Fatherlessness Harms the Brain, Neurobiologists Find
Kids need dads, according to a neurobiological study published this month in the journal Cerebral Cortex. The absence of fathers during childhood may lead to impaired behavioral and social abilities, and brain defects, researchers at the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada, found.
"This is the first time research findings have shown that paternal deprivation during development affects the neurobiology of the offspring," senior author Dr. Gabriella Gobbi told MUHC News.
Other studies have observed that children raised without fathers are more likely to demonstrate a number of risk factors, such as substance abuse. There are a large number of environmental factors, though, that could contribute to those risk factors, so previous studies have had difficulty demonstrating that the absence of fathers directly contributes to social and behavioral difficulties....
I've always found morality to the atheist's Achilles heal so to speak, because they have no rational way to justify it. Like its been pointed out, it's not that an atheist is immoral, but is reduced to absurdity in any effort to rationalize morality apart from God. They will usually use the golden rule (which is straight from the Bible), or that society or the government determines right or wrong. To which I ask them if societies determine right from wrong, was Nazi Germany wrong for the mass genocide of the Jews? After all, the governing body said it was right. I've also found it next to impossible to get them to see this absurdity, as they arbitrarily insist that its obvious what's right or wrong, but still give no rational explanation given their world view.
Your welcome Neil. And I appreciate the responses as well. Speaking of atheist ethics, I was speaking with an atheist friend at school. His policy is basically majority rule. It got the point where I asked him "so, if some remote island tribes decides its ok to eat each other, is it?" He said yes and was not the least bothered. It was rather disturbing, as I wasn't expecting him to be so brazen with that question.
But yes, you are right, the problem is not that atheists are automatically immoral, it is that they are usually inconsistent, thankfully I might add.
Indeed, for thoughtful atheists, ethics become a Blind Alley, for they have no basis for universal imperatives (â€śthou shalt/shalt notâ€ť). They often wind up arguing, what is right for Bushmen is not necessarily right for Englishmen.
This does not mean that atheists will be consistently & completely wicked, for like many non-atheists, they cannot (for various reasons) totally adhere to their declared principles. The more ruthless ones like Stalin or Pol Pot come closer, murdering even their allies.
I suppose to succinctly express my last statement would be. Patterns of fatherless homes, or darwinism, or some other behaviors, when seen in a large number of examples (large is a bit relative term I admit) then we can at least suppose that this pattern of behavior may have some significant influence even if it does not dictate causation.
It does appear you have had a much more formal and strict studying approach to the the matters. I will admit that causation is hard or near impossible to determine, undoubtedly, with the variables of a human and his experiences. Throw in spiritual battles and it gets all the more muddled. Far as hasty generalization, well, not with a formal understanding, I just think that that means using too few examples to make a big statement or generalization about many.
Now, here is what I do still maintain. We can logically see that Darwinism when consistently followed to its ends, leads to racism, eugenics, and violence. We see this being consistent in a large number of eugenicists, dictators, and tyrants. Does that mean that their crimes were necessarily caused by this shared belief? No. But I do find it alarming and peculiar when all these people share a common view? Could it be a major factor into causation? Maybe, we of course cannot know for sure, but is it really that wrong to posit an educated guess that this common denominator plays a major role in their actions? I personally think not, but I could be wrong.
Will wrote: â€¦ we can see a pattern of correlation amongst many individuals that would suggest causation or at least the rational grounds of causation.
That does not answer how the ground of causation is rationally (logically) determined. This is especially difficult in psychology, let alone the physical sciences (hindered by experimental error), because when researchers interview subjects, they cannot know whether they are lying unless they can confirm from other sources, not always possible. For people deceive even themselves, as well as others.
In addition, it is hard to escape the fallacy of Hasty Generalization (Induction). Even if cause could be determined for *some* subjects, that does not imply it is true for all.
If you think I"m overstating matters, Bertrand Russell admitted that induction & causation in general are unsolved problems in â€śIs Science Superstitious?â€ť Yet to my amazement, few Christians I've met recognize the implications of this.
Not sure if that first point is replying to me or not Neil, but I agree that correlation does not prove causation. However, we can see coin threads and speculate, and upon further examination of individuals (the greatest murderers in history for instance) we can see a pattern of correlation amongst many individuals that would suggest causation or at least the rational grounds of causation.