Darwin's Black Box - Michael J. Behe and Intelligent Design

[Joe]

Someone like Sam Harris is an example of a guy who argues for being moral without religion. Peterson argues that such an argument can't possibly succeed - even Harris is implicitly living a religion, even if he verbally denies it. You need religious, metaphysical ideas in order to justify morality, and to make it possible in the first place.

I don't think that's Peterson's point, and Harris disagrees that you need religious, metaphysical ideas in order to justify morality, and to make it possible in the first place. He would (and has) argued that monkeys don't appear to have any religious or metaphysical ideas and yet they act in ways that seem to involve a moral code, that is similar to human morality, at least most of the time, towards each other.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I don't think that's Peterson's point, and Harris disagrees that you need religious, metaphysical ideas in order to justify morality, and to make it possible in the first place. He would (and has) argued that monkeys don't appear to have any religious or metaphysical ideas and yet they act in ways that seem to involve a moral code, that is similar to human morality, at least most of the time, towards each other.

First, I agree Harris would disagree. I'm just saying he's wrong. A big chunk of the Peterson-Harris debate was over this very point: Harris thought he could justify a universal morality without religion, based entirely on his notion of 'facts'. Peterson was trying to get Harris to realize that it's not so simple: values go deeper than 'facts', you need to have implicit values before you can even perceive 'facts' in the first place, and it is religions that have traditionally accounted for those values. That's why Peterson basically says atheists like Harris and Matt Dillahunty are not real atheists: because they are implicitly acting out a religious value system, even if they're unaware of it, and even if they explicitly deny it.

Second, I probably wasn't clear enough when I wrote that you need religious, metaphysical ideas in order to justify morality, and to make it possible in the first place. You don't need religious ideas in order to act morally. But you do need them in order to rationally justify acting morally. Monkeys can act with a basic moral code, but they can't rationally justify it. And the only reason they can act with a basic moral code is because of certain metaphysical/religious realities that are true regardless of whether they're aware of them.

 

[herondancer]

What if the broadest idea of morality was already grounded in the very information designers used in the formation of life?

I mean, even bacteria form cooperating systems (those pesky biofilms!), so it seems to me that the impulse towards mutually beneficial behaviors was baked in right from the beginning, but only manifests according to the developmental level of the critters in question. That doesn't always square well with nature as observed, "red in tooth and claw", but perhaps the mutuality is from one soul pool to another? Predator groups keep prey groups healthy by culling the weak and sick. Prey groups increase predators skill by upping their own evasion skills. Both soul groups gain knowledge and improve, maybe enough to kick a few members up the ladder.

I'm thinking too, of Peterson's description of rats playing. Rats love rough-and-tumble play as part of their social interaction. Smaller rats usually get pinned by bigger ones, but it was noted that if the bigger rat didn't allow the smaller one to "win" at least 30% of the time, other rats would start to shun the bigger animal. No one would play with him, even his size peers. So a sense of fairness seems to be present in animals who've achieved a certain mental complexity. Animal behaviorists have described many behaviours in different species that could be described as "moral" or "altruistic. and they seem to be more common in animals that are sufficiently complex to have developed social systems, with man being the one who is finally able to articulate the reasons why this or that behavior is desirable.

 

[thorbiorn]

We don't need long lists of every article related to the topic of ID, we need a concise list of 8 to 10 articles that are hard hitters like Luc's and MI's that we can Tweet and post on FB every day. Perhaps a certain volume of such posts would have an effect? And since it's not really political, might fly under the censorship radar. At least for a while.

One solution I am trying out is having a folder with links in the browser, bookmark the best articles to that folder, as they appear or I discover them and then when needed, I can find an article, select a point and post.

 

[Cosmos]

I've just started to go through "Chapter 9: Creationism, Evolution and the Corruption of Science" in Laura's book "THE APOCALYPSE" for translation purposes and stumbled on this interesting segment that discusses Anatoly Fomenko’s book "History: Fiction or Science?" by citing Alexander Zinoviev (who wrote the foreword of Fomeko's book). Zinoviev seems to be of the opinion that Darwin's Theory of Evolution (or more precisely, all the happenings and works prior, into, and after the establishment of that theory) represent the second big falsification of history on a much bigger, much more sophisticated and pernicious scale:

In the following remarks, Zinoviev is talking about the ongoing falsification of history that is active today, here and now? – and notice that he designates the theory of evolution as the breakpoint of this process, thereafter to be utilized as the standard-model framework:

"My sociological research of the great evolutionary breakpoint demonstrated that a new, blatant, global and premeditated falsification was already in full swing. Prior to becoming familiar with the writings of Fomenko, I had already known that the falsification of the past was a rather common phenomenon inherent in human existence. However, I was neither aware of the scale of this fraud as described by Fomenko and his fellow scholars, nor of its social type. My assumption had been that the blatant falsification of history on a planetary scale that I had discovered was the first one … Let us call it the second falsification of the same variety.

It differs from the first [discussed by Fomenko] in terms of pertaining to a different epoch. Its main subject is modern history … One has to differentiate between the two kinds of falsification, the first one being the involuntary routine falsification of minor details that results from the mechanisms of gnosis … or the entropy inherent in the framework of humanity’s historical memory. The second is the extraordinary, premeditated and complex falsification that has distinct social causes. [...] (Fomenko 2006, xv)"

I think Zinoviev is right, and it had and still has unbelievably devastating consequences on everything that is going on globally. Notice especially the last paragraph. Very curious and I think very much in accord with what is actually going on.

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

That's why Peterson basically says atheists like Harris and Matt Dillahunty are not real atheists: because they are implicitly acting out a religious value system, even if they're unaware of it, and even if they explicitly deny it.

OK, but I think this is kind of misusing the word "religion". Claiming that guys who don't subscribe to any religion are actually religious is a bit weird. I say that from my own perspective where I have a pretty strong aversion to "religions" but at the same time a strong sense of morality. At the very least, the word "religion" needs to be replaced with something else, like "spirituality" or something metaphysical that doesn't refer to religious organisations.

You don't need religious ideas in order to act morally. But you do need them in order to rationally justify acting morally. Monkeys can act with a basic moral code, but they can't rationally justify it. And the only reason they can act with a basic moral code is because of certain metaphysical/religious realities that are true regardless of whether they're aware of them.

This is a good distinction, but I still wonder. Basically what I've done in my first post about this was 'rationally justifying morality without religion'. I may be wrong, because some sort of spirituality has always been in me, so I'm not sure if it would really work without it. It may, or it may not. I'm not convinced either way. And if a guy like Harris really is an atheist and moral, then it seems a bit unfair to tell him he's wrong about his own beliefs and that he's actually religious. I mean, I don't know him well, but this seems like a strange argument. If he really stands behind both atheism and morality, then I'd be inclined to think there should be some other reason than religion. (I'll have to watch Peterson vs Harris to have a better idea what they're both saying.)

What if the broadest idea of morality was already grounded in the very information designers used in the formation of life?

I mean, even bacteria form cooperating systems (those pesky biofilms!), so it seems to me that the impulse towards mutually beneficial behaviors was baked in right from the beginning, but only manifests according to the developmental level of the critters in question.

Now this is an interesting idea. We don't really have a clue what's encoded in the DNA and how. We know some parts and are discovering more every day, but I think that design is a bit over our heads, so who knows?

 

[Approaching Infinity]

At the very least, the word "religion" needs to be replaced with something else, like "spirituality" or something metaphysical that doesn't refer to religious organisations.

Fair enough! At least that lets us distinguish between spiritual realities and religious dogmas, the vast majority of which are probably untrue when interpreted literally.

And if a guy like Harris really is an atheist and moral, then it seems a bit unfair to tell him he's wrong about his own beliefs and that he's actually religious. I mean, I don't know him well, but this seems like a strange argument. If he really stands behind both atheism and morality, then I'd be inclined to think there should be some other reason than religion.

Only as unfair as telling a postmodern nihilist that deep down, they actually believe in truth. Because otherwise, they wouldn't be trying to convince themselves and others about the truth that there is no truth. Again, we can just replace 'religion' with 'spirituality' to make it more palatable.

Now this is an interesting idea. We don't really have a clue what's encoded in the DNA and how. We know some parts and are discovering more every day, but I think that design is a bit over our heads, so who knows?

I'm still with Rupert Sheldrake on this one: I don't think behaviors can be 'encoded' on a genetic level. I think that's more of a feature of consciousness in general. (Sheldrake would call it a morphic field, but I think that's basically just a sciencey-sounding word for 'mind'.) As for herondancer's point, I agree, but I'd go further: "What if the broadest idea of morality was already grounded in the very structure of the universe?"

 

[Joe]

So as far as I can see, morality can be understood by fairly simple logic, if you abandon selfishness/egocentrism. It's mostly about the willingness to see the perspective of others than yourself, and I don't think it requires anything religious. I've basically learned it from all the times when something bad was done to me. And you learn that if you do bad things to others, it always comes back to you, so it doesn't work.

What you're saying here is that your personal suffering provoked some level of morality or, better said, conscience, in you. So maybe we need to ditch the idea of religion or religious belief being the basis of morality, or being required to rationally justify acting morally, and supplant it with suffering that leads to the development of true conscience and therefore empathy.

This is not to say that people can't do the right thing without religion, but still, there needs to be something more IMO, at least in my experience.

I think so, and I think that 'something more' is suffering that leads to conscience and empathy. That idea certainly aligns with the Cs philosophy, and the often-promised 'help is on the way', apparently in the form of mass extinction. A pretty weird idea on the face of it, but maybe not when thought about in terms of the crucial role of suffering in true human moral/spiritual development.

No, you must strive towards the Good and the Beautiful in every second of your life, with every breath you take. But since we humans forget ourselves all the time, and it's so difficult to boot, we cannot do this without a motivation and dedication of supreme power.

I think standard religious belief is like training wheels for humans in the process of developing true morality and conscience. As you said, 'doing good' or consistently meeting a 'higher' standard of thought, word and deed has always been difficult for most people, so having some motivation in the form of 'do it or you'll be punished' or 'do it and you'll be rewarded' is useful to encourage positive habits in the hope that they 'stick' and help the person to grow in the 'right' direction.

But again, I think you need more than that - and that "more" does point towards a higher realm of some sort, however you choose to think about it. It could also be a connectedness via our higher centers to the realm of "objective morality"

I think the latter is more probable, but maybe not a connection to "a realm of objective morality" but rather, as you say, (and again in line with the Cs philosophy) to a 'higher' part of ourselves, which is a connection we can grow and increase, even if it is often via some level of suffering.

Monkeys can act with a basic moral code, but they can't rationally justify it.

But monkeys don't need to rationally justify it, they just act morally, which seems a pretty convincing argument for morality not being dependent on rational justification. Of course, there's little to be gained from comparing monkeys to humans as regards morality. There are clear differences between (most) humans and monkeys, and there is monkey morality and there is human morality, and humans DO rationally justify morality (because they reason in a way that monkeys don't).

Harris justifies his morality by saying that moral acts simply make rational sense when they are thought through, and he presumes that atheists have thought them through (because they have to in the absence of religion or something 'higher' to justify morality). This the reason I think there was no meeting of minds between Peterson and Harris in their talks and why they just seemed to go round in circles or come back to their basic opposing stances over and over again.

I think the main valid argument by Peterson for the necessity of some kind of religious underpinning to morality, and to which Harris had no real answer, was that some belief in the transcendent is necessary for humans at times when suffering becomes so great that the individual risks either giving up completely on life or becoming violently resentful towards life and seeks revenge on life itself. At those times some form of religious belief can be vital to give some kind of meaning to suffering and help to prevent a person falling into a destructive pit.

There's a caveat though, I think, and it relates to why Harris isn't able to accept this point: two human beings will not necessarily experience the same suffering in the same way, or to the same 'depth'. Peterson actually made this point in one of his talks with Harris (that religion is necessary to give meaning to suffering) and I had the distinct impression at the time that Harris didn't really know what he was talking about, that is to say, that when Peterson talked about great suffering, Harris' personal reference for that was very different to Peterson's

So the other important (I think) caveat in all of this is, there doesn't seem to be a one size fits all as regards morality and religion and its application to human beings, and we need to remember that when we reference it, necessarily based on our own experiences, there may be relatively very few people who have even an inkling of what we are talking about.

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

What you're saying here is that your personal suffering provoked some level of morality or, better said, conscience, in you. So maybe we need to ditch the idea of religion or religious belief being the basis of morality, or being required to rationally justify acting morally, and supplant it with suffering that leads to the development of true conscience and therefore empathy.

Yes, I think suffering has a lot to do with it. But it's not enough. On a basic level (and I experienced that too when I was a little kid) suffering may just lead to thoughts of revenge and other selfish crap, so there has to be a certain level of thought, introspection, and greater understanding, to utilise the suffering in a constructive direction. I suppose time alone provides some necessary feedback that lets you see that the selfish reactions don't really get you anywhere, and that makes you think about it more and adapt a less self-centred view.

I think standard religious belief is like training wheels for humans in the process of developing true morality and conscience. As you said, 'doing good' or consistently meeting a 'higher' standard of thought, word and deed has always been difficult for most people, so having some motivation in the form of 'do it or you'll be punished' or 'do it and you'll be rewarded' is useful to encourage positive habits in the hope that they 'stick' and help the person to grow in the 'right' direction.

Standard religion as training wheels is a good image, I think. The prescribed 'rules' point you in a good direction sort of by 'force', but if you keep up, it will (or at least can) become part of your nature as you gain understanding of how it works and see the results of your actions.

to a 'higher' part of ourselves, which is a connection we can grow and increase, even if it is often via some level of suffering

This may be a crucial element. I think much of morality may have to do with your subconscious memory of previous incarnations. And suffering may be what helps you recall it, in a way. Not as a conscious memory but as a deep feeling. This might help explain why someone who's an atheist seems to really 'get it'.

 

[nature]

What if the broadest idea of morality was already grounded in the very information designers used in the formation of life?

I mean, even bacteria form cooperating systems (those pesky biofilms!), so it seems to me that the impulse towards mutually beneficial behaviors was baked in right from the beginning, but only manifests according to the developmental level of the critters in question. That doesn't always square well with nature as observed, "red in tooth and claw", but perhaps the mutuality is from one soul pool to another? Predator groups keep prey groups healthy by culling the weak and sick. Prey groups increase predators skill by upping their own evasion skills. Both soul groups gain knowledge and improve, maybe enough to kick a few members up the ladder.

Good point, herondancer, about mutuality.
Pesky but necessary. We easily blame bacterias when they come and infect us. Bacterias are always here on us, they help us. But when there is a damaged tissue (inflammed, traumatized as cut skin for example) they come and try to eat the damaged part. For instance, the biofilm on our teeth: it's not tartar creating infection. It's a sugary and acidic food that erodes teeth's enamel and leads to tartar formation (an attempt of the body to repair the loss of enamel). It's this tartar that attracts bacterias which try to cooperate in the reconstruction of the enamel but this repairation doesn't occur because we continue eating damaging foods.
When we have our skin on finger accidentally cut, there is not only our skin cells, our macrophages that come for work repair, but also bacterias on our skin. Without a healthy bacteria community on our skin, the healing doesn't occur, or it occurs slowly and with bad scars. Same in the gut: without the gut microbiome, we die. Even some Candida (in a limited number) in our gut is usefull.

Evrything is distinct but everything is connected
All is in balance, the ID is a so wonderfull phenomena! It has designed individuals in each species, and also in their interactions, in their cooperations.
Not only on a microscopique level, beetween our cells and bacterias, but also in micro/macro interactions (whole body/microbiome) and on macroscopique level (beetween animals as in the example predator/prey you gave).

Such cooperations can't be explained by the sole materialistic (darwinian) concept. Nature always amazes me on how well designed it is, everything has been so well conceived, so well balanced; nothing is left to chance, coincidence (in french we have the word "hasard"). Such a perfect and wonderfull conception and coordination is the work by 7D, both the cosmic concience and the gardian of a perfect functionning, a perfect balance.

Now this is an interesting idea. We don't really have a clue what's encoded in the DNA and how. We know some parts and are discovering more every day, but I think that design is a bit over our heads, so who knows?

Thanks to Cs, we have a clue that all living beings have antennas on some proteins (thus encoded in DNA, as all proteins are imprinted from DNA code), antennas that connect to Cosmic Consciousness. We can imagine that theses antennas receive a sort of divine mind (at least a part of it) and that translates into morality, help, cooperation, empathy, etc.
Now I understand a bit better the notion of "union with the One".
The Cs said us the existence of these antennas. Now, it remains to find it scientifically. They even said in an old session that the core of the DNA is an enzyme. I haven't yet understood what that means.

PS: thank you very much, MI, for your article, I loved reading it. Good chaining of ideas, good references to quotes from books, good pictures, not denigrating style .

 

[luc]

Standard religion as training wheels is a good image, I think. The prescribed 'rules' point you in a good direction sort of by 'force', but if you keep up, it will (or at least can) become part of your nature as you gain understanding of how it works and see the results of your actions.

Nicely put. In my own experience, it goes something like this, although remember that it's not a straight path, but one that involves some going back and forth between the different stages:

First, you realize that the universe is much more than what materialists claim. There may be higher powers, and you realize your very thoughts and actions do matter, and that you will be held accountable in some way. There is a fear of punishment/hope for reward element to it, but this doesn't need to be bad per se - IF you are not dogmatic about it. Because then, the next logical question is: how exactly can I avoid "punishment" and achieve the "reward"? This can lead towards a path of discovery, deep reflection, observing reality left and right etc. Good!

The next step is to use this motivation to change on a profound level - in practice, that is. Over time, you form new habits, new ways that become semi-automatic. Suffering, and how you dealt with it, burned certain new patterns into your consciousness forever. So you don't need to think about punishment/reward in many situations, you just do things in a different, better way because you have practiced doing them (as well as thinking certain thoughts) under harsh conditions of suffering. The process of discovery and reflection continues.

Eventually, you develop a subtle "taste" for how to deal with life, a taste for right and wrong. You really want to do certain things, and don't want to do certain other things. You don't need carrot and sticks anymore, at least not so much of it, because you have developed your own compass to a certain extent. Maybe you are more "in tune". I think the Cs said it very well somewhere - the right decision represents "both the best and the only option".

This is not to say that at our current level of existence, we can achieve full enlightenment or whatever, but just that it becomes less a matter of punishment/reward anticipation, and more a matter of wholeheartedly recognizing the intrinsic value of certain decisions and actions, and the intrinsic "badness" of certain other actions. Another way to put it might be that at this stage, we have refined and developed our conscience so that it speaks to us more clearly, and we listen to it more carefully, and connect its voice to an increasing level of knowledge and experience. However, it always remains easy to slip, to get off-track etc., so it always will be struggle.

 

[Mandatory Intellectomy]

I just watched 2 hours of Peterson vs Harris, and near the end they talk about how to fight pornography. Harris talks about explaining how it ruins relationships and things like that, to which Jordan replies, "it doesn't work", and insists you need some kind of religious imperative.

This makes an interesting point that, I think, results in a distinction between two kinds of people.

1. The "common" people who just live their daily lives and don't think about things much. No deep philosophy, abstract thoughts, etc.
2. The people who do engage in deep thought, analyse philosophical ideas in detail, and so on.

For the first group, a religious imperative may be needed, like those training wheels, because they don't engage in enough thinking to figure out things on their own. The second group, that would presumably include, for example, people on this forum and guys like Harris, can do enough thinking to comprehend morality without necessarily needing God or anything of that sort.

So in a general sense, for mankind as a whole, spirituality may be necessary for morality, as some people are saying here, but in an absolute sense, it may not be 100% necessary for everyone because there are other means of reaching the right conclusions that can substitute for the metaphysical stuff. In other words, it's possible to be a moral atheist, but there has to be a certain level of intellect and a certain amount of contemplation to compensate for the lack of spiritual beliefs. This second group would definitely be very small, though.

A notable characteristic of the second group may very well be subconscious memory of experience from before this incarnation.

 

[luc]

1. The "common" people who just live their daily lives and don't think about things much. No deep philosophy, abstract thoughts, etc.
2. The people who do engage in deep thought, analyse philosophical ideas in detail, and so on.

I get what you are saying, but frankly I'm not sure it's all that useful to split people into "the dumb who need religion" and "the enlightened who don't need it". I mean, those "enlightened" people have wrecked havoc to all that is good and beautiful in this world, because they thought they are oh-so smart. Last time I checked, it wasn't the pope who brought postmodern hell onto earth! Also, consider Darwinism. The great theory of the enlightened. Turns out these "dumb" religious folks were right being skeptical about this pretentious nonsense.

Nobody is saying we need organized religion to substitute thinking. But genuine religiousness teaches us some humility as to our place in the cosmos and our intellectual power. And humility is much needed right now, IMO.

 

[hlat]

OK, but I think this is kind of misusing the word "religion". Claiming that guys who don't subscribe to any religion are actually religious is a bit weird. I say that from my own perspective where I have a pretty strong aversion to "religions" but at the same time a strong sense of morality. At the very least, the word "religion" needs to be replaced with something else, like "spirituality" or something metaphysical that doesn't refer to religious organisations.

The mainstream monotheistic religious institutions are corrupt and evil, so it is only natural that many good people would not be religious but instead be guided by nonreligious principles. Whatever label or name is applied to these nonreligious principles, it doesn't seem to make sense to call them religious when the people consciously rejected the mainstream monotheistic religions. While the Cs say life is religion and while that probably is true, I don't think this is what these people had in mind when using the word religious.

At least that lets us distinguish between spiritual realities and religious dogmas, the vast majority of which are probably untrue when interpreted literally.

 

[Laura]

I get what you are saying, but frankly I'm not sure it's all that useful to split people into "the dumb who need religion" and "the enlightened who don't need it". I mean, those "enlightened" people have wrecked havoc to all that is good and beautiful in this world, because they thought they are oh-so smart. Last time I checked, it wasn't the pope who brought postmodern hell onto earth! Also, consider Darwinism. The great theory of the enlightened. Turns out these "dumb" religious folks were right being skeptical about this pretentious nonsense.

Nobody is saying we need organized religion to substitute thinking. But genuine religiousness teaches us some humility as to our place in the cosmos and our intellectual power. And humility is much needed right now, IMO.

I understand what you are saying, but I've come to a similar conclusion as MI. And I think when it is said "enlightened", that doesn't mean the people with Dunning Kruger who THINK they are enlightened. I guess a distinction needs to be drawn on that.