Happy Darwin year everyone!

[Trinidad]

Dawkins argues that moving god back into the figurative arena won't settle the matter:

 

Tell the congregation of a church or mosque that existence is too vulgar an attribute to fasten onto their God, and they will brand you an atheist. They'll be right.

Interestingly, in the bible belt of The Netherlands, there is a protestant congregation that is 100% behind a minister who denies the existence of God.

 

This minister's philosophy is roughly: "God doesn't exist in any concrete way: There was no Creator or anything like that. God is a state of mind, a way of living, a sense. This sense stands for things like love, how we deal with ourselves and others." (I do not claim that my understanding of his ideas is accurate.)

 

This minister got into trouble with the "higher powers" (not capitalized :() in his church. I didn't follow the story, but he seemed to be fully backed by his congregation in an area that is known as very conservative when it comes to religion. (The Netherlands may be known for euthanasia and gay marriages, but the religious spectrum in The Netherlands is very wide. The South is Roman Catholic, and the West (with Amsterdam) may be referred to as 'Sodom and Gomorra combined', but there are other areas in the country that are dominated by conservative protestantism.)

 

Rik

[helene_t]

It seems to me that Armstrong and Dawkins don't contradict each other. Armstrong said that theologists of the 16th century and before had one concept of "existence". Dawkins says that most religious people today have another concept. They could both be right.

 

FWIW I recognize Armstrong's version more that Dawkins' among religious people I know personally. I could be wrong as I never have deep theological discussions with anyone. I could base my impression on a biased sample. Anyway, Dawkins' description of theists is apparent in the folders of Jehova's Witnesses as well as some anecdotes I hear from the USA, and from the propaganda of militant islamists.

[kenberg]

My deep theological discussions concern the Law of Total Tricks. I hope to be burned at the stake beside Mike Lawrence. But in my youth I had these discussions that seemed deep at the time and which did in fact have consequences in my eventual choices.

 

One of my close friends became a Methodist minister. He would have fit right in with the minister that Rik described. We would discuss whether or not it was possible to be a religious atheist. My view was no, but he was inventive in his thinking. Sometime in the early sixties he got into some trouble with the church by performing a marriage ceremony for two men. However the church authorities searched through their church laws and could not find anything that forbade it, so they dropped the issue. The rules that hey were following were written in the nineteenth century and it's my guess that no one ever thought it would be necessary to insert a rule that prohibited a Methodist minister from sanctioning a homosexual marriage. One of those duh things, from their viewpoint. He left the church for a while but later returned and had a ministry that was especially welcoming to gays and lesbians. He is retired now but still is involved with various socially conscious activities, restorative justice being one of them (for crimes involving property damage, the miscreant is required to at least partially restore the damaged property and then the sentence is reduced).

 

 

My own views are fairly simple. First we deal with the practical necessities of our own lives, then we see if we can help make the world a better place. Everyone has his own demarcation about how much is enough when addressing the first task and I am by no means sure that the religious folks among us are, by and large, more generous than the non-religious. As to the theology, I don't much care.

[helene_t]

We would discuss whether or not it was possible to be a religious atheist.

Albert Einstein described himself as a "very religious non-believer".

[PassedOut]

One of my close friends became a Methodist minister. He would have fit right in with the minister that Rik described. We would discuss whether or not it was possible to be a religious atheist. My view was no, but he was inventive in his thinking.

I know two people like this (not friends exactly, but I like them) and, oddly enough, one of them is also a Methodist minister. They work so hard to help others that one just has to pitch in to help now and then. And I don't remember hearing either of them use words like "salvation" or the like. Maybe they do in church.

 

People like these and like your friend certainly make their communities better, whatever their motivations.

[barmar]

I think the word that's often used to describe these "religious atheists" is "spiritual". They believe in something beyond simple materialism, but not the literal God of the Bible, who performs miracles in response to prayers. Their spirituality supplies the "meaning of life" that they feel they need, but don't get from a sterile, clockwork universe.

 

Personal beliefs like this don't bother me much. I think these people are deluding themselves, and that's too bad for them, but they probably think the same of people like me. They don't generally try to impose their beliefs on others, and get society to enact laws based on them, the way the religious right does.

[Winstonm]

I read something interesting a couple weeks ago that defined a "soft atheism" as more like what I would consider agnostic - a disbelief simply based on a non-ability to prove the existence of.

 

The fascinating thing to me is that I find the concept of atheism and death without an afterlife to be comforting and uplifting. If this is the only life I will get it behooves me to make the best of it. Oddly, I have found the way to make the best of my time has many similarities to many religious ideas. Doing good things has better rewards than doing bad things.

 

I have no problem with the concept of a Higher Power - only I don't find a necessity to define that power or even try to understand it. The real benefit of acknowledging any Higher Power is to relegate self to "less than" status.

 

It means you are not a god - you are equally human with the rest of the world.

 

Just another scum of the earth.

[Lobowolf]

They don't generally try to impose their beliefs on others, and get society to enact laws based on them, the way the religious right does.

Is there a substantive difference between trying to get society to enact laws based on moral beliefs grounded in religion, and trying to get society to enact laws based on moral beliefs not grounded in religion? Say, for instance (as to the latter, at least for those whose reason isn't religious), trying to get society to enact laws based on one's beliefs as to health insurance reform?

[Winstonm]

They don't generally try to impose their beliefs on others, and get society to enact laws based on them, the way the religious right does.

Is there a substantive difference between trying to get society to enact laws based on moral beliefs grounded in religion, and trying to get society to enact laws based on moral beliefs not grounded in religion? Say, for instance (as to the latter, at least for those whose reason isn't religious), trying to get society to enact laws based on one's beliefs as to health insurance reform?

So sorry but I can't stand not to butt in.

 

The statement made was "imposing their beliefs on others". That does not imply only moral beliefs.

[Lobowolf]

They don't generally try to impose their beliefs on others, and get society to enact laws based on them, the way the religious right does.

Is there a substantive difference between trying to get society to enact laws based on moral beliefs grounded in religion, and trying to get society to enact laws based on moral beliefs not grounded in religion? Say, for instance (as to the latter, at least for those whose reason isn't religious), trying to get society to enact laws based on one's beliefs as to health insurance reform?

So sorry but I can't stand not to butt in.

 

The statement made was "imposing their beliefs on others". That does not imply only moral beliefs.

What sorts of amoral beliefs do you have in mind that serve as an impetus for enacting laws?

 

Doesn't really change the nature of the question, though:

 

Is there a substantive difference between trying to get society to enact laws based on one's beliefs that are grounded in religion, and trying to get society to enact laws based on one's beliefs that aren't grounded in religion?

[Winstonm]

They don't generally try to impose their beliefs on others, and get society to enact laws based on them, the way the religious right does.

Is there a substantive difference between trying to get society to enact laws based on moral beliefs grounded in religion, and trying to get society to enact laws based on moral beliefs not grounded in religion? Say, for instance (as to the latter, at least for those whose reason isn't religious), trying to get society to enact laws based on one's beliefs as to health insurance reform?

So sorry but I can't stand not to butt in.

 

The statement made was "imposing their beliefs on others". That does not imply only moral beliefs.

What sorts of amoral beliefs do you have in mind that serve as an impetus for enacting laws?

 

Doesn't really change the nature of the question, though:

 

Is there a substantive difference between trying to get society to enact laws based on one's beliefs that are grounded in religion, and trying to get society to enact laws based on one's beliefs that aren't grounded in religion?

Thanks for the change, but in my mind it is a quite different question now.

 

Religious beliefs can be extremely narrow and in fact may differ greatly from the best interests of the many, whereas a secular belief can only be based on a general agreement of many as to what is in the best interests of the many.

 

Example of a narrow belief: mandatory teaching in public school science classes of Intelligent Design as a viable alternative theory to that of the theory of evolution.

 

Edit: Btw, I don't think this narrow belief system is the sole exclusive property of the religious right - they simply are the ones making the most noise these days. There are plenty of self-interested secular groups who would not have the interests of the many at heart

[helene_t]

I think the word that's often used to describe these "religious atheists" is "spiritual".

My impression is that the word "spiritual" can refer to a personal belief, as opposed to religion which is (per definition) based in a doctrine shared with other people. I may consider my belief in the law of total tricks parts of my spirituality. I may not. Depends how I perceive my belief.

 

If I invent my own secret belief system, I may describe it as spiritual (if that is the way I perceive it) but it wouldn't be a religion. If I convince thousands of people to adopt my belief system, it may have become a religion (if it contains the ingredients of a religion, I think it must have both a moral, a mythical and a ceremonial component, but maybe some would say that one or two of the criteria suffice).

 

The religious atheist may belong to some atheistic denomination (such as Kunfutsianism, Marxism, or some New Age cult), or he may believe in sufficient key elements of some theist religion to consider himself religious. For example he may worship Jesus and believe in miracles performed by Jesus, but not believe in God.

[barmar]

They don't generally try to impose their beliefs on others, and get society to enact laws based on them, the way the religious right does.

Is there a substantive difference between trying to get society to enact laws based on moral beliefs grounded in religion, and trying to get society to enact laws based on moral beliefs not grounded in religion? Say, for instance (as to the latter, at least for those whose reason isn't religious), trying to get society to enact laws based on one's beliefs as to health insurance reform?

So sorry but I can't stand not to butt in.

 

The statement made was "imposing their beliefs on others". That does not imply only moral beliefs.

What sorts of amoral beliefs do you have in mind that serve as an impetus for enacting laws?

 

Doesn't really change the nature of the question, though:

 

Is there a substantive difference between trying to get society to enact laws based on one's beliefs that are grounded in religion, and trying to get society to enact laws based on one's beliefs that aren't grounded in religion?

An example of beliefs unrelated to morality would be evolution vs. creationism. The groups trying to get Independent Design included in public school curricula are trying to enact laws based on religious beliefs.

 

There are also terrorist groups that play on religious beliefs to incite violence (e.g. the promise of an afterlife in paradise to suicide bombers).

 

There are certainly many cases where religious and secular morality coincide, e.g. both codes are against murder.

[Lobowolf]

a secular belief can only be based on a general agreement of many as to what is in the best interests of the many.

Strongly disagree with this statement. I think it's logically a non-starter, as "general agreement" comes from the beliefs; beliefs don't come from agreement.

 

Moreover, secular beliefs don't have to be tied into "the best interests of the many." Lots of people have strong secular beliefs that are libertarian, or supportive of private property or autonomy rights, even if those are to the detriment of the many.

[barmar]

Edit: Btw, I don't think this narrow belief system is the sole exclusive property of the religious right - they simply are the ones making the most noise these days. There are plenty of self-interested secular groups who would not have the interests of the many at heart

Of course, many people are narrow-minded for a wide variety of reasons. But when religion is invoked, it becomes very difficult to have a reasoned debate with them.

 

And not only are the religious groups the most noisy, but they're almost certainly the largest and best organized. You can't have a rational discussion with conspiracy theorists, but it doesn't matter much because there aren't so many of them and they don't have much influence. Between these two extremes there are groups like environmentalists -- while some of them may be extremists, they tend to be the exceptions, not the mainstream members.

 

Society also grants an elevated status to religious groups and beliefs. If a parent refuses medical treatment for their child, it might be granted if they cited religious reasons, but not if they say it's because the drug cartels are peddling unnecessary treatments. The court would ask them for proof of the latter claim, but religious arguments are beyond such requirements.

[Winstonm]

a secular belief can only be based on a general agreement of many as to what is in the best interests of the many.

Strongly disagree with this statement. I think it's logically a non-starter, as "general agreement" comes from the beliefs; beliefs don't come from agreement.

 

Moreover, secular beliefs don't have to be tied into "the best interests of the many." Lots of people have strong secular beliefs that are libertarian, or supportive of private property or autonomy rights, even if those are to the detriment of the many.

O.K., that's fair enough. Then it might be better stated that a secular belief comes from independent thought while theist beliefs come from mandates.

[helene_t]

O.K., that's fair enough.  Then it might be better stated that a secular belief comes from independent thought while theist beliefs come from mandates.

I don't think that is always the case.

 

Many people (I know you are one of them) have once had a religious belief, due to indoctrination, and have later in life come to a non-religious Worldview through more independent thought (although entirely independent thought probably does not exist, we usually if not always take inspiration from others).

 

But there are examples of the opposite. Fluffy, for example, came to a theist (though maybe not religious) belief by himself.

[barmar]

And if you go back far enough, someone had to have the first theist beliefs, which he then passed on as a mandate. Although another possibility is that he didn't really hold these beliefs; he was a charismatic man who realized that he could use these mandates as a way to control people. For instance, tribal witch doctors don't actually have to believe their voodoo for it to be effective, they just need their patients to believe it (one idea is that it's a combination of hypnotism and placebo effects).

[Lobowolf]

These are sort of interesting distinctions, but I don't find them very persuasive as far as the assertion that the religious right are any more inclined to impose their beliefs on others via leglislation than the non-religious-right (including "spiritual" people).

[barmar]

These are sort of interesting distinctions, but I don't find them very persuasive as far as the assertion that the religious right are any more inclined to impose their beliefs on others via leglislation than the non-religious-right (including "spiritual" people).

Of course, all legislation is some group imposing their beliefs on others.

 

The question is whether their reasons for imposing them are compelling enough that they should be permitted to.

[mike777]

These are sort of interesting distinctions, but I don't find them very persuasive as far as the assertion that the religious right are any more inclined to impose their beliefs on others via leglislation than the non-religious-right (including "spiritual" people).

Of course, all legislation is some group imposing their beliefs on others.

 

The question is whether their reasons for imposing them are compelling enough that they should be permitted to.

Who decides this?

[barmar]

These are sort of interesting distinctions, but I don't find them very persuasive as far as the assertion that the religious right are any more inclined to impose their beliefs on others via leglislation than the non-religious-right (including "spiritual" people).

Of course, all legislation is some group imposing their beliefs on others.

 

The question is whether their reasons for imposing them are compelling enough that they should be permitted to.

Who decides this?

I'll volunteer. :)

 

More seriously, it should be subject to rational debate. And that's the problem with religion, you can't really debate it. What kind of argument can you make against "because God/Allah/Whoever said so in the Bible/Koran/Whatever"?

 

I'm not saying that we always get this right outside of religion. We invaded Iraq based on a number of false ideas (WMDs, harboring Al Qaeda terrorists, etc.), and that was bad. But religion has a track record of promoting many activities based on unfounded beliefs, yet it's afforded elevated status in society.

[Lobowolf]

Of course, all legislation is some group imposing their beliefs on others.

 

The question is whether their reasons for imposing them are compelling enough that they should be permitted to.

I don't think that's the question at all. I think the question is a (related) 2-parter: whether the proposed legislation is desirable, and whether it's legal. I don't find the motivations relevant (except to the extent that an improper motivation renders some legislation illegal, e.g. the motive to racially discriminate). I'm subject to all sorts of proposed and enacted legislation that attempts to impose others' beliefs on me. The fact that a great deal of it doesn't come from the right or have a religious motivation doesn't make it any more palatable, and it certainly doesn't stop it from happening.

[barmar]

But what constitutes "desirable"? The proponents of these laws claim that it's desirable because God says so.

 

And what do you mean by "whether it's legal"? Laws define what's legal. I guess you mean constitutional, but the Constitution can be amended. When the religious right discovered that the Constution doesn't prohibit gay marriage, and states were starting to take advantage of this, they started a campaign to amend it. Thankfully, they're not having much luck.

[Lobowolf]

But what constitutes "desirable"? The proponents of these laws claim that it's desirable because God says so.

 

And what do you mean by "whether it's legal"? Laws define what's legal. I guess you mean constitutional, but the Constitution can be amended. When the religious right discovered that the Constution doesn't prohibit gay marriage, and states were starting to take advantage of this, they started a campaign to amend it. Thankfully, they're not having much luck.

To better state what I meant, I'd say that the ideas, that is the proposed legislation, stands or falls on its own merits. The motivation behind the person who drafted it is incidental.

 

Desirable is in the eye of the beholder. It doesn't matter why any particular person thinks it's desirable. Ultimately, the question of desirability left to the voters directly, in the case of a ballot initiative, or to the legislators in deciding to pass a bill, or the voters in deciding whether to re-elect the legislators.

 

The proponents of some laws think that they're desirable because God says so. So what? Each voter decides for himself whether it's desirable or not based on his or her own criteria. Some people think that murder should be illegal on religious reasons, and some people think it should be illegal on purely pragmatic reasons completely divorced from not only religion, but morality. Does it matter?

 

Yes, by "legal" I meant constitutional; that is, even if a given proposed law is found "desirable," that's not enough if it's unconstitutional (e.g. racially segregated schools were "desirable" in some places prior to Brown vs. Board of Education).

 

Medical marijuana took a beating in the Raich case, and it came from the "secular left." Property rights took a beating in Kelo, and it came from the "secular left." Is it any better because the motivation is something other than "God says so"? I don't see how.

 

And living in California (let alone Los Angeles), I'm hard-pressed to believe that it's less common, too. We have a largely-non-religious-right legislature comprised of people who LOVE to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. And it's not just legislators (who sort of have to impose their beliefs on us, as part of their job description); it's the citizenry, too. When gay marriage got CRUSHED in California in 2000, registered Republicans (let alone religious ones) were outnumbered by registered Democrats by something like a million voters. But even on "lesser" issues like whether or not you can talk on a cell phone while you drive, ride a motorcycle without a helmet, let people smoke in the restaurant you own, drive your car without wearing a seat belt, etc. Someone else's belief about what's best for you is imposed on you, and "God says so" has nothing to do with it. If someone thinks God says it's ok to smoke pot in your house, more power to him; I'm in disagreement with the largely secular belief that you're subject to criminal sanctions if you do. The motivations are beside the point.