http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/mar/15/morality-evolution-philosophy
Michael Ruse gives a good case for why it is possible to behave morally without God.
“God is dead, so why should I be good? The answer is that there are no grounds whatsoever for being good. There is no celestial headmaster who is going to give you six (or six billion, billion, billion) of the best if you are bad. Morality is flimflam.
Does this mean that you can just go out and rape and pillage, behave like an ancient Roman grabbing Sabine women? Not at all. I said that there are no grounds for being good. It doesn't follow that you should be bad. Indeed, there are those – and I am one – who argue that only by recognising the death of God can we possibly do that which we should, and behave properly to our fellow humans and perhaps save the planet that we all share. We can give up all of that nonsense about women and gay people being inferior, about fertilised ova being human beings, and about the earth being ours to exploit and destroy.
Start with the fact that humans are naturally moral beings. We want to get along with our fellows. We care about our families. And we feel that we should put our hands in our pockets for the widows and orphans. This is not a matter of chance or even of culture primarily. Humans as animals have gone the route of sociality. We succeed, each of us individually, because we are part of a greater whole and that whole is a lot better at surviving and reproducing that most other animals.
On the one hand, we have suppressed all sorts of common mammalian features that disrupt harmonious living. Imagine trying to run a philosophy class if two or three of the members were in heat. On the other hand, we have all sorts of sentiments about helping others and about the need to be fair. The love commandment is part of our biology.
It is true that we are aggressive at times, and it is even more true that thanks to our technology we can and sometimes do wreak the most terrible consequences on our fellow humans. But even so, compared to many other species, we are softies. The murder rate among lions, for instance, makes downtown Detroit look like a haven.
Morality then is not something handed down to Moses on Mount Sinai. It is something forged in the struggle for existence and reproduction, something fashioned by natural selection. It is as much a natural human adaptation as our ears or noses or teeth or penises or vaginas. It works and it has no meaning over and above this. If all future food were Pablum, we would probably be better off without teeth. If all future relationships could be done purely on a cost-benefit analysis, then we would probably be better off without morality. Why fall on a grenade to save your fellows when it hardly pays off for you?
Morality is just a matter of emotions, like liking ice cream and sex and hating toothache and marking student papers. But it is, and has to be, a funny kind of emotion. It has to pretend that it is not that at all! If we thought that morality was no more than liking or not liking spinach, then pretty quickly it would break down. Before long, we would find ourselves saying something like: "Well, morality is a jolly good thing from a personal point of view. When I am hungry or sick, I can rely on my fellow humans to help me. But really it is all bullshit, so when they need help I can and should avoid putting myself out. There is nothing there for me." The trouble is that everyone would start saying this, and so very quickly there would be no morality and society would collapse and each and every one of us would suffer.
So morality has to come across as something that is more than emotion. It has to appear to be objective, even though really it is subjective. "Why should I be good? Why should you be good? Because that is what morality demands of us. It is bigger than the both of us. It is laid on us and we must accept it, just like we must accept that 2 + 2 = 4." I am not saying that we always are moral, but that we always know that we should be moral.
Am I now giving the game away? Now you know that morality is an illusion put in place by your genes to make you a social cooperator, what's to stop you behaving like an ancient Roman? Well, nothing in an objective sense. But you are still a human with your gene-based psychology working flat out to make you think you should be moral. It has been said that the truth will set you free. Don't believe it. David Hume knew the score. It doesn't matter how much philosophical reflection can show that your beliefs and behaviour have no rational foundation, your psychology will make sure you go on living in a normal, happy manner.
God is dead. The new atheists think that that is a significant finding. In this, as in just about everything else, they are completely mistaken. God is dead. Morality has no foundation. Long live morality. Thank goodness!”
I’ve always wondered about people who say we can’t be good without God. There’s the implication that their belief in God is the only thing preventing them from committing crimes. Not to mention, many people do commit crimes and preach horrible ideas even though they believe in God.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Scientists Being Threatened By the Deniers
http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/living+weird+times/2673945/story.html
Climate change deniers are proving their irrationality by threatening the lives of climate scientists, rather than participating in an intellectual debate.
“Climate scientists are just trying to do their jobs, he says, but they now find themselves subject to ferocious attacks on their work, reputation and even their lives.
"I have hundreds of threatening emails," says Stanford University's Stephen Schneider, one of the United States' foremost climatologists and author of Science as a Contact Sport, a book about the battle to inform the public about global warming. "It's ugly death threat stuff. You belong in jail. You should be executed. It never happened before a year ago - now it's off the charts. "
Schneider is concerned that a climatologist could actually get killed. He says another climatologist, Ben Santer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, was recently awakened in the middle of the night by his doorbell only to find a dead animal cut to pieces on his porch and a Hummer speeding away into the night.
It would be comical if these climate change deniers weren't dead serious and the stakes so high.”
This isn’t rational thinking, this is madness.
Climate change deniers are proving their irrationality by threatening the lives of climate scientists, rather than participating in an intellectual debate.
“Climate scientists are just trying to do their jobs, he says, but they now find themselves subject to ferocious attacks on their work, reputation and even their lives.
"I have hundreds of threatening emails," says Stanford University's Stephen Schneider, one of the United States' foremost climatologists and author of Science as a Contact Sport, a book about the battle to inform the public about global warming. "It's ugly death threat stuff. You belong in jail. You should be executed. It never happened before a year ago - now it's off the charts. "
Schneider is concerned that a climatologist could actually get killed. He says another climatologist, Ben Santer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, was recently awakened in the middle of the night by his doorbell only to find a dead animal cut to pieces on his porch and a Hummer speeding away into the night.
It would be comical if these climate change deniers weren't dead serious and the stakes so high.”
This isn’t rational thinking, this is madness.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Republicans Are Trying to Rewrite History
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-sboe_12met.ART.State.Edition2.4bcac76.html
Republicans say they want students to learn about American history, their version of American history that is.
“Republicans on the State Board of Education soundly rejected a Democratic-backed proposal Thursday that would have required Texas students to be taught the reasons behind the prohibition of a state religion in the Bill of Rights.
The contentious decision in curriculum standards for U.S. government classes appeared to signal the unhappiness of several board members with court rulings that have affirmed the separation of church and state – including a longtime ban on school-sponsored prayer.
Board members defeated an amendment by member Mavis Knight, D-Dallas, that would have required students to examine the reasons the Founding Fathers "protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others."
The seven social conservatives on the panel – several of whom openly question the legal precedents affirming the separation of church and state – were joined by the three moderate Republicans in voting no.
All five Democrats – three Hispanics and two blacks – voted for the amendment.”
To summarize, Republicans want American students to learn about the Founding Fathers and how they were supposedly all Christian unless, the views of the Founding Fathers happen to contradict their own worldviews.
“Knight said all she was trying to do in her proposal was to let students study the First Amendment language that states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
A succession of court rulings have relied on that language to uphold the separation of church and state in a section of the Bill of Rights referred to as the "Establishment Clause."
But many religious conservatives – including a board-appointed curriculum expert – contend that separation of church and state was established in the law only by activist judges and not the Constitution or Bill of Rights.”
Interesting, I thought the first amendment was penned by the Founding Fathers. Huh, seems like I don’t know my history very well, maybe the Republicans can fix that problem.
Republicans say they want students to learn about American history, their version of American history that is.
“Republicans on the State Board of Education soundly rejected a Democratic-backed proposal Thursday that would have required Texas students to be taught the reasons behind the prohibition of a state religion in the Bill of Rights.
The contentious decision in curriculum standards for U.S. government classes appeared to signal the unhappiness of several board members with court rulings that have affirmed the separation of church and state – including a longtime ban on school-sponsored prayer.
Board members defeated an amendment by member Mavis Knight, D-Dallas, that would have required students to examine the reasons the Founding Fathers "protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others."
The seven social conservatives on the panel – several of whom openly question the legal precedents affirming the separation of church and state – were joined by the three moderate Republicans in voting no.
All five Democrats – three Hispanics and two blacks – voted for the amendment.”
To summarize, Republicans want American students to learn about the Founding Fathers and how they were supposedly all Christian unless, the views of the Founding Fathers happen to contradict their own worldviews.
“Knight said all she was trying to do in her proposal was to let students study the First Amendment language that states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
A succession of court rulings have relied on that language to uphold the separation of church and state in a section of the Bill of Rights referred to as the "Establishment Clause."
But many religious conservatives – including a board-appointed curriculum expert – contend that separation of church and state was established in the law only by activist judges and not the Constitution or Bill of Rights.”
Interesting, I thought the first amendment was penned by the Founding Fathers. Huh, seems like I don’t know my history very well, maybe the Republicans can fix that problem.
Americans Reject the Science
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/11/americans-climate-change-threat
America does tend to come off as the anti-science nation.
“Public belief in climate science has seen a precipitous slide in the US, according to new polling that suggests fewer Americans are concerned about the threat posed by global warming.
Nearly half of Americans – 48% – now believe the threat of global warming has been exaggerated, the highest level since polling began 13 years ago, the poll published today by Gallup said.
It directly linked the decline in concern to the controversies about media coverage of stolen emails from the University of East Anglia climate research unit and a mistake about the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 in the UN's authoritative report on global warming.
"These news reports may well have caused some Americans to re-evaluate the scientific consensus on global warming," Gallup said.
Half of Americans now believe there is a scientific consensus on climate change. Some 46% believe scientists are unsure about global warming, or that they believe it is not occurring. A UK poll last month showed adults who believe climate change is "definitely" a reality had dropped from 44% to 31% over the past year.”
Those who are fighting against science and reason are starting to gain the upper ground. Needless to say, this is a cause for concern.
America does tend to come off as the anti-science nation.
“Public belief in climate science has seen a precipitous slide in the US, according to new polling that suggests fewer Americans are concerned about the threat posed by global warming.
Nearly half of Americans – 48% – now believe the threat of global warming has been exaggerated, the highest level since polling began 13 years ago, the poll published today by Gallup said.
It directly linked the decline in concern to the controversies about media coverage of stolen emails from the University of East Anglia climate research unit and a mistake about the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 in the UN's authoritative report on global warming.
"These news reports may well have caused some Americans to re-evaluate the scientific consensus on global warming," Gallup said.
Half of Americans now believe there is a scientific consensus on climate change. Some 46% believe scientists are unsure about global warming, or that they believe it is not occurring. A UK poll last month showed adults who believe climate change is "definitely" a reality had dropped from 44% to 31% over the past year.”
Those who are fighting against science and reason are starting to gain the upper ground. Needless to say, this is a cause for concern.
What Poor Taste
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Saskatchewan+premier+apologizes+roast+flyer+with+photo/2669857/story.html
In a case of what the hell were they thinking? A political party in Saskatchewan used an image of 9/11 to advertise a pig roast.
“A flyer that used a photo of the Twin Towers burning on 9/11 to advertise a Saskatchewan Party pig roast drew condemnation Wednesday in the province's legislature, prompting Premier Brad Wall and one of top ministers to apologize.
The flyer advertises New York Fire Chief Richard Picciotto — who was in the north tower during the 2001 terror attack that killed nearly 3,000 people — as the featured speaker at an April 11 fundraising dinner for the Martensville constituency association.”
Regardless of their intentions for using the image, there’s no reason to suspect that those intentions were ill, they should’ve thought about the implications of what they were doing by promoting an event using that image.
In a case of what the hell were they thinking? A political party in Saskatchewan used an image of 9/11 to advertise a pig roast.
“A flyer that used a photo of the Twin Towers burning on 9/11 to advertise a Saskatchewan Party pig roast drew condemnation Wednesday in the province's legislature, prompting Premier Brad Wall and one of top ministers to apologize.
The flyer advertises New York Fire Chief Richard Picciotto — who was in the north tower during the 2001 terror attack that killed nearly 3,000 people — as the featured speaker at an April 11 fundraising dinner for the Martensville constituency association.”
Regardless of their intentions for using the image, there’s no reason to suspect that those intentions were ill, they should’ve thought about the implications of what they were doing by promoting an event using that image.
Ray Comfort as An Idiot
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100310/christians-counter-global-atheist-convention/
Ray Comfort continues his fight against reason repeating the common creationist cry of “where’s the missing link?”
"All I want is for people to know that the theory of evolution is bogus science," maintained Comfort, who leads California-based Living Waters ministry. "Charles Darwin lamented the lack of species-to-species transitional forms, and 150 years later, the missing link is still missing."
Comfort has failed to keep up with the scientific literature. If he had, he’d see that the links are there. It’s a willful ignorance that allows creationists from coming across any evidence that goes against their own world view.
Ray Comfort continues his fight against reason repeating the common creationist cry of “where’s the missing link?”
"All I want is for people to know that the theory of evolution is bogus science," maintained Comfort, who leads California-based Living Waters ministry. "Charles Darwin lamented the lack of species-to-species transitional forms, and 150 years later, the missing link is still missing."
Comfort has failed to keep up with the scientific literature. If he had, he’d see that the links are there. It’s a willful ignorance that allows creationists from coming across any evidence that goes against their own world view.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Take Responsibility!
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/most-believe-god-gets-involved/
The start of this article is rather entertaining.
“When the “American Idol” judge Simon Cowell recently predicted the departure of the contestant Jermaine Sellers, the young singer shook his head in disagreement. “I know God,’’ he replied, pointing upward.
Two days later, when Mr. Sellers failed to make the cut, he still had faith. “What God has for me is for me,’’ he said. “In God there is no failure.’’
Mr. Sellers is not alone in his belief that God pays attention to reality television contests.” (emphasis mine)
Believers don’t give a lot of credit to their all-powerful God do they? You’d think it would have better things to do than worry about than a karaoke contest. Not to mention there’s a level of selfishness to the thought that God cares about your singing ability. Unsurprisingly, most Americas believe in this interventionist God.
“New research shows that most Americans believe God is directly involved in their personal affairs, and that the good or bad things that happen are “part of God’s plan,’’ according to a report in the March issue of the journal Sociology of Religion.
“Many people describe their relationship with God not in abstract terms but in the way they would describe a real personal friend, but a friend who would never betray you,’’ said Scott Schieman, professor of sociology at the University of Toronto. “The interesting thing is that when you press people to start talking about things like speeding tickets or losing weight, a lot of people will weave a divine narrative in, describing God as somehow setting up situations or setting up scenarios for success or failure.’’
Why can’t people take responsibility for their own actions? When you succeed or fail the outcome was based on your decisions alone (possibly others depending on the situation), not divine intervention. It’s a wonder that in a nation that values the individual so many people are essentially giving up that sense of the individual.
“The study found that 82 percent of respondents said they “depend on God for help and guidance in making decisions.” And 71 percent believe that good or bad events are “part of God’s plan for them.’’
And one in three respondents agreed with the statement: “There is no sense in planning a lot because ultimately my fate is in God’s hands.”
The one in three who does not believe in planning is troubling. Atheists are often told that without God there is no purpose. However, who’s to say there is a purpose in not planning your own life if you believe it is all up to God?
The start of this article is rather entertaining.
“When the “American Idol” judge Simon Cowell recently predicted the departure of the contestant Jermaine Sellers, the young singer shook his head in disagreement. “I know God,’’ he replied, pointing upward.
Two days later, when Mr. Sellers failed to make the cut, he still had faith. “What God has for me is for me,’’ he said. “In God there is no failure.’’
Mr. Sellers is not alone in his belief that God pays attention to reality television contests.” (emphasis mine)
Believers don’t give a lot of credit to their all-powerful God do they? You’d think it would have better things to do than worry about than a karaoke contest. Not to mention there’s a level of selfishness to the thought that God cares about your singing ability. Unsurprisingly, most Americas believe in this interventionist God.
“New research shows that most Americans believe God is directly involved in their personal affairs, and that the good or bad things that happen are “part of God’s plan,’’ according to a report in the March issue of the journal Sociology of Religion.
“Many people describe their relationship with God not in abstract terms but in the way they would describe a real personal friend, but a friend who would never betray you,’’ said Scott Schieman, professor of sociology at the University of Toronto. “The interesting thing is that when you press people to start talking about things like speeding tickets or losing weight, a lot of people will weave a divine narrative in, describing God as somehow setting up situations or setting up scenarios for success or failure.’’
Why can’t people take responsibility for their own actions? When you succeed or fail the outcome was based on your decisions alone (possibly others depending on the situation), not divine intervention. It’s a wonder that in a nation that values the individual so many people are essentially giving up that sense of the individual.
“The study found that 82 percent of respondents said they “depend on God for help and guidance in making decisions.” And 71 percent believe that good or bad events are “part of God’s plan for them.’’
And one in three respondents agreed with the statement: “There is no sense in planning a lot because ultimately my fate is in God’s hands.”
The one in three who does not believe in planning is troubling. Atheists are often told that without God there is no purpose. However, who’s to say there is a purpose in not planning your own life if you believe it is all up to God?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)