The Problem with Religious Moderation

[Vampyr]

According to christian beliefs, he died for our sins, not for our lifes.

I understood Winstons posting different.

 

Well, there is the fact that all Christians are born tainted by Original Sin, so that even if you live a blameless life you still need to be forgiven. Even though you never sinned.

[Scarabin]

It lies in the implication in the following line:

 

 

 

It suggests that "unprovable beliefs" stop us all from becoming psychopaths. (Okay, "psychopath" is a theatrical exageration, but change "becoming psychopaths" to "doing bad things" and the theatrics are gone.)

 

It is a mystery to me why and how an unprovable belief stops us all from doing bad things. I would rather say that unprovable beliefs have caused us all to do some pretty bad things, of which some can certainly be characterized as psychopathic.

 

Proven rules (e.g. the Golden rule), that have little to do with religion or believe, have helped us in being better people. Some religions, or perhaps even many, have adopted the obvious and incorporated it into their doctrine, but that doesn't make the Golden rule a religious, unprovable belief.

 

Just because Jesus said that we should love each other, doesnot mean that loving each other is an exclusively Christian thing. If I say "The leaves turn colors in fall." then the coloring of the leaves is suddenly a Trinidadian religious thing? Or is it still just stating the obvious?

 

Rik

FWIW I see the use of "if" as precluding your reading of Nige1's statement.

:D

[the hog]

Maybe Christianity in your world is quite different from Christinaity in mine. At least here, I do not need a blood sacrifice for being born. Do you mind to backup your statement with something like a fact, maybe n URL or something like that?

At least here, we are taught, that our SINS will be forgiven, if we really regret them.

 

Roland, he is referring to the crucifixion and the idea that Christ died so that we could repent for our sins. Unless you belong to a previously unknown to me sect of Christianity, then your Christian world also acknowledges a blood sacrifice.

[Scarabin]

I agree with the notion that people whose opinions are prone to change in the face of new knowledge are generally wiser than those whose opinions won't, but where you and I differ is how this correlates with the moderation of one's beliefs.

 

Moderation is no virtue in and of itself. In say 1900 USA, a moderate might hold that women were entitled to some education and maybe some minor role in politics, while the extremists held that women either ought to remain as chattels or, on the other extreme, have equal rights with men. Being moderate might well be 'better', viewed from today's perspective, than one of these views, but still meant being a chauvinist. Similarly with racial issues.

 

While one can categorize people in all kinds of ways, one way is to consider that people see the world either in terms of revealed knowledge, or justified belief, or in terms of provisional knowledge, subject to error-checking and modification in light of experience, including the experience of others.

 

The former is religious thinking. Religion ALWAYS requires that the believer accept as 'given' and as 'fixed', at least pending a new revelation from god, the basic tenets of the faith. The believer cannot discover new things for himself or herself, at least not that contradict the revealed truths, and may not accept as true any such discoveries by others until they have been endorsed as revelations.

 

The latter lives free of such intellectual chains.

 

Both can seem extreme in their passion for their views of the world. However, the believer is indeed intellectually constrained while the other is not, and can more readily adapt to new information.

 

It is a profound error to consider the two categories as equivalent and to assert that there is some middle position, that can be described as moderate.

I suspect you equate moderation with occupying the middle ground, but on many important issues about the universe, there is no habitable middle ground. Religion says one thing and evidence based knowledge says something different. Claiming both are right is often nonsensical.

FWIW I do believe that moderation is a virtue in and of itself. And I do equate moderation with occupying the middle ground, although we would probably define this differently since I do not think moderation requires me to accept two diametrically opposed views.

 

I do think moderation requires me to be able to understand other peoples views/beliefs/convictions. Let me offer a very simplistic example: I believe that one's convictions are based on training/education, culture, experience and that believing in something which conflicts with experience is wrong to impossible. Thus superstition is clearly ridiculous.

 

Just as historians say a man should be judged in the context of his time so I hold a man's convictions should fit his circumstances/milieu.

 

But 2 caveats: I can understand how someone with a charmed life could ascribe this to answered prayer, and if I were a world-class footballer being paid $150,000 a week and I believed I played better when I put on my left boot first, then I would surely do so. :D

[Codo]

I don't know of many 'atheist' societies. It is arguable that China is close to atheistic these days and clearly much of its recent history contained atrocities and it to this day deals with human rights issues in a way that we in the West see as improper. However, it is probably best to see China's problems as stemming from being an authoritarian state rather than an atheistic state. In the early days, post revolution, it was governed by a group of rulers in love with another 'ism': a political philosophy that claimed that human nature was malleable and that by the imposition of certain rules and modes of behaviour, a proletarian paradise would evolve.

 

If there ever was evidence to support this philosophy, it has long-since been revealed as erroneous.

 

Soviet Russia was another secular state in which the rulers professed a form of atheism, but the atrocities it committed were not in the name of atheism but, as in China, in the name of a now-discredited political philosophy.

 

This is no surprise, because atheism, being simply the lack of acceptance of a particular kind of delusion, carries with it no goal or purpose. Atheists don't need 'leaders'. That there are 'leaders' within the atheist world is simply a happenstance arising from cultural forces, such as access to media, willingness to write books, etc. There are no seminaries for atheists, no 'church' in the hierarchy of which one can rise and so on.

 

 

Yes, this is easy: If there is horror in theists states, it is obvious that religion is guilty. If there is horror in atheists states, there are other reasons. This is a point of view any other fundementalist will gladly share. That the communist countries developed another "ism" maybe just shows that people "needs" a kind of "ism"?

 

It appears to me that you have done very little, if any, reading on this issue.

 

You are simply wrong to state that 'in a strict Darwinian way.....'. All you reveal by making that statement is that you have no clue about this subject.

 

A moment's thought should point out the errors of your ways.

 

Imagine 3 groups, identical in all aspects other than their approach to cooperation. One is a winner take all group while the other two espouse cooperation.

 

In the case of military conflict, the two cooperative groups rate to win, by force of numbers.

 

In the case of technological progress, so long as the groups are open to innovation, the cooperative ones will soon surpass the go it alone one, because they will share ideas.

Your notion that selfishness is the best evolutionary strategy is correct only if one assumes that there are never more than 2 players, or that the selfish player is at least a strong as all the cooperative ones put together.

 

.

 

As usual you have the urgent need to insult people who do not share your beliefs. And as always, this shows more about you then about me.

 

Of course your example would work if the smaller groups cooperate. But just because you made your example in a way that this will happen.

Unluckily reality does not care too much about your example. There had been times where the strongest had been too strong compared to the rest of the world, there had been times where nr, 4 and 5. supported the number 1 or where the smaller countries did not cooperate.

Actually, I doubt that f.e. microsoft will live according to the golden rule. Same is true for hedge fonds. And still, they not just survive, they set the pace.

 

And btw: I did not claim that selfishness is the best way to develop. I just claimed that I can see no simple logic to support the idea of the golden rule. I think that from a pure logical point of view it would be better to be selfish if you are in a position to be it. Cooperation is usually better for the trailing companies, not for the leaders. (But of course life is not as simple as that, it surely depends on the single case and how big your lead is.)

 

 

That is not the way the world works. Yes, strength and selfishness can gain a temporary upper hand, but consider this: when it comes to the success of, say, nation states, while history shows that empires were founded and in some cases lasted for many years, cooperation within those states was essential. There has never been an empire founded by anarchists, or people who refused to cooperate.

 

I suspect that this mistaken 'understanding' of the implications of evolutionary theory is part of the reason for the nige's of the world, supported by the Codo's of the world, feeling that the natural state of humans is psychopathy or the urge to rape, kill and steal, and that we need some external force to stop it. A belief in a god being a big one, with a reluctant concession that maybe we atheists have some other source of moral sense.

 

We do. We have exactly the same moral sense as you do.

 

 

No, we don't, but that is another point and has nothing to do with being a theist or atheist.

And yes, I do believe that all people need some guides to stop them from stealing, selfishness, cruelity etc. This could be laws, a good education, a good role models or whatever.

I personally belief that the fear of punishment in purgatory is no good teacher for good ethics, I prefer positive ways of learning, but maybe there are many people who needs this fear.

 

And btw: We talked about the golden rule, not about cooperation. And I really doubt that many emperors in the last 50 centuries did to their countrymen what they require them to do.

 

 

You dress it up as divinely inspired, but there is compelling evidence that most believers make their god espouse what they, the believers, want to be true, rather than vice versa. We make our gods in our image, and we tend to obey them only when they tell us things we already want to believe.

 

However, you and all but the damaged people we call sociopaths or psychopaths share an innate sense of morality that is remarkably uniform across cultures and religions or the lack of religion. Dawkins, in The God Delusion, referenced some fascinating studies to that effect.

 

It seems likely that this innate moral sense is therefore a product of the way our brains are formed and this means that some form of evolutionary effect has given rise to this. I don't personally find the notion of group selection to be very convincing, but I have only a semi-educated layperson's understanding and am hardly qualified to assert that one expert is right and the other wrong. The level at which evolution works is not especially relevant: the notion that it works at some level or levels is enough. Interestingly, it is possible that in moral terms, the evolutionary process is not genetic at all. We may be dealing with memes, rather than genes. A meme is a self-replicating idea. However, the fact that morality appears to be relatively standard across the entire species suggests, to me, a genetic component

 

I would not talk about Dawkins ideas as if they are science. As far as I know, memes and "selfish genes" etc. are still just ideas, no facts or theories.

AS much as I agree that moraily has developed in quite similar ways in very different societies, this could be used as an argument for both sides:

Maybe this is an evolutary thing- or maybe it is just godgiven and He spread these ideas worldwide....

[Codo]

Well, there is the fact that all Christians are born tainted by Original Sin, so that even if you live a blameless life you still need to be forgiven. Even though you never sinned.

 

And there is another fact that it is impossible to live a blameless life. So even without the original sin, you need to be forgiven- at least if you believe that there is someone who awaits you....

[gwnn]

So what are you disagreeing with? Can you or can you not be forgiven without accepting Christ's sacrifice? If indeed you can regret things earnestly and you will be forgiven, it seems that the sacrifice of Christ was in vain. Or if Christ's sacrifice works for all of us, why do you need to regret things at all? If your buddy paid for your parking ticket, you don't need to still apologise to the policeman (OK it gets a bit more complicated as the policeman and your buddy are the same person, or at least have the same fabric).

[mike777]

Yes this is a famous question in theology.

 

Are all saved or only a few chosen?

 

Certainly in Catholic theology non catholics, even those who don't accept Jesus as their savior can be saved but yes this is an ongoing deep debate. But yes the central theme is that Jesus died a horrible horrible painful death to save us. That God is too put it simply is the God of forgiveness and the God of justice.

 

 

In general, Christians believe God has the power to save whoever he saves but this is an open debate what this means. Of course this all presupposes an all powerful God.

 

To be fair many atheists believe in an afterlife, just one without a god of forgiveness or one who demands justice.

[Trinidad]

FWIW I see the use of "if" as precluding your reading of Nige1's statement.

:D

"If" is a strange word: It does not merely say what happens when the condition following "if" is true. It also gives credibility to the condition: It could be true. At the same time, it puts the condition on the agenda. It's up for discussion.

 

Suppose that I would write: "If Scarabin has committed fraud then he should go to jail." then there is more to this than the simple logical "if then" statement. It also opens up the possibility (or emphasizes) that the condition might be true: Scarabin may well have committed fraud. This potential fraud is on the agenda. Soon, we will be discussing whether Scarabin should go to jail... (if he committed fraud).

 

When the "if"s are not countered rightaway, they will start to lead their own life. After a while they will be perceived to be true. After all, if they wouldn't be true someone would have stood up and said: "Where did you get this nonsense?" (or "If my uncle had tits he would be my aunt."). To prevent the perception of truth, Mike and I stood up.

 

When you say "it was only a hypothetical condition in an if statement", you are underestimating the power of the word "if".

 

Rik

 

Disclaimer: I have no indication whether Scarabin has or has not committed fraud in the past. (Yet another way to put it on the agenda.) :P

[Fluffy]

Women almost never perpetrate these killings, so it is possible that a cultural attitude that men have to be the protectors and providers

I think this is genetic rather than cultural, most species have different roles for genders and we are no exception. I see everyday how women react to my baby´s presence and it is really different from men.

 

Back to topic, religion gives religious people something to lose by doing a masacre. It sadly also gives them something to win on some cases. So my point still is that removing religion is worse than just removing the latter cases.

[mike777]

If THE question is remove religion any and all from world, ok how do we define and measure that?

In any event do we really want to remove competing ideas including religion or let them compete?

If we were to remove any and all ideas of religion and not allow them to compete then what other ideas shall we remove?

 

 

IMO the huge problem that the USSR and China show is when you don't let ideas compete in the marketplace you will always end up with some version of fascism. I will go further and say this is the danger when it comes to a more powerful central government. The danger is the limits placed on the free and open competition of ideas.

 

 

btw I fully grant that the free and open competition of ideas very often leads to failure the failure of most of these ideas. Which is why in other threads I have embraced a society that accepts failure as not being shameful. I embrace a society that does not try to shame and punish forever those who do fail. For example Japan is a society that does shame but hardly the only one.

[Scarabin]

"If" is a strange word: It does not merely say what happens when the condition following "if" is true. It also gives credibility to the condition: It could be true. At the same time, it puts the condition on the agenda. It's up for discussion.

 

Suppose that I would write: "If Scarabin has committed fraud then he should go to jail." then there is more to this than the simple logical "if then" statement. It also opens up the possibility (or emphasizes) that the condition might be true: Scarabin may well have committed fraud. This potential fraud is on the agenda. Soon, we will be discussing whether Scarabin should go to jail... (if he committed fraud).

 

When the "if"s are not countered rightaway, they will start to lead their own life. After a while they will be perceived to be true. After all, if they wouldn't be true someone would have stood up and said: "Where did you get this nonsense?" (or "If my uncle had tits he would be my aunt."). To prevent the perception of truth, Mike and I stood up.

 

When you say "it was only a hypothetical condition in an if statement", you are underestimating the power of the word "if".

 

Rik

 

Disclaimer: I have no indication whether Scarabin has or has not committed fraud in the past. (Yet another way to put it on the agenda.) :P

 

Happy to give you points for humor but are you not avoiding admitting error by fantasizing? My Fowler was never like this.:D

[Winstonm]

And there is another fact that it is impossible to live a blameless life. So even without the original sin, you need to be forgiven- at least if you believe that there is someone who awaits you....

 

The 10 commandments list only 4 actions that cannot be condoned: stealing, killing, lying, and adultery. It is certainly possible for someone to live a life without violating the ban on these 4 activities, and any other "sin" listed by those commandments could be classified as an imaginary slight to an imaginary being open to subjective interpretation. Any claim of "sin" other than these 4 listed activities must fall into the category of man's explanation of sin rather than actual banned actions.

 

When one then extends the action ban to exclude normal, human emotions (coveting, jealousy, etc.), and then to even thinking about such actions

Matthew 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart

then I call BS.

 

In fact, the entire message of the bible is to paint humans as so inferior to the power-base, invisible triad hierarchy as to require humanity to wallow in remorse for being born human.

 

Sorry, but you can count me out. I have no shame for being human - and my humanity makes me equal in that respect to every other human on the planet. That allows me to accept the failures of others without blame, because I allow myself to be imperfect, too.

 

After all, I am only human.

[Codo]

So what are you disagreeing with? Can you or can you not be forgiven without accepting Christ's sacrifice? If indeed you can regret things earnestly and you will be forgiven, it seems that the sacrifice of Christ was in vain. Or if Christ's sacrifice works for all of us, why do you need to regret things at all? If your buddy paid for your parking ticket, you don't need to still apologise to the policeman (OK it gets a bit more complicated as the policeman and your buddy are the same person, or at least have the same fabric).

 

I disagreed with this part of Winstons statement: "This really troubling aspect of Christianity to me is that the need to be forgiven stems from the fact that we are all born as human beings, that, according to the dogma, being born a human requires a blood sacrifice by an all-powerful being in order to make us "worthy".

I understood this sentence as if we (as Christians") need someone to forgive us the fact that we are born as a human or to be worthy.

 

I believe in a forgiving God.

Do we have to regret to be saved? I really believe that, but I do not know.

Will he forgive me? I do not know, because I must admit that I do not know, whether I do regret all my sins. Maybe I did not even realize some of my actions as sins.

Will he forgive you or my son or any other given atheist? I do not know. I really hope and believe that he will judge you about your doings and not about your beliefs. But what do I know?

Will he forigve catholics/muslims/other form of believers? I do not know, but I hope he will.

Will he forgive suicide bombers? I do not hope so, but what do I know.

Will there even be someone to judge? What do I know, I just believe it. You just don`t.

 

And I do not believe that the sacrifice was in vain. It was a requirement and a statement for this "easy way to heaven." It is a central part of evangelic believe, that we do not have to pray thousand prayers, pay for some kind of indulgence, or atonement.

 

It is not as if your buddy pays the parking fine. It is as if kid stole a chewing gum but his brother takes the punishement for it. This does not take away the responsibility for his action from the little thief. (Sorry I do not know a better fitting english word, maybe a thief is a too hard expression, but I am positive that you will understand me anyway.)

[Codo]

The 10 commandments list only 4 actions that cannot be condoned: stealing, killing, lying, and adultery. It is certainly possible for someone to live a life without violating the ban on these 4 activities, and any other "sin" listed by those commandments could be classified as an imaginary slight to an imaginary being open to subjective interpretation. Any claim of "sin" other than these 4 listed activities must fall into the category of man's explanation of sin rather than actual banned actions.

 

When one then extends the action ban to exclude normal, human emotions (coveting, jealousy, etc.), and then to even thinking about such actions

 

In fact, the entire message of the bible is to paint humans as so inferior to the power-base, invisible triad hierarchy as to require humanity to wallow in remorse for being born human.

 

Sorry, but you can count me out. I have no shame for being human - and my humanity makes me equal in that respect to every other human on the planet. That allows me to accept the failures of others without blame, because I allow myself to be imperfect, too.

 

After all, I am only human.

 

1. I do not know anybody who never lies. Do you?

2. It is your intepretation that the other commentments are not worth following. Why should this interpretation be true?

3. I am so glad that you know the complete message of the Bible and can put it in one sentence. :) Maybe you should at least try to understand the different pictures painted of man in the old and the new testamony?

4. I am very happy to hear that you accept the failure of you and others without blaming. This is one of the best attitudes to gain. A lot of religions try to work on this subject, f.e. if you take the meditation of the buddhists. And actually this is one of the nicest parts of being a lutherian Christian: I am accepted by my God as imperfect. I do not to be perfect and I do not have to pay for being imperfect. I just have to understand my imperfection and regret it if I harm someone else by this. Sounds like the way you are living, doesn't it? (At least besides this "God"-part...)

[Winstonm]

I disagreed with this part of Winstons statement: "This really troubling aspect of Christianity to me is that the need to be forgiven stems from the fact that we are all born as human beings, that, according to the dogma, being born a human requires a blood sacrifice by an all-powerful being in order to make us "worthy".

I understood this sentence as if we (as Christians") need someone to forgive us the fact that we are born as a human or to be worthy.

 

I believe in a forgiving God.

Do we have to regret to be saved? I really believe that, but I do not know.

Will he forgive me? I do not know, because I must admit that I do not know, whether I do regret all my sins. Maybe I did not even realize some of my actions as sins.

Will he forgive you or my son or any other given atheist? I do not know. I really hope and believe that he will judge you about your doings and not about your beliefs. But what do I know?

Will he forigve catholics/muslims/other form of believers? I do not know, but I hope he will.

Will he forgive suicide bombers? I do not hope so, but what do I know.

Will there even be someone to judge? What do I know, I just believe it. You just don`t.

 

And I do not believe that the sacrifice was in vain. It was a requirement and a statement for this "easy way to heaven." It is a central part of evangelic believe, that we do not have to pray thousand prayers, pay for some kind of indulgence, or atonement.

 

It is not as if your buddy pays the parking fine. It is as if kid stole a chewing gum but his brother takes the punishement for it. This does not take away the responsibility for his action from the little thief. (Sorry I do not know a better fitting english word, maybe a thief is a too hard expression, but I am positive that you will understand me anyway.)

 

A question I have never seen successfully explained is why an all-powerful being would be constrained to a sacrificial offering to atone for actions he had the power to forgive without sacrifice? The entire concept of the death of the christ stems from the sacrificial deaths of animals deemed necessary by the Jewish religion - but I have never heard a satisfactory explanation as to why god decided that killing an animal was necessary when he had the power to make any other activity - skipping a stone on water - sufficient to atone for Jewish "sin".

 

It is at this point in trying to explain their religion that people I have read or talked to break down to making assumptions about the unknowable.

 

And that leads me back to my theory of equivalent humanity - if I can't know it, you can't know it.

 

Which, for me, ends the discussion as there are only two choices I can see: an all-powerful god cannot be constrained, so blood sacrifice could not have been a necessity but was instead the choice of a savage, bloodthirsty god, or god is constrained and is not all-powerful and thus the idea of an all-powerful god is product of man's imagination.

 

Either way, I have to pass on worshiping this creature.

[Winstonm]

1. I do not know anybody who never lies. Do you?

2. It is your intepretation that the other commentments are not worth following. Why should this interpretation be true?

3. I am so glad that you know the complete message of the Bible and can put it in one sentence. :) Maybe you should at least try to understand the different pictures painted of man in the old and the new testamony?

4. I am very happy to hear that you accept the failure of you and others without blaming. This is one of the best attitudes to gain. A lot of religions try to work on this subject, f.e. if you take the meditation of the buddhists. And actually this is one of the nicest parts of being a lutherian Christian: I am accepted by my God as imperfect. I do not to be perfect and I do not have to pay for being imperfect. I just have to understand my imperfection and regret it if I harm someone else by this. Sounds like the way you are living, doesn't it? (At least besides this "God"-part...)

 

1. Is is possible to lead a life without lying? (answer, yes. Child that dies prior to speech, for example.)

2. Worth following has no bearing on "sin". Are you suggesting that we decide for ourselves what is or isn't sin?

3. It is one bible, is it not? The message presented by the entirety of the bible is that man had to be "saved" from his nature by the death of christ as a sacrifice.

4. IMO, religions are most harmful in fostering division, as no religion I know accepts that its beliefs may be wrong - and why do you have to "regret" being human? What is perfection other than man's idea?

 

I am glad you are content with your choices - but they do not make much sense to me. B-)

[kenberg]

The 10 commandments list only 4 actions that cannot be condoned: stealing, killing, lying, and adultery.

 

A woman who takes her religion very seriously had something to tell me about this. In fact the relevant Commandment says "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" She explained that this does not prohibit lying, it does not prohibit cheating. As long as you do not falsely claim that your neighbor did something that he did not do, you are square with the Commandments.

 

The Christian view of what is allowed and what is not allowed is, to my mind, very strange. Not only can you lie as long as you do not bear false witness against your neighbor, you really can do pretty much anything you want as long as afterward you ask Jesus for forgiveness. Apparently it is always granted. This philosophy suggests that one should exercise care when dealing with the godly.

[gwnn]

Codo, so we have the following 3 things you stated (according to your belief):

 

-It is impossible not to sin as a human being (I am excluding cases where, say, a baby dies when he is 3 days old, or similar extreme cases, they would account for a very small fraction of human beings).

-Christ's sacrifice was necessary for forgiveness from God.

-Honest regret is also necessary for forgiveness from God.

 

It really doesn't sound like you disagree at all with Winston when he said that Christ sacrifice was necessary for us to be born as a human and worthy of going to Heaven. Maybe his phrasing is not one that you or I like but you agree with him on a fundamental level. The third thing you stated seems to make the requirements even more strict, not less strict (you yourself are unsure whether you truly regret the wrongs you have done).

 

So now that everyone agrees, can we have a beer now? :)

[kenberg]

So now that everyone agrees, can we have a beer now? :)

 

Far and away the best suggestion so far. In fact, I'm fine with it even if we don't all agree. Perhaps particularly if we don't all agree.

[Fluffy]

I don't like beer, will you call that a heressy?

[kenberg]

I don't like beer, will you call that a heresy?

 

I prefer wine myself, but in the spirit of ecumenical reconciliation I'll have a beer. Not Miller Lite please.

[ArtK78]

3. I am so glad that you know the complete message of the Bible and can put it in one sentence.

 

Rabbi Hillel did, in fact, put forth the complete message of the Bible (the Old Testament - the Torah) in a single sentence, as set forth in Wikipedia:

 

 

The Sage Hillel formulated a negative form of the golden rule. When asked to sum up the entire Torah concisely, he answered:

 

That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn it.

 

—

Talmud

,

Shabbat

31a, the "Great Principle"

 

[Winstonm]

Far and away the best suggestion so far. In fact, I'm fine with it even if we don't all agree. Perhaps particularly if we don't all agree.

 

I'm in with that.

[mikeh]

Yes, this is easy: If there is horror in theists states, it is obvious that religion is guilty. If there is horror in atheists states, there are other reasons. This is a point of view any other fundementalist will gladly share. That the communist countries developed another "ism" maybe just shows that people "needs" a kind of "ism"?

 

 

Firstly, at no time have I said that only a theistic state can commit state-sponsored atrocities. Imo, all belief structures that imbue in the believer a sense that those who don't share the convictions are 'other' and are in some way less human than the believer can and do give rise to atrocities.

 

Atheism isn't such a belief structure because it is not a belief at all: it is precisely the antithesis of the sort of belief that causes these attitudes. An atheist can, of course, have strong beliefs about other matters than induce the same attitudes: an atheist may become a maoist, for example, and commit atrocities in furtherance of that 'ism', but that has nothing to do with being atheist, anymore than being, say, 6 feet tall is connected with having brown eyes. Ok, maybe a bit more: because fervent religious feelings might leave no room for fervent maoist feelings.

 

I don't think people need an 'ism'. I do not regard atheism as an 'ism', other than for spelling purposes, because, as has been frequently pointed out, atheism is about an absence of a belief, not the presence of one. It seems astounding to me that so few religious thinkers recognize this.

 

As usual you have the urgent need to insult people who do not share your beliefs. And as always, this shows more about you then about me.

 

 

Well, either you are widely read in the area of which we were writing, or you aren't. Given that you made statements that are at odds with much of the literature in the area, to the extent that I am familiar with that literature, and that you appeared unaware of this, I stated that it appeared that you were not widely read.

 

 

You took that as an insult, altho I am unsure why. Are you widely read in evolutionary thinking, and in particular evolutionary psychology? I am no expert but I have read several books in the field, and subscribe to some blogs that occasionally discuss these issues.

 

Several years ago, in a similar thread, a believer took me to task for not having read some works by a favourite Christian writer of his. I was ignorant of what that writer had said. Were I you, I would no doubt have responded by claiming to be insulted. Not being you, I found the works, read them, and rejoined to thread having cured my ignorance.

 

You and I do seem to have differences. Maybe, just maybe, they aren't the ones you think exist.

 

 

 

And btw: I did not claim that selfishness is the best way to develop. I just claimed that I can see no simple logic to support the idea of the golden rule. I think that from a pure logical point of view it would be better to be selfish if you are in a position to be it. Cooperation is usually better for the trailing companies, not for the leaders. (But of course life is not as simple as that, it surely depends on the single case and how big your lead is.)

 

I am the first to admit that our posts don't always read to others the way we intended them to read.

 

I am pleased to see, I think, that you may have reluctantly recognized that this isn't so.

 

And yes, I do believe that all people need some guides to stop them from stealing, selfishness, cruelity etc. This could be laws, a good education, a good role models or whatever.

I personally belief that the fear of punishment in purgatory is no good teacher for good ethics, I prefer positive ways of learning, but maybe there are many people who needs this fear.

 

So the best you can do to support the notion that we need a belief in a supernatural 'god' who threatens his creations with eternal torment if they piss him off, is that 'maybe there are many people who need this fear'???????

 

I take it you see yourself as far too morally correct and inherently superior to be one of those 'people'. And I am the one accused of arrogance in these threads! Do you not see how obscene your argument is? How demeaning of other people?

 

 

 

 

I would not talk about Dawkins ideas as if they are science. As far as I know, memes and "selfish genes" etc. are still just ideas, no facts or theories.

 

Do you have any idea of the scientific method?

 

All 'theories' are 'just ideas' at some point. Science proceeds by people speculating...by generating conjectures and then by testing them.

 

The idea of a 'meme' is now almost 40 years old, and as Dawkins stated in coining the phrase, he was building on ideas floated by others before him.

 

The concept of the meme has been accepted by a number of researchers into areas such as evolutionary psychology. It isn't on a level with the theory of gravity (which is of course intrinsically wrong, tho still useful to most of us...since Einstein's ideas of space-time curvature don't lend themselves as readily useful in most human activities....note, however, that those responsible for positioning, say, communications satellites have to account for space-time curvature rather than rely on purely Newtonian calculations), but it is a recognized intellectual proposition. You are wrong to so cavalierly dismiss it, which reinforces my view that you are largely illiterate in this area.

 

I feel sorry for you if your reaction to learning that you may possess inadequate knowledge is to take offence. Personally, I prefer to seek out the knowledge that I am said to be lacking and then see whether my views change....sometimes they do. However, as you said, you and I think differently.