Can We Live without God?

I saw that special on TV the other night.  Lauren Green, of Fox News Channel, was interviewing Michael Shermer of the Skeptic society, an evangelistic atheist.  His answer to the question of the program was, We do already.  He went on to argue that morality is the result of evolutionary processes to help us survive. 

Of course, that's changing the subject.  When we talk about morality we're not just talking about behavior, which is all there is in an evolutionary theory of ethics.  Shermer deftly changed the meaning of the word, which must be done to give an evolutionary account of morality.  Morality is about what is objectively true, not just a pragmatic arrangement between a species and nature. Morality is an objective standard that places an incumbency on our will, character, and actions to conform.  Behavior is involved, but morality is not mere behavior.

Atheists often mistake the challenge posed by Christians to morality without God.  Can we be good without God isn't the question.  Obviously atheists can be good.  The question is can we ground good without God?  Can we explain what good is and where it comes from without God?

Shermer went on to ridicule believing in the miracle of a virgin birth.  But what kind of miracles must Shermer believe in?  The miracle of life coming from non-life.  The miracle of design and information coming from randomness.  The miracle of something coming from nothing.

A miracles go, I'll take a virgin birth, which has an adequate explanation.  Something evolution doesn't have for its miracles.

Shermer often begins debates with a question to the Christians in the audience whether they will abandon their faith given counter-proof.  He did this at a debate STR sponsored.  What he offered didn't at all rise to the level of proof challenging Christianity.  You can purchase the recording of the debate from the STR store.   

Comments

[Berny]

Good post.

[Tony Montano]

Well recall that the question was "Can we live without God." i.e. if everyone became atheist tomorrow, would the world fall apart.

I dont think it would necessarily crumble any faster or slower than its current vector. If anything, in my experience how "good" someone is seems to be a function mostly of age and education level than anything else.

Aside from that, I think he's aware that evolutionary-based ethics has no objective foundation in the platonic realm. But the point is, that doesn't matter too much for a herd of animals (like us) just trying to make our way home from work without killing or getting killed.

Everybody sing now: "What if God was one of us, just a stranger on the bus, tryin to make his way homeeee..."

: )

[jpe]

The question is can we ground good without God? Can we explain what good is and where it comes from without God?

The ethical pragmatist response is simply: who cares? You can ground ethics all you want, and it won't make a lick of difference. The grounding of morality is for ivory tower eggheads that overvalue their theoretical projects.

[Tony Montano]

True that jpe. One more thing, on my website I recently put up a 3 minute video of elephants reacting to the bones of a dead companion. Elephants seem to be somewhat aware of death. I don't think the elephants have a bible or a savior, but they seem to get along in their herd. Are we so different?

Check it out at www.gregiswrong.com

[M. Harper]

Tony-

You may be right that things may not be much different with the current moral climate. That is possible, but consider that much of the western moral climate, much good and some bad, has stood on the shoulders of a broadly theistic moral code. If that is true, then it is plausible to think that things might have been worse or at least very different from the way things are currently if there was no theistic residue to hold together a moral structure. Now, that is not an argument, but merely a thought provoker to see more of what you think.

Second, it does not follow from age or education that someone will be any more moral. I just watched "The Island" the other day. Say, this type of world is possible, then if that country is lead by those of appropriate age and is of an excellent educational system, they will be moral. There is little reason to think this is not possible from this movie, but the movie leads one to think that the distruction of clones is immoral, which I seemed to agree. This may serve as a plausible counter example. Age or education does not entail morality, even though it may be helpful. What matters is what they have learned in their education and the content of the moral lessons learned over the course of their lifetime.

I don't recall what Shermer's stance is on the grounding of morality pertaining to what Melinda has posted, but I would venture to say that Melinda is on the right track to see what kind of implications morally follow from evolutionary processes. I think she is fishing for epistemological justification for how morality in its fullest sense is to be understood. I'll let Melinda comment on follow up post.

Also, I think the final part of your post is simply injecting cuteness for good thought...a red herring of sorts.

jpe-

Questions: How do you know that answering the grounding questions won't lead to any difference in moral practice?

Also, for the ethical pragmatist how is it that they can say that trying to supply an answer for the grounding question is "overvalue"-d? From where or what does the ethical pragmatist get or base this value judgment? Doesn't it seem that you or the ethical pragmatist is interjecting a theoretical project into the discussion here? Is it just because this judgment has worked in the past? What does it mean to "work" in the past?

The last part of your post is just fallacious name calling or bullying.

[rdb268]

jpe-
um, Nietzche (sp?) would disagree. For evidence of why it matters, read any history book on the 20th century. Took a while for the whole "God is dead" thing to play itself out, but boy did it ever take root in that century!

[Tony Montano]

harper,

waaaa? what is this stuff about The Island? Don't follow you. Statistically the "bad things" are done by young males of limited education who believe in God.

That's just the way it is home skillie.

p.s. i have a review of the island on my website www.gregiswrong.com

[Joshua]

"Statistically the "bad things" are done by young males of limited education who believe in God."

Without more specification on the "bad things" I would venture a guess that all young males of limited through higher education that believe in God do bad things.

[alan aronson]

Once one understands group dynamics and evolution, it becomes easy to understand the "grounding" of morality. There is an extensive literature on this. Today's post by Brad Delong is interesting.

"December 28, 2005
Eating Fruit Is a Mentally Taxing Activity

You don't have to be particularly smart to hunt. You do have to be particularly smart to eat fruit. The Economist says that eating fruit is a mentally-taxing activity:

If this is a man | Economist.com : Many primates, monkeys in particular, are fruit-eaters. Eating fruit is mentally taxing in two ways. The first is that fruiting trees are patchily distributed in both space and time (though in the tropics, where almost all monkeys live, there are always trees in fruit somewhere). An individual tree will provide a bonanza, but you have to find it at the right moment. Animals with a good memory for which trees are where, and when they last came into fruit, are likely to do better than those who rely on chance. Also, fruit (which are a rare example of something that actually wants to be eaten, so that the seeds inside will be scattered) signal to their consumers when they are ready to munch by changing colour. It is probably no coincidence, therefore, that primates have better colour vision than most other mammals. But that, too, is heavy on the brain. The size of the visual cortex in a monkey brain helps to explain why monkeys have larger brains than their weight seems to warrant.

The intelligence rocket's second stage was almost certainly a way of dealing with the groups that fruit-eating brought into existence. Because trees in the tropics come into fruit at random, an animal needs a lot of fruit trees in its range if it is to avoid starving. Such a large range is difficult for a lone animal to defend. On the other hand, a tree in fruit can feed a whole troop. For both these reasons, fruit-eating primates tend to live in groups.

But if you have to live in a group, you might as well make the most of it. That means avoiding conflict with your rivals and collaborating with your friends%u2014which, in turn, means keeping track of your fellow critters to know who is your enemy and who your ally. That, in turn, demands a lot of brain power.

One of the leading proponents of this sort of explanation for intelligent minds is Robin Dunbar, of Liverpool University in England. A few years ago, he showed that the size of a primate's brain, adjusted for the size of its body, is directly related to the size of group it lives in. (Subsequent work has shown that the same relationship holds true for other social mammals, such as wolves and their kin.) Humans, with the biggest brain/body ratio of all, tend to live in groups of about 150. That is the size of a clan of hunter-gathers. Although the members of such a clan meet only from time to time, since individual families forage separately, they all agree on who they are. Indeed, as Dr Dunbar and several other researchers have noticed, many organisations in the modern world, such as villages and infantry companies, are about this size.

Living in collaborative groups certainly brings advantages, and those may well offset the expense of growing and maintaining a large brain. But even more advantage can be gained if an animal can manipulate the behaviour of others, a phenomenon dubbed Machiavellian intelligence"

Posted by Brad DeLong on December 28, 2005 at 04:36 PM in History | Permalink

[rdb268]

Greg comments on this...go see at:

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5458

and

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5237

[Mike L.]

File under "Shameless Self Promotions":

Everybody take the so subtle hint and go to Tony's site so he will log more "hits" and be able to charge more for his ads! Tony--ever the pragmatist!

If you like Phil Hendrie, you can't be all bad!

[Tony Montano]

True that Mikey.

I do make about $1.45 a month. Someday, my goal is to actually get enough to pay for the $35 dollars per year server cost.

Now we're talking bling bling now mofo!

[alan aronson]

"Greg comments on this...go see at:" The comments are not vey helpful.

"Consider two cavemen in neighboring villages. One kills the other in cold blood. We're being asked to believe that he feels guilt because he realizes such an act ultimately undermines his own survival status (How? He didn't say.) In the rest of the animal kingdom, killing the opposition seems to secure just the opposite."

Unfortunately Greg reveals a lack of knowledge about animal behaviour. Social animals (wolves, apes, monkeys) have social orders that discourage conflict. Solitary predators (bears, most cats) go out of their way to avoid non-productive conflict. A basic review of the literature would have helped.

Morality is basic to our survival as humans. it would be surprising if something as basic as morality wasn't processed as an "ought".

[Agilius]

Maybe the question was worded wrong, but... It seems to me the question was never, "Can we live while not acknowledging the existence of god?"

The question is, "Can we live without god?" I'll make this short and sweet. Free will presupposes autonomous sentience, i.e. the capacity for being the source of one's own actions. Naturalism is the worldview wherein all that happens is a result of causal relationships. If Naturalism is true, then autonomous sentience is not possible.

So free will is enough to prove the existence of some sort of deity.

Oh, and since every human who has ever lived had/has free will, every human knows and has known that god exists; and the Bible made this claim looong before I did.

[alan aronson]

Agilius, The two questions are central and that they are confounded is the problem. Science is about the how of things and seeks to take that as far as it will go. It has to assume naturalism as a research strategy in order to work. It,as a discipline, is, and has to be, indifferent to the existence of God. Newton believed strongly in God but, while he was propelled by a desire to discover and understand the Creation, his calculus, optics and motion studies stand on their own.

It is your side that has decided that evolution is a threat and in that you are simply wrong. God is excluded in your minds by your adherence to beliefs that while unnecessary to God's existance are also disproved by science. You attack naturalism as a metaphysical concept while science isn't about that issue.

[Tony Montano]

"...every human who has ever lived had/has free will"

No, most humans die before cognizance. i.e. very few of us get past age 5.

[Robocop]

Greg has a FREE downloadable video lecture at Veritas on Moral Relativism. I really enjoyed it; you may too.

http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/talks/91

[Septeus7]

Quote: "Statistically the "bad things" are done by young males of limited education who believe in God."

How do you know this? That "bad things" are done? Also, most "bad things" are also by young males
who have eaten eggs. Citations of correlation is meaningless.

[Tony Montano]

Septeus,

well the orginal question was about if belief or non-belief in God would affect the moral decay vector.

Nobody knows for sure. But most of the American prison population is inhabited by young males who espouse a belief in God.

You might want to argue that u.s. criminal law is not reflective of god's law in the degree of "badness" it punishes. i.e. perhaps women who cheat on their husbands is more_bad then a drive by shooting participant.

But it seems like a decent indicator to me. i.e. one's probability of "behaving" in society doesn't seem highly dependent on one's belief in God or even heaven and hell.

At first glance I was inclined to believe the opposite. But no mo...

[Agilius]

-Alan: "It has to assume naturalism as a research strategy in order to work"

One could easily allow for the possible direct influence of a deity upon observed phenomena, while at the same time understanding that most of Creation follows causal laws.

As it is, science, as currently defined, is usually a bit short-sighted; but it is significantly so, when it affects our epistemology.

[alan aronson]

"One could easily allow for the possible direct influence of a deity upon observed phenomena, while at the same time understanding that most of Creation follows causal laws."

That observation begins where science ends. The successful application of science depends on appropriately drawing that line. An engineer (in most fields) can believe in a young earth and special creation and do just fine. Those same beliefs are impossible for a serious physicist, geologist or biologist.

You are simply off-point on epistemology. You presume a symmetry that does not exist. We impose a naturalistic methodology on what we call science because that makes it what it is and allows us to do things like go to Mars and create antibiotics.

The success of science has led to scientism in which one assumes that "science" can answer all questions. You all are faulting "science" because you have accepted the scientistic fallacy.

I'll try again: Metaphysics and epistemology impose on science a certain strategy. The success of that strategy imposes nothing on metaphysics and epistemology once one leaves the area of science.

Science is silent if one wishes to believe that a Creator somehow brought all this about. If one makes the Sun revolving around the Earth, or the Earth being flat or 6000 years old or some other item to which science can speak part of ones theology then the problem is yours not science's.

On another note you might find this speech interesting:
http://www.lbi.org/fritzstern.html

[rdb268]

question for Al A:

You say that science is silent if one wishes to believe that a Creator created...

could you explain what you mean by that a little more? I could take that a few ways. Do you mean that I can believe in God, but at the end of the day the only place God *in fact* exists is in the subjective minds of the faithful, or do you mean that science is silent on the *fact* of God's existence (that is, science doesn't have a corner on the fact and reality market. Someone can believe that God is real and that His existence is a fact and science can say nothing to negate this...is that what you mean?)?

[rdb268]

Tony: "well the orginal question was about if belief or non-belief in God would affect the moral decay vector."

--Actually, the original question (in Melinda's post) was about whether or not we can make sense of good and evil, right and wrong (a real objective good and evil, not a personal preference or societal convention) apart from the existence of God.
I think we all (or at lest most of us) agree that an atheist can behave in what we'd call a "good" way. Whether, at the end of the day, belief in God, hell, heaven, etc, makes a difference in "moral" behavior--we gotta go deeper than what we've gone here, but I do think a decent look at the history of the 20th century would tell lots.

[Tony Montano]

rdb268,

ya i think melinda extrapolated a little too liberally there. but its a good converstion starter - if not the speaker's intent.

Well the commis killed a bunch of peeps. Arguable if the soldiers on the ground were really red atheist or not.

[alan aronson]

"(that is, science doesn't have a corner on the fact and reality market."

rdb 268, that is just what I mean. Also the twentieth century wasn't the only problematic one. The 17th was also interesting. The Thirty Years War led to the death of a third of Germany's population (between the Reformation and the early 18th century some German states lost ninty percent of their population). What set the 20th apart is the numbers (due to science we had a population spike from the 16th century on) and the managerial skills coming from the Industrial Revolution (the Holocaust would have been impossible in the Middle Ages).

[Agilius]

-Alan A: "That observation begins where science ends. The successful application of science depends on appropriately drawing that line. An engineer (in most fields) can believe in a young earth and special creation and do just fine. Those same beliefs are impossible for a serious physicist, geologist or biologist."

First, that that observation begins where science ends is true merely by definition- not because the observation can't be shown to be valid. In fact, that which I employ to prove the existence of god is the same thing people used to come up with the scientific method: logic, a philosophical tool.

Second, "serious" physicists, and the like, are considered serious because they hold to a naturalistic interpretation of the evidence. How many times have Christians shown that all forms of radiometric dating have the same fundamental flaw across the board: that radiometric dating relies on an assumed original parent/child isotope ratio. And you can't simply assume that there was no special creation so that you can use radiometric dating to prove there was no special creation- if it's plausible that there was a special creation, then it's possible that all radiometric dating used to date the age of the earth will give us wrong dates. And if special creation is plausible, then any useful dating method is based on it- so one must "first" deal with the plausibility of special creation before any sense can be made of radiometric dating.

-Alan A: "You are simply off-point on epistemology. You presume a symmetry that does not exist. We impose a naturalistic methodology on what we call science because that makes it what it is and allows us to do things like go to Mars and create antibiotics."

Why is it that, me being a Christian, when I knock down dominoes, the fact that I can predict what will happen to the last domino doesn't convince me that the god of the Bible really *didn't* design most of the universe to follow sets of causal laws?

My point is that it's simply not necessary to assume a naturalistic methodology in the pursuit of knowlege of any kind. And the fact that it *is* assumed reveals, as has often been said by Christians, that science, as currently defined, relies on an a priori philosophical assumption. And don't think I fault science for having its basis in philosophy.

-Alan A: "The success of science has led to scientism in which one assumes that "science" can answer all questions. You all are faulting "science" because you have accepted the scientistic fallacy."

I think a lot (most?) of the world has accepted the scientistic fallacy; Which is why, I think, there is a considerable push for ID in public schools.

-Alan A: "I'll try again: Metaphysics and epistemology impose on science a certain strategy. The success of that strategy imposes nothing on metaphysics and epistemology once one leaves the area of science."

I don't understand what you're trying to say, here. And thanks for having consideration for my possible shortcomings.

-Alan A: "Science is silent if one wishes to believe that a Creator somehow brought all this about. If one makes the Sun revolving around the Earth, or the Earth being flat or 6000 years old or some other item to which science can speak part of ones theology then the problem is yours not science's."

Look, I understand that we can only use what we actually perceive to draw immediate conclusions about our universe. But there are other conclusions to be drawn from these immediate ones, such as: we have free will; and, we have the capacity to work out the process of discovery in our minds, not necessarily in a lab- both of which cannot be shown to be true using science, as currently defined.

Now, having said that, I will agree that if we had proof that the earth was 6 billion years old, then the Bible would be proven to be uninspired by god.

-Alan A: "On another note you might find this speech interesting:
http://www.lbi.org/fritzstern.html"

A good article, for the most part. Are you a German Jew?

Some thoughts:

[Q> At solemn moments, the National Socialists would shift from the pseudo-religious invocation of Providence to traditional Christian forms: In his first radio address to the German people, twenty-four hours after coming to power, Hitler declared, “The National Government will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built up. They regard Christianity as the foundation of our national morality and the family as the basis of national life.”

Christianity doesn't condone violence as a means of combatting faulty ideologies; That Hitler chose to do so, says nothing about Christianity. The problem wasn't religion- the problem was "which" religion (both in name and in practice- but what's in a name, right?).

[Q> Every democracy needs a liberal fundament, a Bill of Rights enshrined in law and spirit, for this alone gives democracy the chance for self-correction and reform. Without it, the survival of democracy is at risk. Every genuine conservative knows this.

Well, every genuine conservitive at least believes that a Bill of Rights must always bow to logic and morality; but, as things are in the U.S., our Bill of Rights bows to the mere majority. Let's try to keep in mind that we all have our worldviews- *all* of us.

And finally, for all his talk about the Separation of Church and State, I doubt this guy would have a problem with my religiously-based view that the god of Abraham gave Israel to the Jews, and only Israel; and that we will be blessed if we bless them, and be cursed if we curse them.

[Agilius]

For some reason that last bit didn't display right. Let me try again:

-Alan A: "On another note you might find this speech interesting:
http://www.lbi.org/fritzstern.html"

A good article, for the most part. Are you a German Jew?

Some thoughts:

*Q* At solemn moments, the National Socialists would shift from the pseudo-religious invocation of Providence to traditional Christian forms: In his first radio address to the German people, twenty-four hours after coming to power, Hitler declared,

“The National Government will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built up. They regard Christianity as the foundation of our national morality and the family as the basis of national life.”*EQ*

Christianity doesn't condone violence as a means of combatting faulty ideologies; That Hitler chose to do so, says nothing about Christianity. The problem wasn't religion- the problem was "which" religion (both in name and in practice- but what's in a name, right?).

*Q* Every democracy needs a liberal fundament, a Bill of Rights enshrined in law and spirit, for this alone gives democracy the chance for self-correction and reform. Without it, the survival of democracy is at risk. Every genuine conservative knows this.*EQ*

Well, every genuine conservitive at least believes that a Bill of Rights must always bow to logic and morality; but, as things are in the U.S., our Bill of Rights bows to the mere majority. Let's try to keep in mind that we all have our worldviews- *all* of us.

And finally, for all his talk about the Separation of Church and State, I doubt this guy would have a problem with my religiously-based view that the god of Abraham gave Israel to the Jews, and only Israel; and that we will be blessed if we bless them, and be cursed if we curse them.

[alan aronson]

"But there are other conclusions to be drawn from these immediate ones, such as: we have free will; and, we have the capacity to work out the process of discovery in our minds, not necessarily in a lab- both of which cannot be shown to be true using science, as currently defined."

Most everything is worked out in the mind but if you can't formulate a testable hypothesis from the product of the mind it isn't science it's something else and that's OK; just leave science alone.

"My point is that it's simply not necessary to assume a naturalistic methodology in the pursuit of knowlege of any kind."

Fine but if you invoke a designer one of two things will happpen: Either research in that area stops or someone presses on and shows a designer not necessary for whatever it was invoked and at that point you start shaking some folks faith. I don't think that the ID folks have thought it through.

No I'm not a German Jew, I'm an American who hopes the Republic is restored. The problem isn't Christianity per se but the use of Christian themes to manipulate too many of our fellow citizens for political gain. Mr. Stern saw it up close and personal in Germany in the 1930s and he sees disturbing parallels with the current situation in this country.

[Agilius]

-Alan A: "Most everything is worked out in the mind but if you can't formulate a testable hypothesis from the product of the mind it isn't science it's something else and that's OK; just leave science alone."

I would feel comfortable leaving science alone if I thought that professors were teaching their students that 1) science only deals with knowledge of those things in our universe that follow causal laws, *when* they follow causal laws; and 2) science is incapable of coming to conclusions about the origin of causal laws.

-Alan A: "Fine but if you invoke a designer one of two things will happpen: Either research in that area stops or someone presses on and shows a designer not necessary for whatever it was invoked and at that point you start shaking some folks faith. I don't think that the ID folks have thought it through."

Science, as currently defined, because of it's a priori assumption that an invisible sentience is not a factor in the workings of our universe, is not falsifiable, and therefore can never hope to, even in theory, be able to show that a creator is not necessary (or *is* necessary, for that matter).

Another way I like saying this is: the Naturalist's worldview would obligate him to interpret miracles as natural phenomena. Pick any miracle: resurrections, full replacements of amputated body parts, fire from heaven- if the Naturalist is consistent, he must interpret these as natural phenomena.

-Alan A: "No I'm not a German Jew, I'm an American who hopes the Republic is restored. The problem isn't Christianity per se but the use of Christian themes to manipulate too many of our fellow citizens for political gain. Mr. Stern saw it up close and personal in Germany in the 1930s and he sees disturbing parallels with the current situation in this country."

I understand misapplication. But I'm under the impression that if a Christian has read the whole Bible, that he won't come to the conclusion that Hitler did.

Now, the closest we've come to something considered that taboo is our belief that abortion is murder, and *I* happen to believe that it follows logically that those who kill babys at least *deserve* death (maybe the STR staff disagrees), regardless of whether we decide to forgive the debt he owes; but the principle isn't something we don't have some affinity for (as can be said of the vast majority of nations), so one should not think this ideology "Hitler-ish."

[alan aronson]

"Science, as currently defined, because of it's a priori assumption that an invisible sentience is not a factor in the workings of our universe, is not falsifiable, and therefore can never hope to, even in theory, be able to show that a creator is not necessary (or *is* necessary, for that matter)."

Sigh, I thought we covered this. Science does not and cannot eliminate God as a factor. It is your insistence on inserting your God into the process at a level that is inconsistent with scientific evidence that is the problem.

"Another way I like saying this is: the Naturalist's worldview would obligate him to interpret miracles as natural phenomena. Pick any miracle: resurrections, full replacements of amputated body parts, fire from heaven- if the Naturalist is consistent, he must interpret these as natural phenomena."

Nope, our Naturalist can deny the miracles or he can (should he be a methodological naturalist as opposed to a metaphysical naturalist) accept them. What he can't do is study them from a scientific point of view unless he can get God to repeat the miracle.

We are not dealing with Christians becoming fascists, we are dealing with some Christians being manipulated by appeals to "moral values" and "the family" and the like to support folks who have a hidden agenda. Add to that the trauma from 9/11 which has a lot of folks suffering from post tramatic shock and hence not thinking clearly and you have a situation ripe for totalitarian exploitation. Mr. Stern sees the unparalled corruption and lust for power in our present rulers and worries. So do I.