The following is my response to a blog by Dennis Prager, a religious conservative columnist. I begin with a few definitions for the reader. I am just a regular guy that lives in Bay City, Michigan. I’m 38 years old. I finished one year of college at the University of Michigan. Go head, email me if you want. ericgraymoon@yahoo.com. I just can’t let this go unanswered. Just so you know I put each of my responses under each of his 15 points. I spent a lot of time on this guys, and I really don’t know why, but I’d kind of like to circulate it around the net if I can (my first time for that). If not, that’s cool too. Please read it through, even though it’s a bit long, I made every effort to make this as readable as possible. Peace!

This is who I am

Eric Besaw

Bay City, Michigan

ericgraymoon@yahoo.com

Written: 08/25/08

Some Definitions:

Evolutionary psychology

“Evolutionary psychologists argue that much of human behavior is generated by psychological adaptations that evolved to solve recurrent problems in human ancestral environments.” [source: wikipedia]

“Evolutionary psychology is one of many biologically informed approaches to the study of human behavior. Along with cognitive psychologists, evolutionary psychologists propose that much, if not all, of our behavior can be explained by appeal to internal psychological mechanisms. What distinguishes evolutionary psychologists from many cognitive psychologists is the proposal that the relevant internal mechanisms are adaptations—products of natural selection—that helped our ancestors get around the world, survive and reproduce.” [source: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Evolutionary Biology

Evolutionary biology is a sub-field of biology concerned with the origin of species from a common descent, and descent of species; as well as their change, multiplication, and diversity over time. Someone who studies evolutionary biology is known as an evolutionary biologist. [source: wikipedia]

Evolutionary ethics (morality)

“…concerns approaches to ethics (morality) based on the role of evolution in shaping human psychology and behavior. Such approaches may be based in scientific fields such as evolutionary psychology or sociobiology, with a focus on understanding and explaining observed ethical preferences and choices. Alternatively and to a large extent separately, theories or ideas about evolution may be used to justify and advance particular ethical systems and particular morals (i.e. what is right and wrong).” [source: wikipedia]

[quote] “Evolution gave us the preconditions of morality, but it is only as a result of the cultural elaboration of this raw material that we come to be moral beings…We are animals, and we cannot ever free ourselves of our biological heritage. We have no need: it enables all the flexible, rational, and caring behavior that we could want, and allows us to seek to become ever more moral beings” [source: What Makes Us Moral? Crossing the Boundaries of Biology by Neil Levy, Oneworld publications, 2004]

Introduction to my response to Mr. Prager,

While I reference concepts of evolution often in my response to Mr. Prager, that is not the totality of my argument. I am also suggesting a greater philosophical concept here. However, I must add a clarification about Darwinian evolution through natural selection for the reader. The term “theory” is a hugely misunderstood phrase, especially as it applies to “evolutionary theory”. Most people understand the common use of the word theory this way, and as follows, “I have a theory, you have a theory, will all have a theory”.  No! that is not the way theories in science work. In serious science, subject to the full gamut of test, observation, and scientific method (and repeat that a hundred times with other people doing the same with peer view), and the term “theory” means something very different. In science a sound and tested theory is a large accumulation of tested hypotheses, some hypotheses my be more or less correct, but the “theory” overall is considered fact by long standing test and observation. Such as Einstein’s “theory of relativity”, the majority of his “theories” have in fact proved to be sound and true. Such is the overall concept of evolutionary theory and natural selection by Darwin (and generations of scientist after him). The fact that evolution exists, is as much a law as Newton’s laws of motion, or that light bends around the gravity of stars according to Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Evolution and natural selection, in the broadest sense, has been tested and shown to be true. It is, for all intents and purposes, a law.

Eric Besaw,

08/25/2008

This is where Dennis Prager begins, my answers follow his points:

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Dennis Prager: Townhall.com Columnist

If There Is No God

by Dennis Prager

Mr. Prager,

[Prager] We are constantly reminded about the destructive consequences of religion -- intolerance, hatred, division, inquisitions, persecutions of "heretics," holy wars. Though far from the whole story, they are, nevertheless, true. There have been many awful consequences of religion. What one almost never hears described are the deleterious consequences of secularism -- the terrible developments that have accompanied the breakdown of traditional religion and belief in God. For every thousand students who learn about the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials, maybe two learn to associate Gulag, Auschwitz, The Cultural Revolution and the Cambodian genocide with secular regimes and ideologies. For all the problems associated with belief in God, the death of God leads to far more of them. So, while it is not possible to prove (or disprove) God's existence, what is provable is what happens when people stop believing in God.

[Eric, my response] Prager mentions the atrocities committed under secular or atheistic governments. This has happened, however, secularism (note: most of the worlds’ democracies, including our own, are constitutionally secular) or atheism (almost exclusively the doctrine of 20^th century communist regimes) is not in itself a comprehensive system of doctrines or beliefs such as in the case of the theology of religions. Religious belief, by commonly understood definition, encompasses a complex system of theology, ritual, and cultural tradition on a grand social scale that usually reaches deep into the past. Germany during the time of WWII was a predominately Christian society. The Nazi regime perpetrated the holocaust against the Jews based on racial prejudice, and only to a lesser degree because of religion. Hitler himself proclaimed himself a Christian, and if there were any other motivations behind the holocaust other than race, it was religion for Jews do not except Jesus Christ as the Messiah. In the case of the Soviet Union, especially under Stalin, the mass killings and persecution of the populace was not perpetrated because of atheistic ideology, but simply because it was a totalitarian and dictatorial regime that killed and oppressed its people for reasons of political power, dominance, and suppression of political dissent. Such is the case in modern day China. China, just as during the worst times of the Soviet era, also suppresses its people because it wants to stamp out any challenge to its authoritarian dominance. In stark contrast, the cases of religious based oppression and persecution of people throughout history, such as the Spanish inquisition, the Salem witch trials, and the crusades, these acts were specifically based upon and derived from religious doctrine, whatever its interpretation. Religion has blood on its hands because of the nature of religious thinking itself.    

[Prager] 1. Without God there is no good and evil; there are only subjective

 opinions that we then label "good" and "evil." This does not mean that an

 atheist cannot be a good person. Nor does it mean that all those who

 believe in God are good; there are good atheists and there are bad

 believers in God. It simply means that unless there is a moral authority that

 transcends humans from which emanates an objective right and wrong,

 "right" and "wrong" no more objectively exist than do "beautiful" and

 "ugly."

[Eric, my response] Of course there can be a concept of good and evil without a belief in a god! The rational Greek philosophers, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, called this ethics. That is, notions of right and wrong based on what is most productive for the well being and happiness of people.  The latest ideas in evolutionary biology and psychology strongly suggest an inborn human propensity for doing the right thing, for both oneself and the collective. This moral makeup seems to predate not only the major western religions, but religion itself, and in fact goes back to pre-history human evolution. Innate moral intuition may also be a product of evolutionary drive and social development co-currently. Yes, our species is a very aggressive one as is with other primates; however, natural selection (perhaps the most misunderstood term in all of evolutionary theory) has also enabled our species to obtain a high level of group cooperation. This drive towards cooperation is probably still in our genetic makeup and helps to balance out the more aggressive nature of our species. I would suggest that this evolutionary necessity for peaceful cooperation set up the genetic markers for our ability, from birth, for moral decision making long ago. Of course, modern man is not bound by instinct as are migrating water buffalo or birds. We did not descend from the trees yesterday. We have large intelligent brains capable of abstract thought, high self-awareness, emotion, and empathy. There is absolutely no reason to think that early man could not have developed a social ethical code of what is right and wrong purely by his own innate and highly evolved cognitive capabilities. When one looks at the rules of morality written down in the major religious texts of the world, why not could man alone have come up with such ideas?

[Prager] 2. Without God, there is no objective meaning to life. We are all

 merely random creations of natural selection whose existence has no more

 intrinsic purpose or meaning than that of a pebble equally randomly

 produced.

[Eric, my response] Alright, so we may in fact exist without inherent purpose or meaning. And yes, the universe might indeed be both a product of both order and randomness. That is a very sobering thought, even a depressing one. However, a person or society “wishing” something to be true to relieve the anxieties and dilemmas of existence does not necessarily make them true. Of course life would be easier if we knew, with absolute certainly, of some justification and purpose for our existence, and perhaps life is easier with having a feeling of certainty of such things, but that does not make them objectively true. This is the existential nature of being human. It is fundamentally part of the human condition because we, probably more than any other animal, are fully aware of our own mortality. However, for the sake of intellectual honesty, one should not accept a fanciful or irrational system of belief simply for our own comfort. Mankind most likely came up with religions to alleviate this existential angst (and also to explain the world around them), but it does not make those religious notions of god or after-life true. This unfortunately is perhaps just a harsh reality of our existence. However, through tangible life experience, and endeavor, and the self-creation of purpose and meaning, we might be able to reconcile and overcome this grief of being.

[Prager] 3. Life is ultimately a tragic fare if there is no God. We live, we

 suffer, we die -- some horrifically, many prematurely -- and there is only

 oblivion afterward.

[Eric, my response] Here, I can only refer to my previous answer to Prager’s supposition in his second point, for in reality, the dilemma is the same. A quote by Shakespeare “Life is a tale told by and idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.

[Prager] 4. Human beings need instruction manuals. This is as true for acting

 morally and wisely as it is for properly flying an airplane. One's heart

 is often no better a guide to what is right and wrong than it is to the

 right and wrong way to fly an airplane. The post-religious secular

 world claims to need no manual; the heart and reason are sufficient guides

 to leading a good life and to making a good world.

[Eric, my response] I have already essentially answered this in Prager’s first supposition. However, I would add a point here, I would argue that man, through his own unique intelligence, creativity, ability for abstract thought, and natural evolutionary inheritance many be able to create these “human instruction manuals” all on his own. If any society is to deicide on the “absolute” manual of moral authority, then whose manual shall we use? Shall it be the Christian bible? Shall it be the Talmud, or the Koran, or any number of eastern religions? I am not speaking of moral relativism here, but of the inherent danger of excepting with absolute faith any one “manual” absolutely. Perhaps we under-estimate our own nature here, if there is to be any instruction manual for morality within our species, let it be one of a larger collective consensus based upon reason, and not a limiting and self destructive one based on any single group sense of moral absolutism.

[Prager] 5. If there is no God, the kindest and most innocent victims of torture

 and murder have no better a fate after death than do the most cruel

 torturers and mass murderers. Only if there is a good God do Mother

 Teresa and Adolf Hitler have different fates.

[Eric, my response] This seems to be more an emotional statement than a reasoned one. Retribution, like aggression and love, seems to be an inherited trait within our species. In a seemingly unjust world, the human being cries out for justice. Did Mother Teresa and Hitler ultimately share the same fate? Perhaps they did in a “non-existence” after death. However maybe they, Hitler and Mother Teresa, had a different fate in their last moments of life. Hitler dying in utter anguish for his madness and an ultimate guilt that was in his subconscious, or Mother Teresa dying in peace and serenity for a life well lived. Perhaps that is where we might take solace that there is some sort of justice in life. If we as a people (and by that I mean all of humanity) can adequately devise our own moral codes and standards, and create our own purpose and fulfillment, then perhaps we can also determine the just fate of the good person, or the just punishment of the bad person, while they still live upon this earth. Hopefully we will collectively make these moral/ethical judgments on errant or unethical individuals in our society in a reasoned, measured, and just way. I do think that we are capable, with enough thought, of making these decisions ourselves with no need of concepts of a god or a higher power.

[Prager] 6. With the death of Judeo-Christian values in the West, many

 Westerners believe in little. That is why secular Western Europe has been

 unwilling and therefore unable to confront evil, whether it was Communism

 during the Cold War or Islamic totalitarians in its midst today.

[Eric, my response] Here Mr. Prager, you are making political arguments based on your own Judeo-Christian view of the world. First of all, the Judeo-Christian religious view of morality is not the only views on morality, and I am not speaking strictly of Judeo-Christian morality versus a secular ethical view of morality. I am not speaking of moral relativism either, but of how we go about the very process of deciding such things and the fate of peoples and nations and entire cultures. If we do take into consideration the moral views of religion then how shall we incorporate the eastern religions, or the Native American religions, or the South American religions, or the aboriginal religions, or the African religions, or the ancient religions? Again, there is the inherent danger in taking up the mantle or moral authority based upon absolutism because once a person or culture does this; and this can be done in the name of any religious ideology, or even worst, a corrupt ideology, then it is almost impossible to convince that person or culture that they are doing extreme harm to other people or humanity as a whole.

[Prager] 7. Without God, people in the West often become less, not more,

 rational. It was largely the secular, not the religious, who believed in the

 utterly irrational doctrine of Marxism. It was largely the secular, not

 the religious, who believed that men's and women's natures are

 basically the same, that perceived differences between the sexes are all

 socially induced. Religious people in Judeo-Christian countries largely

 confine their irrational beliefs to religious beliefs (theology), while the

 secular, without religion to enable the non-rational to express itself,

 end up applying their irrational beliefs to society, where such

 irrationalities do immense harm.

[Eric, my response] I find it difficult to follow your thinking here Mr. Prager. Nowhere in all of your arguments do you even bring up science or scientific discovery. Here you are trying to address, I would imagine, what is more rational, a religious view of the world, or a secular one. However, before I address that issue, let me address the sudden and off topic introduction of Marxism. Marx was an educated and literate philosopher like many of the philosophers before and after him. I am not an expert on Marx, but I would say that whatever were the wrongs or the rights of his philosophy, it is not a matter of “utter irrationality”. He simply proposed a philosophy that has since come under the scrutiny of other philosophers, and history, and the common man. You seem to be making an emotionally voiced opinion here that is in tangential. As for the differences between men and women, it is completely incorrect of you to say that secularism has suggested that “men and women are basically the same” due to social influences only. This is an argument that has less to do with a notion of god but more so the prevailing social and cultural attitudes of our time, often based of conservative or liberal ideology. That is, contemporary ideals of what a man or woman should be. However I, as a secular and scientific rationalist, would suggest that this topic is best suited for biological and evolutionary sciences. I do believe that men are women have some in born differences, but I do not base that on either a religious (obviously not) or political or social viewpoint. I do find your final sentence here surprising if a bit confusing. You say that “religious people in Judeo-Christian countries largely confine their irrational beliefs to religious beliefs (theology)”. Well, you said it, so Judeo-Christian beliefs are in fact irrational you yourself claim. Finally, you say “while the secular, without religion to enable the non-rational to express itself, end up applying their irrational beliefs to society, where such irrationalities do immense harm.” I simply don’t follow your logic here both the idea and the sentence itself is convoluted.

 [Prager] 8. If there is no God, the human being has no free will. He is a

 robot, whose every action is dictated by genes and environment. Only if one

 posits human creation by a Creator that transcends genes and

 environment who implanted the ability to transcend genes and environment can

 humans have free will.

[Eric, my response] Okay, free will is now the argument. I would suggest that man has more free will without the binding constrictions of a belief in a god. Faith based theology not only dictates what actions you should take (and trivially determines what food you can or cannot eat for example), but exactly how you should live your life. Also, many religious theologies usually suggest some sort of pre-destiny of the individual, if not civilization as a whole (e.g. end times theology). You have already stated in your arguments that a world without god would lead to meaningless and purposeless existence that is random by nature. Would that not naturally lead to the conclusion of complete free will? As far as human beings being controlled by genes or the environment, as I have stated earlier, human beings naturally have a highly intelligent mind capable of insight, emotion, self-awareness, and abstract thinking. That leaves plenty of room for “free will”

[Prager] 9. If there is no God, humans and "other" animals are of equal value.

 Only if one posits that humans, not animals, are created in the image of

 God do humans have any greater intrinsic sanctity than baboons. This

 explains the movement among the secularized elite to equate humans and

 animals.

[Eric, my response] This is where one of my specialties lie, natural history. Humans or homo-sapiens are of course animals just as all other animals. This is not to debase humans at all! We are a product of an extraordinary evolutionary path with unique and very special and highly evolved characteristics, many of which I have already mentioned. Your basic supposition here concerns the relative superiority or inferiority of humans as compared to “other” animals. This is a false pretense. Of course different species, including ourselves, have developed various capabilities, but this is not a matter of value or morality. However, taking a naturalistic view of the world, there certainly are hierarchies within any natural environment. Of course with lower order mammals this entails basic concepts as the food chain, competition, and apex-predators. However, yes! By rights of our very own evolutionary history we do have the right to eat meat, and harvest the land, and breed animals to suit our needs, but with a decent respect for the health of the planet as a whole of course. We have a right to sustain ourselves with our natural world just as any other animal does. However, I will make a very big statement; human beings are in fact very unique and special in the entire natural world. We have by all measures vastly superior intelligence (we have ventured into space, and decoded are own genetic makeup up for example), we have complete sentience, we can counter and go against any inborn instinct with our ability for abstract and higher order thinking, and we can now control our own environment on a global scale. A beaver can control the flow of a stream; humans on the other hand can now impact the environment on a global scale. No other species is able to do this. Finally, I make another worried observation; you mention the word “elite” in your final sentence in point number nine. Again, this strikes me as purely political biased and is again completely in tangential to a reasoned debate on the nature of human existence.

[Prager] 10. Without God, there is little to inspire people to create inspiring

 art. That is why contemporary art galleries and museums are filled with

 "art" that celebrates the scatological, the ugly and the shocking.

 Compare this art to Michelangelo's art in the Sistine chapel. The latter

 elevates the viewer -- because Michelangelo believed in something higher

 than himself and higher than all men.

[Eric, my response] You are now taxing my brain, must I correct so much! Again, art is a special area of knowledge for me for I am a classical musician. First of all, I would agree with you that Christianity (I assume by now that the Christian or Jewish god is the particular “god” that you are referring too, sigh) has indeed inspired a tremendous amount of highly inspired masterpieces in art and music in the western world. One only needs to look at the great liturgical masses of Bach or Mozart, or the art of the Italian renaissance painters to prove this point. Religion, as I have often now stated, is a powerful inspiration to men, albeit still a falsehood in the most basic philosophical and rational sense. As for contemporary “scatological and ugly” art, of course you are only speaking of perceptions of art within only your religion, within only western culture, and within only our time. This is a very limited view of the subject of art to say the least. I will only give you this one fine example of the negative influence of religion on art. During the medieval times in Europe many devote Christian painters painted on masterpiece frescos images and interpretations of the story of Adam and Eve and other Devine and heavenly subjects. During this time, in the period of the early Catholic Church, such painters often freely depicted the genitalia of male figures. In later centuries, the Catholic Churched ordered that such displays of the naked human body were obscene and blasphemous. As a result the church hired artists to travel about Europe and paint fig leaves to cover up these obscenities. Alas, in modern times, art restorers, under the blessing of the church by-the-way, went about carefully removing all of these painted on fig leaves. The moral of this story (if you will) as it relates to art is self-evident.

[Prager] 11. Without God nothing is holy. This is definitional. Holiness

 emanates from a belief in the holy. This explains, for example, the far more

 widespread acceptance of public cursing in secular society than in

 religious society. To the religious, there is holy speech and profane

 speech. In much of secular society the very notion of profane speech is

 mocked.

[Eric, my response] (“definitional”?), Who is the holy? What is Holiness? As for cursing, this seems to be a minor philosophical argument in the grander scheme of things. By-the-way, last time I looked this up, the number of languages in the world was something over 6000. I might be wrong about that, but I’m not going to Google it because I haven’t Googled anything in my argument so far. But I’m pretty sure that people curse in at least a few different languages.  

[Prager] 12. Without God, humanist hubris is almost inevitable. If there is

 nothing higher than man, no Supreme Being, man becomes the supreme being.

[Eric, my response] Human hubris is already inevitable, and it has nothing to do with whether or not there is a god. Along with our inherent aggressiveness, the human species can all be selfish and hoarding. This probably goes back to our basic needs for food and defense. Only later in our history did it turn into politics and war (and symbolically athletics or sports). I suggest that the enlightened man understands his inherently diminished (but not defeated) place in the universe. The only thing higher than man, at least at the current stage of our Earths history, is probably something like a 10 mile wide asteroid suddenly striking the Earth at some given spot on some ordinary day. Or if we actually do fully encounter an intelligent civilization about a million years more advanced and evolved than us, then we will know that we are not so supreme no matter what we think. It is religion itself that gives the most hubris to mankind, for in continually tries to place us at the center of the universe and continues to consider us slightly fallen angles. A person with blind faith, believing with absolutely certainty and moral conviction, that his is the one and true god, and that his god is on his side, is the most dangerous person of all. And the world is full of billions of people believing like that! Show me any devotedly religious person on Earth, and I’ll show you what hubris is.

[Prager] 13. Without God, there are no inalienable human rights. Evolution

 confers no rights. Molecules confer no rights. Energy has no moral concerns.

 That is why America's Founders wrote in the Declaration of

 Independence that we are endowed "by our Creator" with certain inalienable rights.

 Rights depend upon a moral source, a rights giver.

[Eric, my response] Human beings, born a free animal (sublime such as we are), are born just as free as a wild horse on the American western plains. Evolution is what it is; it neither confirms nor denies rights. It is up to the individual and humanity collectively, with rational and enlightened thought, to define our rights so that we might live together peacefully. The Founding Fathers were all born of the18th century. They, as were most people in the world at the time, religious men by nature. However they saw the sense of separating church and state. Way back in the 1700’s, image that.

[Prager] 14. "Without God," Dostoevsky famously wrote, "all is permitted." There

 has been plenty of evil committed by believers in God, but the

 widespread cruelties and the sheer number of innocents murdered by secular

 regimes -- specifically Nazi, Fascist and Communist regimes -- dwarfs the

 evil done in the name of religion.

[Eric, my response] A godless man may at least second guess himself and consider that he might be wrong about his course of action. A fanatical religious person however may see any of his actions permitted so long as he sees those actions aligning with his religion (which by-the-way, seems always to be the case, history has proven that). Even the most corrupt man, or corrupt culture, or corrupt country, if they truly feel that they have “god on their side and behind there back” is capable of anything. Yes, secular governments and militias can commit the same atrocities. Around the world wars are going on with people killing people that have nothing to do with religion at all, namely in Africa. But at lease with the non-religious ideological group you can eventually, through enough reason, convince them that they are wrong in what they are doing. Not so for the religious war-mongering person, they are justified in their actions and that is that, you will never persuade them otherwise, because to do so, you are trying to persuade them against their god. Unfortunately, fanatical Islam is a prime example of that today. But many other religions, including Christianity, have been guilty of the same throughout history.

[Prager] As noted at the beginning, none of this proves, or even necessarily

 argues for, God's existence. It makes the case for the necessity, not the

 existence, of God. "Which God?" the secularist will ask. The God of

 Israel, the God of America's founders, "the Holy God who is made holy by

 Justice" (Isaiah), the God of the Ten Commandments, the God who demands

 love of neighbor, the God who endows all human beings with certain

 inalienable rights, the God who is cited on the Liberty Bell because he is

 the author of liberty. That is the God being referred to here, without

 whom we will be vanquished by those who believe in less noble gods,

 both secular and divine.

[Eric, my summation] Perhaps you are right Mr. Prager, as Nietzsche's said “If god did not exist, man would have to create him”. And even when you say that the secularist will ask “which god?” you still only think of the mono-theistic western notions of a god. Finally, you concern yourself with less noble gods; I concern myself with less noble people. No, I take that back, I’m not one to judge the nobility of another person. I am concerned however, with the rationality of other people. My only hope is that someday, perhaps a 1000 years hence, humanity will finally evolve away from the destructive and human stunting ways of not only religion, but from religious thought itself. Religion came about as a necessity in the nascent stage in our pre-history to help humans explain the unexplainable, and to offer solace to the inevitability of tragedy and death. However, if we as a species are ultimately to survive in the millennia to come, we must abandon these ancient tales of man, and go on to a greater future, where man can truly rely on himself. We can do that, and we will be okay when that happens. We will be better.

Eric Besaw

ericgraymoon@yahoo.com

Link: Mr. Prager’s original post

http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/08/19/if_there_is_no_god?page=1