I will try to answer regarding one of the Brothers Karamazov characters claiming, “if the soul of man is not immortal, anything is permissible, even cannibalism.”
Thanks for asking this question. There are at least a couple of layers to my answer. In one layer is the idea that as we attempt to understand the nature of reality, what seems plausible is based on the evidence, not on how that information might affect people’s behavior.
For this discussion, I interpret the “immortality of the soul” as a question about whether there are states of being without a functioning brain, that is, states of being beyond death. Regarding that, to my knowledge there are only mythical claims that can’t be proved, along with numerous anecdotal claims about, for example, seeing one’s own body or floating blissfully toward a bright light.
When I compare that type of mythical and anecdotal ‘evidence’ with the scientific evidence which links many of our states of consciousness to the functioning of the brain, the latter seems more probable.
Do I know for sure? I don’t. But in my opinion the evidence for a materialist conception of reality is stronger than the evidence for a dualist conception of reality. I’m using the terms ‘materialist’ and ‘dualist’ as they pertain to philosophy of mind.
Whether consciousness exists without a functioning brain can’t be entirely ruled out. I’d like to think I’m not a rationalist who is so close-minded that I’m exhibiting a form of non-religious fundamentalism called ‘scientism.’
Scientism involves assuming that something is necessarily not the case if it can’t be proven. That is not the same as thinking that there is insufficient evidence to be certain about something. That is why atheists such as Richard Dawkins have said that it’s “highly improbable that God exists” instead of saying there is certainly no God.
But let’s get back to how that materialist conception of reality might affect morality (getting back to the claim of one of the characters in Brothers Karamazov). If I believe my consciousness is temporary, and not immortal, that doesn’t result in me having no psychological pain or pleasure which shape my motivations.
For example, the agony of any of the many heretics church authorities slowly roasted was compelling to the individual experiencing it, even though the experience was not eternal. Similarly, the psychological discomfort I feel amid the suffering of others for whom I feel empathy and compassion is a problem for me to resolve, regardless of whether my states of conscious are eternal.
As our ties to family, friends, and lovers demonstrate, our concern for others is not limited to our conscious will. In some contexts, we couldn’t turn our backs on those we love, even if we for some reason tried to.
In some cases our regard for others is a psychological phenomenon of such power that we put ourselves in harm’s way or otherwise sacrifice our well-being or our lives. This sort of social bonding among human beings likely predates monotheism, not to mention Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.
Not only mental pain or the risk of mental pain derived thru empathy motivates our concern for others. But psychological pleasure also factors into morality. In many respects, acting on our concern for the well-being of others brings us joy.
When I read that you write that without a belief in the immortality of the soul, humans would have no morals, I can’t think of any other way to explain your belief other than to think you believe that human nature is so depraved that we require the promise of heaven and the threat of hell. I believe in neither. I’d like to think I’m mostly motivated by the joy that striving to help others brings, though, I admit that in at least some cases my fear of earthly punishment is at least a small factor.
I’d suggest the struggle of good-vs-evil within each of us is a matter of enlightened self-interest vs. un-enlightened or less enlightened self-interest.
By contrast, fundamentalist theists probably say the struggle is between God and Satan for whom the human psyche is a battlefield. Liberal theists probably say the battle is between our liberating loyalty to God, on the one hand; and, on the other hand, our short-sighted enslavement to our selfishness, which manifests in carnal lust, lust for power and lust for material possessions and comforts, intellectual conceit, and so on.
A digression regarding lust might be useful. Though I’m an atheist, I relate to the mentality of a liberal theist, at least in some ways. I see various lusts and various forms of ‘idolatry’ (if it makes sense for an atheist to use the latter term) as a confusion of means and ends.
For example, I’ve mistakenly thought that a process that can be associated with love (such as sexual expression) will bring joy by dint of the act in and of itself.
But the reality is that sexual expression is (sometimes) a means to the goal of love. In other words, I find joy thru love, not thru sex, per se. I try to apply that principle to other activities such as eating. Eating can be a means thru which to act on my love for myself and for others and it can be a means to enhance social bonds.
One can apply that principle to money, land, good looks, musical talent, philosophical ability, fame, or whatever other resources one might have. I try to maintain a frame of mind in which I realize that those resources are not ends in and of themselves. Thru love, we see those resources as means thru which to reduce suffering and promote well-being. Thru that process of love, we find joy, which, contrary to the views of some theists, is not cheapened by the idea that our joy is not eternal.
Let’s stay with the subtopic of lust for a little bit more. Thru lust and ‘idolatry’ (if it makes sense for an atheist to use that word) we see our resources as having intrinsic value, and mistakenly think that our possession of those resources (good looks, talent, money, fame, land…etc) will bring us joy.
Humans often persist in that delusion when we experience emptiness and frustration as a result of our lusts and ‘idolatry.’ As we persist in that delusion, we often create a chain reaction of evil. For example, our lusts for prestige or power pave the way for mass murder, oppression, and other forms of systemic cruelty and indifference.
There is good and bad in all of us, like that Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder song Ebony And Ivory says. None of the atrocities throughout human history could have happened without an indifferent and/or cooperative general population enabling those masterminding it, be it slavery in the Western hemisphere, the genocide of Native Americans, the Holocaust, and so on. I see all of that as having been a matter of love-vs-hate and indifference, not as a matter of God vs Satan, or God vs corrupt human nature.
I’ve yet to read The World As It Is: Dispatches on the Myth of Human Progress by Chris Hedges (also the author of I Don’t Believe in Atheists). But so far, I’m inclined to not rule out the evolution of morality, whereby we use a more rational and less mythical approach.
Though humans are imperfect, with our standard is love for one another on this planet, moral progress might be feasible. But when it comes to moral progress over the millennia, there are some questions.
To what extent has that moral evolution involved a transition from polytheism to monotheism over the millennia ? We know of such a transition occurred, but have humans been more moral under monotheism compared with polytheism?
Some atheists suggest the next stage will involve subtracting one more God from monotheism, as a rational morality based in empathy and compassion gains ever wider currency. The leads to the question of whether humans would be more empathic and kind on an individual and societal level under such conditions.
Maybe the answer is yes (all else being equal) in that the most direct path to being empathic and compassionate as a civilization is to uphold those values, without clouding our focus with convoluted and unprovable myths. With Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, one has to shift thru quite a bit of hateful, violent, and otherwise cruel ideas in order to pluck out the gems regarding love.
But allow me another note on the idea that moral progress might involve subtracting one more god from monotheism. If such as transition were to be a probability, atheists should not dismiss religion outright, given that it is an important stage in the ongoing evolution of morality. I shouldn’t dismiss the Old and New Testaments, nor the Koran, nor the
The Bhagavad Gita, or other foundational religious writings anymore than I should dismiss great works of poetry or works of secular philosophy. Come to think of it, viewing Christ as a great, possibly fictional, human being, might be the best way to reconcile the contradictions of the New Testament.
As for what you say about reason, Dino, I don’t claim that humans should use only our rational faculties. I acknowledge that in many ways, humans rely on intuition and even our primal instincts for survival and well-being.
But there is a difference between those ‘non-rational’ intuitive and instinctual faculties, on the one hand; and, on the other hand, irrationality. The latter involves investing ourselves emotionally and, (in terms of religious dogma) intellectually into unsubstantiated claims about the nature of reality.
I’m using the terms ‘reason’ and ‘rationalism’ not to exclude our non-rational faculties. What I have in mind is using our intuitive and instinctual faculties in harmony with our rational ones. As such, one can utilize one’s artist, intuitive, and emotional aspects of her personality without investing herself into the extraordinary and unprovable claims we find in religion and mythology.
As an atheist, I think of morality of being a matter of striving to distinguish my needs from my wants, and striving to meet my needs with as little harm as possible and as much benefit as possible to others. I’m not concerned about reward in heaven or punishment in hell. To borrow from Maslow, I pursue the of joy of self-actualization that comes from doing my best to help reduce suffering and maximize well-being on Earth.
But since we’re on the topic of reason, one’s ability to help reduce suffering and help promote well-being would seem commensurate with having an accurate knowledge about how the world works and about the general nature of reality.
In my opinion, religion obscures that. To improve the state of the world, we need not only the intention of helping one another, but also the know-how. That’s where reason and science come in.
You wouldn’t go to a person with Iron Age medical knowledge for help with your health problems, even if that person had saintly intentions. Why should we base modern morality on having extraordinary confidence in writings from the same period in human history ? Sure, some of those Biblical authors were extraordinarily inspired. But they had non knowledge of many of the aspects of the contingencies humans currently face.
As for Eugenics, it’s pseudo-science. The same can be said of Herbert Spencer’s Social Darwinism. Both Eugenics and Social Darwinism have no evidence to support them under the scrutiny of rationalism, be thru the physical or social sciences or thru humanities fields such as history.
Sorry if I’m repeating what I already wrote above regarding the quote from a Brothers Karamazov character. But our empathy and compassion toward others draws a lot from our intuitive and maybe even instinctual faculties. As such, humans probably exhibited compassionate, cooperative, and even altruistic behavior before any of our ancestors codified any systems of morality, let alone developed monotheism. I’d suggest Hobbes overstates his case about the barbarity of ‘primitive communities.’ Clearly, the barbarity of the highly organized and ‘civilized’ and ‘Christian’ conquistadors against the natives of Hispaniola is illustrative, as Bartoleme de las casas helped to remind us.
As for another note on Eugenics, what you say about it is more a matter of rationalization, than reason, properly speaking. For me, ‘reason’ involves not only logical coherence but also what we can assume to be facts about the nature of reality.
For example, it’s logically coherent to ratiocinate that ‘I am a member of a ‘race’ with superior abilities; you are a member of a ‘race’ with inferior abilities; rights are commensurate with responsibility; responsibility is commensurate with ability; therefore, I should have more rights and responsibility than you.’ But thru science, which requires evidence, we know that two of the premises are false.
Similarly, theology involves a lot of ratiocination. For example, Aquinas shaped doctrine. But, as an atheist, I find fault with some of his premises, though his ability to use logic and reason might have been extraordinary. Religious doctrine involves the problem of being built on premises that have been called into doubt thru science. That science is distinguished from philosophy because of its requirement of evidence.
As rationalism advances further into what was once the sole province of religion, two main approaches seem to emerge from theists : fundamentalism, where scripture is viewed literally in response to the many flaws of modernism (such as its materialistic obsessions); and liberal theology, where scripture is viewed figuratively, with many Christians emphasizing Mark 12:30-31, and ignoring or viewing figuratively with mental acrobatics Mathew 13:42 and Matthew 13:50, Matthew 10:34 and so on.
Sorry to repeat myself, but it seems fair to ask how far a liberal Christian can go down the path of a figurative reading of scripture before it becomes no longer meaningful or honest to call oneself such.
As for my assessment that the god of the Old Testament reflects a depraved character that we better hope is fictional, well, Dino, it’s a god that’s jealous, petty, vengeful, and murderous, and thrives on blind obedience and a might-makes-right mentality. Consider 1 Samuel 15:13. Deuteronomy 20:17. Consider also the roles of women and the approval of slavery in the Old and New Testaments.
To answer your question, Dino, it’s not scientific evidence that leads me to think that the god of the Old Testament is blatantly a human creation to justify violence and oppression. It’s my own philosophical reasoning. That is, sir, in this discussion, we’re faced with a choice.
We can base morality on striving to refrain from causing unnecessary suffering and striving to maximize well-being. Or we can, thru the sort of theology we find in the Old Testament, base morality on obedience and a might-makes-right mentality, where no matter what God does (turn people to pillars of salt, drown most of humanity in a flood) or tells us to do (slaughter the Canaanites or kill someone for gathering sticks on the sabbath) it’s ok. Why is it ok? Because God said so. Not to jump to conclusions and overstate the analogy, but the authoritarianism of the Old Testament conjures in my mind at least associations with Nazis and collaborators who claimed they were just following orders.
I may not have gotten this session of good exercise without you Dino. So, thanks. I’ve responded in haste, so kindly let me know if anything I write isn’t clear. I’ve run out of time to double check for omissions and other typos. But I’m sending this so it doesn’t get lost in the shuffle.
Leave a Reply