This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← IT SEEMS BIOLOGY (NOT RELIGION) EQUALS MORALITY

IT SEEMS BIOLOGY (NOT RELIGION) EQUALS MORALITY - Comments

God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 1 by God fearing Atheist

More good scientific ammunition against the religidiots.

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:16:00 UTC | #421889

blakjack's Avatar Comment 2 by blakjack

Quote: religion=morality.

Someone surely missed out the "im" (immorality as per Catholic clergy)

Jack

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:50:00 UTC | #421906

JemyM's Avatar Comment 3 by JemyM

Biology Socialization = Morality

Religion is a kind of socialization, although there are other kinds.

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:01:00 UTC | #421915

Misc's Avatar Comment 4 by Misc

Caps Lock = "()$=%§/%)§/=!

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:02:00 UTC | #421918

showmeproof's Avatar Comment 5 by showmeproof

Marc Hauser's MORAL MINDS is a very good read. In it Hauser argues for a Rawlsian creature as our moral signpost. A Rawlsian creature per Hauser is one that intuitively, yet unconsciously arrives at a solution to a moral problem, but can also be influenced by Humean (emotional) and a Kantian (or reasoning)moral 'creatures'. Of course he doesn't just stick to these three moral theorists, but he uses them as foundations in his inquiry into morality.

Andy Thomson's lecture, "From the Heavens or From Nature: The Origins of Morality", has a great insight into this phenomena. Andy explains why we have both Emotional, and Utility or Reasoning part s of our brain, and how they are used in addressing moral issues. He concludes through the use of Joshua Greene's 2001 fMRI study,(paraphrasing),'in a sense they are both right.

Any which way you look at it, science has gone a long way in addressing the moral problem, and as Hauser suggests, it puts us on a road to inclusivity and plurality while remaining vigilant of exclusivity and the pompous nature of religion's death grip on moral absolutes.

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:31:00 UTC | #421930

whatwoulddawkinsdo's Avatar Comment 6 by whatwoulddawkinsdo

Though I am anti-religion... I must admit, If it wasn't for religion, we'd probably inevitably eat each other.

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:51:00 UTC | #421946

Rikitiki13's Avatar Comment 7 by Rikitiki13

True, whatwoulddawkinsdo, religions seem to always have been against oral sex.

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:54:00 UTC | #421948

Logicel's Avatar Comment 8 by Logicel

We don't eat each other because of what Hauser and Thomson has outlined. Religion need not apply.

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 21:36:00 UTC | #421966

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 9 by Stafford Gordon

Excellent and succinct.

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:07:00 UTC | #421977

mmurray's Avatar Comment 10 by mmurray

Actually cannabalism is relatively rare. The common examples in the highlands of New Guinea seem to be mixed up with the general lack of protein in that environment. When it occurs it is often bound up with religious rituals so quite why you would think religion is going to stop cannibalism I am not sure.

Interesting article here

http://www.guardianweekly.co.uk/?page=editorial&id=1000&catID=17

Michael

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:32:00 UTC | #421994

Kmita's Avatar Comment 11 by Kmita

Speaking of religions relationship with morality. In El Dorado county (in california) there was some priest who was arrested recently for sliding his hands down the pants of two sisters. Both under 10 years of age If I remember correctly.

Well people? Line up for your pedophilic morality. No shoving now. There are plenty of victims for everyone.

*edit*

Taking a quick look at the counties official website
http://www.co.el-dorado.ca.us/
will leave you wondering why this news isN'T present on its front page... under the News and Hot Topics header which takes up most of the front page...

Wouldn't you think an old man fingering two girls who don't even know what sex is would be considered news if it happened right in your backyard? Lets just sweep the unpleasant under the rug, where it belongs.

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:57:00 UTC | #422096

andersemil's Avatar Comment 12 by andersemil

6. Comment #440467 by whatwoulddawkinsdo

And how far do you think that would get us evolution-wise? True, quite a few species such as fish or lions tend to eat each other's offspring, but a wide-spread cannibalism wouldn't be of much benefit to the species.

Religion is the non-explanation of something which is already present in our genes, because it is beneficial to the survival of our species. It is the simple logic of a toolmaker who doesn't understand a world which is not made by a big toolmaker.

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:36:00 UTC | #422202

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 13 by SaganTheCat

catholicism is just pretend canibalism but don't tell them that, they get very upset if you don't accept they are really eating a dead jew

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:38:00 UTC | #422233

BlueCollar8theist's Avatar Comment 14 by BlueCollar8theist

11. Comment #440619 by Kmita

That happened less than an hour from where I live and I had never heard about it at all. Absolutely disgusting. Both the act and the attempt to somewhat hide it.
John Steinbeck had a great idea, in the book 'Tortilla Flat', where a character relates a story of "suffering" at the hands of a priest. The solution was, if memory serves me, 'stripped him naked and tied him to a post in a cattle pen and turned a hungry calf in with him.' The idea still makes me smile.

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:54:00 UTC | #422306