Hosted by Dailymotion. For legal issues report at the Copyright Center, report us on DMC, or use the Instant Removal tool.
Robert Wright: Would an Atheist World Be More Moral?
Description
http://bigthink.com
The "Evolution of God" author weighs the argument that human moral progress might depend on abandoning religion.
Question: If morality is to evolve further, must it evolve beyond religion?
Robert Wright: I mean, certainly the moral progress that is required to save the world can take place in a context devoid of religion. I mean the kind of enlightenment that it takes for people to accept one another is not something that has to take place in the context of religion. On the other hand, I certainly don't think that progress, even that kind of ultimate progress that is necessary requires shedding religion, per se. It may require abandoning some beliefs that are characteristic in religion in some places, or in some brains right now; it certainly does. But you can certainly be abundantly moral, human, and enlightened person, and be religious in a meaningful sense.
Now, there are certain doctrines that -- there may be important religious doctrines. There are religious doctrines that are important to some people that will probably have to be shed, yes, for the good of the world. Certainly the idea that not only is my God kind of better than yours, but so long as you believe in the wrong God, we can't do business, or I should kill you or something. But almost nobody actually believes that in any of these religions. If you look at the way people actually live, they're much more practical than that. And so I wouldn't say there are any mainstream beliefs that have to be abandoned. And we don't have to have any single religion. All that's really required is tolerance of other beliefs and in that sense maybe a certain amount of intellectual humility. But I don't think you need some sort of merger of religious beliefs. There are doctrines that could help, like the notion of the god -- the idea that the different gods that are worshipped are all different manifestations of the single underlying divine unity. That might be a productive thing for people to agree on. But even that, I wouldn't say, is essential.Recorded on February 12, 2010Interviewed by Austin Allen
Question: If morality is to evolve further, must it evolve beyond religion?
Robert Wright: I mean, certainly the moral progress that is required to save the world can take place in a context devoid of religion. I mean the kind of enlightenment that it takes for people to accept one another is not something that has to take place in the context of religion. On the other hand, I certainly don't think that progress, even that kind of ultimate progress that is necessary requires shedding religion, per se. It may require abandoning some beliefs that are characteristic in religion in some places, or in some brains right now; it certainly does. But you can certainly be abundantly moral, human, and enlightened person, and be religious in a meaningful sense.
Now, there are certain doctrines that -- there may be important religious doctrines. There are religious doctrines that are important to some people that will probably have to be shed, yes, for the good of the world. Certainly the idea that not only is my God kind of better than yours, but so long as you believe in the wrong God, we can't do business, or I should kill you or something. But almost nobody actually believes that in any of these religions. If you look at the way people actually live, they're much more practical than that. And so I wouldn't say there are any mainstream beliefs that have to be abandoned. And we don't have to have any single religion. All that's really required is tolerance of other beliefs and in that sense maybe a certain amount of intellectual humility. But I don't think you need some sort of merger of religious beliefs. There are doctrines that could help, like the notion of the god -- the idea that the different gods that are worshipped are all different manifestations of the single underlying divine unity. That might be a productive thing for people to agree on. But even that, I wouldn't say, is essential.Recorded on February 12, 2010Interviewed by Austin Allen
The "Evolution of God" author weighs the argument that human moral progress might depend on abandoning religion.
Question: If morality is to evolve further, must it evolve beyond religion?
Robert Wright: I mean, certainly the moral progress that is required to save the world can take place in a context devoid of religion. I mean the kind of enlightenment that it takes for people to accept one another is not something that has to take place in the context of religion. On the other hand, I certainly don't think that progress, even that kind of ultimate progress that is necessary requires shedding religion, per se. It may require abandoning some beliefs that are characteristic in religion in some places, or in some brains right now; it certainly does. But you can certainly be abundantly moral, human, and enlightened person, and be religious in a meaningful sense.
Now, there are certain doctrines that -- there may be important religious doctrines. There are religious doctrines that are important to some people that will probably have to be shed, yes, for the good of the world. Certainly the idea that not only is my God kind of better than yours, but so long as you believe in the wrong God, we can't do business, or I should kill you or something. But almost nobody actually believes that in any of these religions. If you look at the way people actually live, they're much more practical than that. And so I wouldn't say there are any mainstream beliefs that have to be abandoned. And we don't have to have any single religion. All that's really required is tolerance of other beliefs and in that sense maybe a certain amount of intellectual humility. But I don't think you need some sort of merger of religious beliefs. There are doctrines that could help, like the notion of the god -- the idea that the different gods that are worshipped are all different manifestations of the single underlying divine unity. That might be a productive thing for people to agree on. But even that, I wouldn't say, is essential.Recorded on February 12, 2010Interviewed by Austin Allen
Question: If morality is to evolve further, must it evolve beyond religion?
Robert Wright: I mean, certainly the moral progress that is required to save the world can take place in a context devoid of religion. I mean the kind of enlightenment that it takes for people to accept one another is not something that has to take place in the context of religion. On the other hand, I certainly don't think that progress, even that kind of ultimate progress that is necessary requires shedding religion, per se. It may require abandoning some beliefs that are characteristic in religion in some places, or in some brains right now; it certainly does. But you can certainly be abundantly moral, human, and enlightened person, and be religious in a meaningful sense.
Now, there are certain doctrines that -- there may be important religious doctrines. There are religious doctrines that are important to some people that will probably have to be shed, yes, for the good of the world. Certainly the idea that not only is my God kind of better than yours, but so long as you believe in the wrong God, we can't do business, or I should kill you or something. But almost nobody actually believes that in any of these religions. If you look at the way people actually live, they're much more practical than that. And so I wouldn't say there are any mainstream beliefs that have to be abandoned. And we don't have to have any single religion. All that's really required is tolerance of other beliefs and in that sense maybe a certain amount of intellectual humility. But I don't think you need some sort of merger of religious beliefs. There are doctrines that could help, like the notion of the god -- the idea that the different gods that are worshipped are all different manifestations of the single underlying divine unity. That might be a productive thing for people to agree on. But even that, I wouldn't say, is essential.Recorded on February 12, 2010Interviewed by Austin Allen
More from User
08:39
Is reality real? These neuroscientists don’t think so.
Big Think
06:37
Your reptilian brain, explained | Robert Sapolsky
Big Think
05:35
3 brain hacks to control your Amazon addiction (from a neuroscientist)
Big Think
06:36
Isolating carbon from human ashes to create diamonds
Big Think
05:28
What charity does to your brain
Big Think
05:49
How to trick your brain into saving money
Big Think
Related Videos
01:29
Is Emma Roberts' New Hair for 'Scream Queens'? Lea Michele Says ‘Chanel Would Be More Platinum’
Entertainment Weekly
01:29
Is Emma Roberts' New Hair for 'Scream Queens'? Lea Michele Says ‘Chanel Would Be More Platinum’
People
01:57
Robert Garcia "I expected Broner to throw alot more- Maidana vs. Porter would be interesting"
Fight Hub TV
01:10
🐉 Interesting Fact: In Pete’s Dragon (2016), the dragon Elliott was deliberately designed to be furry instead of scaly so that he would feel warmer, softer, and more huggable—making him more like a giant, friendly pet than a typical fierce dragon.
Max Films
04:06
Rylee Arnold Has ‘No Idea’ Who Her ‘DWTS’ Partner Will Be But ‘Would Love’ Robert Irwin
US Weekly
01:14
Barcelona chief Deco thinks Erling Haaland would be a fitting replacement for Robert Lewandowski
Bang Sports News