Why Morality? Mortality.

Happy Passover & Happy Easter.

I read an innerestin article over there to the Newsweek what was writ by a rabbi.

In the article Rabbi Marc Gellmen writes:

Sam's response to the mystery of meaning is to try to hold onto the absolute
moral judgments born of Rick's and my faith while not allowing the God who both
birthed and sustained that moral truth. This, plus Sam's personal desire for a
kind of rational spirituality, as well as the massive empirical evidence of
religious altruism—which he admits—versus the admittedly thin record of well
known atheistic altruism all leads me to believe that Sam Harris may well
understand deep down that ditching God is not remotely like ditching Zeus.

He makes it look like he gives credence to both sides of the fight, but in fact is still putting down the case for atheism. It seems like this is a never ending cycle because there is ultimately a flaw with the big question of philosophy: "What is the meaning of life?"

The fault of any who try to use the argument that morality requires God automatically assume that there must be meaning to life. But why must there be meaning? Just because we want meaning does not make it a requirement for life to exist. We create the meaning ourselves, just like we create an economy. It is our own perception that makes it real. It doesn't make it a universal truth.

Specifically, the Rabbi assumes that it must be an external force which drives altruism, but we see a kind of selfless concern through much of the animal kingdom as well. Why does a mother bird defend her young? Why is there a sentry among a murder of crows? Why does a dog defend its master or pack? These are suvival instincts to be sure, but these actions may put the individual in danger which goes against self-preservation. Maybe it's because they want to go to Heaven. Yeah, probably not.

As much as there is "massive empirical evidence of religious altruism," there is also massive evidence for wars based on religious intolerence. We are defenders of our own kind by feeling a need to save other humans, but we also will be quick to kill others of the human gene if we feel they threaten our way of life (the future of our clan). It all comes down to primitive survival instincts. Humans cannot live alone and are compelled to save our own kind in order to preserve our species, but at the same time we are not above bashing each others brains out for a piece of land in the name of God or getting into a fight over a sports team to prove that "We're number one!" I get tired of hearing about religious altruism when it is in fact based on instict. It's a piece of the brain that does it. Come on! It's in my class notes. We talked about this two weeks ago!

Personally, I see a belief in the afterlife as being counterproductive to morality. "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out," is something I've heard before. The problems in the Middle East are ultimately about oil, but could anybody really allow themselves to be killed if they believed there was no Heaven? After all, "There are no athiests in foxholes." This was what John Lennon was trying to say with his song, "Imagine." If one is sure that this is the only shot we get, he's less likely to march off into the line of fire. And with the natural tendency to feel the pain of others (who doesn't wince when they see the guy get hit in the nuts on America's Lamest Home Videos?), I couldn't imagine killing another person. Somehow it's usually the Chritian Conservatives who argue with me that capital punishment is necessary. Yet it goes against everything that Christ taught. Go figure!

I cannot prove God does not exist anymore than anyone can prove that He does exist. Except in that He does not exist, even if He does exist, at least as far as we know the exististance of those things which exist.

Or something.

What I mean to say is if there is a God, he is not within the plane of existance we know as "reality."

I believe what I don't believe because I believe that it is more likely that Man created God than that God created Man. And science, though endlessly digging through the ever complex problems (AND mysteries) of our being, has already found enough solutions to satisfy my curiousity and begin what I consider the death of philosophy. I don't wonder about the existance of God anylonger for the same reason I don't contemplate the existance of Santa and the Easter Bunny. But just like them, He is an icon that will always have some meaning for me. Communication, myths and beliefs are still important to us because we need each other and, let's face it, reality isn't always so great.

I know that without religion, the Rabbi would be out of a job, so I wouldn't take away from him his right to believe even if I could, but I can't stand the attitude that somehow I'm missing knowledge or in denial just because I don't believe in God.

Anyway, go paint some eggs and eat a hollow rabbit. I'm headed to happy hour at Heather's tonight.

...

And I'm also adding the corrected text from Love & Death because I got it a little wrong last time:

Sonja: Let’s say that there is no god and each man is free to do exactly as he chooses. What prevents you from murdering somebody?
Boris: Well, murder is immoral.
Sonja: Immorality is subjective.
Boris: Yes, but subjectivity is objective.
Sonja: Not in any rational scheme of perspective.
Boris: Perspective is irrational; it implies immanence.
Sonja: But judgment of any system or a priori relation of phenomenae exists in any rational or metaphysical or at least epistemological contradiction to an abstract and empirical concept such as being, or to be, or to occur, in the thing itself or of the thing itself!
Boris: Yeah, I’ve said that many times.

Thanks A Lot, Brain

Many, many, many years ago I was told that I had “too many morals.” This was during a period just after high school when some of my closest friend began taking advantage of as many girls as they could because… well… we were all young guys thinking about sex all of the time. At the time I was one of only two people in my group who wasn’t trying to sweet-talk girls into bed. And on one evening my friend, JW hit me with the “You know what your problem is,” line to bash me for my morality.

This code I dated by was much more complicated than JW gave me credit for, I thought. It wasn’t that I that sex was wrong to me by any stretch of the imagination. I still look back on some opportunities that I passed on and wish that I had enjoyed myself more, as long as I didn’t lead anyone on. The problem was that several of the girls my friends fooled around with thought that the guys had more than just one night in mind. Unfortunately when the them would pour on the sweetness, they had no intention of more than that moment. I knew some of these girls and many of them expected that they were getting boyfriends out of the deal. In Central Pennsylvania in the late 80’s and early 90’s, almost every girl out of high school thought they had to be married before they reached twenty-one. I felt bad for them.

I was never personally faced with the really big moral issues, so in these simple conflicts I thought my morality was based on the fact that I didn’t want to be a liar, but I also didn’t realize that some girls were interested in just fooling around as well. Or maybe it was from a Catholic upbringing which made me feel like God has His hidden cameras focused on me. One way or another, apparently I had “too many morals,” and not much fun.

A few years later I got involved in an argument over the basis of morality with some person I worked with at a summer job. This guy was pretty religious, didn’t drink, and was engaged to be married even though he was not yet out of college. By this time I was becoming agnostic, but I straddled the line between atheism and some unnamed spiritual feelings. Despite a belief that there might be some kind of place for the soul, I started questioning everything I was every taught. The coworker was certain that the only reason for morality was because of God. I thought that this was such a simplification, but I had a hard time arguing with him because I could only talk about how laws, punishment and empathy enforced morality, but nothing I said really explained my own morality remaining as it had been for so long when everything that I based it on was changing so drastically.

My favorite movie lines at the time were from Woody Allen’s Love & Death in a scene with banter between Woody & Diane Keaton -

-Morality is Subjective…
-Subjectivity is Objective…
-Morality implies immanence…
-Judgment of any system, or a priori relationship or phenomenon exists in an irrational, or metaphysical, or at least epistemological contradiction to an abstract empirical concept such as being, or to be, or to occur in the thing itself, or of the thing itself.
-Yes, I've said that many times.

Now there’s new research that there is a section of the brain which acts as our moral compass:

Scientists and philosophers long have debated how people make judgments relating to morality. Are these decisions governed strictly by a calculus of cold, hard facts and logic? Do emotions carry the day?
"This shows a much more subtle, a much more nuanced view, which of course makes the whole problem -- the science of morality -- infinitely more interesting," said Harvard University's Marc Hauser, one of the study's authors.

Of course what all of this means is that I can no longer blame my parents or my Catholic education for my annoying morality. It’s my own brain that stopped me from having all of that fun. Stupid brain!

Out of the Closet and into the Fires of Hell!

Several years ago I was approached by two men in suits who wanted to talk to my father and me about God. My father, more cool cucumber than I, told them to just keep walking. I decided to argue with them. When I told them that I believed that there was no God, they asked, “Then what’s the point to living?” To which I replied, “Why does there have to be a point?” Once they got an earful of my own annoying rhetoric, they offered blessings and quickly moved on. I was a bit of a jerk to them, but at the same time I realized back then that I am part of a disliked minority. It wasn’t long after that I told a coworker that I don’t believe in God. She, being a good Catholic, felt immediate fear for my soul and was clearly very shaken by the news. I actually felt bad for her that she was so worried about me.

Atheists really are sick, twisted individuals. How could anyone vote for someone with such a disgusting outlook? I wonder if this is what is in the minds of those who participated in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll which put atheists at the bottom of a list of identifiers for whom people would vote in the ’08 presidential race. The list included in order of most likely to least likely: Catholic, Black, Jewish, Woman, Hispanic, Mormon, Married for Third Time, 72 Years Old, Homosexual, and Atheist. An article with the list is available here:

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/02/usa_todaygallup.html

It goes to show that, for whatever reason, see non-belief as a detriment to an ability to lead. Noticeably, “qualified” and “intelligent” were not part of the list.

Happily, I read recently that one US Congressman finally came out of the closet (or sacristy) and admitted that, “he does not believe in a supreme being.”

After so many recent issues with school boards pushing Creationism and Intelligent Interference (sic.) his quote below, I think, is an encouraging bit of news.

I look forward to working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of
narrow religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the
provision of social services.

Welcome Kansas to the Late 19th Century

Despite the continued ridiculousness that many believe (such as Jon's driver during his business trip in Texas last week), Kansas schools will no longer have science screwed up by the bible.

The Kansas state Board of Education on Tuesday repealed science guidelines questioning evolution that had made the state an object of ridicule.

It does my heart and mind well to learn this news, especially after seeing the new human evolution hall at the American Museum of Natural History last weekend (more on that soon). Between the fascinating new exhibit and some new sanity in Kansas, I give Evolution 50 points in the "competition" for the brains of our citizens.

The Justice League of Jerusalem

Toys for Tots, a branch of the Marine Reserves for draft dodgers, rejected 4000 of the above pictured bible-quoting talking dolls when offered to the charity by the manufacturer, one2believe, a division of the Valencia-based Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Co.

Michael La Roe, director of business development for both companies, said the charity's decision left him "surprised and disappointed."

"The idea was for them to be three-dimensional teaching tools for kids," La Roe said. "I believe as a churchgoing person, anyone can benefit from hearing the words of the Bible."

Much in the same way the Iraqis did not greet American troops with flowers, it's shocking how people never seem to know what's best for them when it's being shoved down their throats. Okay, really what's shocking is that there are adults who have a hard time understanding that not everyone is just like them, and maybe their way is not the best or the only way. Morons.