Comments on: The Psychology of Apologetics: Ethics and Morality

By: lowkeyguru

lowkeyguru — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:19:26 +0000

First of all, thanks for an interesting read folks, some great points have been made.
I am still perplexed though Richard as to how this ‘mentalising’ ability relates to morality as such. Sure, I do agree that empathy (ie. the ability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes) is the basis of morality. Nevertheless, individuals with autism have again and again been shown to lack this ‘mentalising’ ability or theory of mind but yet do pass experiments designed to measure empathy and morality. Hence, this seems to hint at a dissociation between morality and ‘theory of mind’ (and neuroscientific evidence does indeed suggest just that ie. Blair, 1999). Secondly, is it not possible that a person can have moral attitudes without grasping concepts that refer to moral emotions? The crucial thing is not emotion concepts as such (implied in theory of mind), but the emotions themselves. Moralisers must be disposed to feel guilty when they transgress but in my view there is no requirement that they have the belief that guilt is appropriate. Hence, my question is, are individuals with autism that lack a theory of mind immoral or amoral people according to your definition?

By: INTJ Mom

INTJ Mom — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:31:54 +0000

I love this series of aritcles you are writing. Looking forward to the next installment.

By: Josh

Josh — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:31:40 +0000

…actually that just got me to thinking. One reason I left the faith was simply because I realized that atheists have a better understanding of Christians than Christians do of atheist. The very fact that atheists can often anticipate every argument a Christian is going to use next, but Christian’s often do not have a good understanding of atheists is a good sign that one has a better understanding of the world in general. No?

By: Josh

Josh — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:24:08 +0000

“‘Good question, though I would posit that there isn’t necessarily an anthropomorfic answer to the question.”

I have not yet been able to find a person inside of faith who knows what an atheist is really thinking… the search continues…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:38:09 +0000

And here’s where atheists respond; ‘Good question, though I would posit that there isn’t necessarily an anthropomorfic answer to the question.

By: TitforTat

TitforTat — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 09:49:07 +0000

So, I think religion (at its best) can provide beautiful depictions, elaborations, and lessons about this sort of basic human goodness. But it didnt invent it.(Richard)

And this is the point where we as humans ask, what did invent it? Atheists would say its an Evolutionary process and religious people say God did it and they then give their description of who they think God is. I think we can agree on this one idea, there was a starting point. I wonder if we will ever agree on the why?

By: freestyleroadtrip

freestyleroadtrip — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 04:54:43 +0000

Richard. Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you that you do not need religion to tell you to treat other humans with respect and that without religion you will degrade into an animal. Enjoying the discussion.

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 04:52:28 +0000

And BTW, I am not dogging all religion about this. I think religion can very often provide a lovely articulation of these ideas. Martin Buber, for example, in his plea to treat each other as “Thous”, rather than”Its”, is absolutely sublime, in my view. I find these sorts of religious writing very moving. I love the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman (“he who is without sin among you..”). I included the legend about Hillel in my article.

So, I think religion (at its best) can provide beautiful depictions, elaborations, and lessons about this sort of basic human goodness. But it didnt invent it.

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 04:47:24 +0000

freestyle-
I think the difference between what I am proposing and what social Darwinism is/was, is that SD generally was an “ought” sort of ideology, whereas Im talking about “is” questions.

Again, my purpose in my article was not to settle the “ought” questions, and thus provide a new or alternate basis for morality to subsitute for the Christian one. My purpose was to reassure prospective decons that they will not devolve into beasts without religion, *and* to explain why. Namely, that evolution and child development (depending on which scale you want to look at it from) have seen to it that we have a built-in drive to be excellent to each other.

SD took a single strand of evolutionary theory (of the time, namely, survival of the fittest) and used it as a post-hoc rationalization to justify aggressive social and corporate practices. In other words, they took an “is” and tried to create an artifical and self-seving “ought.”

Look at it this way. There is a reason you and I find social darwinism appalling. Why is that? Because we see that it treats people as objects, obstacles in one’s own struggle for fitness. Did you need religion to teach you not to treat people that way? Thats the whole point. Seeing people as people is precisely empathy, and is the very-natural lens through which we view and judge proposed ethical systems like social darwinism.

You and I can both agree the SD is unethical, even as we struggle to articulate why. It would be easy (and many people of course do) to attrivute this to a god-given conscience. But our evolution-given empathy functions in exactly the same way. And without all that mucking about in divine command theory.

By: drdave

drdave — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 20:49:01 +0000

For a defense of morality without god(s), see Richard Carrier’s book “Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism”.