Raffaele Carcano Much of humanity now lives in a society where there is more certainty of God's existence is not that in the old days there was evidence to the contrary, came suddenly less hours, much more simply, to fail were those laws that ensure adequate punishment for those who dared to question such an assumption. The secularization and secularization have run their course: the number of non-believers has grown exponentially with the increase of education, living standards, the recognition of freedom of expression, but also the vast majority of believers know that now trust in God means relying on someone whose existence one can only speculate. The most striking result of this situation is that any moral, whose legitimacy rests on alleged law created by a divine being whose existence is questionable, and whose interpretation is left to fallible human beings inevitably, is now devoid of any foundation.
enormity of the stakes are much more aware that the Vatican to Mecca - in part because Arab-Muslim leaders are among those whose claims are still protected with the use of coercion. Benedict XVI will probably try a little 'envy of the Muslim brothers, but must make a virtue of necessity: for this reason that the Catholic Church, after having fought a long time, has in recent years emphasized the "natural law", accompanied by the application of the "recognition of the Christian roots." Substitutes the value argument virtually nonexistent, and that it can only flourish in an environment already conducive to a priori ecclesiastical bodies.
However, someone reminds us that a moral basis already exists: it is that we share with other primates. In chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, it is possible to recognize behaviors and desires are very similar to ours: as we are able to express emotions, feelings, altruism "disinterested." The primatologist Frans De Waal, a prominent item in stock the site of the New York Times, entitled Morals Without God? (morality without God?), Highlighted this aspect very well, deepening also what follows. Our biological proximity with other primates is so obvious that it is from this fact that the debate should begin, although this will generate a stomach ache for those who still think that man is still the center of the "created", and other species have been placed at its disposal. "The acceptance of evolution may open up a moral abyss, for those who believe that morality derives from God," the reason to gloss Dutch ethologist, noting that only a creationist would pertinacious oggi negare la maggior antichità della moralità rispetto alla religione, che ha alle spalle solo poche migliaia di anni di storia. Qualcuno può ancora veramente credere, scrive ancora De Waal, «che, prima che avessero una religione, i nostri antenati mancavano di norme sociali, o non assistevano i propri simili in difficoltà?» La moralità «è costruita dentro di noi»: e la religione, piuttosto che una fonte della moralità, può invece essere ritenuta un suo mero «accessorio».
Problemi di questo tipo, tuttavia, non sono un’esclusiva dei credenti, sostiene De Waal. Anche se siamo discendenti di altri animali sociali, ritiene difficile definire uno scimpanzé, che non sembra in able to judge the adequacy of measures not involving himself, "a moral being." The specificity of human morality would be the willingness to move "toward universal standards combined with an elaborate system of justification, control and punishment." Religions have proven extraordinarily adequate to satisfy this impulse: a morality without God is able, De Waal calls it, to do the same? Another difficulty: it is "impossible to know what they look like our morality" if we were not behind millennia of religion. Necessary to find a human culture that has never encountered religion. Impossible. Moreover, as argued Telmo Pievani and others in the wake of Pascal Boyer, are somehow "born to believe." Although we are not going to die Christians.
criticizing the new atheists, De Waal argues that science is not able to provide a better alternative to religion. We do not need God to explain what we are now, he writes, but that does not mean that science or a naturalistic vision of the world will automatically become an inspiration to do good. Each new ideological system developed to support a certain moral framework would be designed, claims skeptically, to produce "a list of its principles, its prophets, its devoted followers," so similar as to appear very soon "to each old religion. "
recap: we have to put behind Voltaire, who argued that "if God did not exist, have to be invented," since the invention of God did not help that much about the human species from the moral point of view. And we forget Dostoyevsky, who believed that "without God anything goes", because with or without God morality of homo sapiens is still based in its most important characteristics, on a moral 'animal' which dates back to at least ten million years ago. But since there is no evidence that morality can evolve into something very different, even non-religious ethics are destined for the same check. De Waal's skepticism, as you can see, it is remarkable, as to lead to a total impasse, we know that morality does not derive from God, but we also have little leeway to enjoy moral lives better than today. This
insoluble difficulties afflict so the same extent as believers and nonbelievers. But are things really so? Perhaps the difficulty is especially of believers who find themselves having to deal with a whole castle to rubble and a strong ideological habit to live by a moral pre-packaged by someone else. What's more, the poor propensity to play around with the problem is magnified by the fact that conceptions issues are considered "sacred" and therefore difficult to modify. It is therefore no coincidence that the believers are largely extraneous to the debate that has already been initiated in recent years (see, for example, the contributions shown in the bottom Primates and Philosophers by De Waal). Non-believers, depart in fact an advantage: to try to resolve an insoluble problem is considered a major challenge, perhaps even utopian, but easier to deal with by those who are not dogmatic to remove boulders, which has no moral authority to submit, and used to create your own meaning in their lives.
last chapter of Exit flock we recognized that a community of non-believers (like any human community, was also a bowling!) may experience drifts such as those feared by De Waal. I do not believe, however, seem to have better antibodies: they are more inclined to admit the believers that their group can run certain risks, and are more familiar - as most lay people, because more accustomed to reason on the basis of evidence - to listen to the arguments of others, taking the good things they can offer to further develop their own. These are qualities which are not necessarily closed to believers, of course: they are but for those who belong to faith communities in which they are absent 'simple and workable method of entry and exit internal democracy, the circulation of information, recognition of differences, space to introduce change, the opportunity to express freely their ideas even when he is critical of the leadership. "
characteristics of this type are not only useful to society: it is also useful to individuals, and not only to develop a moral. Moreover, the ultimate goal of comparisons of this kind is not the imposition of a moral one: if anything is to create companies that provide tools and spaces so that everyone can create their own, with its own conception of the good within a minimum framework of agreed rules and comply. To do this, so there is no not need long lists of dogmas, new prophets, devoted followers of old and new ideologies considered unassailable.
This article appeared on November 15, 2010 http://www.uaar.it
enormity of the stakes are much more aware that the Vatican to Mecca - in part because Arab-Muslim leaders are among those whose claims are still protected with the use of coercion. Benedict XVI will probably try a little 'envy of the Muslim brothers, but must make a virtue of necessity: for this reason that the Catholic Church, after having fought a long time, has in recent years emphasized the "natural law", accompanied by the application of the "recognition of the Christian roots." Substitutes the value argument virtually nonexistent, and that it can only flourish in an environment already conducive to a priori ecclesiastical bodies.
However, someone reminds us that a moral basis already exists: it is that we share with other primates. In chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, it is possible to recognize behaviors and desires are very similar to ours: as we are able to express emotions, feelings, altruism "disinterested." The primatologist Frans De Waal, a prominent item in stock the site of the New York Times, entitled Morals Without God? (morality without God?), Highlighted this aspect very well, deepening also what follows. Our biological proximity with other primates is so obvious that it is from this fact that the debate should begin, although this will generate a stomach ache for those who still think that man is still the center of the "created", and other species have been placed at its disposal. "The acceptance of evolution may open up a moral abyss, for those who believe that morality derives from God," the reason to gloss Dutch ethologist, noting that only a creationist would pertinacious oggi negare la maggior antichità della moralità rispetto alla religione, che ha alle spalle solo poche migliaia di anni di storia. Qualcuno può ancora veramente credere, scrive ancora De Waal, «che, prima che avessero una religione, i nostri antenati mancavano di norme sociali, o non assistevano i propri simili in difficoltà?» La moralità «è costruita dentro di noi»: e la religione, piuttosto che una fonte della moralità, può invece essere ritenuta un suo mero «accessorio».
Problemi di questo tipo, tuttavia, non sono un’esclusiva dei credenti, sostiene De Waal. Anche se siamo discendenti di altri animali sociali, ritiene difficile definire uno scimpanzé, che non sembra in able to judge the adequacy of measures not involving himself, "a moral being." The specificity of human morality would be the willingness to move "toward universal standards combined with an elaborate system of justification, control and punishment." Religions have proven extraordinarily adequate to satisfy this impulse: a morality without God is able, De Waal calls it, to do the same? Another difficulty: it is "impossible to know what they look like our morality" if we were not behind millennia of religion. Necessary to find a human culture that has never encountered religion. Impossible. Moreover, as argued Telmo Pievani and others in the wake of Pascal Boyer, are somehow "born to believe." Although we are not going to die Christians.
criticizing the new atheists, De Waal argues that science is not able to provide a better alternative to religion. We do not need God to explain what we are now, he writes, but that does not mean that science or a naturalistic vision of the world will automatically become an inspiration to do good. Each new ideological system developed to support a certain moral framework would be designed, claims skeptically, to produce "a list of its principles, its prophets, its devoted followers," so similar as to appear very soon "to each old religion. "
recap: we have to put behind Voltaire, who argued that "if God did not exist, have to be invented," since the invention of God did not help that much about the human species from the moral point of view. And we forget Dostoyevsky, who believed that "without God anything goes", because with or without God morality of homo sapiens is still based in its most important characteristics, on a moral 'animal' which dates back to at least ten million years ago. But since there is no evidence that morality can evolve into something very different, even non-religious ethics are destined for the same check. De Waal's skepticism, as you can see, it is remarkable, as to lead to a total impasse, we know that morality does not derive from God, but we also have little leeway to enjoy moral lives better than today. This
insoluble difficulties afflict so the same extent as believers and nonbelievers. But are things really so? Perhaps the difficulty is especially of believers who find themselves having to deal with a whole castle to rubble and a strong ideological habit to live by a moral pre-packaged by someone else. What's more, the poor propensity to play around with the problem is magnified by the fact that conceptions issues are considered "sacred" and therefore difficult to modify. It is therefore no coincidence that the believers are largely extraneous to the debate that has already been initiated in recent years (see, for example, the contributions shown in the bottom Primates and Philosophers by De Waal). Non-believers, depart in fact an advantage: to try to resolve an insoluble problem is considered a major challenge, perhaps even utopian, but easier to deal with by those who are not dogmatic to remove boulders, which has no moral authority to submit, and used to create your own meaning in their lives.
last chapter of Exit flock we recognized that a community of non-believers (like any human community, was also a bowling!) may experience drifts such as those feared by De Waal. I do not believe, however, seem to have better antibodies: they are more inclined to admit the believers that their group can run certain risks, and are more familiar - as most lay people, because more accustomed to reason on the basis of evidence - to listen to the arguments of others, taking the good things they can offer to further develop their own. These are qualities which are not necessarily closed to believers, of course: they are but for those who belong to faith communities in which they are absent 'simple and workable method of entry and exit internal democracy, the circulation of information, recognition of differences, space to introduce change, the opportunity to express freely their ideas even when he is critical of the leadership. "
characteristics of this type are not only useful to society: it is also useful to individuals, and not only to develop a moral. Moreover, the ultimate goal of comparisons of this kind is not the imposition of a moral one: if anything is to create companies that provide tools and spaces so that everyone can create their own, with its own conception of the good within a minimum framework of agreed rules and comply. To do this, so there is no not need long lists of dogmas, new prophets, devoted followers of old and new ideologies considered unassailable.
This article appeared on November 15, 2010 http://www.uaar.it
0 comments:
Post a Comment