Tradition betrayed

[DavidRoss]

I don't care about the trouble it gets me in; as evidenced by some of the replies, there is some baggage that led to unwarranted inferences, despite my slip with the word "reasonable". The correct interpretation of "normal, temperate" is no more and no less than "able to make a balanced judgment".

Gosh...you really don't understand this, either?  It's quite simple, actually: who is to judge what's normal and what's temperate?

I'm not trying to escape or deny the influence of religion. It's more a matter of noting the principles and values mentioned perhaps no longer need religion to advocate and disseminate them, unless the intent is to enforce them, as Jeffrey indicated (if I understood him correctly).

And it appears you are still missing this point as well. It's not an option to escape the influence of religion. But that shouldn't be a cause for concern, since you apparently value reason, normalcy, and temperance, and with these qualities guiding your exploration of religions' influence on humankind, you are sure to conclude that--like government--they have been and continue to be a great boon, even though some have gone off the deep end.

[petrarch]

Gosh...you really don't understand this, either?  It's quite simple, actually: who is to judge what's normal and what's temperate?

I fear I am being misunderstood, is the baggage so great that it is impossible to read what I wrote without undue color?

you are sure to conclude that--like government--they have been and continue to be a great boon, even though some have gone off the deep end.

Indeed they have. Now, to the followers of those that haven't, who I assume to be normal, temperate, and able of balanced judgments, I ask: What do you see in it? I guess the questions, rhetorical or otherwise, I have been asking can be reduced to this.

[petrarch]

As for the need values and morality have for religion,  I refer you to what I said in Reply 422.

I'm afraid reply 422 is mine; which one of yours are you referring to?

[petrarch]

Enforce is not quite the word I would use, since it suggest an outside authority co-ercing the individual to "act morally".   What I meant is more of an objective guide that makes you realize when you are not acting morally.  The human tendency to evade, omit, distort, makes such a thing necessary to anyone practicing the moral life, and I think an atheist based morality would make such an outside objective guide impossible.

Would it? I subscribe wholeheartedly to something you wrote before, which seems at odds with what you wrote above:

There's also the fact that most religious traditions have had to grapple with most of the problems we deal with daily life (and often some of the problems we don't always see, and hope we never see for ourselves) in the past, and can provide some firm guidance on what to do.  Atheistic morality has by and large not done that detailed thinking out yet.  But I since that's mostly because "religion" had a headstart of a few millenia, we can presume that eventually non-religious morality will catch up.  But it hasn't, yet.

In regards to Roman Catholicism, I am in complete agreement with you there.  In my experience (which includes a period in which I was an RC communicant*), the Roman Catholic Church accords too much authority to the clergy.  I find the same problem with Orthodox Judaism--one reason why, although I am Jewish, I refuse to consider myself Orthodox. 

(I left in part because of that, and in part because Catholic practices regarding the veneration of relics and the Eucharist went too far over the line into idol worship for my born and bred Jewish attitudes.    I understood the intellectual background which allows Catholics to say these things were not idol worship, but the non intellectual part of my mind was by turns boggled and disgusted.)

Thank you for the interesting account of your experience. So, you thought critically about the religion you were practicing and found faults that made it incompatible with your ideal of religion, which was, in turn formed through your upbringing. You actually rejected the commonly accepted views of the community of practitioners I assume you were part of. Ultimately, was it not a personal choice, guided by your own principle of right and wrong, no matter what the "outside audit" results might be?

[71 dB]

Then I will throw out the following for your consideration: that any atheist who has a moral code is indulging in a very fundamental self contradiction. An atheist may have a very good moral code developed for himself, but he's being irrational in having one.  To explain that:

Either you believe that God (and that term for my purpose can subsume almost any conception of the Deity) is the Creator responsible for the Universe, or you believe the Universe is fundamentally random and chaotic, and the apparent order that we perceive and allows us to exist as human beings on a planet subject to the laws of physics, etc, is simply a transient pocket of order that will ultimately collapse.  After all, a truly random universe will yield sections of order at discrete points in time-space because it is truly random.  If the Universe is truly random/chaotic, than any order we develop for ourselves is simply  our imposition on the surfuace of reality: if you believe in the value of Art, for instance, then you are merely imposing your own value choice, and not something actually deriveable from the nature of the Universe.  You may act morally because you like acting morally--but the only value in that comes from the fact that you like to act morally, and nothing more.  There's nothing beyond yourself to validate that morality, not even reason.

There is much order in the universe but also chaos. That's normal in chaos theory. Art is great because we think it is great (there is not even consensus what is great art. many think Bach sucks  ). We value art because we recognise patterns in it. This ability is created by evolution process so that we can tell for example a good apple apart from a rotten apple based on it's look. Or we can tell a friendly voice from aggressive voice. Our abilities to survive in nature together give us ability to enjoy art. One of our abilities is to act morally. Religious person may act morally just to get to heaven (a selfish reason) but I act morally because I understand it's the right thing to do. You understand that I get very pissed off when my moral base is questioned?

On the contrary, I'd argue that everyone is borne religious.

Bullshit. I wasn't born religious. We are not able to be religious when we born, we are too inexperienced for that. We start to believe in God because we are told God exists. Such "brainwashing" of defenseless young children with BS is a crime in my opinion! Only later when we grow up we start to form thoughts about the nature of existence. I was indoctrinated into Evangelical Lutheran Christianity like most Finns but my parents are not religious at all. Thanks to the secular upbringing I wasn't brainwashed with religious bullshit and I was able to figure out myself the childishness of belief in God around age 10. I have NEVER had religious feelings. I have resigned from the church and I live as free (thinking) atheist. In my opinion (Abrahamic) religions are a problem in the world and I try to advance secularity that is based on science, equality and secular humanism.

The real basic impulse to religion is a very simple one: the recognition that the universe is much greater than oneself.  And the only people who don't seem to have that feeling seem to be psychological cases.

The universe IS much greater, created by God or not. In fact, science gives us much better understanding about this than religion that over-emphasizes our place (first we where the center point of universe and even Sun circulated us!).

Atheists are people who don't believe in God because they are free of religious "mind control" and can use the (scientific) knowledge of the world we have to form their beliefs of the existence.   

[knight66]

You are as free of religion as Debussy was of Wagner.

MIke

[71 dB]

You are as free of religion as Debussy was of Wagner.

MIke

At least I am not a Debussy who thinks he is Wagner. Religion shows itself everywhere in our society and that is the reason I want some clean up.

[jowcol]

I fear I am being misunderstood, is the baggage so great that it is impossible to read what I wrote without undue color?

I for one don't see this as a major issue.  However, I'd have to say that, looking at history, both over the last few millennia and over the last century, that neither "Religion" nor "Ethics" have prevented mankind form engaging in some of the most extreme butchery and depravity.  If you are going to be killed for some idea or abstraction, would you prefer to be killed by the Inquistion, or Pol Pot?

Any idea outside of application is not very meaningful in my view.

Just to get the basic debate  into some basic logical terms:

Necessary means that this must be present, or else the conclusion cannot be reached.
Sufficient meant that the conclusion will be reached if this is present, but their may be other ways.

Is "religion" necessary and sufficient to ensure "good" behavior?
Are "Ethics" necessasry and sufficient to ensure "good" behavior."

There are enough counter examples in history to show that neither is a guarantee.   (Or, to be more terse, People suck.)

If you are saying that Religion cannot lead to good behavior in any case , (which I think is what some others are reacting to), I would disagree.  You might find Bultmann's notions of "Christian Existentialism" very enlightening. 

If you are saying that an ethical system that is not deity centric can, in some cases, lead to good behavior, I'd agree.  (Not a new idea either- at least 2500 years since Gautama sat beneath the Bhoddi tree.)

However, I would strongly deny that Religion is no longer relevant to anybody-- every generation has reinterpreted their faiths to meet their current concerns.

Frankly, my personal belief is that hiding behind abstractions like "religion" and "ethics" is often a slippery slope that allows us to dodge our personal responsibilities.  Either path only has meaning if somebody is living it, not just talking about it.  Not saying that anyone in this discussion is trying to do that, but that is where all of the craziness in the historical record seems to come from.

My own opinions-- your mileage may vary.




My 2 cents. 

[chasmaniac]

Frankly, my personal belief is that hiding behind abstractions like "religion" and "ethics" is often a slippery slope that allows us to dodge our personal responsibilities.  Either path only has meaning if somebody is living it, not just talking about it.

My 2 cents.

Well said.

[petrarch]

You are as free of religion as Debussy was of Wagner.

+1. Excellent pithy comment.

[petrarch]

Is "religion" necessary and sufficient to ensure "good" behavior?
Are "Ethics" necessasry and sufficient to ensure "good" behavior."

Not exactly what I was debating. The answers are obvious, as you indicated.

If you are saying that Religion cannot lead to good behavior in any case , (which I think is what some others are reacting to), I would disagree.

If you are saying that an ethical system that is not deity centric can, in some cases, lead to good behavior, I'd agree.  (Not a new idea either- at least 2500 years since Gautama sat beneath the Bhoddi tree.)

The latter. And opening it up for further discussion.

However, I would strongly deny that Religion is no longer relevant to anybody--every generation has reinterpreted their faiths to meet their current concerns.

Completely agree. Though I did not make (or mean to make) such an absolute statement as implied by the non-bolded portion of the quote above.

[kishnevi]

There is much order in the universe but also chaos. That's normal in chaos theory. Art is great because we think it is great (there is not even consensus what is great art. many think Bach sucks  ). We value art because we recognise patterns in it. This ability is created by evolution process so that we can tell for example a good apple apart from a rotten apple based on it's look. Or we can tell a friendly voice from aggressive voice. Our abilities to survive in nature together give us ability to enjoy art. One of our abilities is to act morally. Religious person may act morally just to get to heaven (a selfish reason) but I act morally because I understand it's the right thing to do. You understand that I get very pissed off when my moral base is questioned?

If there is no God, there is no fundamental order to the universe--what order is there is transient and superficial, even if "transient" ="billions and billions of years".     But the sentence I italicized is not truly valid.  Recognizing an overripe apple is something very different from recognizing bad music.  Humans don't need to figure out what is bad art in order to survive.   Which is one reason why humans have a hard time agreeing on what bad art is.

As for the sentence I bolded--well, why is it the right thing to do?  If the universe has no order, then there is no fundamental moral order, and therefore no objectively "right thing to do". 

I don't meant to imply you have no moral base.  I'm sure you do.  What I'm saying is that your moral base is subjectively chosen--you're moral because you value being moral; but in a universe without God there's no real reason to be moral (or immoral) except because you value being moral (or immoral).  You choose to be moral, but there's nothing outside you that validates that choice.

I wasn't born religious. We are not able to be religious when we born, we are too inexperienced for that. We start to believe in God because we are told God exists. Such "brainwashing" of defenseless young children with BS is a crime in my opinion! Only later when we grow up we start to form thoughts about the nature of existence. I was indoctrinated into Evangelical Lutheran Christianity like most Finns but my parents are not religious at all. Thanks to the secular upbringing I wasn't brainwashed with religious bullshit and I was able to figure out myself the childishness of belief in God around age 10. I have NEVER had religious feelings. I have resigned from the church and I live as free (thinking) atheist. In my opinion (Abrahamic) religions are a problem in the world and I try to advance secularity that is based on science, equality and secular humanism.

The universe IS much greater, created by God or not. In fact, science gives us much better understanding about this than religion that over-emphasizes our place (first we where the center point of universe and even Sun circulated us!).

Atheists are people who don't believe in God because they are free of religious "mind control" and can use the (scientific) knowledge of the world we have to form their beliefs of the existence.

Actually, science over-emphasizes the place of man in the universe far more than religion does, because if you believe in God, then you believe Existence is not totally comprehensible by the mind of man. 

As for the sentence I bolded in that part of reply:  that is the religious impulse, and you obviously share in it.    Belief in God is an outgrowth of believing the universe is much greater than mankind, and not everyone shares in that (for instance, obviously, yourself).   

[DavidRoss]

I fear I am being misunderstood, is the baggage so great that it is impossible to read what I wrote without undue color?

Your fear is misplaced. I understand quite well that you are suggesting that reasonable

[by which I presume you to mean both "rational" and "sufficiently knowledgeable regarding all relevant facts to reach conclusions that are not only valid but applicable to the real world"],

normal

[It's unclear whether you mean this prescriptively or descriptively, but in either case the issue remains that what's "normal" varies according to point of view, thus the criterion is too subjective to be meaningful],

temperate

[the same issue regarding this criterion: it is so value-laden as to be meaningless: "temperate" according to what standards determined by whom and for what purpose?]

persons would conceivably be able to conduct themselves in ways that most of us -- or you, at least -- would approve as morally or ethically virtuous, without benefit of religion to influence either their behavior or our (your) judgment regarding it.

What seems unclear to you is that this assertion is no more meaningful than a claim about the political economy of an alien race on some unknown planet in a distant galaxy on the edge of our expanding universe: it is not possible to know. All of our judgments regarding such matters are conditioned and thus contaminated by the religious heritage that all observers are subject to.
You can no more discuss ethics independent of the influence of religion than you can discuss mathematics independent of the influence of number.  We necessarily view the world through religion-tinted glasses that cannot be removed.

[71 dB]

If there is no God, there is no fundamental order to the universe

What fundamental order? The universe needs to be functional (certain laws of physics) so that it doesn't explode into oblivion or collapse before something happens. If the universe is such that life can occur, there may be intelligent lifeforms arguing about the existence of God. That's what we know has happened in our universe. Atheists don't need God to explain anything.

what order is there is transient and superficial, even if "transient" ="billions and billions of years".     But the sentence I italicized is not truly valid.  Recognizing an overripe apple is something very different from recognizing bad music.  Humans don't need to figure out what is bad art in order to survive.   Which is one reason why humans have a hard time agreeing on what bad art is.

You didn't get my point. Art is something extra. You can use a hammer in other things too not just to nail. We don't need art to survive but having ability to survive gives us the ability to enjoy art as a bonus. I think it's intelligence and ability to abstract thinking that causes this ability.

As for the sentence I bolded--well, why is it the right thing to do?  If the universe has no order, then there is no fundamental moral order, and therefore no objectively "right thing to do".

I don't understand why relious people keep asking this moronic question. We have seen it it the right thing to do (experience). We can also deduct by logic that certain behavior leads to catastrophe. Also, atheist too have a "heart". We atheists are not robots without feelings. I feel bad about it when I do wrong.

Ever wondered why religious people go to jail more often than atheists? Makes you think, doesn't it? Or why there is so much pedophilia among priests? Religious people should not attack atheists about moral before re-evaluating their own morality.

Morality comes from nature and from the fact that we are human beings. Religion is not needed.

I don't meant to imply you have no moral base.  I'm sure you do.

Thank you. I hope I can follow it in my life. A challenge for us all, religious or not.

What I'm saying is that your moral base is subjectively chosen--you're moral because you value being moral; but in a universe without God there's no real reason to be moral (or immoral) except because you value being moral (or immoral).  You choose to be moral, but there's nothing outside you that validates that choice.

You are right in some ways but believe me, any sane person in their right mind understands the necessity of morality. The reality controls us. We "must" be nice to others because if we are not, they are not nice to us. Mentally ill people are a different story.

As an atheist I know that moral base does not disappear anywhere without God. If anything, some stupid aspects of religious morality are "corrected". So, any sane person can leave their faith and become atheists without fear.

Actually, science over-emphasizes the place of man in the universe far more than religion does, because if you believe in God, then you believe Existence is not totally comprehensible by the mind of man.

Science doesn't even know for sure if the existence is totally comprehensible. It is highly possible it is. It is only wonderful if we can understand existence but still we are only a population on a one planet in one solar system in a galaxy among millions and millions of other galaxies. Religious claims on the other have been proven wrong (Earth actually circulates Sun etc.)

As for the sentence I bolded in that part of reply:  that is the religious impulse, and you obviously share in it.    Belief in God is an outgrowth of believing the universe is much greater than mankind, and not everyone shares in that (for instance, obviously, yourself).   

What means greater than mankind? Greater in what sense? Intelligent life such as what we have on Earth is highly improbable in space and we should not downgrade it in any way. I don't see the need to seek for a deity.

[DavidRoss]

At least I am not a Debussy who thinks he is Wagner.

No, you are an average person who has not thought deeply about such issues but who imagines himself -- wrongly -- as a genius whose towering intellect enables him to see clearly a landscape hidden to most mortals. If you were even half as wise as you imagine yourself to be, you would recognize that virtually all of the opinions on such matters you express are neither unique nor visionary, but rather quite commonplace beliefs that most of us try on during adolescence.

[71 dB]

No, you are an average person who has not thought deeply about such issues but who imagines himself -- wrongly -- as a genius whose towering intellect enables him to see clearly a landscape hidden to most mortals. If you were even half as wise as you imagine yourself to be, you would recognize that virtually all of the opinions on such matters you express are neither unique nor visionary, but rather quite commonplace beliefs that most of us try on during adolescence.

I have never said to be a genius. I have a pretty high intelligence like most of people on this forum (dumb people rarely listen to classical music) but far from a genius. My parents teached me to think myself and to question things. That doesn't mean I am always right, it means I am unlikely to take false conception self-evident. The claims about the existence of God was one of the first things my mind debunked when I was a young boy.

Also, I am lucky to have grown up in a family without religion so I don't have religious beliefs interfering my thinking. I also have a scientic education from university that gives me strong protection against religion. I feel I have a moral obligation to speak for secular society based on scientific knowledge.

I am constantly amazed by how intelligent people (perhaps more intelligent than I myself) keep writing moronic religious claims. It only shows how utterly diabolical religion is to human mind.   

My writings about religion aren't that visionary. Like Dawkins puts it nicely: Atheism has become a part of general knowledge.

[DieNacht]

A remarkably patient post, good posting style.

[jowcol]

I am constantly amazed by how intelligent people (perhaps more intelligent than I myself) keep writing moronic religious claims. It only shows how utterly diabolical religion is to human mind.   

My writings about religion aren't that visionary. Like Dawkins puts it nicely: Atheism has become a part of general knowledge.

I'm amazed about moronic claims and absurd generalizations in general, and lack of tolerance for alternate opinions.  And it seems that neither science nor religion  seem to be able to prevent them over history.

I fully  support your desire to believe what makes sense to you, and dont' think you should get any flack for standing by it.  However, you post seems to be making the decision for the rest of us.  You are free to that as an opinion, however, and I'll hope you can avoid the temptation to sink to the depths of the others that your are finding closed-minded and intolerant.  Free thought should encourage freedom in others to choose their own paths without censure, , should it not?

[71 dB]

I'm amazed about moronic claims and absurd generalizations in general, and lack of tolerance for alternate opinions.

The problem is why people have alternate opinions.

I fully  support your desire to believe what makes sense to you, and dont' think you should get any flack for standing by it.  However, you post seems to be making the decision for the rest of us.  You are free to that as an opinion, however, and I'll hope you can avoid the temptation to sink to the depths of the others that your are finding closed-minded and intolerant.  Free thought should encourage freedom in others to choose their own paths without censure, , should it not?

I am speaking for the freedom to make own decisions. Many children are forced-fed the religion of their parents before they can think for themselves. Children should be educated about different religions and atheism so that when they grow up, they can make up their mind, do their own choice. I am confident that given that opportunity, most young adults would choose atheism.

[jowcol]

I am confident that given that opportunity, most young adults would choose atheism.

Perhaps you need to apply the scientific method and view the statistics to validate your hypothesis.  It does not explain why a majority of people in a Country like the US choose to have a faith when atheism is a viable option, and there is no state sanctioned religion.   Ideally,. you'd need a sample where following of religion is neither encouraged nor discouraged. 

Applying preconceived beliefs without any corroborating data does not sound very scientific to me.  Sounds more like a "Religion". Or some sort of brainwashing or thought control.

Also, children outgrow a lot of stuff their parents tell them, do they not? 

FWIW-- we've made it clear to our kids that it's their choice, but they need to show respect for other's beliefs.