Me, being charitable, again (and a critique)
by machtI've attempted to be charitable to Dawkins before and I will attempt to do so again. I still think that, on matters of religion, Dawkins is the atheist equivalent of Pat Robertson, BTW. Afterall, the idea that God was angry with the homosexuals and feminists and that is why he allowed 9/11/01 to happen was an attempt to raise the consciousness of the American public. When people hear the word "gay" Robertson wants it to sounds like a fingernail scraping on a blackboard, lest there be more terrorist attacks.
A major question seems to be "Richard, if you think calling a child a 'Christian' child or a 'Muslim' child or indoctrinating a child into one religion is child abuse, why wouldn't you want those things to be illegal?"
The best explanation seems to be that Dawkins views it as a very mild form of child abuse. I imagine he sees it as something akin to a parent who makes their 10 year old daughter enter beauty pageants week after week. Or perhaps the parents who push their kids so hard in sports because they want him to be the next Lebron James. These are things that a person might object to but wouldn't necessarily want to see illegal.
Dawkins doesn't like religion. That's pretty clear. At the Beyond Belief Conference a few months back, when Steven Weinberg mentioned that he is kind of fond of religion in the way that he is fond of his crazy old aunt and that "When she's gone, we may miss her," Dawkins replied, "I won't miss her at all. Not a scrap. Not a smidgen."
Dawkins also accepts (his own peculiar) evolutionary explanations for religion. He views religion as the "by-product of something useful." For example, perhaps there was adaptive value in children believing what their parents believed and then religion became a by-product of this. If Dawkins believes this, combined with the fact that Dawkins doesn't like religion, then the obvious thing for Dawkins to do is to try to get rid of this "slavish gullibility" of children believing the same religion as their parents. And his attempt of "consciousness raising" by calling this child abuse ends up being an attempt to shame parents into not teaching their children their religious beliefs.
I think his reasoning process, if it is something like what I sketched above, is okay. If his premises are correct, I think the action of shaming parents into not teaching their children their own religious beliefs is a reasonable action. But it rests on two major premises - that his explanation of religion is a good correct and that religion is indeed bad. I think there are good reasons to think the former premise is bad, but I won't dwell on it in this post. What I'm more interested in is the idea that religion is bad.
I think two people could reasonably disagree on the question of whether religion, as a whole, has done more harm than good. A lot of good things and a lot of bad things have been done in the name of religion. I also thing that any reasonable person would have to say that there are things that they would miss, if religion were gone. A LOT of charity work is done by religious organizations, for example. Religion is by no means the evil beast that Dawkins and Harris would have you believe (most reasonable people understand this, I know).
The odd thing, I think, is that the thing most often seen as bad about religion by people like Dawkins and Harris - its dogmatism - is not, on Dawkins' explanation, the by-product of an evolutionary adaptation, it is the adaptation. The by-products are the things like charity work and wars. So he essentially wants to trade one "by-product" for another. A bad one (religion), according to him, for a good one ("free thought," perhaps?).
January 1st, 2007 at 12:37 am
I think two people could reasonably disagree on the question of whether religion, as a whole, has done more harm than good.
Harm and good are completely teleological terms presupposing some end state to be persued(good) or avoided(bad). So, what is the goal to be sought and how does religion help or oppose its obtainment?
Comment by Mertens — January 1, 2007 @ 12:37 am
January 1st, 2007 at 12:49 am
Well, it probably depends on who you ask and what religion you are talking about.
Comment by macht — January 1, 2007 @ 12:49 am
January 1st, 2007 at 4:15 am
Well, then we'll have to first start off by examining what is "bad." If we are looking at the concept of "bad" from the vantage point of a purposeless universe which created the concept in question through a random process filtered by reproductive success and surviveability, then I'm sure we can judge "badness" as that which would hinder reproductive success and suriveability. But of course, this does not deal with "bad" in the sense of being that which we objectively "ought not" do (as C.S. Lewis put it).
If the above is truly the case, the "good" and "bad" would be merely subjective constraints agreed upon by those who wish for evolution to continue. Obviously, though, this wish itself — that of evolution continuing — must be ASSUMED to be "good" or something that "ought" to happen, since I see no reasonable way to judge this wish as "good" or "bad" itslelf — as in something that objectively "ought" to or "ought not" to happen. If the process of evolution occured non-purposefully, then it just occured. Evolution itself would be neither good nor bad, and reducing everything to its essential core, would then compel us to realize that anything resulting from evolution is neither good nor bad.
However, this gets us nowhere in our discussion except to show how materialist thought has "bounced its reality cheque." So, let us concede for the sake of argument that evolution is a "good" thing and anything that opposes it is indeed bad. Thus everything that helps evolution is indeed good.
Now, we can apply this to our original question: "is religion bad?" Well, does religion impede or does it facilitate evolution?
Comment by CJYman — January 1, 2007 @ 4:15 am
January 1st, 2007 at 5:21 am
Do I really need to point out that accepting the notion that humans (and other organisms) evolved naturalistically in no way entails accepting the notion that everything that evolution does is "good"
Comment by Mesk — January 1, 2007 @ 5:21 am
January 1st, 2007 at 6:58 am
Macht writes: …then the obvious thing for Dawkins to do is to try to get rid of this "slavish gullibility" of children believing the same religion as their parents.
Obvious? I disagree.
Our ability to believe what we are told, rather than ONLY what we test and prove for ourselves, is part of being human. A simpler way to govern behavior is instinct, where the behavior that favors survival is passed on via genes rather than culture. Animals have instinct, we have culture.
The ability to create and flourish in a culture is a positive feedback loop - more powerful than natural selection. Religion (the proclivity to believe the unproven) is clearly part of culture.
Oddly, critical thinking is even more important for survival. We have (but often don't use) the ability to make a hyphothesis, test it, then revise and retest the hypothesis.
Faith, by definition, is believing that which can't be proven, or, more accurately, that which can't be disproven, such as the flying spaghetti monster.
Dawkins is arguing that working with natural laws and hypotheses that can be tested will give us a more accurate picture of the world than believing the religion of our parents, or the religion we choose in opposition to our parents.
E. Khuner
Comment by ebkhuner — January 1, 2007 @ 6:58 am
January 1st, 2007 at 8:01 am
macht wrote:
How charitable of you to concede that Dawkins doesn't have horns and a forked tail, but is merely "the atheist equivalent of Pat Robertson."
If mere attempts at consciousness-raising make someone a Pat Robertson, then Gandhi was the Pat Robertson of non-violent resistance, and Martin Luther King was the Pat Robertson of the civil rights movement.
For my take on this question, see my reply to Nick Matzke here.
If he succeeds, parents won't refrain from indoctrination simply out of shame, but out of love for their children.
Dawkins and Harris acknowledge the good done in the name of religion. Here's Harris:
To this I would add that the role of the church has declined in many other areas (education, the arts, support of scholarly research, etc.), and secular institutions have moved in to fill the void. I see no reason to think the same would not happen if religious charities were to die out.
macht again:
Your mistake is in supposing that freethought is a by-product of dogmatism. It is not. Freethought is inimical to dogmatism, as the Wikipedia definition shows:
If religion and dogmatism are adaptations, they are adaptations that Dawkins wants us to overcome through the application of another adaptation: reason.
Comment by keiths — January 1, 2007 @ 8:01 am
January 1st, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Keiths– from bottom to top:
You missed the quotes around "free thought"– that's what Dawkins would call it, but I'm seeing an implication that it is a dogma of a different form, that's all.
I'd like to point out that the folks doing good things have grown in cultures that are primarily religous– even if they don't believe in the religion, they have been socially soaked in the values. (Religiously, I also believe folks are called to be good by our nature.)
Pat Robertson is trying to protect people and do the best for them that he can, even if it pisses them off and makes him unpopular. (Note: don't agree with him, but I don't villianize him, either.)
It is rather charitible to believe that Dawkins is trying to do the best he can for people even if it pisses them off, rather than believing he's just an attention-seeking twit with a hard-on for messing with religion.
Comment by Foxfier — January 1, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 1:17 pm
I have to say, as a parent, this is about one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Not telling my child about my religion goes against the very nature of my love for him. What you're trying to tell me is that despite my strong personal convictions about my faith, I should refrain from telling my son about it (he's sure to ask me at some point, once he starts really talking of course) so he can make up his own mind?
That aside, it's just ridiculous to think that a parent telling a child something is true means that they will have that belief ingrained in their mind for the rest of their lives. To assert such a thing is an affront to the power of the human mind and will. I have no such idea that whatever I tell my son, he will believe, no matter what. Parents are not the only authorities in children's lives, even though they are important ones. After all, how many atheists do you know that were raised in religious households? I've met more than a few personally.
On a side note, every time I hear the phrase "free thinking", it makes me think of what Van Gogh said in a letter to his brother Theo:
Comment by thechristiancynic — January 1, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 2:06 pm
I agree. Parents who love their children share their lives with their children. And the time when children are the most impressionable is the time when they want nothing more than to be with mommy and daddy. And be like mommy and daddy. Right now, my little girls have become tremendous FF XII fans. They don't really understand the game, but they won't let me play it without them sitting by my side as they shout out instructions and giggle. It's not the game they enjoy, it's being with me as we all play as a family unit.
The "anti-indoctrination" crowd has a very naïve and simplistic perspective, thinking that distance between parent and child is a good thing. Essentially, what you are supposed to do is this. When you go to church, leave the kids with a baby sitter. When you pray, tell the kids they need to go to their room. Make sure you hide the Bible, otherwise they might want to know what you are reading and you'll have to tell them. Put distance between yourself and your children. In other words, you must treat your religion as something that is dirty and they are not old enough to be exposed to (which is not surprising since they think your religion is dirty). Otherwise, you cannot help but "indoctrinate" (shudder) your children with your life and that's evil.
Don't lose sight of the big picture. You are not the one telling Dawkins or keiths how to raise their children; they are the ones telling you how to raise your children. They do so because they have an agenda to rid the world of religion and this is the tactic they are playing. What's funny is the only thing that will happen is that they just end up becoming the secular version of the Church Lady.
Comment by MikeGene — January 1, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 2:07 pm
The problem is that his premises are self-refuting. If you want to hold that RM+NS is true, then there is no such thing as morality (not to mention free will, etc). There is no such thing as what's "good" for a child and what is "bad" for a child. The "selfishness" of his and his parents genes just work themselves out according to RM+NS.
If you accept RM+NS, then this explaings everything that exists. That includes religion, and parents rearing their children within a religious tradition.
The problem is, Dawkins wants to be a good Darwinist and a good Atheist at the same time. But to be a good Darwinist, you can't argue against anything that exists, because everything that exists is explained by the inviolable law of RM+NS.
But to be a good Atheist, he wants to fight religion. But this would require explaining why religion is not just a natural result of RM+NS. Which he cannot do without suggesting that *some things* are *not* a result of RM+NS — that they are somehow outside of RM+NS. This would be very hard to do without sounding like a creationist.
You can't have it both ways.
I appreciate you charity, but you are really responding to Dawkins at the superficial/emotional level where he is trying to get people into a knee-jerk reation. This is the wrong level to interact with him. We have to respond to him at the level at which he is hypocritical and self-refuting, the level which really matters. His rants about child abuse are just a distraction.
Comment by endoplasmicMessenger — January 1, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Mesk, can you explain how natural evolution generates the notion of "good" Because as far as I can tell, natural evolution is just molecules bumping into each other. From whence does this notion of "good" arise?
Comment by endoplasmicMessenger — January 1, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 2:18 pm
This is Sal.
From the prophet of pointlessness himself:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — January 1, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 2:22 pm
I think some of the difficulty here is a misunderstanding by many atheists of the role of religion in the life of families and churches. Christmas celebrations, for instance, are infused with religion and are often most enjoyed by children, or by adults vicariously through children. In my tradition, Anglicanism, children lead the procession each Sunday carrying the cross, stressing our own need to recognize our childish position in relation to our father in heaven.
If religion ever becomes an "adults-only" sort of thing, (which I feel it often can in many modern churches) then it has become that less human, since some of us are children. Children are not just potential people, after all - they are people. They have religious experiences and participate in religious life - in their own way.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — January 1, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Harris:
It's nice to see that Harris offers a whole sentence noting that religion can be good. Of course, it is followed with a "but." Harris, who is a leader in the Anti-Religion Movement, usually offers up little more than anecdotes. Contrast this to the research from a university professor
Comment by MikeGene — January 1, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 2:32 pm
There's no need to restrict this to religion. You shouldn't "indoctrinate" your children into which sports team to like, so no taking your son to baseball games. And if you read a newspaper with a political stand, keep it away from your childrens unless you want to "indoctrinate" them. Or preferably, buy a lot of different newspapers so your children can learn about the "many mutually incompatible political systems."
Comment by Krauze — January 1, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Excellent point. "Indoctrinate" is another one of those loaded words Dawkinites love to toss around. Kids soak up values from their parents even when no effort is made to convey such values. It is a natural process.
Comment by Bradford — January 1, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Get a load of this site.
A nice, type C critic site, eh?
Well, let's get some kids books:
Humanism, What's That?
Affirmations of Humanism for Kids Coloring Book
Humanism for Kids
Why Mommy Is A Democrat
Apparently, this last book is a form of indoctrination that has a wider audience.
Yeppers, indoctrination is bad unless it's the right form of indoctrination.
And eegads, by linking to those sites, have I just contributed to indoctrination??
Comment by MikeGene — January 1, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 3:45 pm
All this talk of indoctrination makes me want to make "Indoctrination is just a name for education we don't like" my phrase of the month. Heck, maybe the phrase of 2007 if this is any indication.
Comment by thechristiancynic — January 1, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 3:56 pm
I could be charitable to Dawkins if I really thought he's a mere victim of his genes and experiences. In fact, I'd positively pity him. But if he really believed he's a mere victim of life, he'd just let people be instead of trying so hard to change them.
Besides, I often get the impression he actually doesn't believe the garbage he preaches, and it's all just a monumental object lesson - played out in a single man's life. Like an archetype. Or maybe an extended performance art piece, which if we ever get the point, might list him in historical annals as scientist, educator AND artist (the "great" honorific attached to the latter).
[/internet psychoanalysis]
You honestly never know about some of these excessively brilliant folks. Richard Feynman was one such exceptional being nobody who knew him would have dared to predict.
Comment by Joy — January 1, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 5:15 pm
We are all victims in a determined universe. Some of us have been luckier than others.
"EVERYTHING is determined… by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein, my emphasis.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
Comment by John A. Davison — January 1, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 5:29 pm
My statement is in response to CJYman's statement that:
As I pointed out, there is no reason why accepting evolutionary theory means accepting that all evolutionary processes are desirable. This would be the same logic as arguing that accepting gravity means that pushing people of buildings is desirable - a ridiculous idea.
Your question - how natural evolution generates the notion of "good" - is a different topic. In fact most humans, regardless of their religion, have the same basic ideas about what is good and what is bad (love is good; murder is bad; etc). These notions spring from the universal demands of living in a society - in order for humans to be able to live together in large numbers, there must be constraints on the way we behave. Societies that do not impose such constraints tend to fail rapidly, which is to the detriment of all of their members.
Theists believe that morality springs from their beliefs about a god or gods. In contrast, non-theists would argue that basic morality is simply part of the human condition, having evolved (biologically and culturally) due to the strong need for humans to form functioning social groups. Religions are not the source of morality, but rather a powerful (and adaptive) way of formalising the moral rules that are already instinctively adopted by humans. And religions perform this role admirably: by providing metaphysical carrots and sticks to regulate human behaviour, religions act as a powerful social glue. It is no coincidence that most successful human societies are bound by a single majority religion, and that virtually all human beings are in some way religious.
By the way, this is why I believe Dawkins is seriously deluded when he argues that abolishing religion would be a good thing. Certainly religions have been a great source of human misery; but he ignores their power in regulating the behaviour of humans who may be otherwise incapable of formulating their own moral systems. Religion provides a sort of instant pre-fabricated morality, whereas secular morality is only really feasible for individuals who are capable of reasoning through the consequences of their actions for society as a whole. If Dawkins were to succeed tomorrow in eliminating religion from human society, I think we would see an upsurge in criminality. Fortunately, Dawkins greatly underestimates the hold of religion on the human mind, so we are unlikely to see his dreams come to fruition in the foreseeable future.
Comment by Mesk — January 1, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 5:39 pm
I agree with Mesk that evolution can produce bad things. Just look at Rapid Fire Syndrome.
Comment by Krauze — January 1, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 5:52 pm
An excellent example, Krauze.
Comment by Mesk — January 1, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 6:42 pm
endoplasmicMessenger:
I agree with you almost completely. I understand that his argument is self-refuting, but I also think that it is even worse than that. Taking his premise for granted and arguing from it, religion is no where near "bad." refer to my post on my blog.
So Dawkins is illogical, inconsistent, ignorant, and plain wrong!
And taken to the end of his logical stance, HE HAS NO REAL PREMISE!
Mesk:
I fully agree with you Mesk, which I personally thought would have been obvious in my comment by showing that "badness" (note quotation marks) in an RM+NS scenario can not at all be equated to that which we "ought not do."
Then, I take it one step further and show that even if we just gratuitously hand Dawkins his premise, he still has absolutely no case.
Comment by CJYman — January 1, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 7:06 pm
CJYman,
What makes you think that the notion that all evolutionary processes are good is a premise for Dawkins? I've seen nothing in his writing to suggest this; indeed, in The Selfish Gene, he states that, "We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators [i.e. our genes]" and urges us, "Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish". In other words, Dawkins clearly believes that humanity can and should overcome its evolutionary heritage.
(As an aside, Dawkins' idea that humans are born selfish is now quite outdated - I think it's now pretty clear that altruism is a basic human trait, and there are some reasonable evolutionary explanations for this.)
Comment by Mesk — January 1, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Mesk says:
Mesk, how do you accept evolutionary theory (darwinism) without accepting moral relativity? What criteria are you using to detect desirable outcomes and what keeps it from being arbitrary? More importantly, if nature is completely apathetic to the outcome of all processes within it, and you are nothing more than an effect of nature, from whence this ability to make distinctions in the first place?
Comment by Mertens — January 1, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Mesk wrote:
Actually, the first (1976) edition of The Selfish Gene devoted an entire chapter to the evolution of altruism, and the second edition (1989) added a new chapter, Nice Guys Finish First, which discussed the work of Robert Axelrod and W.D. Hamilton on reciprocal altruism.
Comment by keiths — January 1, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Evolutionary theory explains how we came to be; it says nothing about how we should behave (although it does at least partially explain why humans tend to behave in certain ways).
People derive their moral systems independent of their acceptance or rejection of evolutionary theory. Many evolutionists are religious and derive their morality from religious teachings; others rely on secular systems of morality (such as utilitarianism); many simply rely on the same common-sense moral rules as the rest of humanity.
Well, to some extent all moral systems are arbitrary, in that we have no completely objective way of deciding whether or not they are correct. Even theists rest their morality on subjective interpretations of religious texts, interpretations that change over time and vary substantially between individuals. Certainly there are core moral beliefs of (say) Christianity that are the same now as they were two millennia ago - but by and large these are core moral beliefs shared independently by the rest of humanity (thou shalt not murder, steal, lie, etc.). Most non-theists would argue that the universal nature of these core beliefs suggest that they are the products of biological and cultural evolution occurring during the long evolutionary history shared by all humanity.
As for me personally, I generally adopt a fairly utilitarian approach to morality - I try to act in such a way as to minimise suffering and maximise happiness. I see this system as being similar to religious moral guidance in that it is simply a formalisation of near-universal human moral rules, but I believe it to be less arbitrary than any religious system I know of (in that it is largely unfettered by the illogical taboos that have accreted around the moral rules of all major religions).
Ultimately, I act morally and urge others to act morally because I wish to gain the benefits of a large and productive society, and a functioning society requires that all of its individuals are constrained by rules restricting their behaviour so as not to harm or disrupt the lives of their fellow citizens.
Of course, my moral system is still a work in progress: it still contains some inconsistencies, and there are areas (such as abortion) where I am deeply conflicted. However, I believe it provides me with a reasonable guide to acting and behaving morally. In addition, because my morality arises from thinking carefully through the logic of different positions, I trust it more than I ever could the largely pre-fabricated moral systems derived from the theistic religions.
Humans lack strong teeth and claws with which to defend themselves; instead, they rely on sharpness of mind and the presence of comrades to protect themselves from dangers. As such there has been strong selective pressure for the emergence of behaviours that favour stable societies, and for the ability to detect behaviours (in oneself and in others) that pose a risk to social stability. A stable society is one in which all individuals feel valued and happy, and where suffering and hopelessness are minimised. As such, human behaviours that create and maintain such societies are likely to have been favoured by selection.
A Just So story? There's an element of truth to that accusation; as yet we simply don't know enough about human evolutionary history to be able to describe the strongest selective pressures with any certainty. However, I think it is safe to say that since humans have been living in social bands for millions of years, and in societies of thousands of people for at least ten thousand years, there has been exceptionally strong selection against anti-social traits. It seems to me very likely that the outcome of such selection would be the development of traits very similar to what we describe as morality.
Comment by Mesk — January 1, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 9:12 pm
I wrote:
thechristiancynic responded:
You apparently missed the phrase "If he succeeds" in my statement. Dawkins' project is to convince you and all parents that it is better for your children if you do not indoctrinate them into your own religion, despite your sincere belief that your religion is true. If he succeeds, parents will refrain from indoctrination out of love for their children.
See my forthcoming response to MikeGene for more on this.
Comment by keiths — January 1, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 9:14 pm
keiths,
Thanks for the clarification - it's been about a decade since I last read The Selfish Gene, and I shouldn't have relied on a single sentence fragment to impute ideas to Dawkins. Taking Dawkins out of context seems to be increasingly popular in these parts, so perhaps I was an unconscious victim of peer pressure.
Comment by Mesk — January 1, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 9:46 pm
If he succeeds, parents will refrain from indoctrination out of love for their children.
Just do not forget to heed Krauze's advice and don't "indoctrinate" your children into which sports team to like, so no taking your son to baseball games. And if you read a newspaper with a political stand, keep it away from your childrens unless you want to "indoctrinate" them. Or preferably, buy a lot of different newspapers so your children can learn about the "many mutually incompatible political systems." Gotta watch the indoctrination danger.
Comment by Bradford — January 1, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Mesk wrote:
It looks to me that the carrot for most secular moralists is the feeling of intellectual/moral superiority that comes from buying into the illusion that they are beyond carrots.
The problem isn't that people can't form their own moral systems or use reason to determine the consequences of their actions. Its that they sense a big logical flaw in trying to derive these abilites inherent in their nature from what they observe. They have a hard time seeing how nature can generate something greater than itself. Religion is the expression of this condition.
Comment by Mertens — January 1, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Hi Bradford,
I still don't think you go far enough in your efforts to avoid indoctrination. What about language preference? You need to not talk around your children, for fear that they will develop a bias toward your native language over others. Nor should you keep your child in your country, for fear of indoctrinating him to see himself as an "American" to the exclusion of other nationalities. And don't even get me started about food preferences - no food til the child is sixteen!
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — January 1, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 10:25 pm
MikeGene wrote:
That's a straw man. When have Dawkins, Harris, or Dennett said that distance between parents and children is a good thing? (Please supply quotes).
Again, could you point to some quotes from Dawkins, Dennett or Harris which support this caricature?
My ideal is not a world in which parents hide their religious beliefs and conceal their Bibles in the back of the sock drawer. I'd rather see religious affiliation treated as a choice children make when they're mature enough, just as we expect them to choose their own occupations and spouses, even when those choices go against their parents' wishes.
The fact that we (generally) grant our children the right to choose their occupations does not mean that we hide our own careers from them, or keep them at home on "Take your Daughter to Work Day." On the other hand, ad executives don't take their kids to "Advertising School" on Sundays, and we look askance at the father who obsessively grooms his son, from birth, to take over the family business, especially when the son has other dreams.
Similarly, there is no need for parents to hide their religion from their children, or to refuse to answer questions about it. The key is that children (at least in our culture) understand, from an early age, that the choice is theirs, and that they do not become a butcher, baker, or candlestick maker until they decide to do so. How much more important, then, that children understand that they are free to choose their religion when the time comes.
Comment by keiths — January 1, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Mesk wrote:
You said it, Mesk. Reading about Dawkins at TT is like viewing his reflection in a funhouse mirror.
Comment by keiths — January 1, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 10:44 pm
keiths:
No, I saw that conditional clause, and that doesn't make the statement any less ridiculous. What you're telling me is that Dawkins' personal goal is to convince me that my belief that my religion is true and that my children should know about it and that my opinion of it should be superseded by some notion that they should be able to make up their own mind without my interference? And not only that, but I will be compelled to do so because it's the 'more loving' action?
Sorry, but you might as well tell me that you're going to wipe my mind clean of the idea that my faith is true. It's practically tantamount to that.
And I will note that you apparently missed the entirety of what I posted after the segment you cited, in which I stated that it's far from true that whatever beliefs one acquires from their parents will hold. There's this period children go through - you might have heard of it; it's caused 'adolescence' - where they often openly reject the teachings or values of their parents. Of course, mentioning that would weaken the case of child abuse, so it doesn't surprise me that it's a point often glossed over or just not thought of.
Comment by thechristiancynic — January 1, 2007 @ 10:44 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Religion provides a sort of instant pre-fabricated morality, whereas secular morality is only really feasible for individuals who are capable of reasoning through the consequences of their actions for society as a whole.
One striking thing about humans of all IQ levels, educational backgrounds, cultures and historic periods, is a shared sense of basic moral principles. There are gray lines of course but there is an instinctive sense of right and wrong that does not require even a medium level of reasoning capacity. In addition you may have noticed that, based on the differing views expressed in this forum alone, reasoning is a poor determinant of identifiable consequences for society, to say nothing of whether or not such consequences are desirable. There is no consensus among a wide variety of individuals, with better than medium educational backgrounds, as to what constitutes acceptable actions in terms of their societal impact.
Comment by Bradford — January 1, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 11:06 pm
I'm sure that's a motivation for some - certainly there's an unseemly undercurrent of intellectual superiority in much "freethought" literature. But I don't think this is a major motivation for the majority of non-theists. Basically, for various reasons we don't believe that religions are correct explanations of the universe we see around us. In the absence of moral systems founded on religion, we need alternatives to inform our decisions about what is right and what is wrong.
Actually, anyone familiar with the literature on the causes and effects of poverty will be aware that a non-trivial proportion of humanity is virtually incapable of making sound future-oriented decisions. It's no coincidence that criminality and low socioeconomic status are both strongly associated with low IQ.
Even among middle- and high-income earners, serious reasoning about morality is pretty rare. Most people adopt quite uncritically the values of their parents, peers and pastors. Ask a person at random why they hold a particular moral belief, and on average you will be subject to an uncomfortable silence, or an embarrassing display of circularity, inconsistency and vague arguments from authority.
I'm not trying to claim the intellectual high ground here - I'll freely admit that my opinions on a wide range of topics are extremely under-developed, and I certainly don't claim to have compelling answers for most of life's big questions. But come on, let's not pretend that the average Joe in the street has spent any serious time examining his system of morality, or that most people aren't in need of guidance when it comes to moral issues. For the majority of humans, religion fills that need.
Oh, please. Most church-goers have spent about as much time contemplating such deep ontological questions as they have spent pondering the paradox of wave-particle duality. Rather, they believe in a particular god because their parents and friends believe in that god, and they attend church because it fulfils a variety of human needs. As a happy side-effect, their religion provides them with a defined set of ready-made moral precepts they can apply to their own life and use to judge the lives of others. And in most situations, they behave exactly the same as most other human beings, regardless of their religion (or lack thereof).
Of course, this doesn't apply to all theists: there are many people who have thought deeply about their religious beliefs, have read (or even written) books about the implications of said beliefs, and have earnest conversations with other believers about the details of their faith. But these people are an extremely small minority of theists. Let's not confuse the religion of the theologians with the religion of the people; the former is complex, logical and scholarly, and can differ markedly between different religions, while the latter is simple, largely unreflective, and tends to be remarkably similar between people of different faiths. Trying to pretend that most people have adopted their religious beliefs through deep contemplation of the logical and moral consequences of said beliefs is simply absurd - most theists are uninterested in theological concerns, and would be incapable of reasoning seriously about them even if they were interested.
Comment by Mesk — January 1, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:06 am
To some extent, yes - as I've said above, almost all humans share a set of basic moral rules that may well have arisen as a consequence of natural selection for the ability to live in large social groups. These rules are largely independent of culture and religion, and provide the basis for most human behaviour. Both religious and secular moral systems are based on these rules.
Having said that, I think it's pretty clear that although these rules are basic and pretty much universal, there can be considerable variation in people's ability (or willingness) to act according to these rules. I know it's unpopular to point this out, but incarceration (a fairly good indicator of antisocial behaviour) is extremely strongly associated with low IQ.
Yes, there are moral questions that are almost impossible to untangle in any objective sense. But this is not a strong argument against secular morality based on reasoning. Even if it is difficult to decide on the solution to a problem based on careful reasoning and hard evidence, this approach is still more likely to yield a useful outcome than simply relying on fixed (and quite possibly unreasonable) moral precepts.
Comment by Mesk — January 2, 2007 @ 12:06 am
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:40 am
Having said that, I think it's pretty clear that although these rules are basic and pretty much universal, there can be considerable variation in people's ability (or willingness) to act according to these rules. I know it's unpopular to point this out, but incarceration (a fairly good indicator of antisocial behaviour) is extremely strongly associated with low IQ.
Not in dispute. However, the link between low IQs and likelihood of incarcaration can be attributed to some very observable and practicle consequences of low IQs. Those with low IQs tend to have fewer resources of their own and attract fewer able legal representation than their higher IQ counterparts. It is not that the higher IQs behave in accordance with a higher moral standard but rather their indiscretions are better hidden from the reach of the law and when they do fall within the purview of law enforcement, better counsel and more capable personal resources are likely to come to the rescue.
Yes, there are moral questions that are almost impossible to untangle in any objective sense. But this is not a strong argument against secular morality based on reasoning. Even if it is difficult to decide on the solution to a problem based on careful reasoning and hard evidence, this approach is still more likely to yield a useful outcome than simply relying on fixed (and quite possibly unreasonable) moral precepts.
The plausibility of this rests on the source of the fixed precepts. A divine source would settle the issue of appropriate moral precepts and a denial of that link would yield the natural selection guide to alternatives. The difficulty with an NS paradigm lies with its capacity to explain everything and nothing at the same time. Whatever moral precepts exist among humans is traceable to NS causality. But that renders NS an ad hoc explanatory device providing little guidance as to actual prediction indicators.
Comment by Bradford — January 2, 2007 @ 12:40 am
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:08 am
Mesk:
Well, then what is Dawkin's using as a premise to judge "good" from "bad" and why would this premise be justified? Keep in mind that the concepts of ""good" and "bad" and our ability to judge "good" from "bad" is programmed into us through RM+NS. What is the purpose of "good" verses "bad" in an RM+NS scenerio?
As well, why does he believe that we should "try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish?" Is selfishness bad? Is generosity good?
Furthermore, is Dawkin's meme that "humanity can and should overcome its evolutionary heritage" a result of RM+NS evolutionary heritage? Is this meme "good" or is it "bad." Is it something we objectively "ought to" do as opposed to something we objectively "ought not" do. One should be able to notice that this meme is self-defeating given accidental, purposeless RM+NS as a premise.
I requote myself from my first comment on this post:
"Well, then we'll have to first start off by examining what is "bad." If we are looking at the concept of "bad" from the vantage point of a purposeless universe which created the concept in question through a random process filtered by reproductive success and surviveability, then I'm sure we can judge "badness" as that which would hinder reproductive success and suriveability. But of course, this does not deal with "bad" in the sense of being that which we objectively "ought not" do (as C.S. Lewis put it).
If the above is truly the case, the "good" and "bad" would be merely subjective constraints agreed upon by those who wish for evolution to continue. Obviously, though, this wish itself "” that of evolution continuing "” must be ASSUMED to be "good" or something that "ought" to happen, since I see no reasonable way to judge this wish as "good" or "bad" itslelf "” as in something that objectively "ought" to or "ought not" to happen. If the process of evolution occured non-purposefully, then it just occured. Evolution itself would be neither good nor bad, and reducing everything to its essential core, would then compel us to realize that anything resulting from evolution is neither good nor bad."
If you have a better way of defining and judging "good" from "bad," in a purposeless universe which created life in an accidental, purposeless, RM+NS scenario, please lay it out for me.
Comment by CJYman — January 2, 2007 @ 2:08 am
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:10 am
Hi Bradford,
Regarding alternative explanations for the low IQ-incarceration link: do you have any references indicating that decreased legal support is the major cause of the link between low IQ and incarceration rates? I agree that this is a plausible confounding factor, but I'm sceptical that it entirely explains the association (which is remarkably strong - incarcerated individuals have an average IQ 10 to 15 points lower than the population mean). In addition, there's pretty good evidence that low-IQ individuals have trouble predicting the consequences of their actions (i.e. future-oriented reasoning), a deficit that has considerable economic consequences. It certainly makes sense to me that such a deficit would also contribute to the probability of criminality.
(By the way, this all seems to be getting pretty off-topic, so I have no objection if you want to let this particular sub-topic slide.)
Perhaps, but only if the divine origin of the precepts could be demonstrated unambiguously. As this is not the case for any of the major religions, religious sources of morality seem (to me at least) considerably more arbitrary than moral reasoning based on logic and evidence.
I agree that this can be a major problem - just look at the appalling state of evolutionary psychology for a damning example of how easy it is to lose sight of the evidence in the search for a useful paradigm. However, evolutionary hypotheses regarding the origins of morality can and have been tested empirically. For instance, this recent paper in Science used data from genetic analyses of hunter-gatherer societies, together with mathematical modelling, to explore whether group selection hypotheses for the origins of altruism are feasible. This is not something that could ever be done for religious explanations of morality.
Comment by Mesk — January 2, 2007 @ 2:10 am
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:30 am
I have a post that for some reason is still in moderation explaining my position here. This is a (long) excerpt from it:
Comment by Mesk — January 2, 2007 @ 2:30 am
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:35 am
[obsolete post - thanks Mike]
Comment by Mesk — January 2, 2007 @ 2:35 am
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:45 am
Mesk, sure there's an explanation for altruism, but not for an objective morality (if such a thing actually exists.) — refer to my last comment. Morality is what judges altruism as either objectively "good" or "bad."
Furthermore, it seems that this paper only tells us that altruism does indeed benefit survival and that people were indeed altruistic in the past.
What does this tell us about what we "ought" to do?
Furthermore doesn't Dawkins tell us that "humanity can and should overcome its evolutionary heritage"
Is altruism any less of an evolutionary heritage than selfish genes?
Comment by CJYman — January 2, 2007 @ 2:45 am
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:48 am
Hi Mesk,
Don't ask me; I just work here. But they should be up now.
Comment by MikeGene — January 2, 2007 @ 2:48 am
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:53 am
BTW, morality as expounded by Jesus is as follows: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself." Absolutely no unnecessary religious baggage.
Comment by CJYman — January 2, 2007 @ 2:53 am
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:00 am
CJYman,
I agree that there is an important distinction between explaining the origins of morality, and deciding what is moral. Evolutionary theory can help us address the first question, but we must turn elsewhere for guidance on the second. I briefly lay out the basis for my own moral system above.
Read him in context: he isn't saying we need to overthrow every part of our evolutionary past, but rather that there are aspects of our evolutionary heritage that can and should be discarded. I think pretty much everyone would agree that altruism is one trait that would be useful to keep around.
Comment by Mesk — January 2, 2007 @ 3:00 am
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:07 am
And one final post for today: how does the quote from Jesus explain what the Christian position is with respect to gay marriage? Embryonic stem cell therapy? Organ donation? In vitro fertilisation? Environmental destruction? And so on…
It's a neat little quote, but it doesn't really capture Christian morality in practice, or the complexities of moral reasoning in general.
Comment by Mesk — January 2, 2007 @ 3:07 am
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:26 am
How can it be less arbitrary? You say "as for me". You arbitrarily decide what your approach to "morality" is then claim it is less arbitrary. In what ways is your standard less arbitrary?
As to being a "moral" standard what makes your standard any more right than one who wishes to adopt a different standard other than yours? Is it because in your opinion it is more utilitarian? Is this the difference between what is right and what is wrong?
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — January 2, 2007 @ 3:26 am
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:59 am
Mesk,
Maybe the smarter ones simply don't get caught as often.
Comment by Douglas — January 2, 2007 @ 3:59 am
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:12 am
Douglas,
I need to track this down in the primary literature, but according to this site:
Of course I'd like to get some actual data (as well as the definition of "criminal" in the first sentence), but this will have to do for the moment. So yes, it seems that the criminals in jail are the daftest ones, but even the ones that don't get caught are on the slower side of average.
Comment by Mesk — January 2, 2007 @ 6:12 am
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
I think you are completely correct to wonder about the classification of "criminal", Mesk.
Since you are ostensibly talking about morality here and not merely legality I would certainly be suspicious about any classification which didn't include, along with other white-collar crime, such things as adultery, teacher-student sexual misconduct, fraud and tax evasion, etc.
And scientific publishing fraud.
Comment by Pez — January 2, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Mesk:
The origin of morality is explicitly and perfectly connected to deciding what is moral. If morality is a product of a purposeless, natural process which describes that which is useful for survival and reproductive benefit, then morality is not an objective law of "good" vs. "bad."
Mesk:
So, then morality is judged by that which is useful?
Mesk, when selfishness (as a part of our evolutionary heritage) was useful for survival and reproductive success was it either "good" or "bad"
Is altruism (as a part of our evolutionary heritage) only "good" because it is now useful for survival and reproductive success?
And where did this notion of morality come from anyway?
Mesk:
If moral reasoning is a complex issue, it is only so because it is an objective standard (with its foundation in ultimate reality) that humanity is attmepting to understand and attain. In order for it to be this objective standard of "good" vs. "bad", it can not arise out of that purposeless process which supposedly causes electro-chemical impulses within our brain for the purpose of our evolutionary survival and reproductive success. As already shown, that which arises out of a purposeless process is netiher "good" nor "bad." What could be less complex than "everyone gets to make their own moral rules?"
If the above is understood, then we can actually attempt to discover what the objective moral code is. If it is grounded in loving the Ultimate Reality and the Ultimate Reality tells us to love others as ourselves, then we at least have a starting point when discussing morality. Our start point would then be "which actions show true love?" Of course, love would need to be defined, but at least we are getting somewhere in understanding an actually objective morality.
Comment by CJYman — January 3, 2007 @ 4:21 pm