I don't care about the prostitute---a preacher in a $60,000 car is offensive.

I think the case could be made that every xian leads a double life. For some it is little things, guilt over masturbation or thinking the girl/boy in the next cubical is stunningly attractive. For others it's doubting the faith or any of the litany of deviations from "christ-like perfection."

I recall lots of would-be xian rationalizers in this dilemma taking their model for from Romans 7:

{14}We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. {15}I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. {16}And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. {17}As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. {18}I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. {19}For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. {20}Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

All of this is doo doo, of course, but I it's very powerful shit for someone who wants to feel OK about being bad.

To any xians who are stuck in this self-depricating morass, the liberating truth is that there is no evil nature in you that makes you do things against your will. Unless you are truly mentally ill, you are in control of what you do; not the devil, not god, no malevalent and benevelant spirits, just you.

All xristians lead a double life. We all know what "born again" means: at some ill-fated point in our life, we ran aground on some bible church and got our poor little heads full of this shit about what the lord could do for us. And we swallowed that shit, didn't we? The whole fucking load.

There might have been an emotional reaction which we took to be that experience of change that was promised to us. But the bill came due. We do not alter our personalities; our identities, and become someone else. We might just as soon turn lead to gold, or wood to ivory. We saw that we were the same fucker we always were.

And then we spent years putting on an act, didn't we? I staged a charade that should have won an Oscar. Humphrey Bogart was never such an actor. To continue the analogy, the curtain came down when I grew up and accepted me as me.

I thought I had to be like them, and I spent quite awhile trying to talk like them, act like them and think like them. I was a wimpy little shit, a cheap and shallow excuse for a man, and when I think about those days, I can't hold my head up. I am trying to recover who I was.

Thank you Webmaster for this site. I probably will be posting on and off. I should make it clear at the outset that I am an atheist, and as an atheist I do not recognize any objective system of morals. The universe has neither purpose nor goal, and hence, no right or wrong.I like living without the pretense.

@Joe,

I don't think struggling with doing things that you don't believe is right can be considered to be "leading a double life"; if you use that definition, then we all lead a double life. Even unbelievers will frequently find themselves behaving in ways that they don't care for (losing temper, letting selfishness or laziness temporarily take precedence over helping a friend, and of course, adultery is an issue for many who have made the commitment of marriage), unless they are complete assholes and just don't give a damn. I've known plenty of Christians that did indeed do a lot of things they considered sinful, but were also extremely straightforward, open and honest about their shortcomings and continued struggles. This is a form of humility and honesty that I find to be comparatively rare outside of Christendom, and I would be glad to see it encouraged more generally in secular society.

One pastor in particular, for whom I still retain a great deal of respect, confessed to a gathering at a men's conference, in the course of his teaching to them, that on his way to the meeting, he had been presented with a clear opportunity to commit adultery, and had seriously considered availing himself of it. He had been alone, and no on would have known, nor would anyone know that he'd even been tempted, if he had not informed them. That takes a good deal of honesty and strength of character.

That being said, I do think that in most of Christian society, and most especially in Christian leadership, there is strong incentive to keep up a certain appearance, which often amounts to a façade that few-to-no men could live up to. When this is the case (as it very often is), a double life is absolutely inevitable (this being true by tautology).

So, while I differ from your argument that every Christian leads a double life, I would agree that most almost certainly do.

@speedcat, I might agree with you as to objective morals; but what of subjective ones? Is murder immoral? What of child molesting?

While I agree with you that the universe may not dictate any particular moral creed, I would assert however that human society—and our own evolved sensibilities—do. If you and I (who am also an atheist) were to compare our morals, I believe we would find that: (a) they do actually exist and (b) while they'd be sure to have many differences, there would also be a lot of moral principles we hold in common.

Just because right and wrong cannot be determined objectively, does not mean that right and wrong do not exist. To think otherwise is precisely the sort of dangerous reasoning that theists proclaim to be the inevitable result of atheism, from which they conclude that therefore only religious people can behave morally.

Micah Cowan,
It is impossible to know whether the pastor you speak of was exercising humility or pride. His 'confession' may have just been "sounding a trumpet" about his righteous act of resisting the temptation of adultery.

The difference between the double life of the believer and unbeliever is that the believer claims to be "born again," a "new creation" where as the unbeliever simply has a standard they aspire to keep.

I have met more honest, humble and self deprecating Atheists than I have Christians...which is really meaningless except to point out that neither has a claim on those "virtues."

I have met more honest, humble and self deprecating Atheists than I have Christians...which is really meaningless except to point out that neither has a claim on those "virtues."

Which, IMO, isn't really all that meaningless, especially given what
some Christians love to claim about atheism and morality. I'd be
interested in hearing some examples from you in more depth, if you'd like to email me? (I tried to email you at the address in your profile, but yahoo rejected it as an invalid email address.)

I only ask because, while I certainly don't believe that Christians are generally more virtuous than non-Christians, there is a certain species of virtue that I've found (in my own experience) to be significantly less common among atheists than among some of the Christian circles with which I'd been accustomed, and I'd find it encouraging to hear testimonies of similar things from atheists.

Of course, I also believe that there are certain species of virtue that
are somewhat more common to atheists; among them being intellectual
honesty, naturally :)

Thank GOD atheists never lead a double life!

Micah, obviously living a double life is not a purely xian phenomenon, but I'd make the case that the peer pressure and fear of the thought cop in the sky makes xians (and probably other servants of omnipotent deities) more prone to taking an unhealthy approach to the problem. As an ex-xian, I'm working on reprogramming my thought so that I can escape from superstition. The consequences of my actions are in this world and only affect my immediate rewards and punishments. No deity is forcing me into the society of people who want to impose standards on me. I can associate with people who value personal choice. As long as I stay within the bounds or generally agreeable laws, I have nothing to lie about or be ashamed of. The degree of my hypocrisy has diminished by several orders of magnitude. What's left is a minor concern for my privacy.

I agree with Paul that the pastor who looked at a girl with lust in his heart was being pious. The church needs drama. Sexual battle is one of the common sources.

I remember a pair of xian male role models on a closed circuit broadcast 'lesson' for my church's men's group. Their dialog went something like this (I'll call them Dave and Doug):

Dave: Doug, what do you do about the temptation to masturbate in the shower?

Doug: Dave, I leave the door to the bathroom open and sing hymns while I shower.

Dave: That's awsome, man. Me, I've fought over this for years, and pray before I get in the shower, and when I think about masturbating, I think about Jesus.

It was surreal, and represented one more nudge into reality and out of the church. What a load of shit.

Joe,
I got a good laugh out of Dave and Doug. In the absence of a holy spirit along side to help with such evils, christians must resort to methods of diversion. Gee, what a testimony to the power of god. They could just as easily substitute their mother for Jesus while singing nursery rhymes, and only an exhibitionist would get off with the door being open.

Micah,

I fixed the email thing, not sure what you mean by "more depth?" I agree, the commonality of the 'virtue' is not a meaningless thing. The point really is the meaningless notion that such virtue is unique to christians.

As to the "certain species of virtue" being "less common," that's very hard to measure. The standards of christianity make such virtues laudable...so you see the paradox? How humble is it to confess if doing so bolsters ones image of humility (humility is a status symbol in christianity)? I used the quote "sounding a trumpet" because it seems to me that if this pastor really believed there is a god in heaven to please he would have been more correct to keep silent about his victory...in which case, you would have never known of the incident and would not have been able to hold him up as an example of "humility."

Good morning Micah, and thank you for your response. Be assured, sir, that I have normal human feelings. I simply do not anchor those feelings outside of myself; to something that is "greater" than myself. Nothing is greater than myself.

Morals do exist, but I think you used the term "subjective". We might say that pedophilia is immoral, in the same way that we might say that spitting on the sidewalk is immoral, or that porn is immoral. We are expressing a personal reaction when we use the word "immoral". We are simply stating preference, much in the same way that we state that we prefer baked beans over broccoli.

Right and wrong cannot be "determined objectively" as you have stated, but "that doesn't mean they don't exist". If someone comes to me and talks about right and wrong, I expect them to prove such existence as surely as they prove the existence of oxygen, or bacteria, or Bangkok.

Morality is such a fluid concept. What is immoral now is moral the next day. It has been within my lifetime that homosexuals were sent to prison. Do you believe that incarcerating gay people is "moral"? I do not believe that there is any objective basis for such morality.

A few centuries ago, an atheist like me would have been in serious trouble, should he have been so reckless as to make his ideas public. I am one lucky sonofabitch to live in this immoral country, and in this immoral century, where and when I can be myself and not bend to the jew god.

We might affirm the existence of morality, but what is missing is the imperative; the "why". If there is no god; if there is no ultimate consequence for what I do, why should I not do as I please? If I crave 10 year old girls, why should I not abduct and rape 10 year old girls? What is the "reason" why I should not? That is what we are getting at. You, and everyone here, might find it morally revolting to express these sentiments, but why should I not express them--why should I not act upon them? In other words,if it is immoral, so what? Okay, I'm immoral.

Micah, are you jewish? There are people, right here in America, who regard you as the worst, lowest form of life; a blasphemer; an idolator. These people believe they are carrying out god's will, because the jews rejected jesus. They believe they are "moral". I do not. I believe they are imbeciles. As George Bernard Shaw said, "Morality can go to its father, the devil".

Thank you for your time and patience. I have tried to say things that usually fill books. I would be pleased if you would respond. Thanks again.

if there is no ultimate consequence for what I do

You know, I hear (read) this argument coming from the religious. (Personally I got into this with a Catholic and Muslim, at the same time, regarding my atheism).

I can't tell if the poster is advancing it, but I want to make a comment about it. It might be true for non-social animals. But in social animals, there are ALWAYS consequences for actions. It is SOCIETY that guarantees that. Acceptable/unacceptable behavior is rewarded/punished by society as a whole.

Prey on 10 year olds, expect harsh punishment for it. Basic parental protective instincts are very strong, and abuse of children will not be tolerated by society as a whole. But there will always be some individuals in it that will attempt to cross the line of what is socially acceptable and will be dealt with accordingly.

It also follows general principles that can be measured on a species by species basis. For example, bonobo rules and behavior are different than that of chimpazees, even though they are very closely related.

I don't need "ultimate" consequences to guide my behavior. I have social learning, sympathy, empathy, compassion, reason, reward, and punishment to guide me.

No god needed.

spirula, I was not talking about consequences, I was talking about ultimate consesequences; ie, hell and damnation. Either you failed to pay attention, or you are not used to formal debate.

There are consequences for what we do. If I rape a woman, I might wind up in jail. Her husband might shoot me. The woman might give me some wierd STD she caught on her last trip to Mexico. But these are not morals. These are actions based on self-interest.

Every time I have talked about a godless, amoral existence, I am met with rules, laws, and punishment. It never fails. Never. You, sir, have admitted the non-existence of your morals, and can only resort to your penal code. My life is based on self-interest, and so is yours. What is all this talk about "empathy" and sympathy" and "social learning"? Bunk.

Look at the history of civilization and tell me that you approve of social consequences. You sound as though society is a reliable judge of moral behavior. All the stats I have ever encountered indicate that most Americans believe in god. Do you submit your actions for their evaluation? If society mandated prayer in public school, would you approve? If society put gays and lesbians in jail, would you approve?

It has been within my lifetime that when a black man stepped out of line, he was lynched. When I was a boy, Life magazine published pictures of lynchings in the South. Sometimes the corpses were set ablaze with gasoline. Sometimes they were burned alive and then hung as a formality. And this is the behavior of the "social animal" that enforces our morals? Are you aware that these murderers believed that their actions were christian?

Do not appeal to social sanctions to back up your morals. Damn your sanctions. And your morals.

The term "social animal" is philosophically useless. A wolf is a social animal. A wolf is a predator, living life as a hungry killer with no mercy for its prey. When a pack of wolves brings down a moose, they feel nothing but hunger and the thrill of the chase and the lust for blood.

If you see morality in nature, kindly direct my attention. I sure as hell do not see morals in nature. There are morals in society, purely artificial and arbitrary. I ignore them and have done a good job of not getting caught.

Paul,

By "more depth", I just meant, "gimme some stories please?" :)

I understand what you're saying, and yeah, I do totally get the dilemma you're talking about. I am still in the process of determining how virtuous some of the “virtues” I was raised with are, and have certainly identified some that I believe to be harmful.

As to the pastor I was mentioning, the emphasis and context of his admission was a very strong focus on our human fallibility, “sin nature”, etc. I'm not saying that those are particularly helpful topics, either, just that he was clearly de-emphasizing his victory. I know him personally as a friend, and I know that he has a lot more tendency to beat himself up over stuff (another ill effect of Christianity?) rather than puff himself up; but I suppose you'll have to take my word for it.

I don't mean to lift him up on a pedestal, either: I wanted to mention this before in the interest of full disclosure, but hadn't wanted to digress too far (I tend to do that too often by far as it is), but he is not an example of a Christian who has never led a double life: a few years later he was caught leading just the sort of secret double life you refer to (adultery), which he'd probably been living in for about a year. It was just an example of real and, I believe, beneficial honesty, that has made a lasting impression on me.

@speedcat,

Are you then saying, that the only reason that you do not rape 10-year-olds is that you either have no particular compulsion to do so, or else your fear of punishment is the only thing preventing it? If so, then you and I have little in common.

I object to your assertion that social pressure and punishment are the only things that define our “moral” behavior. In fact, it is my firm conviction that our virtues are only visible in /contrast/ to society's norms. It is no virtue to condemn slavery in a society that condemns slavery; it was virtue to have live deep in the south and vocally condemned it, when your only reward is bitter resentment from your fellows whose livelihood depends on it.

It is no virtue to praise freedom of sexual orientation in a community of fellows who do likewise; it was and is virtue to protect the individual liberties of others, where doing so does not affect your own person, but carries significant risk of harm to yourself.

Do you so easily discount "sympathy" and "empathy" as having anything to do with how we choose to behave? There are ample and obvious supporting examples (for instance, what then would motivate one to sacrifice his life to stop a runaway train?). Human sympathy and empathy are at the very core of human morality, and I doubt very much that in their absence, the social pressures to which you refer would even exist.

Is morality necessarily and only ever the result of self-interest? Perhaps, but in my case it is the result of a heavily weighted value on respect for myself as to what sort of human being I am, hopefully far above whatever base punishments or rewards society may have to offer me.

Can you really claim otherwise? How then do you choose to be a freethinker, in a society where this is still socially much more difficult than being an “on-fire Christian”? Isn't it out of a need to be able to respect yourself, and not because of any rewards society might hold for you?

Yet, I understand and acknowledge your main point, that moral values are a construction, and nothing intrinsic to nature. It—along with empathy—has evolved, both genetically and memetically, to be what it is, and will continue to do so. Therefore, there is no perfect morality, and no objective basis for saying, in an absolute sense, that such-and-such behavior is “wrong”.

Note that, in order for morality to have evolved, though, it must necessarily be evolutionarily stable. That is, to behave completely selfishly is an evolutionarily unstable behavior, and is not likely to result in your continued prosperity. As is the evolution of the condemnation of moral behavior. Even the sense of morality that an individual may have, to the point that it overrides social pressures and punishments/rewards, is a product of evolution.

Contrary to your claim, there have been instances of observable moral behavior in animalkind, including shunning of immoral behavior, ostracism, capital punishment, and even evidences of individual conscience. Search for "Beginnings of Morality" within this page, for example (though the researcher also plays down the concept of animals having morality, I don't see how one can define it as anything else) http://monkeydaynews.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_archive.html

That page, completely coincidentally (I searched only "rhesus electrocution starve", in reference to a case I knew), contains claims such as, “Social living requires empathy, which is especially evident in chimpanzees…,” and, “These four kinds of behavior — empathy, the ability to learn and follow social rules, reciprocity and peacemaking — are the basis of sociality.”

Speedcat,

First of all, I was using your phrase as a backdrop to the "if no ultimate consequence then no morality" arguments I get from the religious. I mentioned in my comment that I couldn't tell from your comment if that was what you were actually arguing.

If I wasn't clear enough, I don't believe in the need for ultimate consequences and the concept of "absolute morality".

But that wasn't the point. My comment was my opinion of why humans are "moral". And I used the pedophile example you used to simply explain that punishment is something people fear and will deter them from certain behavior. But not everyone.

If you read my post, no where did I claim any form of "morality", simply that what we call morality is an expression of social behavior based on our evolution as social primates. In that case, nature does provide plenty of examples of "morality" in other species as well.

And if you don't think social learning, sympathy,empathy, compassion etc. is relevant to our social behavior (all morality really is), then there is no point in going further in explaining human behavior.

As to your examples as to what societal rules I would approve of, by in large, organizing humans into a format called civilization changes all contexts. "Morality" gets distorted in many ways from how we evolved in as tribal groups. (In group vs out group). Even so, anthropological data indicates a high degree of consistency among humans for certain concepts of morality.

And though "social animal" may be philosophically useless for you, for us zoologists it has a lot of meaning and is a good predictor about the way particular intraspecies interactions will play out.

There are morals in society, purely artificial and arbitrary. I ignore them and have done a good job of not getting caught.

Frankly, I find this comment disturbing, and an attitude I cannot share.

Micah, I will respond to a few of your remarks in the few minutes that I have.

No, you and I have nothing in common. We might as well be from different parts of the galaxy.

I said that there was no morality in nature. I said nothing about particular animals or particular groups of animals. Two of my cats behave toward each other in ways that can only be called loving. Call this "moral" if you wish. I do not, but if it pleases your poetic sensibilities, fine. But there is no morality in the general scheme of things. Nature is pitiless. Nature has neither heart nor conscience.

If you choose to love your fellow man and practice self-sacrifice, or altruism--call it what you like--I have no objection. Why should I? But I feel no calling to do likewise.

Your statements about evolution make no sense to me. I have just finished Daniel Dennett's book "Breaking The Spell". These days, the idea of social evolution is an intellectual fad, and I shun fads. Who and what I am, as a man and as a person, are the result of intelligent thought and rational choice.

About self-respect: that idea is alien to me. The point is that there is no reason to disrespect myself. Although there is still a certain "hangover" from my christian days, I know that there is no reason for me to feel guilt or to take on some sort of blame or self-reproach for anything. There is no reason for me to feel small or inferior. My amoral approach to my life has nothing to do with what I feel or do not feel. I do not feel much of anything, and from what I have seen of the whacked-out emotionality of this world, that is the way I like it.

I have to go now. Later.

Okeedokee Micah,
As requested, I emailed you some personal "stories" of humble atheists.

To sum up, my own experience has been that there are good, humble, gracious people in both camps. I cannot look at either group and see any difference beyond belief.

speedcat wrote:
"If you see morality in nature, kindly direct my attention. I sure as hell do not see morals in nature. There are morals in society, purely artificial and arbitrary. I ignore them and have done a good job of not getting caught.

Dan asserts:
What I think Micah is saying is this:
If you truly think morals are purely artificial and arbitrary, and ignore them, then THAT makes you DEFECTIVE, and you deserve to be put out of the reproductive business.

You deserve to get the big "Darwin Award," and have your genes removed from the gene pool, because Micah and the rest of us, more highly evolved types, don't want our daughters running around in a world full of speedcats, much less living next door to one!
Dan

You people seem to persist in saying that everything is the result of evolution. As sentient beings, we have the ability to direct our lives and to become what we wish to become.

If the rest of you derive your identity from your animal ancestors, that is your choice. You can be better baboons,if you like.

You also might want to try to understand the phrase "Existence Preceeds Essense". It means that we do not come into being with a pre-arranged meaning to our lives. It means that we are free to choose what we will be.

Dan, to call yourself more highly evolved than me is just your attempt at some sort of modern-day insult. My guess is that it is in vogue among academic types. And about your daughter..........I wouldn't allow her within spitting distance.

speedcat wrote:
"You also might want to try to understand the phrase "Existence Preceeds Essense". It means that we do not come into being with a pre-arranged meaning to our lives. It means that we are free to choose what we will be."

speedcat!
Dan will help you with your Existentialist Thinking:
You may choose to rape little girls, but society will choose to put you to sleep!
Dan

It's not my discussion, but I had a few comments/questions, take 'em or leave 'em.

Speedcat: As sentient beings, we have the ability to direct our lives and to become what we wish to become.

I agree. However, what do you feel is the distiguishing physical factor betweem "us", and say, a lower, less "sentient" being, like a neanderthal? And I say "physical" factor, because what makes us beings who have "feelings"(sentient), can be isolated to a specific part of the brain, combined with brain size. Furthermore, if that part is defective/damaged, you could have an amoral "Charles Mansion" on your hands.

Speedcat: But there is no morality in the general scheme of things. Nature is pitiless. Nature has neither heart nor conscience.

Again, I use a neanderthal as analogy. If a neanderthal were to cut in front of another to get food, or what-not....he'd likely get bashed in the head with club, no questions asked. Are you saying that if some bloke were to cut in front of you in line at Burger King, that your innate initial instinct would be to bash his head in?...before diplomacy? So like, the only thing swaying you is an "assault and battery" charge?

I agree that nature is pitiless and impersonal, however, what other explanation is there for why modern man has more of a "conscience" than ancient man---other than being more socially evolved; bigger brain; more intellect, and the capacity to use that intellect? Thanks in advance.

Thanks for your response, boomslang.

As the Warden says in Cool Hand Luke: What we got heah, is failuh ta communicate. Lets try this again. I am not violent. I attempt to get along with other people, for the sake of my self-interest, and occasionally, for the pleasure of intelligent discourse.

What does not exist is the imperative. There is no moral obligation; there is no duty. I can behave like a Neanderthal if I choose to do so. And the only possible response made by any would-be opponent is law and punishment. Look at Dano's response" "They'll put you to sleep"

(actually, dano, YOU are putting me to sleep)

Such a response as Dano made is not an appeal to moral imperative; it is a threat of retaliaton. You piss people off; they get even. Is that the morality you are talking about? That is why I laugh at christianity. Christians slobber about god's love, but lurking just behind that love is god's threat of damnation. Such a god does not love us to begin with, and there are no more morals in christianity than there are in nature.

(dano, responsibility lies at the heart of Sartre's thinking. We are free to choose as we like, but we take responsibility for those choices. We fuck little girls; we do hard time. We kill little girls; we get a needle in the arm. Anton Sandor Lavey gave his people strict orders to harm neither children nor animals. Satanism does not encourage reckless disregard of consequences)

About the appeal to the existence of "conscience" in your last paragraph. Evolution produced our brains, but not a conscience. Evolution produced my brain, but not my personality. We might just as easily say that evolution makes us philosophers, or concert pianists.There is no conscience in nature. Conscience is produced by training, both religious and secular. Conscience is that nagging accusation of failure. I can't use a conscience.

One more thing, boomslang. I take in stray cats--I have 5 so far. Neither my moral code nor my conscience tells me to do this; I just love cats. We should all be more cat-like: pleasure-loving; self-seeking.

This has been fun.

Speedcat said: "If you choose to love your fellow man and practice self-sacrifice, or altruism--call it what you like--I have no objection. Why should I? But I feel no calling to do likewise."

I've been watching this conversation, and although it has gone off topic a bit, the turn it's taken I find interesting.

Basically, if I understand the premise of Speedcat, since there is no absolute morality (i.e.: divine dictates), then there is absolutely no morality at all. Morality, in essence, is just a human construct of convenience, or something to that effect, and people are free to act any way their own internal drives lead them.

Well, for what it’s worth, I agree. And, I disagree.

Why? Well, I’ve never met anyone who CHOSE to love his fellow human, practice self-sacrifice or altruism. I’ve also never known anyone to CHOOSE the opposite. For the most part people simply are what they are. Some are givers. Some are takers. Some are meek and mild. Some are pushy assholes. Some gravitate toward leadership. Some would rather die than be in charge. None of us CHOOSES are personalities, our predilections, our looks, our sexual orientations, our body types, our upbringing, or much of anything else. We are, perhaps more than any of us would like to admit, a product of forces completely outside our control.

So, with that said, I again say that I agree with Speedcat in stating that there is no outside authoritative power dictating any moral imperatives. However, I would disagree that all moral “choices” come from an equal or neutral playing field. I believe it can be rationally posited, though perhaps not absolutely proven as of yet, that much of our general understanding of justice, right and wrong, self-sacrifice, etc., are wired into human psyches by evolutionary necessities. It is not only our species’ tendency toward violence that has helped us to rise above; it is our ability to cooperatively band together for the mutual gain of the group as opposed to individual pursuit of personal pleasure. If we hadn’t pulled together as social creatures, we’d no doubt still be in the trees. That, I believe, is why the majority of people tend to agree on major moral imperatives. And since mutation and evolution continue unabated, that is why there is much disagreement on the smaller details of morality. Of course environment and upbringing also play majorly in how people decide right from wrong, but the genetic influence cannot be overlooked.

Anyway, that synopsis is my quick and concise opine on the matter.

Well I really just want to encourage everyone of us to pray for this man of God. We are not the judge so it is not our place. I know that the devil can get into any of us, right now we should all pray for this man. I know that he has a family, that needs some support, and we need to be the light, where it seems to be dark. None on us have to stand in the place of Pastor Herman Lewis on judgement day, so who are we to say that his car is offensive of that he is wrong. There are other leaders in this contry that we can also look at if we are to judge. There is no sin worse then the next. So Right now I think I will send a prayer.
Lord God,
The father of Abraham Issac and Isreal, Father I come today thanking you for being a good God, you reveal what it is that needs to be revealed. God you are a providing God.Father I am just sending you a Prayer for your fallen son Pastor Herman Lewis, God I know that he is still your child, because you are a forgiving GOd, father please Show the people of this world, that it is not our place to judge this man, but to pray for him. God none of us are with out sin, I know that he is a Pastor so he is held at a higher level, because to whom much is given, much is required. God but I just pray for First Lady Lewis, God for her stregth to endure this trial, I know that you have been there for them in the past and you are too good to stop now. God I ask you that your will be done in this situation and just please help the family of Pastor Lewis. God I ask this in the MIGHTY WORTHY NAME OF MY PERSONAL SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST aman.

Good afternoon, Webmaster. I, too, agree and disagree.

The use of the word "choice" is not the strongest part of my arguments. Free will vs determinism has been around for awhile. To assert that I have complete freedom of will would be absurd. I cannot choose to sing like Caruso.

I will assert, however, that choosing is something we can learn to do. Little by little, our wills become stronger with use, as our muscles become stronger with use. We also can learn optimism and courage, instead of whining and blaming others.

This sets up an infinite regress: did I freely choose to begin freely choosing; did I freely choose to freely choose to begin choosing? However, at some point, we have to stand up and take responsibility for our existence. We have to claim that freedom for ourselves, debate as we might over how it happened.

I have no difficulty with cooperation, or with belonging to or dealing with a group, so long as it is not coerced. Self-sacrifice for the good of the group is out of the question. Cooperation is self-interested behavior. Do we want to win this game? We cooperate with our teammates. Ever watch the pit crew at the 500? I know of no better illustration of cooperation.

I get what you and the others are saying about evolution, and I still think you all are claiming too much for it. Evolution gave us our bulging forehead and our opposable thumbs. (did you know that humans have larger penises than gorillas) Evolution gave us our emotions: love; hate; anger; fear.

But evolution did not give us morals; our evolutionary heritage did not make us hesitate to steal, or to feel guilty about stealing. Evolution does not make us say, "I forgive you for poisoning my dog"

Animals are evolved. Animals have no choice but to be what they are. A predator must be a predator. A bird must build a nest. But humans choose. Humans just are not bound by the principles of evolution. You might say we have outgrown it.

As I told spirula, this has been fun. We heart speeds up when I argue----probably a hold-over from my animal ancestors. Hope someone else weighs in for this little donnybrook.

I must be gone over the weekend and hope to return Monday. I have come to appreciate this site.

That was boomslang, not spirula. Shit, I feel so guilty.

Give thanks to god, you made me want to retch with your childish drivel. Pastor Lewis is guilty of one thing: weakness. Hiding behind his phoney reputation; hiding behind the title of "pastor"; sneaking around like a fucking weasel.

If you want to pray for someone, pray for all those jerks who were taken in by this plastic fake, who didn't have the brains to think for themselve.

Speedcat said: "But evolution did not give us morals..."

Well, no, not entirely. Upbringing, what we are taught, also plays a role as well. However, morality is also wired into our brains just as a simpler morality is wired into animal brains. Some breeds of dogs, for instance, have been bred for loyalty, and from time to time you hear of a story of some dog sacrificing its life for its human masters. Did the dog choose to give its life in a fit of altruism? Did it choose to become more altruistic during its life? Was it taught altruism? Or was this selfless quality merely part of its breeding, part of its genetic code?

Morals are as natural as everything else on the planet. And a moral sense is as inescapable as the rest of our genetically programmed senses.

Dave Webmaster!
I just started reading this, and it is, so far, dealing succinctly, with the evolution of moral behavior!
Dan

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f02/web2/asullivan.html

Hi Dano,

I think I've read this article before, or something like it. I've been reading a lot on this topic lately, coincidentally.

Anyway, I think the author of the article succinctly sums up everything in this one sentence: "An interdisciplinary exploration—a union, rather than a separation, of various fields—is indispensable."

This, ultimately, was the point I was trying to come to. It's just way too easy to argue that either there is a god who dictates morals or without a god, there is no such thing as morals. That is black/white thinking, and entirely too simplistic.

I once felt terrible guilt for having thoughts of lust. Now I realize it is just normal sexuality and I feel no guilt at all. My behavior is unchanged, but the actual feeling of guilt is gone. Obviously "lusting" is something I was taught to think of as wrong. It is not biological or genetic. However, other qualities in my life I recognize as unchanged since my earliest memories. For instance, I’ve never been able to purposely hurt anyone. I feel that would be wrong, and I’ve thought that since, like I said, as long as I’ve thought. It has nothing to do with my upbringing or anything else. I know this because I have siblings with which to compare myself. We differ from each other in marked ways when it comes to certain moral choices, so it’s not just upbringing. I can’t choose to hurt other people without terrible guilt for the simple reason that it is not in my nature to hurt other people. So this quality, in my mind, is linked to inherited genetics.

In other words, morality is complicated, and any exploration of this subject needs to be “interdisciplinary.”

Dave, I think that was very well put. Thanks for that!

Thanks Micah,

One point I failed to include is the implication brought into this discussion by the very real existence of sociopaths. Sociopaths admit to having no moral consciousness whatsoever.

Even a cursory study of sociopaths reveals that some sociopaths come from stable and morally strong families, yet these individuals feel no guilt from perpetrating murder or other anti-social crimes.

I've read of some sociopaths who murder for pleasure and others who murder for utilitarian reasons, as in the hired hit-man. One hit-man whose story I'm familiar with felt neither desire to kill nor remorse at killing. For him, it was just a job. This type of person would perhaps meet speedcat's philosophic premise, that without a god all behavior is of equal value. But the sociopath is, fortunately, the extreme end of moral sense (or lack thereof) in humanity.

The variety of degrees of moral sense is not confined to only belief in god-infused morality vs. sociopathic non-morality. To reiterate, the entire topic is quite complex. It cannot be accurately understood if we adopt simple black and white thinking.

Give Praise To God (GPTG) wrote:
"...I know that the devil can get into any of us[;] right now we should all pray for this man..."

You haven't been listening to your Don Gossett's "Bold Bible Living" enough, or you'd have recalled his oft-repeated quotation, "Greater is he who is within me than he who is without."

Tsk tsk, it's a bad li'l Xtian who doesn't know his theology. Now, are you sticking by your claim that the devil can "get into anyone", against the counterclaim of your own scriptures?

.:webmaster wrote:
"I once felt terrible guilt for having thoughts of lust. Now I realize it is just normal sexuality and I feel no guilt at all. My behavior is unchanged, but the actual feeling of guilt is gone"...

Dan to Dave:
I just turned 71 and it's not the guilt that worries me, it's the evolved characteristics, of the bodies of the typical females that I'm undressing with my eyes these days!!

Dan

Good Morning Webmaster. There is no pleasure higher than an argument with an equal.

I have stolen a moment or 2 to reply to your post.

Webmaster, let me repeat myself, as I never tire of doing: I understand what you people are saying about evolution,but your use of the dog is a false analogy. A dog can be bred for loyalty, yes, of course. A dog will give his life for his master, of course. But the dog has no choice. He must behave as he has been bred to behave.

I deny, with all the passion I can muster, that I must behave as my evolutionary heritage dictates. Any other influence--upbringing; environment; schooling; religion--I deny with equal vehemence. I will be what I will be.

You have suggested that my philosophical premise is that "without god, all behavior is of equal value". The point is that without god, there is no value. One might just as quickly say that all behavior is of no value.

I am sitting in a public library. The background chatter is pleasant. I have things to do later; I expect to be bored to tears; I expect to feel professional satisfaction, nevertheless. As I conclude this day, I will be dining in a Mexican restaurant. And as usual, I will go to my pillow without stress or guilt. But I do not grant any of this a "value". It will have no more value than I choose to grant it from one moment to the next.

I go through my days feeling pleasures like any man would. The sun on my face is just as warm; the southern breeze is just as sweet. The sight of an attractive woman quickens my pulse. A stiff glass of scotch is my heart's delight. But none of this has a "value".

This has been a bright spot in an otherwise boring day. Let me again express my appreciation for your site.

Right and wrong are the big stumbling blocks to be sure. And IT IS NOT TRUE that morality has no basis in objective reality. If we were all like Superman, for example, it would not be illegal to shoot bullets at one another. Or - it would be no more illegal or wrong than shooting spitballs at one another.

To respond to anonymous:

I do not know what objective reality you could possible be talking about. I understand objective reality as well as the next man, and better than you. There is nothing "objective" about your morals.

Look out at whatever you regard as real. Where do you see a basis for your morals? Where is it? Point to it. Tell me where and what it is. And then tell me why it is binding upon me. That is the big question that no one here wants to answer: If I disregard your precious morals, and do as I damned please, so fucking what? Okay, I am immoral. So what? What will you do, send me a Chick tract?

Will you use such elegant terms as "objective reality"? What about my ego? What about my lusts and desires? What about my ambition and greed? What about my anger? These things are as real as anything I will ever know, and your moral code does not stand in my way.

Hmm. I could be wrong, but I’m getting the impression that speedcat is a Christian who is falsely representing him or herself as some sort of a sociopath.

Apparently, I’ve been under a false assumption that misrepresenting oneself is considered a sin in Christian circles. In secular circles, it would be considered rudely anti-social.

Oh well, perhaps speedcat is just a sociopath.

And by the way, the Superman analogy is apt.

Even presupposing the Judeo-Christian version of a god, the limits and parameters what defines right and wrong are in constant flux. A quick read of Joshua, Judges and Ruth will reveal a very different idea of right from wrong from what we would generally associate with those ideas today. And since when is horrifically torturing someone for all eternity for their “beliefs” a standard of compassion and justice to be aspired toward? Thought crimes against a deity? Ridiculous.

Comment: One thing I find very interesting is how so many Christians seem to be drawn to these stories of perverted pastors, almost like flies to manure.

webmaster,

Well, now I see I'm not the only one wondering about that. After some of the responses, I saw no point in engaging.

In a valiant attempt to keep the "poker face", I, too, agree that someone has tilted their hand.

Dave,

I disagree. I don't think he's a Christian in disguise... if he were, wouldn't it be more fruitful for him to take his discussions to a /Christian/ forum, and so discredit us to much greater effect? It's not as if he's going to convince non-Christians on a non-Christian forum that non-Christians are intrinsically immoral and sociopathic. Of course, I have been a poor judge of sincerity recently, so it's certainly possible that I've been duped again. :)

speedcat certainly has some valid points: that there is no absolute, objective morality; and that there is no absolute authority that we can point to to say that giving in to our darker feelings is "wrong" (or, even to say that those particular feelings are "dark").

However, he fails to grasp that such an absolute answer is not really necessary. he also seems to be unwilling to acknowledge that alongside our selfish, greedy, self-serving emotions and impulses, we also possess desires and motivations to do benevolent, altruistic things—sometimes even without letting others know about it, so that it does us no direct benefit other than a good feeling. In the sense that in doing these things, we are pursuing the desirable state of "feeling good about ourselves/better able to respect ourselves", it could still be interpreted as self-serving; but of course he chooses to utterly reject those as motivators.

His rejection of aspects of morality as being granted us through the process of evolution, and his choice to call such beliefs a "fad" are somewhat perplexing: the evidence in favor of evolved conscience is rather good (after all, what society informed his cats, and the rhesi I mentioned, on what is good/bad?), and I'd hardly call anything several decades old a "fad".

Obviously, Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" is a fairly excellent treatment of the subject (though not complete, and obviously not perfect). I have also found "Parenting Beyond Belief" (still reading) to be an excellent source of wisdom on secular morality, even for non-parents.

This is complicated, and I welcome all of it. It is just that I fail to grasp it. You can all believe in whatever moral codes you wish. I do not care. You can give up religion but you can't give up morals. Life simply becomes too scary. Life simply becomes too empty. But try it, for god's sake. There is no god. Let the other shoe drop. There are no morals. Why is this so hard?

See that good-looking babe at the next table? Watch as she sneaks you a glance. She digs you. You can see it in her eyes. What are you telling yourself? Oh no, this is immoral? No goddamnit, if you want to get laid, then get laid. Now look, just follow this up. If you want to get rich, get rich. If you want power, get power. What is this little hang-up with morals that is putting your foot into a bucket?

Webmaster, I am not a christian. I do not know where you found the urge to say that. You sound as though you are playing some last, desperate card. No, sir, I am not a christian. I am a hard-core atheist and I am prepared to go to my deathbed with blasphemy on my lips. And maybe I am a sociopath, as you have suggested. So?

I keep coming back to this keyboard, day after day, and there has yet to be a vindication of any moral system. What in the name of all your gods do I care about your evolution? I am not at the mercy of something called evolution.

Mr Cowan, just a few observations. My use of the word "fad" is my regret. I simply had no better word. There are indeed long-lasting "fads", so long-lasting that "fad" fails to have meaning. For example, the popularity of Latin music among Anglos. This has been hot since the 20's and 30's. Are you old enough to remember disco? Have you heard J-Lo and Christina? Fads.

To continue to respond,no, an absolute answer is not necessary, nor do I seek any. I do not seek answers. And I do not deny the existence of those soft and tender feelings, I deny the need to respond to them, if I choose not to respond. And again, why is this so hard? I am out for my own good,I am looking out for number one, and why is this so hard? And you are not? You are out serving your fellow man. Giving all you dough to whatever charity sends you a letter? Look boys, we are all alike. None of us thinks past our stomach. None of us thinks past our cocks.

Well, back tomorrow. Does this shit happen all the time? jesus, what a show. I got a notion to check out the forums.

Hello Speedcat,

Whatever you might honestly be, you are honestly mistaken in your assessment of the non-existence of any objective morality. That there is no supernaturally dictated objective morality is true. That there is no societally dictated objective morality is false.

This topic has been covered at length on this site by better writers than me, but I'll deign to post a synopsis of my understanding here.

You are absolutely correct that any thought or action you choose to perpetrate is amoral, so long as you are living all by yourself on a desert island somewhere. If you are the only human around, there isn't a single thing you could do that could be considered immoral, or wrong, or illegal. Anarchy, in that case, would be equal to strict religious morality. There would be no difference whatsoever.

However, once you add a few other individuals into the mix, anarchy will only result in someone getting hurt. As soon as your free expression of whatever you want to do results in harming someone else, that's when morality becomes an issue. Morality is strictly a human affair and society at large will dictate the boundaries of morality.

For instance, if you lust after a young woman and force her to submit to your affections against her will, society in the form of her family, friends, lover, or government, will very likely rise up and attempt to teach you the error of your way. Society will decide that it needs to be protected from you, and you will find your freedoms significantly reduced. Actions that harm others are what are generally considered immoral in a society.

Should an entire society decide together that conquering Europe and launching racial genocide is the correct thing to do, those who disagree with that idea will rise up and attempt to stop that society. That's called war. If Nazi Germany had accomplished its goal of subjugating Europe, there would undoubtedly be a different idea of right and wrong in those countries today. As it is, the rest of the world banded together to restrain Germany so her philosophy could do no more harm. If the the leaders of Southern United States had accomplished their agenda in the 1800s, slavery would still be the law of the land, and slave holders would be considered moral upstanding citizens, much like slave owners were considered in the Bible.

Since society dictates the lines separating right from wrong, those lines are in constant motion. One society believes all sex outside marriage is illegal and immoral. Another society believes any and all sex between consenting adults is none of society's business. The lines between right and wrong are frequently fluid, as long as no one is getting hurt. Once someone is being harmed, society tends to get upset. History repeatedly shows that when enough people are upset, the rules are changed.

None of us live in an insulated bubble and some of the actions we might choose have the potential of harming others. For instance, is it immoral to drive at 150mph on the highway? Well, it is illegal, and for a reason. Anyone driving that fast is bound to cause an accident and someone will get hurt.

Morality at its root is about maintaining an orderly society. If I live as a hermit without contact with other humans, then morality is meaningless. Once there are a group of humans in the same vicinity, morality exists based on the very real objective desire and need to be protected from harm. You might say that morality is generated by the group mind of society.

Though I have no illusion this little missive will in any way convince you, even a supposed moral anarchist like yourself would find it difficult to survive in a society where society didn't care about itself.

I'll stop here in the hopes that some of the more cogent commentators will elect to chime in.

Micah,

The reason red flags are going up for me with this guy (gal?) is because the persona he's (she's?) presenting just appears a bit too one-dimensional to be real -- at least to me. Also, Speedcat is not a registered user, which is also worth noting.

Webmaster, if you would care to review my posts, you will see that I have no problem with abiding by social rules. I am in a public library, surrounded by educated people, and enjoying myself. I have no need or desire to carry any of my weapons into this building and commence to lock and load. I am content to sit here at this keyboard and do what I am doing.

What I keep trying to tell you guys, and it keeps going past you, is that there is no IMPERATIVE. It is possible to make agreements among ourselves to live in peace. Even the Mafia does that. But if we choose to become violent, there is nothing to stop us.

Except your laws. Again and again, you guys appeal to social sanctions; your laws; your vengeance. These are not morals, Webmaster. These are raw social powers. As Mao said, "All political power comes out of the barrel of a gun".

I can keep this up until the snow in hell is 6 feet deep. What you cannot deny is that without god we are free to do as we goddamned please. What stands in our way is not morals. What stands in our way is cops; guns; judges; prisons; gas chambers. If you had an objective basis for your moral code, you would have told me by this time.

When we renounce god, we encounter a cold and heartless universe. Anything goes. Scary, aint it? The law of the jungle prevails. Whether or not you like it doesn't matter. There it is.

To conclude: For your information, I am male. It came as a surprise that I am "one-dimensional". And you and the others are not? Give me something else to respond to and I can go to three dimensions pretty quick. As it happens, I repeat myself because you all repeat yourselves.

And no, I am not registered. What does that have to do with it?

"What stands in our way is not morals. What stands in our way is cops; guns; judges; prisons; gas chambers."

I think you are forgetting natural human affection toward our fellow creatures. You seem to be implying that all people WANT to do any number of anti-social things, but are only restrained by outside forces. That's ridiculous. We have EVOLVED a moral sense. Having sex with a natural daughter/mother/sister has a genetically ingrained YUCK FACTOR in the vast majority of human beings. There are execeptions, to be sure, but most of us would literally throw up at the thought of making it with our mothers or fathers. BLEA.

That isn't something that is taught to anyone, or kept at bay by threat of punishment, revulsion of incest is part of our natural genetic makeup. There is objective (objective doesn't mean immoveable and unchanging) morality, but that objectivity isn't based on a subjective, invisible, imaginary, cruel, inhuman, and everlasting wrath dealing deity. It is based on the objective needs of humanity.

If an when you ever get married, have children, and then have grandchildren, you'll perhaps understand a bit more of what I am talking about.

Speedcat : "When we renounce god, we encounter a cold and heartless universe."

What a STRANGE thing to say. This makes NO sense whatsoever. The universe is what it is regardless of a god belief or not. I also have to wonder at these sort of remarks. Seems you're simply argueing in circles to get attention, or are you a sheep in wolfs' clothing? Should we be calling you Baa Baa Sheepcrap?

What you cannot deny is that without god we are free to do as we goddamned please.

Well shit, if that's not part of the Theist's preamble, I don't know what is. = )

Um, with "God", we are still free to do as we goddamned please. Look around. Belief in "God" doesn't dissuade believers from doing what the f%ck they want. After all, they get a "get out of jail free" card, provided they believe in, and "repent" to.....uh, who was that again?....Allah, right? Muhammad?

Notwithstanding, since we're refered to as "you guys" and "you people", etc...we can reasonably conclude that we exchristians are all being clumped together in some regard, for some "reason".

That said, I ask---what philosophy is it that we all need to adopt in order to "free" ourselves, and become more like speedcat? In other words, if there is an over-riding point in all of this, what is the "solution"?---baring in mind that to the best of my knowledge, there aren't any exchristians posting from prison, due to the fact that their lack of belief in "GAWD" has turned them into raping, stealing, animalistic murderers.

Well, here the fuck we go again. I just love drawing your fire. Find me threatening, eh? I don't blame you. When I was a christian, I was terrified of any materialistic approach. AJ Ayer was the devil himself.

Webmaster, evolution does not teach us not to fuck our relatives. In some cultures, ancient Hawaii and ancient Egypt, for example, it was common for brothers and sisters to marry. These things are cultural and religious, not evolutionary. And about the so-called yuck factor: my yuck factor prevents me from fucking obese women, or women who are sick, or women who don't bath, but nature has not taught me that. To use your expression, that's ridiculous.

madworld, I mean to say that it is cold and heartless at first, when we renounce god. Once we become accustomed to reality as it is, we accept it. When I see a Down's syndrome child, or some other human suffering, I do not say "What a horrible world it is". It is the people at this site, who have rapidly become my enemies, who cannot take reality as it comes, choosing instead to cling to their lessons from sunday school. And if it pleases you to indulge in clever insults, go ahead. Baa Baa Sheepcrap. You're a comic genius.

Now whose next? boomslang, yes, of course. No, boomer, people who have a god, for the most part, lead very restricted lives, brought on by the guilt of their creed. Such people fear to have sex; fear to acquire wealth; fear to possess feelings like pride or anger, and finally fear to question why they are doing this shit to begin with. So far as Muslim terrorists go, these pathetic losers have been so stunted and devalued by their religion that they would rather be dead than face life.

Your final remarks are garbled. Are you talking about statistics showing that most criminals profess a religion? I have heard that, and it makes no sense. They may have spent years hiding behind a religion--like the clergymen that we read about here, or they may have copped a jesus plea upon incarceration. But no, good little christians do not steal or rape or murder. They haven't the stomach for it.

About what philosophy we should have: I couldn't give a shit less. If you want to classify me, I could be called an Existentialist, with an overlay of Satanist, and a flavoring of the Marquis de Sade. As for any solution, I do not look for solutions.

Well, this thread is about to disappear, at which time I could just as easily lose interest. I will be dropping in from time to time to share my erudition with you. Always glad to help.

One more thing, Webmaster. Do you know what "imperative" means? I seem to be talking over your head.

Well Micah,

Do you still have doubts?

Thanks for dropping by, Goldie-Brigid-Speedcat.

@ ::webmaster::

Heh. Yeah, I still do have doubts, but they have weakened substantially. Still not convinced speedcat's a Christian, but I've got doubts as to whether the guy/gal is representing himself accurately, too.

And the distinction is becoming increasingly less interesting to me. Whether he/she is truly a sadistic, egoist monster, or a Christian masquerading as one for the purpose of discrediting non-believers, or a non-monster, non-Christian troll, seems of little practical consequence: I'll be happy to ignore any of the three.

But yeah, of the three, I'm leaning towards troll.

Speedcat,

I have no idea whether your actually a nihilist, or just doing a good imitation, but your assertion that we can all just do whatever we want (since there is no god) is simplistic nonsense. That type of tabula rasa thinking has been put to rest long ago. For example, evolutionary psychology has been quite remarkably successful in linking many human tendencies that we think of as "moral" to successful evolutionary strategies. While every culture has its exceptions, we seem to be hard-wired with certain tendencies that lend themselves to building stable societies (or at least clans). Robert Wright wrote a wonderful book called The Moral Animal about this--I suggest that anybody who is unfamiliar with the field of evolutionary psychology start with Wright's book.

As one concrete example, incest avoidance is indeed thought to be an innate human tendency, and an easily-explained product of evolution. See the paper The Evolution of Human Incest Avoidance Mechanisms by Lieberman, Tooby, and Cosmides, for example. Another nearly universal element that feeds into the construction of moral codes is the emotion of indignation; we feel indignant when we perceive that members of our clan are breaking certain taboos, usually involving some limited resource (food, shelter, sex, or proxies for them). In my view, it is precisely this deep-seated emotional response that people mistake for a "universal law", simply because it eludes conscious inspection. You, speedcat, have not committed this error, but religionists often do.

To sum up, in my view it is an error to either attribute morality to some universal god-given code (at one extreme), or to assert that it is purely an arbitrary construct of society (at the other extreme). The scientific consensus, backed by a good deal of objective evidence, is that the truth lies in our evolutionary past. We have an innate tendency to adopt and enforce certain general types of rules of conduct; each society builds upon the basic themes, allowing exceptions and adding further prohibitions, but cannot entirely escape the bedrock of our common biology.

Speedcat, has your opinion of incest avoidance mechanisms changed since your last family reunion?