Exactly what evidence is Chesterson talking about? Morality would have come about long before people started putting religious stories to paper, else how would man have survived to that point? This is spin, not hard, verifiable evidence.

Spin? It's certainly less spin than your own hypothesis.

This argument seems pretty feeble.

Those who seek to find explanations for moral berhaviour other than external supernatural laws merely begin with the observable fact that all sorts of peoples, in all sorts of different cultures and with all sorts of different religions, find ways to get along.

Copmparing this fact with the fact that many other species of animal have also found ways to get along (in packs etc) seems a valid area for investigation.

Morality is simply a way of biochemically enforcing contracts. Re-engineer your neural circuitry, and you won't feel guilt or love or what-have-you.

Read up on neurotheology

...religion and belief in God is a human construction. I covered Bouchard's twin studies showing a roughly 50% heritability of religiosity, Persinger's research in replicating spiritual experiences in the laboratory (with electromagnetic fields), Ramachandran's research with temporal lobe epilepsy-triggered religious experiences, NDE's being replicated in the laboratory (all to show that religiosity and religious experiences are at least, in part, a function of our genes and biology...

Also, in the end there are no believers in foxholes, because when push comes to shove you'll reach for your gun rather than your cross. Science *works*, but religion does not.

Brit:

A) He is talking evidence, not truth; B)"getting along" is a pretty low bar. Nobody is saying the absence of faith results in instant mayhem. Individuals can certainly survive without faith; C)The issue of whether folks of different faiths get along is a completely different one, but it supports Chesterton more than undercuts him.

As for animals, call me when you hear of a chimp that composed a symphony.

Godless:

Presumably your unbelief is equally determined by biology and genes and has little to do with rational inquiry. So why are you wasting your time in futile argument? I wish your genes a very good day.

gc,

Materialism is metaphysics, not science; therefore, the efficacy of science is not proof of materialism.

godless:

"Science *works*, but religion does not."

Your brother-in-atheism, Robert D, is arguing below that the Ten Commandments would have been very helpful to the Israelites in survivng the desert. Are you guys having a schism?

It seems to me the key quote here is:

" But they really were wrong in so far as they suggested that men had ever aimed at order or ethics directly by a conscious exchange of interests. Morality did not begin by one man saying to another, "I will not hit you if you do not hit me"; there is no trace of such a transaction."

Which is fine if you wish to refute someone who believes in a literal 'social contract' (does anyone?), but no good against someone who suggests that morality could have developed as part of evolution - and the 'contract' is of course neither literal nor conscious.

The chimp symphony point is irrelevant, since i'm merely pointing out that since we can learn all sorts of things about humans by studying evolution and the natural world, it is reasonable to ask whether we can learn anything about moral rules.

Having said that, Mozart is rumoured to have been fond of a bit of monkey business....

Brit:

But if morality developed naturally as part of the evolutionary process, what could have possibly led all of mankind before the 18th century to make up religions that prescribed morality?

Peter:

the glib answer would be: 'the need to get along with each other'

Honestly, this isn't my field, but there are plenty of studies out there on the origins of religions, religiosity, spirituality and morality...

The major problem for me with external supernatural laws is not necessarily the 'lack of evidence', but rather the multiplicity of religions.

Where you have lots of widely different religious explanations for the origins of morality, yet the moral rules themselves are broadly similar across different religious societies (no killing, theft, incest etc...) - the argument that morality is basically wired into us genetically (because it conveys an evolutionary advantage) is pretty compelling.

Brit:

"there are plenty of studies out there on the origins of religions, religiosity, spirituality and morality..."

There sure are! :-)

...and apparently someone's written a book about Hitler and the Second World War! About time too...

:)

Incidentally, I make an extremely tenuous claim to fame here: my cousin's fiancee is Chesterton's great-granddaughter.

doesn't mean he knew what the hell he was talking about, of course...

Peter:

Chimps are social animals that have an internalized "morality" that works, on the whole, about as well as ours.

Peter,
Athiests aren't organized enough to require a schism.

To re-iterate my previous post, I do believe that, in general, religious belief can be very beneficial to individual and community well-being. Godless may want to beat me with a hardcover version of Atlas Shrugged for saying so, but I've observed enough of life to be unable to deny it. I think that it also poses great risks as well. I believe you may have made mention once that religion is like a strong medicine - good in the right doses, but deadly if misused.

Also, to answer another question of yours from the earlier posting, as to whether I would be happy to be proven right that Moses never existed, or was a fraud, etc. I would be happy to know the truth, even if it meant that God did exist and did author the 10 Comandments. If someone could prove it to me, or even provide an argument that was persuasive, I would be very receptive. I have no personal bias against the idea of God, just a high standard for proof.

Jeff:

You sure are doing your best to help the English language evolve, and quickly.

Peter:

Difference in degree, even if large, is not difference in kind.

Did you know chimps both share with, and steal from, each other? Or that they occasionally murder, but mostly do not?

Peter:

Difference in degree, even if large, is not difference in kind.

Did you know chimps both share with, and steal from, each other? Or that they occasionally murder, but mostly do not?

Jeff:

Yes, I did. And ants are amazingly cooperative and preying mantis' devour their spouses. Lions will sometimes kill their cubs. Swans are absolutely faithful. Male seahorses give birth. And the damn cat won't decide whether she likes me or not.

Instinct=morality? Not.

"Instinct=morality? Not."

Why not?

Or rather, how can you be so confident that basic moral feelings are not instinctive?

"getting along" may be a 'low bar' for morality, but it takes no great leap of imagination to see it as the foundation for more complex systems of moral rules.

Brit:

That kind of imagination works best when you are applying it to other people or whole societies. Apply it to yourself and see how it feels. Make up a moral dilemna like cheating on or leaving a wife or commiting a fraud. Are you wrestling with instinct and, if so, why do you win and others lose? But I do agree that what you are talking about is a leap in imagination.

I do apply it to myself...and what immediately strikes me is the complexity of moral rules, the shades of grey, and the difficulty of applying absolute external laws to practical situations.

i might feel morally obliged to grass on person x if i knew he had committed a (let's say relatively minor) crime, but if x were my own son and i wished to protect him from the horrors of prison, i might be judged less harshly were i to turn a blind eye.

the law courts might not look kindly on me, but the average joe would probably feel some sympathy for me. conversely, if i was in the mafia i'd be a moral pariah for grassing and soon be sleeping with the fishes.

the thing with moral dilemmas is that different people will give you different answers

which suggests to me that the human brain, and human interaction in society, is extremely complex, and the more developed the society, the greater the complexity of the moral rules...

i might feel that tax evasion is morally incorrect, but feel only a twinge of guilt about employing a clever accountant to maximise my tax avoidance...

i think its perfectly sensible to suggest that we can learn about our moral feelings from the way, for example, primitive tribal societies still function. they share things, make trade-offs, punish criminals...and they ain't getting this stuff from the Bible.

Peter:

The difference between chimps and the others you mention is this: choice.

Chimps make decisions that you would classify as moral choices if humans were making them.

Unless the definition of what constitutes moral choice includes the requirement a human is making it, then chimps are making--albeit at a very simple level--moral choices.

Brit/Jeff:

Imagine that you, as married men, are attracted to a women who is attracted to you. The time is right and sexual electricity is in the air. Nothing has ever felt so wonderfully right. Where does instinct impel you? What does morality tell you?

I don't understand why you feel the fact that morality can be complex (actually it is the application of morality that is complex)relates somehow to whether it is synonymous with instinct.

Sorry, that was me.

Is that an example from personal experience? :)

I would have little difficulty constructing a plausible genetically-derived motivation for feeling morally obliged to stay faithful to a single partner.

If the point you're making is something about the religious sanctity of marriage, i would disagree with you, since i would feel just as guilty cheating on my long-term girlfriend as my wife.

My personal opinion is that moral rules come from a complex and sometimes conflicting mix of genetic impulses and social constructs.

(to clarify the saucy ambiguity in the 3rd paragraph above: i don't actually have a long-term girlfriend AND a wife...rather i would feel just as guilty cheating on a long-term girlfriend as i would cheating on a legally married wife!)

Brit:

Believe me, you got out of that one just in time!