Dendronbat Crocoduck

I enjoy volunteering for charitable concerns. More than once someone has said in response to my efforts, "That's very Christian of you." It reminds me of when I was a young man in the 1950s, a commonly used compliment was, "That's very white of you." Now we recognize such an expression as racial bigotry. But characterizing kind behavior as "Christian" is equally disturbing as religious bigotry. Yet the people saying this to me obviously mean well. How should I respond to such well-meaning, yet bigoted compliments?

When I was young (1950s) racial segregation and discrimination, denial of opportunities to women, spousal abuse, child abuse and school bullying were the norm. Now these immoral acts are no longer tolerated by the vast majority of society. Extending this trend to past centuries Singer (re his new book "Our Better Angels") documents that the incidence of violence has steadily and dramatically decreased from 2000 years ago to 1000 years ago to 500 years ago to 100 years ago to 50 years ago, to today.

What has driven the steady increase of moral behavior? Are the reasons religious, secular or other?

Having the honesty and humility to admit that one has no knowledge of the supernatural; that one has no knowledge whether god(s) exist or do not exist = agnosticism.

Without knowledge one cannot therefore believe = atheism.

So in this sense can one be both agnostic in knowledge of god and atheistic in belief of god at the same time?

Several questions and answers here have addressed the notion of unbelievers suffering eternally in a Hell of fire and brimstone. I have a personal situation that may reflect on this: My father was absent from my life, he abused my mother and left. But for the last two years he has had senile dementia and I have cared for him. I have grown to love him and I see to all of his needs. He is mentally incapable of appreciating me or my care, but I love him and care for him nevertheless.

My question is, it would seem that my simple human love and mercy is vastly superior to some people's conception of their god's capacity for love and mercy. How can a humble mortal be superior to a god in the capacity for love and forgiveness?

Science or religion? As a scientist I'll make the case for science. The more information we acquire, the more we become aware of what we still don't know. Twenty years ago we weren't even aware of our ignorance of dark matter, dark energy, the possibility of hidden dimensions as proposed by M theory, the possibility of a multiverse, how and why entanglement happens, why do photons change their appearance when measured, etc. A scientist is deeply aware of the profound depths of our ignorance about the cosmos. It is a humbling realization. Likewise I would say that in all honesty I am entirely ignorant of any supernatural being in the cosmos. I just don't know. To me that is the essence of my atheism, honesty and humility. I honestly have no knowledge of anything supernatural. When I listen to someone say that they know god, to me it is the opposite of honesty and humility. Agree or disagree? Why?

I'm caring for a 95 year old father who has a long history of mental illness. Now he has dementia. He was always devoutly religious (Christian faith). My Christian friends tell me that action and intentions come from an immaterial, immortal soul. However my father's actions and intentions are quite insane. I see actions and intentions as processes of a living brain, with my father's illness serving as indisputable evidence. How do Christians reconcile the belief in a soul with the deficits observed in thought, consciousness, memory, emotion, perception, actions and intentions that result from atrophy of the physical (material and mortal) brain?

Creationism creeps into mainstream geology," a report by NCSE's Steven Newton, is the cover story of the July 2011 issue of Earth, published by the American Geological Institute. In his article, Newton discusses a geological field trip conducted during the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America in 2010. He explains, "it was an example of a new strategy from creationists to interject their ideas into mainstream geology: They lead field trips and present posters at scientific meetings. They also avoid overtly stating anything truly contrary to mainstream science. But when the meeting is over, the creationist participants go home and proudly proclaim that mainstream science has accepted their ideas."

Just about every book of the New Testament predicted that the end was near. Those books were written 2000 years ago. And every generation since then has predicted that the end was near? So this viewpoint has attraction for a lot of people. Why would the end of future generations, including ones great grandchildren, etc, be attractive? I used to think it was just narcissism. That people were too narcissistic to think that the world would keep going on without them, until their existence was utterly forgotten. But I also had a thought today that maybe deep down we instinctually understand the evolutionary process, that all species are eventually doomed to extinction (although a few do leave descendant species). Why do you think that end times prophecy is so attractive?

There is some evidence that people with D4 receptors efficient in the uptake of dopamine find supernatural explanations to be highly plausible while people with D4 receptors inefficient in dopamine uptake find supernatural explanations to be absurd.

So does this mean that brain neurochemistry determines if you will be religious or atheist?

Or does it mean that our experience and knowledge, which may lead us to either a religious or atheistic viewpoint, conditions the brain's neurochemistry?

After spending a month as a volunteer helping to rebuild the town of Taray, swept away by a flash flood in the Peru Andes last year, I know something of the great suffering people experience from such disaster and my sympathy goes out to the people and nation of Japan who are suffering a tragedy on a much larger scale than what I witnessed. But I am curious about how religious people deal with this. For me its solely a matter of geology and physics. But if you believe in a deity then the responsibility lies with God. Even if you also believe in the geophysical causes of the disaster, it would still mean that God knew what was going to happen and did nothing to prevent it. And what of the children who died? If you are a Christian, do you believe the children born into families of Shinto worship are now going to Hell? How do you reconcile the events of the last 2 days with the conception of a "good" God?

The leading psychological correlate with strong religious belief is "death anxiety." It's not the only reason for religious belief but the main psychological correlate. I have worked for decades in a dangerous field, have been face to face with everything from large predators to poisonous snakes to gun wielding insurgents. I've never been afraid. I'm in my 60s and have no fear of death. I have seen questions posted on here that seem to show that most, if not all atheists have a diminished or no fear of death. I rather enjoy living a fearless life. I personally find fear to be irrational--even disgusting. But I know that it is also a "normal" emotion in humans. Humans who have no or diminished capacity for fear typically have damage or deformity to a part of the brain known as the amygdala. As an atheist would you characterize yourself as less fearful than your Christian friends?

I was shocked the other day to hear a Christian 30+ years old talk about the decline in morality. I am 60+ years and remember the 50s and 60s quite well. Blacks could not go to the same (or equal) school, could not use the same bathroom, swim in the same pool or interact with whites in any meaningful way in the 50s. Equal opportunity in every sphere of society was denied. They suffered blind hatred and unapologetic discrimination. I could not have married my wife (who is of a different race) in my state until 1967. Women were stereotyped as inferior to men and rarely were encouraged to pursue professional careers. Wife beating was common in our neighborhood; it was accepted as the burden of females and divorce was not an option. Even in the 60s when opportunity for women started to change the women in our graduate school labs were expected to sleep with the male profs like it was one of their perks; no one heard about sexual harassment until decades later. As a child I was routinely beaten and abused by parents as were all my friends--it was the norm. Starting at age 14 I worked summers picking tobacco and all the children working were beaten by the straw boss. Bullies ran rampant at schools, no one cared. Animals in the zoo were kept in small barred cages and all looked behaviorally retarded. I could really go on and on for dozens of paragraphs....

Can anyone explain this myth of moral decline? Because all I see is that (while we still have some way to go) morality has made great advances in our society.

Which statements below do you find true? Please state if you are a theist, deist, atheist or pantheist.

1. Morality is entirely subjective and culture dependent.

2. Morality is entirely learned.

3. As a species of social primates we have evolved our moral sense to reward altruism, reciprocity and honesty in social interactions and to punish selfishness, deceit and harm to others in the social group.

4. We can objectively determine morality in terms of actions that contribute to human well being opposed to actions which increase human misery.

5. Morality is dependent on what we learn from sacred texts.

6. Morality requires belief in a god.

7. Morality requires a fear of judgment and banishment to Hell.

Thanks for playing.

Why did the KJV of the Bible leave out the earlier, longer Biblical description about why god decided to kill everyone in a great flood? Because angels had mated with all humans, producing demons as offspring. All humans except the aged Noah and his chaste sons had been defiled by sexual intercourse with angels. My parents old 18th century Bible seems to have 3 times as much material as the KJV Bible.

My elderly father (94 years) suffers from severe paranoid delusions. I have to hand feed him 3 different medications, an anti-psychotic, an anxiety reliever and an anti-depressant. But the only pills he will swallow are vitamins. So I lie to him every day, telling him that I am giving him "vitamins." I do not regard my lies as immoral. What do you think?

The strongest psychological correlate for belief is "death anxiety." What are the implications of this finding for believers? for nonbelievers?

The strongest physiological correlate for religious belief is the type of D4 receptor in the brain. People who find supernatural phenomena to be compellingly real have D4 receptors very efficient at dopamine uptake, while people who regard supernatural phenomena as unreal have D4 receptors that are inefficient at dopamine uptake. Even hard core atheists, if given the drug L-Dopa, which stimulates dopamine uptake, will find credence in supernatural explanations for unexplained events. What do you think the implications of this research are for religious belief (please identify yourself as believer or atheist)?

The notion that morality is relative is rubbish. Morality is based on empathy (which all great apes have evolved) and can be objectively (even scientifically) analyzed according to what benefits (or harms) others. If morality is relative then one could say there is nothing wrong with throwing acid in the faces of Afghani girls who seek an education. If you support the idea of moral relativism then tell me why it is Ok for a religion to dress women in sack-cloths, or for another religion to deprive condoms to people in regions stricken with AIDS.

Should we take it? Or put it in the water like flouride? All kinds of new cognitive enhancers are coming on the market, and since morality is also a normal function of a healthy brain we could expect that sooner or later a pill will be developed that could increase morality. So that rather than considering what we're going to eat 99% of the time rather than the tiny effort we give to the world's starving millions, we could reverse our natural tendencies so as to give greater consideration to others.

My elderly father spent a lot of time talking to God and getting advice from Him, which was a disaster for my mother's health, their finances and relations with the children and grandchildren. A recent medical diagnosis (MRI) showed virtually no frontal cortical activity, a condition which can be corrected by medication (zyprexa) and diminished thyroid activity, which can also be corrected by medication (cerefolin). In addition to these two drugs he is also on lexapro, an anti-psychotic. His behavior is greatly improved and he no longer talks with God. If you have a loved one who talks with God do not try to reason with them, do not ridicule them as more than likely they are having real, organic, neurological problems. There is therapy that can treat this. I know that this is not a question, but I felt it was important to share with this forum and I welcome your comments.