I recently received a comment from a Christian reader named Rae. The comment was in response to my creationism refuted post. Rae's comments seem summarize a very typical response to scientist's explanations for the origin of the universe. I thought i would post his comment together with my response for you all to read. Please feel free to reference the original post about creationism if you like, though it is not necessary to follow the debate. Comments are welcome and encouraged. :)
Rae's comment:
I am a believer in God. Here are my thoughts: We are both making basic foundational assumptions. Mine, of course, is that no matter how it was made, the universe was created by a more supreme being. Science, then, would attempt to continually discover more about what was made and how it works. Your basic assumption is that all can be explained through naturalistic means. The problem is that no matter how many naturalistic theories are formed to explain the existence of our universe, something exists - which shouldn't if there is no outside influence. What I mean is this: Okay, what if there is a parent universe, or something outside this universe that spawned it? And maybe there is something beyond that which spawned it. Even if at the very beginning of the chain that "something" which eventually caused this universe is found to be infinite, that "something" contains ingredients. Whether that is matter or some unknown substance is irrelevant. Those ingredients exist. How? Why? Science can never answer how or why at that point. (Not that science usually answers the question "why?") So I am going to conclude that it is logical to believe that a Supreme Being who humans can't fully understand and who is outside of that which contains these "ingredients", outside of nature, caused this universe and everything in it. I don't believe that God created parent universes and so on, but that is because I, for now, have no reason to believe he did. It sounds like those theories are not scientific but instead are purely philosophical, and absolutely based on the assumption that all can be explained through naturalistic means. You may believe I am filling in the gaps with "God" (I disagree), but I believe you are just filling in the gaps with "We'll know later." I also need to add that there seems to be much more evidence outside of this topic that points to a Creator, and when all is put together and considered, belief in God is, I think, quite plausible. For example: the Bible is by far the most historically sound document in existence. To reject the events that occurred, specifically the events surrounding Christ and the resurrection, you must reject it on means other than the historicity of the Bible, which is being confirmed more and more as we learn and discover new information about the past. And I know that is not what this debate is about, but my point is if the resurrection can't be refuted, than it is absolutely logical to start with the basic assumption that God created the universe. With that, I respect your views and thank you for taking the time to read mine! My Response:
Ok Rae, I don't think that I will be able to persuade you into thinking that a natural explanation is more plausible than supernatural. BUT I will try.
I will start with this, which has already been addressed to Barry. Belief with justification by evidence is not the same as belief without justification or evidence. I believe that unanswered questions will have natural explanations because that is what has happened over and over and over throughout the history of human understanding. I believe events have natural causes, because the evidence supports that idea.
Please remember Rae, that any understanding of cause and effect in our world is founded completely on natural, explainable hypotheses supported with observation and evidence. Imagine the massive wealth of understanding about the observed events in this universe: ALL accepted explanations are entirely naturally based. Humanity has observed the confirmation of that fact over and over throughout the history of science. Yet here you are, suddenly reaching the next frontier of knowledge and expecting a different result? How is that logical at all? It cannot be. Furthermore, I do not think it is logical for you to conclude that a supernatural force must exist outside of nature which is the cause of any event. Over and over we have learned that things have natural causes, why would it be logical to expect a different result that conflicts with the past observations? It is not a valid conclusion because science has never observed a supernatural cause and scientists have no data or evidence to suggest such an existence is even possible.
Granted, I know that I cannot prove that god does not exist, but hopefully at this point I have clarified why “God did it” is not a logical alternative hypothesis to explain issues that “Scientist cannot yet explain”.
It is acceptable to believe that all problems have a solution. It is acceptable to say: “I do not know the answer to this problem.” It is not acceptable to say: “The solution to this problem is a supernatural concept, which I have no evidence to support.” It conclusion, I say history, observable and documented evidence compiled by over two hundred years of research lends credibility to the concept that these problems have natural solutions. There is no data, research and or observable evidence which supports the notion of a supernatural anything. Rae, you are more than welcome to try and prove the existence the supernatural if you like, I will gladly comment on your thoughts.
The old question: “If god created the universe, then what created god?” is usually answered in a similar fashion to your comment “God does not need a creator, because he “has no ingredients”, or “God exists outside time and existence”. But these are simply word play answers and have no real meaning. Both of those concepts are unjustified notions which are not supported by evidence. To make such a claim valid one must prove that a thing can exist outside of time, or that a thing can exist with no ingredients. I could very well propose the concept of a non-thinking, indifferent super-force, with no ingredients, which exist outside of time. I could also say that this force caused of all the matter in our universe to exist. This super-force caused our matter and universe in a way that was accidental, like a by-product of its existence outside of time. I could suggest that when the by-product of this super-force (matter) was created, it was actually the big bang. This super-force, being non-intelligent, was not aware of what it has caused and had no further influence, so after the big gang all of matter ran a natural course which can be explained through natural processes which are documented and observed by science.
WOW! What an interesting concept, seems to have the all same “clutch” arguments as your god argument. Yet, I’m willing to bet it sounded ridiculous. It should, its totally unjustified word play, yet you and everyone on the planet cannot prove my theory false. Should we be inclined to accept it a plausible explanation for the origin of matter? My position is that we should not.
It can’t be proven wrong so…..“That means there’s a chance!” (A chance it’s true)
Your right Rae, but that is not how humans decide what to believe in any other area of life.
For ex: You cannot possibly prove that there are not fairies at the bottom of my garden, but you can prove that the PROBABILITY of that being true is slim, and that is based on the observations and evidence, which give no reason to conclude that fairies are real.
A satellite could fall from the sky and crush you as you leave for work. It’s possible, but so unlikely to happen, so based on the probability that it won’t, you don’t think twice about it when you step outside. When someone IS afraid to go outside because they are scared of falling satellites or garden fairies, we call them crazy or neurotic. Because unjustified beliefs are a characteristic of an irrational person.
So Rae, with all due respect, do you still feel your beliefs in god are justified by some evidence or observable data, or any testable concept? Because before we talk about the bible or resurrection we must first establish whether or not the notion of GOD is a plausible concept. I look forward to your reply.
Feb 11, 2010
Apr 30, 2009
Morality does not come from God
I've ran into this debate so many times recently, or rather I've ran into the wrong answer to this important question several times in debate. My opponents state that morals come from God, scripture and holy books. Which are basically the supernaturally inspired writings of men. I have heard time and time again that without these holy guidelines in society, man will become his own god and choose his own individual interpretation of morality. The religious feel that without holy books to follow, people will do whatever they desire with no regard to anyone else including stealing, murdering, committing adultery etc....
NOTHING could be further from the truth. Our moral compass, has no origin in scripture. I will attempt throughout this post to intellectually destroy the concept of morality derived from religion. I will also try to present a logical alternative to the origin of our human morals. The purpose of this post is to provide a source for atheist to reference when confronted with similar religious arguments as those mentioned above, as well as for religious persons to perhaps reevaluate the credibility of their beliefs. The proof of this argument is longer than what is usually considered courteous for a comment reply in the blogosphere, so whenever the issue comes up please feel free to reference a link to this post to drive your point home. This post shall be divided into a two separate arguments.
Arguments against moral origin from holy bible
All one need do is look through the old testament and there you will find countless examples of deplorable moral instruction. In Deuteronomy we are instructed to take our disobedient children and bring them forth to the elders of our community to be publicly stoned to death. 21:18-21
If a man is found lying with a married woman they shall both be put to death. 22:22
If your community worships another god than that of Christianity, God will instruct his people to proceed with a thorough extermination of all inhabitants of your community, including your children. 2:33-36, and 3:3-6. (there are many more examples of Gods love of genocide.) One need only look to the story of Lot and the Sodomites in the book of Genesis to find some wonderful accounts of morality. "I will not destroy it for ten's sake."-God
I guess God couldn't find even ten good Sodomites because he decides to kill them all in Genesis 19. Too bad Abraham didn't ask God about the children. Why not save them? If Abraham could find 10 good children, toddlers, infants, or babies, would God spare the city? Apparently not. God doesn't give a damn about children. 18:32 Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two "virgin daughters" instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to "do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes." This is the same man that is called "just" and "righteous" in 2 Peter 2:7-8. 19:7-8 God kills everyone (men, women, children, infants, newborns) in Sodom and Gomorrah by raining "fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven." Well, almost everyone -- he spares the "just and righteous" Lot and his family. 19:24
Many Christians today feel that Jesus did away with all this barbaric morality in the New Testament, However Jesus himself can be found to show his complete support for old laws on several occasions throughout the New Testament. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."-Jesus from Matthew 5:17 Also see Matthew 5:18-19 and Timothy 3:15-17. Christians will argue that these statements reflect Jesus' comments on how he will change the law after his Crucifixion is complete, pointing out his last words on the cross to reflect this notion. Yet if such reworking of old laws was coming why wouldn't God allude to this at all in the Old Testament? God, being omniscient and knowing the future could have specifically said- " Someday I will send my son who is also me, to the earth in human form, and whatever he speaks of law shall be the new law, and if it contradicts my word, you shall take his and follow his there after." Why did he speak so adamantly about preserving his word, and offer so much warning to changing his laws, if he knew he would someday undo it all through Jesus? Take for example passages in Deuteronomy 12:32 -"What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. " and 12:28-"Observe and hear all these words which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for ever, when thou doest that which is good and right in the sight of the LORD thy God. " The part For ever, stands out the most to me, clearly this god had no intention of changing his mind at any point in time.
Some will point out that Jesus was a large advocate of the Golden Rule, which is a wonderful advancement from the old testament brutality. Christianity, like most religions, repeatedly claim to be the only way of morality and most all ironically claim to be written under the authority of the true creator of the universe. Yet advocates of the Golden Rule, can be found in all religions, some dating to much earlier times than that of Jesus. Check out this list of religions advocating "the rule" Such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Islam, Baha'i Faith, Jainism, Judaism, Taoism. So how does one decide which moral doctrine to follow?
This leads us to a very important question: By what criteria do you decide which passages in the bible to follow? What criteria did you use to decide that your religion is the best representation of morality? All religions have their own claims to superiority, so one cannot logically, refer to the bible for guidance on which religion to choose. The statement "I used the bible for moral guidance in determining that the bible is the best source of moral guidance.", is circular reasoning, and totally irrational. Even if the previous statement was accurate and a humans moral compass can only follow Gods words in the form of ancient text , then all passages would have the same credibility. God certainly made it very clear that not one passage is to be neglected. It is obvious to me that we have moral intuition contained within ourselves that allows us to decide (without gods help), what is right and wrong. The fact that you choose one doctrine over another proves that you are using your own moral intuition to determine what you feel is the best doctrine of morality. You are also using your own justification to support your choices. Moral intuition cannot be connected to scripture by any reasonable arguments. It is noteworthy to point out that there is no correlative data to suggest in any way, that atheism is linked to bad morality. However, since over 80% of America identifies themselves as a Christian, and with our high ratio of criminals per capt, it is quite easy to find correlative data to suggest that religious affiliation has nothing to do with morality. Of course that is not the basis of this argument since correlative data can be easily misused. (One might even try and argue against my moral intuition argument by stating that our high rate of crime is proof that we are inherently immoral. I will show that this is untrue later in this post.)
It is not a stretch of the imagination to say that the teachings of Christianity are so muddled with moral contradictions, that ideas like slavery, burning of heretics, torture of heretics, oppression of women and child abuse have been happily endorsed by the Church for the past twenty centuries. Today's Christians feel that all these past atrocities represented a skewed version of their faith. Yet Sam Harris points out how strange it is that today's Christian feel that they finally got it right in the last 50 years, despite the fact that all the saints and most predominate figures in their religion somehow got it wrong for 2,000 years. It seems either very arrogant, or more likely that their present moral opinions have nothing to do with the words of religious doctrine. Scripture is fixed, and yet morality has advanced in a slow upward trend. The only way to explain this upward trend is to look outside of religion. And so we shall.
Argument for a natural cause of morality.
I am convinced that like all dead gods and deities explained away by science, society will ultimately come to the conclusion that all things have natural causes, science has already disregarded the supernatural hypothesis, now it is time for the masses to toss aside the mythology that is crippling our minds. I will do my part by trying to spread some of the ideas that i have read about, ideas that could offer natural explanations for our moral intuition. Unlike the morality from religion theory these explanations are consistent with the progress of our moral development throughout our history.
The most convincing explanation is the theory that morality evolved from altruistic behavior in our ancestors. Before i begin this argument i would like to acquaint you with some terminology. Altruistic behaviour can be defined as- 1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others 2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species. Examples of altruism are found in a broad variety of species on this planet. I will only list a few to illustrate the point that it does exist in nature. Worker bees, which sting potential honey robbers, and do so at the expense of their own lives. Their vital organs are torn out, and they die soon after from the damage. Why would an organism give its life to save a food supply that it will not be around to enjoy? Why do many species of birds sound an alarm to warn the flock when danger is spotted, when making sounds puts them at a higher risk of danger than the bird who flies off silently. At first glance the concept of survival of the fittest seems to have gone backwards. This is just an illusion, once we consider the knowledge we have about genes, the picture becomes clearer.
The truth is that every bee in the colony carries the same genes. The selfish worker bee could fly away, and leave his colony to be pillaged, while saving its own life. If it did, the potential for its selfish survival traits to be passed on has been almost completely ruined, since most of its genetic descendants have just been squashed in a honey raid. By contrast, the altruistic bee who self sacrifices, and gives his life for his colony, has averted the destruction of his genetic decedents. The altruist gene prevails in almost all scenarios. The same holds true in humans. I am not implying that we evolved from bees, i am simply saying that natural selection favors altruistic behavior. This is most certainly so in humans. Early humans lived in small tribes, members of which, are likely to be carriers the same genes. The survival of my genes are not entirely based on my own survival. If i live and have two children, i have replicated some of my genes twice. If i die protecting my tribe of 20 humans, and those humans go on to have have 40 children. By giving my life to save my tribe i have ensured the replication of some of my genes by 40 times. Odds are that many of the tribe members would have similar altruistic tendencies. Thus the altruist multiplies even in death. The concept is of course, more complicated than is being presented here on this blog. Yet the idea remains the same, basic math shows the self motivated gene to have replicated twice, while the altruistic gene has replicated forty times. It would not be a stretch of the imagination to envision our ancestors slowly building our internal moral compass, through evolution. Morality can be explained by this type of altruistic evolution down to the smallest concepts like trust. Individuals who are trusted have an advantage in survival compared to the deceiver. Deceivers, thieves, murders, are all outcasts in tribal communities. If they are expelled from their group, their survival is hindered. While those who help, tell the truth, defend family and tribe members, are favored by the group, and for obvious reasons, their genes are more likely to be passed on. Once this concept is understood, there is little about human psychology that cannot be explained by evolution.
I would like to take a second to point out something about evolution. This next point is an obligatory response to my creationist opponents who might say something like: "YA, well i think evolution is just a bunch of lies, so i don't believe any of this altruistic evolution crap explains our morality." Unfortunately, there are two kinds of evolution. Micro and Macro. Macro evolution is the development of new species through a series of mutations. The theory that men evolved from monkeys is an example of macroevolution. Microevolution explains variations of adaptations within a species. For example dogs that adapted to colder environment by developing thicker coats of fur. Microevolution explains every variation that occurs within a specific species of animal, just before the point in becomes so distorted that is no longer the same species. Creationist acknowledge that micro occurs all through nature, but hold the view that no species has ever become so distorted that it became a new species. In other words, creationist think macroevolution is false, but micro is true. With this in mind, the concept of morality derived from altruistic evolution is still compatible with microevolution, and even a creationist will have to entertain this possibility. Morality could have evolved entirely in the human species, and does not have to originate in monkeys in order to make sense. That is not the opinion that i hold, but for the sake of argument, simply disregarding evolution, is not an option. ( I would like to point out that chimpanzees have a moral code that is more advanced than the rest of the animal kingdom. Of all the animals in the world they behave in a way that is most similar to human social behavior. I am quite sure it is not by coincidence.)
Explaining our upward trend in morality
NOTHING could be further from the truth. Our moral compass, has no origin in scripture. I will attempt throughout this post to intellectually destroy the concept of morality derived from religion. I will also try to present a logical alternative to the origin of our human morals. The purpose of this post is to provide a source for atheist to reference when confronted with similar religious arguments as those mentioned above, as well as for religious persons to perhaps reevaluate the credibility of their beliefs. The proof of this argument is longer than what is usually considered courteous for a comment reply in the blogosphere, so whenever the issue comes up please feel free to reference a link to this post to drive your point home. This post shall be divided into a two separate arguments.
Arguments against moral origin from holy bible
All one need do is look through the old testament and there you will find countless examples of deplorable moral instruction. In Deuteronomy we are instructed to take our disobedient children and bring them forth to the elders of our community to be publicly stoned to death. 21:18-21
If a man is found lying with a married woman they shall both be put to death. 22:22
If your community worships another god than that of Christianity, God will instruct his people to proceed with a thorough extermination of all inhabitants of your community, including your children. 2:33-36, and 3:3-6. (there are many more examples of Gods love of genocide.) One need only look to the story of Lot and the Sodomites in the book of Genesis to find some wonderful accounts of morality. "I will not destroy it for ten's sake."-God
I guess God couldn't find even ten good Sodomites because he decides to kill them all in Genesis 19. Too bad Abraham didn't ask God about the children. Why not save them? If Abraham could find 10 good children, toddlers, infants, or babies, would God spare the city? Apparently not. God doesn't give a damn about children. 18:32 Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two "virgin daughters" instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to "do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes." This is the same man that is called "just" and "righteous" in 2 Peter 2:7-8. 19:7-8 God kills everyone (men, women, children, infants, newborns) in Sodom and Gomorrah by raining "fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven." Well, almost everyone -- he spares the "just and righteous" Lot and his family. 19:24
Many Christians today feel that Jesus did away with all this barbaric morality in the New Testament, However Jesus himself can be found to show his complete support for old laws on several occasions throughout the New Testament. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."-Jesus from Matthew 5:17 Also see Matthew 5:18-19 and Timothy 3:15-17. Christians will argue that these statements reflect Jesus' comments on how he will change the law after his Crucifixion is complete, pointing out his last words on the cross to reflect this notion. Yet if such reworking of old laws was coming why wouldn't God allude to this at all in the Old Testament? God, being omniscient and knowing the future could have specifically said- " Someday I will send my son who is also me, to the earth in human form, and whatever he speaks of law shall be the new law, and if it contradicts my word, you shall take his and follow his there after." Why did he speak so adamantly about preserving his word, and offer so much warning to changing his laws, if he knew he would someday undo it all through Jesus? Take for example passages in Deuteronomy 12:32 -"What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. " and 12:28-"Observe and hear all these words which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for ever, when thou doest that which is good and right in the sight of the LORD thy God. " The part For ever, stands out the most to me, clearly this god had no intention of changing his mind at any point in time.
Some will point out that Jesus was a large advocate of the Golden Rule, which is a wonderful advancement from the old testament brutality. Christianity, like most religions, repeatedly claim to be the only way of morality and most all ironically claim to be written under the authority of the true creator of the universe. Yet advocates of the Golden Rule, can be found in all religions, some dating to much earlier times than that of Jesus. Check out this list of religions advocating "the rule" Such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Islam, Baha'i Faith, Jainism, Judaism, Taoism. So how does one decide which moral doctrine to follow?
This leads us to a very important question: By what criteria do you decide which passages in the bible to follow? What criteria did you use to decide that your religion is the best representation of morality? All religions have their own claims to superiority, so one cannot logically, refer to the bible for guidance on which religion to choose. The statement "I used the bible for moral guidance in determining that the bible is the best source of moral guidance.", is circular reasoning, and totally irrational. Even if the previous statement was accurate and a humans moral compass can only follow Gods words in the form of ancient text , then all passages would have the same credibility. God certainly made it very clear that not one passage is to be neglected. It is obvious to me that we have moral intuition contained within ourselves that allows us to decide (without gods help), what is right and wrong. The fact that you choose one doctrine over another proves that you are using your own moral intuition to determine what you feel is the best doctrine of morality. You are also using your own justification to support your choices. Moral intuition cannot be connected to scripture by any reasonable arguments. It is noteworthy to point out that there is no correlative data to suggest in any way, that atheism is linked to bad morality. However, since over 80% of America identifies themselves as a Christian, and with our high ratio of criminals per capt, it is quite easy to find correlative data to suggest that religious affiliation has nothing to do with morality. Of course that is not the basis of this argument since correlative data can be easily misused. (One might even try and argue against my moral intuition argument by stating that our high rate of crime is proof that we are inherently immoral. I will show that this is untrue later in this post.)
It is not a stretch of the imagination to say that the teachings of Christianity are so muddled with moral contradictions, that ideas like slavery, burning of heretics, torture of heretics, oppression of women and child abuse have been happily endorsed by the Church for the past twenty centuries. Today's Christians feel that all these past atrocities represented a skewed version of their faith. Yet Sam Harris points out how strange it is that today's Christian feel that they finally got it right in the last 50 years, despite the fact that all the saints and most predominate figures in their religion somehow got it wrong for 2,000 years. It seems either very arrogant, or more likely that their present moral opinions have nothing to do with the words of religious doctrine. Scripture is fixed, and yet morality has advanced in a slow upward trend. The only way to explain this upward trend is to look outside of religion. And so we shall.
Argument for a natural cause of morality.
I am convinced that like all dead gods and deities explained away by science, society will ultimately come to the conclusion that all things have natural causes, science has already disregarded the supernatural hypothesis, now it is time for the masses to toss aside the mythology that is crippling our minds. I will do my part by trying to spread some of the ideas that i have read about, ideas that could offer natural explanations for our moral intuition. Unlike the morality from religion theory these explanations are consistent with the progress of our moral development throughout our history.
The most convincing explanation is the theory that morality evolved from altruistic behavior in our ancestors. Before i begin this argument i would like to acquaint you with some terminology. Altruistic behaviour can be defined as- 1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others 2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species. Examples of altruism are found in a broad variety of species on this planet. I will only list a few to illustrate the point that it does exist in nature. Worker bees, which sting potential honey robbers, and do so at the expense of their own lives. Their vital organs are torn out, and they die soon after from the damage. Why would an organism give its life to save a food supply that it will not be around to enjoy? Why do many species of birds sound an alarm to warn the flock when danger is spotted, when making sounds puts them at a higher risk of danger than the bird who flies off silently. At first glance the concept of survival of the fittest seems to have gone backwards. This is just an illusion, once we consider the knowledge we have about genes, the picture becomes clearer.
The truth is that every bee in the colony carries the same genes. The selfish worker bee could fly away, and leave his colony to be pillaged, while saving its own life. If it did, the potential for its selfish survival traits to be passed on has been almost completely ruined, since most of its genetic descendants have just been squashed in a honey raid. By contrast, the altruistic bee who self sacrifices, and gives his life for his colony, has averted the destruction of his genetic decedents. The altruist gene prevails in almost all scenarios. The same holds true in humans. I am not implying that we evolved from bees, i am simply saying that natural selection favors altruistic behavior. This is most certainly so in humans. Early humans lived in small tribes, members of which, are likely to be carriers the same genes. The survival of my genes are not entirely based on my own survival. If i live and have two children, i have replicated some of my genes twice. If i die protecting my tribe of 20 humans, and those humans go on to have have 40 children. By giving my life to save my tribe i have ensured the replication of some of my genes by 40 times. Odds are that many of the tribe members would have similar altruistic tendencies. Thus the altruist multiplies even in death. The concept is of course, more complicated than is being presented here on this blog. Yet the idea remains the same, basic math shows the self motivated gene to have replicated twice, while the altruistic gene has replicated forty times. It would not be a stretch of the imagination to envision our ancestors slowly building our internal moral compass, through evolution. Morality can be explained by this type of altruistic evolution down to the smallest concepts like trust. Individuals who are trusted have an advantage in survival compared to the deceiver. Deceivers, thieves, murders, are all outcasts in tribal communities. If they are expelled from their group, their survival is hindered. While those who help, tell the truth, defend family and tribe members, are favored by the group, and for obvious reasons, their genes are more likely to be passed on. Once this concept is understood, there is little about human psychology that cannot be explained by evolution.
I would like to take a second to point out something about evolution. This next point is an obligatory response to my creationist opponents who might say something like: "YA, well i think evolution is just a bunch of lies, so i don't believe any of this altruistic evolution crap explains our morality." Unfortunately, there are two kinds of evolution. Micro and Macro. Macro evolution is the development of new species through a series of mutations. The theory that men evolved from monkeys is an example of macroevolution. Microevolution explains variations of adaptations within a species. For example dogs that adapted to colder environment by developing thicker coats of fur. Microevolution explains every variation that occurs within a specific species of animal, just before the point in becomes so distorted that is no longer the same species. Creationist acknowledge that micro occurs all through nature, but hold the view that no species has ever become so distorted that it became a new species. In other words, creationist think macroevolution is false, but micro is true. With this in mind, the concept of morality derived from altruistic evolution is still compatible with microevolution, and even a creationist will have to entertain this possibility. Morality could have evolved entirely in the human species, and does not have to originate in monkeys in order to make sense. That is not the opinion that i hold, but for the sake of argument, simply disregarding evolution, is not an option. ( I would like to point out that chimpanzees have a moral code that is more advanced than the rest of the animal kingdom. Of all the animals in the world they behave in a way that is most similar to human social behavior. I am quite sure it is not by coincidence.)
Explaining our upward trend in morality
The upward trend in morality can be described as a bad ideas repeatedly being embraced by the public as acceptable, only to be disregarded as immoral after a period of time. Often in our history, humanity has taken many centuries to recognize the errors of our ways. Though it seems to be a repeating pattern that all bad ideas will be righted in time. Slavery, justified by biblical passages, took centuries to fix. Heretics are no longer burnt, at least by western cultures. Women rights, have made much progress in the west as well. The western cultures have repeatedly overcome bad ideas, or rather immoral ideas, time and time again.
This trend shows that we have an natural desire to create and live in a moral society, but it also poises a larger question that must be answered to truly understand our moral origins: Why does an organism with an internal moral compass developed through evolution, repeatedly embrace bad morals? I could take the route of many atheist and simply right it off as the fault of the worlds many religions and their conflicting agendas. This is very tempting to do since most atrocities in human history have some religious origins, but that argument only hits the tip of the iceberg. The question still remains: why would we follow an immoral scripture, if it goes against our altruistic intuition?
The answer is found in another of our evolutionary traits. Our desire to follow a leader. Natural selection favors a desire to follow someone whom we perceive is more intelligent than ourselves. This trait would be beneficial to any group of early humans. Our genetic information would be more likely passed on, if we trust and follow a human that we perceive as more intelligent than ourselves. Based on the likely possibility that an intelligent human will lead us a safer direction than could be obtained by following our own perceived lesser intelligence. No doubt the "leader role" can be found in many species that live in groups throughout our world. In most lower mammals the leader is chosen based on a show of strength. In the case of humans, our survival was not based entirely on our strength. Intelligence played the larger role as our brains became more useful than our muscles. The end result of this process is an instinctive desire to follow an intelligent leader.
What this means for our moral development is that an individual, or group of individuals could easily lead the masses in an immoral direction. Our desire to follow the smarter fellow, temporally blinds our judgement. The more people that embrace an idea, the more desirable it becomes. Our ability to stray from the pack, also goes against our evolutionary hardware. When the group runs, you don't question why, you just start running. This served a function at a point in our evolutionary history, but today the function manifest itself by not allowing the individual in society to honestly question ideas that are commonly held.
There have been many leaders in human history and sure many of them were good, but on more that several occasions our leaders have lead us in an immoral direction. One might ask in a very similar way: " Why are we so easily lead in immoral direction if our instincts are to create a moral society?" Good question, it seems that humanities altruism and good morality toward strangers is almost certainly an afterthought in every case of our history. This phenomenon could be explained by another evolutionary trait called the hierarchy of needs. Self-preservation makes up the 1st level of needs, the foundation. (altruism for genetic descendants is a form of self-preservation). However altruism toward strangers only occurs after the physiological needs to self-preserve have been met. And so on and so on. When one priority of needs is met, we try to meet the next level filled with less priority needs. All the way up until people start worrying about irrelevant ideas like "is my dog depressed" or "is my cat happy."
I strongly believe that most leaders who have lead humanity in an immoral direction did so based on some aspect of our needs not being met. When our needs are not met, our ideas about morality are often bypassed. To illustrate this point one need only look at the high crime rates in impoverished communities. This does not mean we are immoral by nature, it means we self-preserve at the expense of morality. Moral ideas only occur in times when our lower level needs are met, at that time our altuistic nature kicks in and we re-evoluate our actions and the immoral ideas are rejected. It is no suprise that as our technology advances and our basic phisiological needs are quite easily obtained, our society rockets to a moral standard never seen before in human history.
The upward trend in our morality is summarized like this: At some point in history an event or change took place which made our basic needs appear to be threatened. We identified a leader, whom we felt was intellegent and trustworthy. This person might have had ideas which were immoral, but would help us obtain our needs. Our evolutionary hardware told us to follow. Immoral behavior may have taken place, and would be embraced by the masses as a justified means to and end. At some point another change or event takes place, sometimes centuries later maybe its an invention or discovery of a new resource. Our physiological needs become fufilled and our altruistic hardware kicks in. Whenever our physilogical needs are met, our altruistic hardware trumps our desire to follow and we "re-group" in a positive direction. This does not mean that ones need must be met for our altruistic side to shine. The above summary is just the more frequent route of moral advancement.
We are internally good, so long as our needs are met. Humanity in our modern form takes this concept one step further by creating precautions to preserve good morality even if the future brings an era of hardship. Morality is enforced by police. It is worth noting that police are representatives of laws that are inspired by our societies good intentions. Many laws are voted on by public, because we live in a democracy designed by the very altruistic instincts that make moral preservation desireable. We take the precautions to ensure that our children and grandchildren will have a safe and moral environment with abundant resources. Our moral origins are not the result of ancient scriptures instructing us. Morality has only existed because it was benifitial to our species survival. It certainly exist today only because it has been programmed into us by natural selection through many generations of altruistic behavior.
Apr 21, 2009
Religion in Politics
I used to find comfort in knowing that my political representatives were on an invisible religious leash. What i mean by that is this: I thought that a believing person, who had the fear of Gods judgement would be more honest in a position power. However, i no longer support the position in favor of religions ability to control a persons morality. I have found no correlative data to support the idea that religion has control over the individual to self-govern. Sure there are probably people out there who genuinely feel afraid that god is watching and judging their every action and thought, and behave solely because of that fear. To those people i would like to ask this: If you knew there where no God, would you turn to a life of crime? Would you suddenly disregard the feelings, rights and suffering of your fellow humans. Hopefully the answer is no, and I would bet, that even ones feelings of pride when helping someone in need aren't diminished just because there is no subsequent reward by God.
Back to my original point, i was examining the requirements for holding a position of political office. For the most part, the only restrictions were put on age, and time spent as a citizen. You can even be a convicted felon and still be a U.S Representative. This is very scary to me. My daughters teacher in kindergarten needs at least a bachelors degree and a clean record. Aside from the specific requirements noted in the constitution, there are several requirements that are not written, but useful to persons with an interest in a political career. Professed affiliation with certain religious groups, such a Christianity, is certainly important in a country with a population that is over 80% Christian. It is a well known fact that in most areas of this country, if a potential candidate were to identify themselves as an atheist, the public mass disapproval would be the equivalent to political suicide. In order to be a member of government in a modern superpower, one is not required to be a student of political science, economics, law, civil engineering, military history or international relations. One need only be an expert fund raiser, look good and carry his or herself well on television, and profess a belief in the popular mythology. In our present political setup, a well spoken actor with knowledge of the bible, would defeat a quiet genius with a Nobel peace prize, who doesn't accept supernatural doctrines.
This brings me to my point, and my rather recent change of heart. I would support an Atheist candidate just on the idea that he is likely to be more honest than a religious one. While it is true, that we can never know the true motivation of any politician, any man or woman can claim to be religious to gain the upper hand in an election by supporting a popular idea. But only an honest person would claim to be an Atheist knowing that releasing such information would only hinder his or her campaign.
On a final note, i would also like to point out that any politician who claims to act on the authority of God, is the most terrifying person that i can imagine to be in control of a modern superpower. If you consider the strong possibility that God does not exist, you have to wonder, where did that voice that our leaders mistook for God come from? When someone prays for guidance, and then imagines that they heard an answer, they hold that answer to much higher degree of validity than that of their own opinion. They may disregard all reason, and act on whatever advice they imagined came from god. A religious person would certainly feel that the divine advice they received should not be subject to the same scrutiny as advice from a friend. Maybe it was the wind, maybe it was someone in the next room, maybe it was their own internal monologue, maybe it was an imaginary man whom they feel is infallible. Whatever the possibility, it is a truly frightening notion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)