If the future religion is secular materialism, then we already know what the future holds because we’ve already seen it – picture a boot stamping on a human face.
The guy’s an idiot, there are lots of countries where religious belief is on the wane but people still manage to have some sort of morality.
Morality doesn’t come from religion, it comes from the evolution, with just a dusting of cultural practices.
Well, evolution at it’s core is “survival of the fittest”. That means I must do everything possible to ensure my line survives. That doesn’t sound like morality to me.
And what do you suppose would be the best strategy to ensure your lineage survives?
Have lot of kids? Mormons and Catholics seem to have figured that out.
But if they don’t abide by their societies moral codes throughout most of Mankind’s existence they’d have been either driven out or put to death, not a great way to ensure the lineages survival.
Survival of the fittest doen’t mean ” That means I must do everything possible to ensure my line survives.” A joke about outrunning a bear comes mind as the easiest sort of refutation, and there are other ways to refute it as well. But moreover, a lot of heavy duty thinkers have spent a lot of time thinking about the biological origins of morality.
Comments like this one indicate a very superficial and mostly incorrect view of evolution, including how the inbuilt moral modules in our minds work. No surprise, evolution is typically taught poorly in our public schools, and it is often counterintuitive at first blush.
Fortunately, anybody willing to invest the time to read four specific books can remedy this situation. The books are: Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene and The Ancestor’s Tale; and Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate and The Better Angels of Our Nature. The two Dawkins books are the best introductions I know of to how evolution works at the level of the gene, which is essential to any true understanding of the topic. Pinker takes that understanding and, via solid application of evolutionary psychology, achieves a dazzling synthesis of where we as sentient beings came from, what that means, and where we are going.
I thought I should enter a comment here.
First, let me say I am what is called a cradle Episcopalian. When I was growing up in New Jersey people at my and my parent’s church encouraged my interests in astronomy, physics and space exploration. The Scopes Monkey Trial was viewed as the ravings of ignorant people down south.
Now let me point to the Episcopal Church today. Our current Presiding Bishop (think of this person as a democratically elected leader according to a constitution much like the Constitution) is one Katharine Jefferts Schori . The national Episcopal Church website has more about her at Presiding Bishop. She was an oceanographer before she became a priest. She is married to a mathematician. Her father is a physicist, her mother a biologist. Her and her husband’s daughter is a pilot in the Air Force. People here would probably find some things to disagree about with this women. She is highly controversial in the Episcopal Church, putting it mildly. But the Episcopal Church is quite open and friendly to science and technology and people who work in those fields. We like to say you don’t have to check your mind when you enter our church.
On another note, I have ran into NASA Administrator Charles Bolden at Christ Episcopal Church here in DC where he is a member. Nobel Prize winning physicist John Mather has occasionally come to services at St. Mark’s Episcopal Church also in DC.
In general, I think science and religion can be compatible. I think people can learn much from both fields. Too many scientists and engineers can be too narrow for the good of their own fields. Involvement in groups outside of their own fields could benefit their scientific and engineering work.
Enough for now.
See Tom Wolfe’s marvelous The Right Stuff; the Episcopal church has long been the “best” church politically, military officers included. But as a scientist and engineer, I reject your “people can learn much from both fields” conclusion.
I think of science and religion like the two lenses of a telescope; meant to work in complimentary fashion. Revelation and discovery go hand in hand. Science can tell us how, but it’s not very good at asking or explaining why. That’s where religion comes in.
By way of example, consider a sports car. I can take a Lamborghini completely apart, come to a precise understanding of exactly how each part was crafted, its function and how they all work together. But how much closer will I come to really knowing the car’s designer? To understanding why he/she designed this fine vehicle? To the personal creative motivations behind its form and function? I cannot. And likewise science, without religion, cannot bring us any closer to understanding the why of the universe — to knowing its Maker.
If the future religion is secular materialism, then we already know what the future holds because we’ve already seen it – picture a boot stamping on a human face.
The guy’s an idiot, there are lots of countries where religious belief is on the wane but people still manage to have some sort of morality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion
Morality doesn’t come from religion, it comes from the evolution, with just a dusting of cultural practices.
Well, evolution at it’s core is “survival of the fittest”. That means I must do everything possible to ensure my line survives. That doesn’t sound like morality to me.
And what do you suppose would be the best strategy to ensure your lineage survives?
Have lot of kids? Mormons and Catholics seem to have figured that out.
But if they don’t abide by their societies moral codes throughout most of Mankind’s existence they’d have been either driven out or put to death, not a great way to ensure the lineages survival.
Survival of the fittest doen’t mean ” That means I must do everything possible to ensure my line survives.” A joke about outrunning a bear comes mind as the easiest sort of refutation, and there are other ways to refute it as well. But moreover, a lot of heavy duty thinkers have spent a lot of time thinking about the biological origins of morality.
Some aspects of “morality”, such as regulating what women wear and restricting their movements might be attempts to helping men avoid being cuckolds. (But even that is a complicated story — for example, consider http://news.yale.edu/2009/10/09/when-being-cuckold-makes-evolutionary-sense)
But controlling women isn’t the primary aspects of most people’s morality! How about altrusim?
Well, altruism is an important aspect of morality that has attracted the attention of evolutionary biologists ever since Darwin — see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_%28biology%29#Implications_in_evolutionary_theory
Comments like this one indicate a very superficial and mostly incorrect view of evolution, including how the inbuilt moral modules in our minds work. No surprise, evolution is typically taught poorly in our public schools, and it is often counterintuitive at first blush.
Fortunately, anybody willing to invest the time to read four specific books can remedy this situation. The books are: Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene and The Ancestor’s Tale; and Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate and The Better Angels of Our Nature. The two Dawkins books are the best introductions I know of to how evolution works at the level of the gene, which is essential to any true understanding of the topic. Pinker takes that understanding and, via solid application of evolutionary psychology, achieves a dazzling synthesis of where we as sentient beings came from, what that means, and where we are going.
I thought I should enter a comment here.
First, let me say I am what is called a cradle Episcopalian. When I was growing up in New Jersey people at my and my parent’s church encouraged my interests in astronomy, physics and space exploration. The Scopes Monkey Trial was viewed as the ravings of ignorant people down south.
Now let me point to the Episcopal Church today. Our current Presiding Bishop (think of this person as a democratically elected leader according to a constitution much like the Constitution) is one Katharine Jefferts Schori . The national Episcopal Church website has more about her at Presiding Bishop. She was an oceanographer before she became a priest. She is married to a mathematician. Her father is a physicist, her mother a biologist. Her and her husband’s daughter is a pilot in the Air Force. People here would probably find some things to disagree about with this women. She is highly controversial in the Episcopal Church, putting it mildly. But the Episcopal Church is quite open and friendly to science and technology and people who work in those fields. We like to say you don’t have to check your mind when you enter our church.
On another note, I have ran into NASA Administrator Charles Bolden at Christ Episcopal Church here in DC where he is a member. Nobel Prize winning physicist John Mather has occasionally come to services at St. Mark’s Episcopal Church also in DC.
In general, I think science and religion can be compatible. I think people can learn much from both fields. Too many scientists and engineers can be too narrow for the good of their own fields. Involvement in groups outside of their own fields could benefit their scientific and engineering work.
Enough for now.
See Tom Wolfe’s marvelous The Right Stuff; the Episcopal church has long been the “best” church politically, military officers included. But as a scientist and engineer, I reject your “people can learn much from both fields” conclusion.
I think of science and religion like the two lenses of a telescope; meant to work in complimentary fashion. Revelation and discovery go hand in hand. Science can tell us how, but it’s not very good at asking or explaining why. That’s where religion comes in.
By way of example, consider a sports car. I can take a Lamborghini completely apart, come to a precise understanding of exactly how each part was crafted, its function and how they all work together. But how much closer will I come to really knowing the car’s designer? To understanding why he/she designed this fine vehicle? To the personal creative motivations behind its form and function? I cannot. And likewise science, without religion, cannot bring us any closer to understanding the why of the universe — to knowing its Maker.
My $0.02. YMMV.