On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said:

…Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975

and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.

Harry Kroto

I have attempted to respond to all of Dr. Kroto’s friends arguments and I have posted my responses one per week for over a year now. Here are some of my earlier posts:

Arif Ahmed, Sir David Attenborough, Mark Balaguer, Horace Barlow, Michael Bate, Patricia Churchland, Aaron Ciechanover, Noam Chomsky,Alan Dershowitz, Hubert Dreyfus, Bart Ehrman, Stephan Feuchtwang, David Friend,  Riccardo Giacconi, Ivar Giaever , Roy Glauber, Rebecca Goldstein, David J. Gross,  Brian Greene, Susan Greenfield, Stephen F Gudeman,  Alan Guth, Jonathan Haidt, Theodor W. Hänsch, Brian Harrison,  Hermann Hauser, Roald Hoffmann,  Bruce Hood, Herbert Huppert,  Gareth Stedman Jones, Steve Jones, Shelly Kagan, Michio Kaku,  Stuart Kauffman,  Lawrence Krauss, Harry Kroto, George Lakoff, Elizabeth Loftus,  Alan Macfarlane, Peter Millican, Marvin Minsky, Leonard Mlodinow,  Yujin Nagasawa, Alva Noe, Douglas Osheroff,  Jonathan Parry,  Saul Perlmutter, Herman Philipse,  Carolyn Porco, Robert M. Price, Lisa Randall, Lord Martin Rees,  Oliver Sacks, John Searle, Marcus du Sautoy, Simon Schaffer, J. L. Schellenberg,   Lee Silver,  Peter Singer,  Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Ronald de Sousa, Victor Stenger, Barry Supple,   Leonard Susskind, Raymond Tallis, Neil deGrasse Tyson,  .Alexander Vilenkin, Sir John Walker, Frank Wilczek, Steven Weinberg, and  Lewis Wolpert,

Dian Fossey below who was one of his students:

Robert Hinde

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Jane Goodall was also one of students

Robert Aubrey Hinde
Born	26 October 1923 (age 92) Norwich, England
Nationality	United Kingdom
Fields	Zoology
Institutions	University of Cambridge
Alma mater	University of Cambridge University of Oxford
Notable awards	Frink Medal (1991) Royal Medal (1996)

Robert Aubrey Hinde CBE FRS FBA /haɪnd/ (born 26 October 1923 in Norwich, England) is a British zoologist, the Emeritus Royal Society ResearchProfessor of Zoology at the University of Cambridge.^[1]

Hinde was the master of St. John’s College, Cambridge in 1989-94.^[2] He is the chair of British Pugwash. He studies “the application of biological and psychological data to understanding the bases of religion and ethics” and “eliminating the causes of war”.^[3]

Hinde was educated at St. John’s College, Cambridge and at Balliol College, Oxford.

He is a distinguished supporter of the British Humanist Association.

Publications[edit]

• Animal behaviour: a synthesis of ethology and comparative psychology. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. ISBN 0-07028-927-1
• Biological Bases of Human Social Behaviour (1974).^[4]
• . “Can Nonhuman Primates Help Us Understand Human Behavior?”. In Smuts, B.B., Cheney, D.L., Seyfarth, R.M., Wrangham, R.W., Struhsaker, T.T. (eds). Primate Societies. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press. pp. 413–420. ISBN 0-226-76715-9.
• Cooperation and prosocial behaviour (Ed. with Jo Groebel). Cambridge University Press, 1991. ISBN 0-521-39110-5
• The institution of war (Ed.). New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992. ISBN 0-312-06611-2
• Relationships: a dialectical perspective. Hove, East Sussex: Psychological Press, 1997. ISBN 0-86377-706-6
• Why gods persist: a scientific approach to religion. London: Routledge, 1999. ISBN 0-415-20825-4
• Why good is good: the sources of morality. London: Routledge, 2002. ISBN 0-415-27752-3
• War, no more: eliminating conflict in the nuclear age (Ed. with Joseph Rotblat). London: Pluto Press, 2003. ISBN 0-7453-2192-5
• Van der Horst FCP; Van der Veer R; Van IJzendoorn MH (2007). “John Bowlby and ethology: An annotated interview with Robert Hinde”. Attachment & Human Development 9 (4): 321–335.doi:10.1080/14616730601149809. ISSN 1469-2988. PMID 17852051. Retrieved 2007-11-30. Cite uses deprecated parameter |coauthors= (help)#

External links[edit]

• Robert Hinde interviewed by Alan Macfarlane 7 and 20 November 2007 (film)
• Listen to an oral history interview with Robert Hinde – a life story interview recorded for An Oral History of British Science at the British Library

Academic offices
Preceded by Francis Harry Hinsley	Master of St John’s College, Cambridge 1989–1994	Succeeded by Peter Goddard

Authority control WorldCat Identities VIAF: 108276619 LCCN: n50034957 ISNI: 0000 0001 0931 029X GND: 119026619 SUDOC: 067026141 BNF: cb11907545w (data)

This article about a British zoologist is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Categories:

• Living people
• British zoologists
• Alumni of St John’s College, Cambridge
• Alumni of Balliol College, Oxford
• Fellows of the Royal Society
• Fellows of the British Academy
• Royal Medal winners
• 1923 births
• Masters of St John’s College, Cambridge
• Members of the United States National Academy of Sciences
• British zoologist stubs

In  the second video below in the 99th clip in this series are his words and  my response is below them. 

50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 1)

Another 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 2)

A Further 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 3)

Interview of Robert Hinde – 2007 – part 1

Interview of Robert Hinde – 2007 – part 2

Interview of Robert Hinde – 2007 – part 3

• Department of Zoology

Below is a letter in which I respond to the quote from Dr. Hinde:

April 13, 2016

Professor Robert Hinde, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom,

Dear Dr. Hinde,

I have been simply amazed at the people over the years you have been associated with. Students such as Pat Bateson, Jane Goodall and Dian Fossey. Also you were around such famous people as  Bill Thorpe, Danny Lehrman and Jay Rosenblatt, Gabriel Horn, Danny Lehrman and Jay Rosenblatt, and Frank Beach. And I was stunned that you got to write a paper with Ernst Mayr. I also had the honor of corresponding with him back in 1995. 

Thank you for taking the time to give an interview to  Dr. Alan MacFarlane. Dr. MacFarlane’s series of interviews have been so intriguing and yours was one of the best.

In the You Tube video “A Further 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 2),” you asserted: 

Later interest in religion was not influenced by work with YMCA at that time; called up and sent to Southern Rhodesia to train as a pilot; went on to flying training school and flew tiger moths; group of us were selected for Coastal Command and sent down to George in South Africa to train as a navigator; came home on a troop ship via South America; took months and months despite being on a fairly fast troop ship without an escort, having to keep watch for submarines; I was then a mild sceptical Christian but the man I was on lookout duty with was a passionate atheist; talked for weeks and weeks and when we got to England, he was a Christian and I was an agnostic;

If you are an agnostic/atheist and a humanist then what do you have to  say about the negative view that many humanists have about the ultimate meaningless of life?

I know that you are active in the  BRITISH HUMANIST ASSOCIATION so I thought this short letter may interest you.

H. J. Blackham was the founder of the BRITISH HUMANIST ASSOCIATION and he asserted:

“On humanist assumptions, life leads to nothing, and every pretense that it does not is a deceit. If there is a bridge over a gorge which spans only half the distance and ends in mid-air, and if the bridge is crowded with human beings pressing on, one after the other they fall into the abyss. The bridge leads nowhere, and those who are pressing forward to cross it are going nowhere….It does not matter where they think they are going, what preparations for the journey they may have made, how much they may be enjoying it all. The objection merely points out objectively that such a situation is a model of futility“( H. J. Blackham, et al., Objections to Humanism (Riverside, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1967).

On John Ankerberg’s show in 1986 there was a debate between  Dr. Paul Kurtz, and Dr. Norman Geisler and when part of the above quote was read, Dr. Kurtz responded:

I think you may be quoting Blackham out of context because I’ve heard Blackham speak, and read much of what he said, but Blackham has argued continuously that life is full of meaning;

Harold J. Blackham (1903-2009)

With that in mind I wanted to ask you what  does the BRITISH HUMANIST ASSOCIATION have to offer in the area of meaning and values? Francis Schaeffer two months before he died said if he was talking to a gentleman he was sitting next to on an airplane about Christ he wouldn’t start off quoting Bible verses. Schaeffer asserted:

I would go back rather to their dilemma if they hold the modern worldview of the final reality only being energy, etc., I would start with that. I would begin as I stress in the book THE GOD WHO IS THERE about their own [humanist] prophets who really show where their view goes. For instance, Jacques Monod, Nobel Prize winner from France, in his book NECESSITY AND CHANCE said there is no way to tell the OUGHT from the IS. In other words, you live in a totally silent universe. 

Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984)

Jacques Monod (1910-1976), Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (1965)

The men like Monod and Sartre or whoever the man might know that is his [humanist] prophet and they point out quite properly and conclusively what life is like, not just that there is no meaningfulness in life but everyone according to modern man is just living out some kind of game plan. It may be knocking 1/10th of a second off a downhill ski run or making one more million dollars. But all you are doing is making a game plan within the mix of a meaningless situation. WOODY ALLEN exploits this very strongly in his films. He really lives it. I feel for that man, and he has expressed it so thoroughly in ANNIE HALL and MANHATTAN and so on.

According to the Humanist worldview Jacques Monod the universe is silent about values and therefore his good friend Woody Allendemonstrated this very fact so well in his 1989 movie CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. In other words, if we can’t get our values from the Bible then  the answer is MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!!!!

I CHALLENGE YOU TO TAKE 90 MINUTES AND WATCH THE MOVIE “CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS” AND THEN ANSWER THE QUESTION: “What reason is there that Judah should not have his mistress eliminated if there is no God and afterlife of judgment and rewards?”

CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS was written and directed by Woody Allen

Judah has his mistress eliminated through his brother’s underworld connections

Anjelica Huston

__

King Solomon closed the Book of Ecclesiastes (Richard Dawkins’ favorite Book of the Bible) with these words, “The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with^[d] every secret thing, whether good or evil.” With that in mind I have enclosed a short booklet called THIS WAS YOUR LIFE!

In light of your work with monkeys I thought you would be interested in this article below:

Greg Koukl takes on Evolutionist Robert Wright and Monkey Morality in the article, “Monkey Morality: Can Evolution Explain Ethics? :”

Why Be a Good Boy Tomorrow?

This observation uncovers the most serious objection to the idea that evolution is adequate to explain morality.  There is one question that can never be answered by any evolutionary assessment of ethics.  The question is this:  Why ought I be moral tomorrow?

One of the distinctives of morality is its “oughtness,” its moral incumbency.  Assessments of mere behavior, however, are descriptive only.  Since morality is essentially prescriptive–telling what should be the case, as opposed to what is the case–and since all evolutionary assessments of moral behavior are descriptive, then evolution cannot account for the most important thing that needs to be explained:  morality’s “oughtness.”

The question that really needs to be answered is:  “Why shouldn’t the chimp (or a human, for that matter) be selfish?”  The evolutionary answer might be that when we’re selfish, we hurt the group.  That answer, though, presumes another moral value:  We ought to be concerned about the welfare of the group.  Why should that concern us?  Answer:  If the group doesn’t survive, then the species doesn’t survive.  But why should I care about the survival of the species?

Here’s the problem.  All of these responses meant to explain morality ultimately depend on some prior moral notion to hold them together.  It’s going to be hard to explain, on an evolutionary view of things why I should not be selfish, or steal, or rape, or even kill tomorrow without smuggling morality into the answer.

The evolutionary explanation disembowels morality, reducing it to mere descriptions of conduct.  The best the Darwinist explanation can do–if it succeeds at all–is explain past behavior.  It cannot inform future behavior.  The essence of morality, though, is not description, but prescription.

Evolution may be an explanation for the existence of conduct we choose to call moral, but it gives no explanation why I should obey any moral rules in the future.  If one countered that we have a moral obligation to evolve, then the game would be up, because if we have moral obligations prior to evolution, then evolution itself can’t be their source.

Evolutionists are Wrong about Ethics

Darwinists opt for an evolutionary explanation for morality without sufficient justification.  In order to make their naturalistic explanation work, “morality” must reside in the genes.  “Good,” beneficial tendencies can then be chosen by natural selection.  Nature, through the mechanics of genetic chemistry, cultivates behaviors we call morality.

This creates two problems.  First, evolution doesn’t explain what it’s meant to explain.  It can only account for preprogrammed behavior, which doesn’t qualify as morality.  Moral choices, by their nature, are made by free agents, not dictated by internal mechanics.

Secondly, the Darwinist explanation reduces morality to mere descriptions of behavior.  The morality that evolution needs to account for, however, entails much more than conduct.  Minimally, it involves motive and intent as well.  Both are non-physical elements which can’t, even in principle, evolve in a Darwinian sense.

Further, this assessment of morality, being descriptive only, ignores the most fundamental moral question of all:  Why should I be moral tomorrow?  Evolution cannot answer that question.  It can only attempt to describe why humans acted in a certain way in the past.  Morality dictates what future behavior ought to be.

Evolution does not explain morality.  Bongo is not a bad chimp, he’s just a chimp.  No moral rules apply to him.  Eat the banana, Bongo.

Thank you again for your time. I know how busy you are. 

Everette Hatcher, everettehatcher@gmail.com, http://www.thedailyhatch.org, cell ph 501-920-5733, Box 23416, LittleRock, AR 72221

PS: Dr. Hinde you say that you are sure that Christianity is not true but have you investigated adequately? If  someone is truly interested in investigating the Old Testament Scriptures then all they have to do is google some of the following posts I have featured and click on these links and the evidence is there showing that Christ is the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament. Here are some of my past posts on this subject, My correspondence with Daniel Bell and Irving Kristol about the rebirth of Israel!!!!, My personal visit with Bill Kristol on 7-18-14 in Hot Springs, Arkansas!!!!, Simon Schama’s lack of faith in Old Testament Prophecy, Who are the good guys: Hamas or Israel?, “A Jewish Doctor Speaks Out: Why I Believe that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah” written by Dr. Jack Sternberg (author of the book CHRISTIANITY: THE JEWISH ROOTS), and  Jesus Christ in the Old Testament by Adrian Rogers,

Interview of Robert Hinde – 2007 – part 1

_________________________________

________

Related posts:

__