if I’d been raised any other way. And when my wife and I first started discussing the possibility that Christianity was false, we worried about where our morals would come from without it. But pretty soon, we realized that there were really good reasons for living morally, regardless of God’s existence. On top of that, we knew plenty of Christians who hadn’t always lived morally either, so it’s not like remaining Christian was any kind of guarantee.
As an atheist, I tend to think that this life is all we have. While there might be something after it, I have no real reason to believe there is. And I think this might help me value life more than many religious people. When all those children were killed in Newtown, I didn’t believe that Heaven had gained a bunch of new souls — I was very upset that those young lives had been cut so short. It’s a point of view that doesn’t have as much comfort as what most religious people have. Their real life was here, not in some supernatural realm, so the tragedy is arguably more real. That helps me value all life, not just my own. We are social creatures — we naturally tend to look out for others’ well-being, not just our own. And I am personally happier when I do good things for others rather than take advantage of them.
So those are some of the reasons why I choose to live morally. As to whether or not there is a true universal morality, I don’t know. I think there are some things that come pretty close to it though. Rape, torture, murder, etc — those things are good candidates for being absolutely wrong. But I don’t think we need a deity to tell us that. Most people agree that human well-being is better than human suffering, so I think that’s a pretty good standard. We don’t need a transcendent being to tell us that, any more than most of us would need a transcendent being to tell us that cake tastes better than spinach. Throughout human history (and well before Christianity), people have been coming together to define morality as what works best for them as a society. As time has gone on, we’ve gotten better at it by protecting minority rights, etc. I don’t see why we need anything more than that.
I’ll cover the 3rd question in the next post.
Finding Truth 
I’m certain that most people believe the things they’re recounting, but I have major doubts that they’re evidence of God being at work. We humans are notoriously bad about misreading our senses. But I don’t want to be uber-skeptical about everything — I’m open to the possibility that the supernatural exists. So I’ll try to check out the stories and keep an open mind about them.
LikeLike
I can’t ask fairer than that, Nate. If you’re in the reading mood, don’t miss Ten Healings, which is in a different section of the website. Happy reading! : )
LikeLike
William,
There is a common misconception in biology that organisms evolved to do things for the good of the species or for the good of the group. It is just not true.
Our tribal ancestors didn’t form communities because they cared very much about strangers or other humans or even, to a certain extent, their own community, but because that type of behavior benefited them, individually or genetically. Even in a hypothetical group of altruists, whether it be a small selfish group within the group or an out-group of selfish individuals, there will be people who take advantage of the altruists. These exploiting individuals are going to be more likely to survive and reproduce thereby spreading their genes to the next generation, who will be similarly persuaded towards selfishness and at some point the altruistic group will become predominantly selfish instead of altruistic. Altruism in nature isn’t sustainable, communally speaking, because there is always, at least, one individual who will refuse to make sacrifices and will exploit the altruism of the others thereby improving his chances for survival and reproduction, which means more people from the next generation will have his/her genetic makeup. This sort of progression will eventually lead to the dismissal of altruistic motives in favor of selfishness because more people will be selfish than altruistic. Also, in nature, even apparent altruism, can be selfishly motivated.
It would be a very dangerous morality that is based on evolutionary tendencies because those tendencies are never what they seem to be and are always changing.
Regards
LikeLike
Ryan,
Yes, empathy is a part of morality, but it is not a morality itself. I may feel a certain way about someone today and tomorrow not so much. Empathy is fickle in many ways. So, while you may be able to understand and share the feelings of those less fortunate than you, Bob, from down the street, may not feel similarly because he is the exploiter in the group. By your moral standards, Bob, when he takes advantage of someone, is doing wrong, but by Bob’s moral standards he is not. A purely empathy based morality creates a moral subjectivism that is tough to comprehend. If, in an attempt to bring Bob into line, you force him to not do those things you don’t agree with then you are being morally inconsistent because what about Bob’s feelings?
Of course, you could say that is what the law is for. To stop people like Bob. Well, of course, you are right, but saying Bob is doing something illegal is quite different than saying Bob is doing something immoral. But what if Bob is not doing anything illegal. What if Bob likes to call black people a name I won’t write? Or cheat on his wife? Or maybe Bob is doing something illegal but not immoral. What if he steals from the rich and gives to the poor? Or what if he doesn’t like wearing his seatbelt? Does illegality entail immorality?
By your definition of morality, you would be incapable of saying anything about the actions of others that was not just your opinion on the matter.
For morality to operate properly something more meaningful than empathy has to be incorporated. But empathy is certainly a part of it. It is just not all of it.
Regards
LikeLike
Nate,
Yes, in a way, I do, but I do think you can justify it through reason without inserting God. I understand the evolutionary background of morality but moral truths, in my opinion, are best discovered through a combination of philosophical reasoning, empirical analysis, and spirituality. Philosophical reasoning gives me a conceptual idea of goodness and badness, because I can’t see those under a microscope, and empirical analysis offers insights into human behavior, while empirical observation gives me a graphical representation for analyzing my moral conceptions against reality, and a hopeful spiritual component just sort of fills in the gaps. It is a little contradictory, but I am attempting to utilize and maintain both a common sense approach and a scientific account of reality, while incorporating a secular form of spirituality that is close to Spinoza on many levels, except for God, of course, in my working model of morality.
Regards
LikeLike
Persto,
I can agree to some degree in that “There is a common misconception in biology that organisms evolved to do things for the good of the species or for the good of the group. It is just not true.”
But if we evolved in such a way that made it easier for us to thrive in communal settings, it only stands to reason that acting in ways that lend itself to communal living would be more attractive.
I wasn’t saying otherwise. You say that the selfish has a better chance of passing on their genes, and that may be true in some situations, but I see people tending to avoid jerks if they can. And in order to live in a successful and thriving community, people are better off getting along than indulging in selfish acts.
and again, there are animals that are community oriented that share kills, and help each other take care of their young, etc. Those who do not share or help out are often ostracized. I dont think anyone would suggest that these animals read about jesus, and if we say that the animals knew about god’s plan inherently, then how are people better than the animals if we need an instruction manual?
maybe I’m using “evolve” too liberally. And really, I am just pointing out that “morality” via evolution, god, alah, or especially nutrient rich flatulence, could still be moral. morality does not only make sense by god or by understanding a book reported to be from him.
LikeLike
and people wouldnt have to have evolved to be “gooder” or more moral, people, like anything else, would keep an evolutionary trait if it helped them survive and thrive.
And again, living in communities is much easier when people cooperate, or behave morally, so those traits and characteristics would natural follow and present themselves.
I dont think evolution has plan, but is more like lighten striking. Sometimes it causes a fire and sometimes it doesnt.
LikeLike
Hi Persto,
I think I understand what your saying. But empathy goes beyond just feelings. It does trigger emotions, but those emotions are temporary. Empathy also creates an interaction that helps us move beyond ourselves by imagining ourselves in others. But I’ve thought some more about it, and I think both and Unklee are right. Empathy alone is not morality. What is needed is an absolute morality that is consistent and moves beyond temporary feelings.
Many monotheists believe God created humanity in His own image. In contrast, many atheists believe humanity created gods in their own image.
From a monotheist perspective, God is the absolute Lawmaker, and in this sense law and morality are personally connected. From the atheist standpoint, “god” is considered to be an idea that is used to communicate an “absolute” that could not be overstepped. However, many theists also believe that human beings made “other gods” in the image of man, however their God is the genuine God.
If God has decreed a moral then it is no longer just the opinion of one man or a majority of people. It becomes an absolute. These are two very different ways of looking at morality.
The difficulty is, without an eternal Lawmaker that is truly higher than humanity, how can morality ever be anything more than just the mere opinions of other human beings?
LikeLike
I have a positive view on Sam Harris idea about “Science can determine human value”. Even I do not agree with all that he said, but this idea is very good and reflected my understanding.
In 11th century, Imam al-Ghazali mention : Ethics in Arabic is ilm al-Akhlaq (science of morality), which is the branch of knowledge that studies akhlaq (morals). Today, I believe many research have been conduct within this scope at non-English speaking university and widely being use by Islamist.
Assume that, in future, we can determine that morality or human value through science, facts, evidence, biology, medical, etc.
Can we change the people through the science?
Can people changing their behavior through the evidence that being shown?
Will public accept that?
How government will behave, are they going to change their policy?
As science practitioner, I know that science also being manipulate by marketing, popular voice, television networks, etc. So, even science can proof that is right and wrong, it not easy to do it.
Example: Smoking, drugs and alcohol is dangerous to human body and I believe everyone know that. Still, people want to destroy their bodies and justify their action…
LikeLike
Hifzan,
I think scientific language can be used as a vehicle for marketing and spreading an agenda, but the scientific method in itself hopefully removes human bias as far as it is possible.
Persto,
A third option could be that values extend beyond just tribes, and humanity in of itself is now being valued as a whole. Laws are set down based on what is considered to most effectively value humanity. Through considering what works in action societies can become more moral, if of course they consider valuing humanity moral.
LikeLike
Hifzan,
Just to go a bit further, scientific data can be selected by companies and interest groups and then framed for the group’s own agendas. E.g leaving data out and intentionally skewing it so it only supports the position they want to promote. But this is not correct science, this is just misinformation.
LikeLike
Hifzan,
As your an engineer, I’m sure you have a far firmer understanding of science than me, based on your training and experience 🙂
I like your blog btw, interesting ideas
Respectfully, Ryan
LikeLike
When we talk about science, it always about organized knowledge and it always about “prediction” and “explanation” of universe. What we understand today, may be change in the future.. It was evolving knowledge..
Science of morality?
First, we must define the “science of morality”. From my understanding, morality should sound like ” practice of virtue, morality and manners”…
Then, define the purpose of morality?
Why we really need morality? Why I need act morally? (1) To show off? , (2) To be look good? (3) To attract woman (4) To satisfy myself? (5) Because my mother said so (6) Because people say I need empathy…
Lack of empathy rarely happen to poor people, it always happen to rich people.
The normal answer that I heard are; “They are lazy, they deserve it”, “I can not give them much, I also have a problem”, “How I going to help them, if they can not help themselves”, “They can take care of themselves” or “Why I should care, they are not my relatives”, “Maybe that is his destiny”…
Lack of empathy is disease of rich people… A product of arrogant, proud, success, materialistic, etc… And, this are people that we look as model and example…
Back to morality…
From my understanding, Not having a purpose of morality is total disaster…
How human have good moral?. It come through habit that being accumulate from born until today… Normally this habit being learn in a good family, religious institution and school by observing, example and role model…
If there are no more morality in this institutions, actually you can say Bye, bye to next generation. Even, I disagree that Christian is “religion of truth”, I need to agree that Christian also teach about morality regardless what have Bible said…
LikeLike
Ryan,
In business, commonly data that being provided are quite good and reliable.
Commonly, if there are a fraud, either it was a real mistake or purposely do the mistake… Actually, the fraud is very minimal, may be (0.1% ~ 0.5%), but the consequences is very high. It can just turn the company upside down.
Example, the horse meat scandal, it was done by few “stupid” company, and the whole meat business is affected.
That why, it was very important to spread the truth even it was painful…
Same goes to morality and religion, It always about trust and truth…
LikeLike
I think one reason most people are good most of the time is because they have to be. Punishments like prison, the death penalty, jail, fines, and even just the embarrassment of getting caught when it is not even a crime but deemed immoral by that society or even in places where they might not have a true prison/court system in place, it is even scarier for them because when a take justice in your own hands idea is in place as has been in the last even here in America, than you really have to worry about consequences for what you do not to mention just being an outcast.. I also think most people behave morally because we came from God and God is good and God is love, we do all sometimes choose to rebel against that some but for the most part I think most people want to be Good want to love and be loved, they just sometimes take the wrong path to that. We feel guilt we feel remorse. Even the love of money and power is wanting to be loved, wanting to be loved by all or at least control all and force them to love you (thinking of dictators like Hitler, Hussain and others here). Even Osama Bin Laden had good intentions. His reasons for doing things were not selfish he thought he was doing good and right. But we here in America do not really know what it is like to take God completely out of the picture. As much as some act like it we have never really lived in a completely Godless society here. Any Godless society that has existed did not last. Some think it would be ideal without God, think of John Lennon’s song but that is assuming some are right about Good not coming from God but if you are wrong and it does come from God and there is a God without God there is no good and why would got let something continue that has no good and is only bad?
LikeLike
I have seen more poor people with lack of empathy then rich or middle class especially those who have always been poor and have never known any different as opposed to someone who might have been poor before and are not richer. As someone who moved from poverty to middle class growing up poor I have seen a lot of lack of empathy in poor people and middle class people, this is not unique to the rich. Poor or middle class people often assume all people with money did not get that way from hard work and doing the right thing like many have and that they don’t help a lot of people with their money, which is about the same as rich assuming all poor people are lazy mooches. Yes some are but not all. My parents were both born into poor families and both worked their way out of it without government assistance while a lot of my family remains in poverty on government assistance and while receiving assistance from us but my parents must be the evil greedy ones with no empathy because they have more money? And everyone feels so sorry for poor people but in so many ways we were happier when we were poor, we did not need much to be happy as long as we had enough to survive we were good, We did not even know what we were missing and now I can tell you most of it wasn’t much, the best things in life are free.
LikeLike