Morality vs. God
Yaron Brook of Ayn Rand Institute challenges the idiocy:
The idea that morality is impossible without faith in God is an endlessly-repeated theme of several Fox News Channel talk show hosts. “This idea must be challenged,” said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.
“It implies that man has no reason or purpose to be moral; it implies that no rational standard of morality is possible; it implies that in questions of morality man must suspend reason and blindly submit to faith or blindly obey some authority’s ‘revelations’ or ‘mystical insights.’ To imply that we have no earthly reason to be moral is profoundly immoral.
“The purpose of morality,” said Dr. Brook, “is to discover and teach the principles that lead to life, achievement, happiness, success, joy. There is only one means to discover and understand these principles: reason. A proper morality, one for living on earth, requires rationality and independence of soul, not faith and obedience to self-appointed interpreters of an alleged omnipotent being. A proper morality looks not to the supernatural but at man’s nature and the reason why he needs values--and then defines the values he must reach and the virtues he must practice to reach them.
Dr. Brook concluded: “Properly understood, not only does morality not require faith in God--morality is incompatible with faith in God. The moral is the rationally accepted and chosen, not the mindlessly believed and followed.”
Evolutionary psychology explains pretty well how it's actually in our SELF INTEREST to be moral, as members of a group (vis a vis needing to be in a band in the Pleistocene, when our psychology developed, to avoid being eaten by wild animals, dying of starvation, or being killed by other humans).
I'm reminded of a TV show I appeared on, Faith Under Fire, where I debated the boorish former pitcher, Frank Pastore, who talked over me every time I spoke, yet, ironically, argues that religion is necessary for morality. Clearly, it doesn't do anything for one's manners. My atheist "religion": Be kind, live ethically, live rationally, and "leave the campground better than you found it."
> Be kind, live ethically, live rationally, and "leave the campground better than you found it."
That's essentially a Buddhist outlook, as well. We don't need no steenking gods, either.
Frank at March 17, 2005 10:49 AM
Hi –
This might be really an off-the-wall question (I really don't visit the USA often enough, I guess), but here we go: when I was shopping in SoCal a while back, I remember seeing the "GI Joe" action figure, still on sale after all these years. It was that plastic doll with a whole range of accessories, obviously designed for young boys to "play war": bang, bang, commandos, parachutes, and so on …
Now I see, Amy, that you have posted a picture of a "Jesus" action figure. My immediate question is: what is the action involved ? Just what does this figure do as an action ? Effect miracles ? Preach the gospel via voice synthesizer ? What ?
I am perplexed indeed.
L'Amerloque
L'Amerloque at March 17, 2005 11:38 AM
No doubt. As a monastic, celebate atheist who helps old ladies across the street and gives platelets every 28 days, I'm a little skeptical when religion hogs all the credit for the existence of moral behavior. Not that celibacy is a virtue, mind you, but at times I do get the sneaking suspicion some sectarians are convinced that without the threat of Divine Judgment everybody'd be out plugging the neighbor's dog.
Paul Hrissikopoulos at March 17, 2005 11:43 AM
Paul, do you really give platelets?
Cridland at March 17, 2005 1:33 PM
> Just what does this figure do as an action ?
That particular "action figure" may in reality be a "passive figure," but believe me the religious nuts can imagine ">http://www.catholicsupply.com/christmas/sports.html"> all sorts of nonsense. (scroll down a screen or so).
Stu "El Inglés" Harris at March 17, 2005 2:03 PM
Yes, but I confess it probably has more to do with my Naughty Nurse fantasies than bonafide altruism.
Paul Hrissikopoulos at March 17, 2005 2:15 PM
Action figure questions should be directed towards me, so I'll take that one on, Amerloque.
Though the definition of "action figure" is somewhat loose (it began as simply a manly euphemism for "doll" on the grounds that boys won't play with dolls), what it means nowadays is a figure, usually plastic, featuring points of articulation, and sometime an action feature.
I've seen this Jesus toy -- it actually has "floating action" which is to say wheels on its underside that make it look as though Jesus is effortlessly gliding in Hallowed fashion when you push Him.
Amy - though you're making a good point, I would hesitate to ever use a disciple of Ayn Rand to back up your arguments.
LYT at March 17, 2005 2:35 PM
Well, I take good arguments where I can get 'em.
Amy Alkon at March 17, 2005 3:10 PM
"a figure, usually plastic, featuring points of articulation, and sometimes an action feature."
That would include Barbie, right?
Points of articulation = bendable elbows and knees
Action feature = pointy tits
Lena-doodle-doo at March 17, 2005 3:42 PM
FYI
I'll be hearing Dr. Paul Kurtz, founder of the Council for Secular Humanism(and most important atheist of the last 50 years) address these very topics at the CFI West on March 30 and 31st. Come one, come all.
chris "world teacher" volkay at March 17, 2005 7:23 PM
> Points of articulation =,
> Action feature =
Demonstrating superhuman strength of character, I decline to make bad but easy jokes.
> more to do with my Naughty
> Nurse fantasies...
Dude, like, what-evar! Thanks for giving platelets, Paul. I do it too. This morning they happened to leave one of those hickey-looking bruises on the elbow... They never hurt, but they make people think you're a junkie. 'Tis the season for long sleeves anyway.
When I was a little boy, there was this TV series with guy named Christopher George. He had a fabulous jawline, visible even on our little B&W set. And in real life, he married the woman from Mission: Impossible. The premise of his show was that his blood was so excellent that if you got a transfusion from him, all your illness would be cured. I think of that when the platelet pouch (excuse me, "product") gets blue-tagged for a cancer patient at UCLA. (This morning's movie was Dodgeball, and thanks for asking.)
> ...most important atheist of
> the last 50 years...
Does it say that on his business card? The competition is fierce.
Crid at March 17, 2005 8:43 PM
when one reads the idiotic comments of something known as a crud,(as but one example) you see the failure and futility of blogs in general. The chance for any kind of real discourse is of course muted and stunted when one has to deal with entities of such sub-human caliber.
chris "world teacher" volkay at March 17, 2005 11:06 PM
The whole show consisted of him getting a transfusion every week? That sounds riveting....
Frank at March 18, 2005 8:49 AM
You can have your Jesus action figures. Just keep your freakin' hands off my Jesus blowup doll!
L
Lawaneke at March 18, 2005 10:55 AM
Hi Chris!!
What does it mean to be a world teacher?
Cridland at March 18, 2005 4:50 PM
I don't care if it snows or freezes,
Long as I got my plastic Jesus.
Have any of you found Jesus? Yeah, I know, he's lost again. Wouldn't keep happening if they just kept him on a stick where he belongs!
Patrick, The Goddess Fan at March 20, 2005 4:54 PM
for sure, religion is not needed for people to know that murder is wrong and rape is bad. they say people who act moral to do so for eternal reward. this deemed as immoral in itself. so there are atheists who claim to have 'purer' virtues than religios people. but isn't the evolutionary explanation that humans are moral because it is in their long term benefit and chances of survival. if evolution did truely occur, then it means humans don't have a soul. so evolutionists say that it is atoms alone that feel happy, sad and compassion.this is the most absurd thing i have ever heard.
also interesting to note, that if we are a product of nature and not God, then why would nature create a species who does more harm to it than any benefit? humans are the only species that stuffs up the environment. why did nature continue to create us?
plus, the whole 'nature created theory', implies that we are created by somethiung that has infinite power, knowledge and will. relgions call this entity God, while atheists call it nautre. but who is mother nature? do the trees and plants have all these qualities?
i just want to say to atheists, that they think that they are being rationale by denying the existence of a creator. but their reasoning is the most away from reason. that a perfect universe came out by chance. that atoms got together out of their own will and turned the 'on' button and became alive?
lets please use our reason and common sense when we decide on such important issues. even a child knows that a book has an author. then why dont we acknowledge that this book of universe has an author? is it because then we would be held accountable for our actions and we dont want that?
is it because "we can't handle the truth?"
for God's sake, lets think abit deeper!!
Anonymous at April 9, 2005 10:36 PM
"but isn't the evolutionary explanation that humans are moral because it is in their long term benefit and chances of survival."
Yes, it is. Reciprocal altruism, why we don't just club each other on the head and make off with the other's bison steak, etc, are explained this way.
"if evolution did truely occur, then it means humans don't have a soul. "
What's most absurd is to suggest humans do have "a soul." There's far greater proof of evolution - see Darwin's finches, etc. -- and zero, in fact, of man's "soul."
Moreover, if there was a god who created the universe, who created god? Because you have no explanation for something complex doesn't mean it makes sense to invent one.
I don't believe in dumb, unproved crap, but I behave morally. So, you are only good because you'll get squashed by The Big Thumb? That's not goodness, that's self-interest swimming in irrationality and primitive thinking.
Amy Alkon at April 9, 2005 11:01 PM
This is rediculous. Religion was created by humans in an attempt to console those who cant accept that fact that we are temporary beings. We are animals. Just like dogs, birds, insects. Everything we think and feel involves chemical processes in the brain. It isnt your soul. We have no soul. Do you think a person that has Alzheimer's that cant remember anything has a soul that does remember everything? It makes no sense.
Lets say i'm wrong and we do have a soul (it doesnt even have to have memories). What about my little puppy? Does she have a soul? Am I somehow spiritually superior to her because I have higher thought processes? Humans have evolved more efficiently then other animals but that doesnt mean we're not animals. We are flesh and organs just like them. And what about plants and bacteria and all the other life forms on earth? We're the only ones that have the privaledge of a soul? Who do you think you are?
The universe is sooo incredably huge, humans cant begin to comprehend how massive it is. There are billions of solar systems in this galaxy, and there are billions upon billions of galaxies. You think one 'god' controls it all? Dont think of the earth as 'everything'. There is so much more out there. As if we're the only life in the universe. All it takes for life is water and simple sugars. Not a spirit that pops out of nowhere. Life on this planet is spontanious. Nature didnt "create" us. We werent "created". There is no designer. We came about by evolution. A process of elimination that is perfectly random and uncontrolled. There is no order. No grand path. We are just a creation of time. A combination of organs and nerves that let us feel and interact with our environment. There is no reason other than my own wishful thinking that I should feel i'm anything more than that.
Grunty at June 22, 2005 9:10 AM
Leave a comment