1. Are there right and wrong answers to moral questions?

Morality must relate, at some level, to the well-being of conscious creatures. If there are more and less effective ways for us to seek happiness and to avoid misery in this world — and there clearly are — then there are right and wrong answers to questions of morality.

2. Are you saying that science can answer such questions?

Yes, in principle. Human well-being is not a random phenomenon. It depends on many factors — ranging from genetics and neurobiology to sociology and economics. But, clearly, there are scientific truths to be known about how we can flourish in this world. Wherever we can have an impact on the well-being of others, questions of morality apply.

3. But can’t moral claims be in conflict? Aren’t there many situations in which one person’s happiness means another’s suffering?

There are some circumstances like this, and we call these contests “zero-sum.” Generally speaking, however, the most important moral occasions are not like this. If we could eliminate war, nuclear proliferation, malaria, chronic hunger, child abuse, etc. — these changes would be good, on balance, for everyone. There are surely neurobiological, psychological, and sociological reasons why this is so — which is to say that science could potentially tell us exactly why a phenomenon like child abuse diminishes human well-being.

But we don’t have to wait for science to do this. We already have very good reasons to believe that mistreating children is bad for everyone. I think it is important for us to admit that this is not a claim about our personal preferences, or merely something our culture has conditioned us to believe. It is a claim about the architecture of our minds and the social architecture of our world. Moral truths of this kind must find their place in any scientific understanding of human experience.

4. What if some people simply have different notions about what is truly important in life? How could science tell us that the actions of the Taliban are in fact immoral, when the Taliban think they are behaving morally?

As I discuss in my book, there may be different ways for people to thrive, but there are clearly many more ways for them not to thrive. The Taliban are a perfect example of a group of people who are struggling to build a society that is obviously less good than many of the other societies on offer. Afghan women have a 12% literacy rate and a life expectancy of 44 years. Afghanistan has nearly the highest maternal and infant mortality rates in the world. It also has one of the highest birthrates. Consequently, it is one of the best places on earth to watch women and infants die. And Afghanistan’s GDP is currently lower than the world’s average was in the year 1820. It is safe to say that the optimal response to this dire situation — that is to say, the most moral response — is not to throw battery acid in the faces of little girls for the crime of learning to read. This may seem like common sense to us — and it is — but I am saying that it is also, at bottom, a claim about biology, psychology, sociology, and economics. It is not, therefore, unscientific to say that the Taliban are wrong about morality. In fact, we must say this, the moment we admit that we know anything at all about human well-being.

5. But what if the Taliban simply have different goals in life?

Well, the short answer is — they don’t. They are clearly seeking happiness in this life, and, more importantly, they imagine that they are securing it in a life to come. They believe that they will enjoy an eternity of happiness after death by following the strictest interpretation of Islamic law here on earth. This is also a claim about which science should have an opinion — as it is almost certainly untrue. There is no question, however, that the Taliban are seeking well-being, in some sense — they just have some very strange beliefs about how to attain it.

In my book, I try to spell out why moral disagreements do not put the concept of moral truth in jeopardy. In the moral sphere, as in all others, some people don’t know what they are missing. In fact, I suspect that most of us don’t know what we are missing: It must be possible to change human experience in ways that would uncover levels of human flourishing that most of us cannot imagine. In every area of genuine discovery, there are horizons past which we cannot see.

6. What do you mean when you talk about a “moral landscape”?

This is the phrase I use to describe the space of all possible experience — where the peaks correspond to the heights of well-being and valleys represent the worst possible suffering. We are all someplace on this landscape, faced with the prospect of moving up or down. Given that our experience is fully constrained by the laws of the universe, there must be scientific answers to the question of how best to move upwards, toward greater happiness.

This is not to say that there is only one right way for human beings to live. There might be many peaks on this landscape — but there are clearly many ways not to be on a peak.

7. How could science guide us on the moral landscape?

In so far as we can understand human well-being, we will understand the conditions that best secure it. Some are obvious, of course. Positive social emotions like compassion and empathy are generally good for us, and we want to encourage them. But do we know how to most reliably raise children to care about the suffering of other people? I’m not sure we do. Are there genes that make certain people more compassionate than others? What social systems and institutions could maximize our sense of connectedness to the rest of humanity? These questions have answers, and only a science of morality could deliver them.

8. Why is it taboo for a scientist to attempt to answer moral questions?

I think there are two primary reasons why scientists hesitate to do this. The first, and most defensible, is borne of their appreciation for how difficult it is to understand complex systems. Our investigation of the human mind is in its infancy, even after nearly two centuries of studying the brain. So scientists fear that answers to specific questions about human well-being may be very difficult to come by, and confidence on many points is surely premature. This is true. But, as I argue in my book, mistaking no answers in practice for no answers in principle is a huge mistake.

The second reason is that many scientists have been misled by a combination of bad philosophy and political correctness. This leads them to feel that the only intellectually defensible position to take when in the presence of moral disagreement is to consider all opinions equally valid or equally nonsensical. On one level, this is an understandable and even noble over-correction for our history of racism, ethnocentrism, and imperialism. But it is an over-correction nonetheless. As I try to show in my book, it is not a sign of intolerance for us to notice that some cultures and sub-cultures do a terrible job of producing human lives worth living.

9. What is the difference between there being no answers in practice and no answers in principle, and why is this distinction important in understanding the relationship between human knowledge and human values?

There are an infinite number of questions that we will never answer, but which clearly have answers. How many fish are there in the world’s oceans at this moment? We will never know. And yet, we know that this question, along with an infinite number of questions like it, have correct answers. We simply can’t get access to the data in any practical way.

There are many questions about human subjectivity — and about the experience of conscious creatures generally — that have this same structure. Which causes more human suffering, stealing or lying? Questions like this are not at all meaningless, in that they must have answers, but it could be hopeless to try to answer them with any precision. Still, once we admit that any discussion of human values must relate to a larger reality in which actual answers exist, we can then reject many answers as obviously wrong. If, in response to the question about the world’s fish, someone were to say, “There are exactly a thousand fish in the sea.” We know that this person is not worth listening to. And many people who have strong opinions on moral questions have no more credibility than this. Anyone who thinks that gay marriage is the greatest problem of the 21st century, or that women should be forced to live in burqas, is not worth listening to on the subject of morality.

10. What do you think the role of religion is in determining human morality?

I think it is generally an unhelpful one. Religious ideas about good and evil tend to focus on how to achieve well-being in the next life, and this makes them terrible guides to securing it in this one. Of course, there are a few gems to be found in every religious tradition, but insofar as these precepts are wise and useful they are not, in principle, religious. You do not need to believe that the Bible was dictated by the Creator of the Universe, or that Jesus Christ was his son, to see the wisdom and utility of following the Golden Rule.

The problem with religious morality is that it often causes people to care about the wrong things, leading them to make choices that needlessly perpetuate human suffering. Consider the Catholic Church: This is an institution that excommunicates women who want to become priests, but it does not excommunicate male priests who rape children. The Church is more concerned about stopping contraception than stopping genocide. It is more worried about gay marriage than about nuclear proliferation. When we realize that morality relates to questions of human and animal well-being, we can see that the Catholic Church is as confused about morality as it is about cosmology. It is not offering an alternative moral framework; it is offering a false one.

11. So people don’t need religion to live an ethical life?

No. And a glance at the lives of most atheists, and at the most atheistic societies on earth — Denmark, Sweden, etc. — proves that this is so. Even the faithful can’t really get their deepest moral principles from religion — because books like the Bible and the Qur’an are full of barbaric injunctions that all decent and sane people must now reinterpret or ignore. How is it that most Jews, Christians, and Muslims are opposed to slavery? You don’t get this moral insight from scripture, because the God of Abraham expects us to keep slaves. Consequently, even religious fundamentalists draw many of their moral positions from a wider conversation about human values that is not, in principle, religious. We are the guarantors of the wisdom we find in scripture, such as it is. And we are the ones who must ignore God when he tells us to kill people for working on the Sabbath.

12. How will admitting that there are right and wrong answers to issues of human and animal flourishing transform the way we think and talk about morality?

What I’ve tried to do in my book is give a framework in which we can think about human values in universal terms. Currently, the most important questions in human life — questions about what constitutes a good life, which wars we should fight or not fight, which diseases should be cured first, etc. — are thought to lie outside the purview of science, in principle. Therefore, we have divorced the most important questions in human life from the context in which our most rigorous and intellectually honest thinking gets done.

Moral truth entirely depends on actual and potential changes in the well-being of conscious creatures. As such, there are things to be discovered about it through careful observation and honest reasoning. It seems to me that the only way we are going to build a global civilization based on shared values — allowing us to converge on the same political, economic, and environmental goals — is to admit that questions about right and wrong and good and evil have answers, in the same way the questions about human health do.

Related posts

• Morals, Ethics and Pope Benedict Evil (13)
• Being Good Without God Is Natural (4)
• Why I Am Not A Christian (0)
• Science Can Answer Moral Questions (3)
• Let’s Stop Coddling The Ignorant (3)

About the talk:
Questions of good and evil, right and wrong are commonly thought unanswerable by science. But Sam Harris argues that science can — and should — be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and setting out what constitutes a good life.

Sam’s project: Project Reason
His homepage: SamHarris.org

Related posts

• Four Interesting Videos Supporting Reason (0)
• 12 Questions About Morals By Sam Harris (0)
• What Are You Doing November 19? (10)
• Religion Needs Dysfunctional Societies (6)
• Religion Is Evil And Contagious (0)

The Root of All Evil? Part 1: The God Delusion. (Richard Dawkins, 2006) – 47:51

The Root of All Evil? – The Virus of Faith (2 of 2) – 47:58

Here’s a description of the first episode:
The Root of All Evil? is a television documentary, written and presented by Richard Dawkins, in which he argues that the world would be better off without religion. The documentary was first broadcast in January 2006, in the form of two 45-minute episodes (excluding advertisement breaks), on Channel 4 in the UK. Dawkins has said that the title “The Root of All Evil?” was not his preferred choice, but that Channel 4 had insisted on it to create controversy.[1] His sole concession from the producers on the title was the addition of the question mark. Dawkins has stated that the notion of anything being the root of all evil is ridiculous.[2] Dawkins’ book The God Delusion, released in September 2006, goes on to examine the topics raised in the documentary in greater detail. The God Delusion explores the unproven beliefs that are treated as factual by many religions and the extremes to which some followers have taken them. Dawkins opens the programme by describing the “would-be murderers . . . who want to kill you and me, and themselves, because they’re motivated by what they think is the highest ideal.” Dawkins argues that “the process of non-thinking called faith” is not a way of understanding the world, but instead stands in fundamental opposition to modern science and the scientific method, and is divisive and dangerous.

Here’s a description of the second episode:
In The Virus of Faith, Dawkins opines that the moral framework of religions is warped, and argues against the religious indoctrination of children. The title of this episode comes from The Selfish Gene, in which Dawkins discussed the concept of memes.

Related posts

• What Is Atheism To You? Conversations With Craig the Christian 1 (36)
• Interesting, Enlightening Evolution (0)
• Brainwashing Little Kids With Christian Propaganda (4)
• Panel Discussion of Secular Society, Center for Inquiry (0)
• Morals, Ethics and Pope Benedict Evil (13)

Here’s some information from PBS:

After some three and a half billion years of life’s evolution on this planet – and after almost two million years since people recognizable as human first walked its surface – a new human burst upon the scene, apparently unannounced.

It was us.

Until then our ancestors had shared the planet with other human species. But soon there was only us, possessors of something that gave us unprecedented power over our environment and everything else alive. That something was – is – the Human Spark.

What is the nature of human uniqueness? Where did the Human Spark ignite, and when? And perhaps most tantalizingly, why?

In a three-part series broadcast on PBS in January 2010, Alan Alda takes these questions personally, visiting with dozens of scientists on three continents, and participating directly in many experiments – including the detailed examination of his own brain.

Program One: Becoming Us (link goes to full video)
Alan Alda confronts the puzzle of why our ancestors in Africa got the Spark and evolved into us, while the first humans to leave Africa for Europe–the Neanderthals–never did. Why did we flourish, while they changed very little for thousands of generations before eventually dying out?

Program Two: So Human, So Chimp (link goes to full video)
Alan Alda joins researchers studying human children and chimpanzees to discover why we share some skills with our closest living relatives, but have far surpassed them in our most uniquely human capabilities. Though we both descend from a common ancestor and are genetically so similar, why are we worlds apart in our behaviors and abilities?

Program Three: Brain Matters (link goes to full video)
Peer into Alan Alda’s head to find out which parts of our brain are responsible for our most human characteristics. Where do tool use and language reside? And how do our brains allow us to understand symbolism, figure out what others are thinking, and even travel in time? Are insight and imagination what really make humans unique?

Steve Mirsky interviews Alan Alda in two parts for Science Talk, the podcast for Scientific American. You can download or listen to them here. This is how I found out about the series and realized that Alan Alda isn’t just an actor. I had no idea he was into science so much.

Alan Alda’s Human Spark, Interview 1: Alan Alda, star of stage, screen and science, talks with podcast host Steve Mirsky about his new PBS science series The Human Spark as well as his strong interest in science and long association with Scientific American.

Interview Part 2: Alan Alda, host of the new PBS science series The Human Spark, talks to podcast host Steve Mirsky about his experiences as a fictional physican, a real patient and an amateur scientist.

Related posts

• Interesting, Enlightening Evolution (0)
• Liquid Glass Is Groovy! (1)
• Conversation With Anne About Religion, Truth, Science and History (4)
• By god, he’s a Bad Designer! (4)
• America Shouldn’t Be So Arrogant (6)

I was on an evolution kick and also found a 3 part program on Nova called Becoming Human, all about the evolution of us. I can’t give you the videos here, but I’m providing the links so you can watch them on PBS’s site. They are very interesting, and were just aired on PBS in November, so they have some new ideas and research.

• Becoming Human Part 1: First Steps: Six million years ago, what set our ancestors on the path from ape to human?
• Becoming Human Part 2: Birth of Humanity: New discoveries reveal how early humans hunted and formed families.
• Becoming Human Part 3: Last Human Standing: Many human species once shared the globe. Why do we alone remain?

Exploring a bit further, I found an interesting article about human evolution called Are We Still Evolving? This is a question that I have been pondering lately. Since we developed agriculture about 10,000 years ago, developed medicines, learned to cook our food, and developed technology, among some factors, more and more babies survive and grow up to reproduce. According to the article, about 98% of all babies born in the U.S., Europe or Japan survive long enough to reproduce and pass on their DNA, so survival doesn’t depend as much on genes.

But in third world countries, natural selection still favors mutations in dealing with deadly diseases. For instance, people with the sickle-cell mutation in the beta hemoglobin gene have a protection against malaria.

One example of more recent evolution in humans is lactose tolerance. This is evidence that we have evolved, even if it’s just in a small but significant way.

Take the gene that confers lactose tolerance. For most of our history, our ability to digest lactose, the chief sugar in milk, turned off after weaning; we only drank our mother’s milk. But after cattle were domesticated, cow’s milk became a nutritious addition to the diet. Natural selection would have favored individuals born with a mutation that kept the so-called lactase gene switched on throughout life, enabling them to digest milk.

Genetic evidence shows that such a mutation first occurred in northern Europe perhaps 8,000 years ago. Recently, a team led by Sarah Tishkoff identified three new mutations, each conferring lactose tolerance, that arose in three different populations in East Africa. All were independent of one another and of the original European mutation. Nature seems be solving the same problem in different ways.

Well, science moves forward, and our ability to study genes in different populations around the world is improving and deepening. So hopefully we’ll have more answers in the future about if we’re still evolving. Here’s the conclusion of the article:

In the end, the answer to the question of whether we’re still evolving seems to come down to a matter of degree. And when you look at it that way, most scientists seem to be in basic agreement. That is, few would claim we’re not evolving at all. The genetic evidence for natural selection—at least for mutations of single or at most a few genes that confer some benefit and thereby spread through a population over time—is just too strong, and it’s getting stronger all the time.

By the same token, few would say we’re evolving enough to become, say, the bulbous-headed superhumans of sci-fi anytime soon. Or, for that matter, enough to differentiate into one or more new species of human. Even saying unequivocally whether any or all of us are getting smarter is impossible say. As Pinker put it to me, “We’re looking at a snapshot of ourselves, and we’d really have to run the movie for another few thousand years.”

Still, it’s a fascinating question that deserves attention.

Going further, 5 researchers speak a bit about Evolution in Your Life. The evolution of wolves to dogs, how humans became good runners, how the flu mutates so rapidly, how we use evolution to make better food, and how evolution helps solve crimes,  is explored briefly in audio.

Now, here are the 5 videos I promised:

Growing Up In The Universe is a series of lectures by Dr. Richard Dawkins, Oxford professor. He presents five lectures on life, the universe, and our place in it. With brilliance and clarity, Dawkins unravels an educational gem that will mesmerize young and old alike. Illuminating demonstrations, wildlife, virtual reality, and special guests (including Douglas Adams) all combine to make this collection a timeless classic.

This is from 1991 but besides the antiquated computer technology, it’s interesting and enlightening for young and old alike. You can buy all 5 hour long episodes on DVD from Dawkin’s store.

Episode 1: Waking Up In The Universe

Episode 2: Designed and Designoid Objects

Episode 3: Climbing Mount Improbable

Episode 4: The Ultraviolet Garden

Episode 5: The Genesis of Purpose

Related posts

• Religion Is Evil And Contagious (0)
• What Makes Us Uniquely Human? (2)
• What Are You Doing November 19? (10)
• Podcasts and Internet Radio Stations You May Enjoy (0)
• More Groovy Science 2 (2)

American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 by Crystal Eastman, Roger Baldwin and Walter Nelles. It was founded to assist in defending the rights of citizens as granted by the United States Constitution. At the time, the three biggest concerns were freedom of speech (for anti-war protesters), civil rights for blacks (and other minority races), and equal rights for women. On their site, the ACLU proclaims themselves as a “guardian of liberty, working [...] to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.”

This is the group who has time-and-time again gone to bat for the ‘little guy’ to insure their Constitutional rights as a citizen and a human are upheld. The Christian’s very doctrine urges them to help the weak, the sick, the poor, the unfortunate, the ‘little guy’. So why do so many Christians harbor such vitriol and hate towards the ACLU?

Personally, I think it boils down to two things:

1. Christian think they are under attack; so they look for that attacker in every action.
2. It is a common human reaction to fear the unknown; and Christians fail to understand, even refuse to understand what the ACLU represents.

As for the attacks, Christians have read stories and prophesies in the bible about Christians being persecuted; and so they look for persecution and attack everywhere. They seek to self-fulfill prophesy; and they see a potential persecutor in anyone who does not have the same life philosophies as they do. Their need to see these prophesies fulfilled goes so far that they even see persecution from other branches of Christianity. I see no universal way to combat this, especially on a large scale; so I simply look for those opportunities to help an individual see the light.

Ignorance and lack of knowledge can by combated though. I think the root of this ignorance lies in lack of understand of the principle of Separation of Church and state. So many Christians strive to tear down that wall of separation, without a clue to how that wall protects them and their ability to practice their flavor of Christianity as they see fit.

The ACLU has done some great work defending civil liberties and the rights we are given by our Constitution; but all Christians seem to notice today is their involvement with lawsuits that relate to religion (and of that they are really only noticing one side). And without knowing an ounce of the facts, jump to the assumption that the lawsuits are an attack against Christians. Never once stopping to realize that in many of these cases the ACLU is actually defending the ‘little guy’ from Christianity.

Even when the ACLU is defending the ‘little guy’ from Christians, the ACLU is not against Christianity. The majority of their staff and membership are Christians; and they have repeatedly defended Christians when the rights of those Christians were not being upheld. One of the most recent examples, pentecostal minister Howard Thompson Jr. used to preach during worship services at the New Jersey State Prison, until a few years ago when prison officials stopped him. Multiple religious and Christian defense groups stood by and did nothing; it was the ACLU who went to bat for Mr. Thompson’s rights, and it was the ACLU who won the case for him.

This isn’t the only case that the ACLU has gone to bat for a Christian; here is a list of some of the more prominent cases where the ACLU defended the right of a Christian to speak as a Christian or to practice Christianity. Yet few Christians seem to realize this; most Christians have bought into the conservative media’s constant claim that the ACLU is out to bring down Christianity.

The ACLU fights for INDIVIDUAL free exercise of religion (just as the Constitution specifies). The ACLU also fights against GOVERNMENT endorsement, sponsorship, or establishment of religion (again just as the Constitution specifies).

Now to the heart of what brought on this rant. Someone sent me this email not long ago (warning: obnoxious chain email incoming):

Pass this on to your church, co-workers, family, and friends. What do you have to lose but 44 cents, what do you have to gain? More than you will ever know!

What a clever idea!

Yes, Christmas cards! This is coming early so that you can get ready to include an important address to your list.

Want to have some fun this CHRISTMAS? Send the ACLU a CHRISTMAS CARD this year.

As they are working so very hard to get rid of the CHRISTMAS part of this holiday, we should all send them a nice, CHRISTIAN card to brighten up their dark, sad, little world.

Make sure it says “Merry Christmas” on it.

Here’s the address, just don’t be rude or crude (it’s not the Christian way, you know):
ACLU
125 Broad Street
18th Floor
New York, NY 10004

Two tons of Christmas cards would freeze their operations because they wouldn’t know if any were regular mail containing contributions. So spend 44 cents and tell the ACLU to leave Christmas alone. Also tell them that there is no such thing as a ” Holiday Tree”! It’s always been called a CHRISTMAS TREE!

Please pass this on to your email lists. We really want to communicate with the ACLU! They really DESERVE us!!

For those of you who aren’t aware of them, the ACLU, (the American Civil Liberties Union) is the one suing the U.S. Government to take God, Christmas or anything Christian away from us. They represent the atheists and others in this war.

Help put Christ back in Christmas!

I’ve already addressed most of the subtle hate and lies from this email; so I’ll let the Executive Director of the ACLU of Texas respond:

And just in case you need further fodder to throw at this spiteful and inaccurate email, Snopes has an article on it. In it they point out that some businesses replacing “Merry Christmas” with “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons Greetings” was NOT done under litigation or threat from the ACLU; but instead did so (proactively) to appeal to a broader customer base. They also point out the logically laughable idea of overwhelming the ACLU office with Christmas cards.

If you receive, or previously received the above letter, I encourage you to reply with a link to the above video. Whichever holiday you and yours celebrate, I wish you well and hope its enjoyable.

Sources: here, here, here, here, here,here, here, and here.

Related posts

• Kingsville: King of Ignorance (7)
• [UPDATED] Thousands of Tax Payer Dollars to Add Engraving to Capitol Visitor Center (5)
• JFK Had the Right Idea (0)
• Honor Killings are Illegal? Turkey Resorts To Honor Suicides For Women (12)
• Congress Goes to Recess – Secular Successes and Failures So Far This Year (7)

Thank you for answering my email. I am only 21 and it seams that I am searching for myself and what it is that I can believe. I see how people lie on a daily basis to make the even more entertaining than the event really was so I find it hard to believe anything that is told to me. Giving this way of living I find it tremendously hard to base my life and way of living around things that have been written in a book (the bible) that has been translated umpteen different times before coming to english. The thought that people let their lives revolve around something that was written 2000 years ago just amazes me. As humans are we so daft to do such a thing? The more I look into religion the more I am amazed at the living situations of some people in this world.

My dad did not express any beliefs of god when I was young because he is like me a firm non-believer until there is hard core facts to show him. He wanted me to believe what I wanted and didn’t want his opinions to influence me so he felt it best not to tell me anything. My mother… well she didn’t teach me anything about god or religion until I was 12 we went to church for the first time. She stuck me in Sunday school before a service. Now my father’s mother was catholic. She went twice on Sunday and Wednesday night. I stayed the night with her several times and went to church with her I believe when I was 7. That was enough religion for me. I still remember sitting in the pew looking around saying to myself “are these people really this crazy?!?”

I went to public schools in Indiana. I went to ten different schools before 9th grade so needless to say I was not well adjusted. I never really had any foundation so to say.

I have two children and I want to be able to educate them on religion and allow them to choose their own way. I don’t see the point in trying to force them to do things my way because they need to find out who they are maybe then they won’t have the same struggles that I do.

To answer your question no I was never taught the prevailing theories of how the earth was formed through natural cosmic events. As I said we moved a lot and the curriculum was different at each school there were several things I missed out on. That is why I am so ignorant on religion because I was never taught the scientific end of the world.

I don’t feel that I “NEED” a religion. I would just like to know a little more about why I am here on this earth. I feel there is a purpose for everything because it just doesn’t seam like we exist just to exist. There is some sort of purpose behind our being. So now my job is to find the why.

Thank you so much for this information!! You are right I will have many more questions for you. I want to look over the information you have given me and I want to do some additional research. (Internet based because I now live in the middle of BFE so no museums in my area and the library has a limited amount of books. Besides the fact, I am in the middle of the Bible belt so there will be virtually no literature supporting the thought that there could be an existence not provided by god.)

And here is my new reply:

Thanks for answering my questions. Yes, please research for yourself. The internet opens the whole wide world of information up to you, even in the middle of BFE. I live in a small town that is quite heavily populated with churches and one sad library. There is one small set of shelves for the science section in there. It’s pathetic. I do almost all of my research online, too.

I was thinking about you today and found something that you might enjoy: a set of 5 videos for young and old alike by professor Richard Dawkins. He is an evolutionary biologist. It’s 5 lectures he is giving to children in England but I just watched the first two and really enjoyed them and learned little bits and pieces of information I didn’t know before. He talks and then demonstrates what he says in ways that are easy to understand. But trust me, he doesn’t talk down to anyone. He is quite interesting and has a great passion for life and how we got here and what our place in the world is.

Here is a link to his website with all 5 videos. They are an hour each, I think.

Finding meaning and purpose in your life is not the same as looking for something to believe in. Perhaps you’re using the term differently than I am. Perhaps what you mean is that the two things are the same. Let’s look at the definitions to clarify.

belief: 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction; 2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof; 3. confidence; faith; trust; 4. a religious tenet or tenets

purpose: 1. the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.; 2. an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.

meaning: 2. the end, purpose, or significance of something

So a belief is a conviction that doesn’t have proof to back it up, which means it’s similar to faith.

faith: 2. belief that is not based on proof

You said you want to know why you are here on earth and that you feel there is a purpose for everything. Why do you feel this way? Is it because it gives you comfort? Just because you want to believe there is a deeper meaning to the universe doesn’t make it so. There is no evidence that there is any validity to that kind of thinking.

Let me put it this way. You say you feel there is a reason you are here on this earth. This leads to fallacious thinking where every little thing that goes right in your life affirms this false belief. Of course this is cherry-picking because you ignore all the things that happen in your life that are completely meaningless or downright negative. This leads you to think you (and the human race) are special, that we have some magical purpose because you have ignored the whole of reality to focus only on what you feel and what confirms what you want to believe to begin with.

The human mind is amazing and awesome, but it does take shortcuts and can easily be misled and make wrong conclusions. It’s very easy to cherry-pick and remember only what feels right or what seems special. This is dangerous and will lead you down a path of lies and myths in trying to believe in and confirm something that has no basis in reality.

It’s normal to ponder why were are here and what it all means. We have consciousness and an amazingly complex brain that can handle complicated concepts like the number 0 and the number 1 for example.

I also think this is one of the toughest issues an atheist deals with. If there is no god then what is the reason for existing? What is our purpose in life?

Well, it’s pretty simple. There is no purpose for everyone. You make your own purpose. You have to find your own meaning. I think some universal ideas would be to always keep learning, and do your best and be a good person. What is the meaning of life? There isn’t any one meaning. It’s what you find important. Try to find your own happiness and do as little damage to others as possible along the way.

Since you have children, nothing is more important in this part of your life than raising them to the best of your ability. Raising them free of dogma, with honesty, with a the ability to ask questions and think for themselves is the best thing you can do for them.

I know that thinking there is some cosmic force for good out there is really appealing, but there’s no evidence for such a thing. While it’s nice to chalk up good things to such a force, there are an awful lot of bad things – no natural justice, natural disasters, birth defects, etc – that make that seem pretty silly.

Basically you are here on this earth because life moves inexorably on. Within life, the need to procreate is part of evolution and natural selection. Again I recommend the videos by Dawkins that I linked to above. They will really give you an idea of evolution which will help you to see that we evolved naturally, and will continue to evolve unless we destroy ourselves and the planet by being careless, short-sighted and selfish.

Instead of searching for why you are here, make the most of your one precious life. Raise your children to the very best of your ability, be good to yourself and others, learn as much as you can. Make your own meaning and purpose with what you have.

Sometimes thinking for yourself, being free of religious dogma, reminds us of our grown-up responsibilities that religion masks. Thinking about such topics are part of being truly grown-up in this life. It might not be fun when you first encounter the new ideas, but reality is always preferable to fairy tales and lies. Give it a few days. Learn as much as you can about evolution and you’ll see. Truth and reality are magnificent and beautiful.

Related posts

• Why I’m An Atheist, Not An Agnostic (19)
• Atheism is the Default (46)
• What Is Atheism To You? Conversations With Craig the Christian 1 (36)
• What Are You Doing November 19? (10)
• Separation of church and State Benefits Everyone (26)