freeman3 wrote:Well, RJ, I don't think our capacity for good necessarily rests on a deity. I think it did evolve. Basically, if mechanism develop that cause parents to care about their children they have a better chance at survival and people with those mechanisms survive, then if family ( kin) develop mechanisms that cause an affinity for kin genes causing that expression will live on due to the fact that those family members have a better chance at survival. Then we have reciprocal altruism where those who have characteristics promoting social cooperation with non-kin gave a better chance at survival. We're good because goodness ultimately is more powerful than evil. Psychopaths do not cooperate very well; people who like each other do. And when it comes down to a fight those who can work together beat those who work less with each other. WW II is probably the clearest example but I think it can be seen in most recent wars.

That being said, there is no doubt that civilization is a big part of the goodness of people. If people have a reliable source of food, shelter, and laws enforced to protect against harming others they tend to act a lot better. We're considerably better than people in the Middle Ages were. But if civilization ended tomorrow and people had to fight for survival how "good" would people be? Watch an episode of "Walking Dead" and you see one view--a bunch of cold-blooded killers. When survival is at stake and social cooperation is not possible, then older instincts come into play, though I think the "Walking Dead" has a particular dim view of things. But even there they are acting to ensure the survival of their group.

so, people are good for evolutionary reasons; and people are good to propagate their dna. Yes, but if you are in a situation where you are not helping your kin, and when there is absolutely no evolutionary benefit to doing the right thing, and you know that there will be no repercussions to behaving badly, why do you? Why do you care about the wellbeing of some random dude? The cameras are off; he can't hurt you; why do you view his life as, shall I say, sacred?

Sure we internalize norms of good behavior. Societies do not tell their members just to avoid getting caught breaking laws, they tell them that is wrong. Children are socialized as to right and wrong behavior and they internalize those norms so that they will feel bad about doing something they have learned is wrong even if someone is not watching. Why does that internalization of norms have to come from a diety?

By the way, I came across this tome of collections of articles about evolutionary psychology that you may find interesting.http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/ ... hology.pdf

freeman3 wrote:Sure we internalize norms of good behavior. Societies do not tell their members just to avoid getting caught breaking laws, they tell them that is wrong. Children are socialized as to right and wrong behavior and they internalize those norms so that they will feel bad about doing something they have learned is wrong even if someone is not watching. Why does that internalization of norms have to come from a diety?

By the way, I came across this tome of collections of articles about evolutionary psychology that you may find interesting.http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/ ... hology.pdf

I'm not saying that it has to come from a deity. I'm asking you, if you know that it's just mumbo jumbo be good to others, even though there's no rational reason why you have to be in many situations, why bother? When you were a kid you internalized that America was a land of liberty and justice for all. But you are able to see that is not really true and you've un-internalized it.

I don't think that atheists are afraid of debating their ideas with Christians; we are not weaker that way. The problem is when government puts its power behind religion. Through bitter experience from historical experience it was learned that was not a good idea. The Catholic Church with the support of government used to persecute heretics; in Spain for example the Inquisition killed thousands before it was done. Things got worse after the Reformation. In England "Bloody" Mary persecuted Protestants when she was in power in the Mid-1500s. Queen Elizabeth burned her share of Catholic priests. The Puritans left for America by way of Holland because they were persecuted for their beliefs in England. In Germany the almost genocidal Thirty Years war from 1618-1648 between Protestant and Catholic forces reduced the population by a third. These are just brief snippets of the harm caused when government got behind religion and persecuted non-believers of the government-sanctioned religion.

So the idea developed that since one was sure that your side would be in control of the government that it would be better that we come to an agreement that government would not persecute religion. The Toleration Act of 1689 in Engjand was a step towards that in allowing toleration for all Protestants (though not Catholics). I believe France and Poland were even more tolerant around that time. Of course, Holland was known for that, being a place for refuge for Jews expelled from Spain.

So there are very good reasons for being concerned about government power getting behind a particular religion. Justice O'Connor put it eloquently in Lynchv Donnely:

O'Connor wrote:

"The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community. Government can run afoul of that prohibition…[by] endorsement or disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.
The proper inquiry under the purpose prong of Lemon, I submit, is whether the government intends to convey a message of endorsement or disapproval of religion."


So, yes, when a symbol of a particular religion is put on government property that indicates that the government is favoring that religion and it needs to be removed.

RJ, we have a cerebral cortex, we have free will, we can decide right and wrong whatever evolutionary driven tendencies or socialization we might have. As Sarte said we should try to live an authentic life driven by our notions of what we think should be done and not controlled by the views of others.

So as to your notion of why bother doing the right thing if there are no consequences I guess it all comes to what kind of person you are. I have a conscience and it would bother me to do something wrong. It's pretty much that simple. Even from a costs-benefits analysis I would incur more mental anguish from doing something significantly wrong than any benefit I would receive. Of course to be fair would that anguish just be related to concerns about punishment or reputation? I would like to think it has to do with my self-opinion but who knows. I'm not sure a person can adequately visualize a no-consequences hypothetical.

Ray Jay wrote:so, people are good for evolutionary reasons; and people are good to propagate their dna. Yes, but if you are in a situation where you are not helping your kin, and when there is absolutely no evolutionary benefit to doing the right thing, and you know that there will be no repercussions to behaving badly, why do you? Why do you care about the wellbeing of some random dude? The cameras are off; he can't hurt you; why do you view his life as, shall I say, sacred?

How would one "know" that there will be no repercussions?

ray

I'm asking you, if you know that it's just mumbo jumbo be good to others, even though there's no rational reason why you have to be in many situations, why bother?

The ethic of reciprocity is part of every religion, and every culture . It is fundamental to human nature.
Without some form of reciprocity, society would cease to exist...
This was learned by mankind as we evolved from groups to tribes to villages....etc...

That it is part of every religion, and fundamental to the establishment of society, doesn't make the incredible parts of religions more credible. And that it is part of every religion is instructive on what an important lesson it was that it survives within every creed designed to offer guidance to men on how to conduct their lives.
The rational reasons that men should conduct our lives with the ethic of reciprocity, don't have to include myths, legends and religious dogma.
But the religious dogma doesn't exist without the ethic of reciprocity.

My last edit got cross-posted with Owen who makes a good point.

so, people are good for evolutionary reasons; and people are good to propagate their dna. Yes, but if you are in a situation where you are not helping your kin, and when there is absolutely no evolutionary benefit to doing the right thing, and you know that there will be no repercussions to behaving badly, why do you? Why do you care about the wellbeing of some random dude? The cameras are off; he can't hurt you; why do you view his life as, shall I say, sacred?

There are perfectly rational reasons for people choosing to be 'good' all the time, irrespective of whether they're in the company of their kin. If we accept the fact that from an evolutionary standpoint those who are able to cooperate with others will ultimately stand a greater chance of successfully reproducing over the long term (and I think we do have to accept that), then it logically follows that having a reputation as a trustworthy person will be an evolutionary advantage. From that position it logically follows that those who have a 'moral code' which prevents them from damaging their reputation as a trustworthy person will find it easier to benefit from social cooperation. When you look at it like that then it's easy to see how being 'good' has evolved to be the norm rather than the exception.

freeman3 wrote:My last edit got cross-posted with Owen who makes a good point.

But the other point I have is that RJ's question is depending on an IF statement:

I'm asking you, if you know that it's just mumbo jumbo [to] be good to others, even though there's no rational reason why you have to be in many situations, why bother?

Just because America being the land of freedom and justice for all is cant, does not mean that reciprocity is cant. And I don't see that you (Freeman) have demonstrated that you "know" that it is mumbo jumbo.

The argument is, I suppose, that reciprocity itself is a rational reason. The idea is that if you act in the way you would want others to act, that encourages them to act in that way too. And the more widely the concept (meme, to use Dawkins' terminology) is spread, the more who "do unto others as you would have others do unto you", the more likely that you will benefit from the actions of someone else.

The hypothetical "no-one would ever know" is in many ways a false test. You can't be certain that no-one else would ever know, and you yourself would certainly know. It would be a beneficial trait for us to feel "guilt" for doing harm to others of our species (or clade) as a way to discourage it. And it would also be a beneficial trait to identify with members of our species (or clade), want to protect them from harm etc. Because it's not just about replicating our own individual genes to the next generation, it's about ensuring that as many of our genes from across our species (or clade) propagate over multiple generations. If our natural behaviours did not do that, we would not have had the same chances to survive this far.

Sass makes a very good point too - mutual trust is important in a tribal society, within the tribe at the very least.

Perhaps you did not understand my interpretation of evil. You said people do "bad things". What is bad things if not evil. You seem to think that evil is a religious term. I do not, and I apologize if I misunderstood.

Is there an inherent ability/propensity for mankind to commit evil/bad things?

BTW, I am really enjoying this forum.

bbauska wrote:Perhaps you did not understand my interpretation of evil. You said people do "bad things". What is bad things if not evil. You seem to think that evil is a religious term. I do not, and I apologize if I misunderstood.

No, I see "evil" as being more than just "bad things".

Is there an inherent ability/propensity for mankind to commit evil/bad things?

We have within us the capacity an propensity to do bad things and good things. But that seems less that being "Evil" or "Good" - especially inherently.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Perhaps you did not understand my interpretation of evil. You said people do "bad things". What is bad things if not evil. You seem to think that evil is a religious term. I do not, and I apologize if I misunderstood.

No, I see "evil" as being more than just "bad things".

Is there an inherent ability/propensity for mankind to commit evil/bad things?

We have within us the capacity an propensity to do bad things and good things. But that seems less that being "Evil" or "Good" - especially inherently.

Please explain the difference.

Freeman,

The word "religion" can mean a lot of things to a lot of different people. But this is the line that threw me a bit....

In a court of law a religion trying to prove its existence would have the case thrown out without getting to a jury

Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc., are already existing religions. They do not need to prove their existence.

I'm guessing what you meant was that their respective truth claims (i.e. virgin birth, reincarnation, a triune god, respective revelations, visions, a real presence in the eucharist or even claims of the actual existence of founders, etc) are what you have a problem with right?

I'm not splitting hairs here only attempting to understand your position.

Atheism is not a belief system

Freeman, can you expound? I was always under the impression that Atheists believed god or gods did not exist?

What is Atheism exactly?