The World without Religion

1. What started the Big Bang?I don't know, but is God any more unreasonable than a causeless effect? That seems very unreasonable to me.An eternal universe with an infinite # of contractions and explosions would make more sense, but haven't they ruled that out?2. Why do we have a conscience? I have never been able to convince myself that a sense of right and wrong is totally cultural. Everybody says that cultures have different moralities. Well, they do in the details (like, for example, how many wives you can have), but do they differ in the essentials? Like honesty and courage being a good thing and so forth? If we could posit a universal essential morality, that suggests an objective morality. Which makes you wonder where that came from.3. Why in human history has every civilization believed in God? Where did the idea come from in the first place? Who would dream that up and why? It's universal in history and so must be some natural trait of mankind. Not that this proves much, but still . . .4. Primordial, this is the 2nd time you've sent me scurrying to the dictionary, and my dictionary doesn't have "qualia" in it. The point about matter and mind is this: the problem that I see with evolution (if it is a problem)is how matter can create mind. Now if mind creates matter we call it a miracle. Why is not matter creating mind a miracle? I do not understand how a certain number and type of brain cells produce "consciousness," of all things. The mental, if it exists, is such a very different thing from the physical. For one thing it exists in time but not in space (of course, the word "exist" here is probematic). You can argue there is no such thing as mentality (that it's all physical) and if that's true then of course the problem is solved. But I haven't been able to convince myself of that.My overall point is that positing a God is not totally unreasonable--just very problematic.

Hi Robin:This is becoming an interesting thread.1. What started the Big Bang? I have no idea, but you might find discussions of quantum non-causality interesting (look up Bohr, Heisenberg or Pauli). This is what I think John's been trying to get at. Basically, if I understand the thing, the idea derives from Heisenberg's indeterminancy in quantum mechanics extrapolated to before Planck time in the BB. I think the equations for what happens in an extreme gravity well like a singularity describe the conditions (or an analog) of the "pre-bang". I'm not sure this is accurate, and there may be some new ideas. It's well beyond my comprehension, I'm afraid. I personally believe quantum physicists are practicing black magic, but I think that is the (an) explanation for non-caused effects.

quote:

---

2. Why do we have a conscience? I have never been able to convince myself that a sense of right and wrong is totally cultural. Everybody says that cultures have different moralities. Well, they do in the details (like, for example, how many wives you can have), but do they differ in the essentials? Like honesty and courage being a good thing and so forth? If we could posit a universal essential morality, that suggests an objective morality. Which makes you wonder where that came from.

---

I'm not really sure how you're defining conscience. If you're using it as "a sense of right and wrong", which is what I get from the above, then it would appear to be limited to strict value judgement - something that can only apply in the particular cultural and social context. On the other hand, if you're positing a normative, objective morality shared by all humans, I'd say you're probably both right and wrong.At the most fundamental level, humans are a gregarious species that has evolved to function in a group. As John pointed out somewhere, we're really pretty helpless without the group. Rather obviously, any behaviors that have the net effect of enhancing individual functioning within the group will be favored by selection - since it enhances individual survival. In this sense certain cooperative and even altruistic intragroup behavior - morality - can be said to be normative. It makes sense for the wellbeing of the individual, and only by extension the society, for people to behave themselves. It is in our selfish interest. There may even be behaviors (or more likely behavioral constraints) that still prevail generally across the entire species (I'm thinking of incest taboos, for one - obvious biological basis and quite possibly a normative behavior that has been defined as "moral"). For more information on the evolution of altruism and how evolution provided humans with morality (or at least the basis — it is, in essence, a cultural trait), you might find this article interesting: The Evolution of Ethics.On the other hand, you have to separate this intrinsic cooperative bent inherited from our primitive ancestors from the significantly more complex and subjective ideas of "right and wrong". What is "right" in one society or at one time may or may not be "right" in another. I think you would agree that killing someone because they are a "witch", for example, would be considered "wrong" in the context of our modern society. Yet there was a time - not so very long ago - where that was not only "right", but actually praiseworthy. We in the West tend to frown on female circumcision, and yet it is still practiced (or was until just a few years ago) in other societies - where it was considered the "right" thing to do.I think my biggest problem with the concept of "universal morality" is that people tend to misuse the term by ascribing morality to their particular cultural tenets. "Our" behavior/morality is correct. "Their" behavior is wrong/immoral. I would submit that only those behaviors and constraints that are biologically based - even if culturally expressed - can be considered "universal". And with the advances and complexity of modern society, even biologically-based group behaviors can be - and often are - trumped by culture.

quote:

---

3. Why in human history has every civilization believed in God? Where did the idea come from in the first place? Who would dream that up and why? It's universal in history and so must be some natural trait of mankind. Not that this proves much, but still . . .

---

I disagree. Every civilization has NOT believed in God. Every society for which we have any kind of record, historical or archeological evidence, HAS manifested some belief in the supernatural. But it very often equated to multiple deities, putative supernatural attributes of ununderstood natural phenomena, etc. There is even some of what I consider fairly provocative, if far from conclusive, evidence that pre-civilized humans (including neanderthals) had something of the same kind of "belief".I would say, however, that rather than providing any evidence in favor of an extrinsic, extranatural or supernatural "force", "being", "entity", or "deity", the apparent universality of this capacity to believe has a natural explanation that derives from the way our brains and perceptions function. I posted a fairly lengthy essay on this subject on this board - I'll try and dig up the link to it.post 17[/url] Enjoy.As to your point #4, I think we've pretty much covered that in the other thread. BTW: "qualia", according to dictionary.com, is "A property, such as whiteness, considered independently from things having the property." I think PE is using it to express the same idea I tried to convey in the other thread - you're attempting to divorce mind and brain - I think, erroneously.[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 11-26-2002]

Quetzal, as regards the question of right and wrong and your example of witches. I would say that there is no change in moral principle here. The change is in our understanding of facts about the world. We no longer believe in witches. If we did, no doubt we would punish them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by robinrohan:
Quetzal, as regards the question of right and wrong and your example of witches. I would say that there is no change in moral principle here. The change is in our understanding of facts about the world. We no longer believe in witches. If we did, no doubt we would punish them.

---

You're quite possibly correct. I pulled that example out of the air - it may not be the best to typify what I was trying to get across. Nonetheless, the basic point still stands - valuations such as "right" and "wrong" are culturally dependent.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
You're quite possibly correct. I pulled that example out of the air - it may not be the best to typify what I was trying to get across. Nonetheless, the basic point still stands - valuations such as "right" and "wrong" are culturally dependent.

---

granting the cultural dependency of 'right and wrong' seems... well, wrong ... granting the valuation placed on acts that are *perceived* right or wrong seems a better way to state it...we've had this discussion so often it's really hard to say anything new... now i'm not saying that *every* act of man is or even can be considered objectively good or evil (such as female circumcision)... however, even if that's true does it follow that some things aren't evil, in an objective sense?to even hint that the torture, rape, and murder of a small child can, depending on societal or cultural bias, be "right" seems intuitively unsupportable... is such an act evil, in and of itself? or is it simply wrong based on the opinion of the majority at any one time?P=the rape, torture, murder of a small child is evil
Q=the rape, torture, murder of a small child is not evilP or Q
not ___
___fill in the blanks based on your own worldview or based on some objective standard? i dunno, what do you think?

Quetzal, the way a case can be made for universal morality is if we can say that certain concepts--let's call them virtues or vices--can be said to be meaningful as such, without regard to particular cases.Let's say "stealing" is a vice. Now one group may say that a particular case is not an example of stealing, whereas others say it is. Nonetheless they both agree that "stealing" (however defined in a particular case) is a vice. And so stealing is a universal vice.

Hi forgiven,I don't disagree that there can be a good case made for normative behavior in humans as a species. In fact, I made that very case and gave an example in the post you mostly ignored. However, I believe you are attempting once again to assign value to a particular cultural affect - the concepts of "right" and "wrong" are different across cultures. Note: the normative behaviors I postulate could, if you wished, be so designated, and I won't quibble. However, that isn't the way you appear to be using the terms.A normative behavior (or moral "rightness") at the species level would appear to be anything that increases group cohesion, decreases intragroup aggression, or increases group marginal fitness. Please note that the behavior patterns that might be quite adaptive within a group may contribute to intergroup aggression (such as territoriality or out-group exclusion, kin selection, etc). Who is to say, in this case, that the behavior is "right"? It certainly helps the group of which the organism in question is a member, but could be considered "wrong" from the standpoint of the OTHER group.As far as "evil" - define the term without reference to your particular worldview. IOW, define it in terms of the human species without referring to Western ideas of morality, Christianity, or cultural ethics, etc. Not easy to do, is it?

quote:

---

to even hint that the torture, rape, and murder of a small child can, depending on societal or cultural bias, be "right" seems intuitively unsupportable... is such an act evil, in and of itself? or is it simply wrong based on the opinion of the majority at any one time?

---

There you go, defining the question in terms that have only one "right" answer. How about this: there have been societies who, at one time or another or for one reason or another, have accepted the practice (I don't know about rape and torture, but murder, infanticide, child sacrifice, etc certainly). To me personally, I agree that the idea is anathema - morally repugnant in the extreme. However, I submit that I only "believe" this because in the context of MY society (the one in which I was raised; the culture into which I've been inculcated since birth) by the tenets of MY culture, it is so. I can speculate, however, knowing what I know of behavior and society, that if I had been raised in a culture where infanticide was considered normal, there is no reason to expect that a hypothetical "me", raised under those conditions and in that culture, would not also consider it normal. Which means that defining a universal "right" and "wrong" is specious.BTW: Don't bother with your little logic syllogisms. I simply have no interest in arguing symbolic logic. Maybe Mr. Pemboli or John will indulge you. For me, just address the points you ignored in the post to which you responded, thanks.

Hi robin: See my reply to forgiven. As to vice - if you can define a vice that holds throughout the species, then I'll grant your point. For reference, my wife's ancestors come from a town called Horne Stepanov in the Tatras Mountains of Slovakia. Smuggling, cross-border raids and cattle rustling are major economic activities. The most successful theives are actually honored - or so my wife tells me. Note: they don't steal from each other - only their neighbors in other communities. Within group stealing = bad. Out group stealing = good. Now tell me again how there's a universal vice known as stealing?

Obviously the Slovakian case is one in which "stealing" is defined differently than usual. Since I do not know Slavokian mind-sets, let me offer an alternative example.Suppose a communist revolution. The communist rebels take a rich man's property. The rich man calls it stealing. The communists do not. However, both agree that stealing is bad. The argument is not over that, but over the definition of ownership.

Hi Robin,I see your point, and agree with what you have written here. However, I see your example as actually providing additional weight to my contention: both groups may regard stealing as "bad" - but only in the particular context. Stealing a rich man's property is in fact accepted by the thief in your example because culturally they have redefined the expropriation of property to be something other than theft - which is what I meant by cultural or societal norms being different across cultures. I think it might be more effective to try and identify those behaviors that were, in fact, normative across the entire species, and that DIDN'T depend on cultural context for your examples. It's a tough challenge - one faced by the evo psych folks constantly: how to identify a discrete cultural affect.

Quetzal, yeah I guess you're right. If the definition of stealing can not be pinned down at all, then it loses all meaning.

Hi Robin,Actually, I probably wouldn't go so far as to say the term theft - or whatever else we describe in any example as "moral" or "right" as far as that goes - is meaningless. It has definite meaning, including appropriate reward or punishment, in the cultural context in which it is used. I guess what I'm saying is that we have to be careful what we define as "right" by realizing that the term is a subjective valuation. I think we CAN define specific behaviors that are normative across all or most of the human species. We merely have to separate out what is a value from what is normal.

Quetzal, I was trying to figure out a definition of stealing (or whatever) that could be universal, but there's always a term in the definition (or many terms) that cannot be pinned down. In the example about commmunists and rich men, if I say they both agree that stealing is bad but disagree about ownership, all I have done is displace the equivocal meaning to another term. How am I going to define stealing without defining ownership? Ownership is a key term in any definition of "stealing." So the example doesn't really prove anything. It's a mere playing around with words.However, I do think that a lot of times when somebody might say that different moral principles are at work, there is really not a difference of moral principle but a difference in "facts" (as in the example about witches).

Quetzal, as regards Post 17, it seems to me like you're saying that any creature with a developed brain is likely to start beliving in the supernatural, if not God. Example: you talk about humans being prone to detecting patterns. Some turn out to be real and some not. I would think that the ability to detect patterns would be a universal quality of developed brainpower, but you seem to want to make it more human-specific.

quote:

---

Originally posted by robinrohan:
Quetzal, as regards Post 17, it seems to me like you're saying that any creature with a developed brain is likely to start beliving in the supernatural, if not God. Example: you talk about humans being prone to detecting patterns. Some turn out to be real and some not. I would think that the ability to detect patterns would be a universal quality of developed brainpower, but you seem to want to make it more human-specific.

---

Hi robin,No, not really what I meant to say (I'll have to reread that essay and make some changes if that was the impression you were left with). What I was trying to get across in that essay was that the "capacity to believe" is something of an emergent property based on the neuroarchitecture of our brains - how we store and process perception, how we learn, how we associate two (or more) events, emotional states, etc. I tried to make the point that this growth of capacity to believe is an outgrowth of an adaptive response we inherited from our non-human ancestors - and that we probably share in some measure with our non-human cousins. No question that pattern detection is shared across a HUGE variety of organisms - anything with a functioning sensory system (or at least some kind of vision), beyond the basic rhodopsin eyespot in fact.However, if you follow that argument down to the end, you'll see that - as far as religion or an articulation of the divine - I only blame humans, or at least Homo, because, afaik, we're the only organism ever to inflict that on ourselves because we were the first organism to be able to... It was certainly not my intent to imply humans are anything more than clever animals. BTW: I think I'm going to re-write the last paragraph or so in that essay. I seem to have conflated a couple of concepts - such as the difference between "religion" in the sense of a coherent attempt to explain the assymetry between perception and reality (which is more properly "religious" or "magical" thinking) and "religion" in the sense of a hierarchical social structure with set rituals, beliefs, etc. I'll ahve to give it some more thought...