God and Sheri S. Tepper

Good questions.Let me ask you - what prevents you from taking immoral actions right now? What do you use to determine what actions are moral and what actions are not? Because most people act morally, not because they have to, but because they want to. Because they've internalized whatever moral code their society thinks is best.Judgement in religion serves a number of sociological purposes. For one, it legitimizes society's protocols for moral judgement - governments, etc. It provides a simple answer to explain why people behave morally. And it provides a sense of cosmic retributive justice for those individuals who act immorally but escape punishment.The point is, damnation and judgement are features of succesful religions because they aid individuals in internalizing moral codes, but it isn't required. What is required for society to function is for individuals to internalize moral codes. Those who don't find themselves rejected by society relatively quickly.Religions don't enforce moral behavior. Individuals enforce their own behavior based on religious (or otherwise) moral codes that religion helps them internalize.

a-Well, this is a little loaded (I know unintentionally) because we haven't really established what "immoral actions" might be. But...b-Since I am the father of two children, immoral actions for me would be those that endanger the health/lives/futures of my children. So I don't take those kind of actions...this typically forces me to obey the laws of the land and various laws of physics. It also forces me to usually act in accordance with certain mores of our society such as not committing adultery. I would point out that I don't honor all mores--for instance, I have rejected Christianity and the Christian God, and I would bet that you all know the stigma attached to that...especially for a good ole Southern Baptist boy. This act had to be weighed carefully...would my beliefs (and the open espousing of them) harm my childrens' futures? The answer is: it may, it may. But I can't live a lie, no matter the consequences, and possibly the overall effect will be a net benefit. I'm going to disagree with that...but the moral argument is still vague to me...I think defining behavior as "moral" or "immoral" is rife with problems. I'd rather just examine the behavior...which I believe to be largely motivated by self-interests. The bottom line to me is: religion does (and must) define moral(behavior) laws.
People are CONSTANTLY acting immorally (I'm using the Biblical definitions)! You hit the nail right on the head with this comment: That's why, in many early societies, religion and government were tightly intertwined. Early government needed the "hammer" that religion provided--"don't do what you're supposed to and you'll burn in hell!" --scared the crap out of me as a kid. Not so! Bill Clinton, FDR, Joe Kennedy Sr., etc...What I believe we are seeing is the ongoing dissolution of the moral fabric of (at least US society) because, if you'll allow the analogy to continue, the stitching (organized Christian religion) is falling apart. We're losing that cohesive guide that tells us how to behave. What you have are shreds left around us, take adultery for instance--a century ago, forget about it. Did it happen? yes. Would a president be allowed to continue in office if the word got out? no way. The press knew that so, when they found out about the various affairs of the rich and powerful, it was swept under the rug. Now, there is no punishment for it--no social ostracism, so the press airs it out. What happens? NOTHING. Where's morality now?I'll tell you, creationism, and other Christian "sciences", are the last dying gasps of a worn out belief system. Unfortunately, about 1600 years ago, we wedded our civilization to it in a survival pact--so our civilization is being shaken by its death.Do I think this is the "fall" of western civilization? NOT AT ALL! The church is being replaced by a new (better) belief system--scientific enquiry. Starting in the 1500's, the church has been giving way to scientific enquiry and the age of rational thought. What we are seeing now are the death throes. It will be up to us--the rationalists to define the new "morality"--and even define if we need morality at all.wr/Geno

So you do what you believe is moral because you believe that's what's best for your society and family. Ergo, practical concerns are all that need be considered in determining morality - what's best for people? Clearly what those folks did wasn't strictly immoral. Most people responded to their picadilloes with a "wink-wink" attitude. Who says adultery is immoral? For that matter, do you really think adultery is happening more often? Or isn't it far more likely that, as popular judgement about sexual activities decreases, adultery is kept less secret? And you're just hearing about it more?Morals change, but human behavior remains largely the same. People do the same things. All that changes is our perceptions of those activities. So, no, I don't think we're headed for any kind of moral collapse. What we are headed for, I hope, is a time when human behavior is not seen as something to be feared or judged, but something to be understood and corrected when it represents a true danger to others.

On all this, I would restate that I have a problem with the (lack of) definition of what is moral and immoral. I also pointed out that since I was going to use the terms, I would define them in Biblical terms. I didn't feel very comfortable using them and I probably won't again. However, you've used the term before to describe your actions so, I would like to hear your definition, rather than try to fumble around with the concept. Those morals, as defined in Biblical terms, are most certainly dissolving...attitudes toward homosexuals is a particularly pertinent sign. As I mentioned, this doesn't represent a sign that our civilization will collapse, merely that our behavior need not be constrained by this old morality any longer. Precisely!wr/Geno

I guess I consider my actions "moral" when they aren't contrary to the good of the people in my community and family. Does that work for you? So, it sounds like we agree. What are we discussing, again?

You need to sleep sometime!I think we agree that the "old morality" need not constrain our behavior.My point is that I believe we are outgrowing the need for "morality"--which is a term and concept steeped in our religious past.There is lawful behavior, which would be behavior constrained by the laws of the land and there is ethical behavior, which is behavior constrained by the ethics of the land.But neither of those cover the behaviors that "morality" constrained...so, if we do away with morality, what takes the place of it to help guide us in "right living"?This is where I've had to strip as much of the incipient faith-based ideas out of my thinking--and causes me to reject the term "morality".After you do that, the only things that I've been able to accept as incontrovertible fact is:1. Human life is based on DNA-based reproduction and consequent evolution. (Humankind is a result of the evolution of DNA).2. The only reason for humanity is to continue the diversification and improve the survivability of DNA.3. Humans do this through reproduction of offspring.As a result of this chain of thought, the only reason I see for our existence (as humans) is to reproduce. The corollary is that these offspring need to be capable of reproducing as well--we can't raise mules. This also implies that those who better ensure their offspring take part in reproduction successfully (as defined above) will be more successful in satisfying the original rationale.This is the only driving force which affects my behavior. I believe it strips away all but the most necessary requirements, thereby clearing up the muddy decisions we all face. If it is more or less beneficial to the accomplishment of the above then, in the essence of our existence, it's the right thing to do...nothing else really matters.wr/Geno

Just to make some comments.Evolution doesn't really have a purpose and looking for a reason to be moral there is in my view a rather strange thing to do.So I owuld disagree that humans have any sort of purpose to reproduce on that basis (individual humans may and often do make it their purpose - or one of them) and even if I changed my mind on that point I would still not see that as any sort of moral imperative.Would it not be better to look for morality in human nature and in the needs of a society - both as a thing in itself and as a collection of individuals.BTW have you read _Godless Morality_ by Richard Holloway ? I think you might find it of interest.

That's why I try to be careful not to imply that Evolution has a purpose or that morality even means anything in this context.The basis of my position is that humans are merely one form of DNA evolution. We don't even know if we are the best line of DNA evolution--it might be cockroaches (or beetles. The planet's FULL of 'em. I once heard a story that if an alien landed on Earth and he had to figure out the mind of God, he would say that God was overwhelmingly absorbed with beetles.).I believe that we humans are sort of a by-product of DNA evolution. In those terms, the only purpose we really function for DNA is making sure it gets passed on to future generations with our own particular arrangement of the bits of encoding. Look at animals...another version of DNA evolution. The only thing a dog lives for is procreation. The difference between a dog and a human is that we have developed the ability to optimize the chance of our DNA survival to a much higher degree through sophisticated social behavior and scientific developments. Steps to ensure this advantage is optimized are what I consider to be "right living." I don't think so. Again, my problem starts out with the definition(s) of morality...everyone has a different definition. I say, scrap it. The concept worked fairly well when we were a homogeneous society of protestant Christians with tightly controlled dogma, but now even the acceptable practices of Christians has broadened tremendously--some say it's alright to be gay, others say it's an abomination, adultery may be bad and it may not be bad. When I talk to various Christians, even they can't agree on what they consider moral--nobody can agree.As to society, the primary importance to me is that, sometime in the long distant past, living in social groupings improved survivability for our species. If you couldn't behave well as a part in the group, you could either be cast out (significantly decreasing your chance of survivability and hence breeding) or you could take over (significantly improving your chance of survivability and ...).The vast majority of us, however, are probably in the middle--we became optimized to work and behave well as a society. Society works today because of this. Those who are cast out by society need not be bound by its laws anymore (since they no longer receive any of its benefits) and need to struggle harder to survive...hence you have crime. The leaders of our society (those whose "immoral" deeds we wink at) have hardly ever been bound by society's mores and so we constantly hear about how the rich and powerful get away with murder--literally in some cases.Consequently, I'm very cynical about setting up arbitrary rules to govern my behavior--no matter the context. I want maximum flexibility within the bounds of society (since I'm neither an outcast or an elite). Logically, my "right living" or "right action" [synonymous terms to me] posture dictates that I need to examine what role I need to take in society and what kind of life I will live. Generally, I'm law abiding, ethical, and right living because I believe it will better enable my offspring to survive to spread my version of DNA further.I just got back from "Borders" bookstore so I will have to put Godless Morality on the list. Crash, I tried to find "Grass" but they didn't have it. Has it been out of print for a while? I looked at a couple of other titles, but thought I should start with Grass.wr/Geno[This message has been edited by Geno, 06-14-2003]

The point of all the above is:If an Atheist (or Agnostic or Deist) has rejected faith through application of logic, then why would they stop there? Why keep any assumptions? If behaving "morally" doesn't make any assumptions then what's the logic behind acting "morally"? If, as an Atheist, I were to continue to act in accordance with faith-based rules, what's the point? Might as well go back to Pascal's gamble.wr/Geno

And here's my answer again.Morality is a human concern. It's real basis is not in reliigon. There is no more or less reason why an atheist or agnostic should behave morally than a religious beleiver.

Because, just because you first heard some rule in context of religion (Thou shall not ___) doesn't mean you have to reject the rule itself. You only have to reject the religious rationale for it - God sayz so - and think a little deeper - "Is 'thou shall not kill' a good rule to live by?"No morality is truly divinely inspired. Humans are the source of all morality, no matter what religions say. Morals can be judged on how well they serve their society.Atheism isn't the rejection of moral codes. It's the rejection of traditional rationale for moral codes. That's why you don't see too many immoral atheists.Anyway, biology shows us that altruism is a survival trait, and a pretty succesful one at that. Animals that give their lives to save their relatives tend to ensure the survival of more copies of their genes (the ones they share with those relatives) than those that don't.

Perhaps, but if that is so, then I challenge you to come up with an agreement on what morality is. I think you will find it impossible to come up with any greater agreement other than "right behavior", (thus my "right living" or "right action"), which is a truncation of the dictionary definition. What it leaves out is the need that defined "morality" has for judgement.That "moral judge" in western civilization was the church. Take that authority away and you have no basis for morality. See above.wr/Geno

quote:

---

That "moral judge" in western civilization was the church. Take that authority away and you have no basis for morality.

---

Not true. The Church was a component of a larger culture, which-- church included-- was the real judge of behavior. Take away the Church, you still have culture, though a different one.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

It seems that you do not understand my point, My whole point is that the church is not and never has been the real basis for morality. Or maybe you disagree - but if so I would rather have an response that amounts to more than "IS NOT"As I say morality comes from humanity, not from religion. Where do you think religion gets its ideas of morality from ?

Well, I would think that "relative morality of atheists as compared to the general populace" would be pretty difficult to prove, but I think that's a lateral issue.More important would be the rejection of traditional rationale for moral codes, which I think is swell, but only half the answer. What would you substitute for the traditional rationale? You can't just say, without methodology, "you know, killing really IS wrong!" My methodology is the only one I consider rational: gene survival. What's your methodology? (see below) This is more interesting--evolutionary altruism and morality... Honestly, I haven't really made up my mind about this. I don't think evolutionists have made their mind up about it either. However, it IS interesting and I have thought about how this would affect my own gene survival.Is altruism your only guide for right living? If so, is the logical explanation because altruism improves the function/cohesion of society, which in turn improves the probability of survivable future conditions? If so, are you concerned with just the survival of your genetic future, the future of your select society, or the future of all mankind or the future of all living species? For whatever choice, why?Thank you very much!w/r Geno