Tell me about your mother....
First of all, my apologies to SC&A for having missed this entire discussion.
I'm still catching up, but here are a few thoughts.
First of all, atheism is indeed a religion, I studied it in school and in the university. I even recall taking a mandatory course in "Scientific Atheism", but, since I took it after the Berlin wall fell, by that time the course evolved into an overview of world religions, which was actually a good thing. But I do remember our 4th grade History teacher telling us how religion was invented by misguided cavemen who got scared of thunder (I wish I was making this up... it was right there in the textbook).
I don't think it a good idea for the schools to specifically teach morals as a separate subject. They will mess it up beyond recognition. Morals are better taught in the course of day-to-day interactions between the students and the teachers, guided by the latter.
I would like to see a course in world religions, just so the students are better informed. However, this will probably lead to no end of lawsuits from the parents, and, like somebody has already said, most of the teachers will be biased towards their own religion, so this probably isn't going to work.
As for SC&A referring to this nation and its founding fathers in this post. How is that connected with teaching morals? Do you mean to say that Europe has different morals than America does?
And, last but not least. In my not-so-humble opinion, using God to teach morality is similar to using a nuclear warhead to launch a fireworks display. God IMO is not some kind of a means that we use to teach people good manners. He's bigger than that. For that rason, I disagree with the original idea, bringing God and Christianity into schools in order to teach children morals.
Thank you for responding in detail to my post. And I think that in the big picture we agree on what needs to be done. Our differences lie in the details.
A little clarification: You are right, secularists do behave in a fashion similar to believers. But in my case, I am an athiest due to lack of religion not in oppistion to religion. I do not wish to spread my views, I wish for people to believe what the think is right. I am not a secularist. I think that is the part I disagreed with. the lumping of athiests and secularists together.
I have more thoughts on this, and will likely post them soon.
We look forward to reading. Well done.
If you're going to talk about/teach morality, you have to present sources & opinions about morality. You can use the Buddha, you can use Cal Ripken, you can even use Elmer Fudd. But if you're going to talk about morality in Western civilization (as oxymoronic as the topic sounds), you are being intellectually dishonest to exclude the impact of the Bible.
I just had this discussion with my daughter, who wanted to know why I got to decide what was good behavior and what was bad behavior. (Because I'm the Mommy!) Although she's gifted in many ways, I don't think she's ahead of the curve with this. I think that kids want the answers, they want to know where we get the answers and what the answers are based on. For a large part of Western civilization, the base is the Bible. Regardless of whether you call yourself a Christian, whether you think Jesus was a good teacher, Messiah or some fringe lunatic, if you grew up in the West, with Western parents, as a product of Western culture, your morality is in large part based on the Bible. Whether in agreement or opposition to it, your personal morality developed, in part, from the messages in it. Even if you've never read a word of it. _That's_ how ingrained it is in our cultural mindset. And if you aren't Western in mindset, you have still chosen to be here, have chosen to participate in public education.
Yes, this is a c/p from an earlier comment. There it was a tangent, but I think it actually fits here.
We're glad you reposted that comment- we had indeed, seen it below.
In essence, you seem to concur with us: Our society, culture and values are Judeo-Christian or origin and nature.
We believe it is impossible to seperate that truth from any teaching of morality or ethics- and hence, we have no problem with using the Bible as a vehicle to promote values and ethics.
Lastly- and maybe most pointedly- democracy and freedom as we know it today, is the result of that Judeo-Christian ethic- and much of the Islmaic world, for example, agrees with that and justify their non democratic ideas and regimes as being appropriate.
Of course, that isn't true- Muslims in western socities adapt rather well- but it does speak volumes about other's morals and values.
Two things. First, those who study religion (psychologists and sociologists of religion) would agree with the assertion that atheism is a religion. Here is the short breakdown of relevant definitions. "Faith" is not necessarily deistic in orientation. Faith is merely the drive to find meaning in life. "Belief" is an outgrowth of faith. It is a series of values statements that I arrive at through observation and interaction with others. Finally, "religion" is a community of persons who share the same set of beliefs. By definition, any time a community of people share a similar set of organized beliefs it constitutes a religion. That's broader than most people understand the terms, but that's how the people who study this issue break it down. In short, atheism is a religion--a disorganized one perhaps, but a religion nevertheless.
Second. Take some time to read C.S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man. He makes the case that the various moral systems throughout history and across cultures really are not all that different. His point is that it is Natural Law that has always formed the basis of morality. BUT natural law has always been uncovered as a result of seeking the divine--whether that divine was ancient Greek, Babylonian, or Judeo-Christian, or other. What I think has happened is that the stripping the schools of anything that looks remotely religious has dulled the moral sense of our children because, regardles of their spiritual tradition, they are incapable of discerning the natural moral law. Why? Because in place of God we worship feelings which turn us inward, but morality requires us to be able to turn outward. For example conventional wisdom teaches us that emotional congruence means "do what your feelings tell you." It doesn't. It means that your emotions should be so healthy that they congruently support those choices which are healthy for you. But emotional congruence requires knowledge of the ideals against which I must measure my feelings, and that requires an outward orientation. (Incidentally, see this study in the Int'l J. of Research on Religion http://www.bepress.com/ijrr/vol1...vol1/iss1/art2/
.
that notes atheism is correlated with poor social connectedness--i.e impaired outward orientation).
So, in the end, it is true that atheism is a religion. But I would argue that it is an inferior philosophy upon which to build moral system(as the 20th cen has consistently shown) BECAUSE it is not sufficient for moving a person outside of themselves enough to build a thoroughgoing moral system. Mind you, I am not arguing that individual atheists cannot be moral. Rather, I am arguing that an atheistic SOCIETY cannot, ulitmately be moral, because it is not other-oriented enough to develop a sense of the Natural Law that informs virtually all religious systems throughout history (as per Lewis).
Sorry for being so long-winded.
I agree some with Greg and disagree some. About atheism as an inferior moral base, I wholly disagree. Many of the atheist I know are moral strictly BECAUSE they are atheist. Since they believe this is the only go around we get, the importance of treating you fellow man right is higher since there is no afterlife.
on a complete tangential -
Siggy, you jackass. I went all the way to 98th and B'way to find that there is no Sal & Vinnies... or Vinnies & Sals... or any pizza place at all. There I was dragging my girl friend all over the upper west side because "Siggy told me I would find the best pizza in the world there." If this was some kind of sick joke, I'll get you for it. I have no idea how, but I will find some way.
Dingo, you probably have not seen an atheistic society yet. I think Greg is right on the money with his statement that, while individual atheists can be and are moral, the society as a whole isn't. I think this is because individuals still adhere to the same morals that their fathers and grandfathers grew up with (because they think it is a decent thing to do), while the society as a whole tries to invent a whole new set of morals.
"you probably have not seen an atheistic society yet."
are you talking about athiestic societies or governments?
Sal's wasn't there? Are you kidding me?? ARRGGGHH!
NO SAL's!!! I ended up having to eat at Ray's... for the love of all that is pure and holy, I had to EAT AT RAY's!!!!
Geez...Rays...man, I owe you an apology. The guy was there for YEARS! Did you ask around? Surely someone knkew what you were asking about!
Dingo, I am mainly referring to my home country... the Soviet Union. I.e. a combination of both. I cannot see how an entire society can be atheistic, unless it is mandated by the government. Left to their own devices, IMO, a large part of the population will gravitate towards some religion or agnosticism... don't ask me why... they just have a tendency to.
Goldie,
I agree that people will tend to gravitate towards religion. I have no doubts about that. I think there are distinctions though between an 'atheistic society' and a 'secular government.' As you said, the first has to be promulgated by the state. The second though does not inhibit personal religious freedoms outside of governmental affairs.
Dingo,
I guess the challenge to you would be to define what "secular government" means.
I think that some people think that "secular" means "value neutral" and there is simply no such thing. Any organization (a school, or larger society for instance) is organized around certain principles that become the prevailing worldview of members of that group.
If secular means "not establishing one particular religion but open to the engagement of religious ideals." then I am with you. But if you mean, "a values-system free from religion" then that's self-refuting because there is no such thing.
"faith • noun 1 complete trust or confidence. 2 strong belief in a religion. 3 a system of religious belief."
(http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/faith?
view=uk)
"religion • noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion."
(http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/religion?
view=uk)
"belief • noun 1 a feeling that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. 2 a firmly held opinion. 3 (belief in) trust or confidence in. 4 religious faith."
(http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/belief?
view=uk)
"atheism • noun the belief that God does not exist."
(http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?
view=uk)
"secular • adjective 1 not religious, sacred, or spiritual. 2 (of clergy) not subject to or bound by religious rule"
(http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/secular?
view=uk)
"natural law • noun 1 a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as inherent in all human beings and forming a basis for human conduct. 2 an observable law relating to natural phenomena."
(http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/naturallaw?
view=uk)
Thus, I would argue that "faith" is not simply "the drive to find meaning in life," but rather is the strong belief in something not necessarily coming from proof. In this respect, "faith" and "belief" are pretty much synonymous. "Religion" is the organized form -- "a particular system" -- of "faith" and "belief."
Atheism, on the other hand, is simply a belief that something doesn't exist. There is nothing organized about it, there is no "particular system" of non-belief. It's simply an opinion about the absence of something in which others believe. So, while "atheism" is a "belief," and possibly even a "faith," it's not a "religion."
That aside, "secular" does not mean "atheist." "Secular" simply means "not subject to or bound by religious rule." "Secularism" is not a religion; indeed, its very nature stems from the absence of religion. Secularism is a practice -- many people perform secular acts, while inwardly maintaining a religion or a faith or a belief. "Secular" does not mean "value neutral;" a secular system can clearly be ruled by certain values (protection of life and property, progress in the quality of living, focus on education, a system of polite social interaction, etc.) that just don't adhere to religious doctrine. This can also be called "Natural Law," which is just another euphemism for "the way man interacts with his fellow man." This is what our country is supposed to be.
To say that atheism or secularism is "inferior" is, again, an incredibly arrogant thing to say. "I believe something, so someone who doesn't believe that same thing is less than I." Hogwash. Atheism and secularism have just as much to do with "moving a person outside of themselves enough to build a thoroughgoing moral system" as religion. In fact, I would argue it has more to do with it, since religion (at least in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim area) is all about saving the individual's soul, not necessarily the other guy's. It's a system of personal rewards in heaven -- that is, religion doesn't say that one's personal good works on earth can "save" the souls of others, because each person has to "look inward" on himself to gain that reward. To say that an atheist society cannot be moral is the height of unsubstantiated moral superiority.
By the way, the analogy to the USSR is not necessarily controlling, because a religious totalitarian regime could have resulted in pretty much the same outcome.
"But if you mean, "a values-system free from religion" then that's self-refuting because there is no such thing." First, it's a bit of a cop-out to engage in a debate with the argument that your opponent's assertions are "self-refuting." It spares you the need to prove your point. But, to prove mine, I'd be glad to outline my personal system of morality, which has nothing at all to do with religion.
Finally, SC&A, don't feel too bad. Dingo's so dyslexic h
... Dingo's so dyslexic he probably went to 89th and B'way.
Gosh Boomer, since you pulled all those great definitions off the internet I guess I just have to give up. I suppose I should just toss all my journal articles and psych of religion textbooks, close down Division 36 of the APA and tell the Assoc. of Spirituality Ethics Religion and Values in Counseling to close its doors because Boomer's got a modem.
Boomer, the fact is, the science is against you and so is history. The 20th century has been the most atheistic century and the bloodiest. There have been religious totalitarianisms throughout history and not a blessed one of them comes close to the body count racked up by Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, or Chang Kai-shek to name a few. Atheistic totalitarism is the deadliset strain of a terrible virus. That is simply a fact whether you like it or not.
As for your caricature of judeo-chrisitianity only being interested in saving their own soul, gee, I guess Christians should just shut down all those hospitals, schools, and social service agencies they sponsor and send all the people to the well established health, education and welfare infrastructure established and maintained by the generous, selfless atheists out there.
Oh, wait. There isn't any such thing.
First of all, the definitions came from the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, so I don't think they're all that off-base. Unless you'd rather have the APA deemed a higher authority on word origin and meaning.
Second of all, in those "atheistic" examples, you're forgetting that the main title to be given them is "totalitarian." You use the term yourself, although you clearly have a focus on the "atheistic" part. Not all atheism or secularism is totalitarian. Just like all religion isn't totalitarian. But both can be corrupted, and have been. "Atheistic totalitarism is the deadliset [sic] strain of a terrible virus." So, you're basically saying that totalitarianism is a subset of atheism. To that, I say go look into more of your precious journals, and maybe include a few history books and political science texts. Totalitarianism can come from ANY system, religious or atheist. That one subset of a larger group meets that "totalitarian" definition, doesn't mean that the entire larger group does.
Third, the twentieth century was the bloodiest because of the drastic advancements in the science of war (machine guns, tanks, missiles, nuclear weapons), not because of atheism. Many of the inventors of such war machines were fairly devout believers in the Judeo-Christian faiths. Jihadists are pretty religious, and they don't seem to hold back on the body count, and don't seem to refrain from using the twentieth century's technological advancements in doing so. Neither do abortion clinic bombers, the KKK, or any other religious-based fringe group. Atheism is not the big bogeyman you make it out to be.
Finally, my "caricature of judeo-chrisitianity" is quite in keeping with Judeo-Christian precepts. Let's take Catholicism -- the seven sacraments aside, the only way a Catholic is supposed to be able to enter heaven is if he, himself, accepts Jesus as his lord and savior. No one else can do it for him. That's to say, if I spend my entire life doing good works for others, but don't "repent my sins" and accept the faith, I don't go to Heaven. At the same time, if someone is doubly or triply repentant, such that he has more than atoned for his own sins on Earth, he can't use that spiritual surplus to save someone else -- that other person must make the personal choice, himself, to accept Jesus in order to gain entrance to heaven. In this respect, Judeo-Christian religion is very much "inward-looking" and intended for the individual. I'm not saying that religious groups don't do good works -- I think if you look at my comments, I've never come close to saying that. But I am saying that if a Christian believer offers services (through the hospitals and schools and other social services agencies you reference) to a non-believer, the mere fact that the Christian helped the non-believer doesn't give the non-believer a pass into heaven. This is church doctrine, not a "caricature" based on bias.
"By the way, the analogy to the USSR is not necessarily controlling, because a religious totalitarian regime could have resulted in pretty much the same outcome." -
Boomr, there is no way of telling what "could have" been. I'm just telling things like they happened, namely, that the society, while consisting largely of moral people, was forced to live by a set of rules that contradicted morality as we know it, the main premises of it being - There is no life after death. Therefore, there is no accountability to the highest power. Therefore, a human being takes the highest priority. A group of human beings is more important than any single human being. Therefore, collective takes priority over individual. Which essentially leads to the conclusion that any action is acceptable, as long as it benefits the collective. The flaw in this is that, who can determine what will really benefit the collective? What do you mean by "benefit"? What if the action leads 90% of the collective to prosper and the other 10% to suffer, is it still good? And, finally, people as individuals still have the old morals ingrained in them, so, if an action proposed by the govt. contradicts these old morals, it would be difficult for people to accept it.
The religious totalitarian society is bad in that it also twists the morals, and forces people to do immoral things in the name of God. In an atheistic society, however, collective is god.
I agree with most of what you say, Goldie, but I don't agree that an atheistic society necessarily turns into a "collective is god" society. I'm not religious, and I don't base my morality on a religious system, but if I were to form a new government today, it certainly wouldn't be socialism or communism. I just don't think atheism by itself always leads to "A group of human beings is more important than any single human being. Therefore, collective takes priority over individual."
Boomr, as in previous arguments, you fail to allow for nuance in the definitions you pull off the net...the lawyer in you is evident as you determinedly wring whatever meaning is expedient from those hapless online definitions.
The entire New Testament could be summed up in the words, "Love God, and treat others as you would have them treat you." Major external focus there, wouldn't you say?
Wow, both lawyer-bashing and disparaging remarks about my research skills. Thanks, anniebird. I'll be sure and tell Oxford that you find their definitions "hapless."
By the way, I'd love it if you could provide me some definitions of your own that may be a bit more nuanced and that are derived from more authoritative sources. I'd appreciate the education.
As for nuance, you can't argue for that in this instance, as specific definitions and meanings of the various words were thrown out by Greg in his attempts to paint atheism and secularism as inferior to religiosity. His definitions were stark, and totally devoid of shades of grey, culled as they were from "all [his] journal articles and psych of religion textbooks, [and the] APA and ... the Assoc. of Spirituality Ethics Religion and Values in Counseling." I was merely offering competing, more commonly-used, definitions of the words he used. His specialized, psychosocial definitions probably don't have the same meanings to the vast majority of non-pschologist/sociologist citizenry comprised of the rest of us, so I provided the dictionary definitions that most of us would imagine when we see the words. I noticed you, anniebird, provided no definitions, but I appreciate the (somewhat) constructive criticism as to those I offered.
If the entire New Testament can be summed up the way you state, are you saying that the rest of it is mere surplusage or fiction? Interesting.
Again, y'all, I'm not saying that Christianity doesn't encourage "external" good works. Such a position would be untenable, because churches clearly do a good number of good works. I'm talking about the purpose behind the religion, which is clearly the "life everlasting" in the wonderful arms of God in heaven. The only way to get to heaven (according to Church doctrine) is to make that choice yourself -- that choice may not be made by someone else on your behalf. As much as you might pray for the sinners, the sinners don't get into heaven unless they accept the faith themselves. Therefore, the very purpose behind the religion (entrance into heaven) is an inward-looking, individual purpose.
Now, getting back to the reason for this diatribe, it was proposed by Greg that atheism is "an inferior philosophy upon which to build [a] moral system" because "it is not sufficient for moving a person outside of themselves [sic] enough to build a thoroughgoing moral system." He bases this conclusion upon the works of "those who study religion (psychologists and sociologists of religion)," completely ignoring historians, literature enthusiasts, philosophers, CLERGY, and, yes, the mere lay scholar without a psychosocial education but with a good grounding in religion, atheism, secularism, and life in general.
I have read the article he cited, and I'm not terribly impressed. The author repeatedly used his own previous assertions or those of colleagues with whom he worked as authority for h
... his theories (he cited to 16 articles he authored or co-authored). The number of times vague words like "possible" or "suggest" or "might" were used was staggering, as in "Modern secular society MIGHT not be demographically viable in the long run, and the early symptoms of its fall MIGHT have ambiguous implications for Atheism." The author states clearly that the data involved were collected from a survey whose respondents "are by no means a random sample." It also states that "This essay aims primarily to develop theory, using a dataset that is better suited for exploration than for definitive theory testing" and "No single survey dataset, no matter how good the respondent sample might be, can really provide definitive tests of theory."
Finally, contrary to what Greg said ("this study ... notes atheism is correlated with poor social connectedness--i.e impaired outward orientation"), the study never uses the words "poor social connectedness" or "impaired outward orientation," but rather mentions a mere lower level of family and social obligations found in the relatively small number of atheists responding to the survey. The author states at one point, "Atheists do not lack friends." The author also fails to note that some of the survey's data regarding family obligations might be the result of religion's influential pressure towards family, as opposed to atheism's pressure against it. In sum, even the article doesn't make atheism out to be the bogeyman Greg wants it to be.
Boomr, I don't object to the definitions. It's what you do with them that's so...lawyerly. All that wrestling and wriggling your profession requires bestows upon you a most excellent set of debating skills. The problem is that sometimes they allow you to win a point based less on the merits and more on your bluster. Or your "filibluster", as it were.
It's mighty convenient to distill the purpose of religion down to a vehicle to save one's soul. You don't acknowledge the large portion of Christianity that believes that the job has already been done by Jesus. Or the many (if not most) Christians who consider the phrase "No one comes to the Father except through Me" and hear a message about how to come to know God - in this life, through study of the teachings and life of Jesus - rather than a stark prescription for how to get where you want to be in the next life.
Further, I'd assert that the onus is on you to prove that atheism is superior to Judeo-Christinaity in its ability to provide a strong framework for the teaching of morality. So far, you've spent your time alternating between chastising those who allude to atheism's inferiority and making sweeping condemnations of Christianity. What resources would atheism draw upon in it's teaching of morality? What authority?
a little late coming to this... but after I read through Boomr's comments. Wow, guy, you have little understanding of Christianity, particularly its form of jurisprudence.
Atheism is weak in its ability to encompass morality- that is obvious from deducting its outcome. It is largely negative, and that doesn't make a base for morality. What it does is hold a place for borrowing morality from other sources. so you often find very highly moral atheists at times.
If you look at it -it needs something to react to, which is inherent in the formation of the word atheist and in its definition.
I would submit the idea that much of what is comfortable about atheism for those who hold it is that it leaves the field open for choosing ones own way more than other forms of belief or thought. That is the appeal, I think.
Not good for group dynamics, but it gives a certain ideal of empowerment to the individual.
Anniebird: If what you say ("You don't acknowledge the large portion of Christianity that believes that the job has already been done by Jesus") is true, then why do people need to believe in religion? If Jesus already saved us all, then why would it matter if I belive in Catholicism or Protestantism or Islam or Judaism or Voodoo or Wicca? If the job of saving my soul has already been done, then why the statement "No one comes to the Father except through Me?" This implies that I must believe in "the Father" before my soul is saved and I can go to heaven. Again, despite Jesus's wonderful sacrifice for all of us, I still need to accept the faith to be saved. Neither you, nor Jesus himself, can do it for me. Again, this is church doctrine, not my "filibluster." And if I seem to be winning a point without support, confronting me with an opposing argument would be more effective than critiquing the style of my debate.
I never said that atheism is superior to religion, so there's no onus on me. I merely said that religion is not superior to atheism, and that religion is as much or more inward-looking as atheism, because of religion's desire to save the individual soul.
ilona: "Wow, guy, you have little understanding of Christianity, particularly its form of jurisprudence." What form of Christian jurisprudence? I've studied jurisprudence for about 15 years now, both religious and secular. If you're talking about canon law, or internal church matters, much of this jurisprudence has no relation to the governmental jurisprudence of our country or any other in western civilization. Give me examples, please, of the "jurisprudence" to which you refer.
"Atheism is weak in its ability to encompass morality- that is obvious from deducting its outcome. It is largely negative, and that doesn't make a base for morality." Again, saying something is "obvious" is not an argument, it is an assertion without support. I say it is not "obvious" that atheism is weak in its ability to encompass morality. Your response?
By the way, atheism is not "largely negative;" it is simply a belief that is different from yours. To paint your argument as "positive" while tarring the atheist argument as "negative" shows an inherent bias -- again, without support. Atheism is merely a belief that God -- a concept that no one has proven does exist -- does not exist. Belief that something does not exist is not a "negative" belief. Judaism does not believe in the concept of hell, but Christianity does. Is the Jewish belief a "negative" belief?
"What it does is hold a place for borrowing morality from other sources. so you often find very highly moral atheists at times." I ask you, what's wrong with borrowing morality from multiple sources?
I don't want an afterlife. I think since man doesn't want to admit he one day won't exist, he invents dream worlds to alleviate his fears. I can't even understand what is so scary about non-existence. Nobody worried about not existing before their birth, so why should they worry about returning to that same non-esistence. The truth may hurt, but truth is truth, and no matter how hard humanity tries to prove otherwise, it's not gonna change reality. Live your life to the fullest right here, right now, and spend all your moments wisely then you have nothing to regret.
holdem home rule texas tournament holdem home rule texas tournament holdem home rule texas tournament. odds of winning texas holdem odds of winning texas holdem odds of winning texas holdem.
consolidate federal loan student consolidate federal loan student consolidate federal loan student. houston loan signature houston loan signature houston loan signature.
Hi everyone, If you'd like to see non-emotional reasons for why being moral and being an atheist is really quite a good fit, check out my new book at amazon.com called "The Moral Atheist", coincidentally enough.
Commenting by HaloScan
