Atheist support, discussion, and information sharing thread

dreadgeek · 07-08-2011, 10:26 AM

So since morality has come up a couple of times now, I thought I would try to stimulate some conversation about how human beings are moral.

It's a shibboleth that without God or, more generically, some 'spiritual' belief there is no reason to be moral. I have, on numerous occasions, had people express that if not for their belief in God they would probably run amok stealing and making mayhem. These folks say more about themselves and their own view of morality than they do about human nature.

I believe that human beings are *naturally* moral and that our moral sense is not imposed from the top down but grows from the bottom up. What follows is a plausible evolutionary account of morality. I would love to say that I was clever enough to come up with these ideas myself but I'm not so clever. This is based off work of others but the expression of those ideas are mine.

Human beings are social primates. If we look at the other social primates, we see some common themes all of which look like a proto-moral sense. For example, reciprocal grooming is a common feature of gorillas, chimps and bonobos. It is a way of bonding, smoothing over insults, and serves as a form of social cohesion. Given our close proximity to those other great apes it is safe to presume that before we lost our body hair it's likely that the other hominid species that proceeded us also groomed for much the same reasons. Now, this does create a dilemma. If I can get away with it, what I would like is for you to groom me but me not have to groom you in return. The time I take grooming you is time I can't be, for instance, foraging. You, however, have a vested interest in not being exploited by me. Nature's solution was to give social animals a means for telling one another apart and a faculty for detecting cheats. Just that and you have the beginnings of anger--one of our moral emotions.

Think about the moral senses we have. We feel pride when we do something good, we feel even *better* when others acknowledge the good thing we've done. We all feel that. We feel shame or guilt when we do something hurtful. We feel worse when others acknowledge that. We strive to make amends. The person we wronged feels anger or indignation at our behavior and then, hopefully, forgives us. No one has to teach a young child to be angry at being treated unfairly. What is considered worthy of praise or of blame is culturally conditioned but the *capacity* to learn what your particular society thinks is praiseworthy or blameworthy is built-in. No human culture does not have rules of behavior and consequences for breaking those rules and rewards for exemplifying the qualities that society feels should be promoted.

All societies have pretty the same kinds of problems, people have non-identical interests. In such a world cheating or using violence is tempting. But that kind of behavior will quickly tear a society apart. So nature has equipped us with rules that work well enough most of the time. We are moral not because of religion but despite religion. Religion doesn't provide us with morals, our morals are reinforced by religion but even if we didn't have religions we would still have morals. Keep in mind that our moral system evolved in an environment where we lived in very small (~150 people) groups and might have contact with twice that number. We now live in gigantic conglomerations called cities but even with that, we are still a rather moral species. Is everyone always moral? No, we shouldn't expect that to be the case. Cheating is *always* an option but just as a group of all cheaters can't get anything done, a group of entirely honest people will be easily exploited by a cheater. In devising models for how our morality could evolve, biologists have borrowed liberally from game theory. Within that framework cheating all the time is unstable, being a sucker all the time is unstable but tit-for-tat is stable. In other words, I cooperate with those who cooperate with me but I don't cooperate with those who don't cooperate with me. Is it perfect? No, but it is *stable*.

We may have brains that evolved to be open to religion memes but that does not mean that we need those memes in order to be religious. As I said earlier, we're moral first and then we use religion as a post hoc justification for our morality. We don't have religion first and then morality later.

Cheers
Aj

iamkeri1 · 07-09-2011, 01:22 AM

Disclosure: At this point in my life, I am a deist for lack of a better explanation for the existence of "things" I spent many years as an atheist and I am very comfortable with atheists and agnostics.

My personal belief is that atheists have more of an incentive for morality than people who believe in a religion in which a god can forgive them for their misdeeds. Atheists must live with the consequences of their behavior. They can only hope to be forgiven by the person they harm, and/or by themselves. Their morality is inate. It comes from within. They do not need a god to threaten them with damnation or promise them heaven. Also they must be careful with the lives of others because they believe that this is all there is. If their actions result in the ending of the life of another being, they have to face the fact that they have robbed that being of all life. There will be no "better place" for those they harm or kill to move on to in any kind of after life.

They are, I believe more motivated to help others succeed in this life; to cure diseases and repair birth defects because THIS is all that person will have, and they should be helped to have the best life possible.

Up with Atheism ... the true morality of this world.

Smooches,
Keri

tapu · 07-10-2011, 04:49 PM

When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion. ~Abraham Lincoln

betenoire · 07-14-2011, 12:17 PM

Atheist Wins Right to Wear Religious Pasta Strainer In His ID Photo

atomiczombie · 07-14-2011, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by betenoire

Atheist Wins Right to Wear Religious Pasta Strainer In His ID Photo

Haha!! I love this!! *thumbs up*

tapu · 07-18-2011, 08:14 AM

“We see that the apparent contradictions and perplexities in every religion mark but different stages of growth. The end of all religions is the realizing of God in the soul. That is the one universal religion.”

~Swami Vivekananda (Indian Spiritual leader of the Hindu religion Vedanta)

I wonder how someone who considers themselves religious in the traditional sense would feel about this; and, how do we atheists view this as applying or not applying to our belief system?

imperfect_cupcake · 07-18-2011, 09:01 AM

I understand the metaphor and don't disagree. I don't disagree with the concept of godhead ether, which is a Hindu concept. God is internal. I think that's a wonderful thing. for me, that brings it down from the supernatural to the material embodiment. And that's beautiful. Nothing wrong with that as a metaphor.

07-08-2011, 10:26 AM	#1
dreadgeek Power Femme How Do You Identify?: Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme Preferred Pronoun?: She Relationship Status: Married to a wonderful horse girl Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60 Posts: 1,733 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 1,132 Thanked 6,844 Times in 1,493 Posts Rep Power: 21474852	Morality from the bottom up So since morality has come up a couple of times now, I thought I would try to stimulate some conversation about how human beings are moral. It's a shibboleth that without God or, more generically, some 'spiritual' belief there is no reason to be moral. I have, on numerous occasions, had people express that if not for their belief in God they would probably run amok stealing and making mayhem. These folks say more about themselves and their own view of morality than they do about human nature. I believe that human beings are naturally moral and that our moral sense is not imposed from the top down but grows from the bottom up. What follows is a plausible evolutionary account of morality. I would love to say that I was clever enough to come up with these ideas myself but I'm not so clever. This is based off work of others but the expression of those ideas are mine. Human beings are social primates. If we look at the other social primates, we see some common themes all of which look like a proto-moral sense. For example, reciprocal grooming is a common feature of gorillas, chimps and bonobos. It is a way of bonding, smoothing over insults, and serves as a form of social cohesion. Given our close proximity to those other great apes it is safe to presume that before we lost our body hair it's likely that the other hominid species that proceeded us also groomed for much the same reasons. Now, this does create a dilemma. If I can get away with it, what I would like is for you to groom me but me not have to groom you in return. The time I take grooming you is time I can't be, for instance, foraging. You, however, have a vested interest in not being exploited by me. Nature's solution was to give social animals a means for telling one another apart and a faculty for detecting cheats. Just that and you have the beginnings of anger--one of our moral emotions. Think about the moral senses we have. We feel pride when we do something good, we feel even better when others acknowledge the good thing we've done. We all feel that. We feel shame or guilt when we do something hurtful. We feel worse when others acknowledge that. We strive to make amends. The person we wronged feels anger or indignation at our behavior and then, hopefully, forgives us. No one has to teach a young child to be angry at being treated unfairly. What is considered worthy of praise or of blame is culturally conditioned but the capacity to learn what your particular society thinks is praiseworthy or blameworthy is built-in. No human culture does not have rules of behavior and consequences for breaking those rules and rewards for exemplifying the qualities that society feels should be promoted. All societies have pretty the same kinds of problems, people have non-identical interests. In such a world cheating or using violence is tempting. But that kind of behavior will quickly tear a society apart. So nature has equipped us with rules that work well enough most of the time. We are moral not because of religion but despite religion. Religion doesn't provide us with morals, our morals are reinforced by religion but even if we didn't have religions we would still have morals. Keep in mind that our moral system evolved in an environment where we lived in very small (~150 people) groups and might have contact with twice that number. We now live in gigantic conglomerations called cities but even with that, we are still a rather moral species. Is everyone always moral? No, we shouldn't expect that to be the case. Cheating is always an option but just as a group of all cheaters can't get anything done, a group of entirely honest people will be easily exploited by a cheater. In devising models for how our morality could evolve, biologists have borrowed liberally from game theory. Within that framework cheating all the time is unstable, being a sucker all the time is unstable but tit-for-tat is stable. In other words, I cooperate with those who cooperate with me but I don't cooperate with those who don't cooperate with me. Is it perfect? No, but it is stable. We may have brains that evolved to be open to religion memes but that does not mean that we need those memes in order to be religious. As I said earlier, we're moral first and then we use religion as a post hoc justification for our morality. We don't have religion first and then morality later. Cheers Aj __________________ Proud member of the reality-based community. "People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett)

07-10-2011, 04:49 PM	#3
tapu Senior Member How Do You Identify?: Understated butch. Preferred Pronoun?: I Relationship Status: Party of One Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Maine Posts: 1,654 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 1,324 Thanked 3,114 Times in 1,103 Posts Rep Power: 21474852	When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion. ~Abraham Lincoln __________________ Really? That's not funny to you?

07-14-2011, 12:17 PM	#4
betenoire Senior Member How Do You Identify?: Satan in a Sunday Hat Preferred Pronoun?: Maow Relationship Status: Married Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: The Chemical Valley Posts: 4,086 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 3,312 Thanked 8,739 Times in 2,565 Posts Rep Power: 21474856	Atheist Wins Right to Wear Religious Pasta Strainer In His ID Photo __________________ bête noire \bet-NWAHR\, noun: One that is particularly disliked or that is to be avoided.

07-18-2011, 08:14 AM	#6
tapu Senior Member How Do You Identify?: Understated butch. Preferred Pronoun?: I Relationship Status: Party of One Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Maine Posts: 1,654 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 1,324 Thanked 3,114 Times in 1,103 Posts Rep Power: 21474852	“We see that the apparent contradictions and perplexities in every religion mark but different stages of growth. The end of all religions is the realizing of God in the soul. That is the one universal religion.” ~Swami Vivekananda (Indian Spiritual leader of the Hindu religion Vedanta) I wonder how someone who considers themselves religious in the traditional sense would feel about this; and, how do we atheists view this as applying or not applying to our belief system? __________________ Really? That's not funny to you?

07-09-2011, 01:22 AM	#2
iamkeri1 Member How Do You Identify?: femme woman Preferred Pronoun?: she Relationship Status: solo Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Central Florida Posts: 905 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 302 Thanked 2,153 Times in 659 Posts Rep Power: 16642920	Disclosure: At this point in my life, I am a deist for lack of a better explanation for the existence of "things" I spent many years as an atheist and I am very comfortable with atheists and agnostics. My personal belief is that atheists have more of an incentive for morality than people who believe in a religion in which a god can forgive them for their misdeeds. Atheists must live with the consequences of their behavior. They can only hope to be forgiven by the person they harm, and/or by themselves. Their morality is inate. It comes from within. They do not need a god to threaten them with damnation or promise them heaven. Also they must be careful with the lives of others because they believe that this is all there is. If their actions result in the ending of the life of another being, they have to face the fact that they have robbed that being of all life. There will be no "better place" for those they harm or kill to move on to in any kind of after life. They are, I believe more motivated to help others succeed in this life; to cure diseases and repair birth defects because THIS is all that person will have, and they should be helped to have the best life possible. Up with Atheism ... the true morality of this world. Smooches, Keri

07-18-2011, 09:01 AM	#7
imperfect_cupcake Senior Member How Do You Identify?: feminine dolly dyke Preferred Pronoun?: Your Grace Relationship Status: I put my own care first Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: In a gauze of mystery Posts: 1,776 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 2,426 Thanked 9,712 Times in 1,611 Posts Rep Power: 21474853	I understand the metaphor and don't disagree. I don't disagree with the concept of godhead ether, which is a Hindu concept. God is internal. I think that's a wonderful thing. for me, that brings it down from the supernatural to the material embodiment. And that's beautiful. Nothing wrong with that as a metaphor.