Hi Shira,

A nice piece.

As for atheism you'll find contradictions which are ably illustrated in the words of Banjo.

The first contradiction in Banjo's outlook is the notion that while evolving like any other animal, we are developing a "free will". Does this mean we'll stop evolving like other animals? Or does it mean all animals develop a "free will"? The reality is that there is no room for "free will" under atheism.

A second point relates to morality. An atheist may well lead a moral life but atheism can never provide a foundation for morality. When was the last time anyone passed moral judgement over an animal: would we judge a lion to be morally reprehensible if it were to kill one of its cubs?

Atheism forces us to take the position that there is nothing morally wrong with a parent killing their child. The issue cannot be one of morality, just utility. As Banjo states, it just depends on the instincts implanted in us by "nature" to assure our survival as a species. Wasn't that how Hitler saw things: the survival of our species entails survival of the fittest and it so happens that it was the Aryan race that was best suited for that job. I'm not suggesting that Banjo would subscribe to that viewpoint but that he would have no moral grounds for objecting to it.

My point is that atheism provides no basis for either free-will or morality. An atheist may say something is "right" or "wrong" but they'll find no grounds in atheism for such a claim. Banjo may like to claim to exercise greater free-will than his parents, but let him tell us how this does not radically contradict his view that we are simply highly evolved animals.

salaams

.

Dear Grateful,

.

You seem to deduce from my previous posts that I am an atheist. I hasten to assure you that I am more than willing to believe in whatever god or gods exist. Please let me know if you know of any.

You wrote:

"My point is that atheism provides no basis for either free-will or morality ... Banjo may like to claim to exercise greater free-will than his parents, but let him tell us ...".

I am not surprised that "atheism provides no basis for either free-will or morality". According to my Oxford English Dictionary, atheism means "the disbelief in the existence of a god or gods". It does not appear to have anything to do with free will or morality, or anything else for that matter.

Nor do I claim that I exercise greater free will than my parents. What I wrote in my second post on this thread was " As we develop free will, our capacity to modify the trajectory imprinted in us by our parents increases".

I am perfectly incapable of measuring the precise degree of maturity of the conscience or free will of any particular individual at a particular point of time, including those of my parents who are both dead.

Free will is a functional advantage developed by nature. It is autonomy, the autonomy of the individual. Its acquisition and development is progressive. It is an evolutive mode of functioning.

Though there may be important differences in the rate of development of autonomy among individuals due to all the variables that contribute to its evolution, progress is nevertheless achieved during the lifetime of each individual. Beneficial mutations and experiences continue to accumulate over time, multiplying and diversifying choice patterns to an ever greater degree of complexity until the individual is no longer held to obey any particular predetermined course of behaviour, gaining in the autonomy we call free will.

As for morality, I cannot speak for others. I do the best I can to respect my ideals of humanity and personal responsibility.

Kindness, politeness and fairness are my standards.

.

Hi Banjo,

The “freedom” that you speak of requires an act of creation. If to say “I choose to be kind, polite and fair” and “to respect my ideals of humanity and personal responsibility” is to represent an expression of your freedom then it cannot be a result of evolution.

A robot made in your likeness would not be able to claim the freedom and responsibly that you are claiming. All its actions would be pre-programmed. Whatever the robot did, it would be innocent. But you maintain that you have freedom to choose and personal responsibility for your actions. This cannot be explained by evolution. It requires a Creator to grant you this freedom to choose between good and evil. Freedom in its true sense requires an act of creation.

Salaams

.

Dear grateful,

.

You wrote:

"Freedom in its true sense requires an act of creation".
.

Terms such as "creation, creationism and intelligent design" have distinctive religious overtones. Though "creation" also has application in art, architecture, etc.

Religion has no place in science, especially in the fields of biology and cosmology. It has demonstrated its incompetence on countless occasions. To such an extent that on November 4, 1992, Pope John Paul II finally declared :

" The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture.... "

In 2000, he issued a formal apology for all the mistakes committed by the Catholic Church throughout its history, including the trial of Galileo.

As regards the origin of the universe, I refer you to the following article:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

The battle for the minds of children moved into top gear 23 years ago, in 1990, when a staunch Catholic, right-wing American journalist and (Republican) diplomat, Bruce Chapman, created a non-profit educational foundation and think tank called the Discovery Institute.

In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions". It was the Federal Court's opinion that intelligent design was merely a re-dressing of creationism and that, as such, it was not a scientific proposition.

.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

The most plausible explanation of the genesis of life appears to have been provided by the ancient Greek philosopher, Democritus (460 BC – 370 BC) who is reported to have observed that “Everything in the universe is the fruit of chance and necessity”.

Jacques Monod, the French biologist, a 1965 Nobel Prize winner, later accredited and developed that theory in his book “Le hasard et la nécessité” (Chance and Necessity) published in 1970. From this it is deduced that “Life is a spontaneous, evolutive, sensitive and reproductive process triggered by the fortuitous encounter of complementary elements of matter and energy in a favourable environment”. Chance in this context should be understood as meaning a “random variable” and necessity an “inevitable” event.

Freedom is neither absolute nor infinite and if, as you affirm, it requires "an act of creation" (with its religious overtones) in order to exist, then, in my opinion, there is no freedom.

As it happens, there is, in reality, relative, limited freedom here on earth. That being the case, I conclude that it does not require "an act of creation" in order to exist.
.

You also write:

"A robot made in your likeness would not be able to claim the freedom and responsibly that you are claiming".

.

Robotics technology is advancing rapidly. It is anticipated that fourth generation robots, robots with human intelligence, will be available sometime between 2040 and 2050.

These robots will be equipped with artificial neural networks, mathematical models inspired by biological neural networks, and, like mankind, will dispose of similar relative, limited freedom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotics

.

Hi Banjo,

Thanks for the reply. Thoughtful and thought-provoking. Let me think about it for a while rather than rush in with a response.

salaams
Grateful [for not being made a robot :-)]