h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

You can have a "why" to morality without a corresponding "why" to the universe. I'm actually shocked you would suggest otherwise, Edward. This is the sort of thing I would have expected from the type of person who hides their children from the godless heathen.

The universe does not have a "why" because it has no consciousness, and therefore no goals, motivations, etc. Humans have those things. So when we consider our actions among our fellow human beings, which is the whole of morality, "why" is a perfectly useful tool.

That easy. We are driven by reward centres in the brain. (Note: not quite the same as pleasure centres). Our sociobiology dictates that we will tend to find certain behaviours rewarding. This gives us the concept of 'right'.

From this point, it's tempting to suggest that morality is entirely personal and subjective. "Do as thou willt shall be the whole of the law." But it's more complex than that. We are fundamentally social beings. Our concepts of morality are determined by group consensus. But groups and their behaviour are complex. There's room for disagreement.

That was in reply to PC.

Fair point, BtM. But, yes, certainly morality is far more complex than a single, fixed, identifiable 'natural order'.

OK. So we are driven by reward centers in the brain. Even when we're doing something kind for other people, we're not being wholly altruistic- it makes *me* feel good to make someone I care for happy.

How then would I answer an argument from a religious person who thinks that the pleasure centers in our brains answer to a higher power, or who believe that those pleasure centers are "tainted", and that humans are incapable of making moral judgements without divine guidance? That "earthly pleasures" and "worldly rewards" are not only worthless, but lead to despair and destruction?

(Incidentally, I only mentioned the Vonnegut quote because it got me thinking, Edward. As I may have mentioned, I've experienced increased bible-beating attempts of late, and I'm trying to bolster my arguments, in a way that won't alienate anyone. For the time being, anyway.)

Now now. Careful. They're not always *pleasure* centres. Humans react with one another in ways that seem 'appropriate'. We don't necessarily get a shot of pleasure for doing so. It's more like our brain is saying 'Yes, that's the way'.

We get the same 'reward' when we see the solution to a problem...or even when we resolve a visual scene correctly. Some - but not all - rewards also fire off signals to the pleasure centres. Maybe we should think of it a the 'Yes' in a Yes/No decision gate.

This all sounds very neurobiological - but I think the distinction is relevant. I postulate that within certain religious groups, there is 'reward' in acting correctly, according to the rules of that group. We are very strongly wired for social cohesion and group belonging. This may override the pleasure of acting differently.

btw - your not going to alienate me by offending against my Vonnegut-worship. Litratcha is there to make us think!

Incidentally...one challenge to Humanists is that we don't seem to have come up with organisations which even remotely compare to religions in terms of mutual support and social cohesion.

Vonnegut also refers repeatedly to this:
- His advocation for AA as the model religion.
- His adoration of Volunteer Fire Departments (eg '...Mr Rosewater')
- The concept of Wampeter in 'Cats Cradle'
- The tribe concept in 'Slapstick, or Lonesome No More.'

In slight retraction of my last...

Could it not be that the connections between religion and social benefit are somewhat illusory? Consider:
- Religious groups are responsible for at least as much exclusion and division as support and cohesion.
- People get social support from all sorts of places. The workplace. The pub. The golf club. The only difference is that since these organisations don't have a direct interest in advocating their social benefits, they tend not to shout about it.
- Most people are not actively seeking the advertised social benefots that religions say they can provide. The Market suggests that religion doesn't deliver.

That's true. I've experienced it firsthand, when I wanted to volunteer at a local homeless shelter for a holiday dinner, and found that the "charitable" folks running the shelter required that anyone wanting to be fed must first sit through a religious service. But over at Food Not Bombs, anyone was welcome to eat. As long as they didn't mind lentils.

Some of the god-bothering people I know seem to see various forms of fellowship as a sort of social networking. Why can't these people find some other way to relate to their fellow human beings?

How do we convince, or at least explain to, someone who believes that they are "blessed" and that they are going to some glorious paradise, that the reward centers in the brain deliver as valid a reward, if not more so, than faith in supernatural entities? Physiological processes don't seem to impress some of these people very much.

>>Physiological processes don't seem to impress some of these people very much.

Now...I've heard at least one person on this site (no names no pack drill), and others elsewhere, espouse the theory that the 'supernatural' is manifested as real, physical forces that are as yet unknown to science but can nevertheless can be detected by the human brain (sometimes following special religious training). Often they cite things like electrons and quantum mechanics which were once undreamed of by science: "There are more things in heaven and earth..."

It's cheating, of course. Scientists don't claim to detect things (eg gods, spirits, souls) and *then* go looking for them. At best they'll admit that there's a phenomenon, but they've no idea what it is.

Admittedly they often hypothesise things (eg aether, Higgs-Boson particles) that, if they were there would explain things. But when they turn out not to be in the places they ought to be...they give up and look for another explanation. Eventually. With much acrimony and ruining of careers.