Frans DeWaal of the New York Times has written a thoughtful piece on the origins of morality, altruism, and whether God has anything to do with it. It’s definitely worth the read, so check it out.
What does science say about morality?
While I do consider religious institutions and their representatives — popes, bishops, mega-preachers, ayatollahs, and rabbis — fair game for criticism, what good could come from insulting individuals who find value in religion? And more pertinently, what alternative does science have to offer? Science is not in the business of spelling out the meaning of life and even less in telling us how to live our lives. We, scientists, are good at finding out why things are the way they are, or how things work, and I do believe that biology can help us understand what kind of animals we are and why our morality looks the way it does. But to go from there to offering moral guidance seems a stretch.
Many people in the comments suggest Sam Harris’ new book The Moral Landscape to help explain what science can offer in terms of moral answers for humanity. I haven’t read it yet, but it’s high on my list! Have any of you read The Moral Landscape? What do you think?
Imagine no religion
DeWaal seems to think any ordered guidelines for moral living—even if formed completely without God—would be indistinguishable from the religion-based guidelines we have today.
… [T]he building blocks of morality are older than humanity, and that we do not need God to explain how we got where we are today. On the other hand, what would happen if we were able to excise religion from society? I doubt that science and the naturalistic worldview could fill the void and become an inspiration for the good. Any framework we develop to advocate a certain moral outlook is bound to produce its own list of principles, its own prophets, and attract its own devoted followers, so that it will soon look like any old religion.
Atheists tend to daydream about a world without religion (a la John Lennon). It seems as if DeWaal is afraid of what might happen if such a radical change came to pass. Personally, I don’t see this happening. Do you think we will evolve ourselves out of religion? Will we become a secular world society one day or simply destroy ourselves first?
I recommend reading the conversation that continues in the comments of this piece. Many mature insights are shared. Here’s one response to the quote above:
But is religion really “an inspiration for the good” ? If the “building blocks” predate religion, why would we need religion to inspire us to do good ? Just like a child will make something out of the Lego blocks you put in front of him without you telling him to, we could very well just be tempted to use those blocks we have. At best, religion just has a placebo effect: some people think they are good because religion tells them to, while in reality, they would be good anyway.
What do you think?
(HT goodreasonnews)
I feel uncomfortable when it comes to making promises. Saying something like “I can absolutely do that for you.” or “I’ll send that to you ASAP” makes me wary. Why? Because I know myself.
I’m not completely trustworthy, especially when it comes to getting things done. I don’t want to promise anything until I know that I will actually do it and do it on time. Breaking a promise means losing someone’s trust. It also means that I was dishonest (even if unintentionally).
Bigger promises lke “I will always love you” and “I swear I will never ____ again” are obvious trouble-makers. But so many of us say them without worrying if we’ll later break those vows later on. But what if we didn’t promise anything? What would that be like, and would out loved ones have the same confidence and security with us? How would a wedding vow that says “I will try my best to love you for as long as we are compatible” sound?
Lying and promise-breaking also bothered me as a Christian believer. In high school I meditated on the themes of speech, lying, and the power of the tongue. Pardon me for a minute, because I’m about to give you all a little bible study:
Yeah, yeah… fiery depths of hell for all liars, blah blah. We got it. But wait. Behind all the “die evildoers” text, I think these verses contain lessons about our speech that people of all religions and non-belief can live by:
- Live with integrity; be trustworthy
- Words have consequences
- Think before you speak
Do you make promises of love and commitment when you know you might not keep them? Do you make promises in general?
One of my friends on plurk sent out this quote:
Let your desire for pleasure and your desire for feeling good be your only guiding light.
So far, I’m the only one who has reacted negatively to the message, and I suppose I’m not surprised. I take a lot of things seriously, and I’m not exactly a wild and crazy free spirit. Hedonism has always prompted an inner dissonance for me, and I’m trying to get to the bottom of why. I wonder if I’m an outlier in the secular community. Perhaps I’m missing the mark.
What is Hedonism?
Hedonism is an ethical system that stems from this truth: people are motivated primarily by the production of pleasure and happiness and the avoidance of pain. It argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good. I agree that we humans do in fact desire our own happiness so strongly that it can outweigh most other impulses or values.
What bothers me? Selfishness and a lack of compassion. Hedonism strikes me as ultimately self-serving and love-less. When a person embraces his or her passions and vices to the detriment of another’s wellbeing or the social good, then I lose respect for that individual. Hell, I even lose respect for myself when I seek my own happiness and comfort over that of another person. I admire those who seek the greater good and the contentment and peace of the group over their own pleasure; I wish I could say I acted this way more often.
Living a hedonistic lifestyle may not be the best choice for imbalanced individuals. Should a pedophile seek pleasure and happiness even though sexual satisfaction is at the expense of a child and against the law? what about addictions? Isn’t moderation or the agony of quitting better even if it is painful or difficult? Perhaps I’m thinking of sily examples, but the people I’ve met who have said they embrace hedonism have often been those who are rebelling against limits and healthy living in moderation. Perhaps they don’t understand it in its ideal form—whatever that may be. Hey, I’m no expert!
What should we value? Should the seeking of pleasure and lack of discomfort trump an altruistic or sacrificial decision?



