Often times when discussing religion with a Christian the issue of morality comes up. The claim of the Christian is almost always the same regardless of whether the Christian is a fundamentalist or more mainstream, “without God there can be no moral grounding.” Personally, I find that to be a pretty arrogant and inaccurate statement. The way I see it, with God there can be no moral grounding. The shear number of differing sects of Jews, Christians, and Muslims who have completely opposite opinions on so many moral issues certainly suggests that God hasn’t grounded morality at all. If he had, all believers in the Biblical God would have the same set of morals and as a point of fact they don’t.
It seems that God wasn’t so clear about his moral grounding after all since so many Christians disagree about God’s moral grounding. We really need to ask, how do we know what God commands? That is the real problem with believing in deities, you never really know what they want. From what I can tell by talking to so many Christians, God seems to communicate by one of two ways, either by divine revelations or through divine texts.
When it comes to divine revelation things get pretty problematic pretty quickly. This was a big problem early on for the Mormons when Joseph Smith declared that any Mormon could have a divine revelation. Very quickly people were getting some pretty opposing commands from God. It seemed to be impossible to know what a real divine revelation was and what thoughts were just people’s imagination, desires, or random thoughts and/or beliefs. And then of course mental illness is an issue with divine revelations too. You will find that there are often stories in the news of someone murdering their child because they had a divine revelation. How can you tell if someone had a divine revelation or is just crazy? There really is no objective way. Some Christians however claim that all divine revelations must match up with their holy book which brings us to the second God seems to communicate.
Divine texts like the Bible have a whole new set of problems. The Bible was written a long time ago and we don’t even have the original verses of the text. Over the years, the individual texts have been recopied over and over again complete with people’s deliberate and accidental changes. People seem to have revised the texts to fit their own personal philosophies, beliefs, or situations. Plus, people have also miscopied and mistranslated words as the text moved from language to language and copy to copy. One important piece of evidence of all the Biblical changes is the Sinaiticus Codex. As a result, people’s religious frameworks have become entirely dependent on their interpretation of inaccurate “Holy Scriptures.” With so many changes and translations and interpretations of the divine holy book, it is impossible to really know what God truly desire if God even had anything at all to do with the writing of the Holy Book in the first place.
Even if we could deal with those issues, the problem doesn’t get any better. According to the moral grounding argument, God defines morality and this causes a host of other problems. What if God changed his mind? Some Christians will argue that God wouldn’t change his mind because God is perfect or God is his character or some such nonsense. But the Bible claims in numerous places that God does change his mind. But that too is beside the point. The real issue isn’t whether he will change his mind, but rather whether he could change his mind if he so desired? If God did change his mind, then morality would change with God. This doesn’t seem like moral grounding to me. In fact, it sounds a lot like moral relativism. If God declared tomorrow that rape was now morally good, I really don’t think it would be so, but if God is indeed the moral grounder, than all morality is relative to God’s whim.
Many Christians will then typically argue that, “either all morality is absolute or all morality is subjective.” This line of thinking is a very problematic one which deals with a limiting of options and a kind of absolutism all its own. When we look at the philosophy of ethics and morality, we see that some of the greatest minds in human history have been working on this problem and have come up with some very complicated solutions which still don’t fully make morality clear to us. Some of the greatest of moral thinkers include, Plato, Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, John Stewart Mill, and John Rawls. There are of course many more, but these thinkers in particular have helped to shape modern concepts of morality.
As difficult as it may be for God-believers to understand, morality just isn’t as simple as a rulebook of do’s and don’ts. Morality isn’t all absolute nor is it all subjective. Morality is part principle based and part situational based. Personally, I think Kant and Aristotle have helped me better understand morality in that morality is more about the means than the ends as Kant viewed it and it is more about learning from moral role models or “men of practical wisdom” as Aristotle had suggested.
Currently, work is being done in the field of neuroscience to explain mirroring synapses and how that relates to compassion and empathy, which may help to teach us more about human morality from a biological standpoint. But until more study is done, we are left in the philosophical realm and from what we can gather through our understanding of the philosophy of ethics; morality is in no small part linked to two key aspects of human life, empathy and compassion.
So what is an atheist’s moral grounding? Right now, there isn’t any. There is no moral grounding for atheists and no moral grounding for Christians either or for anyone else for that matter. Morality is not completely absolute nor is it completely subjective. There is a delicate balance and we are all trying our best to navigate these often-difficult moral paths. As human society has progressed, we have learned more and more about how best to treat each other in a moral way but our moral journey is far from over and as we as a people continue to learn, we will no doubt refine our moral compasses. If you would like to learn more about morality I would suggest you spend some time in the Philosophy Section of your local bookstore.
Atheism 101 Articles:
Atheism 101: What is the difference between atheism and agnosticism?
Atheism 101: Is there moral grounding without God?
Atheism 101: The Purpose of Life
Atheism 101: Is the Bible the inspired word of God?
Atheism 101: The anti-intellectualism of religion
Atheism 101: Why has Christianity demonized nudity, sex and sexuality?
Atheism 101: Does it take more faith to be an atheist?
Atheism 101: What came before the Universe?
Atheism 101: How to respond to the ex-atheist
Comments
You just finished yabbering on an on in a previous column and comments, that Atheism isn't a worldview so why would Atheism have a moral grounding.
You could said that in one sentence instead of using yet another piece push already refuted arguments against Christiantiy. E.g. bible accuracy, and arguments like "what if God changing his mind?" It's just so cheap and pathetic.
As your fellow Atheist, Greg said, I believe "this is Anti-Christianity 101."
You have some real issues man, get some help, seriously.
Again with the personal attacks. First, if you had actually read the article (again) you would know that I didn't make a case for atheist moral grounding. I actually stated that there was no case for that. But you see, to have a reading problem so I guess you missed that. Second, This article and this series is (as I stated before) designed to help atheists defend against common arguments used by theists. The argument here is (as stated in the article which you did not read) that “Without God there can be no moral grounding.” Third, your claims of "cheap and pathetic" are just more personal attacks which don't address the issues. I think that because you can't address the issues, you just resort to personal attacks. Both bible accuracy and God's fickleness are absolutely relevant to argument being laid out. I don't see this as anti-Christian necessarily. While I am sure some Christians will take it that way, stating that no one has moral grounding is hardly an attack on Christianity.
@Staks
You say:
"While I am sure some Christians will take it that way, stating that no one has moral grounding is hardly an attack on Christianity."
Well you know how so many Christians like to see themselves, above as being marginalized, discriminated against, and generally being put down. They have a persecution complex.
LOL at the mini controversy.
@Nigel,
Sir, I support anti-theological rants like these. It is not so much an attack as it is a refutation, but it says nothing on behalf of atheism at all. The problem in my estimation is that Mr Rosch has no idea what atheism is. Those who define atheism as a lack of belief in a god are out to lunch on what atheism is, they violate logic, have nothing to promote and never say anything in support of atheism because they think there is nothing they have concluded at all.
@Staks,
Again, this articles title is terribly misleading as the article doesn't ever once talk about atheism. It sits in opposition of christian diatribes sure, but it could as easily be written by a deist or for that matter a hindu. It targets christianity and while I do the same, I don't call that "Atheism 101". It is anti-theism, of which christianity is just 1 theology, but that is what it is.
I agree with your well meaning effort, I disagree with the misleading title.
Morality is subjective. Saying so is not promoting atheism, yet it runs counter to christian, jewish, and muslim understanding of good and bad. This is modern ethics, not atheism.
The method of decision used in resolving any good-bad equation is one that depends on the resolvers existence and perspective. This is how the modern world sees ethics and what is taught in any reputable university on the topic.
youtube(dot)com/watch?v=wQkcPImMCQg&feature=related
Check that up, it's my youtube video on subjective morals. I say "for atheism" but of course I meant in the context of one atheists perspective, mine. The rest speaks for the state of the modern world in how we grasp ethics, while remaining quite open to any correction(s).
It is not just evolution that theists have problems with in modern science and logic, it is nearly everything said in higher education. There is no god or spirits in the formal study of ethics, truth, even faith itself is not defined by the old school.
As for "morality is absolute" yes christians do say that and the issue is twofold in that they are wrong that anything can be an absolute truth and they are wrong that any moral statement is ever true or false.
All truths are systemic, relative to a system of proof. Beliefs like moral statements are never true or false. Morals are subjective, whatever the subject thinks is right, is right to that person and that is all anyone has to work with, theists included.
Beliefs cannot ever be proven true, because if they are then they cease being belief statements and become truth statements.
And beliefs come in 3 types, not just opinions or subjective taste like in music, art, food and personal values... but myths are beliefs and are not subjective, and inductive logic requires assumption, which is a belief and objective like myths are.
Only opinions are subjective, myths (belief) are objective and so too are assumptions.
youtube(dot)com/watch?v=9wdZV15-IF4&feature=related
"So what is an atheist’s moral grounding? Right now, there isn’t any"
False. We all resolve these things privately, subjectively. They are opinions, the proof being the method of decision, theists included. They don't have objective morality, let alone a moral truth they can prove, let alone any absolute truth... all of these notions they have are ridiculous.
But so is saying "So what is an atheist’s moral grounding? Right now, there isn’t any". It is universal among all moral statements that the decision process, the method of decision, is subjective (opinion). We cannot prove any good-bad equation is true. The method we used to decide for ourselves that X is wrong, or Y is right, cannot be demonstrated for others to use, such that they can use the same means of resolution I did or you did.
To say "Right now, there isn’t any" is simply being unaware of modern ethics, and if that is atheism 101 then perhaps atheism 201 corrects this, without being a refutation.
@Greg, I we are just going to have to agree to disagree on what the word "atheism" means. This is really just a label issue. I don't really care much what label you would like to put on me, but position is the same. I call that label atheism and I have explained why. YOu are welcome to disagree. While many of my arguments could easily be used for any theistic religion, I tend to focus on Christianity more because in America, that is the dominate belief system. Recently I had to adapt this very argument toward a fundamentalist Jew. It is my observation that most fellow atheists who ask me about this argument are doing so in order to defend against Christianity. So that is yet another reason why I choose to structure it in that direction. But you will try to focus more on theism in general rather than one particular branch of theism in the future (whenever possible).
As an athiest my morals are simply " if it feels good"
These are a few of the things that make me "feel good"
helping the elderly,
avoiding animals when they run in front of my car,
making other people feel happy,
feeding the poor,
forgiving others who have wronged me,
and the list goes on.. yes, i am an evil athiest with no morals.
You can't deny the inevitability of one of these two choices:
1) The universe is purposeful and has some meaning
2) The universe is not a universe of purpose and is thus "meaningless."
By "meaning," I mean something large and cosmic, something related to the "supernatural" (or "spiritual," or "religious," or anything else that makes the ignorant type of atheist cringe), if only because science cannot answer questions about it. Science, can, however, sway us in one direction with regard to the two options.
Now suppose that we're convinced about Option 2. Look there's evolution, the big bang, we're accidents, we're imperfect, there have been religious wars, teleology seems to be an illusion, etc., etc...That would mean our worldview is that the universe as a whole is meaningless. Pretty much that there is nothing like a God, much less one who cares.
Now, if the whole is meaningless/cosmically pointless, no single part can be meaningful/cosmically purposeful.
***Of course, there are other types of meaning ("I love my kid, he's so important to me! He means everything to me"), but that's not what I'm talking about.***
Now if this is all the case, then an action performed by a mere individual that belongs to an accidental species of evolution is pretty much irrelevant. You killed someone. You helped someone. Once the universe ends, who or what is going to care? Really, it's not like there's a God or some judgment.
Of course, you might act well because it disgusts you to kill, because it "feels" wrong to kill, because you might go to jail, because you're really an agnostic at heart, because it's hardwired into us that other people matter (maybe for the survival of our species?), because killing is associated with despicable people...I really don't care about the reason. If Option 2 is true, then whether you kill or save a person will make no difference, because MORALITY cannot exist in a purposeless universe.
And by "difference" I mean some cosmic difference.
And let's look at it better. Acting morally, being forced to perform some duty, etc., etc., if there is no higher authority why trouble yourself by being good other than the fact that acting well brings one other goods (e.g. respect, jobs, awards, reputation, freedom from jail-time)?
If the universe is meaningless, there is no right and there is no wrong. It's all a joke. Nothing is inherently of any value. After, this act of "valuing" seems to be distinctively human. What if humans (or any other rational beings) had never existed? Wouldn't this have meant morality would never even have been brought up? It would never be an issue. It's only an issue because we exist.
But that's contingent. And if morality is something real it cannot be contingent.
That's pretty obvious.
But of course, taking the worldview #2 with absolute 100% certainty is obviously absurd -if you ever read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, you might under
But if we were ever assured of Option #2, you can rest assured that Dostoevsky would be right, and without God anything would be permitted.
But if you're not sure entirely (and you CAN'T!), if you still 2% agnostic, I wouldn't go around doing those bad things. Maybe there is morality. But that hinges on meaning. Otherwise, it's kind of a "fake" "social" morality that's useful for making society run.
Now, it's interesting you brought up Kant. I'm kind of a Kant scholar and I'd suggest you read the part in a Critique of Judgment where Kant actually explains morality for an atheist. If you recall from pretty much all his major works, he actually postulated the necessity of a God from practical reason.
I argue that morals are more of a creation of society than of religion. As social animals we need to create rules to make the society work. For a simplistic example, don't kill others in your social group (beyond personal self defense) because numbers helps for division of labor, protection from enemies, etc. Other social animals have their own mores. Take a pack of wolves for example. When a younger wolf challenges the pack leader for leadership, (except in a case of a close fight) the pack leader won't attempt to kill the younger wolf. The fight lasts only until one submits to another. For them to kill each other would mean one less helper when taking down an elk or moose, making the job harder.
As I see it, religion is on a social level just a method to codify the social morals into actual rules. But, the society had (and the morals that hold the society together) to exist before the religion.
The answer to this is: there is no morality, its an empty concept. We can all do what we want. People behave well because the consequences of behaving badly are a pain: social isolation, being ostracised and denigrated, loss of pleasure, loss of income, prison, fines, having to hide away for fear of retribution. What does it mean to behave well? Well, I know it feels bad when someone breaks into my house, and I know it feels bad if someone hits me, or insults me or treats me badly some other way, and I stop spending time with those people. It's not a big deal, the reason volumes have been written about morality is because people tie themselves in knots over an empty concept. If you don't believe me, go out tomorrow and knife someone. You'll discover that there's no invisible barrier called morality to stop you. All there'll be, maybe, is some possible future court case and some prison time. All morailty is then, is people saying "do this, don't do that" to each other. Wow.
Actually, all this "Atheism 101" stuff is just silly. Atheism is merely a position on one issue, and that's it. These should probably be entitled "Staks 101", but then that's not as sexy, nor does it produce Google hits. LOL!
Philadelphia Critical Thinking Examiner
Dave Mauriello - I appreciate your comment, but I don't agree. While atheism is "merely a position on one issue," atheists tend to to get the same criticisms from religious people all over and over again. The Atheism 101 articles are designed to inform atheists on how best to address these issues when they arise. While many in the greater atheistic community already have ideas on addressing these issues due to the shear number of times these issues arise, these articles are specifically geared towards recent atheists. That is why they are 101 and not 501. Theists too can learn something from these articles however. Perhaps if enough theists read them, they will stop bringing up these same old issues which have already been addressed by greater minds than I.
There is an interesting philosophical argument against the belief that God created morality. It goes like this: If because God made it so, something is good, then that thing could just as easily be bad. Murder, rape, torture, theft, lying, all things associated with immorality could be just the opposite and be considered moral if God so chose. The fact that we can imagine such a case makes God's laws arbitrary. (And how could that be possible?) But we know that rape is not immoral just because God said so. It is immoral for REASONS. For any religion to say that something is right or wrong because their God said so is therefore ridiculous. People created morality because it is necessary for us to coexist.
@Dave: Right on, right on! Morality is a fiction. It is invented by society and each society invents it differently. Except for fear of real, actual, physical consequences, there is no reason to follow it. Those strong or powerful enough to be immune to the societal pressures and punishements of violating its individual moral laws can act however they please.
Consider that a poor man mugging a passerby for $50 results in his incarceration, but if a politician, CEO or banker robs millions of their wealth in the name of some lofty greater good (lies) then the peasantry turn out to worship him whenever he makes a brief appearance before jetting off to his summer palace.
What is morality for an atheist?
Either we discover moral truth, it comes into being, or there is none. Since truth can not be 'made up'--we either discover moral truth, or there is none. Nature, including human nature cannot prescribe (make up) moral truth, the meaning of life--the most it can do is evolve a way to experience and hunger for it (the conscience/moral sense)...the way we evolved the ability to learn mathematical truths (which were not evolved). Moral truth exists on the level of mathematical truths (or higher), or it does not exist. The question is...if moral truth exists, which ethical theory corresponds to unchanging reality? www. examiner.com/x-26772-San-Francisco-Apologetics-Examiner~y2009m11d17-Weighing-the-great-theories-in-Ethics-against-the-Golden-Rule-with-emphasis-on-human-rights
Maryann - "Either we discover moral truth, it comes into being, or there is none." Why? That isn't a binary statement. You are just trying to limit the options here. As I pointed out in the article, we as a society create morality because morality deals with how we get alone with other moral agents. There is no morality in a vacuum.
Maryann, Math and Ethics are two different things. Math is something that exists in the world. Ethics and morality don't. As moral agents, we learn what is best for the individual and for society and weight the two to make moral decisions. Please pick up an intro book on Ethics before you start talking about it. Know what you are talking about.
Oh and Maryann, please actually comment on the article and don't just use my article as an opportunity to spam for yours. Where is the Christian's moral grounding?
cool ! no moral ground !! so if I can get away with it and keep your friends from catching me I could do unspeakable harm to you and walk away laughing like ol' sadam or adolf.
did you even read this article after you "wrote" it? it has more circle logic than a looping computer. why did you digress in to why people belive how divided they are.
BTW Fundamental Christian is mainstream,
If I give you a manual for how to correctly use your lawn mower and you run it on rocks, whose fault is that. even if you neighbors all argue about the manual did you read it and try to understand it? NOO! you just watched them argue and threw away the book. because their fools you were also?
Really the big question is are you accountable for all the things you do while visiting here on planet earth?
I say you are and you need a lawyer named Jesus.
If Im wrong at least I led a good life with good carma, but
if you are wrong .... you are in deep trouble. You had better check those odds again
There is no moral grounding without God ....in fact to walk without God you are already a dead man....He is life itself...without Him our walk is futile...
Pardon my being blunt, but you don't seem to have a clue about what morality is. Perhaps if you tried to write down a coherent and comprehensive definition, it would help you get past the point you are stuck on. It will take some hard work, but the result will be worth it. After that, you can rewrite your article.
P-P: If that is what you got out of this article that I feel sad for you. You are telling me (and society) that the only reason why you don't go around raping people is out of your greed for Heaven and/or fear of Hell? Really? How sad. :-(
Barb: As I explained in my article, there is no moral grounding with god. Restating your position without addressing my points is not really an argument. It is just sticking your head in the sand.
lnocsifan: Please enlighten me.
Dave (not Mauriello), your assertion that "(p)eople behave well because the consequences of behaving badly are a pain: social isolation, being ostracised and denigrated, loss of pleasure, loss of income, prison, fines, having to hide away for fear of retribution" is overbroad. *Sociopaths* behave themselves for that reason, but most people in my experience not, for example, steal, murder or rape even if they knew they couldn't get caught.
Why?
Little things called "compassion" and "empathy." You don't need religion for those: they're available to everyone. My daughter displayed those from almost a pre-verbal stage. Now, I'm religious (Wiccan, specifically), but I know that one does not need religion to be moral; not just *act* morally, but to *be* a moral person.
Rob
P-P, is fear of punishment the only reason you don't rape, murder, or steal? Unless you're actually sociopathic, I doubt that's the case.
I think Staks' point about division among believers is that if there are numerous different ways to read and understand "the manual," that calls into question the claims that it is "authoritative."
Your closing argument is a restatement of something called "Pascal's Wager." It's been completely debunked, and if you take a quick look at the Wikipedia article on the subject, you'll see why.
Of course the high and mighty religious get to believe they have the morality. According to creationists, without god we can't learn morals only god can give them to humans. They will use the Adam and Eve eating an apple from the forbidden fruit of knowledge. When you listen to them, they seem to ALWAYS talk about praying sins away and asking for forgiveness. There is room for abuse on that end. Like the whole Bishops and Priests sexually abusing, molesting and raping (of course sexually here)little boys. They got to pray for the sin to be dealt with and be able to be forgiven. With no need to worry about a guilty conscience they get to do it over and over again. And the top guy the pope doesn't have to remove them and still does not.
There is an objective way to determine if a personal revelation may be true: does it conflict with reason?
God would not and indeed cannot change His mind on eternal truth. Objective morality is as eternal and everlasting as He.
I must commend you for your complete honesty on the question of moral grounding with regards atheism. Especially the point about morality being both objective and subjective: morality is indeed subjective circumstances weighed against objective norms. Aristotle taught that. Yet he also taught that we know the objective norms based on our relationship to the Prime Movers as based on reason, the beings responsible for all things and all activity in the Universe having started things off and our having the ability to reason and interpret based on such. Aristotle infers there is a God of some kind, and that without such, all of our reason is in question. Without such, we have no moral ground to any of our acts.
There are two responses to the Theist (especially a follower of the three religions of the Bible) who claims that all morality comes from their God and that book. The first is to point out the very many extremely unpleasant downright immoral things that happen in that book, be it the Old or New testament parts. Slavery is okay, apparently, as is murder and rape for all kinds of things. Apartheid in South Africa was supported with the help of biblical texts.
The Theist may then say that clearly not all of it is exact, some is merely old tales, outdated etc. and you should choose these bits or those bits. But if this is a moral guide, how can you pick and choose? Truth be told that historically churches have followed the moral lead of the the society that they form a part of, not lead it. Again, church support of slavery in periods of history when this was acceptable is a classic example - it is no good theists saying that they knew no better.
Finally, of course, it is pretty scary to think that the sole reason that theists do not become mass murders if fear of divine retribution. Maybe we atheists should be careful, because if any of these theists did lose their faith then we maybe should make sure we are well out of the way!
As for Atheist morality? Human beings are social animals, like all other social animals. To behave immorally damages the society on which we depend for our survival. Immoral behaviour is a threat to society, and society will respond - we know that. We also know that a well functioning society is to out benefit - and (crucially) the benefit of our children. Same applies to all other social animals, from apes and wolves to ants and bees. Or do theists think that ants believe in God?
Its related to the evolutionary/genetic explanation of altruism - that altruism is associated with survival of your genes, which is why you will defend close relatives. Altruism towards unrelated friends is a combination of misdirected genetic defence, and defence of society.
That does not mean that an atheist thinks this through, any more than an ant or an ape does, Such moral behaviour is innate (or learnt at an early age, or a combination of the two) - we simply "know" that is how you should behave.
So we simply 'know' proper morality. Sounds an awful lot like faith to me.
I gotta agree with Charles on this one. John should realize that morality is about empathy and compassion. However, most people do have an intuitive sense of empathy and compassion and so it can seem that morality is an intuitive sense. I hope both John and Charles read more on the Philosophy of Ethics.
Why, Staks, I'm glad we could find some common ground. I agree that humans are intuitive (the Ten Commandments are written on our hearts ), but not that morality is about empathy and compassion. For empathy and compassion are mere feelings, and we know that feelings can and do mislead. Alone, feelings may inspire good moral action. Yet they may well inspire bad moral action: it goes without saying that anger can cause must grief. We must judge our feelings as to whether they are for well or for ill, We must look upon them logically. But whose logic, then? That's where Mr. Rosch and I disagree. For Right Reason, objective morality, the Natural Law, indeed common sense, all names of one essential reality, is beyond any one person. It beyond us and we must seek it in order to act within it.
I clearly meant that "anger can cause MUCH grief". My apologies for my sloppiness.
just want to share :))
This isn't make any sense at all, it depends on how you see things, maybe people gave up on reaching the knowledge of God, since it wasn't clear for them, then they'll find a way to search on other aspects in order for them to be satisfied that they have already the knowledge to prove that they are already "correct", Knowledge is useless without the faith. faith does't only applies in believing God, faith can be use in other ways like having faith in yourself, and that was the exact manner that atheist is showing of. People who lacks knowledge about God is fed by the world who doesn't know anything. Let's us just change the way we perceive things, knowledge alone doesn't solve anything, it must be accomplish with something else and that's for you to find out.
Aesop's Fables came almost a thousand years before Christianity. A blind man can't see and a deaf man can't hear and a religious fanatic can't imagine. http://www.pacificnet.net/~johnr/aesop/
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!