The basic point of my last post was to show the instinctual and cognitive basis for our moral reasoning, and that absent any supernatural reward, moral behavior is logical.
The purely logical human returns their shopping cart to the cart corral because they know that what they lose in the effort of walking 20 extra feet is made up for in the convenience of having a parking lot free of carts rolling around and denting cars. They are able to imagine the society in which they’d like to live, and do their part to make it happen.
This is why they don’t toss their paper cup out of the window of their car. Even if they do not care about living in a filthy city, they realize others do, and they’d like to live in a society that respects the wishes of others (As they would like their own wishes to be respected). Of course, a scan of any street gutter will provide ample evidence that not all humans have the cognitive abilities to realize this. Or perhaps they just don’t have the ability to delay the instant gratification of getting rid of a cup to reap the more diffuse long term gain of a cleaner environment. Either way, our dirty street gutters are just more evidence that humans often need encouragement from the group to keep doing their part. Once a few bad apples exploit the system, the entire network trust begins to break down. It’s more difficult to return a cart to the cart corral when there are 50 carts strewn about the parking lot. Why pay into a system that’s not paying you back?
Let’s return to the lost wallet example. Anyone who’s found a wallet on the street surely knows it’s somewhat tempting to keep it.
The atheists resist this temptation for 2 reasons. The first is simply that being nice feels good. This is a gift from evolution. The second reason comes from the cognitive realization that they may lose their wallet someday, and if they expect it to be returned they must do their part in building a society of wallet returners (That means returning any wallet they find).
Whatever personal gain they may get from keeping the money will be offset by the small crack their act creates in the “trust and honesty” code of their society. The owner of the wallet will likely feel cheated and will himself be less likely to return any wallet he may find. This sets off a chain reaction of selfishness, and eventually makes life worse for us all. It’s not long until anyone who loses their wallet can just kiss it goodbye.
Returning the wallet has the opposite effect, it sets off a chain reaction of selflessness and cooperation. The owner of the wallet, happy to get the wallet back, feels he can trust strangers on the street. Society has offered him the hand of corporation, so as a loyal tit-for-tatter, he is more likely to extend a helping hand to another stranger, who is more likely to do the same. Society becomes better for us all and no one needs to fear dropping their wallet, because we know it will be returned, so in the long run, we really are repaid for our selfless act. Society itself reciprocates with us. It’s a phenomenon that borders on magic.
Karma
The Eastern religions call this phenomenon “Karma”, and for them, it does more than border on magic, it IS magic, or perhaps “supernatural” is a better word. They see it as an actual force that somehow keeps track of your indebtedness or generosity to society. Giving the wallet back (or not throwing the cup out the window) generates “good Karma” and makes you more likely to reap benefits from some other situation. This may seem Pollyannaish, but according to the logic of the atheist argument, it’s actually an accurate picture of reality. This is, of course, why the idea of Karma persists. Even if your action goes unnoticed and unrewarded (which is unlikely) you’ve done your part to create a better society… which (in theory) will ultimately reward you . By upholding your share of a trustworthy society to maintain that chain reaction of endless corporation every individual has with society as a whole, maximizing the number of non zero interactions and, in a roundabout way, benefiting yourself. That’s key — Karma is the metaphorical illustration of the fact that serving others benefits yourself.
Christianity
The Western Religions have taken this idea one step further and personified Karma. They believe in more than a mysterious force that keeps track of your good deeds, they believe in a mysterious intelligence: Even when no other humans can see you in that abandoned alley, they believe there is one all knowing and all powerful being that can always see you… and he, (or “it”) can and will reward or punish your for your actions – just as Karma does. We’re talking, of course, about God. By transforming the creator God present in almost all cultures into a moral judge that can reward or punish believers much like karma can, Yaweh became more powerful and relevant than Zeus and Apollo. Like Karma, today’s God will take note of your deed even if you return the wallet anonymously. God sees all. He is the ultimate partner in reciprocal altruism. He picks up the slack everywhere our natural instincts might fail.
In fact, God corrects the weaknesses of Tit for Tat so well, it’s tempting to suggest that humans designed it. This would be an ironic twist on the “Argument by Design”. Instead of suggesting that humans are put together so well that they must have been designed by a God, we argue that the idea of God is put together so well that it must have been designed by us. Of course, it doesn’t seem fair to discount the theologians’ argument by design and accept the atheists’. But let’s look more closely at why we rejected the theologian’s argument. Scientists don’t dispute the fact that humans were designed, they just believe humans were designed by millions of years of natural selection… not an omnipotent creator. So, applying this logic to the atheist’s argument that God is designed by humans makes sense. It’s like admitting that no enterprising priest sat down and sketched out the idea of God start to finish as an elaborate ruse to fool the townsfolk, instead the idea evolved via natural selection. The idea of God literally throwing lightning bolts down from the sky has become extinct. The one that smites cities is dying out. The lack of utility of these ideas made it difficult for them to reproduce or be passed on via oral or written tradition. This is how the idea of God is honed as it passes on from one generation to the next, each year growing more and more appropriate to our needs and desires, and society’s most pressing need is to maximize reciprocal altruism, particularly when no one else is looking. This is exactly what the idea of God does: Consider these qualities:
He sees everything. Altruism is not self-serving if your benefactor doesn’t see it. Cheating doesn’t get punished if you act anonymously. God solves both these problems by putting eyes on everybody, all of the time.
There may well have been a preacher at some time and place who suggested God can’t see you when you’re indoors. It wouldn’t be long until thefts were rampant indoors. It’s a much more effective idea to suggest God can see you in all places, at all times, indoors and out, in fact, he even knows your thoughts, and he has little difficulty in keeping score of your good deeds. Thomas Paine once said “Reputation is what men and women think about us. Character is what God and Angels know about us”. The implicit suggestion: Act like you’re being watched at all times, that (and presumably that alone) will keep you in line. It’s a quick fix heuristic that’s simpler than trying to explain the ins and outs of our reciprocal altruistic relationship with society as a whole. It plays upon the existing importance of reputation in our brain to bring about a greater societal good. Could it be any clearer that these myths have evolved as an extension of existing impulses in the brain? That they fulfill what we cognitively know is right by framing it in a manner more palpable to our emotional instincts?
With this in mind, it’s easy to understand why Christians fear and loathe atheists. In the Christian’s eyes, the atheist is saying that there is no great rewarder or punisher that keeps people from exploiting the system. There is no magical Karma that keeps track of our good and bad deeds or our indebtedness to society. The Christian feels like without God, the whole system falls apart. It’s license to be hedonistic and exploit others without fear of repercussion. It’s much worse than suggesting God can’t see you when you’re indoors, Atheists are suggesting God never sees you… in fact, there IS no God! It’s like they’re whispering in kid’s ears to “go do whatever you want, no one will know and you can’t be punished.
But of course, there are repercussions – not only to your friends and acquaintances, but to society as a whole, and ultimately to you. The atheist knows this. There is still plenty of reason to return the wallet found in the dark alley. True, it takes a good deal of cognition and ability to see the big picture, but it’s plain to see that we must do our part if we expect to live in a society that we’d like to live in. The Golden Rule is self evident. All atheists are doing is removing the “supernatural” from the equation. To them, it’s the last “myth and metaphor” to be peeled away.
The second characteristic of God that meshes with our emotional instincts is that he has the ultimate power to reciprocate. In fact, he’s thought to be so capable of reciprocation that early humans offered “sacrifices” to him on a regular basis to remain in his “good favor”. This is yet another validation of just how ingrained “tit for tat” is in the human mind – how intense our need for remaining in good favor is. Thankfully, we don’t offer animal sacrifices anymore, but there’s something to be gleaned from the fact that religious people everywhere express copious amounts of gratitude to God. This is no coincidence. Gratitude has been honed by thousands of years of evolution to cement the bonds of reciprocation. And it’s been shown that humans offer the most gratitude to those in power, as they are capable of bestowing the greatest fortune on us in the future. So while we no longer offer sacrifices on the altar, we routinely “give thanks” before meals and other occasions. Failure to do so might offend the “giver”. For it certainly seems as though we’ve been given food doesn’t it? It’s just hanging on trees for us to pick and scurrying around forests for us to spear. Of course, with the knowledge of evolution in our back pocket, we realize that we evolved to exploit the environment that was present. (the environment wasn’t created for us – we adapted to it) And we also evolved a strong sense of gratitude to grease the wheels of reciprocal altruism. It’s so strong that it’s nearly impossible for us to experience some good fortune without giving thanks to somebody. Many a church service revolves around the idea of giving thanks as well. Gratitude is inherent in the very word “worship”. Songs are sung to celebrate the lord. Prayers are delivered on one’s knees – the ultimate sign of submission. The entire process a wild exploitation of our natural tendencies and evolved traits.
The third characteristic of God’s ability to reinforce reciprocal altruism is God’s ability to reward and punish us beyond our lives. This fixes a major flaw in tit for tat. Let’s face it, cooperating doesn’t always work out that well. We don’t always get the reward we were promised. Our fortitude is routinely tested. And if we are to stave off the threat of entering into endless streams of mutual defection, we’re going to need faith… faith that our good deeds will be rewarded, faith that other’s sins will be punished. Religion reinforces these two beliefs with such certainty that death itself isn’t an obstacle to carrying either out. After death, reward or punishment is as intense as we can possibly imagine. Of course, it’s also quite convenient that there are no eye witnesses to report back on the veracity of this promise. But in the end, this doesn’t really matter, for there IS truth in the idea that strict adherence to a moral code leads to heaven, only it’s not after death, it’s here on Earth. This is the ultimate reason the idea persists.
Good, Beautiful, and True
Three different belief structures, Atheism, Karma and Christianity, all leading to the same conclusion – that we ought to “Do unto to others as you’d have done unto you” And that if we all do this, we all benefit more than we ever could alone.
This is the common ground between Atheists and Theists.
It is the idea that love is stronger than hate, Peace preferable to war. That we ought to do unto others as we would have done unto us. These are the words both Jesus and Darwin preached.
The believer has reached it through intuition and tradition. The Atheist has reached it through logic and reason. But we’ve both reached the exact same place.
Go into any church of any faith and listen to what they are talking about. They talk about Love, Goodness, altruism, the brotherhood of man… you can feel it in the air. You experience God. God is the experience of love, but it is not the explanation. The steady sunrise of science has shed light the origins of love and understanding, but this does not dilute their effect. Are sermons that preach altruism and goodwill any less moving now that we know about the evolution of our moral instinct through tit for tat and logic of extending that moral instinct to strangers? I suggest it is MORE compelling now that we know the truth behind its origin and they have laid out the effect of its universal application. Knowledge is not the enemy. The explanation does not diminish the experience.
Imagine life is a roller coaster. We are just now working out the nuts and bolts and blueprint, the G-forces and friction coefficients. But no matter how much we know about the math and physics, it does not change the excitement we feel in our stomachs when we go over the first big hill. Science describes that feeling as the sudden removal of G forces on your internal organs brought on by achieving a sudden increase in downward velocity; we describe that feeling as “Wow!”
Science calls altruistic love an amendment of kin selection and pair bonding strengthened by the beneficial effects of reciprocal altruism that has evolved through natural selection. Religion calls it God. Does it matter what we call it? Is it not just as real both ways?
Isn’t the central axiom of Christianity: “God IS Love”? The word “is” implies reflexivity. Thus the two ought to be able to be used interchangeably… Love IS God.
But is it Supernatural?
Let’s face it, most Christians don’t think it’s the same both ways. In their heart they feel that “talking to God” is not the same as “talking to ourselves”. Even if loving your neighbors is provable in the court of scientific opinion to be an evolutionary stable strategy, there’s a certain comfort and certainty to know this command comes from something much greater than ourselves. Perhaps the evolution of love and morality was all part of God’s plan prior to the Big Bang.
Whether or not this is true is impossible to determine, but we can ask ourselves “What would this change if it were true”.
Some might suggest it would provide greater motivation for doing “good”. This opinion merely reflects an inability to see the big picture repercussions of one’s actions that we’ve gone over and over in the above chapters.
Others might suggest, however, that a God behind the Big Bang provides more solid footing for objective moral assertions. They might say that we are not merely trying to create a moral framework we all agree upon, but rather trying to “discover” one that’s already out there; that we are trying to “discern God’s will”. After all, science doesn’t seem to address this question. Even if it’s realized that mutual cooperation is the most beneficial path for any individual to pursue. There’s still some debate over HOW to best cooperate. What’s the best way to help our neighbors? Our intention to cooperate with our neighbors will do us no good unless we know what our neighbors really want (and need). Should we shower them with candy? That’d make them happy… until their teeth rot out and they get diabetes. If we catch our child using drugs should we discipline her with a stern punishment, or a concerned chat? How about letting gays marry? Abortion? The death penalty? The redistribution of wealth?
In short, “What is Good?” (and how do we know it? Does this require something supernatural?)