65 Comments
deletedMay 14, 2022·edited May 14, 2022
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
May 14, 2022Liked by James Lyons-Weiler

There is a biological basis for altruism and ethics - it reinforces survival of the group and hence that of the individual

Expand full comment

Dear WHO,

NO THANK YOU - not ever, under any circumstances.

May the altruism and ethics of those fighting for truth save us from this surreptitious stealth.

FYI - Lumbar pain

https://gokhalemethod.com/blog/is_crowdsourcing_the_new_face_of_evidence_based_medicine

I’m sure there are more up to date articles but this one refers to the statistician . A fascinating discovery and story behind this biological postural ? approach to addressing back pain.

Expand full comment

I think you need to start reading some of these.

https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/04/open-letter-to-open-minded-progressives/

Expand full comment
May 14, 2022Liked by James Lyons-Weiler

I don’t think Jordan explains the nuance and foundation of the argument as clearly or deeply as others. I think people like Tim Keller in Reason For God and CS Lewis in chapter 1 of Mere Christianity make the argument best. I would like to hear your thoughts on them because they expand on it more and I think address a lot of what you’re saying. Id like to summarize their points, but there are reasons that wrote entire chapters on it.

Thank you for your analysis. This was a good read and very thought provoking. Especially viewing it in light of current global politics is insightful.

Expand full comment

“…Christian ethos happen to share many of the same characteristics with the winning strategies of running societies…”

Do you really think this is pure coincidence? I am an atheist, but I have come to believe that on a collective level, religion is crucial to the survival of a civilization. That is not to say that individuals cannot be moral without believing in that religion and its deity/deities.

Expand full comment
May 14, 2022Liked by James Lyons-Weiler

Thank you for this excellent article. My study of the work and teachings of David R Hawkins MD PhD has given me such comfort during these times. His 1995 groundbreaking work, Power Vs Force (from his doctoral dissertation Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis and Calibration of the Levels of Human Consciousness) has helped me see that logic, science and reason are fantastic for certain parameters in the world. I agree with you--absolutely one can be into science and faith. I also agree with Dr Hawkins that you can't think your way to God--it is a different level of consciousness. He created a Map of Consciousness which has helped me get a bead on myself and understanding the world I'm in. I pray for the highest good--I see that as vastly different than the common good. Many blessings to you and yours--all who are reading this.

Expand full comment

@James Lyons! Who's rule & good, Hitler's, Stalin's Mao's, Biden's? [OR] "Our Creator's" [as Our Founder's put it, at risk of life] According to the best selling/ [scientifically proven [with the supporting odds of over, 1in10 to the 17th power] book], ever!

"God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in HIM,/ [I.E. not evolution!] should not perish, but have everlasting life." [John 3:16] Realize the whole point of Godless Leftist's Satan inspired, dumb-down "education" is counter to all that, I.E. big government & big pharma is the only god you need, They say!

Expand full comment

"in that as an evolutionary biologist, as a scientist, I should not dabble in the occult."

I take it here you mean "occult" as in "hidden," with no underlying meaning of "superstition."

"I won’t even debate his belief: the testability demarcation between Science and faith-based reasoning is clear"

I'm trying to flesh this out. From where I sit, science ultimately relies on testimony for experimental evidence and (Christian) faith likewise relies on testimony. Both therefore have similar epistemological bases for belief. (Yes, this means that you can't escape belief when you do science. You have to trust the testimony of others when they report data. Sure, any and all data can be tested for repeatability, given unlimited resources, but practically, some leap of faith is required.) So is there some overlap that may be tested?

Also, the Christian faith is not required necessarily for an ethical system, but it is likely superior to some. But how can that proposition be tested?

Expand full comment

I'd say don't write when you're in pain! Or at least edit once you feel better. I agree with most of what you say here but after reading so many of your posts, I'd say this is a bumpy journey.

You've handled the discussion of God and the insurmountable problem of proving the existence of same extremely well. But I think you get a bit wobbly in approaching "religion."

The Soviet Union certainly had a state faith and all the necessary accoutrements, and the Russian people (and all the subject peoples forced into the Soviet) were already conditioned by traditional faiths to slide smoothly enough into substituting one dogma for another. But that's really irrelevant in looking at WWII. If you're facing a monstrous enemy you'll fight ferociously against it, and the Soviet Union, with the grimmest of good fortune, had enough manpower to keep hurling bodies into horrendous conflict and still have enough to replenish the losses. Hard to beat an opponent who has that dreadful advantage.

Something you and Peterson and Dawkins miss is that people (and all sentient creatures) are *born* with individual natures that are reinforceable but not, shall we say, imposable. I saw that as a parent; the impulses of great goodness were evident in my toddler child and honestly, I can't take very much credit for the rationality and powerful sense of natural ethics my now-adult kid possesses. My only role in that was providing a loving, nurturing environment so my child could reach full inherent potential. I have a strong belief in the existence of what, for the sake of convenience, we shall call God, though, at this stage in my life, without any dogma attached, and my child is an atheist. I exposed my child to my own beliefs and my child was exposed to the strong faith beliefs of others in the extended family, but I always emphasized that belief in anything is a matter of personal perceived truth that cannot be imposed from outside.

All societies of creatures--from insect to human--organize into hierarchies and one may say that the alpha pair of wolves are deities to the pack. It's lonely to reject authority, it reduces one's chances of survival, and being shunned out of the group can be fatal. It's a real wonder that so many individuals from the beginning of time have had the courage and will to diverge from the directed path.

Anyway "religion" is just a shortcut word. Everything is resources and the power to accumulate them, keep them and dole them out as is politically advantageous to yourself. Everything else, as is said, is commentary.

Expand full comment

Thank you Steve. I did not ask you to comment on my post. Since you asked--I don't wish to engage with comments such as yours and especially those that are closed ended questions. I wish you all the best, now kindly leave me be.

Expand full comment

Some good points James.. Tho I think the definition of free will being used is a very vague one. Ultimately a scientist can't believe in free will as defined as will that does not depend on conditions.

As for the benefit of religion on morality, i do believe that religion can be very beneficial, but it does depend on which religion and how it is interpreted. The Golden Rule is not entirely useful, since some people are into S&M. A masochist would apply the golden rule by hurting people...

I am partial to Buddha's teachings. There's no need for a creator God to explain anything nor to create a moral system. We just need to understand that the path to the highest happiness requires being compassionate. It is a universal law. A masochist may disagree with this law, but that is because they are not seeing correctly, from the buddhist POV.

As for the particular details of how to be compassionate, those are not possible to define for every situation. For example, is it compassionate to be a soldier and defend your country against invaders? Even Buddha had some conflicting feelings. He said soldiers would go to hell for killing (unless they were able to become awakened to no-self before death), but on the other hand he said they were necessary to protect the noble peaceful folk...

What a complex life this is. 🙏

Expand full comment

The evolution of the Golden Rule: Old Testament - do unto others as they have done unto you (an eye for an eye); New Testament - do unto others as you would have them do unto you; Today - do unto others before they do unto you.

Expand full comment
May 14, 2022Liked by James Lyons-Weiler

Wow, what a read- I will reread this one. Brought back to mind Huston Smith's teachings- especially your mentioning of the Golden Rule and the commonalities in religions....Thank you for the always thought provoking and helpful material you provide.

Expand full comment

It's a stark display of Jordan Peterson's limitations as a thinker that he can't make any room in his mind for a genuine rational ethic.

For my part, I believe that the true and proper ethos of science, and the proper ethos in general, are essentially one in the same, a case I make here: https://reasonandliberty.com/rl

For example, we should expect of our closest friends, our legal system, and our science, all these same things: sincerity, which is saying what we mean and meaning what we say, which has to mean being logical; honesty; willingness to consider any and all evidence, even evidence that contradicts our present beliefs; integrity; respect for individual rights. One cannot be a good scientist, and also deny this ethos. Nor a good friend, nor a good judge or legislator. Furthermore, we can vindicate such ethos in rational terms.

Expand full comment