If our actions are merely a consequence of biological evolution and societal influences, why should anyone be held responsible for crimes or praised for charity work?
2007-07-10 07:50:24 · 20 answers · asked by Eleventy 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
As in, aren't George W. and BinLaden just behaving exactly how anyone with the same genetic makeup and upbringing would?
2007-07-10 07:52:37 · update #1
((I'm an atheists, but I'm just curious how others will respond))
2007-07-10 07:54:15 · update #2
Because humans are a social species, our genes are selected based on how they help us function in society.
*edit* (oh, sorry)
2007-07-10 07:56:09 · answer #1 · answered by Tik 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Why should atheists have no free will? And what does science have to do with atheism? You DO realize that science and religion might both be right and that what science has uncovered might just be part of what God has done?
And to one of the posters above me - I volunteer 10 hours a week to aiding disadvantaged people gain an education and better themselves, I'm not an atheist, but I'm close enough.
I have a few atheist friends who organize charity events on a regular basis, run soup kitchens out of rented camper vans, and help almost everyone who asks for it.
2007-07-10 07:59:18 · answer #2 · answered by Taraq 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm a Christian, and even I can see the logical fallacy of this argument.
Why not? How does biology and society negate ethics? They don't. In fact, these very things make ethics MORE important than if there is a God that influences our free will. If there is no God, then we need to be responsible for ourselves on the whole in order to survive. Charity and law make this possible. Evolution indicates survival of the fittest. Without charity and law, we would destroy ourselves. That is not a good way to survive, God or no God.
2007-07-10 07:55:51 · answer #3 · answered by Mr. Taco 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It's good that we're trying to dig deep here. Anyone who has debated the existence of God with a Christian is sure to have been presented with some variant of the following proposition: "If God does not exist, then there is no reason to do x," where x is any kind of behavior that most of us think morality requires. Imagine that somehow, someone comes up with a conclusive disproof of the existence of God.
How about an atheist like me? What would a conclusive disproof of the existence of God do to my moral stature? Considering that I don't believe in God to begin with, the answer is that a disproof of the existence of God would not cause me to change my moral views at all. But I think I can speak for most atheists when I say that cheating on one's spouse or abandoning one's children is not morally acceptable. As far as the atheist is concerned, the Christian assertion that "if God does not exist, then there is no reason to care for one's children" is false. The Christian may believe that proposition if he wants, but we atheists will have no part of such immorality. Although, judging from their assertions, Christians seem to believe that it is wrong to abandon one's children only if God exists, atheists believe it is wrong to abandon one's children regardless of whether or not God exists, and this gives the atheist a much stronger moral foundation than the Christian.
2007-07-10 07:56:26 · answer #4 · answered by Jack Rivall 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I hate that people think of asking this. I am atheist but I know if I kill somebody I will feel guilt as the potential that, that life had has been taken. Whatever that person may have achieved is now lost at my actions are to blame. (This argument is similar to the one that religious people ask - "If you dont believe in god why dont you commit crimes as you know you wont go to heaven anyway").
Just morals really, dont need a religion. We have our own minds and we know whats right and wrong basically.
2007-07-10 08:33:20 · answer #5 · answered by matt v 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We as a society have agreed upon social norms. These form the Zeitgeist which determines morality. Just because X is the cause of Y, doesn't mean that morality is to be ignored. i.e. If GWB or Bin Laden do something, they should be held accountable to their choices via our morality as defined by the progression of history and the genetic morality built into us. If they violate it, they should feel the consequences appropriate for it. If they uphold it, they should be rewarded as it is something we as a society should and do value.
2007-07-10 07:55:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
People are products of their genetics and their environment.
Punishing them when these influences causes them to commit crimes against society is practical - in that it tends to reduce repeat offences. It can only ever be 'just' inside that framework.
CD
2007-07-10 07:56:29 · answer #7 · answered by Super Atheist 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because, we are all responsible for our own actions. Even if there are reasons, it does not diminish the action. It is only with accountability that we can co-exist in a social structure.
2007-07-10 07:54:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Genetics does not take away from free will. We all chose the "road we travel."
2007-07-10 07:55:40 · answer #9 · answered by RK 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Freewill actions still have consequences in our society.
atheist
2007-07-10 07:54:48 · answer #10 · answered by AuroraDawn 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋