Need help knowing where to research morality and a few other tidbits, please

[Minarvia]

I am going thru some physical therapy and somehow my therapist mentions religion and asks which one I am. I told him I am an atheist.

He and I enjoy beginning to talk about the subject of "god versus no god" but he keeps asking me things I am not learned enough to answer. He says, firstly, that we must speak of evolution. I said okay, tho that is not why all atheists are atheists. He said, very well, but if evolution is true than there MUST be a god because morality cannot come from evolution by definition and has to be a PURPOSE DRIVEN thing. If this is not true where do I begin to find that out? My google search just brings me basically nothing to directly answer his question about that.

Than he said that I should look up writings of Joseph of Aramathia and someone else whose name I forget who PROVE that Pontius Pilate DID crucify a man named Jesus (yes, the biblical Jesus) and that the point is PROVEN and he and other comtemporaries did indeed write about Jesus, thus proving he did indeed even exist. Now I recall reading here somewhere that supposedly a man named Jesus was NOT on Pilate's record for the dates during which Jesus supposedly lived and was NOT on Pilate's record of crucifixions. Which is true and how do I find out?

Also, I've read and heard somewhere that writings Jesus come from anywhere from DURING his lifetime to a century or more LATER. Which is true and how would I find this out?

Gah! I'm almost dreading my next appointment. This all makes me feel so stupid. Especially the "where did morality come from save for god" thing.

Please, can anyone point me in the right direction to a credible site or two that can answer these questions in a way that I can understand? In other words, not too big-wordy and complex. Maybe I don't word my search efforts properly but I really came up pretty empty.

[wuschel]

Gah! I'm almost dreading my next appointment. This all makes me feel so stupid. Especially the "where did morality come from save for god" thing.
What puzzles me even more is that if it originated with "god" , where did "god" get it from?

And, more important, how do we know it's - indeed - moral?


whatever that is

[Minarvia]

That is indeed one question I'll ask him next time. I was, and am, still so flummoxed by the other ones that I forgot to ask him who created god in the first place. But he is really wanting to focus for now on the Morality thing and the truth of contemprary accounts of the biblical Jesus.

[thatguywhojuggles]

Try this on for size:

Is your god all knowing?
Yes

Is your god all powerful?
Yes

Is your god moral?
Yes

So you believe a god who is all knowing (watches little Susie getting raped by her father), and all powerful (able to stop the horrible crime, but doesn't) is moral?

(If they say Yes at this point, slowly back away.)

[Minarvia]

Try this on for size:

Is your god all knowing?
Yes

Is your god all powerful?
Yes

Is your god moral?
Yes

So you believe a god who is all knowing (watches little Susie getting raped by her father), and all powerful (able to stop the horrible crime, but doesn't) is moral?

(If they say Yes at this point, slowly back away.)

Excellent! I like this.

But...just in case he says, "we are not speaking of that. I'm speaking of where morals in humans come from and only speaking of that," than what would/could I say?

But you have very good points. I like your questions. :D

I really appreciate the responses I'm getting so far. Thank you all so much and if possible keep them coming. I'm so darned bad at trying to research something properly such as his other assertions that contemporaries DID write of Jesus and Pilate DID have him on the list when I've read elsewhere at one time that those things were not true.

[Dunstan]

There's plenty of material on the evolution of morality. Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene is a classic. Robert Wright's The Moral Animal is pretty good (though Wright does subscribe to some vague notion of directionality in evolution). Both books are a little dated now, but are very readable.

If you're looking for online sources, try searching for terms like "reciprocal altruism" and "kin selection."

[ParrotPirate]

Being the evil bugger that I am, I would have asked him 1) What's it to ya? 2) What does your invisible friend have to do with physical therapy?

[Meadmaker]

I would love to hear of the writings of Joseph of Arimathaea, but I don't think they exist. As far as I know, no ancient text is attributed to him, although one of the Gnostic gospels is the Gospel of Nicodemus, who helped take down the body.

Perhaps he means Josephus? That's the only near contemporary author, other than the gospels or the "apocryphal" gospels, that make any reference to Jesus. At least, I've never heard of any other. Look up Josephus, and you can read the story. Some people think there is evidence that Josephus' references were actually later additions by a copyist. I doubt it myself, since Josephus mentioned Jesus as just one of a number of Messiahs floating around Judea at the time.

As for Pilate, there are no references to Jesus in any records related to him, but there are very few records of any sort.

So, it's all a matter of faith. I, personally, think there's enough evidence to tentatively conclude that the Gospel accounts are mythologized versions of a story who was a real historical figure. I believe some sort of religious rabble rouser hung out in that part of the world and got himself executed at about that time. However, I can't prove that one way or another, and either way, he couldn't walk on water.

ETA: And if you can't trust Wikipedia, who can you trust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#cite_note-22

[Cavemonster]

I'm so darned bad at trying to research something properly such as his other assertions that contemporaries DID write of Jesus and Pilate DID have him on the list when I've read elsewhere at one time that those things were not true.

There is a gigantic amount of discussion on that topic in this thread
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124603

But the bottom line is this, many cult leaders in occupied Israel were put to death by the romans. Let's say you could establish that a historical Jesus existed and was crucified. Does that have any meaningful impact on the extraordinary claims of the Bible?

The recent Transformers movie includes the historical figure of Barack Obama, and mentions his presidential policy decisions in regards to alien invasion. Does that prove that a robot alien invasion really occured?

The Chinese epic "Journey to the West" is based on real events and includes many individuals who verifiably existed. It also includes a magical monkey king who flies around on clouds and battles dragons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journey_to_the_West#Historical_context

Both L. Ron Hubbard and Mohammed were real individuals, it doesn't lend any greater credence to their claims.

So the question of whether a person named Jesus who preached XYZ existed and was executed about 2000 years ago doesn't really support the claims of Christianity, any more than the reality of the French Revolution vouches for the reality of the characters in A Tale of Two Cities.

[Minarvia]

There's plenty of material on the evolution of morality. Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene is a classic. Robert Wright's The Moral Animal is pretty good (though Wright does subscribe to some vague notion of directionality in evolution). Both books are a little dated now, but are very readable.

If you're looking for online sources, try searching for terms like "reciprocal altruism" and "kin selection."

Thanks! I'll look into those asap. I had forgotten Dawkins wrote that one. I've only read "The God Delusion" so far.

And those terms...I never would have known or thought of them to look up. Thanks loads. At least I'll learn something as well as learn how to debate a little without coming out of it looking dumb. After all, I let myself get suckered in without even knowing what was coming and then all I could do was speak off the top of my head. But next time I'll be better informed. Thank you much!

[Minarvia]

Being the evil bugger that I am, I would have asked him 1) What's it to ya? 2) What does your invisible friend have to do with physical therapy?

Hah! :D

But stupid me took the bait...that should teach me! :o

[Robert Oz]

I am going thru some physical therapy and somehow my therapist mentions religion and asks which one I am. I told him I am an atheist.

He and I enjoy beginning to talk about the subject of "god versus no god" but he keeps asking me things I am not learned enough to answer. He says, firstly, that we must speak of evolution. I said okay, tho that is not why all atheists are atheists. He said, very well, but if evolution is true than there MUST be a god because morality cannot come from evolution by definition and has to be a PURPOSE DRIVEN thing. If this is not true where do I begin to find that out? My google search just brings me basically nothing to directly answer his question about that.


I strongly recommend Michael Shermer's The Science of Good & Evil and suggest you recommend this book to your physical therapist. I'll also second the recommendation of Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene.

To give you a very summarised origin to morality:

1. Altruism towards relatives increases the chances of our genes being passed on to future generations. My brother and I share many of the same genes. If I help him in his own struggle with survival, the genes we share will pass on to his offspring and my offspring, thereby increasing the number of our common genes in the population - including the gene for altruism. Therefore, natural selection favours the gene for altruism. This is called kin selection.

2. In the wider community, altruism towards members of our species that are not close relatives, also increases the chances of our genes being passed on to future generations. If I help my neighbour by protecting him from being beaten up, he may share his food with me when I am hungry, thereby increasing my chances of survival. Again, natural selection favours the gene for altruism. This is called reciprocal altruism.

3. Also in the wider community, altruism can be a sign of dominance. Look how big and strong I am that I can help my neighbours when they are in trouble. This can lead to sexual selection where I increase my chances of finding a mate to bear my offspring. Again, natural selection favours the gene for altruism.

4. The idea that we can compute all of these things in such a way that we are doing them simply to better our own chances of survival is not the most efficient and economical way for it to work. The easiest way to make it work, is to actually make me feel for others. I feel empathy. I don't want to do bad things to others, I genuinely want to do good for others. But the ultimate origin of this feeling is the impact it had in spreading my genes to future generations.

5. As our communities grew bigger and bigger, these genetically evolved traits began to creep into our ideas and concepts such as religion and morals. This is where memetic evolution takes over. The idea of being good to others spreads independently of the genetic spread that started it. The ideas grow and spread just like genes do.

The simple fact is genetic evolution gave us the raw emotions that makes us do good things. The memetic evolution of ideas, religions, etc. took it to the next step. But religion certainly wasn't the ultimate source.

[Minarvia]

There is a gigantic amount of discussion on that topic in this thread
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124603

But the bottom line is this, many cult leaders in occupied Israel were put to death by the romans. Let's say you could establish that a historical Jesus existed and was crucified. Does that have any meaningful impact on the extraordinary claims of the Bible?

The recent Transformers movie includes the historical figure of Barack Obama, and mentions his presidential policy decisions in regards to alien invasion. Does that prove that a robot alien invasion really occured?

The Chinese epic "Journey to the West" is based on real events and includes many individuals who verifiably existed. It also includes a magical monkey king who flies around on clouds and battles dragons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journey_to_the_West#Historical_context

Both L. Ron Hubbard and Mohammed were real individuals, it doesn't lend any greater credence to their claims.

So the question of whether a person named Jesus who preached XYZ existed and was executed about 2000 years ago doesn't really support the claims of Christianity, any more than the reality of the French Revolution vouches for the reality of the characters in A Tale of Two Cities.

Thanks for the links. I tried a search here but didn't use the right terms. I just tried such words as "evolution and mortality" and came up pretty empty.

You guys/gals are the greatest. Really. :) May the IPU and the FSM bless you all!

[Robert Oz]

Thanks for the links. I tried a search here but didn't use the right terms. I just tried such words as "evolution and mortality" and came up pretty empty.

You guys/gals are the greatest. Really. :) May the IPU and the FSM bless you all!


When doing your searches here and elsewhere use "evolution" and "altruism", not "morality".

[Dunstan]

Thanks! I'll look into those asap. I had forgotten Dawkins wrote that one. I've only read "The God Delusion" so far.

Dawkins' science writings are generally praised even by a lot of people who don't care for TGD.

And those terms...I never would have known or thought of them to look up. Thanks loads. At least I'll learn something as well as learn how to debate a little without coming out of it looking dumb. After all, I let myself get suckered in without even knowing what was coming and then all I could do was speak off the top of my head. But next time I'll be better informed. Thank you much!

You're welcome.

Before I developed an interest in this area, I suffered from the usual misconceptions about evolution: all that "survival of the fittest, nature red-in-tooth-and-claw" stuff. But when you really think about it, there's no particular reason to think that "moral" behavior couldn't evolve.

One other piece of advice: don't feel obliged to approach your conversations with this guy as a debate that you must win. It will just frustrate you and possibly embarrass you if it's a subject you're not really comfortable with. You don't need to have all the answers. Share what you know, admit what you don't know, and be willing to look into new things.

[Dunstan]

I would love to hear of the writings of Joseph of Arimathaea, but I don't think they exist.

I believe they are written on the wall of the cave Kyre Banorg. Something about the Castle Aaaaarrrrrrgggg.

[Kopji]

Humm, just for fun you might try something like
- since God does not exist and there is morality, it must not require a god to exist.

[Robert Oz]

One other piece of advice: don't feel obliged to approach your conversations with this guy as a debate that you must win. It will just frustrate you and possibly embarrass you if it's a subject you're not really comfortable with. You don't need to have all the answers. Share what you know, admit what you don't know, and be willing to look into new things.


If you don't feel you can go into the topic in-depth or don't feel like debating, you can always just say that he was mistaken about evolution of morality being impossible and suggest some of the books recommended above that go into the topic in great detail and are authored by people who are very knowledgable about that very area.

Michael Shermer spends a good 400 pages on it in The Science of Good & Evil.

[Rairun]

Humm, just for fun you might try something like
- since God does not exist and there is morality, it must not require a god to exist.

Or something like this: since morality needs God to exist, morality doesn't exist. I think the main problem here is that, depending on how you define the term, morality really has no existence. The moral order certain people ascribe to the universe is fictitious. There's no ultimate reason why we shouldn't be as*holes to one another--our behavior certainly has a cause, but not a reason.

And that's the key to this problem. No, in the grand scheme of things, there is no good or evil; but as other people in this thread have explained, we have evolved to care about fellow human beings. When a man kills another, we don't send him to jail because he's defied some invisible rule of nature. We do so because we have a very concrete idea of how we want society to be.

[Minarvia]

You guys/gals have been very helpful and I've looked at the links. I do know more now and want to read the books mentioned, especially Dawkins' and Shermer's.

And I never did really want to debate this guy. I just wanted to continue a conversation he began. I never intended to get drawn in and made to feel defensive on why I don't believe in god/s or any such superstition. I don't feel I am good at debating anyway, at least not yet and don't want to at this time. Why can't people like him just leave me alone and do his job?

I just may, Robert Oz, say to him what you suggested. Even tho I am not super educated on the subject of evolution I tried to tell him and will again say "why can't morality evolve?" He says it is impossible in evolution "by definition" and has to be a "purpose driven thing" thus "any rational, sane person would have to conclude god does indeed exist." Gah! (Bangs head on table.)

And Rairun, you are right. I also believe we as societies form our own ideas, no divine help needed, on how we want to live. To me that is common sense and does not require a deity of any sort.

[I Ratant]

Omnipotence, omniscience, free will and morality lead to endless circular discussions, with the first two ideas being incompatible with the next two.
The circumlocutions the "philosophers" and theologians come up with can be entertaining, as logic and rationality is tossed out blindly as if they're just impediments to "clear thinking".

[John_Geeshu]

I applaud you for your curiosity and encourage you to continue researching such an interesting topic as morality, but with respect to your physical therapist, he/she is way out of line. It is absolutely unprofessional and unethical to question you like this. Whether you have ready answers is not the issue. That you are made uncomfortable is. I would suggest you decline to discuss matters further and let your physical therapist know that the proselytizing is unwelcome. If it continues talk to his/her supervisor and/or find a different physical therapist. If he/she will do it to you, he/she will do it to others.

[Minarvia]

I applaud you for your curiosity and encourage you to continue researching such an interesting topic as morality, but with respect to your physical therapist, he/she is way out of line. It is absolutely unprofessional and unethical to question you like this. Whether you have ready answers is not the issue. That you are made uncomfortable is. I would suggest you decline to discuss matters further and let your physical therapist know that the proselytizing is unwelcome. If it continues talk to his/her supervisor and/or find a different physical therapist. If he/she will do it to you, he/she will do it to others.

Thank you. That made me smile and not dread my next appointment so much. I didn't mind it much at first but then I admit I did get a little uncomfortable and annoyed. And I was surprised that when another patient came in he wanted to continue the discussion without even asking the lady if she would care to hear such things.

And thanks, I will certainly continue researching because these are interesting topics and my lack of extensive knowledge usually keeps me from posting here much, too. :o

[Minarvia]

I would love to hear of the writings of Joseph of Arimathaea, but I don't think they exist. As far as I know, no ancient text is attributed to him, although one of the Gnostic gospels is the Gospel of Nicodemus, who helped take down the body.

Perhaps he means Josephus? That's the only near contemporary author, other than the gospels or the "apocryphal" gospels, that make any reference to Jesus. At least, I've never heard of any other. Look up Josephus, and you can read the story. Some people think there is evidence that Josephus' references were actually later additions by a copyist. I doubt it myself, since Josephus mentioned Jesus as just one of a number of Messiahs floating around Judea at the time.

As for Pilate, there are no references to Jesus in any records related to him, but there are very few records of any sort.

ETA: And if you can't trust Wikipedia, who can you trust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#cite_note-22

I did look on a few pages about Josephus/Flavius Josephus and I do believe that is who my therapist meant. Even the add-ons/embellishments still support the idea that there was a Jesus, but then weren't there a plethora of "messiahs" at that time all over?

I did see a mention on one of my page searches that said that there was the name "Crestus" on Pilate's list (so does it indeed exist or is it only a rumour people believe that it does?) and people have interpreted that to mean "Christ?" Tho I think that "Christ" is a title and not a name and "Crestus" is in no way similar to the name "Jesus." :boggled:

I'll return to your link. Thanks!

[wuschel]

But he is really wanting to focus for now on the Morality thing
Yep - and without even deeper examination of the presuppositions, the argument "without God, there would be no morality" is meaningless if it would not at the same time imply the very existence of an independent moral reference frame. Lacking the latter, how would we make sure that religious moral is, in fact, "moral"?

Or, put in other words:

1. Without any preconceived, independent notion of morality, "religious moral" is a tautology.
2. If, OTOH, a preconceived, independent notion of morality is assumed to exist, "religious moral" is superfluous.

[JetLeg]

I am going thru some physical therapy and somehow my therapist mentions religion and asks which one I am. I told him I am an atheist.

He and I enjoy beginning to talk about the subject of "god versus no god" but he keeps asking me things I am not learned enough to answer. He says, firstly, that we must speak of evolution. I said okay, tho that is not why all atheists are atheists. He said, very well, but if evolution is true than there MUST be a god because morality cannot come from evolution by definition and has to be a PURPOSE DRIVEN thing. If this is not true where do I begin to find that out? My google search just brings me basically nothing to directly answer his question about that.

Than he said that I should look up writings of Joseph of Aramathia and someone else whose name I forget who PROVE that Pontius Pilate DID crucify a man named Jesus (yes, the biblical Jesus) and that the point is PROVEN and he and other comtemporaries did indeed write about Jesus, thus proving he did indeed even exist. Now I recall reading here somewhere that supposedly a man named Jesus was NOT on Pilate's record for the dates during which Jesus supposedly lived and was NOT on Pilate's record of crucifixions. Which is true and how do I find out?

Also, I've read and heard somewhere that writings Jesus come from anywhere from DURING his lifetime to a century or more LATER. Which is true and how would I find this out?

Gah! I'm almost dreading my next appointment. This all makes me feel so stupid. Especially the "where did morality come from save for god" thing.

Please, can anyone point me in the right direction to a credible site or two that can answer these questions in a way that I can understand? In other words, not too big-wordy and complex. Maybe I don't word my search efforts properly but I really came up pretty empty.

First, if it makes you uncomfortable, you should stop this debate with him. It has nothing to do with the therapy. Imagine that an atheist physical therapist would insist (or at least push) convincing his christian patient of atheism. I think it would be stupid, wouldn't it?

Second, it is ok that you are not learned about the subject, and one doesn't need to be. Not believing in god is the default. Everybody is born an atheist. So even if you don't know a lot about evolution, and the history of religion, atheism makes sense. Atheism is just using your common sense... Miracles, supernatural, et cetera - it's just not according to common sense. That's not the way the world around us works. So that is enough. If you want to research it, fine, go ahead, but it shouldn't be because someone pressures you.

Third, to his arguments.

"He said, very well, but if evolution is true than there MUST be a god because morality cannot come from evolution by definition and has to be a PURPOSE DRIVEN thing."

Well... It is a bit hard to understand. What does he mean by a purpose driven thing exactly? Why cannot purpose driven things come from evolution??? Even if evolution by itself is not a "purpose driven thing", it doesn't mean that it cannot _cause_ purpose driven things.

Ok, lets say that morality can't come from evolution. What does have to do with a god? :confused:

Positing a god is just moving the problem one step backwards. How did god acquire the "purpose driven thing"? What is a god anyway? How does one define "god"?



Even if there were lots of evidence that Jesus existed, what evidence could you produce to prove that he is the son of god???? :confused::confused::confused:

Even if you had photographic proof that he could do miracles, that would prove that he has supernatural powers, and not that he was the son of god (whatever it means to be a son of an immaterial being).

Seems that this guy makes statements that are unsupported neither by reason neither by evidence, but he makes them with a straight face. With such a person it can be very annoying to debate, and I think there is no reason for you to engage in a discussion,

[fuelair]

I am going thru some physical therapy and somehow my therapist mentions religion and asks which one I am. I told him I am an atheist.

He and I enjoy beginning to talk about the subject of "god versus no god" but he keeps asking me things I am not learned enough to answer. He says, firstly, that we must speak of evolution. I said okay, tho that is not why all atheists are atheists. He said, very well, but if evolution is true than there MUST be a god because morality cannot come from evolution by definition and has to be a PURPOSE DRIVEN thing. If this is not true where do I begin to find that out? My google search just brings me basically nothing to directly answer his question about that.

Than he said that I should look up writings of Joseph of Aramathia and someone else whose name I forget who PROVE that Pontius Pilate DID crucify a man named Jesus (yes, the biblical Jesus) and that the point is PROVEN and he and other comtemporaries did indeed write about Jesus, thus proving he did indeed even exist. Now I recall reading here somewhere that supposedly a man named Jesus was NOT on Pilate's record for the dates during which Jesus supposedly lived and was NOT on Pilate's record of crucifixions. Which is true and how do I find out?

Also, I've read and heard somewhere that writings Jesus come from anywhere from DURING his lifetime to a century or more LATER. Which is true and how would I find this out?

Gah! I'm almost dreading my next appointment. This all makes me feel so stupid. Especially the "where did morality come from save for god" thing.

Please, can anyone point me in the right direction to a credible site or two that can answer these questions in a way that I can understand? In other words, not too big-wordy and complex. Maybe I don't word my search efforts properly but I really came up pretty empty.Since evolution only occurs well if some form of cooperation exists among the evolving (for groups anyway) I would tend to argue that evolution requires cooperation and cooperation requires what we call morals. But, that's just me.:)

[fuelair]

Also, enter Evolution cooperation morality in the Dogpile metasearch engine ( www.dogpile.com ): http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB411.html
and many others show up. This isn't a new one and this source covers most, if not all, of them.

[JetLeg]

Even if evolution is a bad explanation for morality, doesn't mean god is a good one. Alas, we have 2,000 years of moral philosophy, starting from the Greeks, that doesn't include the moronic idea that something is moral just because a very powerful being said so.

The idea that morality can be explained by evolution is a relatively new one. Read about Kant, or Aristotle, or Mill, or many more. Or about evolution, if you wish.

[I Ratant]

Since evolution only occurs well if some form of cooperation exists among the evolving (for groups anyway) I would tend to argue that evolution requires cooperation and cooperation requires what we call morals. But, that's just me.:)
.
This "cooperation" is nothing more than being available for intercourse leading to more of the same species.
There's nothing moral about it, it's just another natural drive like eating, escaping predators, sleeping.
There are some indications the "cooperation" is little more than rape or a gang-bang, for some species.

[Lanzy]

Just don't think of it as a debate unless you are willing to concede you might be converted. You can have discussions with people of faith but changing their mind isn't likely.

[fuelair]

.
This "cooperation" is nothing more than being available for intercourse leading to more of the same species.
There's nothing moral about it, it's just another natural drive like eating, escaping predators, sleeping.
There are some indications the "cooperation" is little more than rape or a gang-bang, for some species.

Might want to read the argument at the site I noted. Cooperation is the part where organisms work together for protection, food gathering/production,
and (later) other social functions at a higher /less basic level. Breeding does not lead to morality - the sense of duty to others (which is an evolutionary function) does.

[Robert Oz]

I just may, Robert Oz, say to him what you suggested. Even tho I am not super educated on the subject of evolution I tried to tell him and will again say "why can't morality evolve?" He says it is impossible in evolution "by definition" and has to be a "purpose driven thing" thus "any rational, sane person would have to conclude god does indeed exist." Gah! (Bangs head on table.)


Feeling the way you do, and since you don't want to be caught out going into depth with a subject you've only just scraped the top of, I would suggest something along these lines:

"I, personally, haven't read too much into it, but I do know there are many books on the market that go into some depth about the origins of altruism, empathy and morality from a biological stand-point. And, although I'm not overly familiar with what these theories are, I think it's a little presumptuous to put one's foot down and say it can't come from anywhere but God, without having at least read some of these books and considered their arguments.

"When you do that, it becomes a 'god of the gaps' argument. You don't know the answer to a question, haven't done any research into it and have come to the conclusion that God must have done it. It's not unlike being ignorant of gravity and concluding that the Earth must be flat with a god called Atlas holding it up from underneath. I could just as easily ask, 'What is Atlas standing on?'. Similarly, I could ask, 'Where did God get his morality?'."

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Gah! I'm almost dreading my next appointment. This all makes me feel so stupid. Especially the "where did morality come from save for god" thing.

Well, you might try ironically asking him where the two-times table came from save for god.

Or try the Euthyphro Question:
http://www.answers.com/topic/euthyphro-dilemma

[Minarvia]

Thank you all for the additional posts. I am feeling much better about my next session. I was even seriously considering requesting another therapist to avoid the hammering interrogation the discussion had become by its end.

You have given very helpful advice and links that I am reading and am re-reading your posts of advice. I can't thank you all enough for your help and understanding of my position and feelings.

Heh, Lanzy, you're right. Neither of us are willing to be converted.

And JetLag, about understanding what he means by "purpose driven thing" I didn't understand it either. When I asked him to clarify he asked "please can you let me talk without interrupting?" I found it rude as I was just trying to understand what the fruit he meant in the first place.

If I must, I will begin with the most important question to start - who created the creator? And go from there.

I was wishing that I could think better under pressure but now after what you have provided and said, I really don't have to. I will pursue the subjects because I WANT to and not because some straight-faced therapist tries to make me feel obligated.

Right now I just want him to help me get my lower back better more than anything. I don't want to have to dread my appointments and now I don't think I'll have to.

Thank you everybody. I will definitely read Dawkins' and Shermer's books as soon as I can get a hold of them and go over your links again. And I'll do it because it is MY choice. :)

[Robert Oz]

I will add one last suggestion. Try this:

Chimpanzees (as well as many other species of animal) show altruistic behaviour towards other members of their species. For example, it is well documented that when a chimpanzee has been in a fight, other chimpanzees come up to it and put their arms around it or pat it on the back or groom it to console the distraught chimp. Do you think the source of these altruistic traits in chimpanzees is God ? If so, for what purpose would God make chimps altruistic?

[JetLeg]

And JetLag, about understanding what he means by "purpose driven thing" I didn't understand it either. When I asked him to clarify he asked "please can you let me talk without interrupting?" I found it rude as I was just trying to understand what the fruit he meant in the first place.


It is rude and hypocritical. Asking for clarification is not "interrupting".

Perhaps he does the opposite as well? Perhaps he interrupts you, and when he says "Just let me finish", he says "But I am just asking for clarification", and instead of asking for clarification he makes a new point (which actually _is_ interrupting)? :D

I was wishing that I could think better under pressure but now after what you have provided and said, I really don't have to. I will pursue the subjects because I WANT to and not because some straight-faced therapist tries to make me feel obligated.

I think you are right. When one argues with a person that holds his position dogmatically, one is not likely to get any fresh insight...


Right now I just want him to help me get my lower back better more than anything. I don't want to have to dread my appointments and now I don't think I'll have to.


I am interested to know, and definitely don't feel that you have to answer that - why did you react so strongly? Why do you "dread" the appointment? (PM me, if you prefer).

[Minarvia]

Thanks Oz, that is a good question about the chimps. I hadn't thought of that. Thanks.

JetLag, I really didn't react so strongly until after I left my appointment. I was to meet my mother for lunch that day. We don't see each other often. After we sat down she asked how my appointment went and how Vince was as a therapist and did I like him and feel comfortable with him and how he is working on my back.

I made the (apparently) terrible mistake of telling her how he began a discussion with me and quickly summarized. I was shocked when she stared at me and said, "I knew you had trouble with the whole god thing but I can't believe you are such a horrible atheist about the whole thing! He's right to question you! What you asked and said back to him is an insult, not only to him but to a lot of people!"

As a result she has not spoken to me since. I guess that is the base reason for my guilt, dread, and fear of the whole thing. It made me feel that on many levels there is something dreadfully wrong with me as a person. And not only wrong with me (I have alienated my mother for at least a while) but it makes me feel stupid too. I don't mind admitting that publically. I think many people here will understand and probably have felt similar feelings before. I'm just feeling them now and still have some fear about my appt. tomorrow. But with all the advice here I feel better about it and if all else fails I'll just ask him for us not to speak of it anymore.

[JetLeg]

Thanks Oz, that is a good question about the chimps. I hadn't thought of that. Thanks.

JetLag, I really didn't react so strongly until after I left my appointment. I was to meet my mother for lunch that day. We don't see each other often. After we sat down she asked how my appointment went and how Vince was as a therapist and did I like him and feel comfortable with him and how he is working on my back.

I made the (apparently) terrible mistake of telling her how he began a discussion with me and quickly summarized. I was shocked when she stared at me and said, "I knew you had trouble with the whole god thing but I can't believe you are such a horrible atheist about the whole thing! He's right to question you! What you asked and said back to him is an insult, not only to him but to a lot of people!"

As a result she has not spoken to me since. I guess that is the base reason for my guilt, dread, and fear of the whole thing. It made me feel that on many levels there is something dreadfully wrong with me as a person. And not only wrong with me (I have alienated my mother for at least a while) but it makes me feel stupid too. I don't mind admitting that publically. I think many people here will understand and probably have felt similar feelings before. I'm just feeling them now and still have some fear about my appt. tomorrow. But with all the advice here I feel better about it and if all else fails I'll just ask him for us not to speak of it anymore.

Frankly, your mother acted hypocritically. There is nothing insulting in what you said. On the other hand, there is something insulting in accusing you of being an immoral person just because you are an atheist. And yes, calling one's son a "horrible atheist" is a _bad_ thing to do. A mother should realize that her son cares what she thinks of him, and shouldn't make him feel bad just because he has different opinions on the existence of the creator of the universe.


In my family, we are more confrontational. Had my mother called be "bad" because I am an atheist, I would be extremely angry at her, and would definitely tell her so. After some time she would apologize. I understand that it is not like this in the US, and it is hard for people.

However, the thing that is hard to ackowledge is that our loved family members behave in _really_ wrong ways, when it comes to religion. Saying that by admitting to a doctor you are an atheist you have insulted many other people who weren't even there is just stupid. And when one accuses another person of insulting one's feelings, one must make sure that he has a good case. It's one's ethical responsibility.

I am using harsh words, but I think it is better not to walk on eggs. I would never tell my kid that he is bad just because he has a different opinion, and one shouldn't do it. It's wrong. And not speaking to your son because he has a different opinion, and had an argument on it with his therapist is again, a wrong thing to do. So the person that really should feel guilt is you mother.

You haven't "alienated" her. You have merely expressed your opinion. Since when expressing opinions is "alienating"? Would you be "alienated" if she would have told you she believes in god????
Again, it is her that alienated you by blaming you for your intellectual opinions as if they were bad. It is her that should be ashamed.

It's JetLeg

[Earthborn]

I think those claims about how moral behaviour somehow causes genes to be passed on are not all that convincing. Such hyper-Darwininistic arguments tend to portrait organisms as static and passive unless they are "being evolved" by the blind and undirected forces of natural selection.

An easier way out is to acknowledge that morality needed some sort of intelligent agent to arise; and that intelligent agent is us. Morality was an invention like so many other inventions, and it is an invention to allow many individuals to live together in social cohesion.

The fact that many other animals share with us something we might recognise as "morality" just means it was an early invention.

[Cavemonster]

I think those claims about how moral behaviour somehow causes genes to be passed on are not all that convincing.

Why not?
We know that there are biological roots, mirror neurons, the effect of hormones on the protective behavior of new mothers. There's tons of evidence for a genetic root for many of the behaviors and values we clump under morality.

If it was all an idea somehow, why did it come into being? Why did it last? How was it passed on?

Memes can carry that kind of information, but I can't see any way it can carry moral codes from fish through dogs through humans without having a selective advantage. There just isn't a mechanism for it.

[Minarvia]

Sorry for the mistake in your name, JetLeg. But thank you sincerely for your kind and understanding words. I think you are right. I am a female, btw, and maybe guilt can be more a "female" thing sometimes especially when family is concerned? I don't know, but you are right. I didn't do anything or say anything wrong. And I usually walk on eggs but, frankly, I am getting tired of it. Next time I speak to her - I'll phone her in a day or so, I'll politely tell her I meant no offense and ask her why she felt she was. If I don't chicken out, that is! :o

Maybe I can borrow some of your spine??? Nah, I'll think about it until it will be no big deal and then talk to her. My family tends to hide things and talk about each other behind their backs. Not good, I know, but we have a few rifts. The funny thing is, she went to Catholic School as a girl but as soon as she graduated she never attended church again save for being part of the wedding and funeral crowd. (Shrugs) Go figure!

Earthborn - that is genius. Morality as a sort of invention? Maybe that is what "reciprocal altruism" sort of is. If I even talk to Vince the therapist tomorrow much at all, I'll be sure to address that. Wait...as a matter of fact, I'll think I'll address it right away then depending on how things go either continue to talk with him or request that we drop it. Worst case scenario, I get a new therapist and make sure to keep my mouth tightly shut.

Maybe I over-reacted in even starting this thread but I'm glad I did. I'm learning a lot and I feel so much better from the support I've received, too.

I'll also keep in mind a quote I heard from "The Princess Diaries" that I believe was credited to Eleanor Roosevelt - "No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent."

[M.R.B.]

If you have read the God Delusion, do you still have it?
Chapter six, from page 214 deals with the evolution of morality.

[Minarvia]

If you have read the God Delusion, do you still have it?
Chapter six, from page 214 deals with the evolution of morality.

I did read it and do still have it. I'll look up that part! There was so much in that book for a newbie like me that I forgot all about it. Thanks! :)

[Earthborn]

We know that there are biological roots, mirror neurons, the effect of hormones on the protective behavior of new mothers. There's tons of evidence for a genetic root for many of the behaviors and values we clump under morality.Are those the genetic and neurological root causes of morality, or are they adaptations to social environments in which "moral" behaviour is beneficial. I tend to think that it is the latter.

If it was all an idea somehow, why did it come into being?Perhaps because of population pressure, with a species finding itself so successful that it needed to cope with lots of other members of the same species.

Why did it last?Probably because it was very useful idea.

How was it passed on?Memetically.

Memes can carry that kind of information, but I can't see any way it can carry moral codes from fish through dogs through humans without having a selective advantage. There just isn't a mechanism for it.Fish, dogs and humans don't have identical moral codes, but they do have ways to correct individuals who do things that are not accepted. They are taught from an early age which behaviours are acceptable and which are not, so learning is the mechanism. Obviously, behaving in acceptable ways does have a selective advantage, but the selection doesn't limit itself to genetically stored information. Memes are subject to selection as well.

[Matt the Poet]

Can I make a perhaps controversial case for avoiding texts that try to justify morality from a purely biological point of view? They’re not going to be satisfying on the grounds that they don’t take into account personal experience – nobody actually thinks in these terms (or at least, it takes continuous mental effort to do so), they just have a personal experience of caring to some extent about the other human beings to which they find themselves connected.

Philosophers like Mary Midgley or Emmanuel Levinas – in fact, all the way back to Immanuel Kant – have made a fine and totally godless case for that personal experience itself being an adequate and complete ground for ethics. Your sense of morality comes from the value you place on your inner life, plus some sort of structured assumption that other people are having a similar, and equally valuable, kind of inner life themselves. You don’t need magical forces, and you don’t need genes (or, indeed, ‘memes’) either.

Your therapist will have a much more challenging time with these individuals than with sociobiologists, who may well simply confirm their idea that the absence of god is equivalent to the devaluation of human experience, and indeed humanity itself.

[Minarvia]

That's extremely good advice and I hadn't heard of these people until now. I'll be doing even more reading in the near future! I think that also will help me speak with my therapist Vince (later today, ugh!) and besides have the scientific references to give him as suggested reading. I think he'll say that being able to use one's own experience has "to come from somewhere else" but at least I'll have tried and see if he is open enough and interested enough to educate himself a little on others' viewpoints. I know I am. Thank you. In my gut I think your last sentence is perhaps more true for him than the approach of scientific study but I think he should still give science a fair chance. We'll see!

[Cavemonster]

Are those the genetic and neurological root causes of morality, or are they adaptations to social environments in which "moral" behaviour is beneficial. I tend to think that it is the latter.

Perhaps because of population pressure, with a species finding itself so successful that it needed to cope with lots of other members of the same species.

Probably because it was very useful idea.

Memetically.


I don't doubt that aspects of morality work as memes, but the idea that biological adaptations that instill sympathy are a reaction to a social environment rather than the physical environment fails parsimony.

The cases in which sympathy, (extending the instincts that protect the self, to others who share your genes) has a clear biological advantage are pretty straightforward.

You're suggesting that memes arose due to selective pressures and then biology arose due to the selective pressure of those memes, even though the behaviors arise in animals that don't seem to have the capability of creating or sustaining complex memes.


Fish, dogs and humans don't have identical moral codes, but they do have ways to correct individuals who do things that are not accepted. They are taught from an early age which behaviours are acceptable and which are not, so learning is the mechanism. Obviously, behaving in acceptable ways does have a selective advantage, but the selection doesn't limit itself to genetically stored information. Memes are subject to selection as well.

You're suggesting that animals that often have little or no intergenerational contact, such as many kinds of fish, somehow passed on memes.
Many species act altruistically, but don't have any sort of child rearing or "punishment" for wrong behavior whatsoever.

It isn't impossible, but without any evidence, it's a much weaker premise than the idea that biology preceded memes, which embellished on the concept in species that actually had the tools to pass them on.

[!Kaggen]

Defining morality is no easy task.

In retrospect, was it moral for Christian missionary's to convert superstitious indigenous populations to Christianity so that they could learn to read and write in mission schools?
Ultimately they would have the best tools to question Christianity and superstition?

It is simplistic to explain morality only in terms of genetic inheritance, just as it is simplistic to explain homosexuality this way.

Of course logic is easiest when its objects are relatively simple and abstract, such as numbers/genes.

However relying on logic to explain human behavior often leads to a contradiction as the missionary example above shows.

[Earthborn]

but the idea that biological adaptations that instill sympathy are a reaction to a social environment rather than the physical environment fails parsimony.A social environment is a physical environment. Other individuals are physical, and when there a lot of them in a specific place, natural selection will favour characteristics that make it possible to live with a lot of others in the same place.

The cases in which sympathy, (extending the instincts that protect the self, to others who share your genes) has a clear biological advantage are pretty straightforward.In a social environment, yes.

You're suggesting that memes arose due to selective pressures and then biology arose due to the selective pressure of those memes, even though the behaviors arise in animals that don't seem to have the capability of creating or sustaining complex memes.I don't think the first precursors of moral behaviour are complex memes. I think they are quite simple memes, such as "don't hurt others, because then they might hurt you." A little fish that bites a bigger fish will quickly learn that biting is not appropriate behaviour in his fish society.

You're suggesting that animals that often have little or no intergenerational contact, such as many kinds of fish, somehow passed on memes. Many species act altruistically, but don't have any sort of child rearing or "punishment" for wrong behavior whatsoever.Can you name a social species that does not have individuals of different ages living together and in which each generation finds itself in a environment without anyone from a previous generation?

It isn't impossible, but without any evidence, it's a much weaker premise than the idea that biology preceded memes, which embellished on the concept in species that actually had the tools to pass them on.I don't think it is a weaker premise. If the genetic and neurological tools preceded the memes, it would mean they developed before there was an environment in which to use them. I guess that is possible if there was any indication that they had a completely different use before, but I don't think there is.

[Cavemonster]

A social environment is a physical environment. Other individuals are physical, and when there a lot of them in a specific place, natural selection will favour characteristics that make it possible to live with a lot of others in the same place.

In a social environment, yes.
Social reinforcement is not necessary.

Say, in a group that shares genes, one member finds food. Sharing that with it's group rather than hording it increases the survival of all those shared genes.

Say a predator approaches , an individual could run away and save itself, or cry out to warn it's offspring/relatives. Warning gives the group a better chance to survive.

These are feedbacks from the selective environment, not social feedbacks.

Once one fish with the "share food" or "warn" behavior is able to spawn, it's offspring group have an advantage over those groups that do not have it.

I don't think the first precursors of moral behaviour are complex memes. I think they are quite simple memes, such as "don't hurt others, because then they might hurt you." A little fish that bites a bigger fish will quickly learn that biting is not appropriate behaviour in his fish society.

It doesn't matter how simple these memes are, in species like salmon, they would need to be re-learned in every generation. That's not really a meme, it's an emergent behavioral limitation.

Can you name a social species that does not have individuals of different ages living together and in which each generation finds itself in a environment without anyone from a previous generation?

Salmon
http://www.seymoursalmon.com/fish%20life%20cycle.htm
Their only contact with their elders is when they eat the carcasses of their dead parents, yet they learn to school together.

I don't think it is a weaker premise. If the genetic and neurological tools preceded the memes, it would mean they developed before there was an environment in which to use them. I guess that is possible if there was any indication that they had a completely different use before, but I don't think there is.
No, as I showed above, the biological tools offer a clear advantage without the social tools being pre-existent. You don't need to be shunned for not sharing, by not sharing with your kids, you lower their chances of survival. Expand that to your brothers and sisters who share your genes.