I am an atheist. Amid the barrage of Easter news and posts, I feel the need to reiterate the core principles of my concept of the universe:
1. I do not believe in any deities (a = not, theist = one who believes in a god) - there is a common misconception that atheists believe in 'satan' or malevolent deities due to a long tradition of vilification of the non-religious. I believe every human being is responsible for his/her own actions, and we as a society of conscious beings benefit by encouraging freedom of choice and responsibility for those freedoms.
2. I am highly moral, and believe that morality is an evolved behavioral code that preserves our species and can be taught without religion. Human beings are generally highly empathetic and that physically driven trait is the key to 'morality.'
3. I love life, humanity, nature, philosophy, art and science.
4. I believe that when you die, you simply cease to exist, and I am absolutely and completely fine with that.
5. I believe the unknown is a positive, not a negative thing. I realize that I possess only the smallest fraction of knowledge in the universe, but I am very happy about just continuing to learn and do not feel a need or desire to define the unknown with legend or mythology.
6. I am deeply empathetic with all conscious life. I support many humanitarian causes and am a vegan because I believe the use, abuse and killing of animals for our convenience and enjoyment is almost entirely unnecessary and detrimental to human psychology.
7. I see the critical human traits as intelligence, self-awareness, compassion/empathy and the drive to understand.
8. I see value in many religions as social constructs and teaching tools, although I generally don't see a 'need' for them. I believe the same values can be taught through knowledge, experience and the demonstrable benefits of a compassionate and empathetic life. I grew up Baptist/Christian, and I saw many wonderful core principles in the passages in the bible attributed to Jesus. Unfortunately, I think many other core elements of Christianity and other religions go against these passages by imposing judgement on others, embracing and utilizing violence in the name of the religion and justifying the 'authority' of religious leaders.
9. I see no need to impose my beliefs on anyone else, with the caveat that I believe humanity should not tolerate any religion or belief system that restricts the freedoms or life of those who do not believe it. That includes secular or religious beliefs. I feel it is important to share information to increase understanding, which is the motivation behind this post. However, I have no interest in convincing anyone else to be an atheist or adhere to the principles I hold for myself. Believe what you want as long as you do not impose your beliefs or their resulting rules on me.
10. I do not see human beings or human life as central or key to the universe. I believe we are simply animals with decently adaptive thinking, social skills and tool usage, and I believe it is important to have an objective perspective so we don't treat our world and other beings as expendable or tools for our convenience.
A lot of people posting their religious beliefs on my friend list and I think it is important to try and clarify an atheist self-concept to maybe help remove some of the negativity or ambiguity that is often associated with the term.
so if morality is an evolved attribute, then the best adapted members of our species are the most moral and therefore have more power(money). So are rich people like George bush more moral then those of us who are well broke? hmmmm, I am going to have to think about this one and think about what morality is.
ReplyDeleteI think we can all say that's unlikely ;)
ReplyDeleteMorality is beneficial at a species level, not at a personal level. Any individual can override these tendencies for their personal benefit, but ultimately that tends to lead to unhappiness and ruin in the long run because people are designed to be social. Happiness in humans is pretty directly linked to social interaction. Social interaction is generally given as a reward (by the other members of society) for positive 'moral' behavior.
And actually, wealth doesn't mean genetic success... generally the opposite from what I can tell. The large families are generally mid to low income. Financial success does lead to ownership of land and some degree of long term security for your offspring, but I'd argue that it ultimately doesn't seem to benefit people in promoting significant lineage or happiness. I know there are studies on the happiness part, but I don't remember seeing any stats on the benefits to genetic line or anything.
I'd basically say morality benefits the society, so society rewards morality. It's more of a micro-reward or helps make an individual happy and sustained, but I think it ultimately increases survivability and genetic propogation.
I like this idea, but the logic still seems flawed. (not that logic is all that necessary for something to be true in my opinion). Here is why I think morality is a null issue completely on a large scale.
ReplyDelete1. morality is subjective. For example I have friends who believe in a woman's right and think it is completely moral to help women have abortions. I also know people who think this is the most morally corrupt thing a person can do. This is an American issue, but I could also use cultural examples such as female genital mutilation(or circumcision as Africans would call it.) We see this as morally wrong(or I am guessing most Americans would). Africans I am guessing see it as moral and actually protecting women against their own insatiable sexual drive that will ultimately lead to their personal and societies corruption.
2. the old if a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound argument. If someone does something "good" and no one sees it, is it "good"? They certainly will not be benefited by social acceptance. And if morality is simply something we do to be socially accepted does than mean the one who is most moral is the one who makes sure everyone knows they are moral? I have often seen that the most socially accepted people are simply well better looking and dress nicer.
note:I like talking and thinking about these issues. I have been thinking about this everyday. So with that in mind and with Mikes original point. I like atheists, and atheism. Though with full discoloser I am a pagan and therefore embrace multiplicity in nature and in human nature and believe that something can be indeed both moral and immoral, and even more complicated, a thing can be moral or immoral based on the context of the action, culture, time, etc...
Hey Fredrick. Now we're in the thick of it ;)
ReplyDeleteI think all morality aims to be the same thing; a set of rules which promote a stable, peaceful and sustainable society. I think the problem, from my point of view of course, is that too much of our morality is based on historical definitions of morality with no solid foundational evidence of effectiveness.
My thought is just that we should abandon rules based on conjecture, unless they do not impact the individual rights of members of the society. I doubt anyone can actually validate a causal link between genital mutilation/removal and an actual decrease in sexual 'infidelity' of said women, and it is obviously a horrific infringement on their right to sexual enjoyment. Society as a whole should not tolerate that kind of personal rights denial just because there is an uninformed historical decision by some spiritual or government leader that posited it as a potential way to 'improve' society. That type of rule clearly targets women in denying them a natural right in a very sad attempt to preserve a situation for men. If there is a way to impose the same 'desensitizing' effect to help curb male infidelity (while preserving procreation capabilities), I seriously doubt it would have come to fruition. Societal morality rules that give different levels of 'rights' based on gender/creed/race/beliefs are clearly, and by very definition, lead to the oppression and polarization of different groups in the society. I personally believe that type of polarization is what leads to the eternal cycles of conflict and upheaval in our world, so those types of 'morals' are in my opinion causing the opposite effect of the intention of 'morals'.
Situations like abortion are tricky because they are based on intense emotional convictions about the definition of 'life.' I completely understand the passion with which people argue and fight against abortion. I am a vegan because I hate the concept that any being is unnecessarily experiencing pain or discomfort. I have the same feeling about babies in the womb. However, I do believe there is a definable point in development when a fetus becomes a 'baby' and can experience pain, and another point where there can be some sense of awareness. Experiencing pain is bad, but somehow all of the people who feel so much empathy with these babies can eat hamburgers, hot-dogs, ribs, etc. and never consider the pain of all of the creatures who die and live daily in miserable conditions for their enjoyment. I don't think of humans as significantly different from most animals at that level of development. Sure, they have more potential, but I find it incredibly unlikely that they have any special awareness compared to other animals at that phase.
continued next post...
The problem is that many people believe in an undetectable, but utterly critical aspect of these babies called a soul. Nobody can actually validate, prove or even really define this, but it is the most important aspect of these unborn babies for people who believe in it. Strangely, I think all of the people who believe in this would expect the babies soul to continue on in a cycle of rebirth or go directly to eternal paradise in the event that it was terminated, but that is somehow less preferable than being born to a mother who doesn't want to have/raise it.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not agree with terminations after the point that the baby/being can feel pain unless there is danger to the mother, although I haven't researched to understand if that is within the currently defined laws. I believe that we as a society should indeed protect babies once they are functional animals, but I think that extends to paying to help bring that child to term if the parents can't, and then providing the adoption resources to get it placed with parents. However, I personally think I am much more truly empathetic to animals experiencing suffering or pain than most of the people who feel this. It actually surprises me that people are apparently so empathetic to unborn babies, but seem to be completely callous to the pain and death of other animals (except for their personal pets of course, although they would certainly treat it with less reverence than the babies).
So essentially I see that type of issue as tricky because it's based on emotional reactions to unverifiable beliefs. There is pretty clear understanding of both when the brain systems form that would be capable of processing pain and when they are active, and from what I have read it looks like 95%+ of the abortions performed happen significantly before this, but ultimately I don't think that even makes any difference to a large percentage (probably even a majority) of the people who are anti-abortion because they consider the soul to be present long before this. Essentially this leads to the result that any abortion is considered an infringement on human rights, because those rights are attributed to the soul (by the people in question), not the body of the baby/fetus.
Unfortunately this, like many other morals dictated by historical or religious beliefs, or just a lack of scientific understanding, creates a scenario where very real and tangible human rights to happiness and personal choice are infringed upon due to another individual's subjective beliefs. That's the type of system I think makes no sense. Anyone can decide that they believe in some unverifiable fact, but that should not be used as a basis for creating a law that infringes on the right of another.
continued next post...
Say tomorrow that someone published an unverified and untested magazine article saying that women were susceptible to control by aliens that were planning to invade our society, so they must be monitored at all times for potential alien influence, and incarcerated if they do anything out of the ordinary. Obviously everyone would consider it ridiculous (at least I hope ;) ). There is just as much actual evidence regarding souls as there is about aliens (none), but a majority of the human population is convinced they exist. Actually, there is significantly more statistical likelihood for aliens existing ;) Essentially I think the reality of people is that they are capable of believing anything, and when enough people believe a particular thing, it gains validity, even when it has no tangible evidence. This is always going to leave things like morals as being enslaved to popular opinion. I'm not arguing that morals aren't subjective... quite to the opposite, I'm arguing that the problem IS that they are too subjective. They should apply universally to all humans, they should only go to the point of restricting personal freedoms when a behavior is *clearly* detrimental to society or other individuals based on scientific/experimental/behavioral evidence. I think most of our laws in the US comply with these ideas, but we clearly have some screwed up situations like homosexual partner rights. I also don't really expect the realities of the world to change any time soon... I'm just talking about my ideals.
ReplyDeleteThat was officially WAY too much to write.
In a very simple response to the tree in the forest analogy -- I think virtually no activities happen in enough of a vacuum to have no impact on the social interactions of an individual. Even 'good' deeds that are done with no awareness of the society affect the way a person feels about themselves and therefore leads to more positive interactions with the other members of society. I think this is a pretty difficult scenario to 'prove,' but we could come up with some good examples. Perhaps I'll try to do that later. Essentially I think that virtually all choices affect human psychology and affect the interaction with other members of the society in ways that provide steady positive feedback to individuals contributing to the society, and steady negative feedback to individuals whose behavior is detrimental to society. I will try to think of good specific examples of that if you want to think of examples that oppose that idea (I'll probably end up trying to think of both anyway ;) ).