tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post5581858417964996828..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Lockhart, Hitchens, Atheism, and MoralityAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-63632733014045333652008-04-28T19:43:00.000-06:002008-04-28T19:43:00.000-06:00It seems to me that those who would be pressured i...It seems to me that those who would be pressured into staying affiliated with religious institutions for fear of being castigated by their fellow believers would be more heavily influenced by their peers to be more charitable. Moreover, charity is a learned action, and outside of religious institutions, it doesn't seem to be a very prevalent item on the education agenda.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-15578567785098646322008-04-25T11:33:00.000-06:002008-04-25T11:33:00.000-06:00The number of confounding variables in some of the...The number of confounding variables in some of the studies cited here is sickening.<BR/><BR/>How do you account for the fact that a religious PRIME increases prosocial behavior? It's entirely possible that the religious give more to charity because of that prime, and not because of any actual moral values.<BR/><BR/>Interestingly enough, numerous studies show that religious priming works on EVERYONE, including agnostics and atheists. To assert that this research on charity may give some evidence to suggest that theists may have a sunstantiated claim that atheists aren't as moral is simply absurd.<BR/><BR/>There are more variables here and more effects going on than you think.<BR/><BR/>By the way, don't rag on the objectivists. The primary benefactor of their actions is themselves, BUT it's entirely possible for an objectivist to attain happiness by helping others (as long as it makes them happy to do so). At least that's how I've come to understand it.<BR/><BR/>Singling out a group like that is just as prejudicial as the theists who claim atheists have no morals.<BR/><BR/>The irony here is what some of you are saying is, "no, we have morals, it's just this group that brings our average down; they are the ones without morals!" That thinking, particularly if based on a worldview you don't understand, makes you just as bad as a theist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-44871701381921471672008-04-23T21:20:00.000-06:002008-04-23T21:20:00.000-06:00Samuel SkinnerIf religious people act more morally...Samuel Skinner<BR/>If religious people act more morally than nonbelievers why are more religious people in prison? <BR/><BR/>Do we factor in people like Bush- decisions made that are harmful due to specifically religious motivations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-22109590490806659642008-04-22T20:56:00.000-06:002008-04-22T20:56:00.000-06:00For some reason the entire url doesn't post. You c...For some reason the entire url doesn't post. You can google the title of the paper. <BR/><BR/>"Health and the ecology of altruism"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-39684163130200526782008-04-22T20:53:00.000-06:002008-04-22T20:53:00.000-06:00http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/resources...http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/resources/publications_resources/DSW01.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-81964623542710783822008-04-22T20:52:00.000-06:002008-04-22T20:52:00.000-06:00To clarify, Seligman says religious Americans are,...To clarify, Seligman says religious Americans are, "clearly less likely to abuse drugs, commit crimes, divorce, and kill themselves... [they are] physically healthier and live longer. Religious mothers of children with disabilities fight depression better, and religious people are less thrown by divorce, unemployment, illness and death."<BR/><BR/>Sloan's relavent work can be found here:<BR/><BR/>http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/resources/publications_resources/DSW01.pdf<BR/><BR/>"Equating morality to charity is a mistake."<BR/><BR/>I agree here. But I would say that charity is probably an indicator or at least a proxy for more general moral behavior. In the same way I would think a drug dealer is more likely to be a thief than a non-drug dealer, I would assume someone who gives to charity is probably better than someone who doesn't (on avergage).<BR/><BR/>In fact, I vaguely remember some correlation between charity and returning money to a cashier who gives the person too much change in an experiment. <BR/><BR/>I look forward to your blogs on this and enjoy your website quite a bit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-10715914444407977302008-04-22T16:09:00.000-06:002008-04-22T16:09:00.000-06:00AnonymousYour concerns are relevant to what I am a...<B>Anonymous</B><BR/><BR/>Your concerns are relevant to what I am already writing to post tonight (Tuesday). I am going to address them as well in the post I will be writing for Wednesday.<BR/><BR/>There are important conceptual problems as to what counts as 'charity'. There is also a problem of distinguishing between desires to fulfill the desires of others, and desires that tend to fulfill the desires of others. The latter are not 'charitable' in the traditional sense, but they are still good in the moral sense. Equating morality to charity is a mistake.<BR/><BR/>Scientists, for example, may be less charitable in the traditional sense, but in terms of contributing to the well-being of others, do far more good than those who give to traditional charities. They do not so much desire to fulfill the desires of others, but still have desires that tend to fulfill the desires of others that produce a great deal of benefit.<BR/><BR/>Seligman's work, in turn, tends to focus on happiness as the sole value. I have written several posts on the value of happiness, arguing that where truth and happiness diverge, value tracks truth, not happiness. I am aware of research tha shows that theists are happier than atheists, but I consider their happiness to be the happiness of the Matrix - a happiness that comes from simply ignoring unpleasant truth.<BR/><BR/>David Sloan Wilson does make some valid points about useful false beliefs. The fact is that we cannot know everything about the universe. All we can do is create a model that is not entirely accurate. The best model, at least on Wilson's way of thinking, is the one that produces the most useful results. It must necessarily contain some deviation from reality, so the fact that its propositions are not strictly true is not an objection against it.<BR/><BR/>However, Wilson uses a 'moral sense' theory of morality (which he tries to explain in terms of group selection) that has serious problems. I deny the existence of a moral sense - yet, 'moral sense' and 'group selection' are key components of what Wilson tends to call 'pro' and 'social" activities.<BR/><BR/>In other words, Wilson has trouble being offered as proof that atheists have a problem with morality since Wilson himself uses a faulty theory of morality.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-8179033805219073612008-04-22T11:39:00.000-06:002008-04-22T11:39:00.000-06:00"Wonder what D.S Wilson would say on that :-)"Actu..."Wonder what D.S Wilson would say on that :-)"<BR/><BR/>Actually, you're right, he calls it a "stealth religion". <BR/><BR/>"Anyway D.S. Wilson's views are contentious at best..."<BR/><BR/>He goes over the methodology in great detail in his latest book. Whatever contentious views he has (group selection, etc.), they aren't relavent to the research I posted. <BR/><BR/>"Also far more scientifically accepted work comes from the largest sample epidemiological studies show strong correlations between social ill health and religiosity."<BR/><BR/>Please post a source. I haven't seen this despite having read most of the latest "new atheists" books. You'd think they would have included it!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-27717758028904065142008-04-22T11:28:00.000-06:002008-04-22T11:28:00.000-06:00AnonymousI would add that if Ayn Rand Objectivists...Anonymous<BR/><BR/>I would add that if Ayn Rand Objectivists were a significant group, they should be classified amongst the religious :-)<BR/><BR/>Wonder what D.S Wilson would say on that :-) <BR/><BR/>Anyway D.S. Wilson's views are contentious at best within evolutionary psychology/ sociobiology so not something that can be relied upon as acceptable work from which to draw such conclusions.<BR/><BR/>Also far more scientifically accepted work comes from the largest sample epidemiological studies show strong correlations between social ill health and religiosity. This needs to be explained not dismissed. <BR/><BR/>This looks like selective reasoning.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-86772059727703843672008-04-22T11:01:00.000-06:002008-04-22T11:01:00.000-06:00Alonzo, let me be clear. People should be judged ...Alonzo, let me be clear. People should be judged by their own actions (desires?).<BR/><BR/>But if the question is, Is religion more likely to produce moral behavior, then the answer requires the kind of research I referred to. <BR/><BR/>That research, in turn, doesn't imply we should therefore judge you, me, or anyone else by the actions of their larger group, however defined.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-29594296748492571262008-04-22T10:51:00.000-06:002008-04-22T10:51:00.000-06:00"I insist on being judged morally by my own action..."I insist on being judged morally by my own actions, not by a 'statistical mean' over which I have no control."<BR/><BR/>So we're left with anecdotes? How are you supposed to answer the question without large data sets and the effects of one variable while holding others constant? <BR/><BR/>This doesn't seem to reflect a willingness to get to an answer.<BR/><BR/>And who's saying that if religion is more likely to produce x, y, and z, then someone without religion can't have x, y, and z? <BR/><BR/>I guess we'd have to do away with all of social science if that's the interpretation you take from it. The research I'm referring to certainly doesn't imply that. <BR/><BR/>I think you may have a good point about the Objectivists, however. <BR/><BR/>"and how much is their "anti-social" behavior towards others such as homosexuals, 'unbelievers', and other out-groups considered in these evaluations?"<BR/><BR/>The people in Wilson's study had to report what they were doing at random times when they were beeped with an electronic device. I'm guessing if they were attending hate rallies or chasing gays down in their cars it would have come out. He measured all behaviors that easily fall into a larger category. <BR/><BR/><BR/>"And how much of this "pro-social" activity is restricted to other theists"<BR/><BR/>Brooks' research looked at this. They give more -- time and money --to causes that have ZERO to do with religion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-17730442238057239892008-04-22T10:22:00.000-06:002008-04-22T10:22:00.000-06:00Anonymous 1I would consider the types of evidence ...<B>Anonymous 1</B><BR/><BR/>I would consider the types of evidence you provide to be proof that atheists have a problem with morality in the same way that I would consider the same types of evidence about blacks or males (time and money spent on charitable contributions, criminal activity, prosocial activities) to be proof that blacks or males have a problem with morality.<BR/><BR/>I insist on being judged morally by my own actions, not by a 'statistical mean' over which I have no control. To make any inferences from a statistical mean to the morality of any individual in the group is the essence of prejudice.<BR/><BR/>Also, one of the counfounding effects of these measures is that a substantial portion of the atheist community is made up of Ayn Rand Objecivists who shun charity and other forms of 'prosocial activity'. That this faction skews the numbers when averaged out among all atheists is not proof that atheists have a problem with morality. Particularly not if those atheists who are not Objectivists contribute more to charity than the average Christian.<BR/><BR/>And how much of this "pro-social" activity is restricted to other theists, and how much is their "anti-social" behavior towards others such as homosexuals, 'unbelievers', and other out-groups considered in these evaluations?<BR/><BR/>I would also ask if that research includes studying the effects that false beliefs have on behavior. How much of this "charitable contribution" is wasted because of false beliefs, and how much more "charitable contribution" is required as a result of false beliefs?<BR/><BR/>Are you looking only at the comfort provided to the victims after the hurricane hit? Or are you also looking at the lives that were saved by the scientists who study hurricanes and architecture that significantly reduced the number of victims needing help?Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-27697227631028686662008-04-22T09:46:00.000-06:002008-04-22T09:46:00.000-06:00Samuel SkinnerAnd then there is the study that sho...Samuel Skinner<BR/>And then there is the study that shows that religiosity and faith in doctors is not linked to their helping the poor and disadvantaged?<BR/><BR/>Fact is that there is no conclusive proof that theists help or are better than atheists. The exceptions are of course fanatically driven people- but guess what? We have secular equivalents. The communists are a good example.<BR/><BR/>I think we can all agree that despite any community service commies carried out, the world would be better if they didn't exist.<BR/><BR/>As for religious people being more social... well, gays have a higher suicide rate. But it isn't caused by being gay- it is caused by people's reaction. Religious people probably have more connections and social activities because they monopolize the mainstream.<BR/><BR/>Red state vs blue state is a good example of what happens when theists run the government.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-40627130385975877772008-04-22T09:01:00.000-06:002008-04-22T09:01:00.000-06:00"The claim that atheists have a problem with moral..."The claim that atheists have a problem with morality is not a claim that people are driven to by the evidence. It is a claim that people are driven to by a want to hate others, and of inflating their own self-image by attacking others."<BR/><BR/>Alonzo, what do you think of the empirical evidence that shows church-goers tend to be far more charitable -- both in time and money, for both secular and religious causes (see Arthur Brooks' research), suffer from less social dysfunction, including criminal behavior(see Martin Seligman), and engage in more prosocial activities more of the time(see David Sloan Wilson)? <BR/><BR/>I'm an atheist, but as I've pointed out before, active theists may have some credibility in this area when the proper controls are done (rather than looking at red states vs blue states, for exammple).<BR/><BR/>I can give you more specific sources if you'd like.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com