That amazing fact should go right on my résumé. Although I was challenged to stand outside in nothing but my light jacket for 20 minutes to get the true Winnipeg experience, and I demurred — I'll save that for my next visit, when I'm ready for the advanced class.
Anyway, I had a grand time at a talk hosted by the Humanist Association of Manitoba. People around here asked a lot of good questions, it was a lively evening, and they even had one brave creationist ask me a question ("How do I explain molecules to morality?"*). Then we stayed up until 1am working through some Canadian beer. If you're living anywhere near Winnipeg, you ought to join the group for more regular opportunities for godless get-togethers.
Now, unfortunately, we have to make a long drive back home, and also be very, very polite to some American border guards. I'll holler for lawyers, guns, and money if anything happens at the trepidatious crossing.
*My answer was to point out that he's demanding a bit much for a short answer. Forget the molecules part, since they don't exhibit morality; all you need to know is that a population of apes found it advantageous to regulate their activity to promote cooperation, and voila, here we are, apes who say that rape is a bad thing.
- Log in to post comments
And, of course, apes who insist that rape is the traditional way and thus all hunky dory.
Bonne chance! Try to look Canadian as you cross.
Come on PZ, we all know rape is only a bad thing if you don't have the 50 shekels dowry for her father. Jeez, you'd think to listen to you that you actually considered these things by yourself, instead of listening to some random, unknown bloke from 2000 years ago....
Huh? What does that even mean? There are words, they look like they should make sense and yet they don't.
Sorry, PZ, you need to spend the night out camping to put it on your resume. (I did that for four days in Minnesota the winter I was 17; the thermometer hovered around 10 degrees Fahrenheit. It was pretty miserable getting into and out of the sleeping bags, and the, er, sanitary arrangements. )
How can molecules be moral? They're not religious so they don't worry about The Big Guy In The Sky punishing them for all eternity. They don't care how other molecules behave so the Gold Rule isn't a consideration for them. They haven't evolved social reasons for moral tendencies. They lack all empathy for their fellow molecules.
So molecules are a bunch of gang-raping, serial-murdering bullies who'd spit in your eye if they had mouths and saliva. QE everlovin' D.
How do you explain anything to morality? Since when is morality sentient?
I think the question can be parsed as follows:
"How do you (PZ Myers) explain the fact that at some point, a cosmos made up of dumb, unthinking molecules evolved to the point where some entities in that universe exhibit moral behavior, all without some grand cosmic rule-setter?"
Or, more succinctly, "How could morality exist without God?"
We know. It is an inane question. Evolutionary theory gives us an answer, as PZ explained, without the need to invoke imaginary deities.
The best way to explain molecules to morality is with a powerpoint lecture. Morality loves powerpoint.
Invigilator:
Heh. I lived outdoors for one and a half MN winters with no supplemental heat. You get used to it. Saved a bundle and took the entire next year off and hit three coasts.
BS
Nerd of Redhead, OM: Evolutionary theory gives us an answer, as PZ explained, without the need to invoke imaginary deities.
You can also get there from thermodynamics, if you really want a "molecules to morality" process. Tedious, though.
Nerd (#9),
In case it's unclear, I was not in any way advocating the position represented by the molecules-to-morality question. A couple earlier commenters seemed to feel the question itself was confusing, so I was trying to make sense of it for their sake (and my own).
As for me, I have a lot less trouble with godless morality than with understanding the sort of mindset that could produce that question.
Donnie B, I've had quite a few discussions with godbots here who try the morality=god approach. They get upset when it is explained to them evolutionary theory shows how morality developed, since it upsets their script. This is the first time I've seen the even more inane molecular morality argument, but like PZ, I would ignore the molecules and answer their real question.
That's a question to ask the fish.
I was there last night and PZ was patient enough to actually perfectly answer the "molecules to morality" question twice.
There were a lot of great questions particularly those from some younger people. It was great to see the thirst for knowledge from the under 20 crowd. A young girl mentioned the Jesus Camp movie and how it really hurt her to hear these kids talking about the Holocaust, as her ancestors were Jewish. That was one of the most touching moments from the night.
Thanks again PZ for coming out. My wife and I loved it!
That's pretty simple isn't it?
Common reactive atoms become organic molecules through basic well understood physical forces.
Those organic molecules become self replicating through processes which are are found in the natural world, even if the exact process used hasn't been discovered yet. (P.s. Betting on the God of the Gap here is a massive long-shot)
Self-replicating molecules are subject to natural selection: those with beneficial mutations are statistically more likely to pass on the tose mutation than those with detrimental mutations.
As organisms become more complex, those genetic changes can modify behaviour as well by changing the structure of the nervous system.
Simple behaviours like kin recognition and mating behaviour becomes subject to natural selection (Is it better to eat your mate, life with them for the rest of your life, or have dozens of partners?)
Creatures that benefit from those basic co-operative instincts form social communities. With enough brain power, those groups can share information and teach behaviours.
As mankind's brain becomes out major evolutionary advantage, learned behaviours outweigh the instincts and complex societies build up more complex rules to govern them.
Basic morality becomes encoded through education: at first through morality fables and mythology, then through philosophy and understanding of consequence and effect.
Now with a scientific understanding of the world, we can better understand what effect specific behaviours have on society as a whole, and try to map societal changes through the changes n law and morality that have happened over time.
Of course, that's just my understanding of it.
I heard the 'molecules to morality' question in a debate involving Christopher Hitchens. I was drooling over Hitchens ripping it to shreds but it never happened. I could have smashed it to smithereens with half a thought but Hitchens must have been drunk. It was very disappointing, like watching a pro golfer miss a 1 foot putt.
Probably the creationist meant "How do I explain morality to molecules?" (note the swapping of "molecules" and "morality"). It's a common Christian way of implying that (a) anything that is "just molecules" does not have a "soul", and therefor, cannot understand morality, and (b) atheists "think they are just molecules" and therefore have "lost touch with their souls", and thus cannot understand morality.
( It's also possible the creationist meant "How do I explain morality with molecules?", which would be sensible question, answered (more or less) by the evolution of human behavior. )
When you understand why they ask this question, you understand the distinction between religious reasoning and scientific reasoning. It relates to the top-down perspective, vs. the bottom-up perspective (or, as Daniel Dennett puts it, "skyhooks vs. cranes.")
The top down perspective is another way of saying that "like comes from like." There is never anything really new. Morals ultimately come from a Moral Source, which is an immaterial moral 'substance' (or spirit) which can't be reduced to anything else. It's intrinsically moral. Love comes from love, goodness comes from goodness, life comes from life, personhood comes from personhood, mind comes from mind, and so on. Material objects must have started out from Someone having a pure idea of them, first. And then it's handed down out of nowhere on an invisible, mysterious skyhook which hangs on nothing.
The bottom-up perspective, on the other hand, looks to see how something new can come out of something not at all like it, by breaking it down, and looking at its history, pattern, movement, and composition. This is how science works. This is how a scientific mindset approaches complexity. It's looking for a certain kind of explanation.
A real explanation -- one where you learn something, and can go on to other questions. What looks like a skyhook is really a crane sitting on top of another crane, sitting on top of another crane, and on and on -- till you reach the ground. It's cranes all the way down. And you can take the cranes apart, examine them, and figure out how they connect.
The religious approach is much simpler, and easier. It's also more intuitive. Zoom. Done. But it's no explanation at all. It's a big black bar across the very concept of 'explanation.' God is our moral benefactor because He's made out of Goodness, and gave it as a gift to the material world. Say thank you.
Spirituality is just the art of reifying abstractions, turning reality into social relationships, and trying to make it look sophisticated.
llewelly #19 wrote:
Right: to them, reductionism means "greedy" reductionism. It's like listening to an explanation on motor engineering and asking "yeah, but how does the speed get in the car, if it wasn't already there?" They're coming from a totally different mindset.
Using rape is an interesting moral question to use with a fundie. The Bible is filled with instances of rape being just fine. Look at the Lot story when the angels visited. A crowd outside wanted to rape those angels, so lot gave the crowd his daughters for raping in order to protect the angels.
Lot was considered a holy man.
Send lawyers, guns and money?
Has the shit hit the fan?
llewelly in #19: Probably the creationist meant "How do I explain morality to molecules?"
Hardest part is getting the little buggers to sit still long enough to listen to an explanation. For that, seems to me that Winnipeg in midwinter is a good starting point.
Ron Sullivan
http://toad.faultline.org
"Using rape is an interesting moral question to use with a fundie. The Bible is filled with instances of rape being just fine. Look at the Lot story when the angels visited. A crowd outside wanted to rape those angels, so lot gave the crowd his daughters for raping in order to protect the angels.
Lot was considered a holy man. "
That same story is often used to justify homophobia. Apparently it's homosexual rape that offends the fundies while heterosexual rape is perfectly acceptable.
This is my all-time favorite Winnipeg factoid- did you know that Winnipeg is the only place in North America where the 1974 Brian DePalma movie "Phantom of the Paradise" was a hit?
http://www.phantomoftheparadise.ca/why.html
Thanks for coming to Winnipeg Dr.Myers. It was a very enjoyable evening!
Alan @ #16 - as a 20 year old, honestly, I was surprised at the number of older people there, particularly old ladies! haha I hope I didn't offend anyone... I use the term old ladies affectionately! My boyfriend noticed a typical looking white haired little old lady that when P.Z. said something about trusting and using science, however he put it in his last slide, that the woman was nodding like she agreed immensely. All my experience with senior citizens has been that they are all religious so I was pleasantly surprised!
Congratulations, PZ. I'll send you an "I survived Winnipeg in the Winter" certificate to hang on you wall. If you get dunk enough on Molson's to shag a moose, you get automatic Canadian citizenship.
I lived in Winnie for 4 years; I even took cross-country skiing lessons at the local park in Feb (-30 degree weather) with my 3 year old. But its a dry cold............
Uh oh. Watch out, Winnipeg. Get ready for an invasion of amoral atheists seeking to get drunk, shag meese, and become citizens.
First, hi PZ, it was great having you here. Did anyone mention that the crowd was 8 - 10 times the size HAM originally estimated? (I hope I have that right...) and topped 300 people (ditto?)
Then the "molecule/morality" thingy. I tend to hark back to Terry Pratchett.
--Hogfather
In other words, human morality is like a sweater. It's the knitting that makes a sweater, a pattern imposed on plain boring yarn. But can you bring me a gallon of pattern?
And finally, Winnipeg and Morris are only about 350 miles apart, and the weather isn't all that different. Tomorrow and the next few days we're getting up to or above freezing (get out the swimsuits!)
Speaking of which, come up here in mid-summer and check out our gorgeous beaches. This one is 60 minutes north of town and deserted much of the time, sand as smooth as silk. http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/12477318.jpg
Noni
Be careful when you're shagging the moose. Remember, they bite, particularly if you carve your initials on them.
Back in 1991 there was made a very odd Canadian movie called Highway 61. A young barber is convinced by a women, working as a road, to move a corpse, whom she claims is her brother, from the backwoods of Canada to New Orleans. They are pursued by by Mr Skin (Yeah, there is a lot of music jokes), who is Satan. Mr Skin raises the funds he needs by playing bingo. (Yes, this movie is deeply silly.)
Ah, yes, the point. Jello Biafra has a cameo as a US boarder guard. When he does the check on the roadie, he finds that she is not allowed in. The spiel about america being a house and not wanting house guest who would wreck the place is a classic short burst of Jello paranoia. Wish I could find it on youtube. I guess I need to find the DVD.
Here is one scene from the movie. Mr Skin buys the soul of a young girl. I have not seen this movie in eighteen years but I am sure he is on his way to a bingo game at the end of the scene.
Maybe he meant "molarity"? :-)
Now you know why this song is so celebrated in Winnipeg.
In my two and half year acquaintance with HAM* (and, as I understand it, in its multi-decade existence actually), this was far and away the best attended public meeting we've ever had.
The person who made it all happen on our side is our newsletter editor and librarian Donna Harris. The high turnout was of course largely due to the enormous popularity of PZ and this blog, but I'd also like to acknowledge Morley Walker of the Winnipeg Free Press, who wrote an article about it in last Tuesday's paper, the appearance of which set Donna's phone a-buzzing and her inbox a-flooding.
I'm pasting in part of an email reply to an acquaintance who had to leave early and asked about how the Q&A went. It's long-ish for a blog comment, and biased towards matters I find interesting.
(start paste-in)
There were a lot of questions, some short and to the point, some long-winded and rambling; among them was a creationist, a polite gentleman who explained that he came to see what the enemy was up to, and asked for an explanation of molecules-to-morals.
Eventually, I got in the line to turn away new arrivals. When I got to the mic, after a dozen or so questions, I told PZ I'd sent away about a half-dozen more questioners and asked how he was doing; he was fine taking more questions, so I invited the folks to come back up. Since I had the mic, I made a request of PZ: if you're going to blog about your trip to Winnipeg, you really ought to stand outside for a good 20 minutes, just walking from the car to the hotel won't cut it.
I also had a question, regretfully long-winded itself, as I had a quote that I wanted to read.
At the AAI 2009 Convention in Burbank, California, one of the speakers (and I asked PZ to guess who it was), speaking to a room full of atheists, replied to a question about problems with evolution education as follows:
"My biggest gripe frankly is with my fellow college professors. (I'm a recovering college professor myself.) I don't think college professors are doing a very good job teaching evolution. If highschool teachers come out of four years of college -- and some of them are biology majors, right? -- [if] they don't understand evolution, that's not the fault of the education department, that's the fault of the arts & science biology department, and geology department, and astronomy department. We can do a whole lot better job of teaching evolution to undergraduates. After all, people who graduate from college go on to become school board members, go on to become teachers, go on to become captains of industry, and voters. And we need to do a much better job teaching the nature of science and teach[ing] what evolution really is."
The speaker went on to say that when speaking to biology dept faculty, this person asks them, "Do you require a course in evolution, even for your biology majors?" They often squirm, and confess that they haven't done it yet! And then this person asks: "When are you going to catch up to Brigham Young?" (BGU is a large, famous Mormon university in Utah).
I love that story!
So, who was the speaker? PZ said he wasn't sure, "but it could have been me!"
Well, it was the well known, highly regarded Eugenie Scott of the National Council of Science Education, who's been a leading opponent of creationists for some 20 or 25 years.
PZ agreed it was a problem, and described how he emphasizes evolution in his first year bio classes.
Anyway, then came a bunch more questions. I'm guessing things closed down about 30 mins after you left. After the last speaker, I again closed things off, but before imploring the audience to give PZ a great big rousing Manitoba display of appreciation, I posed one more question, an also not-often heard feature of the culture war and the atheistic "urge". I said to the crowd, there is most likely not in the audience today, and not even known to anyone in the audience, a single purebred 3rd generation atheist -- 2 atheist parents, 4 atheist grandparents.
One guy actually put up his hand (I regret not going to talk to him later), so I said, well even a few counter-examples doesn't detract from the force of the statement. The non-supernatural worldview, I went on, is at least 2400 years old, having been well articulated by some of the ancient Greeks. And then you have the enlightenment, when the ideas were widely disseminated in the modern west. So, I asked PZ, do you have a theory as to why there are so few purebred atheists? I think I also quickly added that I've never heard a satisfactory answer to this and so don't feel you have to give an answer. I think he said a few words about the power and appeal of religion.
(end paste-in)
Anyway, there was at least another 30 - 45 minutes of one-on-one chatting in the big hall after the Q&A. After that, about 20 of us went to a nearby pub for some enjoyable chatting (I was only in PZ's vicinity for a short while.. peculiarities of squid brain organization, limitations of brain-mass-to-body-mass ratios, ??).
While we were saying our goodbyes and goodnights, I accused PZ of actually having a team of writers for this blog, because I find his output (on top of being a full-time prof, the travel, the public speaking) pretty astounding. Well, wouldn't you know it, the guy denies it. And his wife even vouches for him.
I also asked PZ something I was certain he'd been asked a lot, but surprisingly hadn't, especially from you, his loyal and often very funny readers: After the nailing of the cracker, did you check it after three days?
Answer: "No, I didn't".
Well I figure making it into an experiment would have been a nice touch. And I later realized that, depending on the meaning of risen, there could have been two possible positive outcomes, one of which would have made a reasonably palatable snack.
Enough from me. Thanks, PZ. All the best.
------
* Oy, such a goyishe acronym.
Molecules-to-morality sounds like a typical AiG phrase. They love their alliteration. "Bugs to biologists", "amoebas to astronomers", that sort of thing.
The questioner was asking how molecules could give rise to morality. And a typically inane question it is.
TRiG.
Back when there was a Worldcon in Winnipeg, I cheerfully announced that that was the nicest city I'd visited and wouldn't mind moving there.
Then one of the locals leaned over and quietly stated, "Y'know, it gets to 60 below Farenheit here in the winter."
I went, "Never mind!"
Winnipeg is a beautiful city and i'd like to visit it again when i don't have such a stiff agenda. And during the summer.
I enjoyed PZ's lecture and the discussion that followed. This comment relates to the discussion about Darwin and morality.
It is common for the more zealous from the religious community to note the absence of a discussion of morality in Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species. In fact, moral sensitivity concerned Darwin deeply; however, he left discussion of it to his later, but less well read book, Descent of Man. Close reading of Descent reveals that Darwin argued through experiment, observation, and deduction that human evolution was driven by four things: love and caring, the development of language and the ability to communicate, the development of wisdom through the recognition of the consequences of ones actions, and conditioning or repetition of those behaviours and actions driven by the first three. Indeed, Darwin was convinced that humans came "pre-wired" as pro-social beings. A detailed examination of this part of Darwin's science can also be read in the writings of psychologist and evolutionary systems scientist, David Loye. There is still much for society to learn from Charles Darwin and the many fields of science that his work spawned. Further, people who condemn Darwin usually have read little, if any, of his writing.