Origin of morality video

[the traveller]

Hello all.

I stumbled upon this video today and thought this would be a good place to discuss it (rather than just commenting to myself).

Richard Dawkins Morals Don't Come from God
http://www.pistolwimp.com/media/51964/

I found his arguments regarding the origin of morality to be very interesting and, should one believe in evolution and Darwinism, quite possible. It is funny realizing now that I have to qualify belief in theories. In any case, I have always felt that morality came from a source not just defined by religion as I have friends in different religions (and lack thereof) who share similar moral guidelines. Nature and nurture both play a role!

However, from there, I think he takes his argument too far. He begins in on the life-affirming nature of atheism saying that belief in a religion necessarily prevents a true understanding and appreciation of life and nature. While I would agree that perhaps someone doesn't understand something entirely doesn't mean that one does not appreciate it. Take, for example, lightning. In old days when it was not understood, it was viewed with fear as an angry god or the like. It was something terrible and extraordinary. With modern science, we now 'know' the reason for lighting and how it works. This does give us a new understanding of it, but it seems to me that we can still appreciate it. As a child not understanding lightning, I'd still appreciate it.

Lets take another example. I was discussing with a friend of mine whether ignorance is bliss. He said that knowledge necessarily was better because understanding something made one appreciate it more. I disagreed. My example was a film that we recently watched called "Patriotism." Having recently taken a film studies class, the film bugged me with its cinematic issues and overly obsessive focus. These issues were so great that I couldn't focus on the movie at all and ended up laughing at the film while watching it. My friend, not understanding these issues as he had not had the same education as me, fully appreciated the full emotional intent of the film-maker and was very much taken with the film.

Full understanding of something does not necessarily mean full appreciation of it. Lets take one more example. We could have a Christian who is very much in touch with nature and loves it greatly, viewing it as the glory of god and living to experience it. Then we have an athiest who hates nature, but understands it; living just for the pleasures of the city. The roles are easily enough reversed by applying different religions or differeint individuals.

A desire to live comes from within and is not dictated to us by our religion or lack thereof.

[Shiggety]

Oddly enough, I found this like, two minutes ago and came here to post it. Great video.

[GeoffBoulton]

Yes, I enjoyed it too. It makes a lot of sense.

It does seem strange that theists quote God as being necessary to endow us with morals when so many other animal species have their own set of innate morals allowing them to coexist in their own societies.

If God is responsible for morals then he must also have given them to animals which also means that God hasn't singled out man as anything special after all ;)

[Nanashi]

Hmm, I agree with the Original Poster.. full knowledge doesn't nessisarily mean you appreciate it more, it's very relative to the person.



My example was a film that we recently watched called "Patriotism." Having recently taken a film studies class, the film bugged me with its cinematic issues and overly obsessive focus. These issues were so great that I couldn't focus on the movie at all and ended up laughing at the film while watching it. My friend, not understanding these issues as he had not had the same education as me, fully appreciated the full emotional intent of the film-maker and was very much taken with the film.


This is much how I feel on the subject of religion. I have gotten to the point if just sitting back and laughing at theists.

Edit: Laughing at *religion would make it make sense with the analogy. Not that I don't have a good laugh at theists too. :)

[the traveller]

My example was a film that we recently watched called "Patriotism." Having recently taken a film studies class, the film bugged me with its cinematic issues and overly obsessive focus. These issues were so great that I couldn't focus on the movie at all and ended up laughing at the film while watching it. My friend, not understanding these issues as he had not had the same education as me, fully appreciated the full emotional intent of the film-maker and was very much taken with the film.


This is much how I feel on the subject of religion. I have gotten to the point if just sitting back and laughing at theists.

Perhaps I did not fully express myself well enough in the original post.

In any case, similar to how the video guy makes the argument that one can only fully appreciate nature through the practice of science and atheism, one can draw the conclusion that one loses a sense of awe and wonder in the world by means of science and atheism.

In the case of the film, I lost the ability to appreciate the film due to my further knowledge. Could not an argument be made that one may lose the ability to appreciate nature or life due to an increased knowledge of it? This isn't to say that all people would lose the ability nor that it is a common occurance, but that it is possible. Suddenly, for that individual, what was extraordinary becomes mundane. In that change, something important is lost.

[Nanashi]

I think it's relative to the person.

Some people are more facinated by the world from a scientific/atheist view. I think in the video they tried to make a point that if people stopped believing that some sky-daddy created the world, they would be more wonderous of it, and strive to find out exactly how it was made. And that you could appreciate your life more knowing that you were living it for yourself, for your own enjoyment while you were on the planet; rather than living a life of abstinince and repentance this life in hope for some grandiose life after death.

On a personal note, I think it's natural for people to grow complacent of both wonder in nature and life regardless of beliefs; just because after so many years it's all the same shit. ^^; Every time you see a flower you don't see it with the same awe as the first time and such.

[GeoffBoulton]

For myself, my sense of awe and fascination with the world are in no way diminished by my gaining greater knowledge of it.

Quite the contrary, the more I know about it the more questions are raised and the more I appreciate how complex and amazing it really is.

Suppose you are standing by the side of a lake. You are totally in awe of the scene before you. Now suppose that you also have knowledge of all of the amazing geological processes, over thousands and thousands of years, that finally resulted in that scene. Next start to add in all of the life processes that are going on around you that were also needed to produce the scene and continue to be needed in order to maintain it.

Would I be happy just standing at the side of the lake and admiring the view, of course I would, but how much more amazing is it when I can also appreciate all of the processes that were needed, and continue to be needed, to produce that scene?