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

Comment

← A religious but not righteous Judge: Cherie Blair

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 153 by daftness

Comment #460444 by Crazycharlie

Yes, I agree, Maxwell's achievements have been under recognised even in his own country, and we Scots are not usually noted for failing to blow our own trumpets "Wha's like us? Damn few an' they're a' deid."

Comment #460468 by HugoRifkind

Welcome and thanks for taking the time to post.

No. What I was saying was that morality without God, at the final analysis, makes little internal logical sense.


But morality makes perfect evolutionary sense, which is really the only kind of sense that humans
rejecting the god hypothesis require.

If you really believe that morality can come only from gods (setting aside all the immorality religions have their gods display), then you have simply not read the vast amount of research on why animals (humans included) act in altruistic ways that eventually help the propogation of the genes they are carrying.

Morality is the label we have given to the interactions between human beings that allow us best to co-exist and interact with one another. We have,in effect, evolved our morals to allow societal living.

Therefore, it makes perfect
internal logical sense
to act 'morally'. No gods required.

It may well be hard for atheists to explain to believers the statistical reasoning behind why acting morally is natural, and how we seem to know instinctively what is moral and what is not. But that is far from saying that there is no 'logical' explanation available.

The faithful know instinctively what is moral but choose to ascribe it to gods. Atheists also know instinctively what is moral but accept the evolutionary history of those instincts.

Why that should get you so annoyed, I really don't know.

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:44:00 UTC | #440810