Source of Morals, Part 2

My very good friend Zac Nagel, posted a comment on my previous post that merits a response.  I am still trying to determine the best way to maintain this blog as a discussion, but I am going to try replying in the form of a new post and see if it works.  I prefer this over replying to the comment in this case because I dont want what I have to say lost in a comment thread.  Before I get into all that though, this was Zac's comment to my previous post on the Source of Morals.

the presence of a moral compass within most people (e.g. the don't murder, don't steal) is more easily reasoned to be the remnant of divine programming of an absolute moral code as opposed to being developed by mankind in a vacuum.
If mankind developed this moral compass...then how does it seem logical that many people groups and civilizations (some without contact with another civilization) across all time have converged on a common set of morals (again, think no murder, stealing is bad, marriage should occur).
Conversely, why haven't we seen civilizations arise where stealing murder, etc. are prized as good things.
Doesn't it seem more likely that there is a common source that provides a template of moral direction which nearly all people (theists, deists, atheists, pantheists, etc.) hold in common?

First, let me clarify the main objection that I have and was trying to convey in my post.  It was that we do not necessarily need a God to provide us with morals.  Or at the very least, we do not need a divine messenger to tell us what is right or wrong.  It would appear that Zac may be in agreement with me there.  For if our morals are part of some "divine programming", then God has already put that into every human and so what need is there for Him to send his son as Jesus, or speak to Mohammed, or come down Himself as Krishna.  An all-powerful God should have put in the right code in the original release and not required later version upgrades.  So again, my original point was that the diversity of religions and faiths proves that man is capable of devising morals, or at the very least a divine messenger is not needed for that.

However, I will admit that I also alluded to the idea that not only is a messenger not needed, but God himself (or herself) is not needed for us to derive our morals.  And here of course is where here Zac disagrees with me.  The argument is that the fact that virtually all groups and civilizations today have essentially the same set of morals is proof that some central divine programming is involved.  First, I would disagree that all groups have the same set of morals, even though in general the overarching principles are there.  Take for example one of the most common elements, murder.  It is universally accepted by all groups across the world that murder of another human being is wrong.  Different religions though introduce different shades of grey to it.  Christianity teaches that all murder is sin (but a murderer may still make it to Heaven); Islam teaches that murder in some instances may be okay (especially if the victim is a non-believer); and Hinduism teaches that murder is wrong unless it is your duty (dharma) to kill another (e.g. a soldier in battle).  So while all three in general agree that murder is wrong, three of the largest groups in the world have different takes on it.  Surely God would have programmed in a little more detail.  But I digress.

My main argument is that God has not programmed in the morals, but rather that humans "have converged on a common set" through thousands of years of civilization.  They have all converged on the basic morals because these are what make a society fair and productive.  Over different times as groups began living together and becoming interdependent, they must have realized that it is in everyone's interest to frown upon things like murder and theft.  This was not an invention like paper or gunpowder that got invented in one place and then spread around the world.  It is more likely that different groups came up with the basic principles at different times much like different groups must have figured out things like fire and shelter independently.  It is on these basic ideas that groups then added the flavors we see today.  

The underlying concepts though are so obvious for a healthy society that it is not surprising at all that completely disconnected groups would have all "discovered" them.  As soon as groups started living together, it is easy to see a leadership structure emerge which would have devised a set of laws.  These man-made laws then became the morals of that group.  Blur your eyes, and all these different morals look pretty much the same, because even though we may be brown, black, or white, blur your eyes and we are all humans.

Critical Thinking: The Source of Morals

João Zeferino da Costa. (www.nobility.org)

ISKCON.  Original artist unknown.

I recently had a discussion with someone who made the following statement, "Everyone must get their morals from somewhere, and you need God for that".  We could not continue the discussion, but it is surprising to me that he was unable to see how oxymoronic the statement was.  This was a successful individual who got where he is today through his intellect and daily use of critical thinking.  However, in making this one statement, he failed to think through the logic of his statement and see the inherent contradiction in those few words.  

Now, he is deeply religious, presumably a Christian (but it does not matter), so I am assuming that he “takes his morals” from the Bible which he surely takes to be divine (or at least divinely inspired).  So for him, God through the Bible has provided us with what is moral and what is not.  But, the vast majority of the human population is not Christian.  In fact, no single religion is practiced by the majority of people.  Everyone, atheists and the religious, would agree with me that not all religions are divine or divinely inspired (I hope this is obvious for it may necessitate another posting).  Instead most would argue that only theirs is from God and that all others are man-made.  So, implicit in this argument is that while their flavor of morals may be from God, others have made up theirs.  That for example Islam is divine, but Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. are all creations of the human mind.  Since all religions purport to have morals, they are essentially arguing that man has developed a set of morals in these cases.  But this negates the original claim, and hence the contradiction.  

The fact that every religion provides its followers with morals, and that at best only one can be correct, means that the vast majority of humans on Earth live with man-made morals that are neither god-given nor even divinely inspired.  And this includes atheists.  Morality is not the exclusive domain of theists. By and large, every group, culture, and society, has developed a set of values and morals that for the most part agree with each other.  Regardless of who does a better job of sticking to those, basic fundamentals like not stealing and not killing are shared across the human race.  Oddly enough, it is the religious that most often violate them, especially the "not killing" part.

I hate to break it to you, but the morals you may hold to be absolute, they were invented, by a fellow human.  What should be absolute is human dignity and respect for this Earth and all those that inhabit it.  We do not need a God to tell us that.

In Polite Company

We are all taught that one should not bring up religion or politics in polite company.  It is simply not done.  After all, you do not want to offend the other person.  I get it, but find it amusing none the less.  There are a few reasons for my amusement.

First, why does the other person get offended?  Has the individual not thought about their beliefs and values and is therefore shocked when someone suggests disagreement with them?  Second, when religion and political views are used so often to defend actions, policies, or decisions which impact everyone, why should these topics be outside the purview of any group discussion.  If everyone practiced their religion and politics inside their homes privately, then I would not have an issue if it was improper to discuss.  But it is not, and so I am challenging the very notion.  These things matter, and we do not help by making them taboo.

In the posts to come, I hope to put forth some of my thoughts and views on what I consider to be important topics.  As you can guess, religion and politics are two of the main ones.  Others are hinted at in the header image at the top: Energy (and Energy Policy), Science and Technology, Vegetarianism, and National Security.  

I started writing this blog some time back, but I am going to attempt writing more frequently this year, so this is a start of sorts.  To help with that of course, I am fortunate to have a very talented graphic designer by way of my wife help.  She has designed the header and I think you will agree that it is quite spectacular.  Hopefully the quality of this blog will be on par with the quality of her work.  

I sometimes feel a blog is a narcissistic pursuit.  Why should anyone care what you have to say through a medium that does not allow for a discussion?  I am hoping that is where your comments come in.  For me they are going to be one of the primary enjoyments of this blog.  I look forward to reading and responding to your comments and have that be the channel for a healthy discussion.  I also invite any of you to post on this blog if you wish.  Together, we can explore the most advance and perhaps odd species to walk this Earth - The Inscrutable Humans.