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

Well, traditional religions typically have tended to use highly anthropomorpic concepts to describe the universe, and also tend to reflect the zeitgeist of its architects. So you don't hear much about bonobos in the Bible, or kangaroos in the Qu'ran (you do however get a lot of parables about sheep), and nobody makes the audacious claim that we are, er, unimportant to the overall functioning of the universe. Now what *would* have been interesting if some holy man 3000 years ago described in detail the atomic structure of the carbon atom and its quantum physical properties. Totally contradictory to conventional thinking - totally nonsensical in fact - if it wasn't experimentally shown to work, again and again and again.

But no. Just lots of anthropomorphic stories featuring sheep on regular occasions.

So, to my point, we are probably more 'qualified' to understand the universe because some funny things turn up from experimentation that, well, do not make sense. And yet scientists have accepted this rather than trying to pretend that the world works according to how they would like it to work. A big difference in world-view compared to our religious friends.

There are a lot of silly people in positions of eminence in the churches, saying silly things with depressing frequency. Perhaps they are not the ones to listen to.

About sheep: what does "congregation" mean?

(grex, gregis: flock, herd)

You're right, R'man. I take the Popperian view that one should strengthen ones opponents arguments before attacking them. There are too many easy targets in religion...but there's no sport in shooting fish in a barrel. What I'd like to see is sincere arguments from the more intelligent religious.

Dennett says something about this in his latest book (I've only read reviews). First we need to examine what they actually *believe*. It's not the sheep stuff. He says something along the lines that they appear to be aleft with 'a belief in belief'.

But I'd like someone to explain that better. The nearest I can get is that their are modes of enquiry beyond/outwith space-time. But I'm [whatever I can say these days]ed if I know what they mean.

Hello,

I've read about half of the backlog and have the following points to make.

Ed: >What's the rational basis for morality?<

There isn't one and never could be. You can deceive yourself about greatest happiness or social contracts all you like, but morality has to be based on *empathy*, tempered with reason. So, no victim, no crime - I haven't hurt anyone, why should you punish me? Do as you would be done by - why shouldn't I punch you? Because I wouldn't want you to punch me. Why not? Because it hurts. This emotional grounding is something that those of a scientific bent can't help but find distasteful.



Ed again: >My take is that morality isn't some sort of esoteric, mystical thing. It's a matter of mutual agreement, thus firmly within the realm of rational debate.<

Not for me. Beside the fact that babies are not capable of moral discussion, if mutual agreement is the base criterion for morality, animals are effed.



Extra Bold: >A prevailing consensus may change the perception of the consequences of an action - it may for example think that genital mutilation of children is beneficial rather than harmful. But I think disagreement on that kind of issue is susceptible to a reasonably objective scientific assessment of costs and benefits.<

No it isn't. Keep science a mile away from morality.



Ed: >I guess that it's hard to talk about Atheism per se, given that it's an absence of religion.<

An absence of religion is total indifference to it - 'I dont give a monkey's whether there's a God or not'. Atheism is a hatred of religion. You need religion to justify your unfaith and feed your fervour.



On Moral Majority, someone I dislike intensely belittled the crimes committed by atheist governments. They are many and woeful. And you can try to twist it whichever way you like, it's still 'killing in the name of...'

>An absence of religion is total indifference to it - 'I dont give a monkey's whether there's a God or not'. Atheism is a hatred of religion. You need religion to justify your unfaith and feed your fervour.<

Atheism isn't a hatred of religion. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence in gods. I can't hate something that doesn't exist.

I'm sure there is a word to describe not caring one way or the other, too, but I'm not sure if that falls under atheism or not- probably.

I consider myself atheist, but I don't have any hatred for religion. I think it's useless. It's lazy thinking at best, lack of thinking at worst.

While I don't "hate" religion, per se, I do actively dislike its worst elements. And I share Edward's opinion that if you are going to excuse the "good" or "positive", or even the fluffy, woolly, empty-headed aspects of any religion, you also have to excuse the hateful, bigoted element.

Geez, Jack, I haven't had the chance to talk with you in months, and here I am disagreeing with you already.

>>My take is that morality isn't some sort of esoteric, mystical thing. It's a matter of mutual agreement, thus firmly within the realm of rational debate.<<

I also agree with Ed on this one. In fact, I'm more inclined to trust people who make moral/ethical decisions based on rational debate and decisions than those based on fantasy, delusion, and the so-called "Will of God" or other imaginary friends.

Babies, animals... they're not guided by a "moral compass". They're completely immoral and self-serving. What do babies or animals have to do with moral discussion beyond the responsibility of reasonable and rational people to look after their interests?

Well, I was drafted in as a 's advocate to provide balance, so I don't expect to agree with anyone anytime soon. More later...

And it's a good thing, too... it can get a little boring having serious discussion when everyone is in total agreement.

Quiteso. Bejesus, what are you doing up in the middle of the night?

It's almost 6:30 AM here, and I'm getting ready to head out to the office. It kinda feels like the middle of the night, but it's most definitely morning.

Oh I see. For some reason I thought you lived on the West Coast

>Atheism isn't a hatred of religion.<

Well, I didn't think this before I came onto this site. But it seems that many atheists hate just about everything to do with religion and cannot acknowledge a single benefit that religion has brought the world. Such as, oh, civilization for example

>And I share Edward's opinion that if you are going to excuse the "good" or "positive", or even the fluffy, woolly, empty-headed aspects of any religion, you also have to excuse the hateful, bigoted element.<

The continual use of tendencious language is not necessarily evidence of fixed minds, but that's usually the case. I would LOVE to say that atheists are free from hatred and bigotry themselves but I just can't see it. And I'm not saying I'm free from them either...

Ed: >My take is that morality isn't some sort of esoteric, mystical thing.<

Shouldn't have included that sentence in my previous post as I agree with it. But whenever morality is seen as purely rational, excluding empathy, I hear the distant sound of jackboots.

>>Babies, animals... they're not guided by a "moral compass". They're completely immoral and self-serving. What do babies or animals have to do with moral discussion beyond the responsibility of reasonable and rational people to look after their interests?

A lot. Reasonable, rational, anempathic people overlook the slaughter of billions of animals each year* without the slightest prick of conscience. Though that's straying from the issue at hand.

*800 million in the UK.

Hope I'm not coming on too strong. Could do with some

>>Babies, animals... they're not guided by a "moral compass". They're completely immoral and self-serving.

Just as an aside, I'd say babies are non-subject to morality, while animals kind of have their own moral codes. Eg for lions it's acceptable to fight to the death over their pride, territory etc, while giraffes just sort of quarrel. Some animals pair for life while others are just sluts, that kind of thing.

>But whenever morality is seen as purely rational, excluding empathy, I hear the distant sound of jackboots.<

But empathy has nothing to do with religion, or with mystical, esoteric nonsense. I don't think that religion and empathy are mutually inclusive at all.

>>Babies, animals... they're not guided by a "moral compass". They're completely immoral and self-serving. What do babies or animals have to do with moral discussion beyond the responsibility of reasonable and rational people to look after their interests?

A lot. Reasonable, rational, anempathic people overlook the slaughter of billions of animals each year* without the slightest prick of conscience. Though that's straying from the issue at hand.<

Right- and I would include preventing the slaughter of billions of animals as part of humanity's responsibility towards protecting those animals. You're preaching to the choir in that respect- I don't eat animals, and I take whatever measures I can to protect what's left of their natural habitats.

(As an aside, when I said "immoral" in that posting of mine, I meant "amoral"- big difference!)

What I meant was that I don't believe animals base their behaviors on any "moral" code, so I don't think we can include animal or infant behaviors in discussions of morality.

>Some animals pair for life while others are just sluts, that kind of thing<

I actually found this kind of amusing- the notion that an animal could be a "slut"... though I know what you meant. While I have my own personal preference, I've never thought of sexual behavior- especially for reproductive purposes- to be a "moral" issue at all. It's a biological need, pure and simple. We don't have moral discussions about eating and drinking, per se, or breathing, do we?

>Hope I'm not coming on too strong<

Nope. I hope I'm not, either.

I also hope I'm not rambling too nonsensically- I'm posting from work and could also do with some more .

(And I'm actually in Chicago, which is a couple hours ahead of the West Coast. But I was up at 4:30 AM- that's my normal weekday wakeup time. That should explain why you'll often see me up and posting at 6:00 AM or earlier on weekends... )

Oh I'm tying myself up in all sorts of knots here. This:

Ed: >It's a matter of mutual agreement, thus firmly within the realm of rational debate.<

is replied to here:

Me: >But whenever morality is seen as purely rational, excluding empathy, I hear the distant sound of jackboots.<

and completely unrelated to this:

Ed: >My take is that morality isn't some sort of esoteric, mystical thing.<

The confusion of which led to you saying this:

PC: >I don't think that religion and empathy are mutually inclusive at all.<

Which I agree with, I think Can I go out and come back in again?



Oh, and why I was preaching at all I'm not sure I blame Earl Grey.

PC: >What I meant was that I don't believe animals base their behaviors on any "moral" code, so I don't think we can include animal or infant behaviors in discussions of morality.<

I'd like to think animals do have a kind of moral code, that certain actions are acceptable within the social group while others aren't. Though I'd probably need to read more Desmond Morris to make it clear in my head what I mean. BI regard using natural examples for philosophical questions as very attractive.

PC: >We don't have moral discussions about eating and drinking, per se, or breathing, do we?<

Well, we kind of do, but they're just table manners. Different cultures do things differently, eg the Chinese slurp when eating and drinking, which to Westerners seems vile. I suppose taboos about sex are similar. Hmmm, for a basic biological need it sure is a long time since I had any

>I'd like to think animals do have a kind of moral code, that certain actions are acceptable within the social group while others aren't.<

And I would agree with you, really. I see a difference between that kind of acceptability, etc., though, and that among humans, who are capable of more rational levels of thinking, though... rational thinking and reason should have more to do with determining what's moral and acceptable than mere survival instinct and fight-or-flight reflexes, don't'cha think?

Maybe Edward will come along and explain what I'm trying to, but much better.

>Well, we kind of do, but they're just table manners. Different cultures do things differently, eg the Chinese slurp when eating and drinking, which to Westerners seems vile. I suppose taboos about sex are similar.<

Excellent point- but when was the last time you heard some fire-and-brimstone preacher damning people to hell for slurping their soup or eating with their fingers? So what's the difference regarding sex?

>Hmmm, for a basic biological need it sure is a long time since I had any<

Well, now that's something I think we can all agree is just wrong.

OK...after a brief soujourn in the flag-waving corner of the island...

>>>I'd like to think animals do have a kind of moral code, that certain actions are acceptable within the social group while others aren't.<

No, they don't...at least not in any way we can understand. Hence my antipathy towards the whole concept of animal rights (which, btw, I hope we don't come to blows over).

I've used this one before, but it's worth repeating. Imagine the following cases:
A leopard is stalking a zebra. Is one entitled to shoot the leopard?
A human is stalking a zebra. Is one entitled to shoot the human?
A human is stalking a fellow human. Is one entitled to shoot the (stalking) human?

Clearly the leopard had no moral feelings for or duty towards the zebra - it's food. Arguably the same is true for the human. Does it matter whether the zebra is bushmeat or a trophy for the den? And if so, to whom does it matter? Hardly to the zebra! But it's fairly clear that *under normal circumstances* we shouldn't go shooting other humans - unless that human intends shooting us and/or our loved ones and/or random strangers.

So...i'm afraid that here, ethics starts with biology. This gives us a number of difficulties, though. There have been recent suggestions that Pan Paniscus and Pan Troglodytes should be regarded as fellow members of the genus homo. Both these species - and also Gorrila Gorrila have already been afforded human rights in New Zealand. I'm not convinced. We have to draw the line somewhere, and I propose that the line should be at homo sapiens. Otherwise, where does it end? Do we put leopards on trial for murdering zebra?

BUT: That's not to say that random mistreatment of animals is 'a good thing'. As far back as Pliny the Elder, people have argued that farm animals should be kept in decent conditions and no pleasure should be taken in their slaughter. And, pragmatically, I'd support the moratorium on medical experiments on the higher primates. Why? A mixture of culture and biology. We feel empathy towards fluffy things. A society that allows cruelty towards them becomes desensitised (note that animal welfare organisations have contact with social workers; mistreatment of pets can signal other problems). And, of course, we feel a particular empathy for the animals which most resemble us physically and in cognition and behaviour. I'd prefer that we didn't eat them...but I'm willing to be guided by medical scientists on the necessity of vivivisection.

BUT all this is very much pragmatic. Fundamentally, I'm not a moral absolutist. If we see someone about to kill a bonobo, are we entitled to shoot first? I really don't know. Much though I think the world would be a poorer place without carious endangered species...capital punishment for attempting to acquire a tsaty bit of bushmeat?

Onto atheism as hatred of religion...

You're both right. It's a loose term. Those who simply have no religious feeling can quite rightly be regarded as atheists.

HOWEVER: The title of this forum is Atheist Fundamentalism. There's something more proactive than mere antipathy going on here. Speaking for myself...it's a fundamental opposition of religion in all its forms.

Hatred? Sometimes, yes...but I try to confine this to The Usual Suspects. With the others...I accept that many of them are lovely, lovely people. My antipathy is partly towards their sloppy thinking (But so what. You get that anywhere)...but I guess that, more importantly, I'm railing against the cultural assumption that religion is 'A Good Thing'...that it's a deep human need, that it's necessary for a cohesive society, that it's the very basis of morality. All we need to do is make sure it's the right sort of lovely, fluffy religion. I really don't see that. How can fluffy nonsense hold itself to be superior to nasty nonsense...other than on non-religious grounds?

As to why I should have a particular bee in my bonnet...I invite psychological speculation.

>There's something more proactive than mere antipathy going on here. Speaking for myself...it's a fundamental opposition of religion in all its forms.<

For me, it's a bit more specific. I don't know quite how to put it just right, though. My biggest problem with religion is that people of any particular religion or faith do tend to impose, or attempt to impose, that belief system, however misguided (even outright sickening in some cases) upon the rest of society.

>How can fluffy nonsense hold itself to be superior to nasty nonsense...other than on non-religious grounds?<

This is the bit we keep coming back to... this is the bit I'm hoping someone will run with.

Ed: >Hence my antipathy towards the whole concept of animal rights (which, btw, I hope we don't come to blows over).<

If you are against any concept of animal rights, you think we should treat animals as we see fit without consideration for their suffering. But later on you seem to say this wouldn't be a good thing, so now I'm confused

Me: >I'd like to think animals do have a kind of moral code, that certain actions are acceptable within the social group while others aren't.<

Ed: >A leopard is stalking a zebra. Is one entitled to shoot the leopard?< No.
>A human is stalking a zebra. Is one entitled to shoot the human?< No.
>A human is stalking a fellow human. Is one entitled to shoot the (stalking) human?< Doubt it. I don't like this analogy but unfortunately I can't be arsed to work out why at the moment.

>Clearly the leopard had no moral feelings for or duty towards the zebra - it's food.<

This misses my point: I said 'within the social group.' I'm not suggesting zebras are going to start protesting against leopards killing and eating them. 'War is war' would I suppose be the human equivalent. Such behaviour codes would almost always be intraspecies. Most of the group will toe the line and not misbehave. A psychotic or simply anti-social animal will be ostracised or dealt with in other ways rather than tolerated empty-headedly by its machine-like neighbours. I think it is reasonable to accept that this analogous to human society.

Yes, cows, pigs etc are seen as food to humans, but it is hardly the same situation as these are selectively bred domesticated animals. The whole situation is constructed by man. Leaving aside the issue of whether they should be killed for food, rearing them in factory farms is unnessarily cruel.

>So...i'm afraid that here, ethics starts with biology.<

But you always say that! I think biology's explanatory usefulness is overrated.

>I'm willing to be guided by medical scientists on the necessity of vivivisection.<

Rather like letting huntsmen decide on whether or not they should hunt? As if medical scientists can look at things from a global or neutral perspective. Scientists *have* a perspecitve, a particular way of seeing the world, by virtue of the lives they lead. They are not simply neutral.

>>If you are against any concept of animal rights, you think we should treat animals as we see fit without consideration for their suffering. But later on you seem to say this wouldn't be a good thing, so now I'm confused

I think there are good *human* reasons to treat animals as well as is convenient. We empathise with animals. It is inconvenient to have to avert one's eyes to suffering. It is desensitising not to, and this risks knock-on effects in society. But we can't say that animals have rights per say...otherwise we'd have to say that zebras have rights not to be eithr shot by humans or pounced on by leopards. And by the way...which causes less suffering to a zebra? A bullet through the heart or being eviscerated while it's still trying to stand up?

>>This misses my point: I said 'within the social group.'

Yes! You've hit the nail on the head. Animals are not in my social group. Some people *are* on family terms with animals and one would expect them to treat them accordingly.

>>Leaving aside the issue of whether they should be killed for food, rearing them in factory farms is unnessarily cruel.

Indeed. We shouldn't be paying others to inflict cruelty on our behalf. If we kept our livestock in our back yards, we'd be on social terms with them and would (by and large) treat them better.

>>>So...i'm afraid that here, ethics starts with biology.<

>>But you always say that! I think biology's explanatory usefulness is overrated.

We'll have to expand on this before you get to dismiss it outright. Note that I said 'starts with'.

>>>I'm willing to be guided by medical scientists on the necessity of vivivisection.<

>>Rather like letting huntsmen decide on whether or not they should hunt? As if medical scientists can look at things from a global or neutral perspective. Scientists *have* a perspecitve, a particular way of seeing the world, by virtue of the lives they lead. They are not simply neutral.

No...but pet lovers aren't neutral either.

Huntsmen we can take separately. They receive a direct benefit from their activity - pleasure - and the argument must centre around whether that benefit is sufficient to weigh against the brutalising effect of glorifying the causing of pain in animals with which it is possible to empathise. I come down against.

Conspiracy theories aside - scientists do not receive a direct, personal benefit from animal experimentation; they'd still get paid if they used other methods. Indeed - economically and rationally, their lives would be far simpler if they abandoned vivisection. However - they have a medical motive. I am not prepared to say that the suffering of an animal outweighs the medical benefit to a human. Yes, there is a rational argument that scientists could still deliver the benefits without reference to animal models. The majority of medical scientists disagree, however. Given that they are the ones most likely to know what they're talking about, I am prepared to accept the risk that they are biased by their cultural perspective. I am *not* prepared to take the risk that medicine might be retarded by the abandonment of animal experimentation.