3 ms·

The initial premise is somewhat absurd. If the current scientific origin of the universe theories are wrong it does not follow that the genesis myths of religio

The initial premise is somewhat absurd. If the current scientific origin of the universe theories are wrong it does not follow that the genesis myths of religions a-z are any more probable merely because of this wrongness. Setting out thus to debunk a scientific theory explaining origins does not at the same time validate biblical genesis. In the same sense attempting to attack the foundations of an irreligious framework for morality does not thus cause the facts to shift to supporting the position that religion is the source of morality. One does not need to go far in abrahamic religious dogma to find moral law which is abhorrent to modern ethical standards and immediately disqualifies such religions as a candidate for an actual source of modern morality. The article attempts goes through various contortions to reduce all the candidate sources of morality to "altruism guided by intuition". I've not had much connection with Hitchens' or Dennet's works so I can't comment there, but if you look at Sam Harris' latest presentation from TED on ethics he pretty much directly holds up philosophical utilitarianism. Dawkins also mounts a case of modern ethical behaviour in "The God Delusion" as a simple case of a set of behaviour which confers evolutionary advantages upon the adopting group, with much supporting evidence for this, there is nothing "mysteriously shifting" about this position.

mike_organon 17y ago
I think you misunderstood the point of the article. It's not trying to support religion as the source of morality, quite the opposite. Instead, it's showing that the morality these New Atheists present is no more grounded in reason than religion is - they ground it in feelings. The alternative is Objectivism which bases morality on facts and reason. I agree that Harris presents utilitarianism, though he oddly avoids the word. That it is a variation of altruism, where each individual sacrifices himself to the group. Harris does not give a rational justification for this, just assumes everyone will feel it's correct. Feelings are not reason, so you have to ask where such feelings come from.

mike_organon 17y ago

I think you misunderstood the point of the article. It's not trying to support religion as the source of morality, quite the opposite. Instead, it's showing that the morality these New Atheists present is no more grounded in reason than religion is - they ground it in feelings. The alternative is Objectivism which bases morality on facts and reason. I agree that Harris presents utilitarianism, though he oddly avoids the word. That it is a variation of altruism, where each individual sacrifices himself to the group. Harris does not give a rational justification for this, just assumes everyone will feel it's correct. Feelings are not reason, so you have to ask where such feelings come from.