Why Be An Atheist?

 

There is an abundance of reasons for not accepting the premise that a god exists. First and foremost is the simple fact that reasonable evidence has never been presented to support the assertion that there is a god of any kind. There have been many attempts to do so and there have been many learned arguments. However, little to no evidence has been brought forth to substantiate the claim there is a god and... arguments are NOT evidence.

 

Nevertheless, the challenging question continues to be asked; ‘How can you be an atheist?’ or, perhaps less bluntly: ‘Why are you an atheist?’ The non-believer may pose this question to himself several times a day. ‘Why don’t I just accept the tenets related to the local religion?’, might well be an alternative wording of the question. 

 

Perhaps you’ve asked yourself a similar question. I don’t know that I ever openly voiced or cohesively and coherently thought the question out. Perhaps I’m more intuitive than logical in this regard, at least. Moreover, I don’t know if I’ve ever been asked the question. The stigma of being an atheist precludes many from even saying the word ‘atheist’ - as if it were a blasphemous pejorative.

 

For me, the question of the higher power persisted to simmer for a long time. Raised as a Roman Catholic, there was much I found to be absurd or immoral or ludicrous and evil in the teachings of the Church. (I’ll forgo giving a list of such things. The reader can supply a list for themselves that needn’t be as comprehensive as Martin Luther’s.)

 

Prompted by the niggling of the question of a higher power, I looked to other sources than the Bible – other viewpoints and other prophets; Edgar Cayce, Velikovsky, Gurdjieff, Eliade, Jung, Buddha, Nostradamus, Illich, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, etc.  All presented interesting hypotheses but all felt out of whack, a bit. Tales about Mu, Atlantis, crystals, and ancient wisdom had an appeal but delivered little satisfaction. 

 

My conclusion – thus far - has been that all these things, while not improbable, were little more than speculative because very little real evidence was provided. Wordy ad hoc reasoning does not make for good argument and - as mentioned before - argument is not evidence. The tales were intriguing; sometimes beautiful and awe-inspiring and overwhelming, but the luster wore off after a while; the sausage had been seen being made, as it were. 

 

Arguments, even by the saintly, seemed specious. (Again, argument is not evidence.) The pre-supposition that a god – a higher power - existed was pervasive but not persuasive. Too much was ludicrous on its face; soul travel, pyramid power, prophesy, (etc.) much else lacked credible evidence. 

 

There’s that word, again.

 

It would seem that evidence of a higher power would be all around and obvious. One might insert the ‘Look at the trees!’ apologetic here but acceptance of that simple-minded notion would require a willful ignorance of biology. Evidence of a god should be more than inferential. Shouldn’t it? For such an overwhelming claim, evidence should be stark and irrefutable. None has ever been presented, that I know of.

 

It has been claimed that god has ‘written it on your heart’. Posh! Again, one would have to think that the heart is a repository of tenets, a container wherein higher knowledge resides. I cannot accept that. The heart is a pump for blood. The brain is the place for thought, emotion, decision-making, consciousness and so on. While ‘god writing its/his instructions on your heart’ makes for an appealing metaphor, so do the diagrams of Gurdjieff and the quatrains of Nostradamus. It would seem that a Supreme Being would be more capable than Aesop was of presenting itself and a governing creed by parables.

 

And what about all the other demi-gods, semi-gods and deific personalities which speckle the ancient world? Asclepius, Simon Magus, Romulus, Siddhartha, Osiris, et.al. had the powers attributed to the Man from Nazareth. Raising the dead and healing the sick were like squirting boutonniere to these and other folk of legend and myth. They were parlor tricks; pick a card, any card! And like feats of magic, none of these averred miracles were true. None were accompanied by credible evidence.

 

Walk on water? As if…

Water to wine? That trick is on the back shelf; old hat.

Raise the dead? Come back from the dead? Get a grip!

 

The apologetic runs that ‘with god, the omnipotent, all is possible...

Oy! Again with the presupposition! 

If that is the case, then mustn’t all of the various rabbit-trails offered by the likes of Cayce, Illich and others be equally viable and factual? The Bible is real ‘cuz the Bible tells us so. Amen and Halleluiah. Praise B! Jesus is god cuz it says so in the Bible. And Cayce is a prophet cuz it says so right in the literature. And all the Sadhus – the Holy Men- of India are real and true because they say they are. 

 

Easy-peasy! 

 

All it takes is unshakeable faith and willful ignorance. Just put all doubt out of your mind and ‘Voila’, you’ve joined the ranks of the Believers and are entitled to salvation, etc. Be sure to get your entry ticket to Paradise stamped and verified. You wouldn’t want to left at the station because of an oversight. Heaven forfend!

 

Once one steps back from modern Christianity and hears about the plethora of mystery cults, children of god and the accounts of revelations, one must at least sense that the Christian faith is much the same as other myths of dying-and-rising gods and the Holy Men of Judea and Galacia have substantial similarity to those of the Punjab.

 

Was Asclepius different from Jesus, the Christ? Yes, the tales are different but the underlying message is entwined with the tales of the Nazarene. Is Herakles or Romulus different from Jesus? Yes, the tales are different; the tellers of the tales were different, as well. The social circumstances of the tale-tellers were different. They came from a different time in history; a different culture; a different society; a different people. This is at the heart of ‘syncretism’; one fable/myth/legend is adapted to another culture with a different legendarium and back-story. 

 

The tales, while different, are comparative to high degrees. There are too many parallels in the tales of Asclepius and the children of god, to ignore. There are too many similarities to cordon off one as factual and dismiss the others as fantasy.

 

Was Jesus of Nazareth special? Not so much, as it turns out. (Oh, and ‘Happy Easter’ BTW.)

 

One shouldn’t accept any claim as true until that claim is supported by sound reasoning and empirical evidence.

More on the God Conspiracy

 

‘People who think with their reptilian brains are susceptible to cults, to conspiracy theories, to rallies, to slogans, to simplistic us-or-them formulas.’ Robert Harrington

One point that has not been addressed regarding conspiracy theories about ‘god’ is the part addressing the assertion that there exists a powerful (and sinister) group which in turn upholds the conspiracy theory as fact. 

 

To address this is more problematic I that fingers need to be pointed at specific targets such as ‘The Illuminati’, the ‘Free Masons, etc. Allegations made against specific, actual groups tend to attract lawsuits. This is a morass into which this writer would rather not descend. That said, if the Roman Catholic and Apostolic church did not spring to mind when a powerful group was mentioned then perhaps the reader has been living under a rock. 

 

No offense.

To backtrack a bit, one must consider the role of gods and divinity in the formation of society. It is generally acknowledged that the first urban centers were in Mesopotamia. The cities of Babylon, Asher and Ur are renown though there must have been others in Africa and Asia which predated those; smaller cities which would have necessitated moral codes, laws, law-givers and law enforcement of some type. 

 

One cannot image a congregation of humans in a group which did not have a code of ethics and behavior. (Here, one might refer to the extensive writings on morals and morality.) Apart from the codes of behavior necessary for tribal groups to exist, more extensive and specific laws would be required to assure public safety when two or more such tribal groups cohabitated. 

 

Such laws would need to be enforced and adjudicated by some authority. Such authority would need to be unassailable. That authority might come in the form of a deity; the authority might then be conferred on the priests which ‘served’ that deity. The priesthood, not being warriors and strong-men would then require a strongman to enforce the adjudication of laws. The priesthood and the strongman would exist symbiotically with the priesthood beholden to the strongman who was, in turn, beholden to the priesthood and their connection to the deity. This would be the fundamental ‘con’ upon which civilization rests.  This relationship would lead to the concept of the divine right of kings. 

 

Leaving aside the usurpation of the priestly power by the king, it is logical to assume the necessity of such a relationship of priest and strongman for the establishment and functioning of a proto-society. Codes of behavior most surely were in place for any group larger than a tribal one to exist together and form an urban center, a nation or a state. Lawlessness is not conducive to the formation of a coherent and sustainable coalition of people as in a city. Chaos is not a good medium for cohesion; laws must be in place and those laws enforced.

 

The god, through the priesthood and the strongman, would be claimed to be the originating source of those laws. By this logic, the conspiracy is shored up; god, its priests and the strongman/chieftain are the symbiotic triumvirate which allows for nascent cities to exist and therefore allow for the establishment of civilization. Without the god, there would be no priesthood. The priesthood, then, requires its alliance with the muscle of the strongman/chieftain for protection from the less privileged and for the enforcement of the codes or laws of conduct ‘decreed’ by the god. 

 

This brings up the privileged positions of the priesthood and strongman.

 

The God Conspiracy

 

The myth of god and religions are the longest–running, most successful conspiracy theory ever.  Let’s define ‘conspiracy theory in the usual way; ‘an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable’. 

 

Crucial to this definition must be an addendum which states that proper evidence is anathema to conspiracy theorists. Evidence must now be defined as well: ‘the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.’ That’s what acceptable evidence is, now, let’s state what good, acceptable evidence is not; conjecture is not evidence. Intuition is not evidence. Wild claims and personal anecdotes are not evidence. Hearsay is not evidence. Distortions of the truth, misapplications of scientific principles, wishful thinking and lies are not evidence.

 

Anytime a ‘Believer’ claims that they have ‘evidence’ or ‘proof’ of a god, it turns out to be nothing more than ‘look at the trees’ or ‘I have a feeling’ or a rehash of an argument from the Middle-ages. If not those, then the ‘Believer’ will recite one or more of examples of poor evidence such as ‘personal anecdotes’ or ‘intuition’. None of these are evidence. Anyone waiting for the ‘Believer’ to provide decent, sufficient evidence is wasting their time.

 

None is ever forthcoming because no proper, acceptable evidence is existent. Nevertheless, the ‘True Believer’ will vehemently mouth one or more of the assertions which they feel in ‘their heart’ is sufficient evidence of ‘god’. Moreover, once the proffered twaddle is refuted as worthless by the skeptic (the non-Believer), the Believer will whinge and whine that there is no evidence that will be accepted by the skeptic. The ‘Believer’ will not accept the standard of evidence defined by the skeptic or might peevishly ask what the skeptic might accept as evidence. 

 

Quite often a ‘Believe’ will moan as to why a skeptic would be concerned about the beliefs of the ‘Believer’. A typical query might be; ‘What does it matter?’. The answer should be readily apparent; if one simply accepts nonsense and non-evidence as fact, then other nonsensical ‘beliefs’ can and will be internalized by the ‘Believer’. There is a heuristic failure which leads to further failures in cognition and critical thinking. The adherence to other conspiracy theories are a usual result of such heuristic failure though often tis particular heuristic is reserved for the god claim and religious dogma.

 

The conspiracy that there is an all-powerful deity which constructed and designed the universe and who is particularly interested in the sexual proclivities of humanity is such a failure. The failure is further compounded by the acceptance of religious authorities which hone the dictates of the pre-supposed deity and require subservience and submission to not only the deity but to the authority of the religious clerics. Not surprisingly, the religious authorities (e.g. preachers, priests, pastors, prophets, etc.) demand a steady source of funds from the ‘Believers’ to finance the life-style and ostentatious real estate of the religious authorities. 

 

If you dare, ask a flat-earther or one who buys into any of the 9-11 conspiracies, or the conspiracies swirling around the JFK assassination, or the iron grip of the Rothschilds or the infamous Area 51 to provide evidence of their claims. (I strongly advise against such inquiry.) Akin to the balderdash and deflection offered by theists, one finds a very similar use by other conspiracy junkies of non-evidence spiced with pseudo-science, the misapplications of scientific principles and outright lies and distortions of fact which indicate a heuristic failure.

 

This heuristic failure is at the core of the MAGA cult and the worship of Donald J. Trump in the USA and beyond. All evidence to the contrary of the preposterous ‘beliefs’ of flat-earthers and other conspiracy theorists are refused or discounted. Quite often, the evidence refuting the conspiracy is given credence to support the notion that a conspiracy is hiding the ‘truth’ (i.e. the claims of the conspiracy theorist.) 

 

The Pentagon is concealing the ‘truth’ of Roswell, the White House is hiding the facts of JFK’s assassination, the Central Bankers obfuscate monetary policy deemed nefarious. The Jews, the Vatican, the Teamsters, the scientists, the ‘Blacks’, the ‘Gays’, etc.; any group or faction can be cited as obstructing the clear understanding of the ‘truth’ declared by the conspiracy community.

 

It is the ‘atheist’ who is accused of being the obfuscator of ‘truth’ in the case of theism. As no decent evidence from ‘Believers’ has ever been forthcoming, the skeptic is railed against as the one who befuddles the minds of the faithful and under-cuts valid argument for the existence of a deity. This is simply demonization and often includes the assertion that the skeptic is the witting or unwitting agent or stooge of Satan, the enemy of ‘god’. Such dismissal is prevalent in the heuristic failure of conspiracy nuts.

 

The success of the god conspiracy is quite evident in history. The Christian conspiracy – based on the questionable activities and historicity of a ‘man from Galilee’ – has been dominant for 2000 years.  This dominance has been imposed by the violence of the Crusades, the slaughter of heretics (such as the Albigensians), the suppression and execution of natural philosophers such as Giordano Bruno, the murder of women indicted as witches, the abominations of the various Inquisitions, the burning of all texts deemed heretical or non-canonical (the gospel of Marcion, the Gnostic gospels, etc). The Islamic Faith is no less stained by similar violence and oppression. 

 

Yet, the ‘god’ claim predates Christianity and Islam. The Greeks and Romans had their gods and ceremonies. The Assyrians, Akkadians, Sumerians and Babylonians had their pantheon of gods. The Egyptians had their gods and notion of after-life’ So, too, the people of the Indus Valley, China, Africa, Japan, Mesoamerica, and so on all had a god or a pantheon of gods replete with ceremony and rituals of worship, often bloody and murderous. 

 

It is this prevalence, this predilection which is provided by ‘Believers’ in lieu of evidence for a god. The thinking goes that ‘If humanity has always had a deity or a selection of deities, then there must be a god’. This line of thinking is fallacious and circular. It is an appeal to nature and it is the band-wagon fallacy attempting to validate an extraordinary claim by citing the prevalence and popularity of the claim. 

 

The conspiracy theorists depend on incredulity; depend on logical fallacies and unsupported pseudo-evidence for their claim. The same tactic is used by ‘Believers’ to falsely substantiate guff, clap-trap and gobbledygook. Once you get people to believe in an invisible sky genii, you can get them to believe anything outrageous.

One More 'Go' on Morality

 

 

It should be easy to see that fraud, theft, murder and assault are harmful to both the individual in a group and to the group at large. It should also be easy to see that empathy would be a component to understanding that harm done to an individual in a group is also harmful to the group at large. Individuals within the group at large could empathize with the harm done to an individual within the group.

 

Other studies demonstrate that individuals initially only extend empathy to member of their own group (family, extended family, group, tribe, nation, etc.) However, as individuals become more familiarized to members of disparate group, then empathic tendencies extend beyond members of the ‘home’ group to the familiarized group.  This tendency would allow for the growth of a small group, such as a family, to a larger group such as a tribe.

 

“When we witness what happens to others, we don’t just activate the visual cortex like we thought some decades ago,” said Christian Keysers of the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience in Amsterdam. “We also activate our own actions as if we’d be acting in similar ways. We activate our own emotions and sensations as if we felt the same. Very rapidly, we got this unifying notion that when you witness the states of others you replicate these states in yourself as if you were in their shoes, which is why we call these activities ‘vicarious states,’” Keysers said.

 

Studies have suggested that this ability to mentalize the experiences of others so vividly can lead us to take prosocial steps to reduce their pain. Referring to Dr. Meade’s observation about the healed femur and Dr.  Valkai’s tale of the toothless homo erectus ‘elder’; both individuals needed care-givers to survive for any length of time. Both indicate that that care-giving has delivered over a long period of time; time enough for the femur to heal and for the gums to heal over after losing teeth. Such care-giving must surely have been the result of empathy.

 

Studies of the behavior of social mammals of all kinds and stripes indicate that there are codes of behavior within such groups. Indeed, such groups of wolves, bonobos, whales, cats, guinea pigs and rats show a level of empathy and a sense of morality (i.e. accepted social behavior).

 

It is internalized laws and regulations of behavior which allow mammals to live together. It is the presence of laws and regulations which are the foundation of human civilization, as well. It should be clear that laws, regulations and codes of behavior are the basis of society and civilization without which societal structures of mammalian groups could not exist, perpetuate and thrive.

 

It has been inferred that our moral code – genetically sourced -  didn’t need to be written down or chiseled into rock; that it preceded writing and language. Law, on the other hand, requires just that. It might be said that law is the codification of a moral code. The governing class; king or congress, prince or parliament must need refer to a written text if law is to be enforced. For a common moral order to be maintained in groups larger than familial or tribal communities, such as kingdoms and nations, laws are needed.  

 

Hammurabi, the Babylonian king, is known as the one who codified the laws of his kingdom. Legend erroneously indicated that he was the first to do so. However, the Code of Hammurabi was an adaptation of earlier Sumerian codes, such as the Code of King Ur-Nammu of Sumer, the earliest known civilization (c. 4500 – c. 1900 BCE) and the oldest known law code surviving today. It was written on tablets, in the Sumerian language (c. 2100–2050 BCE), long before the Mosaic Law was handed down in the Sinai.

 

The Egyptian city of Memphis (founded about 2925 BCE) was the first capital of ancient Egypt. Ancient Egyptians worshipped the goddess, Ma’at, wife of Thoth, the god of Wisdom. Ma’at embodied the principles of law, order, justice and balance. To maintain harmony of the communities, truth, balance, order, harmony, law, morality, and justice ancient Egyptians observed the 42 Ideals of Ma’at. Many of them are reiterated in the Mosaic law; (e.g. I have not committed adultery. I have not uttered lies.) All 42 ‘commandments’ are worded as pledges or confessions.

 

This reference would seem to amplify the notion that laws are bequeathed to humanity from on high. Such was not the intention, here. The intention was to illustrate that deities long known to be forgotten, debunked and discarded have been claimed as the law-givers. One imagines that such attribution might have provided a sense of legitimacy and mystique for the ancient Egyptians or Babylonians. 

 

Imagine the Pharaoh of Egypt and his bureaucrats ruling without rules. Collecting taxes without tax laws. Building immense structures such as pyramids, temples, dams and palaces without rules, regulations and codes of behavior – without a moral grounding. As a matter of fact, here is an article on the 42 Laws of Ancient Egypt; the ‘42 Negative Confessions of Ma’at’ code of law which preceded the Ten Commandments;

https://www.perankhgroup.com/commandments.htm

 

The notion that it is the tablets which Moses brought down the mountain (the Ten Commandments) upon which our morality derives is preposterous. In fact, The Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses in the Torah contain numerous similarities which is not surprising as the Hebrews were governed by the Babylonians. 

 

Must it be stated that none of the aforementioned civilization (Egypt, Sumer, Assyria, et al.) worshipped, YHWH, the god of the Israelites?

Moreover, are apologists for the Bible claiming that the Israelites had no standing injunctions against theft, murder or lying before they fictionally escaped slavery in Egypt? What, then, were the ‘commandments’ based on? Are the apologists further claiming that the empires of Sumer, Assyria, Egypt, China and Sheba had no law and no moral codes of behavior before Moses? Asinine. Particularly given that the god of Moses was so stridently opinionated about eating shellfish, performing circumcision and wearing mixed fabrics while warranting slavery, commanding genocide and establishing an oppressive patriarchy which denied civil and human rights of women.

 

It would also infer that all of the other civilizations established around the world which were not privileged to have Mosaic law were chaotic, hot messes of debauchery, murder and theft. This is absurd on its face. Clearly, any group of humans would be bound by a code of behavior that was beneficial to the sustainability of the group.

 

This is not to say that moral codes are immutable. Acceptable social behavior changes with the times. Slavery was an acceptable condition until it wasn’t acceptable anymore. Sexual harassment, the subjugation of women and child labor are all conditions which have rightfully become unacceptable; but not because of heavenly decree or godly fiat but by a shift in the moral sensibility of the general populace. 

 

Perhaps, it is the supposed theistic definition of morality that is the stumbling block. Perhaps what is meant by morality to the theist is the demeanor of the penitent; the attitude that one is a ‘lost soul’, corrupted and redeemable only by the grace of their specific ‘god’. If the theist considers all people incorrigible and woefully venal, the inheritor of original sin and the curse of Adam, the mythological first man, then one might concede the point as special pleading within the specialized, liturgical sense of the common vernacular. 

 

If such is the case, then there can be no rational counter-argument. It would be much the same as if one were to state that they were experiencing hunger to another, godly one, who only understood the simple word in the context of ‘hunger for god’. One could imagine that the first one would not expect an offer of food from the second one. Rather the hungry one would be lead in pious prayer by the godly one. Empathy would still play a part but the suffering of the hungry one would be seen only through the ‘god’ lens.

 

This discussion of morality has by no means been exhaustive. It was never meant to be. The intention was to dispel the notion that a moral code is reliant on the dictums of a deity. If that notion hasn’t been quite dispelled perhaps this discussion has defused it somewhat by proposing the contention that biology and sociology in populations are the sources of moral codes rather than their being the pronouncements of gods and goddesses. 

 

As for modern law-giving, the American Constitution, was written by humans without input from gods or goddesses; its legitimacy is accepted without deific source or underpinning. The renowned French mathematician, Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace, was asked to explain planetary mechanics to the Emperor Napoleon. When Laplace had concluded his presentation, Buonaparte observed that he’d left no room for god in his explanation.  Laplace reportedly replied, ‘There is no need of god’.

And yet again - Morality

 

Empathy is a basic neural mechanism in humans. Empathy refers to the awareness and understanding of the sensory and emotional states of other people, In more primitive communities, this ability to interpret the mental states of ‘the other’ and put oneself in their place served to identify the emotional and mental state of ‘the other’ and enhance survival tactics.

 

Empathy is, then, essential for human relationships. So much so that, except for psychopaths or autistics, all humans are empathic beings. The part of the brain responsible for empathy is the cerebral cortex, specifically the anterior insular cortex. It is the size of the cerebral cortex that is the difference between human and animal brains. The human brain has a disproportionately large cerebral cortex, accounting for more than 80% of the total brain mass, while the cerebral cortex of other animal brains is comparatively small. Research gives us confidence that the advent of modern humans (i.e. Homo sapiens) was achieved through expansion and elaboration of the cerebral cortex.

 

Research from the University of Colorado at Boulder (USA) has mapped the areas of the human brain associated with empathy. The brain areas that appear preferentially related to empathic distress are also activated while we experience or observe actions, sensations and facial expressions (i.e. non-verbal communication).

 

It must then be proposed that apes other than man also have such behavioral strictures (i.e. morals) based on empathy and reciprocal altruism. Such behavioral regulations have been witnessed by those who study ape behavior; Dian Fossey and Jane Goodall being the most famous. This proposal must then logically be extended to monkeys and other primates and thence to mammals and perhaps to chordates since all have a common genetic ancestry. Consideration as regards the sophistication of those codes depend on the level of social organization perceived in each group as well as the size and make-up of the brains of each of species. 

 

Empathy is the key that enables a group to be cohesive and self-sustaining; the stronger look after the weaker, parents look after children, leaders look after their social group. It is also contended that much of what had developed is initiated biologically, genetically, perhaps in the structure of the brains of individuals of each of the aforementioned groups. The genetic code of a population was passed on to the next generation as a result of the first population thriving by dint of empathy and the primal moral code that stems from that empathetic behavior. 

 

Basically, it must be asserted that morality is an emergent property which develops from the cerebral cortex in the brains of hominids and mammals. The cerebral cortex, with its typical layered organization, is found among mammals, including humans, and non-avian reptiles such as lizards and turtles. Likewise, the anterior insular cortex is a mammalian brain structure. 

 

It has been observed that small mammals (dogs, cats, etc.) appear to have modes of behavior which indicate that they have a sense fairness and propriety. Anyone who has ever had a pet or an animal companion can attest to the idea that animals are empathic. That animals organize in groups is verified by the observance of prides, flocks, herds, schools and flights. Such organization is a matter of social necessity which in turn is engendered biologically.

 

Dr. Forrest Valkai, a biologist, speaks often of empathy; specifically, that empathy in humans is biological, based in evolutionary science. He cites the skull of a Homo Erectus which is toothless. He points out that the skull shows that jaws healed after tooth loss indicating that the individual lived long enough to heal from the loss of his teeth.

Being without teeth would have been a distinct liability for any individual of his species. Even though he (male) was without teeth – which were used as tools as well as mastication of food – the individual survived to a relative old age. 

 

Once again, this indicates that the individual was provided for; soft food was prepared (perhaps pre-chewed) and given him to eat. His duties as a group member must also have been undertaken by his care-givers. Dr Valkai cites that specific part of the brain mentioned earlier – the anterior insular cortex - which would have been ‘inherited’ by our species (Homo Sapiens) from Homo Erectus, which lived more than a million years earlier!

 

‘An international team led by researchers at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York has for the first time shown that one area of the brain, called the anterior insular cortex, is the activity center of human empathy, whereas other areas of the brain are not.’

 

Empathy, the ability to put oneself in the ‘shoes’ of another, to re-state for emphasis, is the key to morality (i.e. a code of behavior acceptable within a group). Which, again, means that empathy may well be the basis of moral and social systems of organization. And it is the result of genetic evolution of the human species.

 

It has been claimed amongst humanists that secular morality is superior to moral codes derived from deities. Thus, the assertion concerning empathy as a biological basis for moral codes might be limited to what is called ‘secular morality’ and considered apart from moral codes bequeathed by ‘god’ figures. That makes the task of delineating the two less daunting yet still massive.

 

Secular morality has been condensed to ‘what promotes well-being’. That well-being is experienced by both the individual in a group and the group at large. Theft is a harm to the individual who has lost something by theft. It is also a harm to the group at large because if theft were to become pervasive in the group, more individuals would be harmed by theft. Thus, theft would be banned on moral grounds because it harms both the individual and the group at large. The same could be said for murder or assault, lying, fraud and deception. Empathy drives this injunction against theft. 

Morality - (yes, again; 4th in a series)

  

Christian theists claim that the Bible is the source of their morals (i.e. the Ten Commandments and the pronouncements of Jesus). Quite often, they’ll put the Golden Rule into the mouth of the guy from Galilee as if he invented it for the Sermon on the Mount. He didn’t. In various forms, in various wordings, it had been around for thousands of years. In fact, the 'Golden Rule' can be found in some form in almost every known ethical tradition. The Golden Rule in a prohibitive form was a principle in ancient Greek philosophy about 500 years before the tales of Jesus. 

 

Possibly the earliest version of the ‘Golden Rule’ appears in the story of ‘The Eloquent Peasant’, which dates to the Middle Kingdom of Egypt (c. 2040–1650 BCE): ‘Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do.’

 

A Late Period (c. 664–323 BCE) Egyptian papyrus contains a negative version of the Golden Rule: ‘That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another.’

 

But it wasn’t just an Egyptian thing either:
The Pahlavi Texts of Zoroastrianism (c. 300 BCE–1000 CE) were an early recording of the Golden Rule: ‘Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others.’

 

Thales of Miletus, a Greek mathematician, astronomer, statesman, and pre-Socratic philosopher (c. 624–c. 546 BCE), said something like it: ‘Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing.’

Isocrates, an ancient Greek rhetorician, (436–338 BCE) said it:

 ‘Do not do to others that which angers you when they do it to you.’ 

 

Plato (c. 420–c. 347 BCE) said it: ‘…do to others as I would that they should do to me."

 

The books of Tobit and Sirach (neither of which were part of the canon of the Old Testament but both of which were used by Christians in the earliest form of the Christian Bible; the Codex Sinaiticus) offer versions of it: ‘Do to no one what you yourself dislike.’; Tobit 4:15

 

And ‘Recognize that your neighbor feels as you do, and keep in mind your own dislikes.’; Sirach 31:15

 

It's also in Leviticus 19:34: ‘The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself’.

 

Moreover, it was not just a good saying or tenet of behavior in the Mediterranean area.  In the ancient epic of India, the Mahābhārata, (c. 400 BCE and 400 CE) there’s a lengthy version of the Golden Rule: ‘One should never do something to others that one would regard as an injury to one's own self.’

 

In the Tamil tradition, in the Book of Virtue (c. 1st century BCE to 5th century CE) the Golden Rule pops up twice: ‘Do not do to others what you know has hurt yourself’ and ‘Why does one hurt others knowing what it is to be hurt?’

 

Finally, Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BCE–65 CE) had a version: ‘Treat your inferior as you would wish your superior to treat you.’

 

While it could be argued by a Christian apologist that Seneca, who lived as a contemporary to Jesus, had got his thought from the Sermon on the Mount, it seems highly unlikely, given that the concept of reciprocal altruism was already well-established throughout the region as evidenced by the preceding quotations.

 

Jesus purportedly delivered the Sermon on the Mount between 28 C.E. and 30 C.E. Whether he had learned it from the Torah or not, the sentiment was not peculiar to the Hebrews; it was known from Rome to the Indian sub-continent and beyond in some form. It must be considered that the common knowledge and the practical application and exercise of the ‘Golden Rule’ long predated the recording of this dictum by the anonymous authors of the New Testament. It must also, once more, be asserted that reciprocal altruism, as expressed in Golden Rule and its variants, was and is genetically motivated.

 

It should be obvious that human moral codes not only predate the Bible but are not derived solely from Hebrew tradition. It can once more be contended that the sense of morality predates all of those aforementioned civilizations (e.g. Babylonian, Assyrian, Sumerian, Egyptian, etc) which were established and dominant before the Mosaic codes were produced. It can be contended again that a sense of morality – as it is essential to the establishment and sustaining of the most rudimentary social system - must predate humans and human civilization. That all having been said, let’s dive further even further into the morass of the source of morality.

 

 

Since larger organizations than ‘tribes’ or clans have yet to be observed in other great apes, the 3% genomic difference between chimps and modern humans, then, must be, again, considered very significant. One substantial, definitive difference between humans and the other great apes resulted from the expansion of the neo-cortex and the development of the pre-frontal lobe.

 

Between 2 million and 700, 000 years ago, the size of the brain of Homo erectus actually doubled. This remarkable growth was in the neo-cortex of the brain, primarily. The other major increase in brain volume occurred between 500, 000 and 100, 000 years ago, in homo sapiens. Additionally, the brain size of hominid brains has tripled since the Pliocene age (from an average of 450 cm³ in Australopithecus to 1,345 cm³ in H. sapiens. The human brain today has a volume of 1,350 cubic centimeters. Our closest living relatives have much smaller brains: modern chimpanzees and orangutans have brains averaging about 400 cc, with gorillas averaging about 500 cc.

 

With the larger brain came an evidential increase in the brain-state called ‘empathy’. It has been inferred that empathy is biologically intrinsic to the brains of hominids. Homo erectus, as an ancestor of our species, exhibited empathy. Our own species (homo sapiens) exhibits empathy as well; as a Biblical reference, the story of the ‘Good Samaritan’ is good example of empathy and reciprocal altruism. 

 

Let us turn to science; the science of anthropology. When Dr. Margaret Meade was asked her opinion, based on her knowledge and understanding of her field of anthropology, what was an early sign of empathy, she replied by sharing a story of a discovery of a femur which had fully healed after being broken. The fact that the individual survived long enough for the bone to mend indicated that the individual was cared for and tended to during his invalidity. 

 

That indicated to Dr Meade that the individual had lived in a society which was caring and attentive – empathetic – enough to provide food, drink and shelter for the individual. It may also indicate that any group responsibilities the individual had (e.g. hunting, gathering food, providing shelter, etc.) were undertaken by those who had cared of the individual during their infirmity, as indicated by Dr. Meade’s observation of a healed femur. It, therefore, could be inferred that the brain-state we call ‘empathy’ was inherited genetically from earlier man such as Homo Erectus.

 

Mead said that the first sign of civilization in an ancient culture was a femur (thighbone) that had been broken and then healed. Mead explained that in the animal kingdom, if you break your leg, you die. You cannot run from danger, get to the river for a drink or hunt for food. You are meat for prowling beasts. No animal survives a broken leg long enough for the bone to heal.

 

A broken femur that has healed is evidence that someone has taken time to stay with the one who fell, has bound up the wound, has carried the person to safety and has tended the person through recovery. Helping someone else through difficulty is where civilization starts, Mead said."

 

We are at our best when we serve others. Be civilized.

Morality (3rd in a series)

 

Consider that the feeding of squawking baby birds by its parents is genetically driven. Parental care is a common trait across many species; this is known informally as the maternal instinct. The parental ‘instinct’ can be seen in a wide variety of animals. It can be observed in all mammals; cats, dogs, horses, giraffes, monkeys and humans. Additionally, deviation from that behavior is considered a perversion. A mother who neglects or abandons its off-spring is seen as a vile aberration and is viewed as immoral or amoral; a moral judgement is made about such aberrant behavior. 

 

Now, consider that the cuckoo (cuculus) uses that genetically motivated behavior - mothering - to trick other birds into feeding and caring for the cuckoo’s own young. We do not lay blame on the cuckoo for this seeming aberration but somehow we perceive its deception as inequitable and unjust. We find the behavior of the cuckoo reprehensible and unfair; that reaction comes as the result of our own sense of right and wrong; a moral judgement.

 

It is our own sense of morality which is activated in reviewing these well-known cases regarding the parenting instinct of birds. The deviation from the expected norm of parental care by the cuckoo and the trickery practiced by the cuckoo in its renegation of that norm is deemed suspect. Our reaction is derived from the sense of right moral action based, presumably, in our own genetic code. 

 

Should a human mother depart from the expected mothering of her off-spring or other children in her care, that individual would be judged as being morally deficient. The Christian apologist, C.S. Lewis, cited motherly ‘instinct’ as an evidence for ‘god’. It is here cited as evidence of animal behavior determined, in part, by our genome. While it may be informally called ‘instinct’, morality is the emergent property of our genome. The only alternative explanation, Lewis’ explanation; god did it!, is untenable and without demonstrable evidence.   

 

Moral codes and laws are not solely genetically based, of course. Each society has a specific mythic story which underpins the group; democracy, kingship, religion, tradition, etc. England has its own story about what makes the English English. France has a story about what makes the French French. China has a story about what makes the Chinese Chinese. It’s not only about language – which change over time – but all of the specifics characteristics of each societal and cultural identity. The society-wide story or myth serves as an accepted over-lay of morality. 

 

It is the commonly accepted story or ‘societal myth’ which serves as an addendum to nuance social behavior. Such shared ideals of as those listed above may call for laws and regulations to be enacted and enforced. Exceptional, noncompliant behavior due to psychological and physical disorders such as psychopathy, schizophrenia, dementia, etc. are taken into account and are addressed by laws or local regulations. If a neighbor beats his dog or his children, or if the neighbor persists in lighting firecrackers late at night, for example, authorities might be called to quell the violence or the noise as prescribed by law or regulation.

 

Turning from the hypothetical and returning to the history of humankind and the refutation that Moses’s god was the law-giver from which our moral code is derived, consider these brief synopses of ancient civilizations: 

 

Consider:

The Sumerian civilization is the oldest civilization known to mankind. The term Sumer is today used to designate southern Mesopotamia. In 4500 BCE, a flourishing urban civilization existed. The Sumerian civilization was predominantly agricultural and had community life. Could there have been a civilization without a moral code?

 

Consider:

Ur, the Assyrian city (c. 2030 to 1980 BCE) was once the largest city in the world. Its population was approximately 65,000. Ur was governed by laws which were based, most assuredly on a moral code; the Code of King Ur-Nammu, in this case. Imagine a metropolitan center of such size without, at the very least, a collective understanding that murder and theft were frowned upon.

 

Consider:

The Minoan civilization was a Bronze Age, Aegean civilization on the island of Crete and other Aegean islands, whose earliest beginnings were from c. 3500 BCE, with a complex urban civilization beginning around 2000 BCE, and then declining from c. 1450 BC until it ended around 1100 BCE, during the early Greek Dark Ages. It must have had an inherent moral code and laws based on that code. 

 

Consider:

Ancient Egypt was a civilization in ancient Northeast Africa, situated in the Nile Valley. Ancient Egyptian civilization followed prehistoric Egypt and coalesced around 3100 BCE with the political unification of Upper and Lower Egypt under Menes. Could there have been a continuous culture if there hadn’t been a code of morality?

 

Consider:

Most Biblical scholars who accept the historical core of the Exodus, date this possible exodus group to the thirteenth century BCE at the time of Ramses II, with some scholars dating it to the twelfth century BCE at the time of Ramses III. Does that mean that the Hebrews had no moral code until Moses came down the mountain with the tablets? 

 

Note: All of the aforementioned ancient civilizations (Sumerian, Minoan, Egyptian) pre-date this Biblical episode. 

 

Consider: 

How could the aforementioned civilizations, not to mention Babylon, Persia, China, India, etc. organize and maintain cities, cultures and dynastic, kingly authority without a moral code? I contend that they could not. As a thought experiment, imagine a town, village or tribal gathering of nearly any size in which theft was not considered wrong. Or murder. Or sexual assault. Or lying. Imagine a conclave of Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon or, indeed, any group of hominids which did not have accepted codes of behavior prohibiting murder and theft.