The evolution of morality

Ever noticed the kind of music favored by various radio talk-show hosts? You have the religiously-based hosts like Bill Bennett and Dr. Laura (even though these shows are not overtly religious, the hosts make no secret of their religious biases), whose music tends to be selected from the past. And then there are hosts like Michael Savage, whose music is pretty much cutting edge.

My theory is that religion tends to clutch the past, while atheism tends to fix its eyes on the future. This is similar to the difference between parents and children. The parent has been around for a while and bases his or her understanding of the world on experience. The child, who has no experience to speak of, will generally want to know, "Why?" Both views have merit.

Experience has great value, but is not always a useful guide. Experience that's based on unchanging truths about the world, we ignore at our peril. On the other hand, past experience, the way we've always done it, can be evil and destructive. Hence the great value in the youthful question, "Why." If no one ever challenged the values of the past, we would never move forward.

While religion tends to decry what it sees as the loss of values in the modern world (as when Bob Jones University grudgingly relinquishes its prohibition against interracial dating and Mormons battle against same-sex-marriage) and cling toa 2,000-year-old book as the "unchanging Word of God," atheism demands to know, "Why?"

I propose that we value the past without becoming slaves to it. That we glean from religious valuable insights while maintaining the right to ask, "Why?"

Follow me on Twitter. Golden Platypus is updated often; the easiest way to get your regular dose is by subscribing to our news feed. Stay on top of all our updates by subscribing now via RSS or Email.