Where Non-theists get Their Morality

[Ruv Draba]

Originally Posted by jazzman

... While moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out, in light of all that we have (and have not) learned about the universe, it offers no bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence.

That's rhetorical exaggeration when there are clearly people of strong religious conviction working actively, visibly and committedly against religious extremism, even in their own faiths.

I think it's truer to say that the bulwarks against excesses of zeal and tribal inhumanity are inadequate, and that the problem extends well beyond religious zealotry into nationalism, economic and political zealotry and ethnic supremacism.

All ideologies tend to attract falsehoods, and it's only by constant challenge that they can be winnowed out. Moreover, our moral character is constantly developing, so the values underpinning our ideologies need constant challenge too. So to call any ideology sacred and unchallengable is ludicrous and dangerous. That much I support -- in fact I extend it beyond religion and into secular affairs.

What I don't support is Harris' de facto position that there is a single story so pure, robust and enduring that it should be inflicted unilaterally on human minds and used to extirpate 'taboo' religioius beliefs. That's simply another kind of zeal. What keeps our stories improving is that we challenge them and ourselves, so prescriptive storytelling will only lead us down more intellectual and moral cul de sacs.

And further, Harris' idea of extirpating religion is as meaningless as the religious beliefs he wants to dispense with. Human belief runs a gamut from traditional to progressive, pragmatic through to aesthetic and mystical. It's impossible to even try to find the edges of religious belief, and there's substantial evidence that most human minds can't thrive without some belief in magic.

It is possible to be ideologically moderate, yet relentlessly committed to human welfare. One can embrace robust, vigorous discussion, dispense with any notion that ideas are sacred or taboo, yet still respect the human right to revere any part of life they choose. Human diversity has always admitted multiple stories and it's that very diversity that has helped us develop; what matters most is that we put our care and concern for one another above our zeal for storytelling.

And yes, Harris is at times, an idiot.

[jazzman]

Originally Posted by Ruv Draba

T

What I don't support is Harris' de facto position that there is a single story so pure, robust and enduring that it should be inflicted unilaterally on human minds and used to extirpate 'taboo' religioius beliefs. That's simply another kind of zeal. What keeps our stories improving is that we challenge them and ourselves, so prescriptive storytelling will only lead us down more intellectual and moral cul de sacs.

And further, Harris' idea of extirpating religion is as meaningless as the religious beliefs he wants to dispense with. Human belief runs a gamut from traditional to progressive, pragmatic through to aesthetic and mystical. It's impossible to even try to find the edges of religious belief, and there's substantial evidence that most human minds can't thrive without some belief in magic.

It is possible to be ideologically moderate, yet relentlessly committed to human welfare. One can embrace robust, vigorous discussion, dispense with any notion that ideas are sacred or taboo, yet still respect the human right to revere any part of life they choose. Human diversity has always admitted multiple stories and it's that very diversity that has helped us develop; what matters most is that we put our care and concern for one another above our zeal for storytelling.

And yes, Harris is at times, an idiot.

It’s hard to argue with Harris’ position when he says that any proposition, before it’s accepted as valid, is subject to challenge, i.e., it must produce evidence to support that proposition’s validity. When proponents fail that challenge --- even after having been given thousands of years to do so, it is, and rightly so, rejected as false a proposition: any proposition, that is, except the proposition of religion. In our civilized society, religion is exempt from challenge. It has been set above any kind of criticism whatsoever, and when someone does have the temerity to put it under a microscope, he is called an idiot.

If “moderate” Muslims had not remained passively silent both before and after 9/11, it’s entirely possible that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would have been avoided. If “moderate” Christians had spoken up when blacks were being persecuted by “extremist” Christians in the American South, they wouldn’t have had to wait until 1964 to be able to cast a vote. And maybe if “moderate” religionists would speak out now to encourage government participation in embryonic stem cell research, thereby mitigating the terrible human suffering caused by diabetes, arthritis, chronic spinal disorders, or promote the use of condoms to combat the AIDS epidemic in Africa.

Some of the criticisms of Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation:

Sam Harris is a brave, intelligent, clear-sighted author whose brilliant essay should be read by every adult who has ever believed that a religious faith can solve the world’s problems. --- Desmond Morris, People Watching and The Nature of Happiness

Sam Harris’ elegant little book is most refreshing and wonderful source of ammunition for those like me who hold no religious doctrine. Yet I have some sympathy also with those who might be worried by his uncompromising stance. Read it from your own view, but do not ignore its message. --- Roger Penrose, Emeritus Professor, Oxford University

Sam Harris fearlessly describes a moral and intellectual emergency precipitated by religious fantasies --- misguided beliefs that create suffering, that rationalize violence, that have endangered our nation and our future. . .Janna Levin, author of How the Universe Got Its Spots and A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines

[Ruv Draba]

Originally Posted by jazzman

It’s hard to argue with Harris’ position when he says that any proposition, before it’s accepted as valid, is subject to challenge, i.e., it must produce evidence to support that proposition’s validity.

That being so, let us consider the proposition that humans try to live without belief in magic, when there has been no time in human history when even 10% of the human population has managed to do so. Even when they're not taught to believe in magic, humans invent magical explanations for the unknown. Even quite rational people do this.

If magical belief can't be extirpated from human minds in general (and there's evidence that it's unhealthy to try), how does Harris hope to extirpate religion from human society?

Science works well, but that doesn't mean that all humans can function as rationalists. In fact, science itself tells us that they probably can't.

Harris' position is ignorant and faith-based.

[MGraybosch]

Originally Posted by Ruv Draba

If you are non-theistic, where does your morality come from?

I don't have morality or ethics. I've come to accept that nothing is true and everything is permitted. Instead of adhering to abstract rules or principles, I make my decisions based on what's good for me and mine in both the short term and the long term.

I want to live a long and reasonably prosperous life, so I'm careful not to fuck over anybody else. That sort of self-interest has worked for me so far. I see no reason to abandon it.

[Ruv Draba]

Originally Posted by MGraybosch

I don't have morality or ethics. I've come to accept that nothing is true and everything is permitted. Instead of adhering to abstract rules or principles, I make my decisions based on what's good for me and mine in both the short term and the long term.

That's interesting, MGb... Do you treat people and places differently then, depending on what use they are to you and whether you expect to see them again? Do you routinely fake close friendship and trust for self-gain? Are you likely to lie or steal if there is low chance of detection? If killing a rival workmate could get you a better job and you felt you could do so safely, would you do it?

[MGraybosch]

Originally Posted by Ruv Draba

That's interesting, MGb... Do you treat people and places differently then, depending on what use they are to you and whether you expect to see them again?

No. I'm always polite, if a bit aloof, because I find that that's the best way to keep one's distance without causing trouble.

Originally Posted by Ruv Draba

Do you routinely fake close friendship and trust for self-gain?

I might develop friendships based on whether or not somebody has something to offer me, but those friendships are never fake.

Originally Posted by Ruv Draba

Are you likely to lie or steal if there is low chance of detection?

I don't steal because I don't think it's in my best interest to get into the habit of simply taking what I want.

As for lying: I always lie to people who I know mean me harm. I also lie to strangers if they invade my privacy. I will not apologize for either.

Originally Posted by Ruv Draba

If killing a rival workmate could get you a better job and you felt you could do so safely, would you do it?

No. It's not in my best interest to do so, even if killing the other guy did result in my getting a promotion. It's not in my best interest to get in the habit of killing to get my way. Remember that I said that I wanted to live a long and reasonably prosperous life. Killing for gain, even if I am never charged or made to stand trial, is hardly conducive to such a goal.

[Ruv Draba]

Followup, MGb: what differences do you see, if any, between the behaviour you've described and that of say:

• a monotheist who's afraid of punishment but fundamentally looks out for himself anyway?
• a sociopath who's scared of being caught doing anything really criminal?

[MGraybosch]

Originally Posted by Ruv Draba

Followup, MGb: what differences do you see, if any, between the behaviour you've described and that of say:

• a monotheist who's afraid of punishment but fundamentally looks out for himself anyway?

To begin with, I do not believe in gods. Furthermore, I don't fear punishment, I simply find it inconvenient. I can't make the life I want for myself if I'm rotting in prison.

Originally Posted by Ruv Draba

• a sociopath who's scared of being caught doing anything really criminal?

Sociopaths lack empathy, remember? I never claimed to not have empathy. I simply think that all morality and all idealism is bogus.

[Ruv Draba]

I asked about behaviour rather than feelings, MGb... And sociopaths have empathy (they can correctly guess emotions from faces, for example); they don't always let it inform their decisions.

These questions aren't meant to be critical by the way; I'm genuinely interested in how much of our moral sense is simply storytelling. Because you say you have no moral sense it offers an interesting way of comparing behaviour with story.

[richcapo]

Originally Posted by Ruv Draba

If you are non-theistic, where does your morality come from?

I simply believe in the intrinsic values of good and bad, which have been shaped by my life experiences, including to some degree being raised Catholic, and what simply seems logical to me.

Has it produced anything interesting or unusual by societal standards?

Unless you believe atheism is unusual by social standards, I don't think so, no.

_Richard

[PinkAmy]

Common sense and decency.
I don't thinking finding morality is a complicated endeavor. I always roll my eyes when theists suggest otherwise.

[Nagneto]

My morality comes from empathy. That empathy stems from being born slightly above the poverty line and that this existance is a transitory one shot deal. Thus life is "sacred" for lack of a better word. Not because some blood god demanded it be, but because it is so fragile.

[Butterfingers]

From a psychological perspective it could be argued that morality cannot be rationalised at all, rather that it is simply a primitive animal force within us. Most psychologists would agree that morality comes from a mixture of two things: cognitive dissonance and conditioning. Cognitive dissonance is the feeling of tension a person feels when they commit an action that violates the social norm. This applies for actions that go against the common societal conception of morality. Conditioning suggests that humans come to associate certain actions with social reward, and some with social scorn. They seek to repeat actions they associate with reward and avoid those associated with scorn. In this way a person's 'moral compass' is formed. Those who insist that they have no morality must be either sociopaths or psycopaths, as no sane human being is free from the bindings of their own brain.

[RichardGarfinkle]

Morality can be defined without recourse to either religious or social stricture, simply by dealing with commonalities of the human condition.

I usually use the following.

An action is bad if it creates unnecessary suffering.

An action is good if it alleviates unnecessary suffering.

This does open two cans of worms on the matters of what suffering is and what is or is not necessary. But starting with a framework like this it becomes possible to make moral decisions and have discussions of morality without invocation of outside sources.

[Libbie]

I think we all get our morality from the same exact place: instinct. As societies change, relative morality changes with them. Even theists, who believe they derive their morality from their holy books, adapt their views of those same holy books to suit present societal moralities. It's only the extremists in any given religious group who do not. The majority of theists have fluid morality, dependent on the norm, as do the majority of non-theists.

[Once!]

I think a large part of our morality comes from our environment and our up-bringing. I live in a basically christian but largely multi-cultural tolerant democracy called England.

And that undoubtedly colours my sense of right and wrong. I suppose I'm basically a christian who doesn't believe in god. Or, probably more accurately, even at the ripe of old age of 47 I am still my parents' child. My ideas of right and wrong have a large part to do with what I was taught and the home I grew up in. I have added some personal elements, but they too were partly influenced by geography and experience.

But ... what if I had been born in a different country or a different era? Then I have no doubt whatsoever that I would think differently. I would have different values.

And that's a challenge. How do I reconcile the fact that my views and standards feel rock solid and fundamental to me ... and yet I have to acknowledge that they come to me via a zip code/ postcode lottery?

According to Wikipedia, there are roughly:

• 2 to 2.2 billion Christians
• 1.3 to 1.65 people who believe in Islam
• 1.1 billion people with no religion
• 0.8 to 1 billion people who follow hinduism
• 0.8 to 1 billion people who believe in folk religions
• 0.4 to 0.5 billion buddhists

And so on. All with different views of morality. And my contention is that the 1.1 billion people with no religion will tend to think along similar lines to the majority view in their country, which probably means that a large proportion are sort of christian. Like me.

[Maxinquaye]

It's called being a "cultural christian". I mean, the neglectful sloppy moniker of being a Christian without actually believing in any of it, while at the same time going to funeral and weddings because the buildings are pretty and by gum it's tradition.

I think someone did a survey in England where 75 percent identified as Christian, but another survey dug a bit and found that of those 75% only 20% or so actually had any religious sentiments.

It's the same here in Sweden. Up until 2000 everyone that was born here was automatically registered with the Lutheran Church of Sweden, unless your parents were jewish or muslim or belonged to some other protestant denomination or the Catholics. So, 77% of Swedes are actually members of the Lutheran Church, but only 10% or so consider themselves to be religious. I think more than half considered themselves agnostics or atheist, which paradoxically makes the Swedish Lutheran church the largest atheist assembly in the country.

[Once!]

I go to funerals to comfort the living and to give myself a sense of closure. I don't expect that the dead person really notices whether I'm there or not.

I was puzzled when so many people prayed when the pope died. What exactly were they praying for? They surely weren't praying for him to be admitted through the pearly gates. I would have thought that he of all people would have booked his ticket for that gig long ago.

Unless, of course, their prayers were to help themselves. A way of venting feelings of loss and grief. Feeling better about themselves.

It was fascinating to watch on the good/evil atheist thread how a number of people were trying to create a sort of supernatural belief system for atheists. It was almost as if people wanted an atheist religion. "I might not believe in god but I do believe in these innate ideas of right and wrong."

And that might be the point. Just about every society on earth has come up with a religion at some point or another. A sense of right and wrong. Funeral traditions. Ideas of the after life. That might suggest that there has to be a god after all, and all these people are trying to grope towards what he/she/it or they might look like.

Or it might be that there is a fundamental human need for some of the things that religions provide - explanations, reassurances about life after death, rules, a helping hand when things aren't going quite your way.

And being tool using problem-solving creatures, to address these needs we invent religions. And having invented religions, we adapt them, refine them, change them. And then we forget that we invented them in the first place.

[Roxxsmom]

Originally Posted by Once!

...And being tool using problem-solving creatures, to address these needs we invent religions. And having invented religions, we adapt them, refine them, change them. And then we forget that we invented them in the first place.

And we forget that the rules are supposed to serve a purpose and not to have our purpose being to serve the rules for their own sake.