We kind of do that now. Being in a pluralistic society we can’t exactly rely on theological agreement to come to agreement on new laws. So there is a lot of discussion on rules that doesn’t reference a god, gods, or God.“Hey folks we all need to live together so we’re going to have a discussion about what kind of society we want to create and what rules will help us get there. Anyone who finds they disagree is welcome to form their own community elsewhere. Also expect that these ideas may grow and change over time.”
Does not the logic of evolutionary theory – the disadvantaged disappear – argue against the above reasoning?The most likely explanation to me is that the belief itself provided an evolutionary advantage or was associated with something that did. Once consciousness evoked to the point at which we were aware of our own mortality and the terrible risks we faced those who believed in ‘higher powers’ that could be influenced to help us would have been happier, more optimistic and less prone to despair at their awareness of the world and its dangers. They would have therefore been more successful and had more offspring.
If these ideas were held by ~ 95% of all humanity then your point above might have merit. But these ideas are not now nor have they been widely believed as true.We must also be open the possibility of (and I say this with no disrespect, just to make the point) fairies, elves, unicorns, bigfoot, yetis, astral travel, healing touch, crystal therapy, reincarnation, karma …
Logically, does not the above have the dependency backwards? Does not an individual’s morality determine the decision one makes?My morality is a result of decisions I make and of consensus decisions in my community.
It’s symbiotic. If someone’s morality determined their actions no one would ever perform an action that disagreed with their sense of morality, but people do. Most people through their lives refine their beliefs as they learn more about themselves and the world. We usually call that ‘wisdom’.Logically, does not the above have the dependency backwards? Does not an individual’s morality determine the decision one makes?
Without stealing the point from FiveLinden who mentioned it, I’m unclear why you’d think this? His first sentence proposes an advantage but you switched to disadvantage.Does not the logic of evolutionary theory – the disadvantaged disappear – argue against the above reasoning?
I believe what you describe is normally called “rationalizing”, that is, the disingenuous attempt to explain or justify with logical, plausible reasons, even though not true, an act. The honest one admits the act is unjustified, opposed to their notion of morality, apologizes to those, if necessary, and moves on.It’s symbiotic. If someone’s morality determined their actions no one would ever perform an action that disagreed with their sense of morality, but people do.
If those who believe are advantaged then those who do not believe are disadvantaged. The disadvantaged do not reproduce and their “atheist” gene disappears from the subsequent population.Without stealing the point from FiveLinden who mentioned it, I’m unclear why you’d think this? His first sentence proposes an advantage but you switched to disadvantage.
You’re trying to present a statistical advantage as a perfect absolute one. Advantaged changes are more likely to reproduce, disadvantaged ones less likely. You’re also considering this in isolation as if no other selection pressures would exist, and ignoring that religiosity may not be the only expression of that trait.If those who believe are advantaged then those who do not believe are disadvantaged. The disadvantaged do not reproduce and their “atheist” gene disappears from the subsequent population.
? I have made no argument one way or another. Your question should be posed to @FiveLinden who proposes that evolution is the most likely explanation contra the OP’s claim.You’re also considering this in isolation as if no other selection pressures would exist, and ignoring that religiosity may not be the only expression of that trait.
No, decisions on morality are a result of observation, rational thought, and evolved human instinct, such as the instinct to live in groups and supporting another.Logically, does not the above have the dependency backwards? Does not an individual’s morality determine the decision one makes?
Dan’s response is right. Many evolved traits are useful only on average, over time. Groups with a range of traits have an advantage. There is a clear genetic basis for some forms of depression. A disadvantage? Yes, if we all had it. But turns out people who are depressed are better at predicting the future. They don’t have such a strong optimism bias. So in a situation of risk they will help others by drawing attention to dangers.If those who believe are advantaged then those who do not believe are disadvantaged. The disadvantaged do not reproduce and their “atheist” gene disappears from the subsequent population.
The interpretation is too simplistic. Being intelligent is obviously a genetic trait and will, generally speaking, result in advantages in the long run. That doesn’t mean that stupid people die out. I know quite a few…If those who believe are advantaged then those who do not believe are disadvantaged. The disadvantaged do not reproduce and their “atheist” gene disappears from the subsequent population.
Are you claiming that if people over time are observed to act in certain manner, have a rational for doing so, claim such acts are instinctual then that manner of acting becomes moral for all humanity?No, decisions on morality are a result of observation, rational thought, and evolved human instinct, such as the instinct to live in groups and supporting another.
Who said anything about ‘all humanity’? That was a moral decision that society made. It was considered so egregious by others that literally millions of lives were lost in war to stop the behavior.Are you claiming that if people over time are observed to act in certain manner, have a rational for doing so, claim such acts are instinctual then that manner of acting becomes moral for all humanity?
Yes, and that’s the point. Following @FiveLinders method of observing acts, having a rationale for such acts, claiming the acts as instinctual does not make them moral.Who said anything about ‘all humanity’? That was a moral decision that society made.
He didn’t say just thinking about a rationale makes something moral or not, but society’s morality does change as issues are debated. Slavery for example was considered moral, until it wasn’t, and now it’s considered abhorrent. As our understanding and views mature we hopefully more towards an ever improving sense of morality that we can all live with, regardless of background, religion, etc., though I don’t think anyone would claim that to be a straight line either.Yes, and that’s the point. Following @FiveLinders method of observing acts, having a rationale for such acts, claiming the acts as instinctual does not make them moral.
Does it go both ways today with Christian missionaries seeking conversions and condemning Hindus as pagans?. I also don’t believe that Hindus forcing conversions, murdering and raping Christians in India today is at all justified for what Portugal did hundreds of years ago.
The Inquisition of Goa is pretty well acknowledged among historians, is it not? Burning Hindus alive at the stake is quite painful and humiliating. After all, this was done by foreigners entering into India from abroad? In many cases this was done to quasi-Hindus, IOW those Hindus who had converted to Christianity under pressure from the missionaries, and then as they thought about it later, decided it was a mistake to convert to Catholicism and so they returned to their original Hindu religion.Without getting into the alleged details of a book and its use by radicals as propaganda
I disagree. Christianity is the pillar of western civilization. Polygamy, for example, is outlawed based on Christian principles.laws do not derive from Christian or other religious thinking.
As well as being a rationalist, I am a humanist. Democracy including openness and freedom is what protects us from those who like Hitler seek to impose inhuman actions on us. Hitler, of course was not an atheist or a rationalist. He believed in a god he called ‘destiny’ and another he called ‘Germany’, to each of which he attributed spiritual power.Yes, and that’s the point. Following @FiveLinders method of observing acts, having a rationale for such acts, claiming the acts as instinctual does not make them moral.