Morals Without God

Without God, we will live like animals!

After listening to the debate between Bill O'Reilly and Richard Dawkins, it struck me again that the resistance to evolutionary theory largely stems from the illusion that without God there can be no morality. Some believers feel threatened by evolutionary theory not because the theory is right or wrong -- the evidence doesn't seem to matter much to them -- but because accepting it would mean accepting that we have been created by natural processes including our morality. The final part is what bothers them the most.

O'Reilly exclaimed that at least Jesus had "advanced the human condition in a moralistic way" and another believer, Reverend Al Sharpton, expressed the same sentiment in a 2007 debate in the New York Public Library:

"If there is no order to the universe, and therefore some being, some force that ordered it, then who determines what is right or wrong? There is nothing immoral if there's nothing in charge."

Similarly, I have heard people literally echo Dostoevsky's Ivan Karamazov, exclaiming that "If there is no God, I am free to rape my neighbor!"

Perhaps it is just me, but I'd be wary of anyone whose belief system is the only thing standing between them and repulsive behavior. Why not assume that our humanity, including the self-control needed for a livable society, is built into us? Does anyone truly believe that our ancestors lacked rules of right and wrong before they had religion? Did they never assist others in need, or complain about an unfair deal?

Human morality must be quite a bit older than religion and civilization. It may, in fact, be older than humanity itself. Other primates live in highly structured social groups in which rules and inhibitions apply and mutual aid is a daily occurrence. Acts of genuine kindness do occur in animals as they do in humans. Altruistic behavior serves a cooperative group life, which benefits the actors of such behavior, yet the behavior is fueled by its own autonomous motivations, which vary from self-serving to other-regarding.

The animal kingdom offers so many examples that I surely cannot summarize them here (see my new book, The Age of Empathy), but the interesting part is not so much whether animals have empathy and compassion, but how it works.

In one experiment, we placed two capuchin monkeys side by side: separate, but in full view. One of them needed to barter with us with small plastic tokens. The critical test came when we offered a choice between two differently colored tokens with different meaning: one token was "selfish," the other "prosocial." If the bartering monkey picked the selfish token, it received a small piece of apple for returning it, but its partner got nothing. The prosocial token, on the other hand, rewarded both monkeys equally at the same time. The monkeys gradually began to prefer the prosocial token. The procedures were repeated many times with different pairs of monkeys and different sets of tokens, and the monkeys kept picking the prosocial option showing how much they care about each other's welfare.

A flourishing new field of evolutionary ethics focuses on how humans solve moral dilemmas (usually not in a rational Kantian way), which parts of the brain are involved (often old "emotional" parts), why moral tendencies evolved in the human species (probably to promote cooperation), what kind of animal parallels can be found (from prosocial tendencies to obeying social rules), how empathy evolved out of mammalian maternal care (which explains why in human adults the hormone oxytocin stimulates trust and empathy), and how religion piggy-backs on moral sentiments to promote a cohesive society. The sequence of how various tendencies came into being is: first social instincts and empathy, then morality, and finally religion. This is of course quite the opposite from the origin story of Christian religion.

If human morality is part of the larger scheme of nature, there is neither a good reason to look at evolutionary theory as undermining morality nor to look at God as a requirement for it. Raping your neighbor is destructive to society whether you believe in God or not. Conversely, I have never seen convincing evidence that a belief in God keeps people from immoral behavior. Those who think that without God humanity would lack a moral compass totally underestimate the antiquity of our moral sense.

 

 

Comments

[Eggsackley]

I too have never seen much proof that a belief in god produces an increase in moral behavior. It can even be argued that it is counter-productive in some ways. The concept of a "holy war' is the best example that I can think of. It too often leads to atrocities. But most of the time I don't think people who believe in god are any better or worse than those who don't. I would however, question that all people who believe in god, have trouble with scientific concepts like evolution. As a Unitarian-­Universali­st I believe that there is a god or spirit that we all worship in different ways, but I am not hung up on Christian concepts of god creating man in his image and giving man stewardship over the "beasts". I think that some religions, particularly "revealed " religions like Christianity make it very difficult for believers to conceive of moral behavior in the absence of a their god. But, I do not think that a belief in god necessarily leads to a rejection of scientific theories that morality is a product of evolution. I have no trouble believing that animals have emotions similar to ours that have moral components.

[quest44]

My posts always get chopped up even when I have the alotted number of words :(

There will always be people who for whatever reason have to feel superior than the rest of us and religion teaches them they are the righteous the chosen few .
I doubt that they could even entertain the thought that there might not be a god because then that would mean they weren't superior and we were equals . Imagine that .
What if there is no god but a universal spirit that favors nobody ?

[quest44]

Great article Mr De Waal .
I totally agree with what you said here ,,Perhaps it is just me, but I'd be wary of anyone whose belief system is the only thing standing between them and repulsive behavior. Why not assume that our humanity, including the self-control needed for a livable society, is built into us? Does anyone truly believe that our ancestors lacked rules of right and wrong before they had religion? Did they never assist others in need, or complain about an unfair deal?

As a person who has Native ancestry your arguement makes perfect sense.
Before the introduction to Christianity and the white mans god the Native people lived a communal life where everyone was treated equal ,if there was a hunt the whole tribe benefited from it not just the hunters family .They had a sharing heart ,something that even with your god I don't see much of in white society today yet it still exists with my people .
The native people didn't own anything everything was shared they didn't even feel they owned the land they lived on they saw the earth as a provider of life to show respect for and take care of and to pass down this tradition to their ancestors . It was the whites who decided that the earth was to be conquered and owned .

Even Columbus himself wrote in his logs of the Native peoples generous spirit .
Where was the empathy for all those woman and

[Eggsackley]

But, if we all have this evolved moral capacity, can it be said that there is anyone whose belief system is the only thing that stands between them and repulsive behavior?

[fwilms]

To assert that there's any connection between moral behavior and religion would imply that, on the whole, believers are more moral than non-believers. Good luck with that one--even if you picked something we can pretty much all agree on as being moral---saying killing others. hmmm how many wars are in the name of religion? and how many warriors call upon their god while in war (meaning they are believers)? How many born-again preachers and Catholic priests sexually abuse children? How many times do believers use their Holy books to justify hate, violence, discrimination, killing, maiming.... A belief in God is needed to sustain morality in society? Please. "Imagine no religion. It isn't hard to do. No hell below us. Above us only blue. Imagine all the people, living for today. "

[VermontTraveler]

Perhaps a common sense way to look at this is to say that some people are going to be moral regardless of whether they believe in God or not, but that this morality will be, let us say, fluid. They might say murder is wrong, but under certain circumstances it is permissible, as when it is "necessary" to remove one's enemies. Or that honesty is right, but it is permissible to manipulate the truth in order to achieve a "better" world. Or that faithfulness to one's mate is moral, but occasional adultery is all right as long as it remains hidden. A belief that God knows of and cares about one's moral choices would make those choices more consistent.

[JohnFromCensornati]

"some people are going to be moral regardless of whether they believe in God or not, but that this morality will be, let us say, fluid. They might say murder is wrong, but under certain circumstances it is permissible, as when it is "necessary" to remove one's enemies.

Oh, you must mean like when when we atheists decided that shooting a guy in church is OK provided that he's a doctor who does abortions.

"A belief that God knows of and cares about one's moral choices would make those choices more consistent."

Exactly. This is why Fred Phelps & Co are unlikely to stop picketing at funerals.

[quest44]

Vermont Traveler ,,really ? Then explain the right wing so called Christians who have no empathy for the poor ,elderly and disabled here in our country who they wish to take away any government help or those civilians killed in foreign lands that they think we should be at war with ? Where is their moral consistency ?
I am afraid their morals are still VERY so called FLUID as you put it ! If it serves my interest then its okay !

[Heidi McClure]

Honesty is right, unless you're lying for Jesus. For example it's ok to deny that Hitler was Roman Catholic, and was fully supported by the Vatican. That his first treaty was, in fact, with Vatican City. That no Nazi leader has ever been excommunicated, and that they marched into war with Gott mit Und on their belt buckles under the Iron CROSS.

It's also ok to fabricate ridiculous nonsense about people saddling up dinosaurs, and marsupials floating from Mount Ararat to Australia on log rafts, and then to make great big museums about it in Kentucky.

And please. Christians don't commit adultery??? HA! Have you heard of South Carolina? Would you like to count the number of politicians there who have been busted for that very thing just this year? Have you heard of Ted Haggard? If not, Google him.

And frankly, I'll stack my morals up against a guy who thinks it's ok to kill all the firstborns of Egypt and to send bears to eat 42 little children for teasing a bald guy ANY DAY OF THE WEEK. Hint: I win.

[hellenist]

Right, and there are so many good examples of moral cultures that don't have a faith? Like the Nazis, the Bolsheviks in Russia, the Maoists in China, Cambodia the North Vietnamese, the Cubans.

Let's do a murder tally
Russians with the Purge and collectivism = 10-20 million
Mao's cultural revolution etc..10-20 million
North Vietnam and Cambodia another few million
Cuba = only a more political prisoners per capita than anywhere else

Oh well you've got to break a few eggs to make that utopian omelet

Yeah the absence of religion has done much to improve morality.

[JohnFromCensornati]

The point of the essay is that morality does not flow from religion, not that giving up religion would solve all our problems.
Maybe we should all become scientologists, huh? Would that work for you?

[KrautMan]

1) Nazi-Germany was a firmly Christian country, Adolph Hitler referred to the bible many times when justifying his crude philosophy.

2) The Vietnamese paid a much higher blood price when they were attacked by the U.S.A, a Christian Nation, in an unjustified war of aggression.

3) The main reason for the initial success of communism in countries like Russia, China and Cuba was the terrible suffering that the overall population had to endpure for centuries before the advent of communism, enslaved, dehumanized, disenfranchised and killed in droves by their religious elites.

4) Atheist leaders/nations are a novelty in human history. Up till 100 years ago they didn't exist. All wars and atrocities up to the 20th century and many up til today were carried out by religious leaders and nations/people. 100 of millions of people died throughout written history by the hands of man of faith. You don't want to go into that headcount argumentation, believe me.

[VermontTraveler]

Better go back and read up on your history.

[Shiroe]

Thank you for saving me a whole lot of time by making all the points I was going to make, btw. Not many acknowledge facts, like that Hitler was a Christian.

[MattMAL]

What I don't understand is the typical religion defender's leap of logic from "They did bad things *and* they are atheists" to "They did bad things *because* they are atheists."

The events and people always referred to were not committing atrocities in the name of atheism. They were committing atrocities and also happened to be non-believers.

This is in stark contrast to the holy wars that have been raging for thousands of years throughout history where scores of people are being murdered for different religious beliefs.

[maxgen]

"Intelligent design" or "creationism" was conjured up outside the main body of science, apparently in a attempt to confuse and influence public opinion and gain support for teaching religious dogma in publicly funded science classes. Attempts have been made to redefine science so it includes non reproducible data, to accept unexplainable data as valid subject matter, to discredit science, to smear scientists as godless and immoral, to enlist scientists as supporters, etc. Almost all scientists reject the efforts.

Scientific knowledge is derived solely by use of the scientific method. The method includes only verifiable, reproducible data and logic which is reviewed, published and critiqued by the scientific community. Nothing is presented as ultimate fact or truth in science. If a theory is demonstrated to be false, it is discarded or altered to account for reality. Science does not limit its subject matter, every phenomenon is accepted. It does not accept religious dogma or speculation as even being within the realm of scientific knowledge. Note that it does not judge or have opinions about such concepts, but they aren't science.

To have their concepts accepted as science, the creationists should gather scientific evidence and present it to the scientific community.

[SayBlade]

I would be in favour of the term "Amazing Design." After all, it is science that has given us tools to see how wonderfully amazing creation is.

[Hirnlego]

I think the opposite is true:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKtuk0ZpnbY

[judyinAK]

Some time ago my mother said that she was going to vote for this certain person who was a Christian, because that indicates he has moral values. WOW That blew me away that my intelligent mother could be fooled like that. But I think this is a common belief of Christians, that people of their group are better, that somehow they have cornered the market on true goodness. What a joke! I don't need any religion to tell me not to hurt another person. Now, Christianity might be appropriate and useful for someone who doesn't have a clear moral direction, but in the end, with all the violence and death that religion has caused, I'm not sure it's worth it.

[dieselis]

Yes this is all such a senseless argument. It stirs a pot full of strife and disagreement on a continual basis. If one beiieves in the LORD faith is required though how much faith is inaccessable. Sooooooooooo! if your without faith your without belief. It is not likely you'll believe even just by the word of scripture even though it is of great moral value when applied and adhered to. If faith's not your cup of tea then noone's twisting your arm or if they are their clearly out of line. However, there are clear laws laid out which you can choose to defy and if the law doesn't bring forth justice your conscience usually does. Religion is a bye product of loving CHRIST, you love him so therefore you learn to keep HIS statues and ways knowing your not perfect. A sincere effort will showup in your life. Love your neighbor as yourself and love GOD with all your heart strenth and mind a true christian life will come, but faith is required. How much you ask? Thats the mystery the unanswerable. How much can you stand? I can assure you its no easy thing but the joy of the assets is priceless!!!

[MattMAL]

"even though it is of great moral value when applied and adhered to."

Have you read the Bible? If the scripture was actually adhered to from a moral standpoint, there would be big problems as people would be stoned to death left and right for seemingly frivolous infractions, i.e. being gay, non-virgin women wedding. For some inexplicable reason, you get to pick and choose which "morals" to follow and the rest are discarded. How is that justified?

"noone's twisting your arm or if they are their clearly out of line."

Christians are twisting everyone's collective arm as elected officials continue to push their religious propaganda at the highest levels of government. Keep religion out of government and our schools and you would see many non-believers be more accepting of your faith when it's kept to yourself.

[dieselis]

Give me one passage in the new testament where JESUS took part in a stoning saving for the stonings of HIS followers. Even the alduterous woman HE didn't stone but forgave. If you want homosexuallity, adultry and sex outside of marriage its clear these aren't christian ideas. Fact is we all sin so who am I to toss stones. If you want to live according to the commandments of GOD who is anyone to stand in the way. True christians aren't trying to legislate christianity because it can't be done by man. Who are you to teach little children homosexuality is ok though its been frowned upon through the ages. I don't know all the mercies of GOD which is the only way anyone is accounted as worthy. Religion without CHRIST'S likeness sells itself as an airtight waterproof vessel, the trouble with it is it always whines up leaking like a sifter.

[xtisrisen]

Bill O'Reilly, Al Sharpton and Richard Dawkins are not Christian ethicists to consult for real teaching on Christian ethics. James Gufstason, Stephen Toulmin, Cynthia Cohen, William Spohn, Joseph Fletcher et al have long taught that ethics requires no religious belief, let alone Christian belief.
Dawkins notes that a nascent "ethics' is present in the hominids, and it is likely correct that ethics has evolved. Noam Chomsky might say that ethics is in the deep structure of creation. But neither evolution nor ethics is a demonstration of the existence (or the absence) of Divine. It's a skewed twisting of the human myths of creation that draws such a literalist, distorted conclusion.
Organized religion can undergird ethics with the teaching that all humankind is within an interrelated kinship. Religions give voice and form to codes of ethics that at their best benefit all creation. Organized religion at its worst -- Inquisition, Taliban or 19th C evangelists to Hawai'i -- has attempted to force ethical codes benefiting some and demeaning others; organized religions are rightly critiqued for that. Organized religion does not demonstrate the existence or absence of the Divine: it is a human reaching for that which is beyond human comprehension, and is deep structure as inherent in humankind as the bent toward ethics.
If Mr. Dawkins could turn from constructing straw men controversy, and Messrs. Sharpton and 0'Reilly could refrain from tilting at those straw constructions, perhaps all their energies could be turned toward something of far more import to their

[AlKhateeb]

God created evolution, and God created the children of Adam.

أَوَلَمْ يَرَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا أَنَّ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضَ كَانَتَا رَتْقاً فَفَتَقْنَاهُمَا وَجَعَلْنَا مِنَ الْمَاء كُلَّ شَيْءٍ حَيٍّ أَفَلا يُؤْمِنُونَ

21.30 . Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one connected entity, then We separated them from each other, and We made every living thing out of water? Will they not then believe?

Among the traditional 99 names or attributes Muslims ascribe to Allah (God) is "Al-Bari' ":
The Evolver, The Maker, The Creator who has the Power to turn the entities.

‏
هُوَ ٱللَّهُ ٱلۡخَـٰلِقُ ٱلۡبَارِئُ ٱلۡمُصَوِّرُ‌ۖ لَهُ ٱلۡأَسۡمَآءُ ٱلۡحُسۡنَىٰ‌ۚ يُسَبِّحُ لَهُ ۥ مَا فِى ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٲتِ وَٱلۡأَرۡضِ‌ۖ وَهُوَ ٱلۡعَزِيزُ ٱلۡحَكِيمُ
وَالْاَرْضِ‌ۚ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيْزُ الْحَكِيْمُ
He is Allah, the Creator, the Evolver, the Fashioner. His are the most beautiful names. All that is in the heavens and the earth glorifies Him, and He is the Mighty, the Wise.

That should put the argument to rest. Somethings have been evolved while others are of special creation. Man, the children of Adam - homo sapiens- are of the special creation kind.

[MattMAL]

How does quoting a fictitious book lay anything to rest? Can any of that be scientifically tested and proven? No.

[JohnFromCensornati]

LOL. No kidding. It doesn't even lay to rest who has the most beautiful name. Allah doesn't even rate a top ten listing.

[mercury613]

That's merely your opinion.

[Shiroe]

Another illustration of a religious negative. What makes the Koran fictitious and the Bible not fictitious?

And now to shock all the people I've offended with my other posts: did it never ever occur to you guys that religion was the precursor to science? Yeah-boy, right down to the scientific method, religion was man's first attempts to explain and understand his environment. Without tools to measure, they did the best they could, and in many places, hit the mark right on the money. I'm writing a book on this topic in fact.

Examples: I already pointed out that Adam was made of mud; these people didn't know about amoebae so all they knew of primordial soup was mud. AlKhateeb's quote seems to indicate that the authors of the Koran had a similar understanding but with more credit to the water than the dirt. Chinese and Hindu philosophy have given us Ki and Prana, which, from a scientific perspective, correspond to nerve activity and breathing. Jesus presents the Big Bang Theory in the Gospel of Thomas.

Blended in with ideas we might consider sick, barbarous, superstitious, or just plain stupid, all of our religious texts (at least the ones I've studied) have an albeit primitive view of modern science. The ancients weren't dumb. Primitive, but not dumb.

[MattMAL]

I think you misunderstood; they're all fictitious, not just the Koran.

And I don't get your point. They might have been guessing (and got some things right) when they made the religious books but now we have actual science with evidence and can physically prove things, i.e. that the earth isn't 6000 years old.

Religion as a precursor would be a good example of how science works in that we continue to expand upon feeble knowledge. We continue to learn new things, prove and disprove ideas and are gradually explaining away concepts that had no factual basis to begin with, i.e. the earth being flat.

[KrautMan]

No, the flawed idea that "religion is the precursor of science" is not new to me and there are many obscure books out there which try to capitalize on it.

No, religion is not in any way related to scientific methodology, quite the opposite. Science is a "disbelieve system", the scientific method is based on continuously trying to disprove new theories and "established" knowledge. Religion is a "believe system", it's based on believing and propagating arbitrary ideas.

No, "mud" wasn't the ancient name for "primordial soup". "Mud" was the ancient name for, well, "mud".

No, "Adam" was neither made out of mud nor out of primordial soup, Your "hit the mark right on the money" is off by several billion years and several magnitudes of complexity.

No, amoebae were not part of the "primordial soup", they are early forms of life.

No, "Ki" or "Prana" is nothing which could be interpreted "from a scientific perspective", since there is no way you could possibly observe it. They are names for some obscure "life" force, allegedly running through the human body in (non-existent) little channels.

No, Jesus does not present "the Big Bang Theory in the Gospels of Thomas".

And no, the "ancients" were not dumb, but that doesn't mean that there priests were not.

[Eggsackley]

Your comment stuck a chord with me. In my youth, when I was more antagonistic to organized religion, I used to argue that god was mud. Mud, the primordal muck from which all life sprang. I made these arguments primarily to upset religious people who tried to push their beliefs on me, but they did make sense at least to me. I agree that the ancients were not dumb. Several years ago I saw a TV special on the teachings of the Tibetan Book of the Dead which discussed anong other things the inviting light that appears after death, and warns against going into it because it is another illusion. This appears to be the same light that has been reported by modern people who have been resuscitated from near death experiences. Ever since then I have been wondering how the ancients knew of this phenomena

[danielet]

Shortness requiered of posts may cause confusion. I was only refering to my explanation of why a chimp can't learn generocity with M&Ms but can learn with numbered pieces of papers, applying it to M&Ms. My explanation is based on neurobiologic data tested experimentaly. My deep belief in Jesus is the product of my faith, not science. O'Reiley asked Dawkins why-- since heO'Reiley believes in Evolution he can't also believe in Jesus-- because they are not the same. The point is that Evolution was not derived from belief but from data tested experimentaly. Therefore, you shouldn't mix-up notions derived from faith with notions derived from data, reason and experiment. Jesus as the Son of God can't be tested, that's why it's faith. Evolution is a scientific theory constantly tested. Intelligent Design is a theory that was tested and could not account for the facts. O'Reilly wants to put Intelligent Design in biology books only because he is willing to accept Evolution. But science does not permit accepting as fact theories that cannot be tested. Note that I never used the term "critical thinker," a term I would never apply to O'Reilly for reasons that have nothing to do with science or religion. Try not to be so defensive-­->offensiv­e and please take note of the specificity of what I discussed: ALTRUISM in chimps and why they can't learn it in one condition but can as more abstract case. I was distinguishing scientific inquery from faith.

[mjwca]

"Does anyone truly believe that our ancestors lacked rules of right and wrong before they had religion?" The problem with this statement is that it equates the existence of a God that instilled a moral compass in us with our knowledge or belief in such a God. It is perfectly conceivable that God created man with that moral compass quite sometime prior to man ever becoming aware of God. Just as it is quite possible that man created the concept of God to explain a moral compass that stems from something else entirely - like survival of the species because humans need each other to survive. These days religion seems to be used more to feel superior over someone which, ironically, leads to violent, stupid behaviror that is at odds with both peaceful coexistence and that moral compass that infuses all the world's major religions. If there is a God, and it did imbue us with "a will" to choose either right or wrong, it has one mean ass sarcastic sense of humor!

[Lydia Alexander]

@mjwca: First, I don't see that the statement says anything about the actual existence of a divine Compass-maker. However, I agree with you that either possiblity - morals with or without God - is conceivable. As you go on to show, a God with "mean ass sarcastic sense of humor" is pretty clearly conceivable, too. But why would moral, empathetic beings choose to believe in such a being?

It is humbler and more reverent to feel awe at the powers of life to give rise to systems of increasing complexity - including emotion, social relationship, and morality - than it is to insist upon everyone following some particular interpretations of the existence of a divine "Compass-maker," blind or otherwise.

[ratstar]

even to the rational nonbeliever, evolution does not provide answers.

we see evidence of different morphologies of creatures in different eras - reptiles, mammals, fish, etc - yet there is no abundance of what i'd call "in between animals" - like a half fish half mammal. surely in the thousands or millions of years it takes to go from fish to mammal we'd see at least one. fish with snout. fish with whiskers. fish with legs. fish with tail. fish that is all of a sudden a rat.

theoretically, creatures evolved due to certain morphologies being favored. after some generations the form which survives is that which is most adapted to the environment. a fish living in a dark cave becomes blind after several generations, it becomes adapted to the dark. yet it remains a fish, does it not? what conditions predispose fish to become mammals and fish to remain fish?

from fish to mammal it is theorized that mutations in genetic material would alter the morphology of succeeding generations... that is how we jump from one species, or even genus to another. and yet experiments have shown time and again that the more mutations you have, the more deformities you get in the offspring. it does not sound conducive to survival, actually.

if one takes it for granted that we should question religion, then we should also question the scientific basis for evolution. it is part of the search for answers, whether one has faith or not.

[MattMAL]

Wow, that's just a completely wrong understanding of evolution.

[JohnFromCensornati]

Anonymity has its upside! Nobody knows who typed such nonsense.

[dakotawoman]

Mutation as an evolutionary force is one, very minor element in evolution. NATURAL SELECTION of individual organisms with minor deviations from the norm which help them adapt better to conditions, who then survive and reproduce their deviations in a process carried on for millions of years, is a better explanation.
Question: Do you believe that air planes, nuclear bombs and antibiotics work? If so, then why do you question the science behind the very well supported science of evolution? It is the same. The same physical laws upon which physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc are based, are used in evolution science. The theory of evolution is not merely a "hypothesis" any longer.
The evidence is mountainous. Just because the complete outline cannot be filled in with every detail cannot refute Darwin's precise, close and solidly researched observatio­ns/conclus­ions. The mountain of data that modern scientists have added, especially the breakthroughs in DNA/genetic research clinch it. You can doubt and question all you want, but the science will stand.
As to the morality issue: Why can't we be good merely for GOODNESS's sake, instead of out of fear of punishment? Those who hold that humans require submission to a judging deity and a terror of hell in order to behave ethically (or even with due self-protection) have a far more negative attitude toward their fellow man than many atheists I know.

[elmerfude]

In the last few years a number of "in between animal" fossils have been found. This argument against evolution will no longer fly not that it ever did. Darwin predicted that these fossils would be found and they have.

[Gidster]

The fact that there are several fossilized "In between" variations does not even show up on your radar does it?

[Liberal Angel]

Using God as an excuse for things, or to fill in the gaps, will lead to a crisis of faith. There are plenty of transitional fossils. Archaeopteryx (theropods to birds). Ambulocetus (artiodactyls to whales). There are many others, but I don't want to stray from the topic. Morality is about how humans treat each other, and our world. We don't need to use God as an excuse, or an explaination for the unknown.

[tahoegal]

I've not personally met an aetheist bigot - it appears that religion is pretty necessary for that one. The athiests I know are the most honest and moral people I've ever been around. I see no connection. How many murderers do their dirty deeds then go to confession?

[Liberal Angel]

There are plenty of atheist bigots. They denigrate people of faith because they either don't understand belief, or just don't care about religion. Both of those are fine, but it's unnecessary to belittle believers the way many do. Bigotry is bigotry. Being A-holes to each other knows no religious bounds, including non-religious.

[beerent]

Right on. I'm still astonished that people refuse to see what is in front of their eyes. As if bigotry is only practiced by "those other people". Actually, the sentiment behind such a statement is suspiciously similar to bigotry.

[JohnFromCensornati]

kwinter, I agree with your post regarding the word "bigot", but you'll have to understand that this is a person who, on the surface, appears to be speaking English, but who actually re-defines words to mean whatever (not to mention the fact that he thinks PETA should throw paint on Xmas trees because they have souls or something).