This hypothesis is something I'm still working on...I've admittedly got more reading to do on this, but I've got to start somewhere, so why not start by writing down my beginning hypothesis.
This isn't about whether or not you believe in God...your personal belief or lack thereof isn't my business, or it certainly isn't my place to critize that stance. This is about many Atheist's arguement of why religion is bad or wrong. It really comes down to one thing, personal responsibility, but we'll get to that in a moment.
What we first need to realize is that the United States of America is the first nation in the history of the world to live under freedom. All other nations before ours were ruled...they may have been benevolent rule for a time, but ruled nonetheless. It's true that the Romans dabbled in the idea of a republic at times and also had a branch of their government that was quite democratic as well, but the existance and influence of an emperor made their freedoms much less than our own. There were also the American Indians and other tribes throughout history, but they were never really a nations but really a collection of various tribes.
Next we need to realize how we arrived at our nation being free. What kept the foundation of our country from being yet another monarchy? The answer to that, of course, is God. Our founders made it blatently clear that our freedoms are given to us by our Creator. No man or group of men gives us these rights of freedom....if men were capable of such power, wouldn't they have discovered freedom before the creation of this country?
Our Founding Father, George Washington, said in his fairwell address, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Did you get that? Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that morality can prevail without religion.
So why is that? Why would morailty erode without religion? Why would morality fade without time tested principles, etched into our souls, unyielding or wavering to the whims of a changing massive collective to decide??
Because men(and women) are flawed. Men are weak. Men are corrupt....because men seek power. And that is the huge hole in an Atheist's arguement. Not the arguement for being an Atheist...but the arguement that religion is bad...or the cause for all bad things in our world.
I don't know if it's a recruiting tool, or a talking point, or just an arguement used to make people less grounded in their convictions feel guilty...but it's a lie to say that religion is the cause for wars and mass casualties...or it may be just naivety or even the inability to apply reason to arguements beyond the absolute proof of the existance of God. Maybe they are being used by liberal professors and don't even realize it. In any case, it's just plain wrong to blame religion for the world's woes.
Unfortunately too many are beginning to buy into it, if you happen to believe recent polls, and the truth needs to be aired.
The truth is, that just like the adage that guns don't kill people, people kill people; religion doesn't wage wars...religion doesn't kill people...people wage wars...people kill people. Religion just is. There may be different opinions within religion...Christians believe that Christ died for our sins, Muslims believe Muhammad is the prophet of Allah, but neither religion tells it's followers to kill others in the name of their god.
We aren't talking about extremists here, we're talking about the basic teachings of religion...which boils down to: do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. You'll not find a religion that doesn't beleive that tennent.
When that universal law isn't followed, it's not religion's fault, it's the fault of the individual. Just as universally and undeniably true: when wars are waged, it's not religions fault, it's the fault of the leader of the nation and/of movement. Those leaders may try to use religion as their basis for war...but again...religion does not teach such things.
Religion is coming under fire. There's a law that was nearly proposed in Connecticut this week that would strip the Catholic Church of control over it's operations and forced it to reorganize. It's nowhere in the mainstream media, otherwise I would have linked the story here.
The rights to practice religion must be preserved. Hold fast...and don't let those who would blame religion for the world's woes go unchallenged. They are filled with nothing but lies and feeble arguements. Don't Believe, if that's what you want. That's fine...but don't trash religion in the process.
Again, our founding fathers believed that religion was supremely important for our country to survive in it's free state. They even wanted it to be taught in school, at least on a basic level. Benjamin Franklin wrote to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale, when trying to determine what should be taught about religion, saying:
"Here is my creed.
I believe in one God, the creator of the universe.
That he governs by his providence.
That he ought to be worshipped.
That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children.
That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this.
These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Oh, you knew this post wouldn’t go by the way side without a discussion ;o)
A request, do as I do and keep each discussion point “noted” by adding your counterpoint below mine, that way we stay on track.
This is about many Atheist's argument of why religion is bad or wrong.
--- I think you need to present what you understand to be the Atheists argument.
What kept the foundation of our country from being yet another monarchy? The answer to that, of course, is God.
-- I don’t quite follow your hypothesis here. The reason the United States did not become a Monarchy is because the reason we left Europe was to escape Monarchy, not because of our belief in God. Europeans believe in God and lived under Monarchies.
No man or group of men gives us these rights of freedom....if men were capable of such power, wouldn't they have discovered freedom before the creation of this country?
-- It appears that you are saying that the concept of freedom didn’t exist before the United States existed? Freedom has existed from the beginning of time. The United States was not the first free society the Earth has seen.
Our Founding Father, George Washington, said in his fairwell address
--- Here is one from another founding father, TJefferson, “"Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry." We’ve gone over this one before.
Did you get that? Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that morality can prevail without religion.
-- Just because Washington was a great man, doesn’t make him always correct. Morality existed eons before religion; we even can see morality in Chimpanzees. Morality is in no way dependant on religion. Do you think cavemen didn’t have any morals? Of course they did. Morality’s base is innate.
So why is that? Why would morality erode without religion?
--- It doesn’t, it’s actually the inverse. The most Atheistic countries like in Scandanavia have the lowest crimes rates, sexual crime rates, teenage pregnancies, divorces etc… More religion does not mean more morality. Just look at this country, as one moves South and moves into the bible belt, teenage pregnancies, crime rates, rape rates etc… increase.
Men are corrupt....because men seek power. And that is the huge hole in an Atheist's argument. Not the argument for being an Atheist...but the arguement that religion is bad...or the cause for all bad things in our world.
-- I don’t follow the connection between men seeking power and Atheism. I don’t think I have ever heard an Athesist say that religion is the cause ofr ALL bad things in our world. I certainly would never say that. Do I think that organized religion does a lot of harm and that the good it does do can be done without religion, yes I do.
but it's a lie to say that religion is the cause for wars and mass casualties...
-- Again, I don’t think I have heard any Atheist ever say that religion was the cause for all wars etc… Has it caused millions and millions of people to be killed, yes it has.
Unfortunately too many are beginning to buy into it, if you happen to believe recent polls, and the truth needs to be aired.
-- Are you saying that as we become less religious we will see a decline in morality? The evidence says differently. See above statements See my post here: http://rocketstarinmpls.blogspot.com/2006/08/americas-misguided-view-of-non.html The middle East is full of religion and they also execute women for having extra marital affairs in the name of religion, is that moral? The Catholic church just ex-communicated a 9 year old girl who was raped by her father, pregnant with twins she had an abortion to protect her life after the doctors advice but the church did not ex-communicate the father, is that moral? Not in my book. Religion does not automatically create good morality.
The truth is, that just like the adage that guns don't kill people, people kill people; religion doesn't wage wars...religion doesn't kill people...people wage wars...people kill people. Religion just is.
--- I think this analogy is flawed as a gun is an inanimate object and religion is a group of ideas. Yes, if religion was just stories in books regarded as fiction, no it would not do any harm but it isn’t an inanimate object. Religion is ideas that are brain washed into the minds of young children with ideas of superiority and division.
There may be different opinions within religion...Christians believe that Christ died for our sins, Muslims believe Muhammad is the prophet of Allah, but neither religion tells it's followers to kill others in the name of their god.
---- I would beg to differ. Islam does allow the killing of infidels. You can say that it comes down to interpretation, it does. And if it does than either interpretation is as valid as the other.
We aren't talking about extremists here, we're talking about the basic teachings of religion...which boils down to: do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. You'll not find a religion that doesn't believe that tennent.
--- If that is all it is, then why not get rid of all of the other B.S. that surrounds it and provides the extremists the ammunition to pervert and let’s have everyone just chnat that mantra, which is a great one and all that we need. We don’t need the mysticism, the daddy in the sky, all of the crap around it to treat each other with respect.
When that universal law isn't followed, it's not religion's fault, it's the fault of the individual. Just as universally and undeniably true: when wars are waged, it's not religions fault, it's the fault of the leader of the nation and/of movement. Those leaders may try to use religion as their basis for war...but again...religion does not teach such things.
--- This argument can also be used to support the legalization of drugs. Heroin doesn’t do any harm, it’s people that are shooting heroin and doing the harm. It’s not prostitution that is the problem, it is the people that are the problem.
Religion is coming under fire. There's a law that was nearly proposed in Connecticut this week that would strip the Catholic Church of control over it's operations and forced it to reorganize. It's nowhere in the mainstream media, otherwise I would have linked the story here.
--- Churches are coming under fire because they have tax exempt status and are sticking their noses into politics. They can do that but the tax exempt status needs to be removed.
The rights to practice religion must be preserved.
-- I agree 100%. Everyone should have the ability to practice whatever thought process they wish ass long as they don’t try to push that belief unto the public via governmental control.
That's fine...but don't trash religion in the process.
-- Again, why does religion get a pass at criticism? I’ll say it again, the good that religion does can be done without religion but the bad that is done in the name of religion would not be done without religion.
Again, our founding fathers believed that religion was supremely important for our country to survive in it's free state.
-- Again, the founding fathers like BF were deists. Their belief was in a universal creator which I have much less issue with ass it does not come with all of the dogma that organized religion comes with.
Of course. Discussion is always welcomed.
--- I think you need to present what you understand to be the Atheists argument.
The argument I understand, as shown by the video in your post here, is that religion is responsible for wars and the deaths in those wars, if not responsible for all things bad in the world.
-- I don’t quite follow your hypothesis here. The reason the United States did not become a Monarchy is because the reason we left Europe was to escape Monarchy, not because of our belief in God. Europeans believe in God and lived under Monarchies.
That's incorrect. Pilgrims left England to escape forced religion. They wanted freedom of religion. Because of religion, they believe that people should live free, that the rights to live, be free, and pursue happiness. Those rights are given to us by God.
-- It appears that you are saying that the concept of freedom didn’t exist before the United States existed? Freedom has existed from the beginning of time. The United States was not the first free society the Earth has seen.
What nations lived as freely as we do, prior to the creation of the United States of America?
--- Here is one from another founding father, TJefferson, “"Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry." We’ve gone over this one before.
I'd have to see the context of this quote, but it appears as though he's saying that our rights don't depend on our religious opinion. Individual religious opinions are vastly different than rights given to us by our Creator.
-- Morality existed eons before religion; we even can see morality in Chimpanzees. Morality is in no way dependant on religion. Do you think cavemen didn’t have any morals? Of course they did. Morality’s base is innate.
We've definitely gone over this before. I see no way that the humanistic trait of morality can be possessed by primates or any other animal. Animals act on instinct and with behavioral conditioning. I also disagree that there's an ingrained morality. Without being taught right and wrong, there's no evidence to suggest children would still grow up perfectly well adjusted.
-- Again, I don’t think I have heard any Atheist ever say that religion was the cause for all wars etc… Has it caused millions and millions of people to be killed, yes it has.
That's the lie my whole post is based on. The chick in the post I linked above rattled off countless wars and body counts, specifically saying religion is to blame. Again, to throw millions of deaths at the feet of religion is a baseless claim. It's like saying millions of guns killed billions of people. The people operating the guns killed the people...the guns are objects. It's equatable to religion because people use guns to do harm, just like people who seek power use ideas, such as religion, to do harm. If these rational thinkers can't seek answers beyond the first layer, then they aren't very deep thinkers at all.
---- I would beg to differ. Islam does allow the killing of infidels. You can say that it comes down to interpretation, it does. And if it does than either interpretation is as valid as the other.
I am certainly not an expert in the Koran, but I quickly jump to think that your statment is only true of the extremists. I don't hear of millions of people from India, for instance, killing so-called infidels...nor are they killing each other. Just like Christianity, the mainstream basis for muslims is treat others as they would be treated.
--- Churches are coming under fire because they have tax exempt status and are sticking their noses into politics. They can do that but the tax exempt status needs to be removed.
That's merely an argument of law. If it's such a big deal, change the law...but that's not what the Conneticut thing was about.
-- Again, why does religion get a pass at criticism? I’ll say it again, the good that religion does can be done without religion but the bad that is done in the name of religion would not be done without religion.
That's a good hypothesis that we'll never be able to know. Perhaps people would magically want to do good things for other people, maybe not. But if it wasn't religion, the bad would still be done...that's my whole argument. People seek power...people seek to conquer and expand lands. People in power have historically used religion to control the masses. If it wasn't religion, it would be at the barrell of a gun or some other forced means.
And of course it's ok to question religion. I, along with many christians, question religion relguarly. Why it needs to be attacked is beyond me. Actually, I do understand it now. People attack religion because they lack the scope of logic to look beyond the initial layer of why wars are waged.
-- Again, the founding fathers like BF were deists. Their belief was in a universal creator which I have much less issue with ass it does not come with all of the dogma that organized religion comes with.
I guess I don't get why a deist who prays to God is different from a Christian who prays to God or a Muslim who prays to Allah. it all seems pretty indistinguishable to me.
That's incorrect. Pilgrims left England to escape forced religion.
---…forced religion “by a Monarachy”.
What nations lived as freely as we do, prior to the creation of the United States of America?
--- Democracies began in ancient Greece and have lived throughout history since then. I guess we’d need to go into what does “freedom” mean.
I'd have to see the context of this quote, but it appears as though he's saying that our rights don't depend on our religious opinion. Individual religious opinions are vastly different than rights given to us by our Creator.
-- But aren’t religious opinions based on what we think the creator wants?
We've definitely gone over this before. I see no way that the humanistic trait of morality can be possessed by primates or any other animal. Animals act on instinct and with behavioral conditioning.
-- There have been many studies of apes that show they do understand morality and exhibit moral behaviors. Check this one out, there are many, many like it that show that the base for moral behavior is present. On top of that humans add on.
Link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5733638.ece
That's the lie my whole post is based on. The chick in the post I linked above rattled off countless wars and body counts, specifically saying religion is to blame. Again, to throw millions of deaths at the feet of religion is a baseless claim.
--- But are you saying that religion has not been the cause of the killing of human beings? We don’t have to go over every example she gave but I am positive that many of them were religious based wars. You can’t separate power and religion, they are one. The entire root of religion is power. Power of a God that created everything and that pushes “rules” upon us to live by. Religion is power over the people.
I am certainly not an expert in the Koran, but I quickly jump to think that your statement is only true of the extremists. I don't hear of millions of people from India, for instance, killing so-called infidels...nor are they killing each other. Just like Christianity, the mainstream basis for muslims is treat others as they would be treated.
-- The Koran does support the killing of infidels. I agree that most religious people are decent human beings but it is the base that allows for the existence of the extremists as one can use the religious texts (due to their “interpretability [is that a word?]) to justify horror.
That's merely an argument of law. If it's such a big deal, change the law...but that's not what the Conneticut thing was about.
-- If they continue down the path of entering politics, I think the law will and should change.
That's a good hypothesis that we'll never be able to know. Perhaps people would magically want to do good things for other people, maybe not.
-- A question for you. Is the only reason you don’t do harm to others is because you think God will punish you? So if I were able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God did not exist, would you then go out and steal and rape and kill? Of course you wouldn’t because those actions are not reasonable, logical or moral.
But if it wasn't religion, the bad would still be done...that's my whole argument.
-- Agree, but the bad done in the name of religion would not be done.
People seek power...people seek to conquer and expand lands. People in power have historically used religion to control the masses. If it wasn't religion, it would be at the barrell of a gun or some other forced means.
--- And I would want to rid us of those “other forced means” too.
And of course it's ok to question religion. I, along with many christians, question religion relguarly.
-- You do and I think that you are not part of the problem as I have said before. I don’t think Atheists would be so vocal if all religious folk were of your ilk.
Why it needs to be attacked is beyond me. Actually, I do understand it now. People attack religion because they lack the scope of logic to look beyond the initial layer of why wars are waged.
-- I attack religion because 1. the religious are trying to push their views unto me via governmental action and 2. because it is the cause of undue harm to other humans via war, discrimination against homosexuals, women etc… We can and would still do good to each other without religion but the harm done in the name of religion would not happen or at minimum would be vastly reduced.
I guess I don't get why a deist who prays to God is different from a Christian who prays to God or a Muslim who prays to Allah. it all seems pretty indistinguishable to me.
-- Because a Deist doesn’t have an ancient book that describes how one should act or how others should act or how others that don’t believe in MY God will burn in hell or that others that are not Jews are not he “chosen people” etc…
In a sense, I could almost be called a Deist in the sense that although I don’t see any evidence a creator exists, I do not think it is impossible that one exists and even that it is logical that the universe has some sort of beginning as I can’t wrap my head around what existed before the universe or if it always existed, why did I always exist.
---…forced religion “by a Monarachy”.
I'm not sure it matters who it was forced by. They could have easily came to the United States to have a monarchy under a different religion, or even a variety of religions, but still under a monarchy. But they didn't. They had every opportunity. Everyone wanted to call George Washington, King. He insisted on President. He could have stayed in office as long as he wanted. He decided on two terms. That was direct result of wanting to be free, which they viewed as a right given to them by God...as outlined in the Declaration of Independence.
--- Democracies began in ancient Greece and have lived throughout history since then. I guess we’d need to go into what does “freedom” mean.
Interesting. I had overlooked the Greeks, thinking more of the Roman Empire, which was closest to our 3 branch government system, though they weren't equal branches which led to less freedom. If I remember correctly, Greeks didn't run their nation as a democracy...they really didn't have a national political system, instead opting for many cities each ran in some sense of a democracy-like fashion. They were more like a cross between American Indian tribes in which each tribe was ran like a democracy.
-- But aren’t religious opinions based on what we think the creator wants?
The religious opinions would be like the differences between Baptists, Catholics, Muslims, etc...where as the rights given to us by our Creator are universal throughout religions. This is why the founding fathers often refered to a Nature's Religion...it was all encompassing and just as the Benjamin Franklin quote stated, was something fundamental that all religions agreed upon. So in that specific quote by Jefferson, without context to it, it seems to be saying that our rights have no dependence on what Muslims or Catholics or Baptists believe, but rather what Nature's Religion assumes as fundamental rights from all sound religion.
-- There have been many studies of apes that show they do understand morality and exhibit moral behaviors. Check this one out, there are many, many like it that show that the base for moral behavior is present. On top of that humans add on.
A quote from the study you provided says, "I am not arguing that non-human primates are moral beings but there is enough evidence for the following of social rules to agree that some of the stepping stones towards human morality can be found in other animals." It goes on to make claims of how certain morality behaviors are evident, but it doesn't provide specific examples of how they arrived at this hypothesis. Without knowing these specific examples, there is no way to rebut their findings with what could be easily explained as some kind of learned behavior, basic instinct, or ingrained behavior not linked to morality. There are just as many people on the other side that say morality requires higher reasoning and not a base instinct like hunger or the need for shelter. So unless there is a study that is completely transparent in which it is clear that higher reasoning and morality exists in anything other than humans, we are likely to always be on opposite sides of this.
The problem I see with this train of thought, aside from not believing that animals have higher reasoning abilities, is that it is dependent on the thought that we progressed from animal mentality. It's being progressives. If we progressed from animal mentality, then we will always be progressing and there is never a need for basic laws, rather some kind of fluid relative laws that are constantly changing and upgrading. If that is the case, then we become a society and world in which the collective gives people rights....in which case the collective can take rights away. In Nature's Religion, our rights are given to us by our Creator and can not be taken away by any collective...they are constant.
--- But are you saying that religion has not been the cause of the killing of human beings? We don’t have to go over every example she gave but I am positive that many of them were religious based wars. You can’t separate power and religion, they are one. The entire root of religion is power. Power of a God that created everything and that pushes “rules” upon us to live by. Religion is power over the people.
Here's where the argument falls apart. If we can't seperate religion from power, then we can't seperate power from religion. So you're saying that if everyone were non-believers, we'd live in utopia, and no one would ever seek power. That's clearly an irrational thought. Survival of the fittest is a basic instinct, and at it's core is the seeking of power.
So if the seeking of power is a basic instinct, then based on your argument, religion is likewise a basic instinct since they can't be seperated.
I do happen to believe that religion is a basic instinct, but I don't believe that the human charactistic of craving power depends on religion.
If religion is nothing more than power over people, then that is all parents do...exert power of their children. Clearly that's not the case. We love our children and we do our best to guide them by providing them with rules that are inarguably in their best interest. That's all religion is at it's core. Our Father loves us dearly. He doesn't exert power over us, he guides us. That's all the Bible is. I set of guidelines with which to live by because our Father knows what's in our best interest. Is it in our best interest to love one another and treat each other with kindness, or just walk around haphazardly and selfishly through this life? The answer is clear.
-- The Koran does support the killing of infidels. I agree that most religious people are decent human beings but it is the base that allows for the existence of the extremists as one can use the religious texts (due to their “interpretability [is that a word?]) to justify horror.
These people that would twist the word of their Creator to justify horror are clearly radical, extremists, and mentally unstable and can not be used as any example to represent the larger group. It would be like using Ted Bundy to say that all people born in Vermont are crazy.
-- A question for you. Is the only reason you don’t do harm to others is because you think God will punish you? So if I were able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God did not exist, would you then go out and steal and rape and kill? Of course you wouldn’t because those actions are not reasonable, logical or moral.
This is when doing well in Ethics class in college would have served me well. I know there's a Plato or Socrates argument in here somewhere. In any event, it's not just the murder part that makes us moral...but the desire to do good as well. Would people randomly do good for others in non-believer society? I find it hard to believe that a society that lives for itself first would be a charitable one.
-- Agree, but the bad done in the name of religion would not be done.
Aside from the Crusades, I'm unaware of a time where it's clear and true that war was waged in the name of religion, as opposed to a ruler using religion as a tool to control people to further his individual goals.
--- And I would want to rid us of those “other forced means” too.
Do you really think we could live in a world without weapons? That would be an easily conqured one. Just like gun laws don't prevent criminals from acquiring guns, outlawing "other forced means" would only unarm entire nations from being able to defend themselves when another nation's natural instinct takes over to seize power and expand empires.
-- I attack religion because 1. the religious are trying to push their views unto me via governmental action and 2. because it is the cause of undue harm to other humans via war, discrimination against homosexuals, women etc… We can and would still do good to each other without religion but the harm done in the name of religion would not happen or at minimum would be vastly reduced.
It's easy to blame religion and say that it is the only hinderance to a new world order, but the fact is we have no idea how we would be without religion. Can you not concieve that without religion we may still have slavery, we may still murder, prevent homosexual relationships, etc., etc.? Because I can easily concieve that with some sort of collective ruling the world that slavery would easily be seen as acceptable, along with other atrocities.
-- Because a Deist doesn’t have an ancient book that describes how one should act or how others should act or how others that don’t believe in MY God will burn in hell or that others that are not Jews are not he “chosen people” etc…
I take this back to our parents nurture their children. There's no universally accepted way to raise kids. Some kids are coddled, some are taught entitlement mentality, others are shown tough love. The book is a guideline of how to live our lives. It's not a mandate. You won't go to hell if you don't follow it word for word, and I'm certain that many of the founding fathers read the bible. Otherwise how would they figure out what they believe and what they don't?
---In a sense, I could almost be called a Deist in the sense that although I don’t see any evidence a creator exists, I do not think it is impossible that one exists and even that it is logical that the universe has some sort of beginning as I can’t wrap my head around what existed before the universe or if it always existed, why did I always exist.
Funny enough, I think that this is evidence that you are not an Atheist that's part of the problem either. Obviously I didn't start this post with you in mind, rather that girl in the video. Her video was so hate filled. While I wish you'd not wage such a heated attack against religion, it's quite mild when compared against many other Atheists. I'd like to think that more Christians would show the tolerance they are taught to if there wasn't so much hate coming from some people.
Unfortunately there is a built in seperater in most religion sects. I think this part is wrong and most unfortunate. For instance, I think it's completely wrong that Baptists believe that Catholics won't make it to heaven because they believe that you earn your way into heaven as opposed to simply turning your life over to Christ. I like Mike Huckabee, but I really don't like his joke surrounding this belief. You may have heard it...it's something along the lines of someone asks him a question about him believing that only Baptists make it to heaven because of their belief...then his joke is something to the effect of "No, I don't even think that many will make it in." This is part of the reason I don't go to church as much as I used to. I learn some great things there, but am vehemently against other teachings like the example I just gave.
I do agree...if we could all just get to a place where the founding fathers were, more deist than anything, that this world would be a much better place. Still, having said that, I can't accept that religion is the sole fault, or even the major fault, of the world's woes. It's man's misuse of religion that made things go awry. But the blame should be on man, not religion.
So unless there is a study that is completely transparent in which it is clear that higher reasoning and morality exists in anything other than humans, we are likely to always be on opposite sides of this.
-- There are, I’ve seen multiple documentaries showing Ape moral behavior. I’ll see if I can dig one up. They do use the term “human morality” as we humans have taken base morality and added to it, thus creating human morality but the morality displayed by apes is also present in human morality.
The problem I see with this train of thought, aside from not believing that animals have higher reasoning abilities, is that it is dependent on the thought that we progressed from animal mentality. It's being progressives. If we progressed from animal mentality, then we will always be progressing and there is never a need for basic laws, rather some kind of fluid relative laws that are constantly changing and upgrading. If that is the case, then we become a society and world in which the collective gives people rights....in which case the collective can take rights away. In Nature's Religion, our rights are given to us by our Creator and can not be taken away by any collective...they are constant.
---- You make a great point here as what is moral has and continues to evolve as we as humans evolve. Morality has never been constant (over time many have stayed constant) and is always changing. Some moral values slower than others and some haven’t changed in thousands of years. Our moral compass is always evolving. We no longer allow 13 year old girls to marry but less than 100 years ago, we did. Our morals are always changing as our societies, cultures, technology etc… changes.
Here's where the argument falls apart. If we can't separate religion from power, then we can't separate power from religion. So you're saying that if everyone were non-believers, we'd live in utopia, and no one would ever seek power. That's clearly an irrational thought. Survival of the fittest is a basic instinct, and at it's core is the seeking of power.
---- No, what I am saying is that if we were all non-believers the violence and harm done in the name of religion would not happen. All we would be doing is removing one more power structure, religion, which is used by man to do harm to others. We would not be creating an addtl power structure. The greatest power structure of all is that which has the backing of the creator of the universe, very powerful.
So if the seeking of power is a basic instinct, then based on your argument, religion is likewise a basic instinct since they can't be seperated.
I do happen to believe that religion is a basic instinct, but I don't believe that the human charactistic of craving power depends on religion.
---- I actually agree that religious thought is a basic (not instinct as it is not needed for our survival) concept or idea. Humans “need” answers/comfort etc.. to our existence and death. Power doesn’t depend on religion, humans use religion as a tool to obtain power over others.
If religion is nothing more than power over people, then that is all parents do...exert power of their children. Clearly that's not the case. We love our children and we do our best to guide them by providing them with rules that are inarguably in their best interest.
----- Not all power is bad.
“A question for you. Is the only reason you don’t do harm to others is because you think God will punish you?”
This is when doing well in Ethics class in college would have served me well. I know there's a Plato or Socrates argument in here somewhere. In any event, it's not just the murder part that makes us moral...but the desire to do good as well. Would people randomly do good for others in non-believer society? I find it hard to believe that a society that lives for itself first would be a charitable one.
--- So what is your answer to my question? ;o) Would you not be moral anymore? I hope you are not saying that Atheists don’t do charitable work, help others etc… because we do, I do. I hope you really don’t think that Atheists are not moral or that they don’t help others.
“Agree, but the bad done in the name of religion would not be done.”
Aside from the Crusades, I'm unaware of a time where it's clear and true that war was waged in the name of religion, as opposed to a ruler using religion as a tool to control people to further his individual goals.
--- Look at 2009 and what people do in the name of religion or due to the power of religion… suicide bombers, 9/11, beheadings, female circumcision, Darfur etc… Without the backing of religious beliefs, beliefs in 72 virgins in heaven,
“And I would want to rid us of those “other forced means” too.”
Do you really think we could live in a world without weapons? That would be an easily conqured one. Just like gun laws don't prevent criminals from acquiring guns, outlawing "other forced means" would only unarm entire nations from being able to defend themselves when another nation's natural instinct takes over to seize power and expand empires.
---- There is a disconnect here, I am not referring to weapons etc.. I think I was referring to religion being used a weapon and IF we were to remove religion all together, it would remove religion as a weapon and it wouldn’t automatically create one in its place.
It's easy to blame religion and say that it is the only hinderance to a new world order, but the fact is we have no idea how we would be without religion.
--- I never said it was the ONLY hinderance, just one of them, a big one. Just realize what radical Islaml + nuclear weapons means to the world. We actually do, Scandanavia, they are the most Atheist counties in the world and they have some of the best stats on crime, morality etc… We do have examples. I sent that link to the prison post, our jails are much more filled with the religious than with Atheists, by far.
Can you not concieve that without religion we may still have slavery, we may still murder, prevent homosexual relationships, etc., etc.? Because I can easily concieve that with some sort of collective ruling the world that slavery would easily be seen as acceptable, along with other atrocities.
--- I think you are making a false connection. Of course bad would still exist, just not the bad that religion creates/facilitates etc… I again ask my question, if I could prove to your right now that God did not exist, would you then feel like doing harm to other is ok? You would not. Our morality has come a long way and has been helped by religion but our morality is based on reason, logic and the care of others.
and I'm certain that many of the founding fathers read the bible. Otherwise how would they figure out what they believe and what they don't?
--- They may have read it but they did not ascribe to it, especially TJefferson. He re-wrote it.
I do agree...if we could all just get to a place where the founding fathers were, more deist than anything, that this world would be a much better place.
--- Here , here
Still, having said that, I can't accept that religion is the sole fault, or even the major fault, of the world's woes. It's man's misuse of religion that made things go awry. But the blame should be on man, not religion.
-- I agree that at it’s base philosophy, or at least the philosophy of Jesus, it is all good. If we could leave it at JUST WHAT Jesus said, I think we’d be better off.
---- You make a great point here as what is moral has and continues to evolve as we as humans evolve. Morality has never been constant (over time many have stayed constant) and is always changing. Some moral values slower than others and some haven’t changed in thousands of years. Our moral compass is always evolving. We no longer allow 13 year old girls to marry but less than 100 years ago, we did. Our morals are always changing as our societies, cultures, technology etc… changes.
That's not exactly true. Our moral compass always points north. The morals are fairly constant over time. Sometimes the way we apply those morals change over time, but the morals are rather unchanging.
--- So what is your answer to my question? ;o) Would you not be moral anymore? I hope you are not saying that Atheists don’t do charitable work, help others etc… because we do, I do. I hope you really don’t think that Atheists are not moral or that they don’t help others.
I think it's easy to point out how people who live for themselves first are less charitable than those who live to serve others. The multitude of polls show that by an overwhelming margin that those who have strong faith are more charitable than those who aren't. Of course it's not an absolute, but our current leadership is a clear example. Our president never gave more than 3% of his income to charity prior to his decision to run for President. Our vice president has never given more than 2% of his income to charity. I don't remember the specifics of The Speaker of the House and Senate Majority leader, but their totals were significantly lower than the norm as well.
--- Look at 2009 and what people do in the name of religion or due to the power of religion… suicide bombers, 9/11, beheadings, female circumcision, Darfur etc… Without the backing of religious beliefs, beliefs in 72 virgins in heaven
These are clearly the exception than the rule. They also aren't entire nations, but small segments of society. It's dangerous to use clear underrepresentations as the example for the larger segment.
--- They may have read it but they did not ascribe to it, especially TJefferson. He re-wrote it.
I have a book that I still need to read on Thomas Jefferson. I have a feeling you're misrepresenting him, but I'm not positive of that. I've heard he was one of the more convicted believer of the founding fathers...but again, I can't say that with certainty without reading some books on him.
To sum up, I'm not a little confused about your current stance. In some of the replies to your last post, it seems as though you're begging to lean towards seeing that Men who use religion to control others are more to blame than religion itself...but I can't be certain.
But I think we're in agreeance that if we could just stop religions from thinking their way is the only way, that we'd be well on our way to mending much of what tears the world apart. I think we do, at least in some basic sense, have to take a deist mentality as it pertains to religion in general. Believe what specifics you want, but those specifics should be in basic agreeance that our Father loves us all and will not damn any of us to hell based on a fraction of a second in the scope of eternity's timeline.
I am currently planning on doing a post in the near future on primate morlality.
untile then... have a great weekend mad hoosier.
As well as a post on morality in secular societies like Denmark and Sweden.
Post a Comment