…and this is a 
Heaven, Hell, who cares — I pick Earth
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: June 28, 2007 6:00 AM, by PZ Myers
The Washington Post had a 'conversation' on a very stupid question:
Do you believe in heaven or hell? If not, why not? If so, who's going there and how do you know?
It's a stupid question, because the only sensible answer is "no" and "because there is no evidence for it, nobody has been to either place and come back to tell us about it, and everyone who makes claims about them is using them as a carrot-and-stick to compel you to obey them". Unfortunately, What the WaPo did was gather a bunch of gullible theobabblers, and it's a collection of the most absurdly pious garden mulch this side of the Crystal Cathedral. It's got short essays from the Dogmatic A-hole Brigade (Chuck Colson and Cal Thomas) to a swarm of blithering churchmice who squeak out vacuous promises of eternal love.
It's uniformly awful, with one exception: the token nonbeliever, Susan Jacoby. She doesn't believe in either heaven or hell.
But I certainly do believe in purgatory. Purgatory is wondering whether the human race in general, and my fellow Americans in particular, will ever grow up enough to realize that we ought to treat one another decently simply because of our common humanity—not because we are looking forward to being entertained by harpists among the clouds or are terrified of eternal flame.
That's the only one worth reading in the whole bubble-headed, mindless collection. It's also the one that gathered the most comments. That should tell everyone something right there—shouldn't we all be tired of the empty promises and delusional fantasies of the theologically inclined by now?
(via gnosos, who has a shorter summary of many of the articles)
Comments
That Jim Cooper fellow, 'the 17th Rector of Trinity Church-St. Paul's Chapel in the city of New York' - what he's written is both bonkers and incredibly irresponsible. You'd think a relatively senior churchman writing in the Washington Post would make at least a token effort to have a clue what he's talking about.
Posted by: Edd | June 28, 2007 6:21 AM
As a fellow atheist please don't take this the wrong way, but Susan Jacoby's argument that suicide attacks are something to do with Islam (or religion in general for that matter) is false. As should be well known by now (it isn't but it really should be), the majority of suicide attacks to date have been carried out by the Tamil Tigers: a Marxist/atheist group. Recently there were suicide attacks in Ankara carried out by the Marxist/nationalist PKK.
There is no evidence that belief in an after-life makes you more likely to commit suicide. Durkheim's argument (for what it's worth) was that 'modernity' and (therefore, presumably) secularism was likely to RAISE suicide rates. Most religions have extremely strict injunctions against suicide and Islam is no different, which is possibly why atheists (Marxists) are more likely to use suicide bombing as a tactic than radical Islamic groups. (To repeat: the contrary is often stated in the West but is false).
Even when radical Islamic groups DO use suicide bombing, it's simply because they can't strike back any other way. CF Hizbollah who began as the 'kings' of suicide bombing: but as soon as their funding increased they turned themselves into a more conventional guerilla army. CF also Hamas who use ceasefires etc. and who have openly admitted that they would fight the Israelis in the 'conventional' fashion if they had the money to equip and train a 'proper' army.
Research into the lives of the 9/11 bombers has shown that Mohamed Atta (etc.) were much more similar to, say the Red Army Faction (in terms of motivation etc.) than to the religious zealots of the past. He was most strongly motivated by hatred of American foreign policy, NOT the prospect of eternal life. If Atta had been an atheist would he have done the same thing? Probably.
Posted by: Hidari | June 28, 2007 6:57 AM
Hidari, I notice you don't cite any evidence to support the claim that secularism/atheism is more likely to raise suicide rates or encourage suicide attacks. (More likely than what?) As for the Tamil Tigers, I don't think anyone is arguing that religion is the only reason people commit suicide attacks. But religion most definitely is a factor in many suicide bombings, especially against innocent civilian targets, and needs to take its share of the blame.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/16/AR2005071601363_pf.html
And let's not forget the role of religion in defining what it was about American foreign policy that Mohamed Atta hated so much. Would there even be an Israel for Islamists to hate, if it were not for the millenial obsession of American fundamentalists and evangelicals? Not to mention, of course, the role of the Jewish religion in defining Jewish ethnicity and Zionism.
Just because there are suicide bombings that do not involve religion, that does not mean that there is no suicide bombing that does. Religion is in this up to its neck, and it is misleading to deny it. There are other factors too, and these also deserve consideration, but that does not make religion innocent here.
m
Posted by: Mark Nutter | June 28, 2007 7:46 AM
"we ought to treat one another decently simply because of our common humanity"
Why ought we to treat one other decently on the basis of common humanity? What is the nature of "humanity?" Why should "humanity" be the basis of anything?
Posted by: Bravo | June 28, 2007 9:15 AM
Oh, goodie.
Always nice to get a few more doofuses on record.
Good for a few laughs.
"Look at me, I'm an idiot!"
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 28, 2007 9:18 AM
Of the ones I read, Cal Thomas was the worst...you could get that from any fundie (at least Colson was concise). I thought Jacoby was a bit predictable - I don't like to read something that doesn't tell me anything new.
I thought NT Wright's was the most interesting - I don't agree with him, but he put the pieces together differently, gave me something I hadn't thought of, hadn't read a hundred times. Having a thought I haven't had before is always good.
Posted by: IanR | June 28, 2007 9:30 AM
"Go to heaven for the climate; go to hell for the company." Mark Twain
Posted by: frank | June 28, 2007 9:38 AM
I realize #4 is most likely a trollish comment. Nonetheless, I will answer the questions.
"Humanity" is the commonality that we all share with each other as members of the same species. You cannot feel any commonality if you think that the person walking down the street who has, say, a different skin tone, or a different accent, is not a member of the same community. It is one's sense of empathy which helps one to realize that others have desires, goals and needs similar to one's own. Historically, feelings of empathy have only extended to one's own tight-knit tribe, or local town, or parish. It should be a modern goal to strive to extend this empathy towards all fellow members of our species. I'd argue that this extends to our fellow great apes, but we haven't achieved full empathy with our fellow human beings, so one step at a time :(
That being said, we also recognize that some of our closest relatives (brothers, sisters, parents) have individual differences in tastes and interests, and thus the concept of individual liberty becomes important. As we recognize that we do not wish others to interfere in our various pursuits, we codify our desire not to interfere in various intellectual/physical pursuits of others unless they threaten the liberties of others. Herein lies the motivation for championing the cause of individual liberty over the tyranny of the majority.
"Humanity" should be the basis for creating our legal / moral structure, because we are affirming that we are capable of understanding ourselves as individuals and as a species. If you claim that we are not capable of understanding ourselves, that only some mythical "god" can provide this, then we should act as Thomas Paine suggested, and only trust "divine revelation" when it is presented directly to us. Even if your twin brother had received some "divine revelation", Paine would say that you are not obliged to accept it as true because it would be hearsay coming from his mouth to your ears. Thus, any and all holy texts are rendered invalid as moral authorities, given that they are works of man. This then leaves us to create our moral values/ legal codes based on ... the reasons I mentioned at the beginning :)
Posted by: Sobex | June 28, 2007 9:40 AM
It reminds me of Joe Hill's song with line "pie in the sky".
Posted by: bernarda | June 28, 2007 9:44 AM
Hi,
It wasn't just a trollish comment. I genuinely wonder. People seem to take it for granted that common humanity is the basis of morality. I don't see this.
"It should be a modern goal to strive to extend this empathy towards all fellow members of our species." Where does this "should-ness" come from? Why "should" we try to extend sympathy? What normative reason do we have to do so?
Posted by: Bravo | June 28, 2007 9:48 AM
I think you need to make it clear what we are talkin about here:Coulter's Hell(Yellowstone)?
OR Ann Coulter's Hell (Brimstone)?
Posted by: Jimmy | June 28, 2007 9:54 AM
You "genuinely wonder" why people should treat each other decently on the basis on common humanity?
I appreciate an inquisitive mind as much as the next guy, but jeez-louise, the question answers itself.
Posted by: Dono | June 28, 2007 10:04 AM
How to become a pastor, rector, theologian, bishop, religion professor, etc.:
1) Read Bible. Thoroughly (this is the hardest part!).
2) Bible in hand, become expert in bullshitting by attending a bullshit seminary (also known as a "theological" seminary) or other facility of religious indoctrination. [Note: also consider the shorter path to success - self-bestowed credentials! Just go out and start blabbering. It might take a while, but you will eventually attract a crowd of stupid people (they're everywhere).]
3) Making a living by attracting money: Smile. Bullshit. Con. Important: make people feel good! And always, always sound profound! Make promises about Jesus (Don't worry! No one will be able to prove that you are bullshitting, that's the beauty of it!)
Congratulations, you are set for life. People will legitimize you with their "flocking" behavior. You have a cushy life without having to do much of anything - except bullshit! What could be better?
Bravo!
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 28, 2007 10:18 AM
Actually, I think it is an interesting question. Would we expect bears to treat each other well on the basis of their common ursinity? Should beetles be decent to one another because they share a common coleopterousness? I don't think it's necessary at all for individuals of a species to be kind to one another for that species to thrive.
It's just that we take for granted that we are not that kind of species. We are social organisms, and we depend on the bond of the clan, the tribe, the culture in order to survive. It's not a matter of cooperating so that we go to heaven, it's so that we aren't lonely naked soft easy prey with pathetic claws and teeth in this world.
Posted by: PZ Myers | June 28, 2007 10:23 AM
That's precisely what I question - the self-evidence of such a belief.
WHY is common humanity the basis of morality? (What IS common humanity, anyway?)
Basically, what reason does anyone have not to be a solipsist, morally speaking, other than that they feel like it at the moment? Isn't the morality of common humanity simply convention? Is it really the only normative basis we have?
Posted by: Bravo | June 28, 2007 10:24 AM
Speaking of heaven and hell:
http://www.veoh.com/videos/v645608CMmYR8zH
Posted by: Mark Plus | June 28, 2007 10:31 AM
Bravo, I think if you turn your focus away from "should" and towards "do," the answer will be clearer.
Posted by: Kseniya | June 28, 2007 10:50 AM
According to the bible, how many humans have actually been "taken" up to heaven? Or sent to hell or purgatory?
Answer: none, nada, rien, zip, ...
Posted by: b_nichol | June 28, 2007 10:51 AM
Kseniya,
I'm not quite sure what you mean.
We do, indeed, generally treat people humanely, but I'm going for more than just description. I want proscription. I'm just not sure there is any.
Posted by: Bravo | June 28, 2007 10:53 AM
It looks like Robert Pape's argument has some validity .. .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_to_Win:_The_Strategic_Logic_of_Suicide_Terrorism
And even though it is a wiki article (boo wikipedia!), he has catalogued the majority of suicide attacks since 1980 in his paper and has come to the conclusion that is largely Nationalism (in the form of objecting to a foreign army) that drives suicide bombings. Unfortunately Nationalism can find many roots in religion. (Hey, that is my holy country, that is my holy city, my saint rode to the seven heavens on a horse from here, my dead Celtic god's head is buried under your house (which would be Bran buried under saintly Albion) etc.)
So you can blame whatever, but I find the belief in an afterlife and rewards beyond this world to be a deep, malignant, pus-oozing, angry red sore on the quivering arse of mankind.
Mystic, sometimes not, Oli.
Posted by: Mystic Olly | June 28, 2007 11:07 AM
Interestingly, it isn't necessary for most people to have a written code of ethics in their pocket to know how to act humanely. Lots of evo literature on that, but, regardless, proscription, punishment, etc, shouldn't really have to be a part of it--EXCEPT we do need written laws to make certain society functions. Not everyone agrees on everything...hey, it ain't a theocracy...yet.
Posted by: PalMD | June 28, 2007 11:09 AM
I found this comment from Cal Thomas hilariously stupid:
>>>Scripture repeatedly teaches the existence of a literal Heaven and a literal hell. Whether you believe depends on whether you think God is telling the truth and His Word is reliable.
I like how he skips over the particularly ludicrous portion of this claim, namely that "scripture" actually IS the word of god. Whether you believe, according to Thomas, is a function of how reliable you find that "word," not whether that word exists or not.
Posted by: cureholder | June 28, 2007 11:10 AM
(sigh) I believe I am in Hell right now...
Posted by: mojojojo | June 28, 2007 11:34 AM
PalMD,
As a contractarian ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract ) I consider that we only need laws that govern certain interactions between individuals. Things like being honest about food labelling, (see the Meat Hope scandal where I live in Japan http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070626a1.html ) which basically means being honest about advertising. And the like.
PS I realise food-labelling is a minor aspect, but it has been all over the press for the last three days so I thought I would mention it.
Laws negotiate contracts, not morals. I don't, and I maybe you might agree with me, commit acts of violence and theft because they are illegal, but largely because I don't want to. Now where that "want" comes from is the domain of the evil scientitians and their plot to take over the world.
Oli
Posted by: Mystic Olly | June 28, 2007 11:35 AM
Really, I think there isn't any "should" about it, and there's nothing special about humannness as opposed to...mammal-ness? chordate-ness? animal-ness? alive-ness? that should compel our sympathy. Dono and Sobex, I can see why you might have the knee-jerk response you did, but really the question doesn't answer itself -- there's no prescription, and besides, species is a category with plenty of its own problems. (Says the paleontologist.)
After chewing on this for a long time, I've come round to a sort of atheist-Buddhist harm-minimization, trying to not destroy anything I don't need to destroy, and do the best for everything in the universe in a sort of order starting with myself and what I care most about, and going outward from there...not perfect, but what can you do.
It's tricky, isn't it, this living without some celestial nanny to whack your knuckles when you get it "wrong"?
Posted by: octopod | June 28, 2007 11:38 AM
Lets say Ol' Cal is correct despite the protests well everyone else on what it actually specifically says about either. In my view the very existence of a place of torture and suffering for finite acts removes any pretense of kindness and/or forgiveness. If God is all loving it precludes such a place from being tolerable to such a being let alone created by the same. Then again one could counter God isn't all loving or forgiving but I don't think that would sell well.
Posted by: Uber | June 28, 2007 11:51 AM
Kseniya:
Exactly.
Bravo:
Empathy is just a human trait. We care (to greater or lesser degree, depending on the alternatives) about other humans because we are a social species.
So the answer to the question "why should we care?" (in the sense that I think you ask it) is "No reason at all."
But the answer to the question "Why do we care?" is "because we're humans, and that's what we do."
Posted by: Ken Watts | June 28, 2007 11:53 AM
So if there is no reason why we should care, then why write things like "we ought to treat one another decently simply because of our common humanity"? That is simply false, then.
Posted by: Bravo | June 28, 2007 11:58 AM
No, there is a "should" too. We should care for one another because each of us, individually, benefits from being part of a mutually-supportive group (provided that the group finds a reasonable balance between the interests of the individual and the interests of the group, of course). If we all practiced every-man-for-himself anarchy, the result would be a significantly lower standard of living for all of us. Cooperation and mutual support are simply strategies that maximize the benefit for the group and the individual.
Posted by: Mark Nutter | June 28, 2007 12:29 PM
But we have no grounds for criticizing religious believers. Their beliefs just help their group cohere.
Posted by: Bravo | June 28, 2007 12:33 PM
" But the answer to the question "Why do we care?" is "because we're humans, and that's what we do." "
Expect that we don't.
Sure we're nice and all to our closest kin and friends. And some of us might even give to charity and drag an old woman across the street. But most of us don't care about people beyond that (Not getting into the ones who actually harm others.)
Posted by: Dutch Vigilante | June 28, 2007 12:33 PM
Bravo, think of your own long-term self-interest. Reciprocal altruism.
And then behold the fact that it's innate. In the words of Abraham Lincoln: "If I do good, I feel good. If I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion." Natural and sexual selection against assholes, I presume.
Posted by: David Marjanović | June 28, 2007 12:47 PM
We criticize the side effects.
Posted by: David Marjanović | June 28, 2007 12:49 PM
Bravo (@19) - I think you mean prescription, and it is a forlorn hope: there isn't any. There is no objective normativity or morality, no sound ultimate reason why anyone "should" do anything.
There are several reactions you could have to this. You could become a nihilist and start breaking windows and end up in jail or worse. Or you could sit in a room, lock the door and stare at the wall. Or you could keep on doing whatever you've been doing. It's like when the training wheels come off.
The naturalist/atheist/materialist view does not offer any bedrock source of morality -- but religion doesn't either and never did (Plato showed that long ago). Let's admit this and get on with our lives.
Posted by: Pete | June 28, 2007 12:52 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHA
It's pretty easy to be an expert about something that doesn't exist. You can make up any crazy thing you want and it's just as accurate as anyone elses made up crap.
Posted by: commissarjs | June 28, 2007 12:57 PM
>>"I found this comment from Cal Thomas hilariously stupid:
>>>Scripture repeatedly teaches the existence of a literal Heaven and a literal hell. Whether you believe depends on whether you think God is telling the truth and His Word is reliable.""
I was noticing some of theist their comments about Jacoby's article getting snippy about being mocked by atheists in but this quote from Thomas' shows why this happens; Thomas won't even concede an atheist just doesn't believe in any of it. No, we're atheists because we secretly know there is a God, it is just we hate Him for selfish personal reasons. Kind of hard to have any kind of civil discourse with someone who refuses to admit you even have a separate point of view on the issue.
Posted by: Bob L | June 28, 2007 12:59 PM
"No reason at all."
.
"No reason at all."
.
WRONG-WRONG-WRONG-WRONG
.
Where do you people get such a weapon-grade B/S ? Are you really ready to give in to the "atheists have no morality" nonsense or what ?
Bravo, what's wrong with you ? Are you a fundamentalist trying to turn your misconceptions about nonbelievers into a self-fulfilling prophecy ? Or perhaps a straussian ?
Posted by: T_U_T | June 28, 2007 1:12 PM
Nope - genuine atheist here. I don't think you can get ethics from naturalism. Naturalism is true. Thus, no ethics.
Posted by: Bravo | June 28, 2007 1:25 PM
why exactly do you think one can not get ethics from
(sic)naturalism ?
Who told you such an obvious nonsense, and how did you get to believe it too ?
Posted by: T_U_T | June 28, 2007 1:30 PM
Sorry if this is double posted. Problems with my internets.
Have you ever read anything by Moore or Mackie or Nietzsche? They convinced me.
Posted by: Bravo | June 28, 2007 1:45 PM
My thinking on this one is:
1) Consider what the world is like if we all go around stabbing each other in the back, literally or metaphorically.
2) Consider what the world is like if we're nice to each other.
3) Which would you rather live in?
Posted by: Stephen Wells | June 28, 2007 1:45 PM
That just seems like a very tenuous basis for morality. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.
You can't really make any reply to the Machiavellian who says do what you want as long as you can get away with it. Appearances are what matter, not what you actually do. If you can be "bad" and no one stops you, you have no reason not to be "bad." Trying to be "good" is just following the herd mentality.
Posted by: Bravo | June 28, 2007 1:52 PM
Whether there is a hell or not, I think it prudent that mankind live according to the Beatitudes. Would make for a better world. PZ calls it the selfish gene, St Paul calls it flesh. Both are really saying the same thing whether one chases your ghosts or not.
Posted by: The Physicist | June 28, 2007 2:07 PM
How about the idea that it often feels 'good' to do 'good'? I enjoy seeing other people happy. Is that herd mentality? Maybe, but it's about on par with enjoying a tasty meal, since most everyone does that on occasion too.
Now why is that an insufficient argument against Machiavellian ethics?
Posted by: Brownian | June 28, 2007 2:17 PM
That's a perfectly acceptable practical answer. Intellectually speaking, though, we can't really respond. To say that we should "protect rights" or something, though, is intellectually dishonest, since there is no "should." Of course, there's no reason not to be dishonest, really, since there is no right or wrong.
Posted by: Bravo | June 28, 2007 2:42 PM
I like to challenge those people who believe there is a heaven and hell to personalize it. My father was a practicing and unrepentant homosexual. (he suppressed it long enough to stay married and have two kids, but that's what was done in the 60's) Anyway, he died a couple of years ago. Anyone who believes needs to be able to tell me to my face that my father is right now in hell enjoying his eternal suffering for violating god's law. Some of them can do it, and bully for them if they can, but most dance around it by saying something about god considering each case individually, and they're sure my father was forgiven at the pearly gates and allowed in. It pisses me off every time.
Posted by: chris | June 28, 2007 2:48 PM
"They convinced me."
Well, they convicted me too... They convicted me, that they got it all wrong, Each in a different way. ( it feels rather odd to see such different philosophers in one sentence, anyway )
I could start to go on about where and how any of them was mistaken. But... that would not help us with this argument.
What I need is to learn where you got it wrong.
So, please, answer my previous question. Explain us, why do you think that one can not get ethics from "naturalism"( what ever you mean with that).
Posted by: T_U_T | June 28, 2007 2:52 PM
errata : convinced convinced convinced
too much coffee and no sleep
Posted by: T_U_T | June 28, 2007 2:57 PM
It depends on what you mean by "right" and "wrong". If you mean in a dogmatic religionist sense that some higher power somewhere has set up an arbitrary list of do's and dont's, then maybe there isn't. However we're still going to be constrained by reality, which is going to make some approaches more successful than others. "Right" and "wrong" are guidelines we use to encourage the approaches that experience has shown to be the most successful. In some cases, it may be that the guidelines are only successful in answering people's superstitious fears and personal biases (e.g. anti-gay "morality"). But I think there are grounds for proposing a practical, reality-based morality that seeks to find the proper balance between benefit to self and benefit to society. Too much benefit to self is crime/anarchy/dictatorship, and too little benefit to self is slavery/oppression. Balance is the pragmatic rule of reality-based morality.
Posted by: Mark Nutter | June 28, 2007 2:59 PM
Stephen Wells has it right, it's just that simple. To ask for something "more" than that, such as an ultimate, ungrounded source for morality, is a hopeless impulse. It's as hopeless to find the ground of "should" in behavioral science or primate sociology as it is to find it in religion. Science can tell us why we do what we do and what things are likely to make us happy, etc., but not what we "should" do. Just because normativity isn't grounded in god doesn't mean that it is grounded in something else.
It's like an organized sport: a bunch of people get together and decide to do a certain thing. In our case, we agree that we will behave a certain way (decently; in accordance with laws; etc) and punish people when they don't. This doesn't mean there is no such thing as morals or ethics, any more than that there is no such thing as football.
Posted by: Pete | June 28, 2007 3:00 PM
It seems perfectly clear that morality is simply an adaptation resulting from evolution. There is absolutely no reason to think that it has any "truth." There are such widely differing beliefs regarding morality that it is hopeless to try and peel some central core out of them all that might be "true morality."
Mackie's error-theory has me convinced. When we make ethical statements we try to assert something true. However, all of our ethical statements are false. There is no metaphysical reality to back our statements up. Such entities would be "queer" and we would have no way of knowing they existed, if they did exist.
If we try to take a utilitarian tack, we must ask why the greatest number for the greatest good should be our goal. That doesn't seem to be a self-evident principle, nor is it one that I've seen convincingly argued for.
Tell me why you think Moore's Open Question argument against naturalism fails. It seems cogent to me. The good is not a natural property. However, since there are no non-natural properties, there is no good at all.
Posted by: Bravo | June 28, 2007 3:02 PM
The good is not a natural property. However, since there are no non-natural properties, there is no good at all.
If we accept that there is no good, there can be no bad. Would that be an accurate statement?
Posted by: The Physicist | June 28, 2007 3:41 PM
Right. No good, no bad, no right, no wrong. Only individual preference.
Posted by: Bravo | June 28, 2007 3:44 PM
Right. No good, no bad, no right, no wrong. Only individual preference.
How can this be true? We could then neither say the Holocaust or the Crusades were wrong.
Posted by: The Physicist | June 28, 2007 3:49 PM
Yeah. It might suck, but that's the logical conclusion.
Posted by: Bravo | June 28, 2007 3:53 PM
Bravo,
Even if you're determined to elide the useful distinction between what's reasonable and what's rational, unlike Stephen Toulmin in his philosopause book RETURN TO REASON after his lifetime studying Wittgenstein in historical context, I'll speculate there's really a rational case to make:
Social morality is like the persistent numerical parity of the sexes - it wouldn't make sense for one sex to 'win'. Both build from our biological natures (the origin of sex obscure but related to anisogamy; social sympathy much more recently emerging from the simply rational empathy which seems part of primates' Theory-Of-Mind complex). And both can constitute Evolutionarily Stable Strategies (ESS) which endure over generations. As to why such ESS are good things - well they perpetuate life, and I think that turtle's on bedrock
ESS are usually analysed using game theory, used in evolutionary and behavioral biology since John Maynard Smith and recently explored in detail by Brian Skyrms' books: EVOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT (1996); The STAG HUNT AND THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL STRUCTURE ('04). From the blurb of the former: "Game theory is skillfully employed to offer quite new interpretations of... social phenomena, including justice, mutual aid, commitment, convention and meaning. The author eschews any grand, unified theory."
A less quantitative analysis is given in Chris Boehm HIERARCHY IN THE FOREST. He examines the natural history & adaptive utility of coalitions against dominant individuals among non-human primates - coalitions which presumably enlist sympathies. He's not shy about anthropological parallels.
And of course Geoffrey Miller's THE MATING MIND argues at length that altruism and sympathetic actions are part of what's favored by the intense sexual selection within humans. As his chapter heading quotes, "What's so funny about peace, love and understanding?" (this after a section discussing Nietzche's 'pagan virtues', which Miller sees as foundational and necessary but not sufficient for his analysis).
Any more and I'd be rambling... sorry about that.
Posted by: thwaite | June 28, 2007 4:01 PM
Yeah. It might suck, but that's the logical conclusion.
Yes it would be logical. This puts mankind in a place that is untenable. If there is no good or bad then how are we to learn from our mistakes, because there are no mistakes. History is and will be always governed by the preference of the imediate, judged by no one.
The future would be only a random sequence of preferernces rather than a controling destiny. Which means to me that man is destined to the whims of the wind of time. There can be no better world nor no new man.
Posted by: The Physicist | June 28, 2007 4:01 PM
The Physicist: excellent summary. Yes.
thwaite: What does all that have to do with normativity or lack of?
Posted by: Bravo | June 28, 2007 4:06 PM
excellent summary. Yes.
Then hope is a futile exercise.
Posted by: The Physicist | June 28, 2007 4:13 PM
Bravo, could you tell us the difference between concrete things and abstract concepts ? and also the difference between the word and its meaning, please.
I'll then explain why both the "queer" and the "open question" are little more than silly word games based on conflating them.
Posted by: T_U_T | June 28, 2007 4:15 PM
Yes. Hope for humanity in the long run is, but then, did any atheists not think so? In the end the sun will supernova. There is nothing human that will last, and even if something human does last, all humans will be long gone. There is no eternal significance for any atheist, even those who think there is real morality. What I don't get is why they have hope, when everything is bound to end in fire.
Posted by: Bravo | June 28, 2007 4:15 PM
Bravo: But we have no grounds for criticizing religious believers. Their beliefs just help their group cohere.
1) We don't? 2) They do?
Are you sure you are not getting faith (a state of mind) and religion (scriptural strictures) mixed up here? What I mean is, if group cohesion is primary function of religious belief, then how do you account for sectarian dissent?
Morality is relative, true. Religious dogma is also relative in it's appraisal of what makes a "good" or "bad" adherent of a particular religion. But religious dogma is not the basis of human morality; surely something more like an innate "conscience" is responsible. Without one, I believe might happily have murdered a hell of a lot of immoral/ammoral people by now. And is that alone not the best evidence that morality is not entirely relative and does serve an evolutionary purpose?
Posted by: mojojojo | June 28, 2007 4:21 PM
But religious dogma is not the basis of human morality; surely something more like an innate "conscience" is responsible. Without one, I believe might happily have murdered a hell of a lot of immoral/ammoral people by now. And is that alone not the best evidence that morality is not entirely relative and does serve an evolutionary purpose?
Born with conscience, this is an interesting theory, but then how does one mans conscience differ from others.We are born with eyes and they all see pretty much the same thing. But morality itself seems to be more of a cultural phenomena instead of an innate one.
Posted by: The Physicist | June 28, 2007 4:31 PM
Bravo,
I believe you will find one answer to your question by reading the book here http://tinyurl.com/3bedgh. Thanks.
LM Wanderer
Posted by: LM Wanderer | June 28, 2007 4:33 PM
But morality itself seems to be more of a cultural phenomena instead of an innate one.
Duh! You don't have to be a behavioral scientist OR a religious scholar to figure that one out. My whole point was the universality of the moral impulse.
BTW, thank you, Bravo, for being MUCH more thought-provoking than the run-of-the-mill troll :-)
Posted by: mojojojo | June 28, 2007 4:45 PM
"What I don't get is why they have hope, when everything is bound to end in fire."
Is that what all your questioning is about? Are we nontheists supposed to feel hopeless because we don't think we will exist "forever"? Here's a better question ... why would you WANT to live forever? Have you seriously given that real thought? Sure, I'd like to be long lived, as in thousands, maybe tens of thousands of years. But once you get into the millions, let alone eternity -- you really find that appealing? Yikes.
Here's a positive opinion from the nontheistic view of the universe: we as human beings are one of the few (many? only?) ways in which a purely material universe has become able to reflect upon itself. Why would we want this small flame to perish? Surely the human species will become extinct one day. But to the extent that we are capable of understanding the concept of species, and can modify our own genetic coding, it would be nice if we had a hand in creating our successors who will continue our quest to understand the universe we live in.
Posted by: Sobex | June 28, 2007 4:47 PM
My whole point was the universality of the moral impulse.
That makes no sense to me, as there is no univesality of the "moral impulse" unless one can first define morality. Unless one simply defines morality as behavior, no matter the behavior, then the whole concept of moral impulse is a no sequitor.
Posted by: The Physcist | June 28, 2007 4:51 PM
This is getting ridiculous.
1. Whether we have "hope" or not does not matter at all in determining whether atheists are right or not. There is no god, no afterlife...it doesn't matter whether you've got some delusion of heaven or not.
2. Similarly, the end of the human race someday is irrelevant. All who read this will also be dead in a century. Does your inevitable personal extinction mean you do not savor your life now?
3. You're hung up on a theistic abomination, that the value of your life rests in some personal redemption and paradise after death. It doesn't. The value of life comes of living it. People who moon about thinking their life is meaningless because it will end someday need a good kick in the butt. Get outside and feel the wind in your face.
4. We are human animals. Among our talents are a capacity for a social existence -- interactions with others other than ourselves in which we find personal enjoyment and which we can use to better ourselves. We also have complex minds with foresight and imagination and empathy. There is virtue in simply exercising our natural abilities.
People who think mortality = futility really annoy me. You've been poisoned by religion.
Posted by: PZ Myers | June 28, 2007 4:53 PM
Mortality simply means that you can't hope to experience stuff that might happen after you're dead. This has nothing to do with any of the things that I actually hope for- a short list includes sex, food, dancing, scientific discoveries, travel and good books.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | June 28, 2007 5:07 PM
That makes no sense to me, as there is no univesality of the "moral impulse" unless one can first define morality. Unless one simply defines morality as behavior, no matter the behavior, then the whole concept of moral impulse is a no sequitor.
As others have pointed out, you are conflating an abstract concept or principle (morality) with concrete examples of that concept (moral behavior).
Since we are discussing rhetorical devices, I'd classify yours as highly "circular logic"; no wonder you are so dizzy. Oh, and that's "non sequitur."
Posted by: mojojojo | June 28, 2007 5:08 PM
PZ, you seem to underestimate the magnitude of Bravo's wrongness.
On his no_up_no_town_bizarro_world there would be no hope even if we were in fact immortal...
Posted by: T_U_T | June 28, 2007 5:14 PM
thwaite: What does all that have to do with normativity or lack of? -Bravo
The most enduring moral norm I can think of is: enduring. Living, and in a way which doesn't knowingly curtail future generations (think ecologies, not abortions). Choosing a viable ESS. Choosing coalitions with those who have simlar priorities. To focus the mind: this is the primary rational basis for arguing against strategic use of nuclear weapons. I doubt than any other would suffice for all the several cultures which have deployed such machinery now. These are reasonable goals, sensu Toulman above, and the fact that their strict rationality is difficult to articulate says more about language than about the goals.
What's so funny about peace, love & understanding?
Posted by: thwaite | June 28, 2007 5:24 PM
I most certainly do not think we need immortality to enjoy life. The idea of hope, though, is futural. The Physicist was talking about the future of mankind. If there is no telos for humanity, no end that it is created for, then I think the concept of hope for humanity's future is pointless. I don't understand why people think it is good that the human race as a whole continues into the future. Yes, we would like ourselves and our loved ones to continue (at least for a little while, if not indefinitely), but there is no hope that there will be a "new man" or a "better future" for humanity as a whole.
"There is virtue in simply exercising our natural abilities." This is false. Perhaps from the standpoint of Evolution (if it were a sentient force) acting morally would be good, but there is no such viewpoint. If morality is nothing more than a selected for trait, it is not normative. There is no substantive content; it is just vague fellow-feeling for those around us.
You cannot get from "is" to "ought." Just because humans are evolved to feel certain ways does not mean that it is good that they feel certain ways. It does not mean it is bad, either, though. It just means it is.
For a naturalist, I think it is as much a delusion to believe that there is right and wrong as it is for theists to believe in God.
Posted by: Bravo | June 28, 2007 5:26 PM
"Just because humans are evolved to feel certain ways does not mean that it is good that they feel certain ways. It does not mean it is bad, either, though. It just means it is."
So is that evidence for, against, or having nothing to do with your earlier claim?
"You can't really make any reply to the Machiavellian who says do what you want as long as you can get away with it. Appearances are what matter, not what you actually do. If you can be "bad" and no one stops you, you have no reason not to be "bad." Trying to be "good" is just following the herd mentality."
Posted by: Brownian | June 28, 2007 5:32 PM
It's reasoning in the same vein. Not evidence of any sort.
Posted by: Bravo | June 28, 2007 5:35 PM
Empathy, like all human traits, develops. That it is not present at conception (or birth, or at age 3) does not mean that there is no component part of empthaty that is not in some way innate. In some individuals, empathy never develops to maturity. The physiological analogues should be obvious. No?
Posted by: Kseniya | June 28, 2007 5:39 PM
Unsupported assertions pile upon each other :
"If morality is nothing more than a selected for trait, it is not normative."
"There is no substantive content"
" You cannot get from "is" to "ought." "
"it is as much a delusion to believe that there is right and wrong as it is for theists to believe in God"
No reasons given, no explanations, nor justifications... I suppose, expecting them from someone who thinks there is no "should" is an exercise in futility too
Posted by: T_U_T | June 28, 2007 5:42 PM
Give me a reason why we should listen to our moral sense if it is ONLY a result of evolution. Or, give me a reason why it is not simply a result of evolution, and might have some other sort of validity. I don't think our moral sense has any validity. Tell me why I'm wrong.
Say someone likes to kick others for fun. Should this person refrain from kicking others for fun for any reason other than that it is in his own personal interest to do so? Is morality anything more than merely acting in our self-interest? I don't think that it is. In other words, if you can do something that would normally get you into trouble without getting into trouble, and you want to do it, do you have a reason not to do it? I don't think you do. Tell me what reason this person would have, if you think I'm wrong.
Posted by: Bravo | June 28, 2007 5:52 PM
"It's reasoning in the same vein. Not evidence of any sort."
Then I don't understand how you came to assert the following:
"Trying to be "good" is just following the herd mentality"
Posted by: Brownian | June 28, 2007 5:53 PM
Ah... So that annoying little Westover Baptist ditty is prophetically correct after all!
Re: The Futility of Eventual Extinction
Well, hey. An earth that is destined to perish in flames still looks, in local space-time, like a thriving ball of life, lust and no small amount of strife. There is no shortage of things to hope for, believe me. Do not distress yourself with dark imaginings - nor with an eventuality so remote.
I don't know about all y'all, but my knowing that a book has a last page in no way prevents me from enjoying it and reaping whatever benefits it has to offer. To do otherwise would be silly, to say the least - would it not?
Posted by: Kseniya |