(May 30, 2011 at 11:08 am)Arcturus Wrote:(May 12, 2011 at 2:58 pm)diffidus Wrote: If you believe in God, then how to behave is simple: This life is transient and if you do good things you will spend the rest of eternity in Heaven, whereas, if you behave badly you go to Hell for eternity. If you truly believe in God, then you cannot question the morality of this because God, being perfect, could not be in error.
If you do not believe in God, then this life is still a fleeting transient moment compared to the age of the universe, but how to behave is not so clear. Since this is the one and only existence, then the only rational course is to pursue those things that serve your own ends and maximise the pleasure and happiness of your short vacation from the dark abyss of eternity.
With regard to the latter, this means that the only grounds for altruism is if you happen to be a person who enjoys putting others before yourself. If you happen to be selfish thats OK too. The only thing you need to avoid is breaking the Law, since this may take away your freedom which would diminish your existence. Apart from that, it is a free for all - a morality of ends?
There is an evolutionary basis for morality. Complex species such as humans and higher mammals display 'altruistic' behavior as a form of social interaction that helps the species to survive as a whole. Morality is not something that comes from a god, but from an inherent part of complex organisms that arise from natural processes. Morality becomes more and more important as a civilization advances: moving away from the stoning of adulterers in the past to the UN human rights declaration, people are increasingly aware of our need for an ethical system to base our lives on.
As for the other case, I would then argue, if we lived by religious morals, wouldn't the world be utterly chaotic and violent? The bible tells us to kill homosexuals, that slavery is perfectly fine, and that murder can be justified in the name of an invisible god. The worst thing is, the entire doctrine of christianity lies upon the concept of vicarious redemption, that it is perfectly fine to push the blame on someone else and not be accountable for one's own actions. What about islam? In many islamic nations, genital mutilation is prevalent. Women are treated at a level beneath that of animals. Is this moral? I think not. I would want a morality that is properly reasoned and argued, not one that is built upon by religious ideologies meant to control the minds of the masses.
There is also another evolutionary drive, much stronger than the one you alude to and this is survival of the fittest. Do you really believe our civilisation has advanced so far? Some people claim that we are close to reaching the peak of world oil production. Advanced western civilisations seem, coincidentally, to have taken a great interest in the Middle East where all the oil is produced. We think nothing of bombing and killing people in these areas of the world in the name of fake slogans such as 'the spread of freedom and democracy throughout the world'.
To me, this is just history as usual. Evolution takes millions of years and we certainly have not evolved from those days of cheering at Christians being thrown to the lions or the mass crowds that gathered to watch the beheading of a woman.
Relying on rational thinking has led to some of the more hideous atrocities. For example, Adof Hitler and the Holacaust, the Marxist regime in Russia, and the 'leap forward' in China under Moa, which led to 30 Million deaths from famine.
I think rational thinking gives solutions to people who have their own 'ends' in mind. The great guillotine feast of blood letting following the French Revolution was the very epitome of Enlightment thinking. Those people who sanctioned the executions did not imagine they were evil, it was just that they thought they had reasoned out the solution to intractable historical problems. In their minds they were bringing in the new dawn , 'the age of reason', any price was worth paying to protect this fledgling situation.
Do not be surprised if 'push comes to shove' that in a future Malthusian conflict over resources, our western nations do not resort to type and a new cycle of survival of the fittest ensues resulting in another mass slaughter(which could be worst of all due to the terrifying weapons of mass destruction that are continually being developed).
The main problem with religion is the same as that with those who rely on a kind of rational civilisation, namely, that it is likely to be taken hostage by leaders, who will use it to justify some end that they percieve to be supreme. This may be an intractable problem for humankind.
