Why We Need Religion

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_DonBradley
_Emeritus
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 6:58 am

Post by _DonBradley »

dartagnan wrote:
The moral sense evolved as part and parcel of human nature long before God beliefs were invented, and when God beliefs die, the moral sense, like the rest of human nature, lives on.


I don't see how this assertion could be in any sense supported. Since before religion? That is a hell of a long time ago to make such statements, and atheism has become only a relatively recent phenomenon as a movement with any kind of political sway.


The rudiments of a moral sense have now been documented in animals, which places the development of that sense well before religion. For documentation of this, see Good Natured by primatologist Franz DeWaal and Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong by Harvard biologist Marc Hauser.

However, it cannot be ignored that many of the moral leaps human society has made over the course of history has been led by those dastardly religious fanatics. Whether it be the abondoning of slavery or the strive for human rights throughout the world, it wasn't the atheist who was behind these endeavors.


I suppose ignorance is bliss for you heaven-bound Christians. Slavery was practiced, and divinely approved, throughout the Hebrew Bible ("Old Testament") and in early Christianity. And it was the example of God's law and God's servants (e.g., Abraham) to which proponents of American slavery appealed in support of slavery. Slavery was also justified by the biblical curse of Canaan--a servant of servants (Hebrew: a slave of slaves) shall he be. And while most of the actors on both sides of the slavery debate were Christian--since Christians comprised the great majority of the population--"freethinkers" were disproportionally represented among the abolitionists. Freethinking newspapers like "Lucifer's Lantern" took some of the most radical and staunch abolitionist stances of all.

Religious doubters and rationalists have also been at the forefront of most if not all other modern liberation movements--including the American Revolution (spearheaded by men like the deists Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine), the French Revolution, and women's suffrage.

It seems to me that most atheists are essentially moral people, not because they fear divine retribution in the hereafter. I think they are essentially moral because of what Analytics had to say about the reason why atheists marry (which I argue was originally a religious concept adopted by atheists who wanted to fit into society); the reason why atheist groups or any group for that matter, are not acting like Nazi Germany in this day and age is that it isn't viable. It isn't an efficient means to get along or even survive.


When atheists have the opportunity to privately do wrong, they don't appear to do so any more than anyone else. Modern scientists are an overwhelmingly godless lot, yet such organizations as the National Academies of Sciences are not among the world's noted hotbeds of evil. Most atheists live morally because they believe in moral principles independent of a God to enforce them.

For theists, some fear divine retribution but that doesn't mean this is their sole reason for striving for morality (whatever "goodness" one includes in their definition). They are humans just the same and are inclined to act as moral as the next guy, but religion gives them a sense of purpose. It is their touchstone that results in more action than just talk. Again, religious fanatics are more likely to lead movements that one might consider a noble or moral endeavor, than are atheists, who, in my experience, tend to live life and keep their views to themselves.


Then it's safe to say that you don't know many atheists.

Don
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

Funny, I see religion and religious contention as the root cause of cruelty and misery over the years.


And who is to say the world wouldn’t be even worse off without religion? You can’t. You can only speculate, but you have to do so while denying the hard facts that religion has done a tremendous amount of good throughout history; good which seems unlikely to have ever been accomplished by atheism. Since atheism has reared its head recently, it has hardly produced shining, extraordinary moral accomplishments.

Why not?

The dark ages were dominated by religion and theocracy.


Actually the most enlightened civilization during the dark ages was the only true theocracy: Islam. And the Byzantine Empire was no theocracy.

The world of the Old Testament, if we are to assume it was historically accurate, was hell on earth.


And without any atheist societies to compare during that period of time, it is impossible to determine the cause of that “hell’.” The fact is religion wasn’t only dominant back then, it ruled every aspect of every corner of every civilization. Can you name me any civilization that owes its success and accomplishments to atheism? Can you name a single atheist dictator prior to the 16th century? History proves that atheist dictators are just as likely to try a global takeover as any religious nut.

The enlightenment was an awakening of science and art, and American Democracy was an expirement in secular government, despite what the religious right says. I guess it depends on your point of view.


And mine is quite different. The Founding Fathers of the USA did not envision a secularized nation as many atheists like to romance about.

There have been many loopy religious dictators but most of the bad ones were really just opportunists who used religion as a political weapon since it captured the hearts and minds of the people. Nobody really believes Constantine, for example, was really a converted Christian. He made Christianity the state religion to serve his own ambitions, and it worked beautifully for him. The religious authorities – in Christianity anyway - did not wage wars and were often the only source of opposition to the numerous immoral acts throughout history. To put the blame all on religion is premature to say the least; especially when the relatively recent age of atheism cannot produce any notable dictators who were considered morale or just. In fact, if you take the number of religious dictators through time and figure how many were immoral, and then take that percentage and compare it to the number of immoral atheist dictators from the past few centuries, one could argue that there really is something about religion that would restrain the innate lust for wealth and power.

Joseph Stalin was a die-hard atheist and a fan of Darwin. He was also personally responsible for the deaths of anywhere between 30 and 60 million people - in the largest secularized nation the world has ever seen. Only when religion was permitted into Russia do we see them becoming pluralistic, less racist and less of a threat to the world. Adolf Hitler went to Catholic school as a child, but not unlike other wise and noble freethinkers, he rejected the Church outright. Just think if he had grown into an active Christian. He might have mutilated his own people after sacrificing their offspring. And of course Mao Tse-tung is another ornament to the morality tree of atheism.

If notable atheist Roy Hattersley can admit the possibility that theists such as those in the Salvation Army and the Little Sisters of the Poor, possess moral imperatives that may make them morally superior to atheists, then I think that says something. Name me some notable moral accomplishments by atheist movements. Slavery ended because of movements comprised mostly of fanatic Christians.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

Funny, I see religion and religious contention as the root cause of cruelty and misery over the years.


And who is to say the world wouldn’t be even worse off without religion? You can’t. You can only speculate, but you have to do so while denying the hard facts that religion has done a tremendous amount of good throughout history; good which seems unlikely to have ever been accomplished by atheism. Since atheism has reared its head recently, it has hardly produced shining, extraordinary moral accomplishments.

Why not?

The dark ages were dominated by religion and theocracy.


Actually the most enlightened civilization during the dark ages was the only true theocracy: Islam. And the Byzantine Empire was no theocracy.

The world of the Old Testament, if we are to assume it was historically accurate, was hell on earth.


And without any atheist societies to compare during that period of time, it is impossible to determine the cause of that “hell’.” The fact is religion wasn’t only dominant back then, it ruled every aspect of every corner of every civilization. Can you name me any civilization that owes its success and accomplishments to atheism? Can you name a single atheist dictator prior to the 16th century? History proves that atheist dictators are just as likely to try a global takeover as any religious nut.

The enlightenment was an awakening of science and art, and American Democracy was an expirement in secular government, despite what the religious right says. I guess it depends on your point of view.


And mine is quite different. The Founding Fathers of the USA did not envision a secularized nation as many atheists like to romance about.

There have been many loopy religious dictators but most of the bad ones were really just opportunists who used religion as a political weapon since it captured the hearts and minds of the people. Nobody really believes Constantine, for example, was really a converted Christian. He made Christianity the state religion to serve his own ambitions, and it worked beautifully for him. The religious authorities – in Christianity anyway - did not wage wars and were often the only source of opposition to the numerous immoral acts throughout history. To put the blame all on religion is premature to say the least; especially when the relatively recent age of atheism cannot produce any notable dictators who were considered morale or just. In fact, if you take the number of religious dictators through time and figure how many were immoral, and then take that percentage and compare it to the number of immoral atheist dictators from the past few centuries, one could argue that there really is something about religion that would restrain the innate lust for wealth and power.

Joseph Stalin was a die-hard atheist and a fan of Darwin. He was also personally responsible for the deaths of anywhere between 30 and 60 million people - in the largest secularized nation the world has ever seen. Only when religion was permitted into Russia do we see them becoming pluralistic, less racist and less of a threat to the world. Adolf Hitler went to Catholic school as a child, but not unlike other wise and noble freethinkers, he rejected the Church outright. Just think if he had grown into an active Christian. He might have mutilated his own people after sacrificing their offspring. And of course Mao Tse-tung is another ornament to the morality tree of atheism.

If notable atheist Roy Hattersley can admit the possibility that theists such as those in the Salvation Army and the Little Sisters of the Poor, possess moral imperatives that may make them morally superior to atheists, then I think that says something. Name me some notable moral accomplishments by atheist movements. Slavery ended because of movements comprised mostly of fanatic Christians.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_DonBradley
_Emeritus
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 6:58 am

Post by _DonBradley »

I don't think it can reasonably be denied that religious people do great good, and often from religious motives. What is at issue is whether religion is necessary to motivate such moral behavior. It is not. Western Europe, and particularly Scandanavia, are overwhelmingly secular and substantially atheistic, yet humane behavior is at least as much the rule there as in the religious US, especially as measured through crime rates. And thorough-going atheists have dedicated themselves to the service of humankind. Take, for instance, Jonas Salk, inventor of the polio vaccine, who spent his life in the service of his fellow beings, and put his life on the line, testing his vaccine first on himself. Morality does not require religion.

Don
_The Dude
_Emeritus
Posts: 2976
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:16 am

Post by _The Dude »

dartagnan wrote:Joseph Stalin was a die-hard atheist and a fan of Darwin....

Adolf Hitler went to Catholic school as a child, but not unlike other wise and noble freethinkers, he rejected the Church outright....

And of course Mao Tse-tung is another ornament to the morality tree of atheism....


Kevin, I'm sorry to see you leaning on these worn-out examples... like so many atheist bashers before you.

Oh well.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
_rcrocket

Post by _rcrocket »

The Dude wrote:
dartagnan wrote:Joseph Stalin was a die-hard atheist and a fan of Darwin....

Adolf Hitler went to Catholic school as a child, but not unlike other wise and noble freethinkers, he rejected the Church outright....

And of course Mao Tse-tung is another ornament to the morality tree of atheism....


Kevin, I'm sorry to see you leaning on these worn-out examples... like so many atheist bashers before you.

Oh well.


I thought Dawkins made a credible point that Hitler wasn't really an atheist.

rcrocket
_ajax18
_Emeritus
Posts: 6914
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am

Post by _ajax18 »

The rudiments of a moral sense have now been documented in animals, which places the development of that sense well before religion. For documentation of this, see Good Natured by primatologist Franz DeWaal and Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong by Harvard biologist Marc Hauser.


That must be an interesting morality. Do animals feel guilt? I know some missionaries claimed that a dog suffered an untimely death by supernatural means for taking a chunk out of a sister missionary's leg. The argument was that within their sphere animals have a certain moral responsibility. Obviously they didn't live the law of chastity to well, but that's beside the point.

I was impressed with the number of atheist people that seem to act morally. Yet how do you explain when people act immorally? Why do they do it, if they've evolved not to do so? If we've simply evolved to act morally, than free will does not seem to exist either. So me making a decision to steal something or not is just an illusion. In truth it's already been decided by external factors and not myself. Are immoral people just primitive and a product of a lower stage of evolutionary development? And if we're speaking in terms of atheism, who is to say what is moral and what is not? Good for yourself, your family, your race, your species? Why not animals as well? What's moral about treating animals worse than our own species? You speciest!
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

== Kevin, I'm sorry to see you leaning on these worn-out examples... like so many atheist bashers before you.

Dude, you have to realize I’m not bashing atheism. Don made some interesting points in his last post, not because they were new, but because I didn’t realize they were ever in dispute. If anyone thinks religion is required for morality, I don’t know who they are and I don’t agree. This thread was started by an atheist, not a theist. As a theist I am responding to numerous comments I think are patently untrue at worst and unverifiable at best. Yet, atheists like those on this forum dwell on them and reiterate them as though they were proven fact.

Make no mistake about it, these discussions lately have been more about atheists bashing religion than vice versa. That has been the norm here since forever, but I have usually kept quiet.

I don't think I ever said Hitler was an atheist. I said he left the Church, which according to the line of thinking going on here, should have made him a “freethinker” who was just as likely to be a moral person as he would have been as a mass-attending choir boy. Stalin was an atheist, but only after attending a theological seminary and being converted to Darwinism. Just imagine the havoc he would have caused if he had remained a theist!

SWS said religion is the cause of most of the misery in the world, so read my responses in light of this premise. He is trying to say the USA was intended to be an experiment in secularism. Ridiculous. The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure it didn't go through the same problem England went through, but they never envisioned a religion free government. To argue otherwise requires a quick skimmining of the evidence while ignoring the stuff that doesn't bode well with the atheist's fantasy.

As a theist do you really think I should feel anything less than offended by these comments? I’m not attacking atheists, but I am arguing against their line of reasoning that religion is inherently bad, a primitive part of human past, only atheists are evolving to that new enlightened state of humanity. I mean hell that has Hitler written all over it. You guys are far more advanced intellectually while we’re still hoping to find dragons in our garage. I only bring up those examples of dictators to prove a point. You guys love to drag out the religious dictators of days gone by to prove how religion has caused more death and destruction than any political system. Well, that goes both ways. The only difference is that when the percentages are analyzed, the theists have the upper hand. Add up all the atheist dictators who were in a position to run over other populations by force. Then do the same for the entire history of theist dictators.

I can admit that religion is not a prerequisite for morality, but can you guys concede a similar point that not only atheists are “freethinkers”? Somehow I doubt it. Once you’ve thought about that for a moment, then ask yourself who is attacking whom.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

I don't think it can reasonably be denied that religious people do great good, and often from religious motives. What is at issue is whether religion is necessary to motivate such moral behavior. It is not.


Of course it isn't required.

Just like AA meetings are not required for recovering alcoholics, amoxicillan is not required to cure bacteria infections and fertilizer isn't required for green grass. But the results tend to be better when these steps are implemented.

Who is the idiot who said religion is required for morality? Did Log really say this or are we all getting excited over a straw man?
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_The Dude
_Emeritus
Posts: 2976
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:16 am

Post by _The Dude »

dartagnan wrote:I only bring up those examples of dictators to prove a point. You guys love to drag out the religious dictators of days gone by to prove how religion has caused more death and destruction than any political system. Well, that goes both ways.


For sure there are lots of cheap targets in history. I never use the crusades or mountain meadows when I criticize religion, and so I was disappointed to see you (in particular) stooping to Hitler and Stalin. But you say you were just responding to lazy atheists -- yeah, I now see what you mean. I cannot agree with everything the atheists have said in this thread.

Actually, I find myself agreeing most with Moksha. :)
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
Post Reply