When first investigating the arguments for atheism versus Christianity, one point that was particularly sticky for me and for both sides of the argument was the problem of morality; if we are just chemical reactions, why do we so strongly believe in the idea of right and wrong? I had always thought that God answered this question. He gave us our morals by creating the universe we live in and by giving us eternal souls. I thought that we experienced compasssion and anguish, loved and fought for justice because God's character was reflecting in us. But once I stepped away from this faith and held it in my hands instead of drowning within it, I realized that having God does not truly satisfy our desire for truth or justice (right or wrong). For example, if the only reason I am doing a kind act for a stranger is because I think God wants me to, am I really good? Or, what if God commands me to kill my children? Since God dictates what's right and wrong, is infanticide now good? I think we already have a preconcieved idea of what is good, beautiful or loving and we want God to be the ultimate incarnation of that idea. We want to love God because he is good, not because he created good. If we are only minions doing the bidding of a master, how can we claim to be moral at all? Additionally, if God created my sense of morality, shouldn't I whole heartedly agree with all of his actions and commands? I may not want to live up to his standards, but if he created my sense of justice, his actions should never violate that. Yet, all over the Bible, God does things that I strongly disagree with including commanding Abraham to kill his child. I have often been told that I God's ways are not my ways and that I just don't see the big picture yet, but there are plently of stories in the Bible that chronicle a person's entire life. Even though Job recieved all of his herds, house and had more children, I don't think what God did to him was just.
However, I don't think this lets atheists or naturalists off the hook either. From what I've read, it's my impression that the scientific position on why we have morals is that they evolved because humans had a higher survival rate in groups. Those who were born with genetic mutations for co-operation and mutual understanding were able to form communities and survive at a higher rate until the entire race was bred with morals. Which is fine, until I begin to question why I should follow them in the first place. Using the same example as above, if I were to propose killing children, what argument is there for not doing this terrible act? If the only reason not to commit a crime like this is because I would decrease the chance of propogating the species or because years of genetic selection has given me chemical reactions to feel negatively about it, then who cares? Its a terribly depressing realization that all my passions, loves and sense of justice have no bearing on truth, but instead of merely chemical reactions that I may choose to ignore. If this is true, then there is no such thing as right, true, good, or evil, but only what we as a species have collectively defined. I have a deep desire to do what is right and good because it truly is good. Is there nothing beyond our biology?
"Is there nothing beyond our biology?"
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, what is beyond our biology is something that sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, and that is empathy. Empathy isn't something we're born with, as tests have shown that children start showing empathy somewhere between the ages of three and five, I think. On the other hand, many serial killers never develop empathy, so there may be a biological component to it, or to the ability to develop it.
I think humans have empathy due to our ability to communicate, which is primarily through spoken language now but at some point was probably a bit more primitive. People can tell you how they feel and why they feel that way. Person A can tell Person B what Person C did to them a long time ago, and why it still hurts. Person B learns something from that discussion without experiencing what Person A went through.
Animals may be able to express themselves in the short term and even show a little empathy, but it's very limited. If a big dog steps on a littls dog's tail and the little dog yelps, the big dog may know why the little dog yelped because he felt the tail move, and he might even try to console the little dog while he's yelping, but that's about it. They won't be talking about the painful tail-stepping incident tomorrow, nor will they be talking about how upset they are that the medium size dog didn't alert either one of them when some food was put outside the back door of the house.
Communication lets us know how our actions may affect others, and empathy means we care enough to consider that when deciding what's right, or good. If animals were to develop an advanced language like ours, it's possible they would eventually do the same.
I guess the greater philosphical question is if empathy is only a series of neurons firing in my brain, does it really matter? It certainly feels like it does, but does empathy supercede the natural in any way? Sometimes I have a hard time finding meaning in simple cause and effect relationships like that. Perhpas its still the old Christian habits in me, but I guess I want my experience of empathy to reflect a true condition, or a deeper love that is greater than I am. It's difficult to fit that in with my studies in physiology.
ReplyDelete