I stopped reading when I saw "Bill O'Reilly vs. Richard Dawkins" -- how could Bill O'Reilly ever possibly be a legitimate and intelligent counterpoint to Dawkins?
Without a god, there is still law, there is still government, and there is still intelligence. Intelligent people understand what is best for civilization, and what is not (like rape and murder). People of even higher intelligence know this without any delusional commandments or overseer.
Then there's the whole discussion about whether being good because you're afraid to be punished is actually being good at all. Related to this, wouldn't a person who honestly agrees with their actions be less likely to have a momentary deviation?
I picked this book up for like $1 or something at the annual Penn State book sale (all books not sold are pulped) and it's been very influential for me.
He has a fascinating discussion on the "circle of empathy" and how it widens as our resources increase (from family unit, to tribe, clan, nation, world, and finally non-human animals...).
Random trivia. Statistics show that atheists are under-represented in prisons, and are less likely to divorce than the general public. And the general public has lower divorce rates than conservative Christians. (It is no coincidence that Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Oklahoma, Tennessee and West Virginia all are in the top 10 states by divorce rate. See http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923080.html for confirmation.)
Yet somehow it is the conservative Christians who try to lecture the rest of us on morality, and frequently claim that atheists have no morality??
That's interesting, but irrelevant. The question is not "what group of people is nicest," but "what are solid philosophical grounds for morality?" Ad hominem fallacies do not clarify the issue.
My point is that not only is it possible for atheists to behave in a moral way, but statistics suggests that atheists tend to act in a more moral way than average.
The question of solid philosophical grounds for morality does not concern me. I happen to believe that there are none. However I also am painfully aware that I am personally wired to be a moral being, and if I act against my own morality, I am very unhappy. However I have no basis for trying to convince anyone else that my morality is the correct one.
I could go on at length about this, but the short version is that after much thought I am a moral relativist. And moral relativism is not an easy position to take.
Without God, you can have rules, conventions, and laws. You can have feelings of guilt or satisfaction.
What you can't have is true right and wrong. See if you agree with this statement: "Certain things, like murder and genocide, are simply wrong, even if individuals or even whole societies were to decide otherwise."
If you agree, you believe in objective morality. If not, you don't believe in morals at all. You believe in feelings or societal agreements or evolutionary advantage. But that's not the same thing as right and wrong.
14 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 43.4 ms ] threadI picked this book up for like $1 or something at the annual Penn State book sale (all books not sold are pulped) and it's been very influential for me.
He has a fascinating discussion on the "circle of empathy" and how it widens as our resources increase (from family unit, to tribe, clan, nation, world, and finally non-human animals...).
Great read!
The footnotes are richer in information on this.
Yet somehow it is the conservative Christians who try to lecture the rest of us on morality, and frequently claim that atheists have no morality??
Pot. Kettle. Black.
The question of solid philosophical grounds for morality does not concern me. I happen to believe that there are none. However I also am painfully aware that I am personally wired to be a moral being, and if I act against my own morality, I am very unhappy. However I have no basis for trying to convince anyone else that my morality is the correct one.
I could go on at length about this, but the short version is that after much thought I am a moral relativist. And moral relativism is not an easy position to take.
STOP PROSELYTIZING ATHEISM ON HACKER NEWS!!!!! It's annoying!
What you can't have is true right and wrong. See if you agree with this statement: "Certain things, like murder and genocide, are simply wrong, even if individuals or even whole societies were to decide otherwise."
If you agree, you believe in objective morality. If not, you don't believe in morals at all. You believe in feelings or societal agreements or evolutionary advantage. But that's not the same thing as right and wrong.