Atheism And The Concept Of Enlightened Self-Interest

How do you go from Voltaire's mutual needs to end up at selfless altruism?

I think we overuse evolutionary theory sometimes to explain phenomenon that are more elegantly explained in other domains. Sure, moral (or socially cooperative) behaviors are compatible with evolutionary theory, just as a thunderstorm is compatible with Einstein's relativity. But just as meteorology offers a clearer explanation of thunderstorms than physics, perhaps morality is most clearly understood by the specifically behavioral sciences rather than the bedrock of biology. How about the prisoner's dilemma in economics? How about the self-concept in social psychology? The risk of pushing all subjects through the lens of one theory is failing to communicate the benefits of science to others and implying that a reality-based worldview involves comparing reality to things written decades ago rather than being a nonstop process of exploration, analysis, and understanding.

I'm sure that many people, whether they are atheist or theist, religious or nonreligious, would agree with the idea that to love one another is moral. In fact, many religious groups already encourage this behavior and act on it regularly. Additionally, there are several notable religious figures throughout history who have promoted positive social change (ex: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, and Mother).

As Richard Berry noted above about Christianity, there are nuggets of wisdom in the Bible that echo your ideas about moral behavior, and the same applies to other religious texts. Different religious groups, as well as different members within those groups, interpret their religious texts differently and many place emphasis on loving ones fellow man.

You say that, “the fact is that god can no longer be the source of morality,” this in fact is not a fact. This statement is your opinion which you have formed through your interpretation of what you have observed in the world.

I will admit that religion is slow to change. Perhaps religious change is even too slow in some cases. However, it has not remained completely consistent. Just looking at the history of religion in this country we can see that it has changed. I would recommend that you pick up the book, "The Universe in a Single Atom," by Tibet’s spiritual leader the Dalai Lama. I'm sure that you are aware of the history of China and Tibet. If so, then you are aware of the deadly violence that resulted from the Chinese government’s intolerance toward religion and their belief that religion inhibits social progress. In the book the Dalai Lama draws comparisons between science and spirituality and speaks on the importance of both. He also notes important changes that he has made, such as incorporating science into Tibetan children’s education.

All forms of group membership, not just religious group membership, can be problematic. This may lead one to believe that it would be best to eradicate all groups; however, forming social groups is part of human nature.

Your quote, "Human emotion is contagious, and we feed off of the emotions of those who surround us and according to whatever experiences we are having, remembering or anticipating", is an example of why many people join/form groups. This is definitely the case with religious groups. The spiritual feeling that many people experience in church (ex: catching the Holy Ghost) is their response to the emotional atmosphere of the church. Others have also noted similar experiences during certain secular group activities.

Another of your quotes, “If we do not plant our ethics in the improvable and adaptable soil of science, natural selection and our own willful ignorance will insure our demise in short order,” basically states that a belief in science will answer society’s moral/ethical problems. True many scientific findings about things such as race, gender, sexuality, etc. have been an essential tool in combating hatred. However, science in itself does not answer all moral or ethical questions. Science aims to answer positive questions (questions about how things are), rather than normative questions (questions about how things should be). Additionally, not all scientists are moral/ethical. History has showed us that science, and the use of science, especially technological science, has not always benefited society. I will draw a comparison here between religion and science, and argue that religion and science are tools, and can be use constructively or destructively.

“The study of morality and ethics involve our problem solving mechanisms, and the only thing that makes this ethics and morality such controversial subjects is the complexity of today’s world, mainly the infusion of religious belief into our societies.” I would agree with this statement if you replaced the word “mainly” with “regardless of”, or even, “including”. While religion is a single contributing factor to the increasing complexity of today’s world, if religion did not exist the world would remain complex, and we would still have ethical and moral dilemmas to contend with.

The best thing that we can as do as a society is remember that while members of groups share certain things in common, they do not share all things in common. Therefore, it's not fair to generalize. Humans will always form groups, from an evolutionary perspective its how we survived. We just need to be mature enough to love and respect one another unconditionally.