More on morality

Another story on morality. This one takes a more aggressive stance. Having not read the book in question, I can't put forth an opinion, but here's the link.

Creation Day!

Okay, so this one is pretty darn offensive. But it's amusing so I'll link to it. So check it out- Happy Creation Day!

Nontheist Ads

I really like what's being done in DC according to this story. It'll probably piss some people off, but maybe some will take the time to check out the Coalition of Reason that put them up. It could be a step in countering all the misinformation that's out there about nonbelievers.

First Cause

"It has even been said that the highest praise of God is to be found in the denial of Him by the atheist, who considers creation perfect enough to dispense with a Creator."  -Marcel Proust

So let us discuss another argument for the existence of a god, in this case specifically a creator. It's known by various names, but is most commonly referred to as the First Cause Argument or Cosmological Argument. It's originally credited to Aquinas, but more recently it's been touted widely by William Lane Craig under the name the Kalam Argument. All of them state basically the same thing, though Aquinas goes into a bit more detail. To quote directly from the second link above-

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.

Therefore:

(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.

(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.

Therefore:

(5) God exists.

There are rather a lot of theories surrounding the Big Bang. Many of the rebuttals you can find to the First Cause argument start out by saying that the laws of conservation of mass/energy actually prove that the universe did not, in fact, have a true "beginning." The Big Bang may have been the beginning of time, but the mass/energy that comprises the known universe has always existed in some form. Something was not created from nothing. Therefore the assumption that the universe had a beginning, the foundation of this argument, is faulty.

But let us move on, and allow the assumption that the universe did have a beginning. I don't think it naturally follows that it had to have had a cause, and that cause is God. Because, of course, it begs the question of who or what created God to begin with? All the variations of the First Cause Argument make some sort of stipulation for finite beings or "everything that has a beginning" require a cause, obviously to allow God to be the exception. Supposedly he isn't finite or doesn't have a beginning or what have you. This seems like a hell of an assumption with very little proof, but then, "if we can suppose that God always existed- and thus requires no causal explanation- then we can suppose instead that the mass-energy comprising our universe always existed and thus requires no causal explanation." (David Mills, Atheist Universe)

Then there's the point that, supposing there was a beginning, and it was caused, how do we get from there to allowing him "any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, onniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins, and reading innermost thoughts?" (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion) At best this proves the existence of a Deist God. How can the average believer even claim to "know" it was their god that's responsible? "Zeus or Allah has just as much claim to being the 'First Cause' as does Jehovah or Jesus." (David Mills, AU)

There is one final point I wish to make, and it is the one I consider the most important. There is some debate, and I'm not sure how seriously to take it since it seems pretty controversial but goes way too far over my head for me to understand, as to whether fluctuation of the quantum vacuum (I wouldn't bother with the link, it makes very little sense to a non-physicist) actually proves that it is possible for something to be created from nothing. Like I said, I don't entirely understand it, but I just want to make it clear that even if it were proven that something did in fact appear out of nothing, that does not mean that one can immediately assume that God must have done it. God and conservation of mass/energy are not our only options. There were atheists before the Big Bang was discovered/thought of. Just because science has not caught up yet doesn't mean we can automatically fill the gap with God. This is an issue that we run into with creationism as well. When science is unsure of something, "we are encouraged to leap to the default theory without even looking to see whether it fails in the very same particular as the theory it is alleged to have replaced." (Richard Dawkins, TGD) If you expect me to prove the Big Bang (or any explanation for how our universe came to exist in its present state) is true, then I expect you to do the same for your theory that God did it. The very fact that vacuum fluctuations seem to create particles all the time would suggest that something from nothing may be possible, but does it logically follow that God is doing it constantly? If it happens a lot, it actually seems more likely that it can be a result of natural physical laws that we simply don't understand yet. This may not, after all, turn out to have been a one-time event that we need to conjure up a god to explain, any more than we feel the need to say "God did it" every time we jump and actually come back down instead of flying off into space. The fact that there are issues that science can't explain at this time doesn't mean it will never be able to.

So there's my opinion of the First Cause Argument. This is a serious argument in favor of belief that I had presented to me as a young Christian, and much like Pascal's Wager, at the time it seemed like a very convincing one. Hopefully I have made a good case here for why it is not.

A note on morality

I promise a real post will be coming soon, as well as replies to any recent comments I haven't gotten to. But to tide you over, here's a recent story on morality from the online opinion pages for the New York Times. It provides some more concrete examples of some of the things I talked about, and some neat little anecdotes about monkeys.

Morality

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."   -Mark Twain

 

So today we're going to discuss morality. It's a huge topic, so I apologize if this runs long. If necessary I'll break it into two, but a lot of the points are interconnected, so I'd prefer to keep it all together. I was going to wait to tackle something this big, but the question has already been raised in the comments, so I may as well go ahead.

 

These are the basic issues raised in the comments- If there is no afterlife in which we will be punished or rewarded for what we've done, why shouldn't we simply do whatever we want? What is the rationale behind altruism and self-sacrifice? And are "good" and "evil" simply words that we define as we choose, or is there some objective concept behind them?

 

The first issue I'll be addressing is actually not one from the comments, but is a common misconception that I'd like to clear up before proceeding to the main body of the post. There are many religious people in the world who believe that, since we have no fear of hell, atheists are a bunch of immoral heathens. It is true that atheists do not condemn some things, such as premarital sex between consenting adults, however, they certainly do not condone murder, rape, or any of the things one would commonly term "evil." If atheists had no morals, one would expect to see more of them in prison. In reality, the percentage of atheists in the prison population is lower than the percentage of atheists in the non-imprisoned population. Also, many countries (such as America) with very high percentages of religious people have significantly higher crime rates than many countries with a higher percentage of non-believers. "So there seems to be an inverse correlation between a nation's religious devotion and its moral conduct." (David Mills) I realize that the average believer probably doesn't think just because I'm an atheist I would think it's okay to murder someone if it was to my advantage to do so. I just wanted to make it clear for those few who do, that is not the case.

 

So, on to the real issues. Why should I bother to be good if I have no fear of punishment? To answer I will have to venture into the scary realm of evolution. However, I believe it can all be classified as microevolution (evolution within a species), which the vast majority of believers do concede is a fact. (And I can genuinely say those that don't are either hopelessly uninformed about the subject, or willfully blind to reality.)  We'll start with a very brief synopsis of how evolution works.

 

Evolution occurs through natural selection when a useful mutation occurs in a gene (useful being defined in this case as something that increases an individual's likelihood of surviving long enough to pass on the new mutation) and is then spread through the population. A simple, but horribly overused, example of natural selection is that of the peppered moth. Originally light colored moths dominated the peppered moth population, with only a small minority of dark ones.This served them as camouflage when they rested on the light colored trees. However, when pollution from the Industrial Revolution caused the trees to darken, the light colored moths were no longer camouflaged, and were nearly wiped out. The dark moths, which were once a minority, became the dominant color once the trees were dark as well. You can see how if say, there was a group of animals that lived near dangerous cliffs who were completely indifferent to heights, a mutation that caused the individual to think jumping off heights was awesome would not be useful, and the mutation would almost definitely never be passed on. However, a mutation that produced an aversion to heights might result in the individual having slightly better odds of surviving than if they were indifferent, giving the useful mutation a chance to spread through the population as their descendants inherited this aversion that gave them slightly better odds of survival.

 

So how does this pertain to morality? I believe Dawkins explains it best, so he gets the credit for most of what I'm about to say, and all quotes are from him unless otherwise specified. He starts with the reminder that the unit that is "trying" to survive is the gene. He then lists four ways in which altruism and empathy could be useful adaptations that could increase the likelihood of the survival of the mutated gene and thus easily spread through a population. 

The first is the case of genetic kinship. Early humans were tribal, living in fairly small groups. Since these groups were small, most of the individuals in them were likely related. "A gene that programs individual organisms to favour their genetic kin is statistically likely to benefit copies of itself." Since related individuals frequently share genes, this increases the likelihood that those with the gene for helping relatives will survive, and therefore pass on the gene, even, occasionally, at the expense of the original "helper." So a mutation that produces a desire to help those who are part of one's "group" could easily spread through a tribe that is closely related.

The second means by which altruism could be a useful adaptation is the case of reciprocation, and tied to this is the third, reputation. This is, basically, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. One must also include the stipulation of punishing those who "cheat" and fail to return favors. It is frequently advantageous for individuals to live in groups, for protection, help raising young, and to make it easier to find mates, among other things.  Working together within the group makes this more effective. One example is the case of vampire bats. If a vampire bat is hungry, he can go to another and they will give him regurgitated blood (yuck! ^_^). And they "learn which other individuals of their social group can be relied upon to pay their debts (in regurgitated blood) and which individuals cheat." Those who do not pay their debts won't be helped if they are later in need. Thus they are more likely to die, and thus their odds of passing on their cheating genes are decreased. Whereas those who are reliable are helped through difficult times, allowing them to survive and pass on their "nice" genes. The development of language also makes it possible for one to develop a much more wide-spread reputation for cheating or being reliable, allowing this to develop on a larger scale.

The last way in which altruism could be evolved is through "conspicuous generosity." "Altruistic giving may be an advertisement of dominance or superiority." There is a species of bird called the Arabian babbler that demonstrates this very clearly. Their altruistic sharing of food and willingness to stand watch in a position of greater risk is not tied to reciprocation. In fact, if a babbler that has low standing within the group attempts to give food to one of higher rank, they will be violently rejected. In this case, the advantage is that those who make the grandest gestures of largess are those most likely to be chosen as mates by the females (and thus have children to carry on their altruistic genes). Their ostentatious displays of generosity are the equivalent of a peacock's tail or a canary's song.

So these are Dawkins' four main ways which altruism could be a result of evolution. I would also like to add my own point. We, as a species, have an extraordinarily long adolescence. This was a natural result of our developing intelligence. It takes time to learn so much. My point being, in order to raise children through such a long adolescence, it was very helpful to mate for life. I hope by now you can see how this could have developed without an explanation. Empathy is a trait that makes it a great deal easier to mate for life, as well as to raise children, and to live in groups, which is also a necessity. Empathy could easily have developed as a result of, or in conjunction with, our long adolescence.

In conclusion, in the infancy of our species we lived in groups. First as nomadic tribes, then in small villages. This was the perfect setting for any or all of these forms of altruism to develop. Dawkins uses the example of sexual desire to explain how this applies to us today, when we no longer live in closely related groups, and our altruism often extends to those who will never reciprocate, etc. Natural selection programmed us to want to have sex,  because that's how babies are made, hence the fact that many women's libidos are at their highest when they ovulate, and are thus most likely to get pregnant. Yet when humans feel the desperate urge to mate, it is rarely as a result of a conscious desire to make a baby. Couples that know they are using birth control, or are infertile, do not feel a diminished desire to have sex. The drive is a result of unconscious programming, and in the case of those who can't have children, it is a misfiring. To quote Dawkins once again, "I am suggesting that the same is true of the urge to kindness- to altruism, to generosity, to empathy, to pity. In ancestral times, we had the opportunity to be altruistic only towards close kin and potential reciprocators. Nowadays that restriction is no longer there, but the rule of thumb persists." Our sense of right and wrong is a result of an evolutionary drive that is something of a "mistake," but a very nice one. Fear of eternal punishment or hope for eternal reward is unnecessary for the average person to do good. Which makes sense, given that we've already established that atheists, who feel neither fear nor hope towards a potential afterlife, are just as moral as those who do.

So the things that we consider good, and those we consider evil, can be derived from the evolutionary development of our species. As to whether I believe there is an objective standard of good or evil, that exists outside of our own definitions of the words, the answer is no. I see no reason to think that if it had benefited our species' development to murder on a regular basis, that we would not now consider murder perfectly acceptable, and possibly even "good." Deer probably think wolves are evil, if they are capable of thinking such things.

There is one final position that I have heard espoused by Christians which I would like to address. It's related very closely to the question of an objective standard of good. It is an argument for the existence of God that is usually attributed to Thomas Aquinas, referred to as the Argument from Degree or Argument from Gradation. Simply put, he states that we see varying degrees things in the world, such as goodness. In order to judge those degrees, we must have an ultimate standard of good to compare to. Humans are incapable of maximum goodness. Therefore there must be some other maximum good to set the standard. This maximum is God.  This is one of those bizarre arguments that just makes me really confused. It seems a great deal more like wordplay than a genuine argument. I love Dawkins answer, and doubt I can improve on it, so forgive me for quoting him yet again. "You might as well say, people vary in smelliness but we can make the comparison only by reference to a perfect maximum conceivable smelliness. Therefore there must exist a pre-eminently peerless stinker, and we call him God." Also, since we have established that concepts of good and evil could easily have developed naturally without the necessity of positing some outside standard (particularly one that also supposedly is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, reads our thoughts, cares what we do, etc), Ockham's Razor allows us to dismiss this argument easily.

Again, I apologize for allowing this to get so long. I promise future posts will be kept to a much shorter length. And if you actually bothered to read this far, congratulations, I'm impressed, and thank you for your time. ^_^

Just some clarification

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes." -Bertrand Russell (his cosmic teapot)

So I started this blog without any clear direction in mind. I just knew I wanted to write an atheist blog. But I'm feeling now that I probably ought to have some sort of plan in mind. If nothing else, if anyone's going to take the time to read this, I ought to let them know what they can expect to get from it. So here goes.

My main goal is to merely make people aware of the issues surrounding atheism versus belief. I am definitely not setting out to literally prove there is no god. Since most believers I know are more than happy to retreat to the "God did/said it and I believe it so there" response to any argument made by nonbelievers, it's ultimately not even possible to prove conclusively that there is no god. What I do intend to do is point out what seem to me to be the logical fallacies of the arguments in favor of god's existence, as well as making some arguments as to why his existence is extremely improbable. I will focus almost exclusively on the Christian God, since that's who I was raised to believe in and it's what I know best. Many arguments will apply to all religions. Since almost all religions are based on a belief in some form of deity, it's somewhat unnecessary to disprove each religion individually if you can first simply prove, at least beyond reasonable doubt, that no god exists anyway.

I will include other things occasionally, like the survey I posted about a few days ago. I also plan a post about why, as an atheist, I was incredibly offended by last week's episode of Glee. I don't want this to become an impersonal list of proofs.

I hope some honest debate can take place, as it already is to a degree. Flaming will not be tolerated. Right now anonymous comments are allowed, but if there's too much trouble with trolling that will have to change.

If you have any specific topics you'd like to see covered, please let me know. I have several in mind, but I'm always looking for more. I do plan, at some point, on going through some apologist books (particularly some of those by Lee Strobel) and discussing my views on what is said, so if you have any books in mind, let me know. Do keep in mind though, that there are some issues that I am just not equipped to deal with (such as the "offenses against an infinite god" idea raised in a comment a few days ago).

I think that's all, so thanks for reading, and enjoy! ^_^