Being Good without God.

[elfs]

Daniel Dennet, as old-timers to my blog know, is one of my favorite philosophers. Relentlessly materialistic and naturalistic, he nonetheless spells out a lot of excellent details regarding why human beings are the way they are. Dennet has a really good podcast on why it is possible to be good without God on meaningoflive.tv:

"Let's talk about "transcendent" and "morality". One of the things that we have evolved to discover on this planet is arithmetic. We didn't invent it, we didn't make it: we found it. It is eternal, a priori, true: it's just great stuff. And it's true everywhere in the universe; it's true everywhere in any universe. There's only one arithmetic. Now, is that transcendent? I would say, Yeah.

"If we discovered another civilization somewhere in the galaxy that was intelligent, what would it share with us? Well, it would certainly share arithmetic. Maybe not base-10 arithmetic -- that's anybody's guess. It might be base 12 or base 16 or base 8. Who knows? That's an accident. But it would still be arithmetic. Now, we can say: "And would it share ethical principles with us?" And I think, in some regards, "Yes, it would." Now, does that make those principles transcendent? Yeah."

Dennet here states clearly what has been a staple argument of the science fiction community for years, and why such silly things as Klingons and the aliens from V are more or less nonsense: in order to be a spacefaring civilization, one must first be civilized. The economics of scale needed to fund a "get off your planet" program require that people get along, that they understand the Golden (or at the very least Brass, "Do not do unto others as they have not done unto you") Rule, and that they comprehend reciprocity.

They certainly will not share any concept of God with those we have on our planet; it's even reasonable to believe that a majority of them may not believe in God at all. But given that we have evolved to have reciprocity as a measure of civilization, it is reasonable to assume that every civilization will have reciprocity (as well as arithmetic) as a sheer measure of civilization in the first place.

"Goodness" is part of the superstructure of the universe as surely as the physics that underlies evolution in the first place; this is evident in that we humans get along. Does that make it "transcendental," as Dennet argues? I believe it does. Does that necessarily make it theistic in orgin? I do not believe so.

In fact, I'll make the counter-claim: "goodness" is a much an accident of the way our universe is organized as we are ourselves. There is no reason to believe otherwise. More importantly, given what we know of the way various religions have independently discovered, codified, and implemented the Brass and Golden rules, it is reasonable to assume that one does not need any particular God or any god at all to know of them.

Yet, since religion is clearly a commonplace organizing instutition for civilizations, let's change things around: it is not that one must believe in a god in order to be good, but that one (and one's neighbors) must be good to begin with, in order to found a common belief in god. Without being good, all is chaos. Without god, all is still capable of good.

Comments

One word

[redhipple.livejournal.com]

Amen!

mathematics

[happy-hacker.livejournal.com]

One of the things that we have evolved to discover on this planet is arithmetic. We didn't invent it, we didn't make it: we found it. It is eternal, a priori, true: it's just great stuff. And it's true everywhere in the universe; it's true everywhere in any universe. There's only one arithmetic. Now, is that transcendent? I would say, Yeah.

Unfortunately, this isn't true. We did invent it. It is arbitrary in spots. (try dividing by zero some time if you want to see the edge of the mathematical world). It is an extraordinarily useful way to model the world and seems to have great observable accuracy, but let us not deceive ourselves. Mathematics is just a symbolic language whose primary function is consistancy with observable external matters and internal consistency (unlike most natural language). It's universal among humans despite a variety of cultures and spoken languages because once it was invented it was so friggin' useful everybody picked it up. Remember that before Newton, Calculus did not exist. He invented it outright to describe what he was observing in a way that was generalizable, repeatable, and consistant with his observations. External reality, as it is observable, obviously is trascendent, but I rather expect that an alien species might tell us that our mathematics don't make sense because in part what we sometimes model is our own sensory equipment.

This doesn't invalidate the argument, obviously, just the example.

-HH

Re: mathematics

[wendor.livejournal.com]

You seem to be trying to say that the statement "One of the things that we have evolved to discover on this planet is arithmetic." with an discussion of "mathematics" in general. (You even titled your reply "mathematics")

"Arithmetic" and "Mathematics" are not the same thing.

Arithmetic is universal (almost) and not because "...once it was invented it was so friggin' useful everybody picked it up." Many different cultures with no contact with one another appear to have discovered arithmetic independently.

Arithmetic is not "...just a symbolic language whose primary function is consistency with observable external matters and internal consistency..." It is simply addition, subtraction, multiplication and division...and it is neither arbitrary or invented.

If Bob has 4 apples, Mary has 1, Jim has 2, and Phil has 3 there is no invented symbolism behind the fact that Bob and Mary together have 5 apples and that they have the same number as Jim and Phil together.

Re: mathematics

[happy-hacker.livejournal.com]

I think perhaps I've not made my points clearly. It's very difficult to talk about symbolic systems with other symbolic systems. It gets worse when you try to talk about a symbolic system with itself. Let me restate the points I intended to make.

Point #1. It is impossible for you or I to perceive the world without the filter of this symbolic system. The very fact that we quantify 'more' by enumerating individuals means that we are seeing from inside the symbolic system. The concept of more and less and enough (for a specific reaction to happen) are probably external and transcendent.

Point #2. The very act of abstracting things in the real world into arithmetic is using the symbolic system. The very act of manipulating those abstractions and expecting the result to match up with the observable is using the system. Your example is an example of the symbolic system at work.

Point #3. I will concede that perhaps the initial level of abstraction (counting, basic arithmetic) may be instinctive to our species. But then, so is the abstraction of language itself. It's one of the things we humans do.

Point #4. It may be that the perception of things as units is a sensory artifact. For example, if you look at one of Bob's apples, you see a single apple. But if you could see the atoms and not the apple, you would say it is a heterogeneous mass of mostly hydrogen and oxygen. This extends until you are seeing sub-atomic particles, and if at some level everything turns out to be quanta of energy, your perception of objects turns out to be a trick of the light in the first place.

It is inescapable that we live in the well of our own perceptions, and our symbolic models for abstracting those perceptions will reflect those perceptions back. Since this system of symbols and abstraction is dependent on our perceptual mechanism, I'd have to say no, it is not transcendent.

-HH

Re: mathematics

[elfs.livejournal.com]

I don't think that invalidates the point, since you have not yet faced the possibility that those perceptive mechanisms, if they are to be anything like ours, will derive the same meaning we call arithmetic as they have the meaning of reciprocity.

Dennet's argument is that there is a Platonic standard of goodness at loose in the universe, just as there is a Platonic standard of accumulation and sums, just as there are objectively stochaistic processes that give rise to thinking matter. Whether or not you belong to a Platonic school of thought is another issue entirely.

Re: mathematics

[happy-hacker.livejournal.com]

It's entirely possible that other (alien) species, particularly space-fairing species, will experience the universe like we do, with similar sensory equipment. Elf, you've summed up our difference of opinion beautifully. I do not believe in a Platonic ideals, be they Good or Arithmetic. (note the capitalization) If more than one species comes up with similar good, it would be because they are similar themselves, in my opinion, not because the good itself is universal.

Now, if the good is *practical*, which is how I read the original argument - the idea that to evolve the knowledge for space travel takes the brainpower of an entire sentient race working together, for example - then it may recur time and time again. Again, this is not because of any transcendent quality of the value, only that the work required takes that much brainpower put together. As I said originally, I bought his argument, but I didn't buy the example.

I think there's a flaw with the argument against Klingons. On Earth today, the brand of civilization that has thrived the most is Western European. In Guns, Germs, and Steel, Diamond postulates that while China was at least equal to Western Europe in terms of domesticatable food animals and plants, and a good climate for food production, and while they clearly had the same ideas (centuries earlier, usually) that came up in Western Europe, Western Europe's knowledge evolved faster because of the instability and competition between the various states of Europe. China, by contrast, was unified very early in its history. As a result, if the government wanted a particular line of inquiry suppressed, it was supporessed. In Western Europe, doing so might well put your state at a disadvantage to your neighbors, who would overrun you for your troubles.

I think it's entirely plausable that a warlike people like the Klingons might push themselves into space as a species just so the other guys don't get there first. Do remember that much of America's original dominance in space exploration came from competition with the Soviet Union. Bragging rights, veiled threats (our ICBMs can carry THIS much into space over your head), and national pride motivated people a lot more than the altruistic desire to Boldly Go where No One Has Gone Before. Witness NASA's ongoing funding problems.

Anyway, thanks for an interesting discussion, all. And if any of y'all haven't read Guns, Germs, and Steel, I highly recommend it.

-HH

Re: mathematics, addendum

[happy-hacker.livejournal.com]

Something I forgot to say. Diamond, in Guns, Germs, and Steel, suggests that war as we think of it today - fighting to the death, organized and widespread destruction, fighting over ideals, rather than the occasional territorial confrontation and random killing - *is* a function of civilization.

Professional soldiers require a society with sufficient food production to feed them, to feed the people who make their weapons, and to feed the politicians who send them to war. Whether people fighting wars are uncivilized or not is not the question. If they can fight wars as we know them today, they are. The problem is what they're doing with that civilization. Or what we're doing with it, if you prefer.

-HH

[chord.livejournal.com]

Have you ever read any Allan Gibbard? As influenced by evolutionary theory as Dennett (I'm just starting "Freedom Evolves" right now) I'm using Gibbard (i think) as a springboard for my senior thesis in environmental ethics.

I very much disagree with a portion of your (his) statement

[(Anonymous)]

I _don't_ think that things like the Klingons are ridiculous; I don't believe that the economies of scale necessary to get off the planet preclude an expansionist, imperialistic, _war-like_ society.

After all, the Russians made it into orbit and the U.S. made it to the Moon at the height of the Cold War -- when both societies could be argued to have been imperialistic.

Moreover, you seem to be assuming that once a culture expands off its own planet, it is instantly frozen in time and cannot change. Nothing could be further from the truth (see e.g. the hundreds of science fiction novels which presuppose a diaspora leading to hundreds of different human civilizations).

I agree that the early years of space colonization will likely be marked by a certain degree of communalism (if not Communism) -- mostly because the associated technology will be experimental and/or fragile and the environment is so harsh.

However, as the technology becomes more mature and accidents become less likely and less fatal, this social structure is likely to break down, leaving only a residue of customs like going to help a ship that shouts M'aidez.

At that point, societies which were formerly in constant contact (because that way they could assured of getting help in case of), will now deem themselves self-sufficient and possibly become insular.

Such insularity can easily develop into nationalism in the short run, xenophobia in the long run, and an aggressive imperialism once the society looks outward again.

Just my two cents.

-Malthus

[neowolf2.livejournal.com]

Actually, it's not quite correct to say there's only one arithmetic, because any recursively computable set of axioms admits an infinite number of different models (if it admits any).

Now, some of these nonstandard models are going to be, well, weird, but they satisfy all the axioms that we happen to have chosen to describe arithmetic.

This (along with the fact that there are countable models for such theories, including set theory, which we ordinarily think of as containing very noncountable things) is one of the odder results of mathematical logic.