Time: God vs. Science

DAWKINS: I think that's a tremendous cop-out. If God wanted to create life and create humans, it would be slightly odd that he should choose the extraordinarily roundabout way of waiting for 10 billion years before life got started and then waiting for another 4 billion years until you got human beings capable of worshipping and sinning and all the other things religious people are interested in.

COLLINS: By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation. The idea that he could both foresee the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our own desires becomes entirely acceptable.

In fact, it seems to me that ID has presented the most powerful weapons of its own destruction to its worst enemies, and I am not talking about science here but about the Christian faith.

Although I agree with the basic thrust of this article, I would be reluctant to equate the idea of "a natural law of morality" with "Biblical teachings". The origin of our sense of ethics is an infinitely-debatable philosophical (and, perhaps scientific) issue, but the _Biblical_ position, among those Christians who regard the Bible as the inerrant word of God, at least, is simple; Biblical morality consists in following the arbitary dictates of God as laid down in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, 1 Corinthians, etc. Morality can't be derived from nature, or from our own feelings; it can only be ascertained by reading The Book, no matter how unpleasant or counter to "natural" morality some of the Bible's teachings may be.

Of course, many, if not most, Christians _do_ follow a more reasonable set of moral principles. However, I still think it would be incorrect to describe such principles as "Biblical".

Collins, in the interview, points out that "I don't see that Professor Dawkins' basic account of evolution is incompatible with God's having designed it."

He is "outside of space and time" is a deep philosophical argument? Theology is in worse shape than I could have imagined.

In fact, as I will argue elsewhere, by using evolutionary pathways, God ensured that such fundamentals as a natural law of morality or moral grammar could evolve based on the simple premises of kinship selection and reciprocal altruism. Both are fundamental to evolutionary theory and Biblical teachings.

Intelligent Design may have caused significant damage to Christian faith as well as enabled atheists to make a powerful attack on religion...

DAWKINS: My mind is not closed, as you have occasionally suggested, Francis. My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable---but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don't see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.

Any attempt to combine evolution with theology is post-hoc, and done solely as a means of salvaging belief in the face of contradictory evidence. So the question is not whether it can be done, but whether it should be done.

He is "outside of space and time" is a deep philosophical argument? Theology is in worse shape than I could have imagined.

— Myers

I'd love to read the paper on the evolutionary basis for Christian ethics. Though I'm having a hard time understanding the link to the "image of God". That Judeo-Christian term I'd say refers to the possibility that God can indwell us- it uses the same Hebrew word as idols, and is the idea that the spirit has a seat in the physical realm- an idol, or a human. I'm not sure that I see the evolutionary precursor to that- but it would be interesting to find out.

Myers wrote: He is "outside of space and time" is a deep philosophical argument? Theology is in worse shape than I could have imagined.

COLLINS: By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time.

So let's for the moment accept that God was there at the beginning of Creation

— PvM

Morality doesn't set Christianity and its Bible apart from any other religion that preaches threats and promises in an afterlife for your behavior. And the kind of morality in the Bible, both new and old testament versions, seems rather unworkable in the modern world. Only your utter vagueness about what Christianity says about God lets you see a parallel.

I'm not sure god is a failed hypothesis so much as it's a vacuous and useless one.

Really? You can make that "God is outside of space and time" a falsifiable hypothesis?

Indeed, the argument that God exists outside time and space has deep philosophical problems, not the least of which is how anything can exist without temporal or spatial dimensions.

Would it help to understand that a moral grammar, as also found in the bible, helps in fact present day society to function?

— PvM

Would it help to understand that a moral grammar, as also found in the bible, helps in fact present day society to function?

You mean the parts where it says to kill all the little boys and keep the little girls to ourselves? Stone sabbath-breakers? Stone non-virgins on their father's doorsteps? Kill gays?

Scientifically speaking it probably is but there is more than science.

Scientifically speaking it probably is but there is more than science.

I'm not sure god is a failed hypothesis so much as it's a vacuous and useless one.

Scientifically speaking it probably is but there is more than science.

— PvM

Could you remind me where the Bible speaks about killing gays?

— PvM

And you concluded all that before even hearing the arguments? Interesting.

Perhaps it would help if I tell you that threats and promises are both explained by an evolutionary foundation in kinship selection and reciprocal altruism?

would it help that the author of the paper, Teehan, goes through Biblical examples to show how they relate to these concepts? Would it help to understand that evolutionary ethics does not explain everything? Would it help to understand that a moral grammar, as also found in the bible, helps in fact present day society to function?

You mean the parts where it says to kill all the little boys and keep the little girls to ourselves? Stone sabbath-breakers? Stone non-virgins on their father's doorsteps? Kill gays?

Yes. These actually make quite good evolutionary sense, of course, they need not make for good morals but that's the beauty of the moral grammar... So yes, I believe a good case can be made for these instances as found in the Biblical teachings as founded in evolutionary processes or principles. Could you remind me where the Bible speaks about killing gays?

Then I politely disagree with your evaluation.

As pure spirit, God is not part of the material world, and thus not just outside our material nature, but outside any material nature. Therefore, he is outside any space and time.

(Of course, you can find this nonsense, but it is standard philosophy about God.)

Dawkins on the other hand, who, like most atheists, cannot get out of his naturalistic phenomenological skin, apparently thinks that God would have to be some sort of super-brain, which is nonsense. Such a material super-brain would indeed be the most improbable assumption of all, one which cannot explain anything --- and with such an assumption Dawkins would indeed be right. Certainly, a pure spirit does not explain anything for an atheist either, but it does to a believer in God.

As pure spirit, God is not part of the material world, and thus not just outside our material nature, but outside any material nature. Therefore, he is outside any space and time.

(Of course, you can find this nonsense, but it is standard philosophy about God.)

Dawkins on the other hand, who, like most atheists, cannot get out of his naturalistic phenomenological skin, apparently thinks that God would have to be some sort of super-brain, which is nonsense. Such a material super-brain would indeed be the most improbable assumption of all, one which cannot explain anything --- and with such an assumption Dawkins would indeed be right. Certainly, the concept of a pure spirit does not explain anything for an atheist either, but it does to a believer in God.

I don't follow you at all. Please explain what you mean by "moral grammer". Is there a biblical backus-nauer form or something?

When logic has you cornered and you need god to escape the consequences of cause and effect, you simply say he's "outside of space and time". Because causality depends on causes being prior to their effects. Once you throw away cause and effect, those troublesome questions look a lot less threatening. Such a small price to pay, to keep god.

As pure spirit, God is not part of the material world, and not just outside our material nature, but outside any material nature. Therefore, he is outside any space and time.

(Of course, you can find this nonsense, but it is standard philosophy about God.)

Dawkins on the other hand, who, like most atheists, cannot get out of his naturalistic phenomenological skin, apparently thinks that God would have to be some sort of super-brain, which is nonsense. Such a material super-brain would indeed be the most improbable assumption of all, one that cannot explain anything --- and in this Dawkins would be right. Certainly, the concept of a pure spirit does not explain anything for an atheist either, but it does to a believer in God.

PvM: You'd first have to demonstrate that (contrary to all that it is known about the universe) that it has a begining. (Hint: The big bang is only the origin of a local expansion, at best.)

Sorry for the triple post, the server seems to plaay crazy.

Dawkins is fantastic at explaining the power and wonders of cumulative natural selection, and I will strongly recommend his The Blind Watchmaker and in particular, Climbing Mount Improbable, anytime. However, in philosophy Dawkins is plain uninformed and shallow, and thus, his book The God Delusion will only convert fence sitters who are philosophically uninformed themselves. I personally was not offended by it, just very amused.

COLLINS: By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation. The idea that he could both foresee the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our own desires becomes entirely acceptable.

Intelligent Design is not the only thing that has done "significant damage to Christian faith." When one thinks about people like Ted Haggard Christianity starts looking rather sick. When one thinks about 9/11, religion itself doesn't look like a healthy thing.

As pure spirit, God is not part of the material world, and thus not just outside our material nature, but outside any material nature. Therefore, he is outside any space and time.

To say that something is "outside space and time" is logically equivalent to saying something is "imaginary", unless you also posit that it interacts with our universe, in which case it becomes real and should be scientifically detectable. I can assert the "existence" of pink unicorns somewhere in the multiverse, but for all practical purposes they are imaginary, if they don't interact.

And even if you assert the existence of a deist non-inverventionist creator-God, he must be extremely complex if he could forsee us happening 13 billion years down the road, and twiddle the knobs accordingly (and the huge waste of creating the entire billion-billion+ star universe just for us). As Dawkin's points out, all you've done is compound the problem and increased the level of improbability enormously.

PvM: You'd first have to demonstrate that (contrary to all that it is known about the universe) that it has a begining. (Hint: The big bang is only the origin of a local expansion, at best.)

You were and are vague up to this point. If you've got more arguments, then lets hear them.

(Leviticus 20:13 13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.)

What can we make of all of this? One certainly is tempted to charge the Mosaic Law with hypocrisy; aspects of it affront our sense of moral rightness. This has long presented a problem to those who would claim divine authorship for these acts. However, from the evolutionary perspective developed here there is less reason to be surprised. Morality develops as a tool to promote within-group cohesiveness and so better enable individuals to enhance their genetic fitness. This cohesiveness also functions as an adaptive advantage in competition with other

The trouble is that evolution and other self-organizing mechanisms are precisely the kind of processes that also make the "necessary God" of the scholastic philosophers into an unnecessary God, while the empirical Gods had already been demolished (or at least bypasssed) by the ancient philosophers.

An interesting question, if religion is an outcome of evolutionary processes, would this make religion good/bad/neutral? Would it make religion necessary, unnecessary, or anywhere in between?
What if religious practices serve the evolutionary balance?

Any attempt to combine evolution with theology is post-hoc, and done solely as a means of salvaging belief in the face of contradictory evidence. So the question is not whether it can be done, but whether it should be done.

Perhaps to someone who does not have a basic understanding of the Bible or the Christian faith, that appears to be a logical conclusion.

The truth, however, is that these events are the evidence of sin as the Bible states...

Genesis 6:12 "And God looked upon the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth"

Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" and Numbers 32:23 "ye have sinned against the LORD: and be sure your sin will find you out".

...but true Christians know that if we walk daily with the Lord, He will keep us from sin,

The conclusions of men in this brief life concerning our origins will not change one thing that God has done, but what God did has and will change men's lives for eternity.

As falsifiable as the Big Bang at least which originates in a time and space beyond science's direct visibilities.

If we accept as scientists the existence that there is time and space outside our direct observations, then the statement that God lives outside time and space is fully consistent with both the Big Bang theory as well as Quantum Theory.

As others have pointed out Norm's 'arguments' are overly simplistic. First of all whether or not something is a sin is not determined by a commandment for or against but by understanding the foundation of morality. So from the perspective of self destructive behavior it would violate the kinship rule, yet that is insufficient to determine whether or not laws should outlaw methamphetamine and not let's say alcohol. It will still be a sin but that seems to be our burden to bear.

Norm's examples do little to really further the discussion and only serve to show that indeed christians and atheists alike can be involved in immoral behavior. So what's new.

...but that by itself seems insufficient to argue that God is unnecessary.

Great, yet another useless religious war. (yawn)

I suppose this thread will go to 400 comments too . . . . . .

What exactly is God necessary for? He's either unnecessary, or necessary for some reason.

Great, yet another useless religious war. (yawn)

PvM said:

"Duhhh. never mind, too much focus on the New Testament. Yes, it is clear that in the Old Testament outlines a law which in many ways differs from the NT law. One may ask why this is the case and I believe the answer is self evident."

There's that "take what you like and leave the rest" approach to interpreting the Bible.

What about Matthew 5:17-19 - "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle, shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (emphasis mine)

The issue is not whether such a claim is *consistent* with anything, it is whether such a claim is *vacuous*. Meaningless platitudes are consistent with anything, but that is hardly an argument in their favour. Quite the reverse, actually.

The Science Show on the Australian ABC Radio National network has Robyn Williams interviewed Dawkins and a few others about the book.

You can listen to the podcast or read the transcript from http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/

started by atheists.

* sighs *

I never thought I'd see the day when someone tried to reconcile the worst aspects of Biblical morality with the worst aspects (classical eugenics and sociobiology) of the "Darwinian morality" so detested by the creationists, but it appears Teehan has attempted to do so.

Why don't we start with "Love thy neighbour as thyself", rather than trying to find a basis for this statement which allows us to hate as much as we want to?

The purpose of this post seems to be to argue that ID has provided atheists a boost, and that that is a bad thing, unclear if for science or for religion. (Interesting question - why should strength of atheism mean weakness of religion? Doesn't that mean the poster thinks religion is a weak idea?)

And to use that as an opportunity to discuss atheism and religion. ("In fact, as I will argue elsewhere, by using evolutionary pathways, God ensured that such fundamentals as a natural law of morality or moral grammar could evolve") That seems to be besides the point of ID's attack on science, and the religious motivations behind, that is usually discussed here by "defenders of the integrity of science".

But by all means, let us yet again discuss religion and the problems it makes for the integrity of science.

"at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out"

This is in the light of modern science such a weak argument that it is astonishing it is still used, let alone by persons discussing how science enlightens religion.

The most obvious arguments, already stated here, is that this has problems of all sorts, with observations and falsifiability foremost.

But even by allowing supernatural explanations, there remains severe specific problems.

Ever since the inception of quantum mechanics it seems clear that the uncertainty and randomness displayed as aspects of nature are fundamental - no one can know all observables fully or predict particular outcomes of observations, there is no local hidden variables that can do this.

The alternative is gods who manage nature nonlocally, either directly supernaturally or by setting up some equivalent parallel hidden universe mechanisms. Either way it is theologically and scientifically problematical. It is arguing for Cosmic Cheater gods that fools us that nature is simple. It is also arguing that our current science is wrong, and that the simplest working theory should not be used.

PvM:
"That's sufficient for my purposes."

Perhaps you misunderstood Keith's excellent argument.

First and foremost, we have no proof of any beginning.

Second, even if the big bang would be a singularity as you suggest, a theory of quantum gravity could (should) describe that and take us further back.

Third, in many speculative cosmologies compatible with our Lambda-CDM cosmology, either these singularities are embedded in a larger mechanism which permits us to go beyond them or there are none.

Eternal inflation is one of the later. There our pocket universe started when inflation stopped for our region of spacetime. Linde has pointed out, which I haven't seen any refuting of, that such a multiverse cosmology can have its start pushed infinitely back, which this layman think may effectively remove it from the model ( http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0503/0503195.pdf ).

You can't argue that big bang or multiverses are outside the power of our theories and supporting observations. (The last WMAP data release more or less falsified some specific cyclic cosmologies.) Unconnected unsupportable ad hocs, as ideas of gods, are definitely so because there is and can not be any connection to our physics. They are not even wrong, they are vacuous, and to discuss consistency is not meaningful.

False duality, he can be necessary for no reason at all. Nor should one's inability to come up with a reason be seen as an argument.

In the end we have to deal with the reality of religion, whether or not some find it to be a vacuous concept

PvM:
"False duality, he can be necessary for no reason at all."

As noted, you are heading into sophistry. This is not supported by the usual definition of "necessary".

I find it humorus and a little sad that the poster of the non-NPOV piece above puts blame for any flamewar on others. Usually the blame is shared. Here it can't be evenly shared.

Especially fun that it is expressed on a blog that frequently complains about discussions on atheism. And if my observation should be taken as a complaint in turn, the obvious reaction, the matter takes yet another funny spin.

"In the end we have to deal with the reality of religion, whether or not some find it to be a vacuous concept"

This is a conflation of the philosophical content of religion and the phenomena of religion. At least Dawkins has the ability to keep them separated and discuss the former for its merits, ie none that can be supported.

There's that "take what you like and leave the rest" approach to interpreting the Bible. What about Matthew 5:17-19 - "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle, shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (emphasis mine)

The purpose of this post seems to be to argue that ID has provided atheists a boost, and that that is a bad thing, unclear if for science or for religion. (Interesting question - why should strength of atheism mean weakness of religion? Doesn't that mean the poster thinks religion is a weak idea?)

What exactly is God necessary for? He's either unnecessary, or necessary for some reason.

The problem here is that we have an interview in which Francis Collins makes inane arguments, expressing ideas that are much more compatible with Intelligent Design creationism than evolution, and some people think that because he does so explicitly as a Christian, it is excusable, even commendable.

Scientists should be appalled.

I can't say that I have much sympathy or understanding of the Christian position, but if I were a believer, I'd be a bit embarrassed at the foolishness of this representative for my faith. I sure wouldn't be making excuses for him.

Go ahead and blame the atheists, though. It must be our fault for having higher standards and expectations than Collins can fulfill.

I am a Darwinian, and it very often is put to me; what is the Darwinian survival value of religion?

Quoting the Bible, or any theologian, in an argument over the existence of God, now sounds to me like quoting the Dungeons and Dragons Player's Handbook in an argument over whether dragons exist. I used to feel conciliatory on the subject, but have lost patience.

As others have pointed out Norm's 'arguments' are overly simplistic.

First of all whether or not something is a sin is not determined by a commandment for or against but by understanding the foundation of morality.

So from the perspective of self destructive behavior it would violate the kinship rule, yet that is insufficient to determine whether or not laws should outlaw methamphetamine and not let's say alcohol. It will still be a sin but that seems to be our burden to bear.

Norm's examples do little to really further the discussion and only serve to show that indeed christians and atheists alike can be involved in immoral behavior. So what's new.

The problem here is that we have an interview in which Francis Collins makes inane arguments, expressing ideas that are much more compatible with Intelligent Design creationism than evolution, and some people think that because he does so explicitly as a Christian, it is excusable, even commendable. Scientists should be appalled. I can't say that I have much sympathy or understanding of the Christian position, but if I were a believer, I'd be a bit embarrassed at the foolishness of this representative for my faith. I sure wouldn't be making excuses for him. Go ahead and blame the atheists, though. It must be our fault for having higher standards and expectations than Collins can fulfill.

— Myers

COLLINS: I just would like to say that over more than a quarter-century as a scientist and a believer, I find absolutely nothing in conflict between agreeing with Richard in practically all of his conclusions about the natural world, and also saying that I am still able to accept and embrace the possibility that there are answers that science isn't able to provide about the natural world--the questions about why instead of the questions about how. I'm interested in the whys. I find many of those answers in the spiritual realm. That in no way compromises my ability to think rigorously as a scientist.

I worry about intelligent design, though I admire its advocates for wishing to put forward something in the way of a rebuttal to the idea that evolution says there's no god. And we'll come back to why I think that's an unfortunate argument. I think intelligent design sets up a god of the gaps kind of scenario. Well, you know, we haven't yet explained this particular feature of evolution, so god must be right there. If science ultimately proves that those gaps aren't gaps, after all, then where is god? We really ought not to ask people to do that.

Carlson: Why isn't evolution the process god chose to create man? Collins: I would agree with that. But that's not intelligent design.

Quoting the Bible, or any theologian, in an argument over the existence of God, now sounds to me like quoting the Dungeons and Dragons Player's Handbook in an argument over whether dragons exist. I used to feel conciliatory on the subject, but have lost patience.

My question is: If there is a Darwinian value to religion, would Dawkins still object to religion? What if the selfish gene's argument leads to religion becoming an important peace keeper, so to speak?

— PvM

The closest thing you've got is Jesus's version of the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." It was philosophers, not theologians who unearthed the foundations --- and only partly so.

— Norm

But Jesus denies a vital part of our moral foundations with his turn the other cheek and "love your enemies" version. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you only gets its social force from also doing unto others as they have done unto you. Not even Christians turn the other cheek to a group that flies airplanes into our skyscrapers. We do unto them as they have done unto us --- we kill them.

— Norm

Jesus does not have a workable moral philosophy.

Why, I predict if they tried to apply that foundation those Christians would wind up singing while being fed to the lions and then the religion would have to turn to psychotic hypocrisy to survive and become as murderous as all the others, denying and explaining away its own faulty foundations.

So from the perspective of self destructive behavior it would violate the kinship rule, yet that is insufficient to determine whether or not laws should outlaw methamphetamine and not let's say alcohol. It will still be a sin but that seems to be our burden to bear.

— PVM

Modern societies don't have to be kin. And where in the Bible is this kinship rule made explicit?

The context was Jan's claim that "...but true Christians know that if we walk daily with the Lord, He will keep us from sin,..." You're trying to make it say more than I intended and missing the narrow point. What Jan claims to happen doesn't seem to happen.

— Norm

If there is a Darwinian value to religion, would Dawkins still object to religion?

PvM asked: If there is a Darwinian value to religion, would Dawkins still object to religion? Yes, because so much evidence suggests that no religion is true. Because of the conflict with science. (Sorry, but attempts to fit science and religion into a coherent whole only seem to prove you can't do it without distorting both.) Because what might have been useful and taming in the past, like religion and slavery, might not remain useful in our new technological environment. However, it's a valid question and one Daniel C. Dennett deals with in his book, "Breaking the Spell.

Any specific examples? I have found and find Collins' arguments quite reasonable.

— PvM

I can't access this particular interview, but in previous interviews and at least one book Collins has explicitly rejected evolutionary explanations for morality. Has he changed his mind?

In fact, as I will argue elsewhere, by using evolutionary pathways, God ensured that such fundamentals as a natural law of morality or moral grammar could evolve based on the simple premises of kinship selection and reciprocal altruism. Both are fundamental to evolutionary theory and Biblical teachings.

— PvM

Would it help to understand that a moral grammar, as also found in the bible, helps in fact present day society to function?

Now fast forward to Jesus who in Matthew 7:12 declares the biblical version of reciprocal altruism as a basic law.

Great, yet another useless religious war. (yawn)

If you don't want comments about your religious opinions, why make a PT post about them?

If there exists a natural, evolution-generated law or grammar of morality, then on what grounds do you consider the Bible to be any more reflective of that morality than any other text? All are written by humans, after all, so there's no a priori reason to think one would better express the universals of human morality than any other. Where they differ, do you have evidence that the Bible's particular versions grant its followers exceptional reproductive success?

Um, that's not reciprocal altruism. "Do as you would be done by" is very, very different from "Do as you are done by." It's pretty clear, from "Turn the other cheek," that Jesus is advocating altruism regardless of whether you anticipate a reward.

Jesus also recommends castration and tells his followers to abandon their families and possessions. This is not exactly a viable evolutionary strategy.

In fact, I don't think either the Old or New Testaments present their moral precepts as either "natural" (except in the sense of God-given) or beneficial to society. On the contrary, the natural tendency of humanity is always away from morality, and the most moral individuals and societies are generally the least naturally successful, barring supernatural assistance from God. The Hebrews follow the ideal law as far as the OT's concerned, but is their society particularly dominant or stable? Far from it; they're constantly sliding into sin, worshiping idols, and getting conquered by neighboring peoples. They only manage to survive as a culture because God keeps stepping in, smiting their enemies and punishing deviant individuals. Again, in the New Testament the Christians are presented as withdrawing from society rather than dominating it; in fact, they expect to be martyred by the thousands and oppressed by all the kings of the Earth until Christ comes back to do away with the current natural order entirely.

Some Christians are more forgiving than others, look for instance at the Amish and their response to the killing of their children.

Yes, Jesus also says "do not kill" ... and also uses the phrase "an eye for an eye".

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matthew 5:38:45 RSV)

That again is an assertion without supporting foundation and evidence so I am looking forward to your explanation.

Why, I predict if they tried to apply that foundation those Christians would wind up singing while being fed to the lions and then the religion would have to turn to psychotic hypocrisy to survive and become as murderous as all the others, denying and explaining away its own faulty foundations.

Hmmm 'Outside space and time' .....dreaming?

Maybe Dawkin's could put Freud on his Christmas reading list.
And when people like Collins start playing that scratchy old 78, he could sit back, let them finish and then hold a mirror up to their projection.

The simple test for the truth of Collins statement is to first get his definition of g$d and then compare it to the 6,000,000,000 other definitions on earth, then ask him why his is right.

None of this is new, if one is to ascribe a quality to an object that by its very definition does not exist by rules of what existence is (there's that word again IS) then Collins expression of g$d is little more than wishful thinking, musings imaginary, meme repeating.

What is more interesting to me is why Collins believes what he does.

The Mythologies behind all religious world views are in the language of dreams expressed as imagined histories of heroic ancestors where subconscious desires and fears battle with the forces of good and evil, as though it were reality.

It's a great story, but then so is the Iliad.

Have you heard the word of Homer? Do you believe in the Iliad? Was Ulysses the son of Zeus?

I could go on ...bibliolatry is just so
passé
(past tense) which may of course explain ID.

A failed apologetic for a failed premise.. the bible not being the work of men.

Scientifically speaking it probably is but there is more than science.

It looks like Pim is jumping Allen McNeill's shark again.

especially societies with increasing metropolitan areas where technology more and more isolates people?

Gods who do things in order to merit our acceptance and worship, but then turn around and exist outside space and time when a nonbeliever looks for them, are indeed a cop-out. This is a pure "heads I win, tails you lose" position.

Dawkins (and others) have (I vaguely recall) regarded religious beliefs in several ways:

1) As a side-effect of the human ability to make sense of patterns and draw conclusions from insufficient data. This is an unquestionably powerful and useful ability; religion illustrates that it doesn't come for free.

2) As a way of preserving our childhood. Gods, at least in much of the popular posture toward them, are absent parents, and we beseech them to do the kinds of things parents do.

3) As a way of answering questions for which data are currently unavailable, or which are so ill-phrased as to be unanswerable. Goddidit is a more satisfying answer than "I don't know" or "because I said so."

4) As an indirect means of enforcing useful policies for the kind of social interaction most practicable for humans. This is a kind of game theory approach, where religion attempts to boost the rewards for cooperative behavior (best for the group) over competitive behavior (best for the individual).

What we see here in this thread is kind of interesting, though. As MarkP wrote, we see the victory of desire over intellect. Or perhaps the victory of brainwashing over deprogramming. If the gods are unevidenced, internally contradictory, and irrelevant to any useful explanation of anything, they STILL cannot be set aside, and the contortions of rationalization necessary to justify them are an interesting commentary on how our brains develop.

Thought this was a nice article.

Novel experiment documents evolution of genome in near-real time.

Researchers identified all the changes in a bacterium's complete set of genes during a 44-day evolution experiment

Exactly. God does not need to "wait" for billions of years, since he is outside time. Dawkins's argument --- one that rehashes a standard objection of atheists --- therefore is silly.

I think you're missing the point of Dawkin's argument.

Yes, it's possible that time is irrelevant to God, and that he doesn't see any practical difference between creating mankind in a day or over billions of years.

But evolution isn't just a slow process; it's an incredibly cruel and wasteful one. It's a never-ending arms race fought through pure trial-and-error. It's impossible to even imagine the amount of human and animal suffering that it's taken to get us to where we are today.

That's compatible with the Deists' idea of God, but it's not compatible with any God that anybody's ever asked me to worship.

norm wrote:

When one thinks about 9/11, religion itself doesn't look like a healthy thing.

I could just as easily say: "When one thinks about Stalinism, atheism itself doesn't look like a healthy thing."

You may not have noticed, norm, but there were plenty of religious people who expressed a very "healthy" disapproval of the actions of 9/11. In fact, there was a HUGE ceremony in a football-stadium featuring leaders of a wide variety of faiths, all of them unequivically condemning terrorism and preaching reconciliation and peaceful resolution of disputes.

Quoting the Bible, or any theologian, in an argument over the existence of God, now sounds to me like quoting the Dungeons and Dragons Player's Handbook in an argument over whether dragons exist.

— Stephen Wells

Do you not know your history as well as not knowing your Bible? It's not really a prediction, it's history. Christians were fed to the lions and they did sing and freak out the Romans by not fighting. Soon after that abuse, Christianity became violent and went to war with the Pagans, violating their own principles.

— normdoering

Japanese Scientist Find Dolphin With Extra Set of Legs
I didn't know where to post this, so I just posted it here. Maybe Pandas Thumb can get a full story on this and TalkOrigins can add it to its list of evidence for macroevolution. There are awesome pictures. The Japanese scientists will also X-Ray and analyze the animal.

TOKYO - Japanese researchers said Sunday that a bottlenose dolphin captured last month has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of hind legs, a discovery that may provide further evidence that ocean-dwelling mammals once lived on land.

Since this section has been about the philosophies of Dawkins and Collins, I will try to relate this article by asking the question why would an intelligent designer choose to create an animal so different from the others of its species?

I could just as easily say: "When one thinks about Stalinism, atheism itself doesn't look like a healthy thing."

I could just as easily say: "When one thinks about Stalinism, atheism itself doesn't look like a healthy thing."

The article points out how the Intelligent Design movement may have inadvertantly given science a much needed boost, as more and more scientists express their frustrations with the level of scientific vacuity of this new form of creationism. Even more ironically, ID may have provided atheists a much needed boost.

The 9/11 events were driven by religious conviction, very explicitly and directly.

Or so the perpetrators said. Is their word worth anything? It has been argued that their actions were motivated by sentiments that were anything but religious, such as plain suicidal escapism and scapegoating "Crusaders and Jews" for problems in their own societies that they were unwilling to confront honestly.

Besides, what about other Muslims who acted in a manner completely contrary to the actions of 9/11? Any comment on their religion? (Nineteen "Muslims" out of about a billion isn't exactly a representative sample.)

I could just as easily say: "When one thinks about Stalinism, atheism itself doesn't look like a healthy thing."

Stalin, conversely, was looking to consolidate and exert political power, to which both religion or atheism were irrelevant.

Reread your history (if you ever read it in the first place): Stalin consolidated power within a regime that was explicitly atheistic, regarded religion as "reactionary," and actively sought to subvert, punish and suppress all religious influence in public life.

You atheist ninehammers really ought to be more careful how you argue against "religion:" look how much history you have to ignore to keep from being stung by your own tired talking-points!

Oh, and here's yet another pearl from norm:

Jesus does not have a workable moral philosophy.

I know several people (not all of them Christian) who have benefitted greatly from applying Jesus' moral philosophy in their daily actions, and they'd all beg to differ with this silly statement. And their word on this is a bit more reliable than norm's, since they actually read, and discussed, the philosophy in question.

This is why so many atheists don't get no respect: they completely ignore the insights of people not like themselves, and thus shut themselves off from huge amounts of common sense. Instead of offering anything like a new insight, all they do is reinforce the intolerant fundies' worst stereotypes of atheists and "secular humanists." Way to advance the cause, nimrods!

You are missing the point. To a Christian, the fact that there indeed exists, as argued by Aquinas, a natural law, strengthens one's belief.

— PvM

Is the bible any more reflective of that morality than other texts? That's largely irrelevant, what these texts express is what evolutionary ethics proposes arose via evolutionary processes. Not surprisingly in fact.

As far as Biblical reproductive success, counting the numbers seems quite compelling. Remember Christianity is one of many religions, any one could serve the purpose outlined by Teehan. It's just that Christianity has been most successful, especially in the past in getting its message across. However that does not necessarily reflect on the correctness of Christianity, it merely shows that in the struggle, a few religions managed to succeed and expand.

Turning the other cheek is not really altruism, it's a willingness to take punishment and not retaliate. While one mayz certainly interpret Jesus' commandment to require altruism rather than reciprocal altruism, it all depends on how to interpret the statement. More on that later.

Jesus also recommends castration and tells his followers to abandon their families and possessions. This is not exactly a viable evolutionary strategy.

So far the jews seem to have done quite well, against all odds.

That the most moral societies are the least successful may be a position caused by a flawed understanding of what morality is all about. Morality is not all about take a beating and turning the other cheek. Remember that morality is not an absolute. In fact, morality may be all about survival, in taht case, it may be hard to argue that moral societies are the least successful.

One may ask, how successful would the Jews have been if they had not followed OT rules?

Hello Pim and all,

Here's my two bits on this intractable debate. Hope you and others can appreciate my efforts to provide a key to a true solution for humanity's seemingly never-ending cycle of struggle and despair.

Analyzing the Creator Debate

Did you ever consider that atheism arose because certain people saw that religious characterizations about the nature of an omnipotent "God" were seriously flawed and then concluded that religion and the Creator were the same things? This is the exact same conclusion at the base of religious beliefs; namely that the Creator and religion are inseparable. Consequently, both atheists and religious followers are arguing over a flawed assumption without considering that other possibilities negate the common core conclusion of both groups. These arguments are actually over religion and whether it represents a reliable model of reality. The answer to this question is of course not. Religion is not only flawed, it is purposely deceptive! Though atheists are certainly sincere in their conclusions, the fact remains that they and religious followers are locked in a debate that cannot be won by either side because both base their positions upon whether the same flawed premise is the truth. In order for this debate to conclude with a truthful answer, a greater level of discernment is required.

One apt clarifying question is, if someone tells lies about you, does that negate you or make you a liar or a lie? Certainly, the image cast about you would be a false one, but that is their image, not the real you. Consequently, faulty religious assertions about the Creator of this universe do not negate the existence of a Creator. Considering the possibility that this universe is not by chance leaves the door open to how it arose, which leads us to seek what could have created and maintained it. Since neither religion nor science has yet adequately answered this question, it is safe to conclude that those who argue about the Creator based on either are most certainly wrong about one or more aspects. Therefore, another point of view and additional knowledge are required.

Read More...
http://sevenstarhand.blogspot.com/

Reread your history (if you ever read it in the first place): Stalin consolidated power within a regime that was explicitly atheistic, regarded religion as "reactionary," and actively sought to subvert, punish and suppress all religious influence in public life.

What is the sound of one seven-star hand buzzing?

Saying that Atta and the other hijackers were religiously motivated does not implicate the entire religion of Islam, and yet it implicates all religion by illustrating the power of religious belief to motivate such destructive and murderous acts.

How can the words and actions of the followers of one religion implicate "all religion," if they don't implicate the one specific religion in whose name they were done? And how can their words and actions "implicate" religions whose core doctrines are fundamentally different from those of Islam?

And just because someone claims a religious motivation for a particular action, does not mean the religious belief actually motivated the action.

Do you really think the Spanish Conquistadors cared about leading heathen souls to Heaven in the New World? Of course not -- if there was no land, resources or gold to be got, there would have been no effort to liquidate Native American societies. The greed came first, the religious justification followed.

The same goes for "Muslim" terrorism. Most experts -- including Muslims in the Middle East -- agree that terrorism tends to be motivated by a political culture of dysfunction and irresponsibility. Take away the culture, and the terrorism goes away, even if the religion stays.

Another example: notice how violence is dropping off in Northern Ireland? That's because the political culture is changing -- not the religions, which show no sign of going away.

My question is: If there is a Darwinian value to religion, would Dawkins still object to religion? What if the selfish gene's argument leads to religion becoming an important peace keeper, so to speak?

— PvM

So far the jews seem to have done quite well, against all odds.

So far the jews seem to have done quite well, against all odds.

Freudianism was finally exposed as a pretentious fraud, so your analogy is quite amusing.

But the rash of books, articles, etc. on atheism is clearly fueled by the publishing industry, not a general consensus.

Take Kansas Citizens for Science for example. That decaying sites discussion board has become a front for atheists with an agenda, and the pretense that they are just promoting "science" has become nauseating.

They had some trolls, but they had some good sparring partners too, like FTK.

All banned.

There is even a group that meets at a local bookstore that has the nickname, Banned by Kansas Citizens for Science Club.

Good job, folks.

So far the jews seem to have done quite well, against all odds.

So far the jews seem to have done quite well, against all odds.

So far the jews seem to have done quite well, against all odds.

So far the jews seem to have done quite well, against all odds.

Am I the only one who thought the title of "God: The Failed Hypothesis" sounds like one of Oom Colophid's books in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe?"

Reread your history (if you ever read it in the first place): Stalin consolidated power within a regime that was explicitly atheistic, regarded religion as "reactionary," and actively sought to subvert, punish and suppress all religious influence in public life.

— Raging Bee

Jesus does not have a workable moral philosophy. I know several people (not all of them Christian) who have benefitted greatly from applying Jesus' moral philosophy in their daily actions, and they'd all beg to differ with this silly statement.

Attention everyone! The following is an important off-topic announcement.

-----

Enough with the multiple postings already! Please, everyone, don't just keep hitting submit over and over, even if it seems like the post didn't go through.

Do this instead:

1. Before submitting, copy what you wrote to your clipboard or an empty text file (control+a followed by control+c works well).

2. Hit submit ONCE, and once only.

3. If the server doesn't seem to be responding, stop right there. Don't hit reload. Don't back the page up and try again. Instead:

4. Try opening up a separate instance of the thread in a new tab or window (and hit F5 to reload the freshest version of the page if necessary). Don't resubmit until you have verified that your first post didn't go through. When the server does eventually respond, you're likely to discover that it was recieved properly the first time.

5. If you must reload your submission window for some reason, do NOT say yes when it asks you if you want to resubmit the post data. Remember, you have a backup of your message and can easily redo it if necessary.

-----

Thank you. That is all. Now back to our regularly scheduled flame war. (^-^;)

My question is: If there is a Darwinian value to religion, would Dawkins still object to religion? What if the selfish gene's argument leads to religion becoming an important peace keeper, so to speak?

Saying that Atta and the other hijackers were religiously motivated does not implicate the entire religion of Islam, and yet it implicates all religion by illustrating the power of religious belief to motivate such destructive and murderous acts.

— normdoering

As Dawkins explains:

and we more need to learn how to deal with them than to try to eradicate them.

and we more need to learn how to deal with them than to try to eradicate them.

Many non-religious beliefs and attitudes can motivate them too.

A ton of suicide bombings and other terrorist acts have been performed by largely secular organizations, such as the Lebanese Phalange party and the PLO. The Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka are practically the world champions of suicide attacks, and they're secular Hindus driven by nationalism with a dash of socialism.

Exactly. God does not need to "wait" for billions of years, since he is outside time.

God doesn't need to do anything. Why should he when he's got apologists that will cover for him no matter what happens. Your philosophy is every bit as shallow as Dawkins' because you presume to know what a non-existent "thing" creature would need or not need to do. I don't hear you saying that God does not need to use evolution because he is outside of evolution. Religion is so freakin stupid I can't even believe it. Cheers!

In fact, as I will argue elsewhere, by using evolutionary pathways, God ensured that such fundamentals as a natural law of morality or moral grammar could evolve based on the simple premises of kinship selection and reciprocal altruism.

But all the ancient state religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam among them, had the special features Dawkins described in his snarky way that supported war and terrorism, a paradise after death, a religious call to war, etc..

Question: why should anyone rely on "snarky" descriptions by someone speaking well outside of his area of expertise, when there are plenty of SERIOUS descriptions of the same thing, by people who actually know what they're talking about?

Anton Mates wrote: Many non-religious beliefs and attitudes can motivate them too. True. But all the ancient state religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam among them, had the special features Dawkins described in his snarky way that supported war and terrorism, a paradise after death, a religious call to war, etc.. That's what Dawkins identifies.

A ton of suicide bombings and other terrorist acts have been performed by largely secular organizations, such as the Lebanese Phalange party and the PLO. The Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka are practically the world champions of suicide attacks, and they're secular Hindus driven by nationalism with a dash of socialism. I don't think it's the "ton" you claim. I question your estimation of the relative numbers.

So God slaughtered trillions of organisms that didn't meet his needs in order to create us?

No not from God's perspective, because everything is all instantaneous to God. Everything happens all at once.

Perhaps we are also in the process of being culled in order to produce the sort of creatures that God really wants.

Whatever are the creatures that God really wants, they are already in existence to God for he is outside of time and space and evolution.

Using such a brutal mechanism is incompatible with a kind and loving god, IMO.

There are no mechanisms when everything happens all at once. So it's all good, man. No worries.

Unfortunately, Hauser never explains what the rules and parameters of the moral grammar precisely look like. Findings that show that different cultures generate similar intuitions (as in the trolley problems above) are viewed as evidence for universal rules, whereas other studies showing huge cultural differences are interpreted as evidence for the role of parameter. This flexibility of the theory makes it hard to envision what could constitute a strict empirical test of the theory. p. 57 Michael R. Waldmann. "A Case for the Moral Organ?" Review of Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Univeral Sense of Right and Wrong by Marc D. Hauser Ecco (Harper Collins): New York, 2006. pp. 57-58 Science 314:5796 6 October, 2006

Would it help to understand that a moral grammar, as also found in the bible, helps in fact present day society to function?

— PvM

Or so the perpetrators said. Is their word worth anything? It has been argued that their actions were motivated by sentiments that were anything but religious, such as plain suicidal escapism and scapegoating "Crusaders and Jews" for problems in their own societies that they were unwilling to confront honestly.

...argue that the Japanese kamikazes did it for religion, even though I doubt it was the main motivation.

The suicidal defenses of Germany,...

"The Government of the Reich, who regard Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attach the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See and are endeavouring to develop them." -Adolf Hitler, in his speech to the Reichstag on 23 March 1933 "Almighty God. Dear heavenly father in thy name let us now in pious spirit begin our instruction, enlighten us. Teach us all truth, strengthen us in all that is good, lead us not into temptation, deliver us from all evil in order that, as good human beings, we may faithfully perform our duties and thereby, in time and eternity, be made truly happy. Amen." -Adolf Hitler

In some ways they were social animals playing their inescapable social roles in war. However, religion seems to have played more of a part in it than you assume. Japan followed the Shinto religion at the time, it taught reincarnation, the Emperor was, supposedly, the descendant of the Sun goddess causing him to be worshiped like a living god. Kamikazes went through elaborate religious rituals and ceremonies before going on their suicide missions. And the name itself, kamikaze, is religious, it means the "divine wind."

You don't believe that BS about Hitler being some anti-Christian atheist, do you?

Undoubtedly there are cultural differences, but the promise of eternal life has never made a majority of those who "believe it" act reckless with their lives.

By the way, "kamikaze" is believed not to refer first of all to the literal meaning "divine wind", but to the winds (typhoon, IIRC) that destroyed the Mongol ships that had set out to conquer Japan. Nature is divine in Shinto, hence that wind was not "un-religious" (was anything really non-religious in original Shinto?), however the historical reference to a phenomenon that saved the Japanese from the violence of the Mongols seems to be top-most in the reason for the term "kamikaze".

Religion in Japan was like other early religions, simply a way of knowing the world. Hence there was no divorcing religion from any aspect of life, which is why I said one could argue for religion as a basis for kamikaze (the exigencies of war and devotion to state seem stronger to me, however). By the same token, it is difficult to look at the earlier Japan and suppose that religion caused this or that to occur, vs. the state, societal needs, or the Japanese hierarchy.

Much as atheists in Russia, who also fought to the death (sometimes with a bayonet in their backs---but this doesn't explain the defense of Stalingrad and Leningrad).

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

PS Dizzy: The majority of those "who believe" the "promise of eternal life" are not suicide bombers. Pay attention to the meaning of the text.

I think that what athiests like Dawkins are really promoting is the idea that, with our (evolved) intelligence and capacity for rational thought, we can now abandon the non-optimal solution of religion, and consciously replace it with something better, a system of values that gives us all of the benefits of cooperation and group cohesion without the baggage of irrational belief that went along with it. We have the capacity to have the best of both worlds now. All we have to do is embrace it.

— Altair IV

The purpose of this post seems to be to argue that ID has provided atheists a boost, and that that is a bad thing

True. But all the ancient state religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam among them, had the special features Dawkins described in his snarky way that supported war and terrorism, a paradise after death, a religious call to war, etc..

— normdoering

A ton of suicide bombings and other terrorist acts have been performed by largely secular organizations, such as the Lebanese Phalange party and the PLO. The Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka are practically the world champions of suicide attacks, and they're secular Hindus driven by nationalism with a dash of socialism.

"Dying to Win" draws on a thorough database of all suicide attacks recorded since the contemporary practice was born during the Lebanese civil war in the early 1980s: a total of 315 incidents through 2003, involving 462 suicidal attackers. Of the 384 attackers for whom Pape has data, who committed their deeds in such danger zones as Sri Lanka (where the decidedly non-fundamentalist, quasi-Marxist Tamil Tigers have used suicide attacks since 1987 in their fight for a Tamil homeland), Israel, Chechnya, Iraq, and New York, only 43 percent came from religiously affiliated groups. The balance, 57 percent, came from secular groups. Strikingly, during the Lebanese civil war, he says, some 70 percent of suicide attackers were Christians (though members of secular groups).

Keith Douglas:

Much of this thread leaves me cold. The Bible is not sociobiology, duh! However, I'm not sure every argument mustered against PvM works so well, either. You wrote: "The big bang is only the origin of a local expansion, at best..."

Keith, how could you possibly actually know that claim is true?

Curiously...Scott

Also, the effectiveness of "turn the other cheek" (and to a lesser extent "love thy neighbor") is directly proportional to the percentage of people who practice them. Since that percentage is never anywhere close to 100, I would say that no, Jesus did not have a workable moral philosophy.

— AC

"So what about it?"

Re-read my first sentence.

Undoubtedly there are cultural differences, but the promise of eternal life has never made a majority of those who "believe it" act reckless with their lives.

— Dizzy

Suicide bombers excluded? And if so, why? Sorry if this has been discussed - I may have missed some things, since I lazily scrolled through most of the multiple-posts...

Now one could certainly argue that most suicide bombers are nonetheless religious---they are. So are most people. If you want to implicate any particular religion, family of religions or religious concept in suicide attacks, you need to show that their followers really do value their lives less than other people. Dawkins hasn't done that, so far as I've seen.

China was mostly dominated by Confucianism, which AFAIK has no clear position on the afterlife and certainly doesn't reward doers of good with automatic paradise.

So God slaughtered trillions of organisms that didn't meet his needs in order to create us? No not from God's perspective, because everything is all instantaneous to God. Everything happens all at once. Perhaps we are also in the process of being culled in order to produce the sort of creatures that God really wants. Whatever are the creatures that God really wants, they are already in existence to God for he is outside of time and space and evolution. Using such a brutal mechanism is incompatible with a kind and loving god, IMO. There are no mechanisms when everything happens all at once. So it's all good, man. No worries.

It seems to me that all that's necessary is to determine if: 1) One truly believes in an eternal life after this (temporary) one 2) One truly believes that actions in this life affect the outcome of the next Given those two beliefs, the rational course of behavior would be to perform actions in this life that improve one's outcome in the next. In situations where an action would be harmful to oneself in this life, but beneficial in the next, the rational choice would be to perform the action.

— Dizzy

Certainly agree with your main point, that those who do not believe in an afterlife certainly may find reasons to sacrifice their own lives.

I will hypothesize, however, that those "secularly-motivated" sacrificers primarily focus on improving conditions for others in this life. There's an important distinction to be made there, in my opinion.

... how ancient are we going here?

Pre-Christian Rome didn't have a paradise (except in certain private cults), nor AFAIK did it have a strong religious rationale for war or conquest.

How about ancient Sumeria and Egypt?

— normdoering

What the ancient Romans did not believe in was eternal damnation and a vague paradise/heaven. The afterlife was just a new life in another world. After you were judged you got sent either to the Fields of Elysium, if you were a warrior or hero, or to the Plain of Asphodel, if you were an ordinary citizen. But, if you committed a crime against society, you went to Tartarus to be tortured by the Furies until such time as one's debt was paid.

I suppose I should also mention Cicero's "Dream of Scipio," which portrays a sort of Platonic/Pythagorean fusion where patriotic heroes are granted a bodiless, superpowered afterlife in space. However, Cicero seems to be echoing Plato here in constructing a "noble lie" to inspire good behavior; there's no indication that even he believed his story, let alone that any other Roman did.

Till a couple of years ago you hairless apes didn't even know about the existance of most of the matter in the universe (dark matter). You still don't have a very good grasp of how your own cells function. Yet I see both the atheists and the theists here making very confident predictions about the make up and abilities of God.

I keep observing strong similarities like this between extreme atheists and extreme religious fundamentalists. Both seem to have very little to no humility. Saying "I don't know." is just unthinkable for them. Both are prone to claiming that science supports their metaphysical conclusions.

Rationality is not limited to maximizing one's own benefit unless that's the only thing one desires in the first place.

But evolution isn't just a slow process; it's an incredibly cruel and wasteful one. It's a never-ending arms race fought through pure trial-and-error. It's impossible to even imagine the amount of human and animal suffering that it's taken to get us to where we are today.

Pvm: Some Christians are more forgiving than others, look for instance at the Amish and their response to the killing of their children. In some ways the Amish have the Bible right on that one single score.

— Norm

They will not fight back and they are almost all conscientious objectors to our wars. But the Amish have other problems, but in this case just their refusal to fight means they could not exist without existing within a larger and more aggressively and violently defensive society. If they were a nation, they'd be an easily invaded third world nation. They would indeed go singing when you feed them to the lions.

— Norm

Do you not know your history as well as not knowing your Bible? It's not really a prediction, it's history. Christians were fed to the lions and they did sing and freak out the Romans by not fighting. Soon after that abuse, Christianity became violent and went to war with the Pagans, violating their own principles.

PvM:In fact, as I will argue elsewhere, by using evolutionary pathways, God ensured that such fundamentals as a natural law of morality or moral grammar could evolve based on the simple premises of kinship selection and reciprocal altruism. So God slaughtered trillions of organisms that didn't meet his needs in order to create us? Perhaps we are also in the process of being culled in order to produce the sort of creatures that God really wants. What evidence exists that we are the final product? Using such a brutal mechanism is incompatible with a kind and loving god, IMO. This rationalization may preserve your religious faith, but you're had to reduce God down to something not worth having

— Nathan Parker

Rationality is not limited to maximizing one's own benefit unless that's the only thing one desires in the first place.

— Sir_Toejam

the examples you used are not ones of rationality, but rather rationalization. big difference.

The Bible's moral teachings wouldn't be a "moral grammar", rather they would be a result of the hypothesized moral grammar. We might call it a "moral language", or at least we might say that the Torah has a "moral language", the prophets another moral language, and the NT still another moral language.

— Glen

A moral grammar at best sets parameters, while society has to define the rules for itself. It remains to be seen if some commonalities in the moral response actually are composed of a sort of "grammar", or if the moral differences in the Bible manage to sink such an notion, of course with the help of other cultural evidence. That societal rules are necessary appears certain, while the differences among those rules hardly seem to be the result of moral constancy. Perhaps unity in diversity will someday be shown, but I wouldn't base my conclusions about morality on "moral grammar" just yet.

. God did not slaughter trillions of organisms, they were all relevant for His Plans and none of them were slaughtered, most died while living their life as part of an ecology.

Thread closed until server stabilizes. Seems this thread has caused excessive loads to our already stretched server.