MilitantModerate

Next time your favorite theist asks you that here is another spin on the evolution of ethics. Aparently altruism, helpfullness, excercising the golden rule, etc. receive some sort of endorphin like positive feedback from the brain:

<a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/search/site/story.asp?id=131E81B8-C68D-4D52-A75E-E8AB10CF2FA3" target="_blank">http://www.nationalpost.com/search/site/story.asp?id=131E81B8-C68D-4D52-A75E-E8AB10CF2FA3</a>

Clarice O'C

Thank you very much for this link. I have been looking for that very thing and I'll be spreading it around. It should be obvious, however, that good does not originate from religion because there are altruistic atheists.

Clarice




Thursday, July 18, 2002

Psychiatrists have
discovered a biological
basis for altruistic
behaviour that
suggests we benefit
from performing
seemingly selfless
acts.

Edited to fix tag.

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Grizzly ]</p>

echidna

Given the etymology of the word “good” , yes you need God.

Badfish

Sice we live in a Godless society for the most part these days, the answer is no, society teaches us to be socially good.

This does not necessarily reflect God interpretation of good however.

But yes we can be good to each other without God. Barely. But only good from a worldly social prospective.

RogerLeeCooke

That's the kind of goodness I want. I'd really rather not have the superfine kind of goodness that comes from using either a sacred book or a professional priesthood as the oracle of right and wrong. Both of the latter tend to think that belief is within the control of the will and that the highest good is for people to believe propositions for which there is no good evidence. What they get, instead of belief, is *affirmation*, in other words, the hypocrisy of people pretending to believe something they actually don't believe, in order to avoid a scale of penalties ranging from social isolation to burning at the stake, depending on how sure the authorities are of their power. It is *impossible* to believe the supernatural myths that the religions propound, if by belief you mean the kind of confidence associated with one's belief, say, that the sun will continue to rise in the morning. Yet many people do claim to have the same amount of confidence in both.

To get back to the morality aspect of this, I find a tremendous amount of confusion among Christians especially these days, as to the source of America's prevailing mores. Many seem to believe that America's morality is Christian in origin. In fact such things as the value of honesty, respect for property and other people, deeds of charity, etc., are not particularly Christian. All civilized societies have them. Things that *are* particularly American (or at least originated in a relatively few European countries), such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc., have been abominated by both the Bible and the Church for almost the whole of their existence.

Defiant Heretic

I think there is a fundamental difference between a theistic and atheistic definition of morality. A theist defines immorality as a crime against a god a.k.a. sin. An atheist, however, defines immorality as a crime against man, or a crime against nature.

In the theistic definition, something is immoral generally if it has the effect of detracting from the honor of the god in question. Either that, or it stimulates the pleasure pleasures of the brain in some way.

In the atheistic definition, something cannot be immoral unless it causes harm to another. However, there are many cases where harm will result from all decisions made regarding a particular moral dilemma. Without a divine root of morality to fall back on, an atheist is more likely to depend on situational ethics to best govern their lives.