You Don't Have Free Will, But You Still Are Responsible

" - - - some imagine that denying free will amounts to absolving oneself of responsibility. Maybe these are the same sort of people who would be murderers if not for fear of eternal punishment by a god. Why does anyone need the crutch of free will to behave responsibly? As a member of a social species, irresponsibility on my part is not well tolerated by my band, nor by the community of life. It has consequences. I also happen to value some things, so that I act according to those values—which act as weights in evaluating competing neural outcomes. An amoeba values food, and acts to secure it. More sophisticated values likewise stimulate sophisticated responses. It is these values that counter nihilism for me, not belief in free will."

Click on this link for more on the concept that responsibility is compatible with no free will.

Debt And Its Forgiveness: The Morality

"Today, we take a look at the history and hysteria behind debt and debt forgiveness while Biden is canceling student debt and opponents of the idea are reacting in the most predictable way possible because they misunderstand the relationship between debt and morality."

Click on the link below for a podcast exploring this issue from a moral perspective:

The Morality of Debt and Forgiveness

No, The Religious Are NOT More Moral. In Fact - - -

Phil Zuckerman's book "What It Means to Be Moral: Why Religion Is Not Necessary for Living an Ethical Life" is one of the best counter-apologetics to the claim that one must be religious to be moral.

Click on the link below for his video presenting the main evidence for countering this claim:

Are Religious People More Moral than Atheists? Here are the Facts

What's The Balance Between The Law And Morality?

Since the dawn of human society, there has been tension between the strong arm of the law and the persuasive arm of morality. Click on the links below for some informed opinions on the matter. With the actions of conservatives to suppress democratic institutions through the packing of the Supreme Court and state courts, and acting immorally as a feature and not a bug, there has never been a better time to understand the roles both should play in a healthy society:

Does Law Exist to Provide Moral Order?

Law versus Morality as Regulators of Conduct

Law and Morals: The Perennial and NecessaryTandem

- - - - - - -

Other points to ponder: 

The question of when personhood begins is a legal issue and there is great diversity of opinion on such. However, the longer a product of conception develops, there is more and more consensus regarding when such becomes another legal person. Those who say it starts at conception are presenting their personal moral view. There is a strong legal precedent for the bodily autonomy of a person.

If all people were moral, laws would not be necessary. Unfortunately, we need laws. Unfortunately, many appropriate laws are not enforced. Unfortunately, many laws are immoral.

Comparing Religious Indoctrination With Other Child Abuse

The following essay is the best justification for considering religious indoctrination of children an abuse I have read:

- - - - - - -

Is Teaching Young Children Religion a Form of Child Abuse?
© 2000 by Larry Gott

Most people suppose they know what constitutes child abuse. Abuse may generally be defined as action or behavior towards a child that causes harm. But what, exactly, do we mean by harm? Is it always clear-cut?

Reasonable people would agree that hitting a child hard enough to cause bruising or other injury constitutes abuse. But, even though many states have called spanking abuse, many parents believe it is not. It is open to debate. Burning a child with cigarettes is clearly abuse. But smoking around children, even though it is known that secondhand smoke causes cancer, heart disease, and respiratory problems, is not so clearly abuse in the minds of many. The matter is open to argument.

Other gray areas include shouting at one’s kids. That’s just “normal” in many households, but, carried to extremes, it can be abusive, too. Belittling and shaming children, also can be called abusive. Calling children names, labeling them (“you’re stupid,” “you’re destructive”), and threatening them (even if the threats are not carried out), all are forms of abuse, depending on which experts you choose to listen to.

Admittedly the grayest of the gray areas is the teaching of children. Can the secular and religious education of children be abusive? Secular teaching may be more or less effective in preparing children for their adult lives; more in cases where children are taught how to think, to reason for themselves and derive answers from evidence; less where they are taught what to think and the conclusions at which they should arrive.

I've come to believe that teaching religion to children is a form of child abuse. Parents quite naturally think that their children should be taught whatever the parents believe. In a seemingly never-ending cycle, parents who were themselves brainwashed as children pass along to their own children the religion they were taught. It never occurs to them to examine what they’ve been taught to see whether it has been helpful or harmful.

Rather than teaching children that some behaviors are harmful, religion (Christian religion in particular) teaches them that their very natures are evil, their thoughts corrupt and their actions so vile that they deserve to be tortured for eternity unless they continually beg some implacable cosmic bully for forgiveness. Children are taught that an invisible god, or one of his minions, is looking over their shoulders at all times. While many adults resent the proliferation of surveillance cameras, they teach their children that someone who can see through walls is always watching them. It is a wonder, given that kind of upbringing, that most people are not schizophrenic.

Stuffing immature minds full of dogma when they haven't the means to sort through it critically damages the developing psyche. No amount of post-adult reason ever completely liberates the subconscious from all that ecclesiastical baggage. The pain it creates is lifelong and debilitating.

Teaching children religion is abusive because it creates confusion and discourages critical thought. Further, it fosters guilt, which is particularly destructive, because it remains in the subconscious long after the reasons for it are recognized and understood.

It needs to be said that, while some teaching may ultimately be harmful, it does not constitute abuse in the sense that the parent or teacher intends harm or is indifferent to the consequences of the teaching. The harm done is the end result of a cycle that started eons ago. Unfortunately, relatively few people as adults thoroughly examine what they’ve been taught. The whole idea of “faith” is designed to repress critical thought and to encourage acceptance instead. The result is that faulty thinking is passed on from generation to generation. Anything that makes the mind work less well, or causes emotional pain may be characterized as harm, and its inculcation is abuse. 

Religious Indoctrination Of Children: A Harm Society Denies

"I shall probably shock you when I say it is the purpose of my lecture today [is] . . . to argue, in short, in favor of censorship, against freedom of expression, and to do so moreover in an area of life that has traditionally been regarded as sacrosanct.

"I am talking about moral and religious education. And especially the education a child receives at home, where parents are allowed—even expected—to determine for their children what counts as truth and falsehood, right and wrong.

"Children, I’ll argue, have a human right not to have their minds crippled by exposure to other people’s bad ideas—no matter who these other people are. Parents, correspondingly, have no god-given license to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose: no right to limit the horizons of their children’s knowledge, to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma and superstition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith."

Click on the link below for support for the above:

A superb article against the religious indoctrination of children

The Moral Character Of The Christian God

Anyone who has studied Christianity knows that the God of the Bible is supposed to be 

All-knowing 

All-Powerful

All-Good 

Look around you at reality. How can such a character/person fit within it?

Click on the two links below for videos falsifying the Christian God:

Is God the Bad Guy?

Making Excuses for Slavery in the Bible

The Ethics Of Embryo Testing

"Some companies offer tests that rank embryos based on their risk of developing complex diseases such as schizophrenia or heart disease. Are they accurate — or ethical?"

The science of embryo testing is advancing very rapidly. Is it exceeding ethical boundaries? The answer is not simple. Click on the link below for the latest on the issue:

The controversial embryo tests that promise a better baby

The History Of No Legal Accountability In The USA

"Today, as we wait to see if Trump will ever be indicted for any of his many, many, many crimes, we take a look at the long and illustrious history of powerful people avoiding prosecution in the United States."

Click on the link below for a depressing look at criminality run-amok in the USA historically. The moral: lack of punishment rewards bad behavior:

Avoiding Accountability

Conservative Morality Is Based On Narrow, Unsupported Ideology

The slogan for today's Republican Party. They have
been hijacked by conservative Christians who
reject science-informed morality.

The USA was NEVER "Great", it has been a work-in-progress from its beginning. Conservatives want to "conserve" an imperfect past, whereas, progressives look forward to improving the well-being of all (link). One has to be blind to reality not to see the slow and unsteady progress toward greater recognition of basic human rights, much of which has been opposed by religious dogma. The case can be made that this is because morality pertains to the conduct of human affairs and relations between persons, while religion primarily involves the relationship between human beings and a transcendent reality (link).

It is clear that morality is not objective (no evidence of a God), but subjective in each normal human from biological and social factors. Thus, an agreement is difficult. However, if at least most of us can agree with the general definition of morality as well-being and flourishing, humanity can maximize such with information from science. Evidence shows that morality without a God (secular) is superior (link). 

Applying the above to the question of abortion:

• Religions can't agree on when a human person begins, and science shows that life does not begin but it has flowed continuously since the first chemicals emerged with the traits we call life.
• There IS agreement that a woman is a person. Persons have bodily autonomy.
• One has the right to believe anything they want but not the right to impose it on others. The law must reflect what the majority believes is moral.

Bodily Autonomy Is THE Basic Human Right

ANOTHER PERSON'S BODY IS NOT YOURS

I have written several blog posts on the issue of abortion and bodily autonomy (link). As with many moral issues, reasonable people can disagree. The following links are the best I could find discussing this issue. 

I will not be posting on this issue again. My strong conclusion is that, since the case is made and supported that bodily autonomy is THE basic right, pro-choice is both the most moral and practical stance regarding abortion:

Seven Myths That Undermine Individual Rights And Freedoms

United Nations stance on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice

The Right's Bad Faith Argument About Bodily Autonomy

Whose Rights Are Most Right?

Abortion Facts

Abortion opposition primarily comes from conservative Catholics and evangelical Christians. However, there is no agreement within Christianity, or most other religions, regarding the issue. (link) The Old and New Testaments don't mention it. (link) There is no objective evidence for anything supernatural, let alone a god. (link) Thus, secular morality from biology and socialization should be used only. (link)

There is no agreement on when *life begins or when personhood begins. (link)(link) 

• *Life began within the ancient history of the Earth and has been an evolving and continuous process. Thus, the eggs and eggs/sperm produced by animals are not dead tissue. All life on Earth today came from the same source. (link)

The US government/Constitution is secular, with a strong separation of religion and government.

Bodily autonomy is a universally-recognized principle but it is ignored by abortion opponents. (link)

"That's Very Christian Of You"

In our Christian-saturated culture, it is assumed that when someone does a good deed he/she is "acting Christian." The Bible and Christian media support this common meme (here, for example). The truth is three-fold:

• Yes, there are some good sayings in the New Testament. However, there is NOTHING in Jesus' sayings that are good that can't be found in other religious and/or secular sources. In other words, they are not unique to Christianity.
• Many of the sayings of Jesus found in the Bible are downright evil. 
• The Old Testament is full of evil acts by God.

50 Reasons to be Ashamed (and not a fan) of Jesus

The Christian God is Evil

The Subtleties Of Secular Morality

Morality based on religious authority and dogma can be good or bad. The problem is, how can one tell which is the case? This is the Divine Command understanding of morality and history has clearly shown that it has created much more harm than good. The opposite of this "Top-Down" understanding of morality is the "Bottom-Up" morality that is known as Secular Morality. Observation of human activity throughout history clearly shows that morality actually comes from within normal humans through biology/evolution and social influences. The problem with secular morality is that it is subjective and everyone has at least a little different perspective on the subject. So, societies that have governmental organizations based on secular law and not religious laws are contentious because of such. So, what to do about it? How about first agreeing on what morality is and then turning to science for the various effects of actions for informing moral decisions?

Click on the link below for a 15-min video that presents many of the subtleties of secular morality:

Humanism fails as a moral code? 

Secular Morality Wins

One of the hardest facts for the religious to accept is that secular morality trumps any religious dogma regarding such. Phil Zuckerman, Associate Dean as well as Professor of Sociology at Pitzer College, and the founding chair of the nation’s first Secular Studies Program gave the following talk at the recent Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) annual conference in Boston, MA. Click on the link below for a 30-min presentation in support of this claim:

How Secular Morality Will Save the World

Morality And COVID-19

Most religions have moral teachings. Claims by religions have not been verified by science. Morality is probably the result of biology and social interactions, and is subjective but informed by objective evidence. Morality regarding any particular issue is usually difficult to agree about, however, the better societies come up with the better choices.

Keeping the above in mind, click on the link below for an opinion regarding the best way to handle the issue of education in the face of COVID-19:

Smerconish: What have we done to our kids?

Christian Morality: There's Nothing Special About It

(link)

Talk about circular reasoning, SMH 😕. Christian apologists try hard to sell the value of the "unique" morality of Christianity. Click on the link below for a quick rebuttal to such:

Religion does not determine your morality

"Pro-Life" Morality Debunked (One More Time)

I have posted several times on this issue. The above is an encapsulation of my stance regarding the morality of abortion. Click on the links below for two concise and informative videos that also help in this regard:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQoSZixSFEw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn_7X9t3xTs

NOTE: If you have a hard time understanding the concepts of continuity of life/evolution, and change as the potential person develops, think in terms of emergence: for example, oxygen and hydrogen are not water until they merge to form it. Thus, parents - sperm and egg - zygote - embryo - fetus - viable person.

Same-Sex Marriage: Where Is The Harm?

Why don't conservatives get behind all human rights? Besides explicitly contradicting the expanding knowledge from science, some directly contradict unsupported dogma from the religious. For example, contrary to the propaganda from them, there is no harm to individuals and society from same-sex couples entering into a marriage commitment. If you doubt this, check out the links below:

Public Health Implications of Same-Sex Marriage

Psychology's Case for Same-Sex Marriage

Same-sex marriage legalization associated with reduced antigay bias

Direct Effects of Legal Same-Sex Marriage in Massachusetts

5 Ways the Defense of Marriage Act Harms Same-Sex Couples and Their Children

How Same-Sex Marriage Can Ruin Civilisation (Satire)

There is no harm caused by same-sex parenting

The arguments against same-sex marriage are weak

An Objective Look At The Effects Of Religion

There is a lot of media reporting regarding the benefits of religion. When one looks deeper into the research on the subject, one finds poor quality. The positive effects of religion are probably placebo and the benefit of social support, which is not necessarily only found in a religious group. Below is a recent analysis of studies on the subject:

Being "Godless" might be good for your health, a new study finds

Another way to look at the effects of religion is to look at the correlation between the more religious US states and countries of the world and happiness and well-being (link). The quality of life is better in the least religious and most socialistic states and countries.