SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Greg or e who wrote (38590)7/4/2013 3:37:39 AM
From: 2MAR$1 Recommendation

Recommended By
dalroi

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 69300
 
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” – Steven Weinberg
  1. God is the source of morality.
  2. Morality is a cultural concept with a basis in evolutionary psychology [ 2] and game theory [ 2]. Species whose members were predisposed to cooperate were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Reciprocacy, altruism and other so-called ‘moral’ characteristics are evident in many species [ 2]. The neurochemical thought to regulate morality and empathy is oxytocin [ 2].
  3. Religious texts are simply part of many early attempts to codify moral precepts. Secular law, flexible with the shifting moral zeitgeist, has long since superseded religion as a source of moral directives for the majority of developed societies. Secular ethics offers a number of competing moral frameworks which do not derive from a purported supernatural source.
  4. See also: Dawkins – Source of Morality, Babies can tell right from wrong, Moral behaviour in animals, Altruism in Chimps and Toddlers, Trust, Morality and Oxytocin (a must watch), Evolution of Cooperation, Science of Morality. Animals Cooperating: Monkeys, Birds, Chimps.
  5. The god character of the Bible is a misogynistic tyrant that condones and even orders the practice of slavery, rape of women and murder of children. The moment you disagree with a single instruction of the Bible, such as the command to kill any bride who is not a virgin or any child who disrespects their parents, then you acknowledge that there exists a superior standard by which to judge moral action and thus no need to rely on an ancient, primitive and barbaric fantasy.
  6. See also: the Euthyphro dilemma, Epicurus Trilemma, Problem of Evil, Morality – Good without Gods (a must watch), Dawkins on Absolute Morality (a must watch), The West Wing (a must watch), Deconversion: Morality (a must watch).



  1. “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” – Epicurus
  2. People need to believe in god / Without god people will do bad things.

    Argument from adverse consequences [ 2].

    Just because something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, does not actually make it true.

    The fact that religiously free societies with a proportionally large number of atheists are generally more peaceful [ 2][ 3] than otherwise is evidence this perception is incorrect.

    See also: Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being (a must read).
  3. Atheists can’t know the difference between right and wrong.Note: The following answer is a generalisation. Atheists are not a homogeneous group. There is no formal moral code resulting from a lack of belief. Atheists can and do subscribe to any number of ethical systems, or may simply decide such things for themselves.

    Atheists generally derive their sense of right and wrong from an innate [ 2][ 3] and reasoned [ 2] understanding of which actions contribute towards a society most hospitable to continual well-being and personal fulfilment. They are accountable to their own conscience and to society at large. They do not require an absolute standard in order to make distinctions between the possible effects of their actions.

    Atheists are attuned to the here and now. Their ethics are not derived from some reward or punishment after death, but from a rational consideration of the consequences in this life. Impulsive desires are compassionately, empathetically and intelligently [ 2] weighed against long term personal and social goals.

    As social animals that have evolved to want and give love, to have freedom and security, we have learned that we are safer, stronger and more prosperous in a successful group. Crimes are inherently anti-social behaviours that introduce needless risk and are antithetical to the long-term needs and goals of a happy, stable society.

    Note: Essentially all theists unknowingly exercise their innate ‘morality’ or conscience by picking and choosing which parts of their religion to follow.

    See also: Enlightened Self-Interest, Secular Ethics, Secular Humanism, Secular Morality, Compassion, Empathy, Sympathy, Conscience, Morality – Good without Gods (a must watch) Sam Harris – Science and Morality (a must watch), Trust, Morality and Oxytocin (a must watch), Christopher Hitchens on Atheist morality.

    “I have no need for religion, I have a conscience.” – Anonymous

  4. Lots of people believe in a god. Argumentum ad populum. The popularity of an idea says nothing of its veracity.

    Geocentrism, a flat earth, creationism, astrology, alchemy and the occult were all once pervasive beliefs.

    Furthermore, religions are culturally relative and, for the most part, are inconsistent and mutually exclusive.

    “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” – Stephen F Roberts

    “A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.” – David Stevens




To: Greg or e who wrote (38590)7/4/2013 3:40:42 AM
From: 2MAR$  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 69300
 
Some would ask, how could a perfect God create a universe filled with so much that is evil. They have missed a greater conundrum: why would a perfect God create a universe at all?” – Sister Miriam Godwinson

God created/caused the universe.

The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument [ 2], is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?

It is fundamentally a ‘god of the gaps’ approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.

The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning – which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking “What is north of the North Pole?” – ultimately nonsensical and incoherent. Furthermore, even if causality could be established it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as the properties and nature of the ’cause’ could forever remain a mystery or be naturalistic.

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [ 2][ 3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.

Note 1: Theists often state “God is outside of time”. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.

Note 2: Cosmogony is the scientific study of the origins of the universe.

See also: Carl Sagan on the topic (a must watch), Hitchens, Hawking – Did God Create the Universe? (a must watch), BBC Horizon – What happened before the big bang?, BBC Nothing (a must watch) and ‘A Universe From Nothing’ by Lawrence Krauss (a must watch).