No, you're misunderstanding my argument. I'm saying that just because something is religious in nature, doesn't mean it's moral, not that anything that comes from religion must be bad.
Then what are we arguing about? Because I never said that anything religious must be moral simply becase it is religious. Hell, Satanism is a religion too, but who in their right mind could call it moral?
I then go on to say that religion's methods for determining morality are inaccurate, and inimical to the process of discovering moral truth, because it discourages clear-headed inquiry and favors baseless superstition. I'm making a procedural argument, I guess
The problem is that you generalize too much, as does Dawkins, about religion. Both of you seem to operate with an extremely narrow understanding of what religion means, and this leads to sloppy analysis. Every religion is different, so there is no universal method for determining morality. And even if there were, you cannot prove their morality isn't really moral since it remains a subjective concept. All you can do really is prefer one system over another. It is up to the individual to decide what he or she thinks is right or wrong. Just because a government might standarize utilitarianism or any other system of ethics, doesn't make it moral. Same goes with religion. There has to be some objective source of morality and the strength of the position held by most religious bodies is that objective morality comes from an objective source: God. All other forms come from human reasoning, which makes them subjective by nature.
I suppose I should have been more clear here. When I say "the source of morality", I mean "the standard by which practices are considered to be moral or immoral". I'm not denying that there are moral truths in religion (I don't think any atheist would dispute that); I'm saying that moral truths which claim to be from religion shouldn't be spared from reasoned scrutiny. Once you start scrutinizing moral principles with a rational, critical eye, you're engaging in secular ethics.
But I'm not saying it should be spared from scrutiny. I'm saying the language against religon here is pretty harsh considering we owe more to religion that you seem to realize. For example, without Christianity, there'd be no utilitarianism. Mill said it himself:
"In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as one would be done by, and to love one's neighbour as oneself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality."
So I undertood you as saying we could just abaondon religion now that we have other systems of morality. Well, if Mill couldn't do it, then why should we? Without Christianity there'd be no basis for him to develop utilitarianism. The irony here is that it seems entirely immoral, to me at least, to completely plagiarize from a source, and then later tell the world that this source is superfluous because its been made better.
I, along with the rest of the vast majority of atheists, think that most of the non-supernatural stories in the Bible are true. Archaeological evidence and writings from their historical contemporaries speak in favor of ancient existence of the Israelites and their basic history.
But not the events like the exodus, or these enormous slaughters that allegedly took place at the hands of Jewish armies. Most scholars understand these as propaganda redactions by the later monarchy, to give a "divine" warning of sorts, to any potential enemies of the state. So again, you have no real proof that ancient Jews understood a "religious teaching" to rape and pillage. You're essentially using the same material, and following the same mentality as fundamentalists who believe the world was entirely flooded.
Inerrancy is crucial, wouldn't you say? If the Bible is not inerrant, why should we treat any differently as a source for morals than we do any other text? Why shouldn't we be as careful with the book of Romans as we are with As I Lay Dying?
There is an entire science dedicated to this subject. The Bible is a collection of books written by numerous authors and redacted by numeros scribes, over thousands of years. To say the Bible must be entirely inerrant as we read it in 21st century English translations, or else it should be dispensed with, is precisely what the whacky fundamentalists say. I don't understand that reasoning.
I think there are (although not nearly as many problems as in Christianity), but the important advantage to utilitarianism over religious morality is that it can be criticized, reasoned about, and made better. There's no opportunity for improvement with religious morality, even though there is very often a dire need for it.
Then you have a poor understanding of Christianity. Homosexuals are now married in Christian Churches. Women are preaching at the pulpits. Catholicism is no longer considered the only Christian Church. Christianity can't change you say? Are you kidding me?
This isn't as silly as you might think. I'm not going to get into the nuts and bolts of things here; it should suffice to say that the same kind of reasoning would be employed here as with potential requirements that automobile passengers wear seat belts. (Also notice that I'm not concluding that we should definitely ban sports.)
Well if you want to make the audacious claim that all religious based morality should be abandoned, then you need to answer questions like these that might cut to the core of Utilitarianism, to determine whether it is all that you say it is. How would Utilitarianism deal with adultery?
I have nowhere denied that there are benefits to religion;
OK, this is good to know.
I have merely questioned if these are not outweighed by its costs.
And I argue that they are. I think it should be overwhelmingly obvious. The negatives are relatively sporadic and merely social factors that in most cases, would have happened with or without religion. The positives are virtualy universal among billions, and most certainly would not occur without religion.
Okay, are you defining 'religion' here as "a social mechanism to unite people under a common cause"? Because if you are, I don't agree to that definition.
No, that isn't the definition, but in the context of religious voilence, this is precisely what we're dealing with. When European kings saw the threat of annihilation coming from the east, they knew they would have to run to the Pope for help, because only he could call the necessary numbers to fight for the same cause. It was religion that united them in defending Europe from further invasions.
Also, you're wrong to say that radical Islam has never posed a threat to the existence of humanity. Ever heard of a little thing called "nuclear terrorism"?
Oh come on. How many nuclear bombs are in the hands of "radical" Muslims? How many have been set off by Islamic forces? Secularized was Russia is responsible for developing the largest number and testing the largest number of nuclear warheads. Even if some Muslims managed to get their hands on ten warheads, it is hardly enough to end the existence of humanity. Get real. If they're lucky, they might manage to kill half of the people who were killed under atheistic regimes this past century. And this is granting the improbable case that they would get their hands on them to begin with, to say nothing of the means of delivery.
I agree, though, that some of the same elements that make religion unattractive exist in other organizations. But I think we should work against these other tendencies as well.
The features are universal. You cannot just dissect theistic religion from all religious organizations and pretend you're curing a sickness. If you want to ensure the safety of humankind with some kind of guarantee, then you'll have to find a way to dispense with belief altogether. Not just theistic belief, but any kind of belief that can be used to start wars. Out the windown goes politics. Socialism, freedom, capitalism, democracy, etc. Humans from every group can and do feel a sense of pride to defend their own system, even till death.
Most Americans supported the war in Iraq because their pride in their freedom was used as a the common denominator to unite them all for the same cause. It wasn't religion, because it couldn't be. Hardly anyone believed we should be attacking Iraq because America was being Gods instrument. The political powers that be, will use whatever it is at their disposal. Every war has its own cases. In 19h century Russia, it was "science" and a propaganda machine that taught its people that religion was for the uneducated and those people served no purpose in society.
Do you have any examples for bad atheists besides militant Marxists? If you don't, then your case against atheism in all its forms is extremely weak.
I am referring specifically to suicide bombings to prove a point. The insanity of suicide bombing is frequently used by atheists to argue that because Muslims blow themselves up, then relgion is bad. Well, how do they deal with the fact that before 9-11, most sucide bombers were not religious at all? This anecdote demands a reassessment to determine what it really is that would drive someone to such extremes. According to Robert Pape, nationalism, not religion, is the driving factor behind most suicide terrorists.
No, these views are frighteningly mainstream:
No they are not. Your citation says most Americns support Israel, but this is not the same thing as saying what your originl assertion suggested. That they also "aching for total war in the Holy Land, for the reason that the sooner Armageddon comes, the sooner they can get to heaven." This is horse manure, plain and simple. I've been to enough Churches to know it is not mainstream at all, and if you think it is, then try saying this at any given Church and see what the reaction would be. Believing in an inevitable is not the same as "aching" for it.
You remember what the Bible says about Jesus' return, right? It's not exactly a pretty sight.
And? The Bible says there will be war and Jesus will return, yes. Christians believe it wil happen in God's time. There is no logic in them to "try" to make it hapen. For them, it will happen, no matter what they do.
Actually, plenty of people have been trying to take away their rights to "fornicate and commit sodomy" -- do you know how recently Lawrence vs. Texas was decided? Also, I don't think you know the definition of sodomy if you're throwing the word around pejoratively like that, because there is a 98% chance (at least) that you yourself have committed it. (Sodomy includes oral sex and masturbation, in case you were wondering.)
Please provide a list of these people who are actively seeking to make sodomy illegal. You said there were "plenty," so I am sure you can list some names. There are many dumb, outdated laws on the books that people haven't gotten around to ammending. It is still illegal to not own a gun in Kennesaw Georgia, for example.
I don't know of anyone, atheist or not, who disputes most of the violent history of ancient Israel given in the Old Testament. And yes, some Jews today (a very, very small number) justify immoral behavior using these passages.
I think that is an understatement. If these people exist at all, they are very, very, very small in number. If Israel was given over to a population of atheists instead, what makes you think it would be tolerant of the incessant terrorist attacks by its neighbors? Keep in mind that Israel is a nuclear power and could easily destroy any of these nations who threaten it.
There are groups in Israel that don't think they're bound to agreements with their neighbors because those people are supposedly enemies of God and His chosen people, for instance.
So you're telling me the strategy of lying during wartime is unique to relgious conviction?
Nietzsche didn't "admit" anything here, because you can't "admit" something that isn't true. I've already explained why I think Nietzsche is wrong; you should engage my reasoning instead of demanding that I think of this lunatic's thoughts as valid.
I already told you why I mentioned him, and I never said you had to agree with him. If you think you've provided reasoning to the contrary, then I missed it.
First off, I'm not defending the conclusions of every secular system of ethics; I'm merely defending the enterprise in general. Secondly: huh? How is any of this an actual response to my point that "theological equality is not identical to political equality", i.e., just because we're theoretically equal in the afterlife doesn't mean that people should all be treated equally on Earth. Also, what "actual equality" is there other than political equality?
You can't dismiss the Christian notion of equality by saying "souls" only refers to the afterlife. The soul is something we have, not something we get after we die. Political euqality is limited only to political matters. Christians for example, have a much broader sense of equality in that every life is sacred. Hence, it is immoral to allow a baby born via failed abortion, die. What does Utilitarianism say about abortion? Your concept of ethics is just too superficial to cary any real meaning in society I think. Christian ethics is very systematic, and has had centuries of practice and refinement. Where is the example of a Utilitarian society? Why so certain that it could even work to begin with, let alone prove better than others that have been proved successful?
What's your explanation for the fact that societies predominantly composed of Christians had no apparent problem with slavery until the 16th and 17th centuries, or later? My point was that this fact works very powerfully against Nietzsche's equation of Christianity with egalitarianism.
No it doesn't. Egalitarianism emerged within Christian civilization, slavery did not. Slavery was by far an economic institution and it always has been. Christians were the ones to start the abolistionist movements of the 19th century. As to why slavery was allowed, well, it was only tolerated in certain portions of the country. Many were not Christians ad those who were rationalized it by treating their slaves with kindness and contemplating their fates had they been returned. The series "North and South" which aired twenty years ago, gives a pretty good historical backdrop to this situation.
And there was always the argument that the black man was better off in America as a slave, than to be left in Africa to suffer. I remember a decade ago one black journalist wrote, "Thank God for Slavery." Without slavery, he would have certainly been raised somewhere in Africa. I guess my point here is that the slave owners were not irrational barbarians who simply saw black/inferior. They saw economic opportunity and set aside their morals and their conscience and rationalized the practice.
Dawkins is an admirer of Jesus, too, but he bases his admiration of Jesus on a reflective consideration of his words and actions, and not on any kind of dogmatic religious precept.
Then this is what separates Dawkins from Mill.
This was Jefferson's position as well, because as a deist, he held reason supreme as a method of determining moral truths (God doesn't decree moral truths at all in a deist system).
But reason, by your own logic, must be abandoned since it was reasoning that developed the systems used in secular societies under Lenin and Stalin, and even Hitler, whose system was based on a philosophy of genetic/racial supremecism. Religion had a significant role in none of these societies. So, in the absence of religion, they all reasoned and rationalized their own ethics.
All you're really doing is saying theirs was wrong and yours is right. Well, how do you know? What makes your reasoning any better than theirs?
My point was that there was a very specific reason that Jefferson chose deism over atheism, and that the advent of Darwinism removed this obstacle.
How can this even begin to make sense when we consider the fact that Darwin wasn't an atheist? Nor are the many Christians who accept Darwin's findings.
I agree that they're different, but I don't think this distinction is very important to the question of whether Jefferson was a theist.
I consider deism a form of theism, and so do many others. In fact, the wiki article on this clls deism a "sub-category of theism." You're speculating what Jefferson would have been, had he lived longer. But this is silly, and irrelevant.
Jefferson tried to determine the nature of the Creator (I hesitate to use that term, because Jefferson's Creator is very different from the Judeo-Christian Creator
Of course it is different. But he did believe in a creator. He was like Einstein in that he did not believe in a personal God like the major religions traditionally have. But both of them believes the universe had to have been designed by some form of intelligence. And since the evidence for this has multiplied over the years, I see no reason to etretain the speculation that Jefferson would have switched sides based on your say so.
He would have had no problem with the "Creator" being simply the laws of physics, something to which modern-day atheists could agree.
You're fishing in unchartered waters, and you forgot to bring your pole. Jefferson was a deist and you cannot apply an atheistic definition to the word because that is what you think he is.
Jefferson's "Creator" was certainly not an anthropomorphic tablet-scribbler in the vein of The Ten Commandments.
Of course, but this isn't a necessary requirement in order to be a theist. Straw man.
Then you'd agree that there's nothing immoral about homosexuality, correct? After all, Jesus himself never said anything about the practice. The only admonitions against it came from Paul, that same guy who said that women need to shut the hell up in church and who thought that long hair was evil (on women, at least -- his apparent tolerance for mullets is not a point in favor of his inspiredness).
Correct.
So, what do you think of the idea interpreting Biblical aspersions against homosexuality as "an expression of that particular culture, by a man who was just a man"? You should be gung-ho for it, if you care at all about being consistent with yourself.
You think I am against it?
1) How do you know this is the case? There's at least a decade of Jesus' history that isn't accounted for in the Gospels; how do you know he didn't go hang out with the Buddhists for a few years?
Well hell, anything is possible I suppose, but there isn't any reason to believe there were any Buddhists preaching in Palestine during that time. Jesus was a devout Jew, so if anything he was inspired by folks like Hillel. His views were considered radical and a threat. Nowhere was he accused of believing what some local Buddhists were teaching. His teachings were considered unique.
2) You seem to be saying that Christianity is superior because, by historical accident, it happened to influence Western civilization more directly than Buddhism did.
No, I'm saying nothing about Christianity being superior to Buddhism. You're the one claiming superiority here, and you're trying to equate modern atheistc systems with ancient Buddhism. You're all over the place.
3) Whatever the merits of Jesus' own life, his teachings obviously didn't stick.
Pffft. Tell that to John Stuart Mill, who developed your prefered system after saying Jesus was the perfect example of it.
You still haven't addressed the problem of why modern Christendom had no problem whatsoever with slavery for 1000+ years
Because it wasn't a "problem" for 1000+ years. Slavery needed no critics because it had no defenders. It was simply a way of life as it had been for millenia. The morality of it never became an issue in practice, but the Church made it an issue and did fight against it or tried to enforce moral standards, such as the Council of Nablus which made it illegal for Christian slave owners to have sex with female slaves.
why the idea of equal rights for women didn't even occur to it until after the Enlightenment.
Women have always been equal in the eyes of Christianity. You're thinking of political equality in terms of voting and such, which were not factors in earlier societies. Everyone had their roles and this was culture based more than religion based. When women started compleining enough, it caught the attention of the majority and then the issues were eventually debated. But as far as these people were concerned, women were every bit as equal to the men in every way that mattered. Just because they wouldn't let them bear arms and go off to war, like they can today, doesn't mean they were behaving immorally. In fact it might be considered immoral to let them do that. After all, what happens to women who are captured behind enemy lines?
In that sense, I'm deeply religious as well, and we have nothing to argue about.
Do you really share Dawkins' stance on God, or are you just equivocating because you feel the argument slipping away? You know what my guess is.
You can't possibly be serious. Slipping away? I am not the one equivocating. I am the one correcting your misunderstanding of the word religious. You recklessly throw about the word without qualifying what it is you mean exactly. What you're attacking isn't religion, but rather theistic religion. From a sociological standpoint, the universal features in "religion" are not unique to theistic religions, so yours and Dawkins' arguments fail. This is what Allister McGrath pointed out in his book The Dawkins Delusion?
"Darwinistic" Soviet dictators who championed science? Your history is confused -- the Soviets championed anti-scientific, illogical Lysenkoism because they thought it fit better with their Marxist dogma. Try again.
Well the point is they thought preferred science over religion. Stalin thought science killed God. After he read Darwin, he became an atheist and the "survival of the fittest" mentality led to him becoming one of the greatest mass murderers ever.
Err, the vast majority of secular ethical systems already have come around, and at least one of those systems has been sitting pretty for 2500 years.
Well name them. Why the suspense?
Yes, secular morality often borrows from nonsecular traditions. But it originates an awful lot of stuff, too, and retains a distinct advantage over religious morality: the possibility for improvement.
First of all, I have already refuted this nonsense that all religions are the same, and that Christianity in particular, doesn't change or improve. Christianity was instrumental in abolishing slavery, for example. How is that not an improvement?
Secondly, there would be no need for improvement unless moral standards changed through time. Since they do change it is disingenuous for you to use ancient examples of supposed immorality to discredit modern religious moral systems.
No, your history is laughably wrong here. Read up on Trofim Lysenko and the history of Soviet agronomy, learn that Stalin repressed the Darwinist scientists of his day, and get back to me
Stalin was a Darwinist. Without Darwinism, Stalin would not have become an atheist and millions would have not been slaughtered. Your argument is that he didn't let scientists, who happened to be Darwinsists as well, operate with full freedom? That isn't what I'm arguing against. I'm saying Stalinst was influenced by the "science" in Darwin's book. This doesn't mean he stops being a ruthless dictator when it comes to the Lysenko campaign.
Most religious persons in power now, in the West, maybe. But Ivan the Terrible, a theist, wasn't exactly a cuddly little lamb, either, nor were the czars that immediately preceded the Russian Revolution.
Do you not understand the concept of "most"? I am talking about most religious persons ever to be in power. As a percentage, they dwarf the figure of atheists in power who have committed atrocities like genocide.
No, an atheistic leader could have plenty of reasons to act morally. We've been over this already.
It is a claim that rings hollow because you are unable to name a single atheist leader who has acted morally. That's my point, and you keep dealing with it by ignoring it.
You have given no basis for the allegation that religion has given me all the morality I have. Substantiate, or retract.
I believe secular systems are bi-products of their religious predecessors. You've yet to show me a single aspect of any given secular system, that doesn't resemble a previous religious one.
Demonstrate how my analogy was "absurd" -- it's quite apt, actually. Do you think a Native American recapture of Nebraska would be justified? Why, or why not? Do you think a Mexican incursion against southern Texas would be justified? Why, or why not?
1. Native Americans are not at war with anyone. The Christians were constantly at war with Muslims.
2. Native Americans are not threatened with annihilation.
3. It is not in their best interests to take up arms against the government. They are much better off living in the country as it was developed by colonials, and they know it.
4. Yes, your analogy is absurd for the reasons mentioned here.
I'm in no way required to defend atheists who don't vote for theists because of their religion. I myself vote for theists all the time -- hell, I've even volunteered 90-hour workweeks for candidates who believe in God.
Well hell, it is either that or don't vote right? But let me guess. The guy you volunteered to work for was the lest religious of the two campaiging?
It's not a lack of vegetarianism per se in Judeo-Christianity that I find unethical, but rather the idea that human beings have unbridled dominion over animals. (Sigh -- there was a reason I didn't bring this one up at first. I'd really rather not talk about it here, as it deserves a debate of its own, and doesn't do much for this one except cause confusion.)
Fair enough.
No, because utilitarianism's epistemology is very different from the epistemology of religious morality.
No, not really. I mean even you have to believe that the religious morality doesn't really come from God. So, where does it come from if not God? It comes from other humans. So if God didn't give Moses the ten commandments, then Moses just made them up himself, and those commandments were pretty damn innovative for that time period. So he naturaly "reasoned" them. Likewise, if Jesus wasn't really God as yo believe he wasn't then his teachings are from human reasoning. So at their core, both systems are essentially the same because they are based on human reasoning. Its just that one is considered sacred and the other not.
If you base morality on observation and reason, then someone could mess up their logic or evidence, and this wouldn't discount the moral ideas that came from good logic and evidence. If you base morality on a mere religious grounding, though, you have no proper method to analogously discriminate between a bad religious moral precept and a good one.
So you're saying your reason-based morality is imperfect because it will need to be changed. Yet, you consider it superior to religious morality because religious morality is imperfect. So in what sense is it superior? Because it changes? I already showed you that religious morality changes all the time, so what do you have left to base your argument? Both systems are reason-based. Both change. The only difference is that the religious argument s much more intricate and sophisticated and has been in practice for a much longer time. Yours are still called "theories."
This is evinced by your failure to recognize the ancient Jews' barbarisms as both grossly immoral and motivated by religion, when they are clearly both.)
You know damn well that I reject the history - as do most liberal biblical scholars- and not the immorality of it. If it hppened at all, it was immoral. I have no problem saying it. But you cannot demonstrate that it did happen, and base yor argument on something you don't even beleve to be true! Moreover, since morality has clearly changed in Judaism, and you don't see Rabbi's encouraging rape and murder, this throws your premise into a complete tailspin since your argument only works if religious morality is unchangeable.
I'm saying that we should abandon belief that is not properly grounded in good evidence, and I don't advocate any kind of force against religious people just because they're religious.
So you're saying that in the past four thousand years, there has been no good evidence that stealing is immoral? Or lying? Or hypocrisy? Or murder? Or adultery? All of these things are just evidence-free religious delusions?
Again, I don't deny that people do good things because of religion; I only question whether the negatives of religion don't outweigh the positives.
And you are unable to separate the negatives in a manner that makes them unique to theistic religion. Until you do, your argument is fatally flawed.