Strength:
This article contains a lot of information that I am in agreement with…
I read the article and I could write an lengthy response. None of us have the time for that, so I will try to be brief.
Psychology - I wouldn’t want to base any argument on the findings of Freud. I studied Freud and found him to be very speculative. I’ll go on to something with more substance.
Biology - The problem I have with the genetic basis for behavior is that it takes as much faith to believe this as it does to believe in God. It presumes that there is this “force” that “drives” genetic development in a specific direction and that our genetic code “wants” to survive. When people speak of evolution (I don’t discount certain elements of evolution, I’m not a strict creationist), they refer to the evolutionary process in terms of intelligence, cognition, and purpose. You hear statements like, “Evolution moved in the direction of…” or “The species evolved to live in colder climates”, as though there is an intelligence or purpose driving evolution that rises above the individual. These types of statements are required to describe the evolutionary process because in order to rationalize evolution without a Creator, one has to presume some kind of order to the process, and not just order, but purpose. I’m a geologist, so I know a bit about this subject.
Regarding the genetic evolution of morality, the examples given in the article sound straightforward enough, except the one postulating that the homosexual “gene” evolved in spite of the lack of reproduction because homosexuals may have preferentially taken risks to save family members. That flies in the face of scientific reason. If you believe that homosexuality is genetic, then homosexuality would have died out long ago. However, the examples given are extremely simplistic when one considers that along with genetic evolution of those simple behaviors, we are daily bombarded with millions of other stresses that have evolutionary implications. Thus, saying that because green-bearded men who take more risks to save their own kind means that green-bearded people will proliferate is overly simplistic and doesn’t take into account the ability of green-bearded men to resist disease, out run predators, find food, survive cold, etc. The sum of these characteristics is what allows one individual to survive preferentially over another and pass on his entire genetic code. You can’t single out individual genetic traits, or even groups of traits and claim that they produce an advantage, because there are not focused environmental stresses that determine survivability. This doesn’t even consider random chance (a rock falling on the genetically superior green bearded guy).
As far as the memes idea goes. I can’t believe the author actually wants us to take this seriously. He has absolutely made this up with no data and no evidence.
I returned to my original postulation. Yes, you can have a moral code in a non-theistic world but it is not absolute. Why? Look around. We think the human race has come so far and that we have evolved societies that are superior to past societies. I disagree. Technology and knowledge have advanced light years, but basic human behavior has not. If statistics were available, you’d likely have just as many people, as a percentage, who rape, kill, steal, lie and cheat as you ever had. We might be better at catching them and, thus, reducing the incidences of such behavior, but the percentages of people with these tendancies doesn’t seem to be decreasing. Our collective concept of what is right and wrong has ocellated back and forth depending on who is in power and what the majority believes. Therefore, any morality with a human origin cannot be considered absolute.
Also, although the article was well written and the author articulate, he violates the same principle that theists are accused of violating. We are accused of assuming God’s existence as a basis for our arguments. The author assumes that God doesn’t exist as a basis for his. In the process, he violates logic by making leaps of faith that are every bit as broad as those of the theist.
I still content that there are many intellectual atheists (anti-theists) who think themselves superior and thus better equipped to make moral decisions for society. These people don’t even want people like me at the social table making these decisions. Forgive me for lumping you in with this group. That was unfair.
We have to remember that people are never in unanimous agreement on morality, thus, some group is always deciding what will be moral for the entire society. Therein lies the conflict.
We believe in God because creation clearly reveals His existence.
Great post!
One of my dearest friends, an RN, is fond of saying that people who think that calling faith a “crutch” have clearly never had any broken bones…