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

It is a common conclusion by those of 'faith' that 'godless' societies [or individuals] must also be societies [or individuals] without values/ethics/morals.

IMO, this is somewhat muddy thinking. As has been pointed out above, rules are necessary in any social group. The idea that a powerful supernatural being has dictated the 'rules' helps the group to enforce them, as does the idea that there will be punishment in an afterlife.

Many philosophers have discussed the abstract ideas of 'morality' and 'virtues': good, evil, right, wrong. They do not have to be proclaimed and enforced from 'above'. Today, human behavior can be studied and conclusions drawn about which human actions are constructive and which are destructive--to the individual as well as to the group.

We know about the need to feel good about yourself. The need to give and receive affection and caring is a basic one. We also know the importance of a sense of belonging, and also the need for self respect and the ability to feel that your efforts will be rewarded. Societies that are structured to respect the individual seem to be the most productive, and those that are repressive do not function as well. There is nothing in these conclusions that require a higher being dictating an ethical system.

I believe in a rule that says 'thou shalt not murder' because I want to live in a community where I and my family will not be murdered. I want others who live in my community to be governed by the same rule. But this can be a system of laws rather than one of religious beliefs.

I would draw a parallel between a child who must have a parent to set limits to their behavior. The child must have external guiding principals because they are not intellectually or emotionally developed to either create their own or to follow them. When a child grows up and develops intellectually and emotionally they are capable of following rules because they realize the rule is necessary for the welfare of all. They do not need fear of punishment in an afterlife to make them obey the rules.

The 'parent' is actually the social group, and the child is the individual. But to gain more authority, the group attributes the rules [like for instance 10 commandments] to a higher power. So that the children/individuals will be more likely to follow the rules. This is not to say the rules are good or bad, only that they are imposed by the group on the individual for the mutual protection of all.

I would like to think that others in the group I live in will refrain from murder so that I will be safe. However, the group may also impose other 'rules' which may be less clear in their intent to protect me. The divine right of kings is an example which has largely been discredited as a political theory today, but at one time was a basic part of the social and governmental structure. The basis of that rule was a belief in an external power that said it should be so.

The easy way to enforce behavior is force: those in power enforce what THEY say is right.
The next possibility is to say 'god' wants it this way, and scare people into behaving the way those in power want them to.
The third alternative is for a group of people to collectivly decide a minimum code of behavior that will allow us personal freedom, but create collective responsibility for the care of the group. This is a social contract. To allow the group to do what an individual could not achieve alone, and to also protect the weak from the strong.

There is a fourth alternative, but one that I think is highly unlikely. That is, that each individual will be so altruistic and internally motivated to be responsible for others welfare that no laws will be necessary. When this happens, we will truly be 'grown up'.

}:=8

And that (mistaken) belief that one can have no compassion without some omnipotent being saying you have to is brought to you by the same folks that keep perpetuating the myths and trying to control your (and my) lives.

'Nonnie

I think that the belief that no-one can be truly good unless they have a god is dangerous and arrogant. We are fundamentally capable of compassion. Nobody is taught to grieve for lost friends, or how to laugh, or how to be happy. But we all do it.
Question: is there nothing beyond man? Are we truly the sum of an extremely complex set of chemical reactions?
What are these myths you refer to, 'Nonnie? I'd be interested to hear about them!

I have a general comment about the concept of morals. They are an etherial concept. What one person considers moral behavior could easily be considered quite evil by another individual. And, contrary to what some say, morals aren't something that only humans have, either. If you consider moral behavior to be acting in a way that is respectful and avoids harming either oneself or others, then many religious people would utterly fail the morality test, while ants and many other non-human creatures, who devote their lives to their colonies, would be highly moral. In fact many non-human animals have been known to go out of their way to care for another animal, and are often aware of another individual's suffering. One of my cats, for example, almost immediately comes to my side if I start to cry.

To be honest, many of the people I've known who believe in god/s are uncompassionate, or even downight cruel, folks. Now I'm not saying that all religious people are mean and nasty, but the fact is that many religions (mostly the western ones) preach intolerance, and promote violence as a way to "solve problems". I always find it particularly ironic when religious people claim that I, as a mother-earth-loving, vegan atheist, am immoral. People are so weird, aren't they?

On another note, I noticed that there are two very different discussions dealing with all this stuff:

1.the idea of god/s
2.the practice of religions

The idea of believing in god/s, is mostly one of science, really. It's simply one possible hypothesis for explaining the existance of the planet or universe. Now, back a few thousand years ago humans still thought that the Earth was flat and at the center of the universe. At that time the idea that some very powerful creature/s made the planet and it's inhabitants was a pretty rational hypothesis. But know that we've discovered all sorts of really nifty things like other galaxies and black holes and photons and stuff, these gods are much more difficult to defend as a theory, and we've come up with some more plausable ones. But, the idea of a superior being creating life on Earth is not comletely impossible. So, even if it is an unlikely theory, if you believe in god/s you are simply putting stock in one of the many scientific hypothesis about how we humans got here on the Earth.

Now practicing and believing in religion is a different concept entirely. Religions are more about suggestions and laws concerning behavior. A belief in god/s doesn't, by itself, dictate any particular behavior. But religions do. Religions are a way of setting up specific rules about what you should and shouldn't do. It's a form of government, really, with a few powerful individuals telling the masses what they should be doing. Religion can also be a form of philosophy, suggesting reasons WHY we are here (as oppposed to science's HOW answers).

These two concepts, god/s and religion, are seperate and independent. You can believe in god/s without believing in a religion. And you can be religious witout believing in a superior being.

Atheism, itself, only deals with the science aspect: not believing in the idea of god/s creating the universe. Morals are more in the realm of the religious (philosophical) sphere, because they deal with behavior. Belief or non-belief in god/s doesn't have any effect on behavior. So morals don't really belong in a debate about atheism, I'd say.

(Wow, was there a point to all of this? Sorry about all the rambling, but now that I've spent so much time writing, I can't let it go to waste, I guess. I hope there was something at least somewhat usefull in there somewhere!)

I believe I may have badly distributed my ideas the other day and I would like to apologise for any hurt I caused to anyone who read them. For the record I am an atheist and I also believe in conducting myself morally and justly to the best of my mind.

In my previous entry I was merely pointing out that without a God there is no absolute Universal judge. ie morality is down to the individual involved and many individuals have different states of morality. For example there is the debate on whether fox hunting is cruel. If you believe like I do that it is cruel or even if you don't where does your belief gain authority, surely it can't just be the Government because the Government disagrees with you.So then it seems that morals come from the people involved and it seems in purely humanistic terms that the highest authority comes from the peolple who can enforce their convictions.

The above is an atheistic view and I would like to here any contrary views you have as this is the only course of events I can see! I apologise again for the harshness of my previous entry but do not withdraw the underlying sentiments
IT aka Plato

Well met Turtle. I agree with everything you said!

I'm a vegan/atheist who practices Yoga and, as part of my qualifying to teach it, had to study quite a lot about the philosophy, some of which I attempt to apply to my life. I've not met many other athiest vegans/veggies before!!!! They mostly tend to have Wiccan/New Age leanings.

However, I once had a heated debate on a BBC Radio 5 with a representative of the Church of England who tried to tell me that I had no morals and that my children would grow up without morals. I probably have more morals in my little finger than he or any of his fellow Christians.

Does someone know why it is that people who hunt/fish/shoot also attend church or claim to be religious. It makes me wonder, whether if these same people had lived a few hundred years ago they'd be tying aniseed to a black slave and chasing him across the countryside. Just the same as they all seem to have their god on their side as they fight the good fight....

Sorry - I'm ranting! I do apologise.
*Picks up her soap box and scuttles off to a corner to hide*

Hi IT!!

I would never have guessed you would be an atheist, but I'll gladly take your word for it.

Maybe you're right in that without a god we don't have a universal judge. But what does that say about religion? Suppose we are all religious folks believing in a god, and in the end he appears not to exist? We have all believed in him, yet still there is no universal judge. BAM... we all end up burning.

Ethics and moral standards all come from the basic self-defense mechanism: "I don't hurt others, because in their place I wouldn't like to be hurt either." The lack of such a consiousness is most commonly the cause of immoral behaviour. And for such consciousness do we really need a god?

At least not in this forum.

Sorry IT aka Plato, I was debunking the arguement, not attacking you.

-jb

Hi Gwennie, yep, I'm a vegan atheist. And I actually know several others, or at least vegetarian ones.

In answer to your wondering how Churchgoing people can hunt and fish, well they are told by their religious leaders that they should. They are told that their god put those cute little bunnies and deer on the planet specifically for humans to exploit. This seems to have been a way of making it OK to kill, which would otherwise violate one of those big commandment thingies. By declaring that non-human life is devoid of a soul, then killing it becomes acceptable. Most of these rules and stories are simply a way of making a large group of humans easier to regulate. The Native American religions, and some of the Eastern religions/philosophies went a different route when dealing with the killing of other creatures: they allowed them to have souls, so they only killed when it was absolutely necessary for human survival, and they honored and thanked the soul by having some sort of ceremony.

Mummy and Plato, when you think about it when people follow religions they are just giving up their right to make their own decisions about morals and ethics. Religious followers are basically allowing their leaders to make up the rules. And adherance to those rules doesn't necessarily have to do with the presence, or lack of, a superior being who judges them. People will follow what they are told by leaders even without god/s (though using an omniscient judge, like a god, makes it's easier for leaders to govern even when people are alone).

I agree that most morals come from the selfish desire to preserve peace (thus ensuring continuing survival of yourself). But some morals that people pick up are external, and even altruistic. People, even ones who don't worship god/s, get some of their guidelines for behavior (morals) from their elders. The fact that I am an environmentalist, and I care about what happens to other living creatures isn't an instinctive survival trait, yet it is one of my morals anyway. I wasn't born this way, but growing up in the seventies when there was an energy crisis, and having earthy-crunchy parents, I learned that caring about the planet was an important ethical choice.

So, I'd say, morals are just a way of setting up some rules for living. Some of which are survival based and some of which are generated by society. Religions are just prepackaged sets of these rules, sort of like TV dinners, all the work has been done for you already, and all you have to do is eat it! Those of us who don't follow a religion have decided that they'd rather make their dinner from scratch.

I disagree with your statement about vegetarianism and ecological concerns being born out of altruisim.

Environmentalism is definitely born from the survival trait. Humans are, like all other life, parasites on the earth. If the host dies, we die. Taking care of mother earth is vital to our survival.

Vegetarianism is born out of the same rationale about killing other humans... "you don't kill me, I won't kill you." You prefer to be left in peace, and so you leave others in peace. Most humans further extend that to animals that don't taste good with barbeque sauce, but you take it further still, to anything with beady eyes and lungs or gills. One unfortunate reality, however, is that life must feed on life... I doubt the celery stalk you're eating sympathises with the cow you passed on.

Hi turtle.

About your first paragraph: it's easy for me to agree with you there. However that was not what the argument was about. In fact the religious leaders who we oppose, claim to bring us the word of a god whose existence they can not prove beyond any doubt.

Where morality is concerned, the above doesn't matter, though. Weherever one gets the moral standards is not at all important. The only thing that I oppose against is the thought that atheists would not have those moral standards. As you say: we make them up for ourselves, using our common sense to define what is right and what is not.

(now a little joke)
Since I've never heard of an extremist atheist group molesting people of other convictions, wouldn't that mean that atheists have better ethics than others?

First of all, GargleBlaster, I never said that environmentalism and vegetarianism were necessarily born out of altruism, I simply said that not all morals/ethics were internal or inherent. If they were then nearly everyone would have them. But the majority don't. Heck, even when people KNOW that something is vital to their survival they sometimes ignore it and temp fate.

My original point about environmentalism was that some of the morals we have in society are learned, not inherent. I've since forgotten what post I was responding to. But it seemed important at the time to make that destinction! Heh.

But you raise an interesing question. Are all morals born out of survival instincts? Does altruism exist? Sure it does.

While some environmentalists may care about the planet because they want their children (thier own passed on genes) to have a suitable environment to survive in, I myself couldn't care less about humanity's future. I care about those creatures who have played no part in the planet's devastation, and all the species which are becoming extinct because of human stupidity and greed. My environmentalism has absolutely nothing to do with my own, or even my species survival. In this case my morals are not a survival trait. It's altruism. And it has nothing to do with my wanting other species to treat me well, either.

My vegetarianism is a bit more complicated than my environmentalism. Originally, it started simply because eating meat made me puke. But it evolved into a more altruistic reasoning when I learned about factory farming. And it also gained some survival reasoning when I learned how unhealthy animal products are for us humans. So my being a vagan is a mix of altruistic generosity and instinctive survival traits.

I agree that MOST rules that we use for social harmony are generally traits of survival. But altruism, i.e., putting the survival of another above the survival of oneself, does exist. So not all of our ethical decisions are based on our own or our genes' survival.

(Geez, I gotta stop reading these discussions before work, I'm getting later and later every day. Too bad I haven't figured out a way to have serious philosophical debates for a living!)

Its strange how such phrases as common sense and moral so easily but don't realise how undefined they are in any overall context. Also in reading the above entries from vegans and vegetarians it seems strange that humans are the only species who care for other species that don't give us direct benefit (like crocodiles and those little birds that pick their teeth) It seems that this bigger cerebrum isn't all bad!

But but but...

There are other species which care for other species from which they don't dirctly benefit. Dolphins have been observed on many occasions helping out other creatures, including humans. And I'm not talking about dolphins in captivity, who get fed by humans.

Gorillas like cats.

All kinds of animals have been observed adopting orphans of other species and raising them as if they were their own children. A goat adopted a kitten, for example. And animals heve also been seen protecting other species from attack or nursing injured creatures. A horse once helped out a bunny rabbit!

I think people just don't know about this sort of thing because it's not a hot topic, either in the news, or in education.

*Gives Turtle a virtual slap on the back*

Here! Here!

Still, we do appear to have been the only species that has invented omnipotent beings to worship!

*Puts tail between legs*
Point taken, please excuse my ignorance

*Rummages around in her bag and passes Infinite Traveller a doggie biscuit and a tummy rub*

Interesting, Turtle. I didn't know all that stuff about animals helping each other out. I wonder what the evolutionary significance of it all is.
I also noticed that all the examples involve mammals. Are there any examples of 'lower' animals doing things like this?

Hmmmmm, you mean like a dung beetle giving first aid to a monitor lizard? Heh. I don't know. There are certainly species which work with other species. There is a kind of caterpillar which protects ants from attack, and in return the ants give the caterpillar some of their eggs.

But that's not particularly altruistic, it's more symbiotic.

I have heard of a fish which helped out another fish. Aparently the injured fish couldn't rise to the surface to get food, so the healthy fish would get under it and push it up to the surface. I'm not sure if they were different species though.

This kind of information is difficult to find, because not many scientists are interested in, or aware of, the subject.