On becoming atheist - the tug of war (page 16)

Nickolas

As to the salad bar, don't we all partake? Everyone, you as well as me?

PSacramento

As to the salad bar, don't we all partake? Everyone, you as well as me?

Guilty as charged my brother :)

Well, to answer your question of where they come from I might proffer my genes - but I am no doubt being influenced at present by the fact that I am reading Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. Dawkins puts forward the hypothesis that altruism (which to me is the test of morality) is genetic. So far, he is making sense, but I haven't finished the book just yet.

watersprout

I will have to PM/email you, dear WS, if that's okay (the greatest of love and peace to you, child!)?

Yes please! (The greatest love and peace to you) Look forward to your email/PM.

Peace

PSacramento

Well, to answer your question of where they come from I might proffer my genes - but I am no doubt being influenced at present by the fact that I am reading Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. Dawkins puts forward the hypothesis that altruism (which to me is the test of morality) is genetic. So far, he is making sense, but I haven't finished the book just yet.

It's been awhile since I read it but I recall that I felt a bit...unconvinced by his answer, maybe I expcted more, know whatI mean?

Not saying that Dawkins is wrong, just that perhaps I expected a more compelte answer, at least that is how I felt.

It leaves lots of "gray areas", but I don't think Dawkings himself thinks it answers ALL the questions, just gives a "good enough hypothesis".

SweetBabyCheezits

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. … Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Einstein

Nick: You're especially smart for a young fella, SBC.

Meh, I copy/paste from smart people like above, see? I'm just a regurgitator, more or less. I don't believe I've ever had an original thought, 'cept for the phobia that terrorists would break into our office and force me to eat scrambled eggs off the rim of a urinal. That might be one original thought.

SweetBabyCheezits

Could we say human experience and sympathy are the building blocks of morals? Of course, then we need to ask 'where does sympathy come from?'

The importance of social intelligence has been acknowledged in the formulation of the "Machiavellian intelligence" hypothesis (Byrne and Whiten 1988). This hypothesis states that, in the evolution of socially interactive species, the importance of social, or Machiavellian, intelligence may far outweigh the importance of the kind of intelligence (not so evocatively labeled) that deals with the technical or physical world. In social species, other members of the social group may constitute the most critical factor in the environment, especially in terms of generating differential reproductive success. According to Humphrey (1982, 1988) the development of social intelligence depends on "'sympathy'... a tendency on the part of one social partner to identify himself with the other and so to make the other's goals to some extent his own" (1988,p. 23). Sympathy is necessary for effective social intercourse.

More generally, we cannot interact with another person unless we can make reasonably accurate predictions of the other's behavior in a given context and vice versa. Thus, sympathy is fundamentally a part of the cognitive basis of social behavior. But where does sympathy come from? Humphrey (1982) argues that, in conscious species such as ourselves, it comes from within: Humans are "introspectionists." According to Humphrey, "The introspectionist's privileged picture of the inner reasons for his own behaviour is one which he will immediately and naturally project on other people. He can and will use his own experience to get inside other people's skins" (p. 477).

PSacramento

It's gonna be hard to point out any moralistic feeling without trying to see that in its most original form, it had a "religious upbringing".

Is there any reason for a superiour specimen of a species to feel sympathy for another?

Social behaviour is great, but did sympathy originate from IT or did IT originate from being part of a society?

It seems to me the it is being stated that being part of a social structure is what developed morals ( or at least in this case sympathy), is that the jist of it?

unshackled

Found this quote recently by Kenan Malik, Neurobiologist:

Invoking God at best highlights what we cannot yet explain about the physical universe, and at worst exploits that ignorance to mystify. Moral values do not come prepackaged from God, but have to be worked out by human beings through a combination of empathy, reasoning and dialogue.
This is true of believers, too: they, after all, have to decide for themselves which values in their holy books they accept and which ones they reject. And it is not God that gives meaning to our lives, but our relationships with fellow human beings and the goals and obligations that derive from them. God is at best redundant, at worst an obstruction. Why do I need him?

I have yet to read it but am looking forward to Sam Harris' latest book The Moral Landscape...coming out in paperback soon. Harris contends that the only moral framework worth talking about is one where "morally good" things pertain to increases in the "well-being of conscious creatures".

Berengaria

A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
Oh hell yes!

On becoming atheist - the tug of war

Share this