Why be good?

[Jenny A]

---

You really like strawmen don't you.  There is no such thing as atheist principles.  Atheism is not a philosophy.  It is a state of being in which a person does not believe in a god or gods.

Individual atheists myself included might have various reasons for why they believe theft and murder are wrong.  Some may also be environmentalists, but not all. 

---

I personally believe somethings are wrong and somethings are right out of a combination of gut instinct (evolution is at work there I'm sure), empathy for others (evolution again), social training, and reason.   If I were to state my operating rule when in doubt it would be this:  choose that course of action which you would have required if you were able to write the rules for humanity before your sex, race, nationality, abilities, etc. were known.

The justification is simple.  Morals are there to allow people to live together in the most mutually advantageous way possible.

---

First of all, once again not all atheists object to religious morality.  That generally isn't why atheists are atheists.  (hint it's that little matter of the complete lack of evidence for god).

So what is the justification for imposing my morality on others?  None, I don't and I can't.  But society can enforce it's morality and does so in the form of laws and social interactions.  In democracies those laws enacted based upon societies common sense of morality.  When one religious group attempts to take control of this process the results tend to be bad for society as a whole.  Secular morality is therefore preferable.

And, as it happens, I do object to strictures imposed by religious persons when the only justification for it is my god says so. Let me give you an example.  Thou shalt not kill is pretty much universally accepted as a good rule, advantageous to society as a whole. Thou shalt not eat pork is not.  Nor is thou shalt not take the name of the lord in vain or thou shalt have no other gods before me. My objections come in the form of political participation and/or appeal to the First Amendment.

---

Jenny-

If you Google the terms "theory of evolution' and "natural selection", you can read about the "survival of the fittest".

And I and many other sure wish you would actually do that because survival of the fittest doesn't mean what you think it does.

Survival of the fittest does not mean survival of the strongest to the ripest old age.  It means survival of genes in future generations either through direct parenthood, or through the promotion of those closely related.

Killing other members of the same species is a way in which some individuals achieve this end, but it is hardly the only method.  Nor is it likely to lead to success for the species as a whole.  If the whole species is decimated then no one's genes carry forward.  Not surprisingly therefore, in most species competing males do no kill each other nor do females kill of each others offspring.  Once one male is determined to be stronger, the fight is at an end.  Females in many species, not just ours, help other raise their offspring.  In some species there is no fight at all, just a courtship dance or other display.  And the extent of the display is limited by biological cost.

Other species rely on shear numbers of offspring.  Most insects and many, many fish fit this catagory.  Plants too. Don't forget about plants.  

In social mammals like humans and many other primates, getting along in the group and wooing are a large part of reproduction and child rearing requires much time effort peace and cooperation.  Humans are enormously successful mammals.  That success is based upon successful specialization and cooperation.

The reason we know about certain cultures such as the Spartans, the Visigoths, the Mongols, etc. is because they dominated those around them and survived. And within those "small groups", the alpha male led the group and passed on his genes through the offspring of the females he wanted. 

Actually the reason we know about them is because other surviving more literate cultures wrote about them.  The Spartans were never a world power.  They didn't even conquer Greece. The Spartans were annihilated by the Romans after being weakened by the revolt of their lower, non warrior class the helots. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta

The Visigoths and the Mongols didn't fair well in the long run either.  But I should add that internally, all three cultures thrived on social cooperation. None of them would have been remotely successful if they had not cooperated extensively with each other within their individual cultures.  This is true of all successful nations.

Now, in this thread, you can see how eager many are to backpedal away from this fact of nature because of its implications. But the lacuna is the transition from "survival of the fittest" to feeling warmth and empathy toward the weak and less fortunate members of the group. After millions of years of dominating and even killing off of the weak, are we to believe that we have recently begun looking out for others - even at our own expense? I'm not saying that does not happen in isolated cases, but it does not serve the long-term interests of the group to do so.

We have been looking out for others at our own expense for a very long time.  Frankly, it's something parents have been doing for the survival of their children as long as there have been people.  Nor are we the only species that behaves this way.  Evolution rewards those with surviving children.  If the group as a whole does not survive no ones children survive.

So, given that evolution is a presupposition in most atheists' belief system, then I am interested in hearing an explanation for the obvious incoherence resulting from holding simultaneously that:


[*]any species that evolves does so on the basis of natural selection and survival of the fittest, and
[*]man has evolved in a different manner such that being "good" is now more beneficial to the group/species than the dominance of the weak by the strong.

[*]

If you are really interested in learning rather than merely putting your fingers in your ears and saying "nah nah nah" I suggest the following:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/you...e-empathic

http://cogprints.org/3392/1/lovempat.htm

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB125382470366238705

More is just a google search away.