[_ Old Earth _] The disconnect between morality, religions, and evolution.

[BobRyan]

Wow Bob, Strike ...ARGGG!

Non-answer after non-answer post that dodges the points raised Jay -- you seem to have endless capacity for it.


Bob

 

[Snidey]

One problem i have with morals based on evolution and the view that we are animals evolved is
If we are simply animals then should we not ignore morals as our actions have no final consequence, no God to punish the evil. In the animal kingdom all that matters is suvival. Many animals kill each other fight over territory, have sex with or eat their young
Many humans do this but if God does not exist or you think he does not exist then how do you seriously not condone these acts?
Someones child has just been raped, who cares? Its a dog eat dog world aint it?

You have it fairly backwards in my opinion. Morals are not "based on evolution" in any sense. That would be social Darwinism, and is really a philosophy rather than some kind of natural outgrowth of evolutionary biology (though even if it was, it wouldn't make evolutionary theory less accurate). Our sense of morality is in large part derived from intuitions that have developed due to natural selection - this is why we see such oddly similar, often even illogical moral trends across all nations, cultures, and people. It's also why we see people across the world hold biological family on a pedestal, for example. If you notice, other animals have very similar instincts. I have three gerbils in this room. One of them is the mother of the others, and as they grew up she took care of them, sheltered them from danger, and ensured that they remained consistently safe. Is this the result of her morality? When the same exact tendencies are present in other animals, no one is hesitant to confirm that this is due to biological processes. In fact, it pretty much has to be, because that gerbil mother is not even self-aware, let alone capable of comprehending ethical questions. Why then, when humans are in question, must we insist that our sense of what is moral is somehow originating from a different source? There are also various different socially and/or culturally learned morals, which can be hammered into you by your parents or TV or whatever.

But the important part of this is that just because natural processes discriminate in one way doesn't mean that we have to. If I see a kitten that falls into a pool, I don't allow it to drown - just because that species of cat has not evolved the ability to swim well and escape a pool does not mean it deserves to drown. Just because a child has not grown strong enough to defend himself does not mean he deserves to be hurt. Only lunatics would make such claims, and believing in evolution has never been correlated to such an atrocious lack of moral standards.

Natural selection is not the basis for a set of moral standards any more than any other concept that helps explain our world. We shouldn't base our morality off of evolutionary principles any more than we should base it off of gravity. What evolutionary theory has done is given us insight into how our common and seemingly inherent sense of morality has developed over time.

 

[BobRyan]

Huxley correct on what Darwinism does to humans -- Snidey is just making stuff up.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33008&p=392035#p392028

Bob

 

[Snidey]

Let the record show that Bob, after his clearly outlined analysis, has linked to his own post, three posts up.

 

[BobRyan]

Correct -- click on the link and read.

Bob

 

[Snidey]

No need, the post is on this page, so I read it four posts ago.

 

[Gabe]

One problem i have with morals based on evolution and the view that we are animals evolved is If we are simply animals then should we not ignore morals as our actions have no final consequence, no God to punish the evil. In the animal kingdom all that matters is suvival. Many animals kill each other fight over territory, have sex with or eat their young
Many humans do this but if God does not exist or you think he does not exist then how do you seriously not condone these acts?
Someones child has just been raped, who cares? Its a dog eat dog world aint it?

You have it fairly backwards in my opinion. Morals are not "based on evolution" in any sense. That would be social Darwinism, and is really a philosophy rather than some kind of natural outgrowth of evolutionary biology (though even if it was, it wouldn't make evolutionary theory less accurate). Our sense of morality is in large part derived from intuitions that have developed due to natural selection - this is why we see such oddly similar, often even illogical moral trends across all nations, cultures, and people. It's also why we see people across the world hold biological family on a pedestal, for example. If you notice, other animals have very similar instincts. I have three gerbils in this room. One of them is the mother of the others, and as they grew up she took care of them, sheltered them from danger, and ensured that they remained consistently safe. Is this the result of her morality? When the same exact tendencies are present in other animals, no one is hesitant to confirm that this is due to biological processes. In fact, it pretty much has to be, because that gerbil mother is not even self-aware, let alone capable of comprehending ethical questions. Why then, when humans are in question, must we insist that our sense of what is moral is somehow originating from a different source? There are also various different socially and/or culturally learned morals, which can be hammered into you by your parents or TV or whatever.

But the important part of this is that just because natural processes discriminate in one way doesn't mean that we have to. If I see a kitten that falls into a pool, I don't allow it to drown - just because that species of cat has not evolved the ability to swim well and escape a pool does not mean it deserves to drown. Just because a child has not grown strong enough to defend himself does not mean he deserves to be hurt. Only lunatics would make such claims, and believing in evolution has never been correlated to such an atrocious lack of moral standards.

Natural selection is not the basis for a set of moral standards any more than any other concept that helps explain our world. We shouldn't base our morality off of evolutionary principles any more than we should base it off of gravity. What evolutionary theory has done is given us insight into how our common and seemingly inherent sense of morality has developed over time.

Snidey that does not alter the fact that if God did not exist and we are simply a product of evolution, then morals only matter to the individual not the human race as a whole, so if someone who has no qualms about hurting the said child; hurts that child, it is because his then equally valid perception of what is moral allowed him to.

If Christianity and other faiths (which have collective morals which they believe the have to follow) disappeared, then all you would be left with is the law of the land (or to be more exact; the particular land you live in) and they in turn are mostly based on the dominant religion of that Country (for e.g. Christianity-America Islam-Saudi Arabia) so theoretically to someone who has no belief in God, these laws would not mean a thing (and hurting that child would neither be wrong or right, it would just be)

 

[BobRyan]

Snidey that does not alter the fact that if God did not exist and we are simply a product of evolution, then morals only matter to the individual not the human race as a whole, so if someone who has no qualms about hurting the said child; hurts that child, it is because his then equally valid perception of what is moral allowed him to.)

Far worse - darwinism only valies the one who leaves the most descendants -- regardless of species or marriage vows.

Darwinian evolutionism is not merely amoral it is immoral so much so that in Huxley's mind - evolutionism "invented god".

As for more of Huxley -- see this post -- this page

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33008&p=392040#p392028

Bob

 

[Snidey]

Snidey that does not alter the fact that if God did not exist and we are simply a product of evolution, then morals only matter to the individual not the human race as a whole, so if someone who has no qualms about hurting the said child; hurts that child, it is because his then equally valid perception of what is moral allowed him to.

If Christianity and other faiths (which have collective morals which they believe the have to follow) disappeared, then all you would be left with is the law of the land (or to be more exact; the particular land you live in) and they in turn are mostly based on the dominant religion of that Country (for e.g. Christianity-America Islam-Saudi Arabia) so theoretically to someone who has no belief in God, these laws would not mean a thing (and hurting that child would neither be wrong or right, it would just be)

Did you totally miss my post? If you removed all religion, we would STILL have a sense of morality because of our biology. This is the insight that evolution provides us with regards to morality.

Why aren't murder rates higher among non-believers? Why do so many atheistic nations (Finland, Japan) have such low instances of violent crime next to the most Christian nations in the world? The answer is not that atheists are morally superior or that Christians are violent. It's simply that there are other variables in play, and levels of theism is not one of them.

As far as an intellectual framework for ethics without religion, that's easy. In fact, the average person's intuition would be objectively superior to any major religion, functionally. The easiest way to measure morality is to judge the amount of harm and the amount of good an action does. If that information is attainable, you have a perfectly logical morality that ensures the most benefits and the least harm. If you want to believe that morality is something other than this functionally perfect model, go ahead. Homosexuality is bad in and of itself, sexual contact outside of marriage is bad in and of itself - these are ideas that have no practical grounds. They are the remnants of a flawed morality, one that stems from religious and cultural traditions. Refusing to objectively assess ethical questions, and instead insert outdated wisdom from people that are by current standards horrendously uneducated about the realities of the world, is one of the biggest problems with religion. And it's one that has brought about its downfall, even in America, where people who claim to be Christians or Muslims rarely follow a strict reading of their scriptures, because those readings fly in the face of what we know about the world scientifically and ethically.

 

[Gabe]

Snidey, you've still failed to acknowledge that without religion or God, a good or bad moral is relative and would differ from one person to another,

'The easiest way to measure morality is to judge the amount of harm and the amount of good an action does'

That is YOUR way of measuring morality, without God or a faith it is up to the individual person to judge what is moral or not. Using my prior example: if someone was to hurt a child, by his morals he is not doing harm, he is getting pleasure, to him this equals GOOD. You cannot honestly deny the point i am trying to make here.

'In fact, the average person's intuition would be objectively superior to any major religion, functionally'

Average person? If the average person (the majority) were rapists, would that make raping people okay? According to your line of thinking, it would, but not mine.

'and instead insert outdated wisdom from people that are by current standards horrendously uneducated about the realities of the world, is one of the biggest problems with religion. And it's one that has brought about its downfall, even in America, where people who claim to be Christians or Muslims rarely follow a strict reading of their scriptures, because those readings fly in the face of what we know about the world scientifically and ethically.'

Actually you are wrong, there are more Christians and Muslims in the world now than there has ever been, one third of the world is Christian and one fifth of the world is Muslim while only two percent of the world is estimated to be atheist. It is the atheists who are the minority, there has been no downfall for Religion.

 

[Snidey]

Snidey, you've still failed to acknowledge that without religion or God, a good or bad moral is relative and would differ from one person to another,

No, I addressed this directly by saying you can objectively measure morality. Just because there is no sentient being as a source of this morality, it can still be measured and is thusly absolute.

snidey:
'The easiest way to measure morality is to judge the amount of harm and the amount of good an action does'

That is YOUR way of measuring morality, without God or a faith it is up to the individual person to judge what is moral or not. Using my prior example: if someone was to hurt a child, by his morals he is not doing harm, he is getting pleasure, to him this equals GOOD. You cannot honestly deny the point i am trying to make here.

That person is not causing more good than harm - quite the opposite, in fact. That person is not following the objective ethical code I laid out - just as a murderer would be defying a commandment. The only difference is that God convinces people of eternal punishment. But that hasn't stopped people who otherwise believe in him any more than the death penalty has been a successful deterrent to murder. This is evidenced by a point you didn't address - why we don't actually see any correlation between religiousness and ethical behavior (unless they're moving in opposite directions)? We can skip around all this rhetorical discussion, because the facts simply don't bear out what you're claiming. Atheists/non-theists are not less likely to behave ethically than Christians. You're basically saying "yeah, but in theory they should be less moral." When you say it's just MY way of measuring morality, you're wrong. I may have thrown it into this discussion, but objectively measuring harm and good is an idea that's been around for millennia. It's also not "my" way at all - the whole point is that no subjectivity is involved. How could this system for deciding the morality of an action possibly be improved upon?

snidey:
'In fact, the average person's intuition would be objectively superior to any major religion, functionally'

Average person? If the average person (the majority) were rapists, would that make raping people okay? According to your line of thinking, it would, but not mine.

What does this have to do with my argument? This is not implied by what I said in any sense. I was just saying that this sense of objective morality is something that most people would agree with, and that when left to our own devices for measuring morality, the result would likely on average be objectively more ethical than the offerings of the major religions. This is a bit of an assumption but is really a minor point anyway.

Snidey
'and instead insert outdated wisdom from people that are by current standards horrendously uneducated about the realities of the world, is one of the biggest problems with religion. And it's one that has brought about its downfall, even in America, where people who claim to be Christians or Muslims rarely follow a strict reading of their scriptures, because those readings fly in the face of what we know about the world scientifically and ethically.'

Actually you are wrong, there are more Christians and Muslims in the world now than there has ever been, one third of the world is Christian and one fifth of the world is Muslim while only two percent of the world is estimated to be atheist. It is the atheists who are the minority, there has been no downfall for Religion.

There are more Christians and Muslims in the world now than ever before? Is this serious? Of course there are, the world's population is the largest it has ever been and growing exponentially fast. There are also more atheists, and unlike devout Christians, their numbers as a percentage of the whole population is actually increasing. A couple points here:

First, and primarily, people that identify with a religion are not necessarily religious, which is something I pointed out and you ignored. Religiosity is decreasing, unquestionably, at least in the West. As someone apparently from Europe, I'm shocked that you would think any other way. This is a post-Enlightenment world, after all. Here is some off-hand information/research that lays this out a bit:
http://margaux.grandvinum.se/SebTest/wv ... s?target=8
http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=18&pid=17955
http://people-press.org/report/300/a-po ... ation-next
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/a ... ewsID=1131

The majority of countries in Europe have populations who, on average, don't believe in a personal god. People are less likely to believe in God now than they have been before. The claims that religion is as strong as it has ever been are not just incorrect, they're directly contradictory to the rhetoric I frequently hear from Christians about the decline of religion in private and public life and how it is ruining morality across the West. And yet when I claim that religion really is in decline, you deny it and claim that it's as strong as it ever was. It's not, and it won't ever be as strong as it has been in the past again.

My second point is minor - 2% is not the actual number of atheists. When you poll someone and the question is "are you an atheist?" 2% of people check yes. But if you merely ask "do you believe in a God?" 10-15% of people say no. And Christians feel that they are beleaguered - over 80% of our ranks won't even concede that they are atheists. Atheist may still be a bit of a dirty word, but religion is weakening, like it or not.

 

[BobRyan]

Snidey, you've still failed to acknowledge that without religion or God, a good or bad moral is relative and would differ from one person to another,

snidey:
'The easiest way to measure morality is to judge the amount of harm and the amount of good an action does'

That is YOUR way of measuring morality, without God or a faith it is up to the individual person to judge what is moral or not. Using my prior example: if someone was to hurt a child, by his morals he is not doing harm, he is getting pleasure, to him this equals GOOD. You cannot honestly deny the point i am trying to make here.

Good point AND snidey has the additional problem that to SEE the FULL context of ANY action in terms of "amount of harm or good" one needs the Global-GOD view taking into account ALL ancillary chains of events for each action.

And of course "God's chair" is exactly the one Satan said HE wanted (As Isaiah points out).

Instructive that darwinist devotees can not help admitting that their ideas can not be known to even be valid -- unless validated by an all-knowing God who FULLY weighs ALL consequences for every action.

Snidey
'and instead insert outdated wisdom from people that are by current standards horrendously uneducated about the realities of the world, is one of the biggest problems with religion. And it's one that has brought about its downfall, even in America, where people who claim to be Christians or Muslims rarely follow a strict reading of their scriptures, because those readings fly in the face of what we know about the world scientifically and ethically.'

1. The majority of Americans are skeptical about the myths of Darwinism -- choosing to believe the obvious fact that God created and God designed instead believing the atheist dogma of darwinism.

2. Snidey "appears" to ADMIT that even he can see a GAP between the Bible make claims like "FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth the sea and all that is in them" vs what Darwinism teaches-- (Kinda like Dawkins and Darwin both said they saw by way of a GAP there).

AND YET - when the discussion comes up here -- and some Christian pretends to smooth over that gap with some hand waiving and glossing-over ... Snidey never calls them out on it. Snidey never can be found to say "HEY wait a minute you have just denied the clear statement of your own holy book... your own Bible".

Curious why Snidey should "remain so silent" on that point. ;-) (says with a wink and a nod to the unbiased objective reader!)

Bob

 

[Gabe]

Gabriel Ali wrote:

Snidey, you've still failed to acknowledge that without religion or God, a good or bad moral is relative and would differ from one person to another,

Snidey wrote:

No, I addressed this directly by saying you can objectively measure morality. Just because there is no sentient being as a source of this morality, it can still be measured and is thusly absolute.

No, you’re missing my original point: if there is no God and we are simply products of evolution, just another species of animal, your point about our biologically in-built morals is made redundant because in the animal kingdom there is no right or wrong. They have what you refer to as biologically in-built morals to protect their young etc but we do not punish a Lion for violently trying to overthrowing a dominant male because they are animals-we are not, we have morals-they do not. If a man tried to attack or kill a husband and father to take his place within a household he would be punished, that is because it is wrong and we as Humans (not animals) know it is wrong. if we were animals on the other hand we would not care less what went on outside of our immediate family.

If we are only another species of animal, (Which is what atheist believe) then the life of a stranger's child is no more important that a Lion's cub.

DO YOU RANK THE WORTH OF A CHILDS LIFE EQUAL TO THAT OF A WILD ANIMAL?

snidey wrote:

'The easiest way to measure morality is to judge the amount of harm and the amount of good an action does'

Gabriel Ali wrote:

That is YOUR way of measuring morality, without God or a faith it is up to the individual person to judge what is moral or not. Using my prior example: if someone was to hurt a child, by his morals he is not doing harm, he is getting pleasure, to him this equals GOOD. You cannot honestly deny the point i am trying to make here.

snidey wrote:

That person is not causing more good than harm - quite the opposite, in fact. That person is not following the objective ethical code I laid out

As I have pointed out: your ethical code is pointless if we are simply animals.

Snidey wrote:

just as a murderer would be defying a commandment. The only difference is that God convinces people of eternal punishment. But that hasn't stopped people who otherwise believe in him any more than the death penalty has been a successful deterrent to murder. This is evidenced by a point you didn't address - why we don't actually see any correlation between religiousness and ethical behavior (unless they're moving in opposite directions)? We can skip around all this rhetorical discussion, because the facts simply don't bear out what you're claiming. Atheists/non-theists are not less likely to behave ethically than Christians. You're basically saying "yeah, but in theory they should be less moral." When you say it's just MY way of measuring morality, you're wrong. I may have thrown it into this discussion, but objectively measuring harm and good is an idea that's been around for millennia. It's also not "my" way at all - the whole point is that no subjectivity is involved. How could this system for deciding the morality of an action possibly be improved upon?

No correlation between religiousness and ethical behaviour? I do not know the facts concerning this but I will take your word for this. However I never claimed that Christians or people who believe in God do not sin, I'm sure they sin a lot just as I am sure that every Christian will tell you the same thing: people are drawn to sin.
By the way, most atheists/non-theists morals are based on the foundation of Christian morals in the West. for e.g. someone in the east would not see a problem with a man having four wives (due to Islamic morals) while someone who does not believe in God in the west would find the idea repulsive (due to Christian morals in the west)

Snidey wrote:

What does this have to do with my argument? This is not implied by what I said in any sense. I was just saying that this sense of objective morality is something that most people would agree with, and that when left to our own devices for measuring morality, the result would likely on average be objectively more ethical than the offerings of the major religions. This is a bit of an assumption but is really a minor point anyway.

Yes this is an assumption.

Snidey wrote:

There are more Christians and Muslims in the world now than ever before? Is this serious? Of course there are, the world's population is the largest it has ever been and growing exponentially fast. There are also more atheists, and unlike devout Christians, their numbers as a percentage of the whole population is actually increasing. A couple points here:

Thank you for agreeing with me, I did not mention or was not referring to the earth's total population

Snidey wrote:

First, and primarily, people that identify with a religion are not necessarily religious, which is something I pointed out and you ignored. Religiosity is decreasing, unquestionably, at least in the West. As someone apparently from Europe, I'm shocked that you would think any other way.

As I have mentioned earlier, being religious does not mean you do not sin and I did not intentionally ignore you. people can believe in a God and believe in a Faith and still not adhere to the laws of that faith, I did not deny that. This does not mean that they are not Christian or Muslim, that simply means they are not good Christians or good Muslims.

Snidey wrote:

The majority of countries in Europe have populations who, on average, don't believe in a personal god.

What you are trying to say is that most countries in Europe have an atheist/non-religious population of over fifty percent? You are wrong and that is an absurd statement.

Snidey wrote:

The claims that religion is as strong as it has ever been are not just incorrect, they're directly contradictory to the rhetoric I frequently hear from Christians about the decline of religion in private and public life and how it is ruining morality across the West. And yet when I claim that religion really is in decline, you deny it and claim that it's as strong as it ever was. It's not, and it won't ever be as strong as it has been in the past again.

I did not claim religion was as strong as it ever was, I said there was no downfall of religion, as the numbers I have quoted you shows: the numbers of Christians and Muslims is on the rise not FALLING. that is what I claimed and it is TRUE, I also claimed that atheists were the minority, that is also TRUE. please do not put words in my mouth. As for the decline of religion in private and public life and how it is ruining morality across the West, yes I'm sure there are more atheist now than there were before (just as there are more Christians now than before) but I'm sure this is also due to people not practising their various faiths, this does not mean they have no faith or that they are not aware of what they are doing is a sin or morally wrong. Your statement that ''religion is not, and it won't ever be as strong as it has been in the past again'' is ridiculous, unless you can see into the future or can time-travel, that statement is worthless. I could say 'in the future Christianity and Islam will be the only belief systems left' but I wont because anything can happen in the future and for an arguments sake I do not pretend otherwise.

Snidey wrote:

My second point is minor - 2% is not the actual number of atheists. When you poll someone and the question is "are you an atheist?" 2% of people check yes. But if you merely ask "do you believe in a God?" 10-15% of people say no. And Christians feel that they are beleaguered - over 80% of our ranks won't even concede that they are atheists. Atheist may still be a bit of a dirty word, but religion is weakening, like it or not.

Again, that is a load of rubbish, how do you know for a fact that over 80% of your ranks won't even concede that they are atheists if they will not admit to being atheists? that's akin to me saying 'that 2% of atheists are not in fact atheists, they are in reality closet-Christians but do not want to admit it.' sorry I don't buy it.

Before you start claiming that people who believe in God are delusional or backwards, there was a survey carried out amongst scientists a hundred years or so ago (I forget the exact details but it shouldn't be too difficult to find out) and that same survey was carried out again a few years ago. the question asked was something like 'Do you believe in God?' about 48% of scientists said yes and the figure was almost unchanged in the second survey (much to Richard Dawkins frustration)

 

[Jayls5]

p-s- before you start claiming that people who believe in God are delutional or backwards, there was a survey carried out amongst scientists a hundred years or so ago (I forget the exact details but it shouldnt be too difficult to find out) and that same survey was carried out again a few years ago. the question asked was something like 'Do you believe in God?' about 48% of scientists said yes and the figure was almost unchanged in the second survey (much to Richard Dawkins frustration)

God bless

I hope you realize that "believing in God" is a vague term that can apply to pantheists and deists. Einstein "believed in God" yet was used disingenuously by the religious crowd to support religion. Frustrated, he wrote, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." Some people just can't grasp the fact that God is a term used by scientists to describe a general structure of order in the universe we try to find out about.

 

[Gabe]

p-s- before you start claiming that people who believe in God are delutional or backwards, there was a survey carried out amongst scientists a hundred years or so ago (I forget the exact details but it shouldnt be too difficult to find out) and that same survey was carried out again a few years ago. the question asked was something like 'Do you believe in God?' about 48% of scientists said yes and the figure was almost unchanged in the second survey (much to Richard Dawkins frustration)

God bless

I hope you realize that "believing in God" is a vague term that can apply to pantheists and deists. Einstein "believed in God" yet was used disingenuously by the religious crowd to support religion. Frustrated, he wrote, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." Some people just can't grasp the fact that God is a term used by scientists to describe a general structure of order in the universe we try to find out about.

That may well be the case, BUT NOT IN THIS INSTANCE, the actual question asked was '' Do you believe in a God who actively communicates with humankind and to whom one may pray in expectation of receiving an answer.''

These scientists clearly do believe in a God and not simply a general structure of order in the universe we try to find out about.


Below is an article from The New York Times:

Scientists have been accused of playing God when they clone sheep, and of naysaying God when they insist that evolution be taught in school, but as a new study indicates, many scientists believe in God by the most mainstream, uppercase definition of the concept.

Repeating verbatim a famous survey first conducted in 1916, Edward J. Larson of the University of Georgia has found that the depth of religious faith among scientists has not budged regardless of whatever scientific and technical advances this century has wrought.

Then as now, about 40 percent of the responding biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in a God who, by the survey's strict definition, actively communicates with humankind and to whom one may pray ''in expectation of receiving an answer.'' Roughly 15 percent in both surveys claimed to be agnostic or to have ''no definite belief'' regarding the question, while about 42 percent in 1916 and about 45 percent today said they did not believe in a God as specified in the questionnaire, although whether they believed in some other definition of a deity or an almighty being was not addressed.

The figure of unqualified believers is considerably lower than that usually cited for Americans as a whole. Gallup polls, for example, have found that about 93 percent of people surveyed profess a belief in God. But those familiar with the survey said that, given the questionnaire's exceedingly restrictive definition of God -- narrower than the standard Gallup question -- and given scientists' training to say exactly what they mean and nothing more, the 40 percent figure in fact is impressively high.

More revealing than the figures themselves, experts said, are their stability. The fact that scientists' private beliefs remained unchanged across almost a century defined by change suggests that orthodox religion is no more disappearing among those considered the intellectual elite than it is among the public at large. The results also indicate that, while science and religion often are depicted as irreconcilable antagonists, each a claimant to the throne of truth, many scientists see no contradiction between a quest to understand the laws of nature, and a belief in a higher deity.

The results of Dr. Larson's survey, which he conducted with a religion writer, Larry Witham of Burtonsville, Md., are to appear today in the journal Nature.

Dr. Larson did not try to determine whether the scientists he polled were Christian, Jewish, Muslim or any other creed, whether they went to religious services or otherwise attended to the rituals of a particular faith. He merely wanted to see what had happened in the 80-plus years since the renowned psychologist James Leuba asked 1,000 randomly selected scientists if they believed in God.

Mr. Leuba, a devout atheist, had predicted that a disbelief in God would grow as education spread, and Dr. Larson decided to use the psychologist's exact methods to see if the prediction held.

He polled the same number of researchers as had Mr. Leuba and used the same source for picking his subjects -- the directory ''American Men and Women of Science,'' a compendium of researchers successful enough to win awards and be cited regularly in the scientific literature. He followed Mr. Leuba's survey format to the letter, with the same introduction and the same questions written in the same stilted language, even enclosing the same type of return envelope. More than 600 of about 1,000 scientists answered the questionnaire, similar to Mr. Leuba's response rate.

In addition to the question about a belief in an accessible God, the survey asked whether the respondents believed in personal immortality, and if not, whether they would desire immortality anyway. Here there were some changes in the responses. In Mr. Leuba's survey, 50 percent of the scientists said they believed in personal immortality, a puzzling and inconsistent figure given the more modest 40 percent belief in God. Moreover, many doubters confessed to a strong desire for immortality. Dr. Larson found that his two statistics, a belief in God and in life everlasting matched; and that those who didn't believe in personal immortality had little wish for it. ''I see this as a healthy trend,'' he said. ''People have become more consistent, confident and comfortable with their world views.''

 

[BobRyan]

Gabriel Ali wrote:


No, you’re missing my original point: if there is no God and we are simply products of evolution, just another species of animal, your point about our biologically in-built morals is made redundant because in the animal kingdom there is no right or wrong. They have what you refer to as biologically in-built morals to protect their young etc but we do not punish a Lion for violently trying to overthrowing a dominant male because they are animals-we are not, we have morals-they do not. If a man tried to attack or kill a husband and father to take his place within a household he would be punished, that is because it is wrong and we as Humans (not animals) know it is wrong. if we were animals on the other hand we would not care less what went on outside of our immediate family.

This "knowledge" that humans is described at least two times in the Bible.

In John 16 we are told that God "The Holy Spirit of Truth... convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment".

In Romans 1 we are told that even godless pagans (the text calls them Greeks and barbarians) are "without excuse" for what is made KNOWN to them ensure that even they know the difference between right and wrong.

Rom 1
Unbelief and Its Consequences


14 I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish.
15 So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.
...
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress
the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen,
being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations,
and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed
animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

As for "which is more popular -- atheist darwinist dogma or Christian values" no question that when Huxley was leading the charge for atheist darwinism his views were not "the most popular"... but one could also argue that Christ's views were not "the most popular" in his day either.

I am not sure that popularity is a sufficient argument for identifying "truth" though darwinists like to appeal to fallacies of that nature when it suits their argument.

Bob

 

[Snidey]

No, you’re missing my original point: if there is no God and we are simply products of evolution, just another species of animal, your point about our biologically in-built morals is made redundant because in the animal kingdom there is no right or wrong. They have what you refer to as biologically in-built morals to protect their young etc but we do not punish a Lion for violently trying to overthrowing a dominant male because they are animals-we are not, we have morals-they do not. If a man tried to attack or kill a husband and father to take his place within a household he would be punished, that is because it is wrong and we as Humans (not animals) know it is wrong. if we were animals on the other hand we would not care less what went on outside of our immediate family.

How does this make my point about biologically built in morals redundant? All I am saying is that we do not need a deity to explain our morality, because we know the source of much of our morality is biological (due to, for example, seeing the same traits in animals). Saying "in the animal kingdom there is no right and wrong" is just building on the caricature of humanity without a god that you just made. We aren't "just another species of animal" at all. We're by far the most intelligent animal, the only one smart enough to actually ponder these moral questions. The ONLY reason there is no right and wrong in the "animal kingdom" (you actually mean the animal kingdom aside from humans, but whatever) is because those animals are unable to understand the concept of ethics to begin with. If they could empathize as we could, that might be a different story. Just because we are an animal does not mean there is no benefit that comes from moral behavior. The more people act moral (under the method I outlined briefly), the better society becomes. This is not an unworthy objective. This is not a minor objective. This is one of the primary goals of all the civilizations that have ever existed.

The reason that we don't punish lions is not because we have morals and they don't - you could claim that a crazed killer also lacks certain morals, that's not a reason to not punish him. The reason we don't punish animals as such is because they obviously do not understand anything about ethics, they operate on instincts. We have the capacity to go beyond instinct, and it's one I am advocating using. Just because we are animals is not a reason to not care about anyone outside of your immediate family. Group-based morality is actually in the midst of some really interesting progress in research, but it's been demonstrated that it may be evolutionarily beneficial to treat those in your ingroup with increased respect - which may even explain the roots of outgroup hostility.

But seriously - without God telling you what to do, do you really not see the benefits of people consistently acting morally? Really? The only difference is that your god threatens eternal punishment. You keep implying that without God no standard exists, but I just laid out a standard. I also challenged you to improve upon it, which you did not address (because you can't improve upon it).

If we are only another species of animal, (Which is what atheist believe) then the life of a stranger's child is no more important that a Lion's cub.

DO YOU RANK THE WORTH OF A CHILDS LIFE EQUAL TO THAT OF A WILD ANIMAl?

lol. No, obviously not, because why would I? Humans ARE animals, but as I have explained (even though you and everyone else already knows it), we are exceptionally cognizant animals. Of all the similarities we share with many other animals, the differences are still immense, and for some reason you are inclined to ignore them.

snidey wrote:
'The easiest way to measure morality is to judge the amount of harm and the amount of good an action does'

Gabriel Ali wrote:
That is YOUR way of measuring morality, without God or a faith it is up to the individual person to judge what is moral or not. Using my prior example: if someone was to hurt a child, by his morals he is not doing harm, he is getting pleasure, to him this equals GOOD. You cannot honestly deny the point i am trying to make here.

snidey wrote:
That person is not causing more good than harm - quite the opposite, in fact. That person is not following the objective ethical code I laid out


as i have pointed out: your ethical code is pointless if we are simply animals

But it's NOT pointless if it's functionally useful. Are you really so morally vacuous that you need God to confirm that improving people's lives is a good thing and hurting others is a bad thing? These are not issues on which we absolutely need an omnipotent deity to weigh in.

No correlation between religiousness and ethical behavior? i do not know the facts concerning this but i will take your word for this. However i never claimed that Christians or people who believe in God do not sin, i'm sure they sin a lot just as i am sure that every Christian will tell you the same thing: people are drawn to sin.
By the way, most athiests/non-theists morals are based on the foundation of Christian morals in the West. for e.g. someone in the east would not see a problem with a man having four wives (due to islamic morals) while someone who does not believe in God in the west would find the idea repulsive (due to Christian morals in the west)

There is plenty of information that shows no correlation. But most information shows a correlation between being religious and an increase in various immoral behaviors. As a Christian, I assume you find divorce immoral to some extent. Atheists are less likely than Christians to get a divorce, by a pretty considerable figure - http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm. Some results are even worse for Christians: "higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies." (http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html).

What you're basically admitting to is that there is no negative moral impact inherent in atheistic beliefs. So if everyone was an atheist, worst case scenario is that there is no moral shift. Best case is that things get better, which is a real possibility given some of those numbers. Why then, is all this philosophizing about the source of our morality even relevant? It can be demonstrated that there is no positive correlation between being moral and being Christian, and that's the end of the story. How then is it detrimental to reject that God is the source of our morality?

The idea that Christian morality is the foundation of Western morality is unfounded, but it's also been addressed so many times that I am bored by the conversation. Christian morals were influenced by those that came before them and influenced morals in the future. However, many modern moral conceptions are direct rejections of Christian morality, just as many (Golden Rule) remain strong and relevant.

Snidey wrote:
First, and primarily, people that identify with a religion are not necessarily religious, which is something I pointed out and you ignored. Religiosity is decreasing, unquestionably, at least in the West. As someone apparently from Europe, I'm shocked that you would think any other way.


As i have mentioned earlier, being religious does not mean you do not sin and i did not intentionally ignore you.
people can believe in a God and believe in a Faith and still not adhere to the laws of that faith, i did not deny that. This does not mean that they are not Christian or muslim, that simply means they are not GOOD Christians or GOOD Muslims.

This is getting a little redundant so I'll just do a quick summary so we don't both end up repeating the same basic points. I understand that you know that Christians are capable of sin. You even are willing to accept that they are more likely to be immoral in some contexts. So I repeat - what exactly is your argument? If it's not practically applicable, what is its relevance? Even if those sinners are not "good" Christians (this definition varies between people enough for it to be almost useless), you would at least assume that a group that claims to have the only path to true morality would at least be SLIGHTLY more moral than non-theists, but they're not.

Snidey wrote:
The majority of countries in Europe have populations who, on average, don't believe in a personal god.

What you are trying to say is that most countries in europe have an athiest/non-religious population of over fifty percent? You are wrong and that is an absurd statement

I would assume that you would have at least glanced at some statistics before you call a statement "absurd." I am not wrong. It is not absurd. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe

I did not claim religion was as strong as it ever was, i said there was no downfall of religion, as the numbers i have quoted you shows: the numbers of Christians and Muslims is on the rise not FALLING. that is what i claimed and it is TRUE, i also claimed that atheists were the minority, that is also TRUE. please do not put words in my mouth.
As for the decline of religion in private and public life and how it is ruining morality across the West, yes i'm sure there are more atheist now than there were before (just as there are more Christians now than before) but i'm sure this is also due to people not practicing their various faiths, this does not mean they have no faith or that they are not aware of what they are doing is a sin or moraly wrong.
Your statement that ''religion is not, and it won't ever be as strong as it has been in the past again'' is ridiculous, unless you can see into the future or can time-travel, that statement is worthless. i could say 'in the future Christianity and Islam will be the only belief systems left' but i wont because anything can happen in the future and for an arguments sake i do not pretend otherwise.

You aren't understanding some pretty simplistic math here. It is a given that the number of Christians is rising - but so is the number of atheists, and the number of Muslims, etc etc. This is simply due to birthrates being relatively high (much higher among Muslims, who also tend to have higher levels of religiosity than Christians). If you admit it's not as strong as it ever was, then you are also conceding that it is in decline, whether in the long or short term. You don't directly address the crux of my argument - religiosity is declining among Christians. Sheer numbers will get you no where if these people are less devout than generations past - and they are.

It's not just that there are more atheists by the numbers than there were before. As a percentage of the total population of the world and the United States, atheists are growing. This cannot be said of Christianity (though it can be said of Islam) and this is the distinction I am trying to draw here.

My statement that religion is not as strong as it has been in the past is not ridiculous, it's a fact. What I assume you find more unfounded is that it will never be again. This is speculative, but it's not just guesswork - looking at the current social trends bears out a decline in religiosity, and there is nothing to indicate that we are due for an upward spike (in the West, at least). Your statement is not founded on current trends, it's just entirely assumption. Mine is not.

Snidey wrote:
My second point is minor - 2% is not the actual number of atheists. When you poll someone and the question is "are you an atheist?" 2% of people check yes. But if you merely ask "do you believe in a God?" 10-15% of people say no. And Christians feel that they are beleaguered - over 80% of our ranks won't even concede that they are atheists. Atheist may still be a bit of a dirty word, but religion is weakening, like it or not.


Again, that is a load of rubbish, how do you know for a fact that over 80% of your ranks won't even concede that they are atheists if they will not admit to being atheists? thats akin to me saying 'that 2% of atheists are not in fact atheists, they are in reality closet-Christians but do not want to admit it.' sorry i dont buy it.

No, it's not a load of rubbish. How do I know for a fact that 80% of our ranks won't concede to being atheists despite actually being atheists? Because of the statistics I just showed you. The math here is pretty simple. When polls ask if one is an atheist, 2% say yes. When asked if they believe in God, 10-15% say no. That 10-15% are atheists, whether or not they feel they associate with the label. This means that 80%+ of atheists don't call themselves atheists. You called the stats I quoted on Europe "absurd" clearly without actually referencing the relevant information, and now you call my clearly deducible statement "rubbish" when you didn't do the math I laid out clearly in my position.

p-s- before you start claiming that people who believe in God are delutional or backwards, there was a survey carried out amongst scientists a hundred years or so ago (I forget the exact details but it shouldnt be too difficult to find out) and that same survey was carried out again a few years ago. the question asked was something like 'Do you believe in God?' about 48% of scientists said yes and the figure was almost unchanged in the second survey (much to Richard Dawkins frustration)
God bless

I don't believe that people that believe in God are necessarily backwards, and I only believe that they are deluded in the sense that I believe that they are incorrect about the existence of a god. I know the numbers of scientists who believe in a deity - among all scientists I think it's higher than 48%, so give your side more credit. Among biologists it's very low, and among top scientists (NAS scientists, that is), belief in a deity drops to 7%, more than a complete reversion of the numbers present in the population as a whole.

 

[Gabe]

Hi Snidey, let me begin with saying that we have both gone way of topic and have both started to (i think) trade insults, we could spend days doing the same thing (I was about to before I decided against it) but that IS pointless.

Snidey wrote:

Why then, is all this philosophizing about the source of our morality even relevant?

if you look back at my original post, that is the sole reason I made that post, to discuss the source or the lack of a source to our morality. It has nothing to do with me being 'morally vacuous' (I am not) I will be frank, in regards to evolution; I am honestly undecided. as you have pointed out many religious people do not see a problem with God and evolution both being reality.

I think the original point I raised is worthy of some thought and discussion by ALL.

 

[Snidey]

I did not mean to imply that you are actually morally vacuous, I was only using it as a rhetorical device to illustrate my point that we can objectively quantify "good" and "bad." I didn't intend to degrade the discourse and actually felt that the inevitable hostilities aside, this debate was informative and entertaining. We can draw it to a close if you wish - I much prefer discussing these topics with someone as level headed as yourself to people who consistently ignore others' points and disregard all context. Cheers, sir.

 

[Snidey]

2. Snidey "appears" to ADMIT that even he can see a GAP between the Bible make claims like "FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth the sea and all that is in them" vs what Darwinism teaches-- (Kinda like Dawkins and Darwin both said they saw by way of a GAP there).

AND YET - when the discussion comes up here -- and some Christian pretends to smooth over that gap with some hand waiving and glossing-over ... Snidey never calls them out on it. Snidey never can be found to say "HEY wait a minute you have just denied the clear statement of your own holy book... your own Bible".

Curious why Snidey should "remain so silent" on that point. ;-) (says with a wink and a nod to the unbiased objective reader!)

Bob

I haven't engaged in the creationist vs theistic evolutionist debate because I belong to neither side. Is that really so odd?

The primary debate here is between creation and evolution, and that's why I rarely come into conflict with the theistic evolutionists here. I also stay clear of the threads where the debate occurs because it usually involves a large amount of scripture that I am not familiar enough with to make a solid case either way.

But since I know you want me to voice my outrage at their opinions, I'll give my thoughts: the whole debate to me is an odd one, and I obviously disagree with the conclusions of both. On one hand, I see a group unwilling to accept that their beliefs do not sync at all with the realities of the natural world. On the other I see a group that is able to accept the facts of the natural world and still insist that their book is reliable, instead of taking their understandings of reality to what I see as the natural conclusion - that their book is invalid.