Comments (84)

Natalie

Thank you very much for your insightful comments. You have rightly criticized this ‘scientific’ account for what it is – an all too uncritical privileging of Enlightenment rationality and secular triumphalism. In an age where theological insight is increasingly constrained in public discourse, your thoughts come as a welcome rejoinder.

Thank you for your work and best of luck to you in all your (undoubtedly bright) future holds.

Faisal wrote:
Realist, I can appreciate your reasoning. But that is exactly what it is, your reasoning.

Yes it is. I respect your point of view also. I can't prove to you that the natural world is all there is, but it looks like that to me. I don't see any reason to believe in things that I don't have any evidence for.

BTW no need to apologize. I was trying to be provocative, to ruffle a few feathers and get people thinking. I was expecting a reaction. :-)

Regards,
Realist

Dear Mr. Mark,
It is standard when quoting someone to use elipses ("...") when quoting two separate sections of a statement while omitting others that come in between within the same set of quotation marks.

It is not that I am not used to my religious beliefs being challenged (and it was quite presumptuous of you to assume that I have religious beliefs given what I wrote in my post). People like the interviewee on this post have spent their entire academic lives in elite institutions studying theology and philosophy where real challenges to religious belief are often encountered. I am guessing (and I may be wrong) that those who make mean (and frankly misogynist) personal attacks have not. They betray that they have not been socialized into a set of practices for discussing religious belief in a civil manner.

I do not advocate censorship. However, comments on this blog are intended to be analytical and critical but not profane, personally mean, or inappropriate to the nature of the discussion. A post that falls outside this purview and is deleted is not a censored post. Rather, given the range of comments solicited, it is not properly a post at all and is therefore rightly removed. It is merely masquerading as a real post. The best analogy I can think of is that such posts are like fouls in basketball. To prohibit them is not to infringe on the players ability to play. Rather, their prohibition and censure acknowledges that they are not properly part of the game at all. Similarly, the removal of comments is what happens when non-posts masquerading as real posts (for the nature of which I refer you to the "full rules" above the box for posting) make their way onto the blog.

I have no comments about mean spirited Christians except to say that mean spirited atheists can only be different by degree of meanness.

Also, I think that I would read this blog (which I don't normally do) if the discussion was substantive. To remove such comments as fall outside the "rules" may eliminate the readers that I imagine the Washington Post doesn't want posting anyway. It would clear the way for thoughtful discussion.

Realist, I can appreciate your reasoning. But that is exactly what it is, your reasoning. The issue is about what reality is and its perception. What I don't agree with is that just because empirical, physical, quantifiable, or other scientific evidence does not exist for something, it is not true. This is a form of fundamentalism. I respect your decision to base whatever you want on scientific evidence. I like the solutions of science when I have a dislocated shoulder, or a bad headache. As to questions of who I am, where I came from, where I am going, I have my opinions that have little to do with science (or with the philosophies of organized religion). There is nothing wrong with seeking answers on your own. Scientific reasoning is one way of looking at things and perceiving the world. I don't agree that it is the only way to determine everything.
(I have to apologize for my earlier post - it was a little rude -sorry!)

The post and following discussion present a false dichotomy between a science of moral sense and traditional religion. If religion is only concerned with rules and regulations applicable to a specific culture, then there will be conflicting systems. I'd like to present the idea that Christian teaching is consistent with a science of moral sense.

Paul writes that, even without God, people have an innate moral sense (Romans 2:14). The Christian religion is not about specific rules and regulations; Paul even writes "Everything is permissible. (1 Corinthians 10:23)" Rather, it is about developing a moral sense based on the golden rule of "love your neighbor as yourself." (as well as loving God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strengths.") This can and should include economic calculations on how your decisions can affect those around you.

In fact, a science of moral sense is essential to a unified church. Anybody, regardless of genetics and culture, ought to be able to follow the way of Jesus. All Christians bring their background into the church, and it is an important work for both the Holy Spirit and the global church to distinguish between morals and mores.

I know, I know...it's a little crazy but I thought maybe I'd give it a try ;)

Craig

You are not arguing that knowledge based on empiricism is a useful thing, are you??

How un-fundamentalist!

Henry

Realist - very thought provoking post! It's (in my mind) sort of like the "chicken or the egg" question. Do we have this innate, human morality that we need to map to make sense of or do we make moral decisions and then after the fact try to reverse-engineer the map to justify/rationalize the decisions?

Interesting! I think probably a bit of both. I think that a persons individual morality is probably more of the former (innate, and hence the need for neurological study). However, once people congregate and organize in numbers (i.e. a country), then moral decisions perhaps lean towards the latter (rationalized).

Faisal, you wrote - "If someone killed my family, what good is it to know the combination of neurotransmitters that led the killer to commit the crime? This is what is being debated. Saying that free will (how is it free if tied to the brain), judgement, ethics, character, actions, are all based in physicality doesn't answer anything."

If someone killed your family, and it was determined that a chemical reaction in the brain could be identified as a possible culprit for their violent pathology, wouldn't you want this examined? It may, granted, not relieve your personal anguish at losing loved ones, but surely it is worthwhile to prevent future events of this nature?

If a pyschiatric patient escapes and commits a crime due to the nature of his/her illness, wouldn't it be appropriate to try to cure the illness so it doesn't happen again?

Sean (the censor) writes:

"Dear Pam, Anonymous, Mr. Happy Duck, Janet, and Mark,

I hope the administrators of this site remove your posts and ask you to post again without making personal attacks."

Censorship is a stinky business, Sean.

I've been posting here since the site's inception. Never had a post removed, though I'm sure you and others have flagged them as "offensive" to the site's administrators. You'll just have to get used to your religious beliefs being challenged. This ain't Sunday School, after all.

Perhaps you object to our describing people as "stupid" or some synonymous term. The dictionary defines stupid as being, "slow of mind: obtuse; given to unintelligent decisions or acts: acting in an unintelligent or careless manner; lacking intelligence or reason: brutish; marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting: senseless."

Stupid is a perfectly good word. Considering how many times Pam and others have taken the time to seriously, specifically and comprehensively answer questions from the likes of Spidey, Michael, Canyon Shearer, RNH, only to have them respond, "ha! you won't even attempt to answer my question," or "I won't bother reading your response to my question," wouldn't you say the word "stupid" is just about the most-perfect adjective one could use to describe such unreasoned and brutish statements?

Here's a challenge - show me ONE comment by an atheist on this board that equals the gleeful mean-spiritedness of the religionist's stock-in-trade "you're going to burn in hell for eternity" bromide.

Two other points:

1. Do you really think the WaPo is going to censor comments like the ones that get your panties in a wad when they allow blatant anti-Semites like Mr Gandhi to post as a columnist?

2. What do you think the readership of this blog would be if the WaPo decided to censor all the atheists? It would probably dwindle down to the fervently insane in short order. Ban the atheists and there won't be anyone around to teach the Xians about the Bible, let alone science and reality.

;)

I liked the part where someone asked (self-righteously) whether you would rather spend your life in a secularlist eastern prison or one of our fine, enlightened, Christ inspired western prisons...

This person should spend a couple of weeks in a Texas prison and then decide where he'd like to be...

Richard

Are you saying that Japan, Scandanavia are void of religious background?

They too have a culture shaped by a religious moral ethic, I am guessing. I think you would be hard pressed to find one community in existence that is not shaped by a beginning in the belief of some god. And, not all-knowing here, I think that if all origens are traced far enough you will find that they all began with the belief in one God.

I stand corrected, dogs (and other animals)will defend there own. Is this a moral decision, and is there a case of any dog or other animal laying down its life for a cause greater than the existence of itself or its species? And is that animal teaching others to follow siut for a better world?

And Lassie???

I'm not sure how i got in this discussion.

A Moral Compass,
In the begining Truth existed.it was by the truth
that everything came into existance.It was by the truth that spiritual life began to exist.Truth became human and lived a little while amoung us
and revealed a standard by which all mankind could live together.Truth never dies.It exist for everyone.It has one requirment.We have to beleive it.There is different kinds of truth.It is true that all life requires food,oxygen,and water if it is to continue.This is a truth that we all can
agree on.The spiritual Truth requires us to change our thinking.The rewards are great It holds the promise of love.joy,peace,patience,
kindness,goodness,faithfulness,gentelness,and self control.There is no law abainst such things.

Certainly the Christian should be undismayed by the notion that religion is natural "all the way down." Indeed, it should not matter whether religion is the result of evolutionary imperatives, or of an inclination toward belief inscribed in our genes and in the structure of our brains, or even (more fantastically) of memes that have impressed themselves on our minds and cultures and languages. All things are natural. But nature itself is created toward an end—its consummation in God— and is informed by a more eminent causality—the creative will of God—and is sustained in existence by its participation in the being that flows from God, who is the infinite wellspring of all actuality. And religion, as a part of nature, possesses an innate entelechy and is oriented like everything else toward the union of God and his creatures. Nor should the Christian expect to find any lacunae in the fabric of nature, needing to be repaired by the periodic interventions of a cosmic maintenance technician. God's transcendence is absolute: He is cause of all things by giving existence to the whole, but nowhere need he act as a rival to any of the contingent, finite, secondary causes by which the universe lives, moves, and has its being in him. – David B. Hart

Here's a quote from the inimitable David Bentely Hart:
Certainly the Christian should be undismayed by the notion that religion is natural "all the way down." Indeed, it should not matter whether religion is the result of evolutionary imperatives, or of an inclination toward belief inscribed in our genes and in the structure of our brains, or even (more fantastically) of memes that have impressed themselves on our minds and cultures and languages. All things are natural. But nature itself is created toward an end—its consummation in God— and is informed by a more eminent causality—the creative will of God—and is sustained in existence by its participation in the being that flows from God, who is the infinite wellspring of all actuality. And religion, as a part of nature, possesses an innate entelechy and is oriented like everything else toward the union of God and his creatures. Nor should the Christian expect to find any lacunae in the fabric of nature, needing to be repaired by the periodic interventions of a cosmic maintenance technician. God's transcendence is absolute: He is cause of all things by giving existence to the whole, but nowhere need he act as a rival to any of the contingent, finite, secondary causes by which the universe lives, moves, and has its being in him.

Michael wrote:
"Also, Harvard, Yale and a majority of this country's institutions of higher learning were started by Christians to promote education and understanding. How do you square that history with your theory that religions rely on keeping people ignorant."

I just had to comment on this.

I would say the the people who started the institutions of higher learning did so because they were intelligent and well educated and could see the benefits of education, not because they were Christian.

The reason we have such high standards of education in Western countries today is because the advance of philosophy and science in the 17th and 18th centuries weakened the authority of the priests and kings by making them look silly.

The advance of science has made obvious the benefits of learning about how the world really works instead of taking all of our "facts" from old books written by ignorant people.

Science and education continues to weaken the influence of religion in most Western countries. The US is a notable exception to this rule where declining levels of education are at least partly due to the negative influence of religion with nonsense like creationism and ID being promoted in the educational system.

That's enough scientific fundamentalist ranting from me.

Rufus: Great Post! Very thought provoking.
I agree with most of what you say.
You wrote:
If there truly is a moral "sense" of an external moral reality, let us see their Ethical Calculus.

I don't believe anyone can "sense" any kind of external moral reality. Our moral sense is a product of evolution. If our biology or physiology was different, our morality might be quite different too.

.... But our morality derives from the benefit to our survival of cooperation. I think there are moral rules that might be common to any cooperating and communicating entities. Some of them can be derived from game theory. There may be only a small number of possible stable moral codes. There might actually be a universal Ethical Calculus that governs what ethical rules are most likely to maximize survival amongst communicating and interacting entities and hence are most likely to evolve.

It is intersting that morality has been evolving over the last few thousand years. The morality of the Old Testament is pretty shocking. It's amusing that Michael used the Middle East as an example of what Christianity is not. Actually the morals of the Middle East are pretty much the morals of the Old Testament. The morals of the New Testament are an improvement and the morals of modern secular democracies are better still. We are learning what makes sense and what doesn't. ... Except the US seems to be backsliding for some weird reason. I put it down to the dumbing influence of religion.

I like the term "Ethical Calculus".

Regards,
Realist

Faisal: wrote:
"Realist, my brain doesn't buy your evidence (sorry it's not me, but my brain). You say later in your piece that "people" make decisions. What are people, a figment of your brain? Sorry, my brain doesn't believe people exist. Am I delusional? I don't know who I am. Serial killers? oh just actions triggered by a (faulty?) brain? Free Will? hmm, first the brain concocts what I call I, then that I tells the brain what to do? Where am I in all this?"

Sorry Faisal but you are extremely confused. You assume that because there are two words “person” and “brain” that refer to different things, there must be something other than your brain that makes your decisions for you. You are a person. A person consists of a body including a brain. I don’t believe there is anything more to a person than a body. The brain is the part of your body that processes information - that is aware of things and makes decisions. It is no different than for other animals with just a few hundred neurons. I haven’t come across any evidence that a person is anything more than that - and I spent around 10 years looking for such evidence. I used to be a strong believer in spirits and the afterlife for many years, but I eventually realised that there simply is no reliable evidence for such a belief and that the notion that consciousness can exist without a brain just does not seem to be consistent with reality. I do grant you that consciousness is hard to understand and I don’t claim to understand how it arises.

Faisal, if you are interested in a serious attempt at scientfic answers to the questions you ask, read Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett. It made my brain hurt though. Dennett is a seriously smart guy.

Regards,
Realist

Alright, I'm a believer and I can agree that the column and its conclusions are trite.

Speaking of broad minds, I can dig the notion that science describes what is going on physiologically, and has to limit itself to that because it hasn't yet discovered material evidence of spirit or a way of measuring it, unless you buy the white noise/voices of the dead stuff. What's that called?

Anyway, I can also dig that what science observes and describes is a physiological response to spiritual experience/matter. Nope, I haven't any evidence but my own experience. I guess what I'm saying is I also think it's cool that the brain lights up in certain areas when it prays, or experiences "God's presence," or wrestles with a quandary. The idea that such things are entirely physiological is, however, not persuasive to me. My issue is not with the hubris of scientism, or the arrogance of scientists, because Lord knows we need 'em: my problem is when the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. See, Wm James took a psychological approach to religious experience, but he didn't presume that his description of the likely mental and emotional processes precluded the metaphysical.

Why either/or, I say.

And I can say that because in my tradition we hold that "the spirit and the body are the soul of man": that they are fused entities, a sort of diunity of being. Of course the body responds to spirit, if there is such a thing. And I believe there is, so such explanations fascinate rather than threaten me. And I don't expect scientists to do prove me right . . . yet.

There are more things in Heaven and on Earth, Horatio . . .

Craig: Nice post, except I didn’t follow your logic when you said this:
“Just one thing (in my opinion) that I disagree with is that you state that some moral rules or choices are not rational. I think they don't always SEEM rational because we really don't understand what's going on.”

I’d say the opposite is true. Our choices usually SEEM rational when we are making them, but experiments show that our decisions are often influenced by all kinds of things that we are unaware of. See, for example:

Material priming: The influence of mundane physical objects on situational construal and competitive behavioral choice
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Volume 95, Issue 1, September 2004, Pages 83-96
Aaron C. Kay, S. Christian Wheeler, John A. Bargh and Lee Ross

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.06.003

It seems we make many if not most of our decisions based on thing we are not consciously aware of and then invent rationalizations for them. All kinds of experiments confirm this. As you said, it is really important to understand what influences our decision making processes. I think it is really important for understanding morality.

Regards,
Realist

Sheesh, I stop looking at this for a day and there are a thousand posts to catch up on!

Michael wrote:
“Christianity was the driving force in the abolition of slavery and the moral underpinnings of Democracy and Western Culture. You only have to look at the places in the world where Christianity has proliferated to see that.”

Nonsense! There were just as many Christians using the Bible to justify slavery (and it does justify slavery), as there were arguing against slavery. It all depends on which bits of the Bible you choose to accept and which bits you choose to reject. God clearly condones slavery in the Old Testament and even commands it sometime. I might argue that the ones who were arguing to abolish slavery were not the “real Christians”. If that argument works for Christians, it should work for me also.

Christianity is not the moral underpinning of democracy. God is the ultimate dictator and tyrant! Democracy is completely foreign to anything written in the Bible, so Christianity has nothing to do with democracy. Democracy was invented by the Greeks around 500 BC. It is the Greek influence on Western culture that gave us democracy.

Get Real yourself!

Rufus:
"m: "Suppose that God commanded us to torture a child. Would that make it all right, or would some other standard give us reasons to resist?" True, Some "gods" do command this sort of thing. But it's a cheap shot at religion, and declaring human "morality" superior to "godly" morality if we decide we're right and some "god" is wrong. Of course, in the case of an actual "supreme being/creator" who Defined Right and Wrong, then whatever it said is right would by defin...."

Well, probably all correct. But I think that is not the issue here. The heart of the issue is and very direct, I think, that a group of people, individuals claim to disseminate 'God's' commandments but in reality per dogma want to instill, enforce t h e i r will. And as far as I can judge they do not have legitimation to represent. The 'documentation' is not generally accepted. They do have to agree into a dialog that includes the full spectrum of the body they are trying to conduct.

Or if you want in other words: it is enforce vs. convince. A particular part of the religious domain, by far not the the majority, is pursuing that, but, I do have to say, very aggressively.

Condensing it, I am not so much concerned about the philosophical causes and consequences, I am far more concerned about the immediate, practical, political consequences. Shorter: concerned about the freedom we do enjoy.

Steven Pinker == Evangelical Atheist

I half expect the author to promote a book on "Morality Field Theory - Neurons as Detectors of a Cosmic Morality Field", certainly this is more what you would expect to find in a “New Age” bookstore rather than a science library.

The interesting implication about an Evolutionary/Genetic/Neurological basis for morality vs a "deity" of some sort is that there is no consequence beyond the immediate practical for ignoring the neurons. Just like ignoring an empty stomach, or a fear of heights really. I don't find their reasoning for an external, "just like mathematics", truth compelling in a scientific sense.

Another good item: "Suppose that God commanded us to torture a child. Would that make it all right, or would some other standard give us reasons to resist?" True, Some "gods" do command this sort of thing. But it's a cheap shot at religion, and declaring human "morality" superior to "godly" morality if we decide we're right and some "god" is wrong. Of course, in the case of an actual "supreme being/creator" who Defined Right and Wrong, then whatever it said is right would by definition be right, and wrong, by definition wrong, regardless of what created organisms thought about it.

Now, back to Neural Morality. Certainly there's a mob of trousered monkeys out there with their own neural moral sensibilities, which, if they decide they don't like what you do could pose some risk. Yet, so long as their neuro responses are properly soothed or conditioned they pose little threat to your freedom of action. Indeed, that's how things like slavery become legitimate. Were Southerners in the early U.S. moral monsters? Or were they simply conditioned to accept slavery economy. Were Northern abolitionists "morally superior" or did they simply have less conditioning and payed greater heed to their "rumbly moral stomach"?

Morality for all things is in the eye of the beholder, and of course the trainer, once it is left up to biology alone. No meaningful "moral" condemnation can be made of even the most "backward", "brutal", or perverse "culture" or action. The very concept of "morality" is a neurological dream, no different than "fear", which can be heeded or ignored at a whim.

Under purely "neural/genetic" morality there can be no immutable or universal principle of morality other than the necessity to deal with/shape/operate on/circumvent the "moral" neurological responses of other creatures surrounding the individual for the individual's benefit.

In this environment the ability to manipulate other monkeys and their "moral" responses to the individual's advantage becomes one of the highest survival traits.

In the end this article is just fluffy enough to include some comfortable wishful thinking to shield the readers from the truth of the honest implications of the theory. Simply declaring "Morality, then, is still something larger than our inherited moral sense, and the new science of the moral sense does not make moral reasoning and conviction obsolete" without meaningfully refuting the above world view. If there truly is a moral "sense" of an external moral reality, let us see their Ethical Calculus.

Hello, Faisal - to say all your awareness of reality is mediated by your brain is not to say that all reality is constructed by your brain. In other words, to perceive is not to construct.

Maurie Beck:

Are you telling me Lassie wasn't real?

Oh, yes, it was all true, every bit of it!

(Just kidding, we don't want to lose our humor)

As far as I am concerned, I think that what Natalie has pointed out about philosophical differences between herself and Professor Pincker is helpful and an accurate portrayal of one part of the Christian tradition, which, though it is never suprised to find that humans are "natural" all the way down, nevertheless finds no reason to embrace any form of scientism or positivism. For one influential take on this matter, it might be helpful to read the transcendental dialectic in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, where he demonstrates why speculative reason needs a regulative principle of a most real being that it cannot itself provide in order to make any judgments at all.

Dear Pam, Anonymous, Mr. Happy Duck, Janet, and Mark,
Before posting your comments, it might have been more helpful for everyone if you would have read the directive for posting on this blog: "We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features." The directions go on to prohibit personal attacks, which are unkind anyway and likely to be ill-founded since, chances are, you know neither the interviewer or the interviewee.

I'm sure that your deepest intention in posting is to engage in more substantive discussion of a topic that is only touched upon in the original posting by analyzing, commenting on, or challenging what is been said. If this is the case, you can achieve your intention much more adequately by keeping any personal hunches you may have formed to yourself. One effect of sharing your personal (likely ill-founded and decontextualized) hunches with everyone else is to make me wonder why you felt the need to speak abusively about someone who did not provoke it. I hope the administrators of this site remove your posts and ask you to post again without making personal attacks. And, though I do not know any of you, I certainly hope that you develop into the type of people who speak kindly of others and give those you don't know the benefit of the doubt.

Are you telling me Lassie wasn't real?

Here's just one hero dog story - there are thousands:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6127688.stm

What a joke. You have to be kidding. What planet are you from? You actually think your friend is moral because she struggles with buying a $3000 wedding dress. "Struggles with"? It is so obvious that $3000 could be so much better spent than paying for a dress that you will wear for a few hours, it is not even worth thinking about. The fact that your friend EVEN contemplates spending that type of money for her dress is an indication that she has no morals whatsoever.

Michael
my last post was addressed to you.

henry

" It is not common sense that makes a friend lay down his life for another, (ever catch a dog doing that let me know)."

Shawn, are you kidding??? Of all the animals you could have chosen...

Dogs having been laying down their lives for their owners for as long as we've had dogs. Before that, as wolves, they were laying down their lives for their pack members. In fact, this is quite common among *all* social animals, right down to the insects. Male lions die defending the pride from hyenas, worker bees sting invaders (and die afterwards) to protect the hive...I could go on and on.

All social animals live by rules, and work for the common good. Natural selection sees to that.

Thanks for your nice note. I really do love you and think you are a very good person, better than myself i am sure.

There IS a spiritual aspect to morality. I don't agree, however, that it is imcomprehensible.

It is really pretty simple at base:
"that which is hateful to you, don't do to someone else". all the rest is commentary, as the Rabbi said (not a Christian rabbi)).

the Bible DOES have lots of good stories that raise Moral issues. But it is far from definitive. Read it. But read other wisdom literature as well. And don't, as Deuteronomy recommends, stone your children to death if they misbehave.

Yes, man's foibles today aren't too different than they were 3,000 years ago. And yes, Jesus WAS a pretty good role model, whether one believes in his divinity or not.

How we get from here to there is with a moral sense and by following moral principles. Christian ones are pretty good. Muslim ones are pretty good. Atheist secular humanist ones are just as good.

Love
Henry

Quoting Realist: "Some of these rules are clearly not rational"
Excuse me, according to who? Your brain? Does your brain have the whole rational universe mapped out? Will a nice soft hit on your brain change your position? Before Realist and his ilk figured out that all existence was local irritation, there were people wise and not so wise, rational and not so rational, smart and somewhat dumb. How has your brain awareness changed this today? I have a lot of bones to pick with religion, but fundamentalist science has to be dumped into the same basket.

This is hilarious, I think one of the things that drives home the ignorance of your character Natalie is her statement: "How to use something isn’t a scientific question it’s a moral question." I never before appreciated the morality behind using light to measure the quantity of a component of a solution. The statements about the inability of a scientific approach to understand the why behing the apple eating and throwing are equally absurd. There are reasons for the eating and the throwing of the apples that can be explained by empirical observation; these reasons don't just magically appear in a poof of undetectable, but purported ubiquitous spirit stuff that magically drives your body, they arise from the interactions of your body with the environment.

Michael,

I've taken the liberty of amending your post of 10:30 AM today, to render it somewhat more accurate:

"Also, Harvard...[was] started by Christians to promote education and understanding [and the hanging of witches and Quakers].

"How do you square that history with your theory that religions rely on keeping people ignorant?"

Regards.

Shawn:

"Japan may have a lesser homicide rate than America but there are more factors at work than just moral descisions, such as punishment of the crime, gang activity, freedom/fear of government oppression, etc."

Are you saying that people in Japan or Europe are more suppressed by their government that in the US?

And then: are you doubting that countries like Japan, Scandinavia, Holland have a lower, particularly lower violent crime rate?

It at least does mean that r a religious moral code is not necessary for that.

Hitler was surely not a Christian. But he and his criminal pals were clearly subscribed to mystical believe systems, how stupid it may have been. It's the irrationality that is the problem. We do need reason.

And finally (I think that was somewhere else): morality is only assigned to humans? I had a weird dog. And I swear I didn't train it for it, a huge Bernese, 130 pounds. Whenever a fight came up she would jump right in and separate (once she had to pay a price). Actually, she was notoriously defending joggers that got attacked by other dogs.

A weird animal, I tell you.

Quoting Craig: "The complexities of the human brain have only recently started to be understood."

This is false. Over thousands of years, the complexity of humans has been debated, written about, and celebrated. It's a folly to think that by saying now that it is the complexity of the brain, somehow changes the equation or the human condition. If someone killed my family, what good is it to know the combination of neurotransmitters that led the killer to commit the crime? This is what is being debated. Saying that free will (how is it free if tied to the brain), judgement, ethics, character, actions, are all based in physicality doesn't answer anything. If tommorow we found out what part of our brain is responsible for making decisions, it won't change anything (except giving scientists a sense of achievement). I will still wake up and have to make decisions.

Quoting Realist: "There is a ton of evidence from neurobiology that everything about us, our personalities and thoughts are the product of what the brain is doing. Damage the brain and you damage the personality. This includes morals. There is absolutely zero evidence that there is anything other than the brain involved. Certain types of brain injury can completely change people's perception of morality."

Realist, my brain doesn't buy your evidence (sorry it's not me, but my brain). You say later in your piece that "people" make decisions. What are people, a figment of your brain? Sorry, my brain doesn't believe people exist. Am I delusional? I don't know who I am. Serial killers? oh just actions triggered by a (faulty?) brain? Free Will? hmm, first the brain concocts what I call I, then that I tells the brain what to do? Where am I in all this?
Unfortunately for those of us who seek answers about life, the garbage proposed by science is very unsatisfying, boring, and offensive. This is what is being protested in this article. As to your ton of evidence about it all coming from the brain, wow, what a novel idea.
By the way, this rant is from my brain to yours. Ofcourse, I don't know you.

If everything - all reality is concocted by "the brain", how can anyone be held accountable for any action. Stating that everything has a biological source doesn't solve any problems. Saying that character, judgement, "rational actions", "good sense" all originate from between your ears - what does that say? Nothing. What is exactly the "I" that we refer to all our lives. What is heartache, what is a broken heart, what is fear? Do I really care that it's all concocted by the physical brain. I have to face the music. If science had a remedy that would wipe out all painful memories, would that be of any use? The day science can tell me why I exist, and not how my body came to be, I will believe that science can venture into the realm of true meaning. Until then, don't waste my time with non-sense, and stick to the useful aspects of science (Medicine, physics etc etc.)

Just a comment on the discussion of morality, religion, and it's possible connection. For Henry to say that cultures who don't believe in God are more moral, ie. Japan, Holland, Sweden, is at the least a blind guess. We can't look at the crime rate of a nation and decide evidence for morality, without considering limitations to freedom and many other factors. Throw in the thought that religion and claims to following said religion would make any difference at all. In other words, if I claim to be a Christian and refuse to act like one, then does that make my home or community any more Christian?

Japan may have a lesser homicide rate than America but there are more factors at work than just moral descisions, such as punishment of the crime, gang activity, freedom/fear of government oppression, etc. I'm not sure you can nail it down to just a moral thought based on religion. Hitler's reign in Germany was not only predicated by his invoking the name of Jesus Christ in his campaigns, I don't know of one speech that he made that he did not mention Jesus and God, but his rise to power was backed by many church leaders of his day.

Remember that someone once said, "you cannot judge a philosophy by it's abusers".

You cannot judge Christianity, or any religion, by those who do not follow its doctrine. To say that America is a Christian nation is to suppose that the 90 percent that claim it actually follow it's standard- which is Jesus.

We know that Hitler was not a Christian, regardless of what his mouth said and all we have to do is turn on the TV to see that America is far from what Christ intended, regardless of what our founding fathers intended.

So the morality of the U.S. is pretty much declining with whatever force drives it at the time. When I was young, you would never hear someone curse in front of a woman. Now, I am shocked on an almost daily basis with what I hear around me.

The question is, how did we get from there to here? And how do we recover?

Michael:

With concern to your evangelism tactics. I appreciate you wanting to present the Gospel Message, but quoting scripture to Henry is like aiming a gas spout at your car from ten feet away and expecting to fill the tank. The Bible says to always be ready to give an answer, that assumes you are being asked! Without a personal relationship with Henry, you probably aren't going to make any ground. If it is just an argument you are looking for, fight with someone who know's Christ, then you can't damage the possibility of Henry ever being drawn to God, as his heart is probably hard enough.

Speaking of the heart, I don't know if morality comes from the brain or not and I am sure that scientist will ever know. I am sure that the best decisions I make flow from my personal relationship with Jesus. I make them based on my understanding of the Savior and His teaching. Those decisions have produced peace in my home, with my family, and my friends.

I just can't see that common sense and reasoning (or science) can get me to the same place. It is not common sense that makes a friend lay down his life for another, (ever catch a dog doing that let me know). All secularism taught me was to get all I can for me. I did not like those result after 33 years.

Henry James and Mr. Mark

Henry was the first to actually describe his evidence as tawdry. I was just agreeing with him in a fun, spirited way.

We're all intelligent men and we can argue this thing three ways to Sunday with each of us taking up the other side just for fun and still coming up with some relevant and potent points.

Bottom line, I believe there is a spiritual aspect to life and morality that can never be understood, accounted for, or even truly acknowledged by science. I choose to believe in the Bible because it provides me with an explanation for reality as I experience it.

The failings and foibles detailed in the Bible by men who lived thousands of years ago, mirror the failings and foibles of the men and women I work and live with on a daily basis. The answers, peace and love they sought then are they same ones unfulfilled souls search for today.

All of my questions lie at the foot of the cross. All of my answers are with the one who placed himself there on my behalf.

I love you all,

Michael - Henry James said, "They believe letting children drown, lying to their neighbor, and killing a guy next door are bad. And their behavior accords with those beliefs."

There's no simpler way to put it than that. If people the world over didn't have this basic morality, we'd have all been dead long ago!

I also need to ask - have you ever been to the societies you mention in your article? One can paint a really horrific picture of any place in the world if you're only reading the newspaper or watching the news. You'll never see the real world if that's your only lens. After all, "Neighbors Don't Kill Each Other!" doesn't make nearly as good a headline as "Neighbors Kill Each Other!". You hardly ever hear the good because the bad gets WAY more press.

I suggest you do some travelling...if you're going to be making statements like "They still stone women to death in some Middle Eastern countries for adultery.", then you should go there to see what ISN"T done, as well. Seriously, take a stroll around the global village. You'll realize how much you don't know.

Respectfully,
Craig

Dear Michael -

Take the blinders off, friend.

Stoning just happens to be the punishment that your beloved Bible calls for in most instances of lawbreaking, including your kids talking back to you and adultery. Are you taking people in the Middle East to task for meting out punishment prescribed by good ol' Yahweh himself?

As far as forms of execution, we in the West seem to have a deep revulsion for death by beheading, but let's face it - as far as executions go, it's about the swiftest and least-painful one going. Seen against lethal injection, firing squad, electrocution and hanging, beheading is downright civilized!

Genocide in Africa? Count the Xians in as they're doing nothing to stop it, especially the self-proclaimed Xians running our government.

Jesus forgave an adulteress? You do know, don't you, that that story is considered by most Biblical scholars to be a total fabrication? It's true! This best-known and most-loved of all Bible stories shouldn't be in the Bible. it is not found anywhere in the oldest and best manuscripts, and it appears only in the most-questionable sources of the last Gospel written (John). But put that aside - perhaps Jesus sympathized with the adulterous woman for the simple reason that he got an earful from his (earthly) dad about adulterous women. He may have simply been defending his mom's honor.

BTW, Michael - how, exactly, does Henry's citing of a recent UN report, books by a couple of respected authors and a few statistics qualify as "tawdry" evidence? If that's tawdry, then WTH does one call YOUR reality-free take on things? Are there degrees of tawdriness?

Maybe Natalie Carnes, phD., should wear a TUXEDO instead aye???

Eeeee Haaaa!

Michael

How many civilians have died in the Iraq war? 200,000? 600,000?
Does George Bush believe in Jesus.

The scientific evidence shows clearly that if you ask people about their beliefs on moral questions,
and if you look at their behavior,

99% of the people are essentially the same.

They believe letting children drown, lying to their neighbor, and killing a guy next door are bad. And their behavior accords with those beliefs.

0.1% of the people in the world stone adulterers and commit genocide.

You have shown no evidence that you and your christian friends are more moral than 99% of the people in the world.

and 17% of the people in the world are Christians.

You also have shown NO empirical backing for your prejudices, which betray an ignorance and a pride that are not admirable.

love you

Henry

Reading this article was painful - much like listening to a conversation between Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.

I'd like to recommend the books of Frans de Waal for a good look at the biological underpinnings of what we call morality. His observations of (chiefly) chimpanzee and bonobo societies are quite eye-opening.

In social animals, natural selection favors those who get along best in society. Much of it is now hard-wired.

OBTW - herbal supplements don't count as "scientific." Most are worthless.

You "slammed shut" a magazine?