quote:And yet, somehow, you do not find her evidence convincing, do you?
Actually, I'm convinced by quite a bit of it. Not all of it, of course. But much of it.
Additionally, a single counterexample is hardly support for your contention. In fact, you asked me for a single example. I gave you one.
Further, despite arguments we've had, Lisa and I have refrained from doing physical harm to each other.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:How about you addressing the issue of how you reached a solid conclusion with zero evidence first?
As a matter of fact, I do have evidence. To wit, if any religious sect had any good solid evidence that would convince neutral observers, they'd trumpet it to the skies and neutral observers would be convinced. No such thing has happened. Therefore, no such evidence exists.
There is no such thing as a neutral observer. There is no such thing as an unbiased judge. There is no such thing as perfect evidence.
quote:There is no such thing as a neutral observer.
Why do you say that?
If I build a ledge that will tip when more than forty pounds of weight are placed upon it, I have just built a neutral observer.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is no such thing as a neutral observer.
Why do you say that?
If I build a ledge that will tip when more than forty pounds of weight are placed upon it, I have just built a neutral observer.
You cannot build a ledge that will tip over at exactly 40 lbf. No matter how precise and excact you attempt to make this theoretical ledge it will actualy be tippable with slightly less or slightly more than 40 lbf, i.e. it will be biased.
Posts: 157 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Well, you're claiming that harm only comes in the results of belief, the actions we take according to those beliefs, and that any belief in something which isn't empirically provable is categorically different from a belief in something which is.
Yes. It's in a category of things that I can rationally prove or disprove.
Anyway, harm comes in many forms. It doesn't have to be from a result of belief. If you look back at my statements, what I'm stating is that a belief that someone takes is not something I find to be a moral problem for virtue of the fact that they can't prove their belief to me. I don't have issues with beliefs for virtue of the fact that the believer doesn't necessarily care whether or not their belief is empirically testable.
There's about a billion billion other reasons why I can take a grudge against a person's belief system, but it will not be on account of these categories. This statement is a long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long way away from saying that unprovable beliefs are 'universally harmless,' so I'm thinking you're totally misreading me, or something.
quote:Are there situations in which a belief in something empirically unprovable can be harmful in and of itself?
Who am I to say? I can only judge a belief to be 'harmful' based on the results of actions based on that belief, so I would have no way to attest that belief itself could be directly harmful without any connection to actions based on that belief.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Atheism is not a moral philosophy. It's a commitment to reason which denies the validity of religion.
It can be. But I think it rarely is.
Though I'd point out that "a commitment to reason" is itself a moral philosophy. Atheism, for those very few who espouse it for the reasons you do, derives from a moral philosophy, but is not, itself a moral philosophy.
I'd have to disagree. While I admit that not all atheists will see truth as a virtue in the way I do, I think the vast majority if not all of us abandon religion because we reject faith in favour of reason (and don't think there is evidence for god).
I'm not saying this to be snarky, but I'm not sure why your last sentence is there, since "Atheism is not a moral philosophy" is precisely what I said.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Science can't account for the existence of the universe, no. But there are a lot of established hypotheses with plenty of evidence going for them that are precluded by religion; many truths that conflict with religious belief.
I agree with this, except with the implication that "religious belief" as a whole is in conflict with established hypotheses. There is no monolithic "religious belief".
All religious belief systems conflict with parts of science, or at least posit hypothesis without any rational grounds. Accepting that as reality is obscuring the actual truth.
quote:
quote:So do you think that in the absence of religion, all the violence we've seen in history would have happened anyway?
Not exactly the same violence, of course not. Different violence, certainly. Humanity has never needed religion to endorse violence-it just helps, sometimes. But religions does not help solely incite some people to violence. It influences other things, too.
So the Holocaust, the Inquisition, the civil war between Sunni and Shiites, sacrifices of human beings, wars waged in the name of god(s), the divisive prejudice; all that would have just taken another equally severe form? Religion has been the direct cause of war and violence. What evidence do you have that in the absence of secular motives, men would have invented one?
Let's use the example of Aztec sacrifices. Would victims have had to endure such terrible deaths for another motive? What rational motive could there be for it?
Or otherwise (since you don't worship the Aztecs' gods), what about the Inquisition?
As for the 'other things', I've said that yes, religion does lead to good. A lie can have good consequences. I've also said they're outweighed by the evils.
You also skipped over my question (originally posed to TheGrimace), which I think is pertinent. Just as you say that wars ostensibly fought in the name of religion might have been justified by other means, consider how much of the good that people have done in the name of religion might have been done anyway, for other reasons; like empathy or a respect for human life.
quote:
quote:Thought disconnected from reason isn't a legitimate method of determining the nature of reality. So for that purpose, I don't have respect for it.
This is a belief you have, Euripedes. That reasoned thought alone is the exclusive method of determining the nature of reality. For some aspects of reality, I share your belief. For others, I do not.
I don't accept these other methods of thinking (I think they are more accurately described as feeling, unless like Lisa you are convinced there is evidence for the existence of god) because there is simply no reason to suggest that they are right. I know, there can't be a rational justification of faith; well, I need one. Reason can be applied to virtually all human endeavours except theology. Why?
I am thinking on a different paradigm. Therefore ________.
You see how that could be used to justify anything?
(Just to add, to pre-empt a possible rebuttal; Art and literature have an emotional facet, sure. There's nothing supernatural or irrational about their qualities though. They simply interact with the cultural motifs, the ideas, and thoughts in our minds, and through a series of bio-electrical reactions, brings about the qualia we call emotion. We've debated this on the first 2 pages of Puppy's Mitt Romney thread though, so you're probably aware of my position there.)
quote:It seems to me that when you're confronted with a scientist who was pressured by society to concede some form of belief, that barring other evidence besides this vague pressure, the reasonable thing to do is to say, "I don't know if he believed or not," if he says he does, rather than conclude he did not and was merely pressured by society to do so.
Not if there is evidence to the contrary, revealing that their beliefs were more accurately deistic or de facto atheist, which is the case for many scientists and thinkers like Einstein.
I didn't pull that statement out of nowhere. In The God Delusion you'll also find statistical studies which weigh in favour of my argument.
quote:Yes, religion is doing harm. So is democracy, capitalism, communism, charity, altruism, atheism, and pretty much any other -ism or -acy I could name. "Religion is doing harm" is a meaningless statement as far as persuading people is concerned, unless you examine the good religion does and try to get the tally.
Yes, I've discussed the good. Religion is doing more harm than good; I think I've made my position on that issue clear.
quote:
quote:As for examples of atheist states having been unpleasant examples, sure; Pol Pot's Cambodia, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, etc. Don't you think that has more to do with their extremist and violent political philosophies?
Why ignore all the peaceful and moral secularists in existence today?
How can you possibly ask me that question seriously, Euripedes? In our entire discussion, you've been deliberately focusing exclusively on the bad religion does. And I'm supposed to take a wider view of atheists why, exactly?
Religion extols many virtues I as an atheist hold dear, and many good works (to adopt the phraseology) have been done in the name of god(s). I sound like a broken record, but the divisiveness, the violence that is so often the logical extension of deeply held religious beliefs, the obfuscation of the truth, all those things outweigh the good.
Christianity has so often been the justification of a miserable status quo, and has had peasants working under terrible conditions in the false hope that they will ascend to heaven one day, all the time subjecting them to the fear of punishment for sins and an arbitrary association of guilt with sensual pleasure. That's just one example. Here's another one; tell a child that sinners will burn in hell, a place filled with unrelenting anguish and pain, for eternity, and that only strict observance of a legalistic moral code will save them from punishment by an all-forgiving god. That causes psychological trauma. I know; even if I wasn't brought up in a comparatively religious context, the fear of sin and the consequences it entailed were very real to me in the days I called myself a Christian.
quote:
quote:If you want to argue that abandoning religion will result in evil, you'll have to take into consideration the humanist moral precepts most atheists hold dear. Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Pol Pot's Cambodia conspicuously lacked such a moral philosophy.
I don't want to argue that. I was quite clear, I think, when I asked about what you would do earlier, I was asking because I wanted to know how far you valued sharing/exposing the truth. Not because I actually believe that humanity cannot possibly be happy without religion.
But you do think the world is a better place because of religion, and I'm trying to show that it isn't. When you mentioned that previous incarnations of atheist states have been rather unpleasant, I thought you were using the classic Nazism Stalinist Communism argument.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
irony - As I'm sitting here typing up this post I'm watching the Firefly episode when River tries to fix Book's bible because "it's broken!".
Anyway...I may be doubling up a bit on what Euripides already said in reply, but hopefully I'll have some new stuff to add. I started writing this up before I read the last post.
quote:
quote:Thought disconnected from reason isn't a legitimate method of determining the nature of reality. So for that purpose, I don't have respect for it.
This is a belief you have, Euripedes. That reasoned thought alone is the exclusive method of determining the nature of reality. For some aspects of reality, I share your belief. For others, I do not.
Like Euripides said, what other possible method of determining the nature of reality is there? What is there other than thought? Emotion? I can buy that, but emotion stems from somewhere. It doesn't exist in a vacuum. Every emotion we have is rooted in physical biological causes. What is important is trying to understand where an emotion comes from. Because obviously thoughts that are born out of emotions can be true of false. Emotions can mislead. And yet emotions are in a sense gut reactions, and gut reactions have developed over millions of years of evolution and a lifetime of experiences. My point is that we shouldn't ignore emotion, but emotion can't exist outside of reason/logic. It must work with it. So what aspect of reality is it that you're talking about where reasoned thought alone(in the true sense, taking into account everything you think and feel and where it comes from) isn't sufficient.
quote:
quote:You might be surprised though, how common atheists are among the intellectual elite. I don't advance this as an argument against religion; I point it out because the fact that many scholars and scientists have resolved this paradox in their minds is overshadowed by the fact that many are pressured by society to concede some form of belief. Then there are deists, or those like Einstein, how believe in god as a metaphor for Nature (so, de facto atheism).
It seems to me that when you're confronted with a scientist who was pressured by society to concede some form of belief, that barring other evidence besides this vague pressure, the reasonable thing to do is to say, "I don't know if he believed or not," if he says he does, rather than conclude he did not and was merely pressured by society to do so.
Again, covered, but if you read some of Einstein's writings he does actually state pretty clearly that he doesn't believe in god. a personal god. some quotes:
quote:"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.
quote:"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
quote:The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.
quote:About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.
quote:Why do you write to me “God should punish the English”? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him.
quote:To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world.
Though to be fair, he also said this:
quote:In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.
And one last one because it's just awesome:
quote:"A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty... We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive."
Sorry for the overabundance of quotes. I got carried away.
quote:
quote:As for examples of atheist states having been unpleasant examples, sure; Pol Pot's Cambodia, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, etc. Don't you think that has more to do with their extremist and violent political philosophies?
Why ignore all the peaceful and moral secularists in existence today?
How can you possibly ask me that question seriously, Euripedes? In our entire discussion, you've been deliberately focusing exclusively on the bad religion does. And I'm supposed to take a wider view of atheists why, exactly?
Because atheism isn't a set of social/moral/political precepts. It's simply a statement of non-belief in a deity. That's it. If someone who happens to be an atheist commits evil acts, their non-belief in a deity did not cause that. And yet our point is that religious doctrine is from the outset enabling these tragedies to occur.
quote:You cannot build a ledge that will tip over at exactly 40 lbf. No matter how precise and excact you attempt to make this theoretical ledge it will actualy be tippable with slightly less or slightly more than 40 lbf, i.e. it will be biased.
well, theoretically it's possible to make one that would tip over at exactly 40lbs. right?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't understand how you define "trappings" and "miracles." Are you saying they enjoy the social and perhaps other aesthetic things within the religion that are attractive and THEN buy into the miraculous aspects of it?
Well, yeah, obviously.
First, I'll counter your personal anecdotes directly. In my personal experience as a Chinese university student at UofW which seems to have a pretty aggressive Mormon recruiting presence, it seems particularly obvious from the times I've been preached at that the target audience are first-year Chinese students. From my friends, it seems that FOBs (fresh-off-the-boat) or new immigrants from mainland China are particularly vulnerable for two reasons. First, being new to the country and without any social or family contacts nearby, converts really appreciate the instant social network that joining a religion gives. Second, coming from an authoritarian country, some students really like their newfound sense of freedom. However, some find it scary and the tendency is to join a religion with a clear sense of direction such as Mormonism rather than say something with more freedom like say Anglicanism. When someone is telling you what is right or wrong without any sense of doubt, life suddenly becomes much easier.
Additionally, my own mother was a target of conversion in Hong Kong. At the time of her youth, the best schools in her are were run by religious missionaries. The devil's bargain for the people in her area was to send children either to badly run public schools or to send children to the religious schools to get better education but also to get preached at. Note that students did not have to belong to the religion to join a school, the school was run for the express purpose of conversion. She was strong enough to resist, however, many others were not as lucky.
Thats my own experiences as a counter-example to your experiences.
Historically, there are many many examples of conversion due to external factors rather than the miraculous aspects of a religion.
The most obvious is perhaps the quick conversion of much of the Aztecs. They thought Cortez was one of their fortold gods, the combination of the Spanish killing their leaders, and the smallpox which "miraculously" killed only the natives leaving the Spanish untouched proved to be a very potent combination, no evidence of "miracles" was required.
The Taiping Rebellion is another example of quick conversion. People quickly joined the sect because it took advantage of anti-Manchu sentiment (the country's foreign rulers at the time), the appeal of a class-less system to an oppressed lower class, and the provision of food during famines caused by an inept Manchu government. Again, evidence is secondary to social and economic interests when it comes to conversion.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Why on Earth do you think atheism will do good? You have no real evidence for it being a beneficial element on a large, whole-society scale. In fact, the only examples of large, whole society atheism we've got are unpleasant at best.
Eh, what?
Atheism simply means the lack of a belief in a God. There is plenty of historical evidence that a society can be run well without such belief.
The most obvious would be Confucianism, as an integral part of Chinese society, as a moral and social framework with no "God", Chinese society was run pretty well, and to date only about 15% (according to the US State Department) of Chinese are religious. To counter the inevitable question, this is not a result of persecution by Communists (although it sure did not help) but due to the dominance of Confucianism and non-religious spiritual beliefs such as ancestor worship and folk traditions.
You could even work with Bhuddism, a non-theistic religion which also has no belief in a God.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
The most obvious is perhaps the quick conversion of much of the Aztecs. They thought Cortez was one of their fortold gods, the combination of the Spanish killing their leaders, and the smallpox which "miraculously" killed only the natives leaving the Spanish untouched proved to be a very potent combination, no evidence of "miracles" was required.
I agree with the thrust of your post, but I don't see how this scenario helps your argument. To the Aztecs the arrival of Cortez and his conquistadors on horseback was miraculous, as they had no alternative explanation; in their eyes, it would have confirmed beliefs they already had. These 'miracles' did not cause the Aztecs (at least most of them) to convert to Christianity.
quote:You cannot build a ledge that will tip over at exactly 40 lbf. No matter how precise and excact you attempt to make this theoretical ledge it will actualy be tippable with slightly less or slightly more than 40 lbf, i.e. it will be biased.
I disagree, for a given definition of "exactly." In fact, it's theoretically possible with our current technology to build such a ledge out to about nine digits of precision. The fact that we can even REFERENCE "digits of precision" when talking about this sort of observer indicates, by the way, the obvious superiority of this sort of epistemology.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:So the Holocaust, the Inquisition, the civil war between Sunni and Shiites, sacrifices of human beings, wars waged in the name of god(s), the divisive prejudice; all that would have just taken another equally severe form? Religion has been the direct cause of war and violence. What evidence do you have that in the absence of secular motives, men would have invented one?
The Holocaust, you'll remember, also slaughtered vast numbers of people not for religious reasons. The handicapped, gypsies, communists, homosexuals, etc. Given that, I think it is very possible the Holocaust might have happened if religion did not exist. The people killed were different, Hitler needed a scapegoat, and the Germans weren't willing to consider the issue to carefully or face up to it.
The civil war between Sunni and Shiite? Certainly that has a whole heaping helping of religious justification in it. But if you took religion out of the picture, they would still be two "tribes" (within Iraq, at least) who had a great deal of beef with each other.
Divisive prejudice? You don't need religion for that. Look to the PRC, the Soviet Union, and some of the less savory atheists. You'll find plenty of 'divisive prejudice' without it.
The Inquisition and human sacrifices? You've got me there. I cannot imagine either would have happened, or something equivalent would have happened to take its place, without religion.
quote:Or otherwise (since you don't worship the Aztecs' gods), what about the Inquisition?
I don't worship the God of the Inquisition. I have decided not to get angry about the implication that I do, but please be aware it was extremely offensive to me.
quote:As for the 'other things', I've said that yes, religion does lead to good. A lie can have good consequences. I've also said they're outweighed by the evils.
Sure you do, but you don't go into detail, do you? From your posts on the topic here, it does not seem like you have considered what good religion leads to. Here's an easy example: divisive prejudice, the Civil Rights movement. Wouldn't have happened without religion.
quote:You also skipped over my question (originally posed to TheGrimace), which I think is pertinent. Just as you say that wars ostensibly fought in the name of religion might have been justified by other means, consider how much of the good that people have done in the name of religion might have been done anyway, for other reasons; like empathy or a respect for human life.
As for why I skipped over that question, I made that clear. You're asking me why I'm "ignoring" all the peaceful, just, moral atheists in the world. I asked you why I should take that question seriously, when that is precisely what you're doing when it comes to peaceful, just, moral theists in the world.
But I'll answer your question first, even though you seem unwilling to consider mine. I do not believe that atheism automatically leads to immorality. I do not believe one cannot be a good person whose life is a benefit to humanity if one is a humanist. I do not even believe that one cannot build a society and government which is all those things, if it is rooted strictly in humanistic atheism.
I do have to wonder just when you think "empathy and respect for life" would have come into vogue if religion had not been there.
quote:...well, I need one. Reason can be applied to virtually all human endeavours except theology. Why?
Clearly it's because we're deluded, and religion is false, eh?
quote:Not if there is evidence to the contrary, revealing that their beliefs were more accurately deistic or de facto atheist, which is the case for many scientists and thinkers like Einstein.
Certainly, not if there is evidence to the contrary for people such as Einstein. I reject the "revert to atheism" standard you appeared to be applying, when there was no other evidence, however.
quote:Yes, I've discussed the good. Religion is doing more harm than good; I think I've made my position on that issue clear.
You haven't "discussed the good". You've said, "I acknowledge religion does good, but it does more bad than good." That's one statement, not a discussion.
quote:Christianity has so often been the justification of a miserable status quo, and has had peasants working under terrible conditions in the false hope that they will ascend to heaven one day, all the time subjecting them to the fear of punishment for sins and an arbitrary association of guilt with sensual pleasure. That's just one example. Here's another one; tell a child that sinners will burn in hell, a place filled with unrelenting anguish and pain, for eternity, and that only strict observance of a legalistic moral code will save them from punishment by an all-forgiving god. That causes psychological trauma. I know; even if I wasn't brought up in a comparatively religious context, the fear of sin and the consequences it entailed were very real to me in the days I called myself a Christian.
I'm having a difficult time taking your claims that you've discussed the good religion does seriously precisely because of quotes like this. What you say here is true. It is not, however, the way religion is applied. Like all human beliefs, even atheism, sometimes it is applied well and sometimes not.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
The most obvious is perhaps the quick conversion of much of the Aztecs. They thought Cortez was one of their fortold gods, the combination of the Spanish killing their leaders, and the smallpox which "miraculously" killed only the natives leaving the Spanish untouched proved to be a very potent combination, no evidence of "miracles" was required.
I agree with the thrust of your post, but I don't see how this scenario helps your argument. To the Aztecs the arrival of Cortez and his conquistadors on horseback was miraculous, as they had no alternative explanation; in their eyes, it would have confirmed beliefs they already had. These 'miracles' did not cause the Aztecs (at least most of them) to convert to Christianity.
I think you're understandably conflating two separate issues. Regardless of whether the Aztecs thought horses, artillery, and people with white skin were miraculous or supernatural, *we* know they were not. In a way, your point furthers my argument. If your assertion is that these alleged "miracles" did not cause the Aztecs to convert to Christianity, this just confirms my argument that "miracles" are a poor motivator to conversion.
As for the real causes of conversion, I refer you to either my previous post or this. Religious revelation, inspiration, and the like clearly play a back-seat role to factors such as destroying old religious buildings, repression of the old religion, an Islamic-like punitive policy for the converted ("once a Christian, always a Christian"), the use of military force, slavery, and so forth.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The Holocaust, you'll remember, also slaughtered vast numbers of people not for religious reasons. The handicapped, gypsies, communists, homosexuals, etc. Given that, I think it is very possible the Holocaust might have happened if religion did not exist. The people killed were different, Hitler needed a scapegoat, and the Germans weren't willing to consider the issue to carefully or face up to it.
Hitler took advantage of anti-Semitism that was already a prevalent undercurrent in Europe when he came to power. He was able to pin the blame for the 'stab in the back' (i.e. Germany's loss of WWI, and the subsequent economic catastrophes in the Weimar era) on the Jews because they were already somewhat hated by many Germans and as a people they were overrepresented in the more lucrative professions (which, ironically, was mostly the consequence of Middle Age racist restrictions on Jews which excluded them from the socially accepted professions of the day). The cultural differences within Germany between Christians and Jews were the result of a long history of primarily anti-Semitic prejudice which have their roots in discordant religious beliefs. I find your claim that the Holocaust would have happened anyway to be highly dubious, despite Hitler's chauvinism resulting in the genocide of other ethnic groups. You mentioned homosexuals. Where did he get his homophobia from?
quote:The civil war between Sunni and Shiite? Certainly that has a whole heaping helping of religious justification in it. But if you took religion out of the picture, they would still be two "tribes" (within Iraq, at least) who had a great deal of beef with each other.
Two tribes, which branched off because of different stances on how a leader of the Muslim community should be chosen after the death of Muhammad, the Shi'a believing that Ali ibn Abi Talib had a divine mandate. Religion and politics are inexorably linked there.
Succession crises also happen in secular contexts as well, but that doesn't vindicate religion.
quote:Divisive prejudice? You don't need religion for that. Look to the PRC, the Soviet Union, and some of the less savory atheists. You'll find plenty of 'divisive prejudice' without it.
I did not say that religion was the cause of all divisive prejudice. I said it was the root of considerable divisive prejudice. Again, saying that there are other causes for it hardly defends religion against that claim.
quote:
quote:Or otherwise (since you don't worship the Aztecs' gods), what about the Inquisition?
I don't worship the God of the Inquisition. I have decided not to get angry about the implication that I do, but please be aware it was extremely offensive to me.
I don't want to accuse you of condoning the Inquisition, because I sincerely doubt that anyone on this board would (and may anyone who does burn in hell).
The Inquisition is however a logical application of Christian doctrine as it stands in the bible, both in the new and old testament. Future Christian leaders, thankfully, have decided that the punishments for heresy described in the bible were either too severe or non-Christian, seeing excommunication as sufficient. There is after all a commandment against murder.
Unfortunately, the conflict between the many death sentences prescribed in the bible and the 'You shall not murder' commandment (which comes after the commandments regarding other gods, idolatry, using god's name in vain, and keeping the sabbath day holy) has been resolved in both ways throughout history.
And incidentally, by writing this, I am committing an eternal (unpardonable) sin:
quote:He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
Matthew 12:30-32
According to Leviticus 24:16 I should surely be put to death.
quote:
quote:As for the 'other things', I've said that yes, religion does lead to good. A lie can have good consequences. I've also said they're outweighed by the evils.
Sure you do, but you don't go into detail, do you? From your posts on the topic here, it does not seem like you have considered what good religion leads to. Here's an easy example: divisive prejudice, the Civil Rights movement. Wouldn't have happened without religion.
The civil rights movement? It seems to me that that was a particularly secular humanist movement which often conflicts with religion (for example with respect to feminism). And who is to say what the state of human rights would have been in the latter 20th century if religion had not been a part of our history? I think the civil rights movement is the logical consequence of secular notions of egalitarianism, human empathy, and our evolutionary preference for life.
quote:As for why I skipped over that question, I made that clear. You're asking me why I'm "ignoring" all the peaceful, just, moral atheists in the world. I asked you why I should take that question seriously, when that is precisely what you're doing when it comes to peaceful, just, moral theists in the world.
I'm not ignoring them; I live surrounded by them. Irrational beliefs which cause no harm to others would be none of my concern, but the trouble is that they are part of a support base for a system of belief that causes much evil. Further, the moral precepts they derive from their religion are so often very similar to humanist precepts (which tend to be defensible by reason), that the justification of religion for that system of morality becomes superfluous.
I hope I'm addressing your question; I'm doing my best to do so, and will give it another go if you don't think that I am.
quote:But I'll answer your question first, even though you seem unwilling to consider mine. I do not believe that atheism automatically leads to immorality. I do not believe one cannot be a good person whose life is a benefit to humanity if one is a humanist. I do not even believe that one cannot build a society and government which is all those things, if it is rooted strictly in humanistic atheism.
Then I have to ask, what is the benefit of religion? Would the humanistic atheist society be even better if it was religious?
quote:I do have to wonder just when you think "empathy and respect for life" would have come into vogue if religion had not been there.
Well, that's what my question to TheGrimace was getting at. You don't think we would have these things without religion?
There are evolutionary reasons for us to have empathy and to love our children (the future generation of our species). As for a respect for human life, that's a logical extension of our preference for life and our knowledge that our fellow humans are alive in much the same way we are.
I don't think it's possible, despite my brief flirtation with pure Objectivist morality, to derive a system of morality that is completely objective. I do think it's possible to construct a system of morality in a logical fashion which is defensible by reason and is based on certain principles which are in the rational self-interest of the vast majority of humanity, if not everyone.
The other thing my question was getting at was that most moderate Christians seem to cherry pick the moral imperatives they follow from the Bible. I'm sure many of them find tracts of Deuteronomy to be reprehensible (and probably dislike them all the more because atheists tend to have a field day with them, and for good reason). So by what criteria are they choosing their morals?
quote:
quote:...well, I need one. Reason can be applied to virtually all human endeavours except theology. Why?
Clearly it's because we're deluded, and religion is false, eh?
Please don't dismiss the question with sarcasm. At least tell me how it's not a legitimate question.
quote:
quote:Not if there is evidence to the contrary, revealing that their beliefs were more accurately deistic or de facto atheist, which is the case for many scientists and thinkers like Einstein.
Certainly, not if there is evidence to the contrary for people such as Einstein. I reject the "revert to atheism" standard you appeared to be applying, when there was no other evidence, however.
I wasn't applying a 'revert to atheism' standard. The 'You would be surprised how many atheists there are among the intellectual elite' comment was based on the aforementioned statistical studies in Dawkins' book.
And the scientists like Einstein for whom we have evidence of atheistic, agnostic, or deistic convictions are quite numerous too.
quote:
quote:Yes, I've discussed the good. Religion is doing more harm than good; I think I've made my position on that issue clear.
You haven't "discussed the good". You've said, "I acknowledge religion does good, but it does more bad than good." That's one statement, not a discussion.
Okay, here are some good things that religion does: provide a sense of security (given that one is not racked by the constant pressure to avoid sin), a sense of purpose, community spirit and group solidarity, the encouragement of certain virtues such as benevolence, forgiveness, and generosity, the maintenance of order in times of crisis (sometimes).
So much of the good that is chalked up to religion could just as easily have been the result of a secular morality. Charity, for example, is hardly exclusive to religion, so it can't be used effectively as an argument for religion. There are many similar examples.
To be fair I do think that early in human history, a deity must have been necessary to give a moral system (even if it was based on rationally defensible principles) the credibility it needed. We've come past that point though, thanks to our philosophers.
quote:I'm having a difficult time taking your claims that you've discussed the good religion does seriously precisely because of quotes like this. What you say here is true. It is not, however, the way religion is applied. Like all human beliefs, even atheism, sometimes it is applied well and sometimes not.
What do you mean by atheism being applied well or badly? It is not a moral philosophy, but a statement of disbelief in theism.
As for religion not being applied the way I described, I'd say it is, just not universally. And the description I provided was not some twisted version of Christian doctrine. Christianity does link sensuality to guilt (and hence virginity is associated with moral purity), it does preach that sinners will go to hell for eternity, and the Christian god really is described as benevolent and loving while imposing a legalistic and remarkably unforgiving moral code on his people.
Mucus,
quote:Religious revelation, inspiration, and the like clearly play a back-seat role to factors such as destroying old religious buildings, repression of the old religion, an Islamic-like punitive policy for the converted ("once a Christian, always a Christian"), the use of military force, slavery, and so forth.
I agree. I wasn't sure what you were trying to argue using the Aztec example. Thanks for clearing it up.
quote:If your assertion is that these alleged "miracles" did not cause the Aztecs to convert to Christianity, this just confirms my argument that "miracles" are a poor motivator to conversion.
Worship me! I create flame from a small box!Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The cultural differences within Germany between Christians and Jews were the result of a long history of primarily anti-Semitic prejudice which have their roots in discordant religious beliefs. I find your claim that the Holocaust would have happened anyway to be highly dubious, despite Hitler's chauvinism resulting in the genocide of other ethnic groups. You mentioned homosexuals. Where did he get his homophobia from?
Certainly the Holocaust regarding Jews had religious roots. However, I think the fact that Hitler's Germany targeted people for mass extermination without a religious motive is not something to be so blithely dismissed.
As for homosexuals, certainly there is religious motive for hating them. There is also religious motive for respecting their personhood and not murdering them, but apparently that part gets ignored. And are you suggesting that there would not be homophobia without religion?
quote:Two tribes, which branched off because of different stances on how a leader of the Muslim community should be chosen after the death of Muhammad, the Shi'a believing that Ali ibn Abi Talib had a divine mandate. Religion and politics are inexorably linked there.
Succession crises also happen in secular contexts as well, but that doesn't vindicate religion.
Exactly! Succession crises also happen in secular contexts as well. Which is precisely my point.
quote:I did not say that religion was the cause of all divisive prejudice. I said it was the root of considerable divisive prejudice. Again, saying that there are other causes for it hardly defends religion against that claim.
Exactly when did this become a discussion in which I was saying religion doesn't ever help to cause prejudice, hatred, murder, suffering, etc.?
Because I don't remember signing up for that discussion.
quote:The Inquisition is however a logical application of Christian doctrine as it stands in the bible, both in the new and old testament. Future Christian leaders, thankfully, have decided that the punishments for heresy described in the bible were either too severe or non-Christian, seeing excommunication as sufficient. There is after all a commandment against murder.
I thoroughly disagree with your statement that the Inquisition is a logical application of the Bible's teachings for Christians.
To some Christians, yes, what you are saying is an unpardonable sin. To some atheists, my refusing to sign up for Communism means I should be killed for oppressing the working man.
quote:The civil rights movement? It seems to me that that was a particularly secular humanist movement which often conflicts with religion (for example with respect to feminism). And who is to say what the state of human rights would have been in the latter 20th century if religion had not been a part of our history? I think the civil rights movement is the logical consequence of secular notions of egalitarianism, human empathy, and our evolutionary preference for life.
*shrug* Dr. King, Malcolm X, Gandhi, among others, would certainly disagree that the civil rights movement conflicts with religion. Given the fact that some of the most prominent figures in the Civil Rights movement were prominently religious, I find it very strange to say the least that you label it a "particularly secular movement".
quote:I'm not ignoring them; I live surrounded by them. Irrational beliefs which cause no harm to others would be none of my concern, but the trouble is that they are part of a support base for a system of belief that causes much evil. Further, the moral precepts they derive from their religion are so often very similar to humanist precepts (which tend to be defensible by reason), that the justification of religion for that system of morality becomes superfluous.
You have stated you would be concerned with them, given your preference for truth. However, I will agree that from a strictly scientific, humanist, and rational perspective, the reasons for endorsing and supporting religion are superfluous. You've answered my question: you believe that the good that moral, just theists do in the world is founded on a bunch of superfluous superstitions.
quote:Then I have to ask, what is the benefit of religion? Would the humanistic atheist society be even better if it was religious?
That's not a question we can really discuss, because the only way a humanistic atheist society would be better was if a given religion was true, and was itself a just and moral religion. Obviously we're not going to get anywhere on that question.
quote:You don't think we would have these things without religion?
There are evolutionary reasons for us to have empathy and to love our children (the future generation of our species). As for a respect for human life, that's a logical extension of our preference for life and our knowledge that our fellow humans are alive in much the same way we are.
I don't know. I suspect we would have them, but not to the extent we currently enjoy. As for "evolutionary reasons"...well, that's not a very compelling argument to me. Those "evolutionary reasons" not to live by naked force and power exist only in a society which explicitly condemns living that way. Show me a society on Earth that has arrived at such a system without religion in its past, I challenge you.
I do not believe that humanity would have embraced to the extent we have-and we haven't yet, really-humanism, tolerance, peaceful co-existence, etc., without religion. I cannot prove that, of course, just as you cannot prove your claims either.
quote:The other thing my question was getting at was that most moderate Christians seem to cherry pick the moral imperatives they follow from the Bible. I'm sure many of them find tracts of Deuteronomy to be reprehensible (and probably dislike them all the more because atheists tend to have a field day with them, and for good reason). So by what criteria are they choosing their morals?
I'm certain that to an outsider, who believes their beliefs to be founded on irrational superstition, it appears to be cherry-picking. But this is another issue where, unfortunately, we're not going to be able to get much traction.
quote:Please don't dismiss the question with sarcasm. At least tell me how it's not a legitimate question.
I can only answer your question by stating my belief that not every important question can or should be answered strictly by reason. It is not the only tool I believe humanity should use for solving problems. Nor do I believe that emotions can be explained strictly by sociological or biochemical imperatives.
quote:As for religion not being applied the way I described, I'd say it is, just not universally. And the description I provided was not some twisted version of Christian doctrine. Christianity does link sensuality to guilt (and hence virginity is associated with moral purity), it does preach that sinners will go to hell for eternity, and the Christian god really is described as benevolent and loving while imposing a legalistic and remarkably unforgiving moral code on his people.
I do not share your opinions about what Christianity does and does not state.
----------
This conversation is becoming very, very lengthy again and while I'm enjoying it a great deal (please don't take offense when I say you're a like a likeable KoM when it comes to discussing atheism and religion), I can't promise I'll be able to respond to every single quote the way we've been doing, should the discussion continue.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Certainly the Holocaust regarding Jews had religious roots. However, I think the fact that Hitler's Germany targeted people for mass extermination without a religious motive is not something to be so blithely dismissed.
Without German support for anti-Semitism and the history of religious bigotry, the Holocaust could not have been facilitated. Hitler, while entertaining the very twisted idea that he was on a divine mission to exterminate the Jews and exhibiting a tendency to purge anyone who disagreed with him, didn't commit the genocide alone. The fact that political ideology and religious persecution were combined doesn't vindicate religion.
I can't say what the 1930s and 40s would have been like without religion; since religion is so involved in all of human history. It's possible that a genocide on a similar scale would have happened. We don't know of course.
quote:As for homosexuals, certainly there is religious motive for hating them. There is also religious motive for respecting their personhood and not murdering them, but apparently that part gets ignored. And are you suggesting that there would not be homophobia without religion?
Nope. Chauvinism isn't restricted to religion. Religion does institutionalise that kind of chauvinism and prejudice however; thus extending its shelf life considerably.
When you say that "that part gets ignored," yes, that's right, because there's a conflict between the commandments and other moral imperatives in the bible which state that homosexuals are not pleasing to god. I'm happy that most Christians today decide to follow the commandment rather than Leviticus 20:13, which is unfortunately quite clear on god's stance towards homosexuality.
quote:If a man lies with a male as a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.
quote:Exactly when did this become a discussion in which I was saying religion doesn't ever help to cause prejudice, hatred, murder, suffering, etc.?
Because I don't remember signing up for that discussion.
The implication of the quote I referred to was that I believed religion was the root of all prejudice. I wanted to point out that this is not the case.
quote:I thoroughly disagree with your statement that the Inquisition is a logical application of the Bible's teachings for Christians.
Deuteronomy is quite clear on the issue of heresy, once again advocating the death sentence. If you reject this chunk of the old testament (the law vs grace debate over mosaic law), what grounds do you have for doing so? Even if mosaic law was only intended to apply in Israel, they were still imperatives laid down by god for the faithful of the day, were they not?
If you reject mosaic law on the grounds that they were laws set down by god in a way that was appropriate to the historical context, does that mean that he was willing to sacrifice a few heretics and homosexuals in order to avoid confronting Israel with a system of morality that was too avant garde for their time?
The tendency of many major religions to provide answers to still-unanswerable questions and to lay down moral absolutes, do make them closed systems. Many progressive Christians for example seek to pin a hole in the closed system to adjust it to new ideas on morality, but that unfortunately corrupts their doctrine at the core.
quote:To some Christians, yes, what you are saying is an unpardonable sin. To some atheists, my refusing to sign up for Communism means I should be killed for oppressing the working man.
Again, atheism is not a moral code, and does not advocate murder. The bible does.
Militant Marxists don't believe in theism. Therefore they are atheists. I don't believe in theism. Therefore I am an atheist. That's about all we have in common.
Christians on the other hand associate themselves with a doctrine set out in scripture, and have to account for the changes they make to the moral code they follow.
quote:*shrug* Dr. King, Malcolm X, Gandhi, among others, would certainly disagree that the civil rights movement conflicts with religion. Given the fact that some of the most prominent figures in the Civil Rights movement were prominently religious, I find it very strange to say the least that you label it a "particularly secular movement".
It's hardly strange considering the beliefs they espoused were sufficiently generalised to what is essentially a respect for human life and common sense egalitarianism, though tempered with a sense of spirituality. Ghandi was first and foremost the leader of the Indian independence movement, while Martin Luther King Jr was first and foremost a political campaigner (before a minister).
You asserted that the movement "wouldn't have happened without religion." Please substantiate that, because while many leaders of the movement were religious, that correlation doesn't equate to religion being the cause. In a world where atheism is taboo and unpopular, people who are particularly interested in morality are encouraged to drift towards religious institutions.
And yes, the movement does conflict with religion; Christian doctrine advocates many punishments contrary to its principles, and the Christian god is a Class-A war criminal responsible for a lengthy repertoire of human rights abuses. Once again, I'm glad that most Christians today have rejected the more unsavoury parts of Christian doctrine. I have to ask, if those parts are no longer valid, why are the others still absolute?
quote:You've answered my question: you believe that the good that moral, just theists do in the world is founded on a bunch of superfluous superstitions.
Yes, if the only reason a theist is moral is to be judged worthy in the eyes of god. I suspect this is not always the case however. Empathy is another good reason to be moral, and is not derived from (though it is encouraged by) religion. Another one is rational self-interest.
If there were a heaven, pleasing god would be acting in one's own rational self-interest. The thing about a theist who is only moral because of the reward and punishment system built into religion is that if that person loses faith, there is little reason for that person to be moral, except social expectations and law.
quote:That's not a question we can really discuss, because the only way a humanistic atheist society would be better was if a given religion was true, and was itself a just and moral religion. Obviously we're not going to get anywhere on that question.
Then may I ask another question? Why are you a Christian and not a Muslim? Why do you believe Christianity is the right path?
quote:
quote:You don't think we would have these things without religion?
There are evolutionary reasons for us to have empathy and to love our children (the future generation of our species). As for a respect for human life, that's a logical extension of our preference for life and our knowledge that our fellow humans are alive in much the same way we are.
I don't know. I suspect we would have them, but not to the extent we currently enjoy. As for "evolutionary reasons"...well, that's not a very compelling argument to me. Those "evolutionary reasons" not to live by naked force and power exist only in a society which explicitly condemns living that way.
Yes, social evolution dictates that civilization is not possible in the absence of a rudimentary moral code.
quote:Show me a society on Earth that has arrived at such a system without religion in its past, I challenge you.
Sorry, I don't accept that challenge. The fact that every culture I know of has fostered a religious belief system to give authority to its system of morality doesn't negate the fact that there are sound rational and evolutionary reasons for a civilization to adopt a moral imperative such as 'do not kill' (with the applicable exceptions of course). Most cultures at one time believed in a cosmological model that was entirely incorrect, too.
Nature is a very mysterious thing, and societies which haven't advanced as far in science can find it especially daunting or mystical. Religion can provide comfort and a sense of context.
quote:I do not believe that humanity would have embraced to the extent we have-and we haven't yet, really-humanism, tolerance, peaceful co-existence, etc., without religion. I cannot prove that, of course, just as you cannot prove your claims either.
There is plenty of evidence (which admittedly doesn't amount to watertight proof) for social evolution towards a rudimentary system of morality, such as in Dawkins' book. Chimpanzees for example (I think it was chimpanzees) form groups in which the leader will arbitrate disputes and break up fights before one chimp gets hurt or perhaps is killed.
As for your claim, can you at least back it up with something?
quote:
quote:The other thing my question was getting at was that most moderate Christians seem to cherry pick the moral imperatives they follow from the Bible. I'm sure many of them find tracts of Deuteronomy to be reprehensible (and probably dislike them all the more because atheists tend to have a field day with them, and for good reason). So by what criteria are they choosing their morals?
I'm certain that to an outsider, who believes their beliefs to be founded on irrational superstition, it appears to be cherry-picking. But this is another issue where, unfortunately, we're not going to be able to get much traction.
I don't think it has to do with me considering the bible to be historical fiction. The fact of the matter is, most Christians don't follow the totality of Christian doctrine, and instead only choose a selection of its moral imperatives. I think it's important to ask, what criteria are they using to select them?
quote:
quote:As for religion not being applied the way I described, I'd say it is, just not universally. And the description I provided was not some twisted version of Christian doctrine. Christianity does link sensuality to guilt (and hence virginity is associated with moral purity), it does preach that sinners will go to hell for eternity, and the Christian god really is described as benevolent and loving while imposing a legalistic and remarkably unforgiving moral code on his people.
I do not share your opinions about what Christianity does and does not state.
What part do you disagree with? I didn't make those things up; they come from scripture, and are apparent in the attitudes of many Christians.
quote:I can't promise I'll be able to respond to every single quote the way we've been doing, should the discussion continue.
That's fine. I understand; these posts do take a lot of time.
quote: To some Christians, yes, what you are saying is an unpardonable sin. To some atheists, my refusing to sign up for Communism means I should be killed for oppressing the working man.
I just want to point out that these aren't equivalent statements. To some Christians, what he was saying was an unpardonable sin due to their understanding of Christianity. To some athiests, the refusal to sign up for Communism means you should be killed -- not due to their understanding of atheism, but of Communism. That's the major missing piece in any analysis of "atheist societies" that attempts to review Pol Pot, Stalinist Russia, etc.: that in all those cases, the societies were atheist not because they've moved beyond the need for an absolute moral authority, but because they'd replaced God as that authority with the State. Those so-called "atheists" hadn't actually shed religion; they'd actually become theocracies in all but name.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Martin Luther King Jr was first and foremost a political campaigner (before a minister).
Got anything to back that up?
His crowning achievement was kick-starting the fledgling racial equality movement of the day, primarily grounding its rationale in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. As religious as the man himself was, his arguments were largely based on appeals to the secular notions of equality and freedom espoused in America's foundation. Wouldn't you agree, as I said, that he was a political activist more so than a minister?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Deuteronomy is quite clear on the issue of heresy, once again advocating the death sentence. If you reject this chunk of the old testament (the law vs grace debate over mosaic law), what grounds do you have for doing so? Even if mosaic law was only intended to apply in Israel, they were still imperatives laid down by god for the faithful of the day, were they not?
The Bible endorses the Inquisition only if you ignore entire swaths of the New Testament, Euripedes. That is what I mean. The Bible endorses the Inquisition no more than US law prohibits interracial marriage, or buying alcohol on Sundays.
quote:Again, atheism is not a moral code, and does not advocate murder. The bible does.
See above.
quote:Militant Marxists don't believe in theism. Therefore they are atheists. I don't believe in theism. Therefore I am an atheist. That's about all we have in common.
I have little to nothing in common with the kinds of Christians who would execute the Inquisition, or murder someone because "God says so". On paper, we worship the same God to some extent...but that's all.
quote:Ghandi was first and foremost the leader of the Indian independence movement, while Martin Luther King Jr was first and foremost a political campaigner (before a minister).
Like dkw, I wonder about this statement.
quote:You asserted that the movement "wouldn't have happened without religion." Please substantiate that, because while many leaders of the movement were religious, that correlation doesn't equate to religion being the cause. In a world where atheism is taboo and unpopular, people who are particularly interested in morality are encouraged to drift towards religious institutions.
If I made it a statement of fact, then I misspoke. I do not believe that is a fact. I do, however, believe it is the truth. And like I've said, in this discussion, so many of the things we're claiming can't be substantiated. You certainly cannot offer incontrovertible evidence that the entire world would be better off without religion, just as I cannot do the same about atheism (although to be fair, I've never advocated that). All either of us can do is point to a few examples, and then fall back on our beliefs.
quote:And yes, the movement does conflict with religion; Christian doctrine advocates many punishments contrary to its principles, and the Christian god is a Class-A war criminal responsible for a lengthy repertoire of human rights abuses. Once again, I'm glad that most Christians today have rejected the more unsavoury parts of Christian doctrine. I have to ask, if those parts are no longer valid, why are the others still absolute?
That's not a question I can answer on behalf of Christianity.
quote:Then may I ask another question? Why are you a Christian and not a Muslim? Why do you believe Christianity is the right path?
Well, at least that's a simple question with a simple answer for this discussion I am not a Muslim because when I when I prayed as Muslims prayed, to Allah, I did not receieve any answers. This was not true, over a lengthy period (and remains true), of Mormonism. And after reviewing its precepts and beliefs and reading much of its Scripture, I also found some answers.
quote:Yes, social evolution dictates that civilization is not possible in the absence of a rudimentary moral code.
Even now. I am an intelligent, careful, man capable of making plans. In many cases, it goes against an evolutionary impulse and self-interest for me to be a moral person, and be a law-abiding citizen.
quote:There is plenty of evidence (which admittedly doesn't amount to watertight proof) for social evolution towards a rudimentary system of morality, such as in Dawkins' book. Chimpanzees for example (I think it was chimpanzees) form groups in which the leader will arbitrate disputes and break up fights before one chimp gets hurt or perhaps is killed.
I would be very interested to hear such evidence with regards to humans of such a social evolution, without the bedrock of religion somewhere in the mix.
quote:I think it's important to ask, what criteria are they using to select them?
I can only speak for myself.
quote:What part do you disagree with? I didn't make those things up; they come from scripture, and are apparent in the attitudes of many Christians.
See one of the first replies to a quote I made in this post.
------------
Tom,
quote:Those so-called "atheists" hadn't actually shed religion; they'd actually become theocracies in all but name.
This is a worthy point to make. I cannot help but wonder, though, if it's not a method of excusing anything an atheistic society does that is wrong. If it's alright to criticize an entire religion on the basis of some people who call themselves members of that religion--and in this thread, it is undeniably OK to do that--it seems strange to me that it's not OK to do so about atheists.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:His crowning achievement was kick-starting the fledgling racial equality movement of the day, primarily grounding its rationale in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. As religious as the man himself was, his arguments were largely based on appeals to the secular notions of equality and freedom espoused in America's foundation. Wouldn't you agree, as I said, that he was a political activist more so than a minister?
Wouldn't you say that religion was a big part of America's foundation?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If your assertion is that these alleged "miracles" did not cause the Aztecs to convert to Christianity, this just confirms my argument that "miracles" are a poor motivator to conversion.
Worship me! I create flame from a small box!
"Worship me! Look in awe at my floating burning bush!"
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is a worthy point to make. I cannot help but wonder, though, if it's not a method of excusing anything an atheistic society does that is wrong. If it's alright to criticize an entire religion on the basis of some people who call themselves members of that religion--and in this thread, it is undeniably OK to do that--it seems strange to me that it's not OK to do so about atheists.
Part of my point is that Stalinist Russia was not first and foremost an atheist society; it didn't even claim to be. It claimed to be a communist society, and regarded atheism as a prerequisite for communism. It didn't invade other countries to spread atheism; it invaded other countries to spread its version of communism. By contrast, the Holy Roman Empire invaded countries under the guise of spreading Christianity.
You can argue that the Holy Roman Empire was no more actually dedicated to the principles of Christianity than Stalinist Russia was dedicated to the principles of atheism, but I think a better parallel is to point out that it was no more actually dedicated to the principles of Christianity than Stalinist Russia was actually dedicated to the principles of communism.
I don't think there ever HAS been an "atheist" society, because there'd be no need for a truly atheist society to identify itself in that way. A society to whom supernaturalism is truly irrelevant would find it unnecessary to advertise how irrelevant supernaturalism is to them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: His crowning achievement was kick-starting the fledgling racial equality movement of the day, primarily grounding its rationale in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. As religious as the man himself was, his arguments were largely based on appeals to the secular notions of equality and freedom espoused in America's foundation. Wouldn't you agree, as I said, that he was a political activist more so than a minister?
No, I would not agree. I say that having read many of his speeches, writings, and his "rules" for non-violent activism.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not in the slightest. Why would you think it was?
I'm not talking in a legal sense, or what made it into the Constitution. I'm talking about, for example, the Declaration of Independence, for example, which played a big part in our nation's creation.
Or are you actually going to deny those two things? That the Declaration has an serious religious component, or that it played a major role in our nation's creation?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the Declaration has a serious religious component. I think the appeal to God was merely an appeal to a moral arbiter other than the state, and they lacked the desire to come up with one that wasn't obvious or compelling to the people of the time.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't think there ever HAS been an "atheist" society, because there'd be no need for a truly atheist society to identify itself in that way. A society to whom supernaturalism is truly irrelevant would find it unnecessary to advertise how irrelevant supernaturalism is to them.
I find this assertion a bit debatable, possibly due to your latter point about it being an odd thing for a society to advertise, but also due to definition problems.
There have been societies that have been dominated by Buddhism (e.g. Tibet), which is essentially an atheist religion. link
In China (and parts of Asia that have been heavily influenced by China), there have been dynasties that were setup and run by a blend of Confucianism and Legalism, both which are moral/ethical philosophies which do not contain Gods or deities. Given that even China today (after the growth of foreign religions after heavy prostelyzing during the colonial period) only has about 15% religious people, I would not be surprised that in the past it was closer to 10%.
These two examples are both essentially "atheist" societies dominated by atheists in comparable numbers to the numbers in which "Christian" societies are dominated by Christians.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:There have been societies that have been dominated by Buddhism (e.g. Tibet), which is essentially an atheist religion.
I put atheism in quotes specifically because I wasn't speaking about the strict meaning of "does not worship a God," but rather the more commonly-used meaning of "without religion."
I would consider both Confuscianism and Buddhism to be religions, mainly because they both appeal to a higher, unimpeachable moral authority and promise supernatural consequences for physical actions. I don't think all people who live by Confuscian or Buddhist philosophies are religious, but many are.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think the Declaration has a serious religious component. I think the appeal to God was merely an appeal to a moral arbiter other than the state, and they lacked the desire to come up with one that wasn't obvious or compelling to the people of the time.
*shrug* Well, I can't argue with that. That's completely guesswork, like so much of this conversation is-mine and Euripedes both.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I put atheism in quotes specifically because I wasn't speaking about the strict meaning of "does not worship a God," but rather the more commonly-used meaning of "without religion."
I would consider both Confuscianism and Buddhism to be religions, mainly because they both appeal to a higher, unimpeachable moral authority and promise supernatural consequences for physical actions. I don't think all people who live by Confuscian or Buddhist philosophies are religious, but many are.
As I said, definition problems. I would not lump everyone who does not believe in a religion as being atheist since there are clear differences between someone who believes in strict agnosticism versus atheism, and between both of those and Buddhists or Confucians.
In a way, I was also talking to the audience or other posters, for which I suspect a number are unaware that atheism and religion are not mutually exclusive. You *can* in fact have many (hundreds of millions) people that are both atheist and religious.
While I would classify Buddhism as an atheist religion, I would definitely not classify Confucianism as either that or a religion.
Part of my thoughts on the matter, are in the wiki entry:
quote: It is debatable whether Confucianism should be called a religion. While it prescribes a great deal of ritual, little of it could be construed as worship or meditation in a formal sense. Confucius occasionally made statements about the existence of other-worldly beings that sound distinctly agnostic and humanistic to Western ears. Thus, Confucianism is often considered an ethical tradition and not a religion. However the United Nations recognizes Confucianism as a religion. ... Generally speaking, Confucianism is not considered a religion by Chinese or other East Asian people. ... Confucians maintain that Confucianism is not a religion, but rather a moral code or philosophic world view.
As for the specific two points you listed, Confucianism would include the unimpeachable moral authority but explicitly does not promise supernatural consequences.
The issue is a bit confused since Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, and Chinese superstitions are blended quite freely by individuals since none of them have anything like Christianity's mutual exclusion clause. However, Confucianism at its base *and* as practised by many historically is most decidedly not a religion.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd agree that any flavor of Confuscianism which does not rely on supernaturalism to enforce its dictates is a non-religious philosophy. I don't think that flavor of Confuscianism, however, has ever been the primary motivator of any society in history; it's always been polluted by things like ancestor worship and spiritism, at least among the masses.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not in the slightest. Why would you think it was?
I'm not talking in a legal sense, or what made it into the Constitution. I'm talking about, for example, the Declaration of Independence, for example, which played a big part in our nation's creation.
Or are you actually going to deny those two things? That the Declaration has an serious religious component, or that it played a major role in our nation's creation?
I deny that it has a serious religious component. It barely mentions a creator, and only as a rhetorical device for backing up the assertion that we're all equal.
Jefferson wrote the thing, and he was a Deist. You might want to consider that when you think about the contents. It makes the non-religious aspect of the document more than just guesswork.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It barely mentions a creator, and only as a rhetorical device for backing up the assertion that we're all equal.
You know it's just a rhetorical device how, exactly? You read his mind via seance?
Look, I'm not suggesting that the Founding Fathers instigated the American Revolution for religious reasons, or even primarily religious reasons. I'm just saying that their faiths played a big part in their decision making, and this is demonstrated in documents such as the Declaration of Independence.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know it's just a rhetorical device how, exactly?
I don't think it was necessarily a rhetorical device. At that time, the consensus among philosophers was that there was no foundation for moral authority if there was no God; this was so accepted that it was actually being used as proof of God.
So when appealing to a higher authority than the king, it would have been extremely sensible for them to appeal straight to God -- but they're doing so in God's role as "Nature's God," that hypothetical Creator and natural arbiter. And IMO, they're only doing so because it was felt that an appeal to authority was necessary to justify the abrogation of their oaths (in many cases, under God) to their country of origin.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Confuscianism as a the philosophy of Confuscious is NOT a religion.
Confuscianism, a religion that claims devotion to Confuscious and his writings, as well as worships the deified scholar IS a religion.
Mr S: Would you say its likely that the founding fathers many of whom were Christian or even Deists could completely divorce their religious principles from the moral ideals expressed in the DOI and the Constitution?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It barely mentions a creator, and only as a rhetorical device for backing up the assertion that we're all equal.
You know it's just a rhetorical device how, exactly? You read his mind via seance?
Look, I'm not suggesting that the Founding Fathers instigated the American Revolution for religious reasons, or even primarily religious reasons. I'm just saying that their faiths played a big part in their decision making, and this is demonstrated in documents such as the Declaration of Independence.
He was on the record as being a Deist. That's not a religion. It's a vague conception that the world didn't just happen. That there's a purpose.
There's no indication at all that the Declaration was even remotely connected to Christianity, which was the only possible religion it could have been in that time and place.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you believe referring to a creator as a Creator is not religious, then I agree, it was not necessarily religious.
I think that's a strange thing to believe, but when someone refers to a mystical being responsible for creating humanity, I tend to think they're talking about religion.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do you know that? Did you read their minds via seance?
By looking at a document such as the Declaration of Independence, and seeing a deliberate reference to a religious figure. That's how.
That was also pretty obvious, but you get points for the snark attempt.
-------------
quote:So when appealing to a higher authority than the king, it would have been extremely sensible for them to appeal straight to God -- but they're doing so in God's role as "Nature's God," that hypothetical Creator and natural arbiter. And IMO, they're only doing so because it was felt that an appeal to authority was necessary to justify the abrogation of their oaths (in many cases, under God) to their country of origin.
This is quite possible, Tom. You may very well be right that appealing to the Creator was a cynical, clever method for justifying their oathbreaking. It involves reading a lot into the Declaration of Independence that isn't written there, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: (Just a note, I'm going to treat the Age of Reason as part of the Enlgihtenment. Of course, if you know the difference between the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment, you already the stuff I'm going to talk about.)
The Enlightenment (wiki) was a movement towards reason and tolerance and away from the magical thinking, submission to authority, and inflexible parochialism that had kept Christian Europe a place of ignorance, savagery, and internicine warfare.
The first revolution was one of the system of thought. During this period, thinkers developed a way of thinking and of proof that has led our modern ideas of science and systematic scholarship.
They looked at what we actually could say we know. This was done early on by Montainge and Descartes (he of the "I think therefore I am.") and later by Hume and Kant.
One of the central characteristics of this new system of thought was its reliance on the idea of immutable, underlying laws. No longer was "Just because." or (more importantly) "Because God (or some other person in authority) said so." considered an adequate answer. The Deist (and in many cases the Christian) god was seen as a watchmaker, who set the immensely complicated but understandable universe machine in motion and was now watching it play out according to the laws that the god set in place.
This orderly conception of the universe spread into other matters, such as politics. Rulers were now expected to be able to provide valid reasons for their decisions and action instead of rely solely on their authority as they had in the past. There was increasing emphasis on the rule of law instead of the rule of the privledged (meaning "private law") person. This eventually developed into the idea of "natural rights" (or, as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence "inalienable rights").
The Protestant Reformation had already raised the individual to the position of central concern, but it did so without humanism and tended to regard the individual as bascially evil who's basic duty was submission. The Enlightenment re-emphasized this pre-eminent focus on the individual but included the ideas of humanism, turning the picture of human history as one of a progression towards achieving the benefits of human freedom, instead of the static worlds of the communal relations then emphasized by the Catholic Church or of degraded, isolated individuals a la Luther and Calvin (and in my opinion, Ecclesiastes).
So the Enlightenment carried with it a call to revolution against those powers that opposed human freedom, namely the Church and the State, with the idea of setting up a new form of government. The ideas from the Declaration of Independence:
quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
and the Constitution:
quote:to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
were not the often-ignored platitudes that they have become. They were a declaration of a new age, a near complete break from the world that had come before. Instead of being a matter of one ruling family wresting control from another or of one religion taking over from another, this was set forth as a revolution based on ideology and dedicated towards to extending justice and liberty to all it's citizens and not just those who had the right connections or religion. There are few things in human history as profound and far-reaching as this.
The Enlightenment had at least three distinct factions, divided by geography and ideological focus. The intial Enlightenment thinkers (now excepting the Age of Reason) were French: Rousseau, Voltaire, Diderot, and d'Alembert, among others). They were know as the philosphes or the Encyclopedists (as they were contributers to Diderot's Encyclopedia - itself revolutionary in the idea that people should be able to have ready access to information and that this access would destory ignorance and led to drastic social change). They were the most ideologically centered thinkers and, as the forces they opposed - Church and State - were most entrenched, they were also the most negatively oriented. Anti-clericsm was very strong in France as was the idea that the old order needed to be destroyed before the new one could be built.
The Scottish Enlightenment (wiki), (sometimes considered the English Enlightenment due to the role of John Locke and the dissident groups of England such as the Puritans) on the other hand was influenced by Scotland's status as one of the poorest country in Europe and the background of Calvinist Presbeterianism and took on a much more pragmatic and productive bent. The Scottish formed a lot of the thought that made up Utilitarianism. Also, besides the more philosophical concerns, he Scots turned to pratical applications, such as economics. Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations and the granddaddy of systematic capitalism, was a member of the Scottish Enlightenment.
The American Enlightenment was directly influenced by the Scottish one, as the Scotch did a heck of a lot of teaching. Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, among others, were pupils of members of the Scottish Enlightenment. America was presented with the problem of unifying a divided populace with extremely different concerns and ways of approaching the world. Thus, the American Enlightenment was even more pragmatic and concerned with application than the Scottish. It's no accident that two of the main, non-Enlightenment pupils, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine were men with a driving concern towards practicality. The proto-Americans were faced with the problem that Franklin expressed as "We must hang together or, assuredly, we will hang separately." This was true not just in reference to the revolution against the British, but also as to the future of the nation as a whole. The Constitution (primarily authored by James Madison and defended in the Federalist Papers by Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay - see how those names come up again) achieved this by forming entrenching the Enlightenment ideas of the rule of law, liberty, and tolerance into the framework of the new nation.
---
There was plenty of Christian influence in the development of American. Judeo-Christian ethics formed the backdrop of the Revolution and the formation of the constitution. Heck, it even formed the backdrop of the French Enlightenment, which was against the Church as an institution, not necessarily the ideals of the Christian religion. However, at a time when most of the nations of Europe were "Christian" nations, America was different through the new ideas of the Enlightenment, which has as one of their effects America being much less a "Christian" nation than the countries of the old order.
When peopel talk nowadays about Americ being a "Christian" nation, they generally don't seem to understand the Enlightenment, its central role in our country's develpoment, or how while it's not contrary to religion, it does limit the legitimacy of what they want to do. They tend to want to force other people to live by their religions rules because we live in a "Christian" nation. On the other hand, however, many people seem to regard the strong anti-clericism of the French Enlightenment and the blatant and savage anti-religiousity of the French Revolution to be part and parcel of what it means to be an Enlightenment nation. They seem to want to get rid of all traces of religion and make religious people feel as if they should feel ashamed of their belief. Neither one of these is true to the spirit of the founding of our country. Neither the Christian bigotry of the Maryland Act of Toleration nor the exclusionary, positivist nonsense of Thermidor should be part of our national character.
---
Of course, since there's such astounding ignorance of the things I just wrote about, what really is true to this spirit these days?
posted
I don't think it's cynical, Jeff. I think they honestly needed to come up with a moral justification to break their oaths, whether or not all of them took their oaths to God seriously (and we know at least some of them did), and the only extant philosophical option open to them was to appeal to a higher interest of God. The idea that man might come up with his own moral justifications was not at that time something which was considered credible or compelling. Many people in our era don't consider such justifications to be compelling, which is why it's still more convenient to appeal to religion than to ethics.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, Tom, I should not have said 'cynical'. That's a loaded word. 'Calculated', perhaps? Calculated, but still sincere, is what I was trying to suggest you were saying.
---------
Mr. Squicky,
I do not think we are a Christian nation.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was presenting the backdrop of the Enlightenment as a new, consciously a-religious system of thinking that was the main impetus in the founding of our nation. Were they lettign the prevelant religion of the time be their main guide, it seems unlikely that our nation would have taken the form it did.
You don't have any more grounds to claim what you did than what you snarked at Tom for saying.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then I'm having difficulty understanding why you quoted those words of yours at me. It appears designed to correct misimpressions of people who do not believe what I believe.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I am not a Muslim because when I when I prayed as Muslims prayed, to Allah, I did not receieve any answers. This was not true, over a lengthy period (and remains true), of Mormonism. And after reviewing its precepts and beliefs and reading much of its Scripture, I also found some answers.
