I have enjoyed the comments from a new person on my blog who is an atheist. I am feeling a bit ashamed because I feel he is kind and compassionate about people with faith and wishes to interact, whereas when I was an atheist I was far from this.
I became an atheist in church, ironically. Up until this point I had absolutely no inkling of anyone believing in any type of god. However, my parents were posted abroad (apparently they preferred church abroad) and so, aged seven, I got dragged along to this awful place, where I had the choice of being bored in church or having more school in the form of Sunday School (which I hated with a passion). Hence, I chose the former. I listened intently to the sermons, and after the third one decided that it was rubbish. As I remember it, the first sermon said we all had gifts, and I couldn't think of anything I was good at except causing much hilarity by being teased at school. The second sermon said God had a plan for our lives, and hence I concluded that God was a pretty nasty piece of work and had from the beginning of time planned that I would be bullied at school. The third sermon, though, was the killer. It said that God loved me. What a joke. My life was so full of cruelty and so miserable, and there was a God of love???
I think I became a pretty bitter atheist, I hated the idea that others used faith to prop themselves up and not face up to the harsh realities of life. As time went on I would take people's faith to pieces if I could, with much contempt and scorn. I never lost an argument, after all there is never any real proof with faith. C.S.Lewis has already claimed the place of being the most dejected and reluctant convert in all Christendom. I would like to claim second place, it really was embarrassing. When I was an atheist I felt superior, felt like those who needed a faith were weaker than me, I felt logical, clear, modern, rational, all of that went once I was converted.
There is some discussion about famous atheists like Richard Dawkins, and I guess it is difficult to get a good public discussion going about faith when there are so may extreme views. I think sometimes the put downs from atheists can cause those with faith to feel intimidated, perhaps the same is true the other way round. I shared a common room with Richard Dawkins for three years and found him to be kind, gentle and interesting. I also met other atheists at that time who I found to be arrogant and scathing. I suppose the same is true of people of faith.
49 comments:
Well, I think the issues are the tone, aims and conduct of the debate. There are plenty of rude, obnoxious & ignorant Christians who treat every atheist as if they are a mixture of
Aleister Crowley, Stalin & Fred West. The trouble is that now some atheists have joined them in their extremism.
I think we have all forgotten the concept of "agreeing to disagree."
I really like atheists and was thinking of doing a post called "Thank God for atheists" - might be coming up some time in the future!
Now I want to read about your conversion! Please ...
Ok.. but how did you come to faith?
Do you mean how did I come to faith?
My father was a C of E vicar, but my Mum's side of the family are mainly evangelical extremists - er - I mean Christians -[only joking :)] I was "saved" after getting involved in an evangelical group when I was 13.
The following thirty years have been a long process of development and change in beliefs, approach and attitude, and of personal growth an dincreased self knowledge ( I think!)
What about everyone else?
.... In my case case I was an atheist for the first 27 years of life, I was almost thrown out of Sunday school for saying God didn't exist. (My parents were basically church-going presbyterians : agnostics, very different from their Scottish /Northern Irish Evangelical ancestors.) I had a rewarding but rather complex experience at an Evangelical Theology College & became rapidly disenchanted with Reformed Theology after considering how Calvinism was a midwife for the radical individualism that blights modern society. (I wasn't keen on the concepts of Eldership, election & communion being restricted to being a quarterly "commemoration" either!) So now I'm more of a Catholic Minded Anglican. (Who said "Liberal"?)
I hated the idea that others used faith to prop themselves up and not face up to the harsh realities of life.
Atheism is the easy way out. If life is purely accidental, with no meaning, then there is no reason to fight against, or even think about, the harsh realities of life. When you add a moral dimension to everything that exists, life becomes far more complicated and difficult to navigate.
I know it is not PC to accuse atheists of having no moral imperative. But the truth is they cannot have one. Any moral code followed by an atheist is a personal invention, an arbitrary commitment, and its consequences as meaningless as the universe they inhabit.
I don't like the accusation that religious faith is a crutch. I don't agree that the moral code atheists follow is meaningless.
I don't know if you have ever read David Gutterson's Snow Falling on Cedars? One of its themes is this one of faith/atheism and how they relate to meaning and moral action.
I won't explain the whole plot - but at the end an atheist character comes to understand that,
"Accident ruled ever corner of the universe - except the chambers of the human heart."
I don't know if a belief in the meaninglessness of the universe renders the human capacity for empathy and moral choice equally meaningless. Some atheists might argue it make that capacity more precious?
Of course, as a Christian, I would argue that that capacity finds its source in God - but that doesn't mean I "rubbish" an atheist's stand or see their moral codes as valuable and meaningful.
Any atheists out there?
For "see their moral codes " = "DON'T see their moral codes."
Sorry, posting in a hurry.
You don't agree that the moral code atheists follow is meaningless. That's okay. But it is a meaningless statement unless you can show, philosophically, how a moral code can have objective meaning in a universe without meaning. I'm not saying that the actions of atheists cannot be appreciated. I'm saying that everything they do or think is ultimately meaningless, based on purely arbitrary decisions, based on the ridiculous concept that the survival of the species is a good thing. But if their is no meaning then the survival of the species has no value, and considering the suffering all members, present and future, of the species will endure, it is a incredibly selfish desire. One based only on the parental instinct to own little human beings. Atheists should get themselves dogs and stop inflicting the inevitability of pain and unredeemed death on other people.
You talk about how an atheist's moral code has no "objective meaning" and "everything they do or think is ultimately meaningless."
I think the words that are key are "objective" and "ultimately."
So, the moral code of an atheist can still have a "subjective" and "finite" meaning, and I suppose an atheist would argue that, in the absence of an objective and infinite meaning to human existence, those meanings are the only ones which are valid.
Moreover, theists often use their belief in an "objective" but entirely unprovable meaning as a way to assert personal ideologies and often to control and oppress others ( as we know.) I really am not convinced that those without faith are any more "selfish" or "ridiculous" than many of those who fervently believe and are willing to impose that on others. Is the belief that the survival of the species is a good thing any more "ridiculous", for example, than the belief that if we burn someone at the stake it will purge their soul and secure their eternal destiny?
An atheist certainly cannot see the existence of the human race or their own existence as a means to an end, but they could see it as an end in itself, of instrinsic value.
I do not necessarily see the above doctrine as one lacking in awe or a sense of mystery. Also from "Snow Falling on Cedars",
"Hatsue's heart wasn't knowable, either, nor was Carl Heine's. The heart of any other, because it had a will, would remain forever mysterious."
I think to value that which is intrinsically beautiful, mysterious, good, inspiring even in the face of ultimate meaninglessness, is rather moving. The sadness of "the human condition" (its meaninglessness) is held in tension with all its potential for beauty as well as suffering. I think this can give a sense of existence as a gift (even if bestowed by chance) and might make one fight harder to promote justice and eradicate suffering.
I am glad I have a faith, that the gift of life to me has a "giver" and an ultimate "meaning" - but I am rather glad we have atheists to challenge the arrogance, complacency- and often downright cruelty -that religious doctrines can foster. So, that is why I say "Thank God for atheists!"
Apologies for this stupidly long post - you realise this is along the lines of a blog post I've been planning!
I think to value that which is intrinsically beautiful, mysterious, good, inspiring even in the face of ultimate meaninglessness, is rather moving.
Yes, very moving. As well as being metaphysical bollocks.
And yes I'm referring to objective and eternal meaning because I think death destroys meaning. Without eternal intelligence and sentiency, temporal meaning has no eternal witness and is, therefore, ultimately meaningless.
Oh well, we'll have to agree to differ.
Let's just say atheists are often nicer and better people - the ones I know anyway!
So, if you lost your faith, would you kill yourself?
So, if you lost your faith, would you kill yourself?
I would have no reason not to kill anybody else, except for the fear of getting caught and undergoing, ultimately meaningless, pain.
And I never agree to disagree - and neither should you, Suem.
You see, I DO agree to disagree, so I'll have to disagree with you on that one, so that should please you. However, I DO agree to your disagreeing (not so good), so you'll have to disagree with me agreeing to you disagreeing!
I have heard it asserted that societies with higher rates of atheism actually have lower rates of crime. I am pretty sure there is no causal link between atheism and a greater tendency to commit murder.
I am pretty sure there is no causal link between atheism and a greater tendency to commit murder.
I never said there was. But that's just because, like Christians, most atheists are too dumb or scared (or both) to think through the logic. And, of course, I expect most of them are as scared as me of being caught.
Wow Lesley - what happened here then with all the comments?! Phew - I haven't read them all and definitely have not understood all of those I have read, so I'm pleased they are not on my blog! :)
I attended Sunday school from a toddler, taken along by a neighbour. Got to about 13/14, and there was a group of young adults at church talking about being 'born again' and 'filled with the Holy Spirit'. I was drawn to this group and what they 'had', and after a while at a local meeting related to the Keswick Convention, I asked Jesus into my life. The start of my Christian life was very very difficult. I did not feel any different, and was filled with worry about whether or not I was a Christian. It is only very recently that I have actually understood why it was so difficult. I already had OCD, and I am sure that that is why I was filled with so much doubt, and anxiety over whether I had actually 'been converted'. However, the good news is that I had asked Jesus into my life and He had (not surprisingly) done His part! It just took me quite a while to accept this.
Since that time, there has been the good and the bad - a normal life really! The bad includes many years looking away from God, as a result of massive damage when I was supposedly healed of OCD - as mentioned in passing on a recent post on my blog.
After that, God spoke powerfully to me, and I turned round to face Him again.
Recent years have included severe depression and the OCD is a problem (just a little understatement)! I am once again very very low in terms of my faith.
I have answered your question, so it is your turn now. lol :)
lol.. started to but it turned into such a long comment I have posted it for tomorrow.
What year were you at Keswick? I was there in 1990.
Surprised you say you are low in your faith - think you may have a different scale to me :)
MP is so close! He nearly gets atheism.
"Atheism is the easy way out." - Well, I think so. It's a piece of cake.
"Any moral code followed by an atheist is a personal invention, an arbitrary commitment,..." - Well, sort of. I need to go into some detail.
"...and its consequences as meaningless as the universe they inhabit." - Yes, the universe is meaningless, but human life needn't be.
Here's the story.
Humans evolved, along with the other animals. Different animals have different character traits, so some have empathy limited to their offspring, others to wider relatives, and humans to whole societies and even to people of the whole world, since we have various levels of what we consider society. Innate human moral codes derive from our animal empathy and other characteristics, and we formalise them into moral systems - personal, social, legal, etc. Past societies formalised them into religious moral codes, then sneakily claimed their gods were the source.
In this sense our morals are arbitrary, as any number of moral feelings could have evolved. If we'd evolved a similar moral nature as lions then we'd by nature want to commit infanticide in second marriages, wanting to kill the kids/cubs of the previous male. Naturally religions would have transformed this biological instinct into a religious symbolic ritual by now. Ridiculous? Then how ridiculous is stoning of adulterers? That's not even symbolic.
And though we inherit these moral instincts we all interpret them personally. Even all Christians have their personal interpretations of morality - as to whether homosexuality is sinful or not; though some may claim God as an absolute moral source, that's not quite what is practiced.
The sense in which the universe is meaningless is that there is no agency (no God) deciding what the purpose is. We are not it's/his purpose; we just happen to be one current branch on the tree of life. Not anyone's or anything's primary purpose; and not even the pinnacle of life in any significant sense; and nor are we the end of our evolutionary branch. Left untouched we probably would still evolve; though we might have come to an evolutionary dead end since it seems likely that we'll have a greater impact on our future change than will natural selection.
We can invent meaning for ourselves. Each of us can choose a direction for our lives. We can also contribute to the meaning of our social groups. But in the scope of the universe our meanings are meaningless.
pertinent, interesting, sad.
It is. Do you have pets? Think my mum thinks animals are more humane than we are, and has brought me up in a similar vein.
I was interested in your thoughts above Ron, rather hoping someone else will comment rather than me - getting tired of the sound of my own voice (doesn't often happen). However, they deserve a response so I will reply in a day or two if no one else had.
Something I missed...
Suem, "I am pretty sure there is no causal link between atheism and a greater tendency to commit murder."
MP, "I never said there was. But that's just because, like Christians, most atheists are too dumb or scared (or both) to think through the logic. And, of course, I expect most of them are as scared as me of being caught."
Sam Harris often says that because atheists choose to be moral, rather than out of obedience to God's law, or out of fear or respect for God, then the former have a more noble morality. Well done on making the point satirically MP. No morality without God; that one always makes me laugh.
Didn't get the bit about dumb and logic though. Do we not murder just because we're not bright enough to figure out how to get away with it? That would be a terrible slur on atheist morals, equating them to religious morals like that. Anyway, we don't murder not because we're too dumb to figure out how, but because we're bright enough to figure out that other people are also bright enough to catch us - glass half full not half empty.
It was a touch of humour thrown in to lighten the debate, right? Just checking, as I wouldn't want to mistake you for that most un-Christain of Christians, that always think the worst. I know we're all supposed to posesss original sin, but personally I'd rather assume everyone is nice, warm, cuddely and good natured, until they demonstrate otherwise.
Hi Lesley,
Other animals do not appear to possess the same capacity we do to come up with options that are not purely instinctive and carry them out. So, they don't create birthdays and celebrate them, they don't make an effort to comfort someone they don't normally like, they don't make the effort to be courteous to strangers, they don't hunt other animals purely for sport, ... But then neither do organise mass extermination of rival groups, abuse young vulnerable members of their society beyond the normal instinctive rebuke, ... So, maybe your mum is seeing the absence of the latter, but not spotting the absence of the former, not realising the extent humans are different to other animals.
We have a tendency to see what we want to see, or what we're driven to see, good or bad, in any situation, without thinking it through thoroughly, not using critical thinking, not analysing. You might say we can't, and in practice don't, analyse everything to the last detail, and I agree, there are many day to day problems where we're satisfied with our current stock response, because even if it's not the best it's still sufficient, and efficient in that sense.
But that standard efficient approach is so easy to slip into that we can do worse than stop questioning, we can even inadvertently, or intentionally, restrict our questions to our own current frame of reference on the big questions. In this context my point is that theologies can be constructed that are self confirming, and arguments can very often suffer from confirmation bias.
This brings me to Reductionism, anathema to holistic thinkers. There's a misconception that reductionism is of no use because it doesn't give the big picture - you can't explain the whole system by looking at the bits, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, and so on. If that's all scientists who use reductionism thought, then that might be a valid criticism. But it isn't how it is used. Reductionism is just one tool, it's a means of breaking down a problem that's so complex that holistically it seems impossible to solve. It allows us to identify individual components, isolate them, test them or examine them, to determine to what extent each contributes to the problem. This is what I don't see in many theistic world views - there's not the willingness to really drill down to the very fabric of what are thought to be the core beliefs, and I think the main causes are the insistence on faith and the fear of loss of faith.
Yeah.. good point about the animals..
Not sure what triggered the discussion on Reductionism. I too am a research scientist and I fully understand the need and the limitations of reducing a complex problem into a series of attributes that can be evaluated..
I think you have met with a lot of Christians who are at a stage of faith where it is important to conform and important not to lose faith. Hence I feel when you think I have atheistic tendencies you are really saying I am willing to engage with the big questions. However, my belief is that it is not necessary to be Reductionalist in order to be Christian. I fully accept your understanding of why some religious people refuse to question though.
I have never personally come across any evidence that scientists are more willing to ask "big questions" than non-scientists (religious or otherwise). Nor have I ever met a scientist who is less protective of their scientific beliefs than a religious person may be of his beliefs. The line that scientists believe all scientific theory is provisional is just an invention to save face when another scientist proves that were wrong all along. It's the myth of Darwin incarnate. To be honest, I think scientists may be human like the rest of us (although, as yet, I have no empirical evidence to back up this controversial claim).
Hi MP :)
Yeah - I think you are right in some respects - I was struck when I was a mum with young kids that those with faith (of any kind) were much more willing to go deep in friendship and discuss philosophy, psychology, morality, sociology etc. But on the other hand there are some people who hold onto their faith so tightly that if you doubt a small aspect of it you shake their world - don't you think?
In terms of scientists being protective of their beliefs I only once went to a conference that was scary that way, maybe I was lucky, but in 7 years of research I didn't find the sort of protectiveness that some have about their particular style of theology and worship that I have been aware of in the church.
I think we are all human, but I too had the line that all my work was a theory, not because of saving face, but because I was aware of how tremendously complex the subject was, and my only hope was to put a model forward that was a bit better than the last model.
there are some people who hold onto their faith so tightly that if you doubt a small aspect of it you shake their world - don't you think?
Yes, I do. And this attitude is far more obvious in religious people. Many scientists, on the other hand, own such an attitude to their beliefs but pretend that they are above such a natural mindset. You end up with hypocritical situations such as Richard Dawkins, who screams blue murder and gets ever so pompous when his received evolutionary theory is questioned, whilst arrogantly dismissing the belief claims of religious people as being "dim."
It strikes me that both religious fundamentalists and those scientists who believe they know when their knowledge can only be provisional, are both afraid of not knowing. They both want to put existence into neatly labelled boxes wrapped up in miles of parcel tape.
I personally don't subscribe to the apologetic that science and religion are two different things. There is just the truth and none of us have any idea what the truth is. I expect if we ever discover the truth it will render both religionists and scientists completely gobsmacked.
Lesley,
Reductionism - just wanted to make the point that it is a necessary tool when analysing complex issues.
"but because I was aware of how tremendously complex the subject was, and my only hope was to put a model forward that was a bit better than the last model." - Precisely. What do you see as the key differences between your scientific research and the questioning you do now about your faith? I'm thinking of reductionism again. Do you find the scientific process resembles what you do now in any way in that respect, in precision and rigor?
I ask because I get the impression that religious thought and expression is fuzzy. Very nice, warm, consoling, supportive, but ill defined, so that it can at the same time mean many things and nothing. But the religious like to talk about truth, usually as Truth, or "truth", that is with an emphasis that implies that some degree of precision is aimed for, that there's something concrete there to be grasped. But at the same time there appears to be the avoidance of truth in any conventional sense of the word, a reluctance to pin down meaning. More on truth next.
Hi MP,
"You end up with hypocritical situations such as Richard Dawkins, who screams blue murder and gets ever so pompous when his received evolutionary theory is questioned, whilst arrogantly dismissing the belief claims of religious people as being dim."
You misrepresent Dawkins to an extent I wonder whether your opinion is based on seeing him in action and reading his works, or just on second hand reviews of him.
He has no problem with evolution being questioned. The details are questioned all the time. If you read his works you'll often see where he has adapted his thinking to meet new evidence of ideas that fit. Evolution currently has no other theory competing with it that fits the data that's available. If you think it has, by all means provide a reference.
Perhaps you've seen Dawkins on video with Ted Haggard, or some other fundamentalist Christian. What you will see is Dawkins frustrated by TH because he is making claims that are simply nonsense. TH and Co believe people co-existed with dinosaurs. They make claims about fossils that don't fit the evidence. They believe the Earth is less that 10,000 years old. Their churches may contain many bright people who are educated in many subjects, including some science; but their dogma insists that they are right about evolution in spite of the evidence to the contrary. When it comes to geology and evolution they are dim.
"It strikes me that both religious fundamentalists and those scientists who believe they know when their knowledge can only be provisional, are both afraid of not knowing." - This is so obviously false to anyone who knows any number of scientists. So many scientists find the search for knowledge just as important if not more than actually finding it. As soon as they know one thing they are on to the next. Not knowing something is a driving force to know, not a fear of not knowing. Fear in respect of knowledge is not something scientists experience. they probably fear dogma, suppression, repression, censorship, and anything else that obstructs the search for knowledge. And as for the religious, isn't knowledge off limits to some extent?
"I personally don't subscribe to the apologetic that science and religion are two different things." - I agree. If there is any factual truth, as we understand those terms, in any religious claims to interaction with God, miracles, the afterlife, then there will be real physical effects in this realm. Find effects of those religious phenomena and you will have advanced science more than it has ever been advanced before. What a result that would be.
"There is just the truth and none of us have any idea what the truth is." - I'd say we don't even know what the phrase the truth means in this context, as if there's something out there to be discovered. If truth here is a collective noun for all the facts about that other notion, reality, then I'd say we can't tell if there is any reality out there, and if there is how would we know if we hit it - we might think we're just at another barrier holding back discovery.
As I said - when you question scientist they get arrogant and pompous. Case proven.
Hi MP
This doesn't feel arrogant and pompous to me..?
L
That's because you're a scientist.
Even though most of my personal reading is about science (far more than it is about theology) I find scientists like Ron always take the line, "You don't know what you are talking about." Yet the chances are I know more about some areas of science than he does depending on where his interests lay. I read science so that my theology is not bollocks. If more scientists read philosophy then there wouldn't be so much bollocks science around.
By the way, Leslie, I wonder how many people leave your site after posting a comment not realising that they have to wait for the screen to reload and then guess that they have to scroll down to the bottom of the page again to fill in the word thingy. I'm always forgetting and I'm quite a regular around here. You may be a lot more popular that the number of comments you receive indicates.
On blogger the word verification is a lot more obvious as it is on the page immediately under the comment box from the word go.
You're on blogger! I suggest you change the comment setting to the separate page option.
Ah ok MP, hopefully this will be better. Thanks for the tip.
No problem. I've learnt to keep things very simple for my readers. A lot of them are not scientists :-)
Hi Ron,
What do you see as the key differences between your scientific research and the questioning you do now about your faith?
They are completely different. The faith questioning is normally in the context of lying on the carpet after an awful funeral visit asking God how on earth those poor kids can survive without their mum, then picking myself up and visiting a granny to find out her granddaughter has been sexually abused by her daughter's new husband. It is wrestling in prayer about the pain I witness and walking alongside others in their sorrow.
I am post modern, my aim is to enable people to work out their own truths.
I suppose that is what you mean by warm, consoling and fuzzy.
The truth is I'm not much of a theologian, and I don't really think I can know the Truth. My aim is to know God's love and express God's love. I do that by prayer and reading the Bible, which is more of a love story than a text book.
MP,
You may well know more about some aspects of science than I do. Good for you. Wasn't aware it was a peeing contest.
You made a statement about Dawkins I think is mistaken. I've said I think your wrong and explained why. Can you provide counter evidence? If you can direct me to any site that shows Dawkins being unreasonable I'll have a look come back with a response. Or how about in any of his books; I've got some of them.
The reason I said you might not have direct evidence is two fold. First, the person you portrait doesn't sound like Dawkins to me. Second, the manner in which you put it, without references, is something I've seen many times by theists that have only read reviews by other theists, who do misrepresent him.
Would you like to come back on any of the other points? Do you think I've misrepresented the use of 'truth' in theism or science? Do you have evidence that intersessionary prayer works?
I thought the point of debate was to exchange ideas, not just name call. Not that it bothers me, it's water off a ducks back. If you could hear what my wife calls me when we're ... well, you'd understand.
Hi Lesley,
That sound really nice. I could buy into that. I'd just do it without God.
Guess it must be a personality thing.
Would it be fair to say then that you're essentially putting yourself into a role in a Christian novel? Maybe intellectually seeing that it might be fiction, but not really seeing that as important in he way you make it work? I'm attempting to paraphrase other things you said so that I understand it in my own terms.
The Christian emphasis on sin bothers me too. I don't see sin as real, and I guess it's claims that we are sinful I see as more damaging than belief in a character called God.
Would you like to come back on any of the other points?
No. I've looked at your blog and you're just winding us up in concern troll stylee. I'll leave you to Lesley who has a much longer attention span, and is far more gracious, than me.
That sounds really nice. I could buy into that. I'd just do it without God.
Guess it must be a personality thing.
I think we are broadly on the same side - wanting our society to be compassionate and loving. I think this was the primary message of Jesus that we were to model or bring in the 'Kingdom of God'. I sit here wondering how this debate would go if your morality from natural selection suggested that we should let the weakest suffer and die,
Would it be fair to say then that you're essentially putting yourself into a role in a Christian novel? Maybe intellectually seeing that it might be fiction, but not really seeing that as important in he way you make it work? I'm attempting to paraphrase other things you said so that I understand it in my own terms.
I think the answer to this is yes, although I don't have to put myself in the role, I just find myself there. And I believe it is fact but don't mind so much if it is fiction, yeah.
The Christian emphasis on sin bothers me too. I don't see sin as real, and I guess it's claims that we are sinful I see as more damaging than belief in a character called God.
I can see why you would say that. Psychologically if we tell ourselves we are no good then we become no good. If we tell ourselves we are all children of the heavenly loving God then we may behave as if we are.
"...if your morality from natural selection suggested that we should let the weakest suffer and die"
Evolution leaves us just as it does, creating the biological foundation for our feelings and actions - the morality is what we construct from that.
But if I were to perform the thought experiment there are some details to take into account. Does this version exclude all empathy? That would be a too big a change to be able to understand, to make the experiment work. How about we have empathy, for strong offspring and strong adults, so that the weakest are neglected by default. Then we would rationalise that. Just as we have in the past rationalised cruelty to those not like us. We're good at rationalising. Letting weak children die would be rationalised as a kindness, to prevent later suffering. Euthanasia for the old and weak would be the norm. It would feel so natural that the revulsion you may be feeling right now just wouldn't be there. If in that world some old and still well husband wanted to keep his sick wife alive, he would be thought cruel and selfish. The same with a mother wanting to hold on to a weak sick child. And somewhere on their internet is someone thinking how repulsive it would be in a world where evolution gave them empathy to prolong the agony of the weak.
Evolution is indifferent. It doesn't have a purpose. It's just a mechanical process at work. We had no hand in where it brought us to, so how can we be born good or evil? Good and evil have no meaning in the mechanical world of evolution. We find ourselves conscious, we recognise ourselves, and we recognise each other, and the neurological mush that causes our empathy, acts on us, pulls at our heart strings, makes us feel the pain of others, until we can't stand it, and we build our morality to ease it.
If we tell ourselves that though nature is red in tooth and claw, we don't want to play by those rules, then that's what makes us human, and from there we build our morality. If anyone has to tell themselves other stories to explain it, that's fine. The only danger is that in inventing other stories it's possible for the raw nature to creep in under the guise of being divine requirement.
People don't agree on morality.. I suppose you will say that the morality that helps the species to survive best is the one that outs. The difference between our positions is that I believe in good and you don't I suppose.
I think perhaps the greater the empathy then the greater the number of people one feels empathy for. And the weak induce a greater empathy than the strong. Yeah... I dunno, for me protecting the weak protects something in myself. I am frequently weak myself, to have compassion on weakness means we can give ourselves a break, and love ourselves as we are. (And let God love us as we are).
You have a system of ethics that is about the greatest good for the greatest number, so is there not any sense of absolute good in your terms?
The only danger is that in inventing other stories it's possible for the raw nature to creep in under the guise of being divine requirement.
Ok, fair enough. Religion can be good and it can be bad. For me that is separate from there being a good God and us having a sense of that within us.
"I suppose you will say that the morality that helps the species to survive best is the one that outs"
Not morality but empathy. There appears to be a benefit to mothers protecting their young, for protecting the group, and so on, and the biological expression of that is empathy. But it's not a question of the empathy appearing in a species to help it survive. The when and how empathy arrived as a mechanism might be arbitrary, but whichever groups had more of it happened to survive and pass it on.
It might even have no evolutionary benefit, and might just have come along for the ride. For example, domesticated dogs are bred for many traits and have many physical forms, so superficially it looks like they've always been bred for appearance. But controlled breeding experiments on silver foxes that were bred solely for domesticated behaviour also happened to take on more dog like physical features, which they weren't bred for. The genes that express domestication, which were wanted, just happen to express different physical features too.
No I don't believe in good as anything objective outside human scope. Good is what we call stuff that we like, any stuff. In the case of morality, empathy makes us feel good (as in gives us warm feelings), so we associate it with the classification called 'good', and because empathy is made moral it becomes a moral good.
"the greater the empathy then the greater the number of people one feels empathy for" - I don't feel it works that way. I think there are different classes of empathy, like love, which are related to who we associate empathy with. So a narcissist might not feel any empathy for anyone, some lesser narcissist might have empathy for their children only. If you have empathy for many people then I guess your mirror neurons are particularly active.
"I am frequently weak myself, to have compassion on weakness means we can give ourselves a break, and love ourselves as we are." - This is an interesting point. I know friends, female, who feel the same way. If they are busy giving they don't have to worry about their problems. But I just don't get it. There's me, and there's people, and other than feeling the empathy when someone is suffering it doesn't relate to how I feel about myself. If my wife is upset and I provide support she says I'm being strong for her; but I can't take the credit because though I'm empathetic and want to help, and even find it upsetting, I still know that I'm upset for her, not for myself, I'm not the one suffering.
And, I'm not sure I ever get the sense I need to give myself a break by that method. If I need a break I'll go and crash out, sleep, think, often alone. But my wife is a doer. Sometimes I can tell something is bugging her by the way she's bsuying around helping everyone else.
"so is there not any sense of absolute good in your terms?" - No, none. This is an important consequence of my views on science - what the universe is made of, i.e. stuff, and what we are made of, i.e. stuff built complex by evolution.
Yes, I think a personal philosophy, or theology, can be distinct from the dogma of a world view, or religion.
I think we would recognise that the more empathetic folks are then the more benefit they bring to society and the more narcissistic they are then the less beneficial they are to society?
If they are busy giving they don't have to worry about their problems.
Mmm I didn't mean this - I mean that psychologically if we favour only that which is strong in society we will despise that which is weak within ourselves.
"I think we would recognise that the more empathetic folks are then the more benefit they bring to society and the more narcissistic they are then the less beneficial they are to society? "
In our society, as it stands, yes, because we have all the historical baggage that values behaviours that are empathetic, and devalues ones that are narcissistic. Perhaps it could have been otherwise, but from our view point with our biases it's a difficult peculation.
"I mean that psychologically if we favour only that which is strong in society we will despise that which is weak within ourselves." - I think many people are not aware of their own weaknesses, and if a society favoured the strong there might be more of a tendency to mask ones own weaknesses. I suppose if our own weaknesses were exposed, of became self-apparent, then that might well lead us to despise ourselves, as well as those weaknesses. I'm just speculating again.
An interesting blog Lesley. Thanks.
A question for you: Are you sure you were a committed Atheist, or was it that you were thoroughy alienated by the organised religion of your childhood and rebelled, whilst not really losing your belief in "something greater than us"? I ask this because I think there is a difference, and I am puzzled by the testimony of many people who say they converted from Atheism to Christianity.
I'm an ex-Christian, now Atheist. I didn't go through a stage of being angry about religion. Instead, the more I studied my religion,the more I found it wanting. Eventually I gave up the struggle and accepted reluctantly that I had become an Atheist. I cannot now see how it is possible to go the other way, (but I am still searching, just as scientists are always questioning their results.)
Hi Jim,
Have you commented before? If not - welcome. Religion wasn't part of my upbringing - I never heard the word 'God' until I was seven, and was rather amazed at the notion of a concept like that. I went to church 3 or 4 times and listened to the arguments, which seemed intellectually rubbish and at odds with my life. I decided that the only reason that people would want faith was as a crutch and somehow that made me detest religious people. I never had a belief in something 'greater than us' until I was 14 when I became a Christian.
What puzzles you about it?
I can understand your journey btw...
Post a Comment