So Pope Benedict has given up on the Catholic church. It’s become too big, too bad and too ornery for one old man to control. He’s has finally been worn down by the unruly priests, butlers and anyone else affiliated with the church and by the constant battle to keep believers in the same conservative, unchanging mindset. It is an indication of the health Catholicism when its CEO says, it’s too much for me. So much corruption; so many troubles.
I used to think that religion was necessary for some people, that some folks need religion and God to live moral lives. Yet just a glance at Catholicism–or any religion–will offer proof that there is no correlation between morality and belief in God, unless your morality is lying, cheating, stealing and abusing. In fact, Catholicism has the opposite effect because, no matter what you’ve done, your ever-loving, omnipotent God the Father (who lets children be sexual fodder for priests) will forgive a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g.
Humans are not so forgiving, and life here on earth, at least in our country, demands that you follow certain rules of humanity. If people were accountable to each other, here and now, perhaps there would be less bad behavior.
As many nonbelievers know, mainstream religions preach that, without God, you and I cannot have morals. It’s frustrating to try to explain to a believer that religion is irrelevant because the idea that religion=morality is so deeply ingrained in some.
A few weeks ago, a commenter on this site mentioned Ted Talks. If you have time, here’s an interesting video about the morality of primates and other animals. And they have no god.
It’s too bad that you have to be insulting while pointing out the limitations of the Catholic Church.
Well said as are your other posts. I am amazed that after the cover ups, and other bad handling of the child sex abuse at the hands of it’s Own that the Catholic Church has any members left at all!! Those men are pedophiles and should be treated as such.
I too am raising my daughter without religion but with solid values and, perhaps, most importantly teaching her that certainty lies within her not from some person or institution “out there”.
Yes, people don’t understand that I have morals even though I wasn’t raised in church. My husband and kids go to church. I used to go with them, but now I don’t pretend anymore. I stay home. I’ve actually heard people say they’d be out drinking and sleeping around and robbing banks and who knows what else if they didn’t have God. I can’t imagine that. I don’t do those things because I know inside it’s wrong. It’s called a conscience. And if you don’t have a conscience, you have laws to obey. Hello. I’m not sure why this is such a hard concept.
Also, why is it bad to use birth control? I can understand (though I don’t agree with) people who are anti-abortion – but birth control? It’s better to have dozens of babies you can’t afford? I hope the new Pope is a more relaxed one – such black and white is impossible to follow, and many people do follow him. It’s a huge responsibility.
There is an Op-Ed in the NYTimes that summarizes some of my feelings as a non-believer-former-believer
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/opinion/farewell-to-an-uninspiring-pope.html?smid=tw-share
I was raised catholic and attended catholic high school. I never believed in a supernatural god, ever. Even though to this day I dont know a physical person personally that doesn’t believe in “the god”. So it was not a learned or influenced behavior. Ever since I was in grade school I strongly questioned the whole vatican thing. Walls, gold, thrones, jewels, silks, a king with his court, etc… Christian’s Jesus would literally cry if he saw all that. Growing up catholic I was told that all of that opulence was a sign of respect. I saw it as gaudy, sinful and downright over the top. Maybe this pope just looked in the mirror and said, “This is NOT what Jesus had in mind.”
HUGE fan of TED Talks. Everyone in my whole family watches at least one a day. I wish more people would spend time opening their eyes.
I’m actually disappointed by your post this time. Typically you seem to avoid the vitriolic tone that you so hate that you complain that comes from Christians. Furthermore, on the logic, or lack there of in this case, just because there may or may not be bad people who believe something doe not make it true or untrue. Conclusions should be based on objective reasoning, not based on the unkind actions of an atheist or the unkind actions of a Christian. Seems like hatred and dislike is driving your logic more so than reason and objective evaluation.
While it’s very unusual for you and seemingly out of character, your first paragraph about the retirement of The Pope is sprinkled with much judgement and bias. You surmise many negative reasons for his retirement related to the condition of the church. Certainly not your usual faire of very logical insight.
And while I’m certainly no fan of the Catholic church and would heartily agree with, and have many additions of my own to, the issues you cited in that first paragraph, I think he’s just old an old, tired man who can barely make it up the steps to his private PopeJet who wants to get off the merry-go-round.
My father-in-law is almost 90. These last few years for him have been a struggle for him. The physical demands alone of being the leader of any world-wide organization are daunting. I really don’t think there’s much more than that attached to the Pope’s retirement. I say we give him a break and let him have a few years to live out the rest of his life as a pampered, revered, and wanting-for-nothing Pope Emeritus who tends to his Prada shoes collection!
Love your blog… they all make me think, ponder and question. I LOVE IT!
In the last week in the news I’ve read of female rabbis pulled away from the wailing wall in Jerusalem for breaking patriarchal rules, the DECADES of sexual abuse by the Zen master and now the pope resigning. Each story reaffirmed why I disdain religion and the main thought I had was this: They better pray to god that he’s merciful because they need it. Some scripture I recall from my fundamental brainwashing about ‘their sins run red like blood.’ The Catholic Church is so guilty. Did you read what they did their own pope who abdicated a couple months into his rule? He was one of the first ones who ever resigned. He quickly realize the pope business wasn’t for him. He ran away to a monastery. The new pope had him brought back and IMPRISONED for life. To those who think we’re being too “vitriolic,” don’t, for gawd’s sake, try to defend the catholic church! Their history impales them through and through. A spade is a spade.
The other night I watched “Mea Maxima Culpa: Sex, Lies, and the Catholic Church” about incidences of child rape. There were very few heroes from the church in that story. I went to a Catholic grammar school and when I got Confirmed, the words of the priest doing the ceremony stayed with me. He said that going to church should be an uplifting experience where you fellowship with other Christians. He then added, “If going to church seems like a waste…a chore…if you don’t get anything out of it, then for God’s sake, don’t go!”
It took a few more years for that to make sense to me, but I was always grateful to him for putting it is such plain context.
My husband (the born into it Catholic) wants our son to go to church service with him to which my son digs his feet into going. I (the agnostic in the family) pipe up that he doesn’t need to go to church to be a good person. I won out, my son stayed home with me. I’m so happy my son is being open minded about faith and religion, even if my husband thinks he still should go to church just “because it’s the thing to do”.
Normally I am feel that you are very eloquent and fair in your posts, but I have to agree with some of these other comments, how can you can pass such derisive judgement on the entire establishment without inviting the same in return? Isn’t that what you’re espousing for believers not to do to you?
@JoAnne I’ve been in that same situation. Kudos to you for voicing your beliefs.
@lancethruster Can’t believe your priest said that, but it was good advice. I actually liked a couple of the priests I knew growing up. One was a drunk, but he gave great sermons…Now that I’m an adult, I understand why he drank….
I am an atheist who enjoys your posts, but priests do not want us feeling “sorry for them” and referring to their wardrobe as “girlie robes” sounds absolutely ridiculous. Your overall tone seemed unreasonable, almost to the point where is seems like it was written by someone else. We are looking for “believers” to look on us with open attitudes, but this type of rhetoric will invite harsh criticism and hinder open dialogue.
@Joe K Well, you and I were both raised Catholic, so we know the strengths and the weaknesses of the church. Before I write something about Catholicism, I ask myself, would I offend my very sweet mother? This post would not offend her. There is nothing that is not true. Was I being flippant and sarcastic? Sure. But the church has been riddled with scandals, secrecy, cover-ups, fraud, money laundering, murders, discrimination, child abuse…I’m exhausted just listing all the offenses. In it’s defense, it is a BIG, OLD church, and they’ve had losts of time and lots of people to commit all these crimes. However, they, as an institution, hold themselves up as standards of morality, and they do not nor have not stepped up to the plate to live by what they preach. It is their business TO DO THE RIGHT thing and to set a good example.
Just as I approve comments that cast me or my thoughts in a negative light, the church–any church–that puts themselves out there, that judges and condemns and takes money/innocence/hope from its people, knows that it is open season on them.
@Anon I’ll be fair and remove the reference to feminine robes. I’m not criticizing individuals; I am saying the institution has failed, not just its own members, but all of religion. It has had many chances to redeem itself…
@Trishia Jacobs. I just read your comment, and no, I did not know that about the first pope who resigned…I remember reading that there was a pope who resigned about 400 years ago and then another (by his choice) in the 1400′s. That is an interesting story, though, and I’m going to look into it. I agree with your last couple of lines, and I think that it’s time someone–of course it should be their followers–hold them accountable.
@Lori It was always troubling that, over the years, the church had so much money whilst many of its parishioners have struggled to eat.
It you’re the one that sent me the link to that Ted Talk, thank you! I couldn’t remember who sent it…
@dam – There were some thoughtful and committed priests, nuns, and lay persons at my school. They did not shy away from tough questions from kids, though as an adult, I’d have somewhat more detailed rebuttals now to their assertions.
In Confession, we’d either get the easy priest (i.e. “Do better. Say 10 our Fathers and Hail Marys. Go with Christ.”) or the badgering priest (i.e. “And why didn’t you go to mass? Don’t you know that is an essential part of the faith?” – I couldn’t tell him the truth that I preferred sleeping in, or playing with my friends, or riding my bike, or…just about anything).
One of the things I realized about my schoolmates is that in many ways, it was like a reform school. Many parents with incorrigible kids sent them there for the priests and nuns to try to discipline them. There were some very ‘bad eggs’ there.
I’ve little use for religion and even less for the Catholic Church, but even I am willing to give the pope the benefit of the doubt and assume he is resigning simply because he’s a tired old man no longer physically able to do his job — like so many other senior citizens (myself included). I’ll admit I was somewhat taken aback by your accusatory tone, which seems out of keeping with your normal “live and let live” attitude. But I certainly can’t criticize when I myself have such low regard for the Catholic Church.
Oh, and as an afterthought, though my dad was a nominal Catholic, he sent me and my siblings there because he was a widower with young children, and thought the church would help in shaping his kids, as well as it being pretty much common knowledge that the education was supposed to be superior to the public schools (it was good, but I also think you get out of it what you put into it, regardless). He would have wanted tuition vouchers for it if he could, which I lobbied against when I was with Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Here is my source about the other popes who have resigned: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/world/europe/last-pope-to-resign-did-so-in-midst-of-vatican-leadership-crisis.html
I was mistaken. The pope who resigned didn’t go to a monastery but just wandered in the mountains, it says — until he was imprisoned.
Here’s a nice article that I saved a while back. I found the link the other day and thought you, and your readers, would enjoy it. It goes further into philosophy than people who follow a religion blindly usually look, but it does at least present a well-reasoned response to “how can you have morality without god”.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/good-minus-god/
My only problem with raising two boys without God is what to say before “Dammit!”
“As many nonbelievers know, mainstream religions preach that, without God, you and I cannot have morals.” I have seen this sentiment expressed heavily throughout this blog in the posts and in the comments. I understand that many have had these comments directed towards them, and it is frustrating for me to see that. The errors of individuals notwithstanding, this is not what religion, in this case Christianity, teaches.
Of course a non-believer can act morally, as Christianity clearly states that we have the moral law of God written on our hearts. We have an inherent sense of right and wrong, our conscience if you will, yet we all still often choose the wrong due to our fallen, sinful nature.
The issue for the non-believer/atheist is what he grounds his claims of moral behavior in. That worldview does not support any objective claim to morality outside of one’s own subjective feelings on the matter. It’s a morally relativistic view that can’t support a definitive claim to any act or behavior being right or wrong. The disconnect is apparent in the fact that no one actually lives his life as if it’s all relative, despite holding to a worldview that says it is.
OK.. that’s probably one of the best ‘zingers’ I’ve read here yet. TOO FUNNY!
Former Catholic here. I think that the pope is resigning because he’s old, tired, and perhaps even beginning to suffer some sort of dementia (although I often wonder how you could possibly tell the difference).
I still feel bitter about the years I wasted (and the money, but less so) while following their foolish ways. I’m trying to get over the bitterness, because they don’t even deserve that much. Hmm, still sounds bitter, doesn’t it?
I think the catholic church should be held accountable for the rape of children by its leadership. However, what about leadership over jews, muslims, pentecostals and baptists who have raped women and children? It happens, yet there’s very little national coverage. I’m not one to defend any church, I just don’t understand why so much emphasis is placed upon their wrong doings and not the other denominations and faiths.
Hello again Deborah,
You state that “mainstream religions preach that, without God, you and I cannot have morals.” This is not part of Christian doctrine. Romans 2:14-15 states that God’s moral law has been written on the hearts of all human beings and that because of this we all instinctively know moral laws whether we believe in God or not. Moral laws such as impartial justice, truthfulness, kindness, mercy, marital fidelity, and respect for human life.
So, certainly atheists can achieve the virtues above and it is frustrating to me as well as to you when professing Christians say this.
However, if there is no God, and all of these virtues developed in us through the process of evolution for survival purposes as the video you posted concludes, we are under no obligation to adhere to them and they are not right or good, but merely beneficial for survival. For example, the chimp that forcibly copulates with another chimp is not obligated not to do so. If human ‘morals’ evolved just as the chimps have, it would be the same with humans. But when a human forcibly copulates with another human they ARE obligated not to do so. Rape is wrong regardless of human opinion or action. Evolution cannot ground the objective moral values and duties that transcend humanity. God is the most plausible explanation. The argument goes like this:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Here is a great video on the grounding of morality:
http://www.truthbomb.blogspot.com/2013/01/video-if-good-and-evil-exists-god.html
I kinda think the tone was a bit off in the start also.- And just my opinion (I am atheist) I think it was about the Pope being elderly and I don’t think he has given up on the Catholic Church..my mom might be offended by that representation.
Loved the Ted TAlk video and lancethrusters comments. My Dad was a nominal Catholic also – like your priest in a way- he would tell us . people need religion for ceremony, how do you bury someone, marry, etc. ..be a good person and don’t worry about the rest of it!
Oh dear, another religious person trying so hard to sound logical.
@ Chasen. I know that you really believe what you’ve written, but allow me to point out just a few problems with your “logic.”
First of all, citing the bible as an authority to refute the god-centric interpretation of Christian morality is just a breathtakingly self-defeating strategy. Ok, that’s the first point.
Second, the bible verse you cite is not talking about morality. It is talking about the “law,” i.e. Jewish law, which the Gentiles do not have, but the “requirements of which” are written on their hearts with the “consciences also bearing witness.
The preceding verse states: “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” So we’re right back to people who obey god’s law are declared righteous, which is what you’re saying the bible argues against.
The next verse (verse 16) then threatens those of us who don’t believe with god’s final judgment, which is a fallacious argument known as the Appeal to Force or Argumentum ad baculum.
OK, now on to your commentary on the video.
Saying that morality has evolved in chimps and in humans does not mean that the morality is the same. Moreover, what is documented in that film is not rape among chimps: the scientist says that it is believed that sexual intercourse in that species as a way of reconciling among members who were in conflict. Sexual morality across species cannot be compared in the way that you are doing it in your comment.
Finally, in your little proof, you take an unproven assumption as your premise. I am not sure that “objective moral values” are, or rather, what you mean. I watched your video thinking that it might shed some light on it, but it too is so rife with logical fallacies that it would take many more posts to lay them out.
Here’s the upshot: you believe in god. We don’t. You believe in god because you were taught to believe in god and you’ve accepted to believe based on your faith that god is out there somewhere. We do not take things on faith. We weigh evidence, and there is no evidence that god exists. Sure, there are lots of books that say god exists, but that’s not evidence. That’s called hearsay.
@Kathleen Q. – Thanks for your comment and adding your own experience.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? ~ Epicurus
@Chasen Please don’t take this as insulting. I honestly cannot think of another way to phrase it, but you should really lookup the meaning of the word objective. It means not influenced by personal feelings or opinions. Your faith is an opinion as is your belief. This is demonstrated by a lack of evidence and agreement. So your god and the feeling you have of writing on your heart is a subjective feeling, so that law is NOT objective moral value. It is subjective moral absolutes.
For it to be objective, there must be a commonality of observation and evidence. We must have reasons to support the claim that are independent of personal reference or emotion. We do have a name for this process and it is called reason. Of course, it is an product of the evolution of our brains and as such has different degrees within the species. Some are far more reasonable (therefore moral) than others.
BTW, I would suggest you consider one additional point before trying to counter. You are going to use reason to try and argue your point, which basically proves mine that it is reason which determines morality. Otherwise, you wouldn’t even try to explain it.
@Diana I fixed your comment, and I read the article and loved it. Thanks for sharing. It does speak for us as a group. Like these two lines: “You do not lose morality by giving up God; neither do you necessarily find it by finding Him.” And, especially, this: “Some people think that if atheism were true, human choices would be insignificant. I think just the opposite – they would become surpassingly important.”
@Trishia Jacobs. Interesting article. I guess the question I have is why don’t other popes retire instead of dying in office?
The idea that the Pope was resigning because the troubles of the church were too much for him came from what he said here: “In today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me.”
Yes he is physically weak, worn down, tired but his state of mind is also telling, “shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith.” He still appears mentally sharp, but it seems the church’s problems have worn him down.
@lancethruster Love that quote by Epicurus, and I’ve always wondered why, after thousands of years of doubters, nonbelievers are still considered amoral.
@lancethruster Interesting about your dad and Catholic school. I considered sending my kids, too, because of its reputation for better education–certainly better handwriting.
Just saw a posting on facebook (a meme sort of thing) that stated it wasn’t guns or mental illness or a combination of the two that turns into tragedy…what we needed to worry about it were the godless – they were the cause of the tragedy in the world.
@dam – It’s funny you mentioned the handwriting. We had an English teacher (Mrs. Schumacher) who talked about once having beautiful handwriting herself, but she was a lefty, and the nuns in her day forced her to learn to write right-handed (as left-handedness had a negative connotation – see – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handedness#Negative_associations_of_language ).
Oh, and as for quotes about God, I’m fond of this one too (totally tongue in cheek of courrse) — If God hadn’t wanted us to eat bacon, She wouldn’t have made it taste so good!
It bothers me to use “He” when referring to a god no one claiming to know anything about actually does, so I throw in the “She” to raise eyebrows. I’ve also used the clumsy phrasing She/He/It/They (aka “S/H/I/T”) as a person neutral reference.
The last one reminds me of a joke. A teacher asked a student what they were drawing. The child said, “I’m drawing God.” The teacher then replied, “But no one knows what God looks like.” The child answered, “They will now.”
@lancethruster Ha. Funny quotes. I think you would keep your van pool entertained with all your facts and quotes. I also have trouble with 1. how to refer to God (he, she, it, life force, they) and 2. to capitalize or not. I think it is respectful to capitalize and also, the name of a person, whether real or not, like Santa or the Tooth Fairy. But then when I want to refer to a generic, I use lowercase.
I’m left-handed when I write. But I play tennis right. I can’t make up my mind.
@h That’s too bad, but I think a lot of people think that way….
@dam – My van is an odd bunch. All churchies…but too insecure to actually discuss the “Good News.” I think the some of the things that drive me bonkers the most are that all the drivers are so oblivious that they’ll let the commercials on the radio blare without touching the dial, but drop the volume the second any content worth hearing comes on. One driver plays reeeeally sorry “Praise” music (and sings along to boot). One of these days I’m going to show them how annoying it is by putting on headphones and singing “Roxanne” like Eddie Murphy in “Beverly Hills Cop.” They pretty much dismiss anything I might wish to discuss as without interest, but then proceed to prattle on about the most mundane topics. If I venture to correct on of their FAUX Noise misconceptions, I get angry stares indicating thart they do not wish to be confused by the facts. I hate to generalize too much…but they strike me pretty much as “typical” xians.
When discussing/debating online, I tell people I consider it a sign of respect to share my true views on issues rather than to hide them from others. This crowd would really prefer I “dummy up.” As I said, they seek to remain fully insulated from reality.
Btw, I do like many of the old spiritual songs in terms of musical beauty, but the content holds no particular meaning for me (when I hear mentions from anywhere of “God” and “Jesus”, to my ears it might as well be “Zeus” and “Thor”) As far as music for “our side,” you should look up online Iris Dement doing “Let the Mystery Be.” There’s a YouTube version with her and session musicians that is stellar. Also, too btw, did you get to watch much of Julia Sweeney’s “Letting Go of God”? She was a regular at our atheist group meetings (CFI-West). She was so down to earth in sharing her story; quite funny and personable. We saw her do a rough version of it before she did her actual taping.
@h – this comes to mind — For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. ~ H. L. Mencken
Here’s another quote that applies to irrationalists from Prof Lawrence Krauss (you should do a quote thread sometime, Deborah)- The last thing we want to do is water down the teaching of biology because some people don’t recognize that evolution happened. Evolution is the basis of modern biology and, in fact, if a lot of people don’t believe it, it only means we have to do a better job teaching it. So once again, I repeat, the purpose of education is not to validate ignorance, but to overcome it. And to overcome a situation where a United States Senator can speak such manifest nonsense with impunity is vitally important to the healthy future of our society.
A-bloody-men!
More quotes (sorry…I like thought provoking quotes) –
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. ~ misattributed to Marcus Aurelius, but excellent nonetheless.
I make my nice devout friends promise to sneak me ice water in Hell. They’ve all said “yes” though I’m at a loss to explain how they think they’ll ‘sneak’ something past God.
xD
Yes the pope is “divorcing” the Catholic church, he’s quitting, he’s walking away from his “marriage” to the church, his vows, his commitment. Isn’t that the same thing as a civil marriage in the eyes of the church? And isn’t divorce “against” the dogma of the church? Hmmmmm……
@lancethruster You have some funny stories to share–have you thought about writing a play or something along those lines? I can visualize what your wrote and see it as a scene.
That’s a good point–”a sign of respect to share.” You’re being yourself. You’re also trusting people. Guess they can’t hurt you if you’re just “lancethruster.”
I liked the lyrics of Dement’s song, but not crazy about her voice. I do like some spiritual songs, though, as I enjoy reading some of the Bible stories, like the Song of Solomon
That’s cool about Julie Sweeney being part of your atheist group meetings. Yes, I left the video on as I did some work, so I drifted in and out of consciousness. What that 57 minutes the entire piece? I could relate to some of what she was saying & am amazed by how many Catholics grow into nonbelievers. (I also like what John Fugelsang said about the Catholic Church being an atheist factory.)
@Shelley Good point…
Let me add to my previous post: I married into the Catholic church and my husband divorced me 5 years later (a very very difficult thing for his family to come to accept, it took them almost 20 years before they finally acknowledged to me that divorce sometimes happens – that sometimes it “should” happen. I completely love and respect my “ex” in-laws, they are extremely devout Catholics, and they are also wonderful good people; people whom I’ve always admired and looked up to; they’ve always been excellent role models for my children and also me. My ex’s family have always loved me and my 2 boys, even though we are not Catholic, even though I’m a “scorned” divorced woman in the eyes of the church. In the years that I was affiliated with the Catholic church, having married into a very devout Catholic family and also as a non-believer/non-member, I met some fantastic people who just happen to be Catholic nuns and priests, by their own choice. Who am I to judge them for their personal choice? I certainly don’t want them judging me! I think all of us here despise judgment, in any form.
As a non-believer, I know that the Catholic church – like any organized religion or “group” big or small – has some members who perpetrate horrible things onto other human beings. The Catholic church, as a whole, is no exception. And I also know that the “bad people” are a minority, regardless of the religion or group they affiliate themselves with.
Bottom line: I utterly and completely respect all of the Catholics in my life for the wonderful people they are, and also for their beliefs – and I especially respect the pope for publicly acknowledging that (for whatever reasons) it’s just not “right” for him to be their leader. In return, the Catholics in my life respect me and my chosen beliefs. It’s a win-win for all of us!!
They do not belittle or insult me, and I treat them – love them – with the exact same respect.
@Lancthruster I like your quotes & yes, will have to do a quote thread. I’ve heard the Aurelius quote and variations. I feel that way, too.
Yeah, the hell thing…Great story.
@lancethruster Here’s another quote for your list: Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. I’ve seen it attributed to Ben Franklin, but haven’t confirmed it.
Thanks for your music suggestions; I’ll look them up. So much music is a touchy issue after growing up in the church. We tell our daughter that all the best, most challenging choral music is religious, so we just have to overlook the nonsense if we want to grow our voices. Fun to substitute Greek or Roman references, though I don’t think my Latin is up to rewording Ave Maria!
@Shelley My family and most of my good friends are Catholics, and I was raised as one, too. There are a lot of positive things the church teaches. But, I am very disappointed (and I think the pope was, too–by his quotes and by the issues the church has faced lately) that they don’t hold themselves accountable and change. As an institution, they’ve been bad. One of the biggest problems is not allowing the priests to marry. This is outdated and has caused soooo many problems. Why did they not change this ancient rule? Because, I suspect, it comes down to money. The church, which doesn’t believe in birth control, would have to feed the priest’s family, clothe, house and educate them. Why have they swept so many abuse claims under the rug, shuffled their priests around? To avoid lawsuits. I am very disappointed in the Church. They are big and powerful and (still) rich. They could have remade themselves into a better institution.
I know, I know. There’s nothing worse than an ex-smoker, and apparently the same is true for an ex-Catholic.
@Dam: Even though my ex-in-laws are extremely devout Catholics, they hold a very long-held belief that priests should be able to marry. Personally, I agree. I don’t think anyone – or anything – institution, religious organization, or otherwise, should ever be allowed to dictate to anyone whether or not they have the moral right to marry.
Ex-smoker? I’m an ex-Mormon, I was born into the Mormon religion (I was seventh generation, my children were eighth). I don’t believe that most Mormons (my wonderful, “blinded”-by-choice family included) have any idea about what their religion actually believes. It doesn’t take much research to discover that some of their doctrines are absolutely insane.
@Shelley The little I know about Mormonism has surprised me. It must have been hard to split from your family’s religion…
“Organized religions exist so that one individual a Caliph, a Dali Lama, a Pope, or a group of individuals, monks, mullahs, preachers, priests and rabbis can live a life of luxury on the labors of their followers.”…pir faqir
The Pope was brainwashed as a child and never learned to think for himself. Therefore, he is still a child because “Human beings attain true adulthood only when they learn to think for themselves.”…pir faqir
@chasen: You have been refuted well already so I´ll just add by saying that the Golden Rule predates every religion and is a clear sign that morality is better off with them.
@lance: Great quotes. Here are a couple from late Mr. Hitchens:
“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.”
“Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.”
“Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer.”
@saab93f & @pir faqir Great quotes. I can think of times when I could have used in a conversation this quote, “What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.”
@dam: Chris Hitchens is my favourite. He has the wit and the intelligence to drive any religionista mad.
“Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.”
“How dismal it is to see present day Americans yearning for the very orthodoxy that their country was founded to escape.”
MT [Mother Teresa] was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction.”
AND THEN
“The governor of Texas, who, when asked if the Bible should also be taught in Spanish, replied that ‘if English was good enough for Jesus, then it’s good enough for me.”
The Epicureans and Stoics who followed Aristotle differed with each other and with him in many ways, but they agreed in tying morality and religion together. For the Epicureans (as for Aristotle in the Metaphysics), the gods do not care about us, though they are entertained by looking at our tragicomic lives (rather as we look at soap operas on television). We can be released from a good deal of anxiety, the Epicureans thought, by realizing that the gods are not going to punish us. Our goal should be to be as like the gods as we can, enjoying ourselves without interruption, but for us this means limiting our desires to what we can obtain without frustration. The Stoics likewise tied the best kind of human life, for them the life of the sage, to being like god. The sage follows nature in all his desires and actions, and is thus the closest to the divine. One of the virtues he will have is ‘apathy’ (in Greek apatheia), which does not mean listlessness, but detachment from wanting anything other than what nature, or the god, is already providing.
You’ve added some wonderful comments. Will respond to them all as soon as I get a moment.
Bits and pieces – @dam – Yes, Iris Dement does have a bit of a warbly voice (some of her other tracks totally lose me because of that) but she was the substitute opening act for Nanci Griffith in LA (who does a marvelous version of “From A Distance”) and opened with that and I just loved it (a godless/agnostic theme song). I can’t even remember now who she filled in for.
Your suggestions of cranking out a play are too kind. Maybe one day I’ll cobble together some of the episodes in my life. I get people telling me I should be a stand-up comic (which stand-up comics will tell you are the LAST people who should be stand-up comics!)
xD
@ saab93f – Chris Hitchens was a big fave (though I wince at his support of the criminal Bush admin.). Met him at a conference in DC for (Americans United? CFI? I forget) during the time of the Iraq war. I also think, unfortunately, he sided too much with our homegrown religionists doing battle with Islam. You can reject all religion and still see that many Muslims are demonized unfairly (for instance, in the Israel/Palestinian conflict).
Side note, I also met at that conference, Muslim apostate author Ibn Warriq (“Why I Am Not A Muslim”) and asked him his views on the IP conflict. He pretty much shrugged and said it’s hard to sort out. After learning more about the issue post 9/11, I feel I side more with Norman Finkelstein who wrote –
It’s not complicated. It’s also not controversial. You see it voted on every year in the United Nations. The votes typically something like 160 nations on one side, the United States, Israel and Naru, Palau, Tuvalu, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands on the other side. That’s it. Now, the Israeli government was fully aware that this was the international consensus, but they were opposed (a) to a full withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza and Jerusalem, of course, and (2) they were opposed to creating a Palestinian state in the Occupied Territories.
I’ve seen Dr. Finkelstein lecture several times. He is a remarkable educator.
@Diane – What’s not to like about beer?
@Shelley – Grew up with LDS neighbors. If I showed up on Family Home Evening to ask to play ball with their boys, they looked at me like something they scraped off their shoe.
@pir faqir – Great original quotes.
correction – sorry, s/b @Diana
To Shelley and others – I’ve always had a soft spot for “apostates” of any faith because it takes quite a bit of courage to step outside of one’s community attachments. Additionally, even if there were legitimate reasons (beyond a lack of belief in the prevailing mythology) for the separation, those remaining true believers resent anyone shining a less than glowing spotligtht on their faith.
@LanceThruster I agree–many Muslims have been unfairly demonized.
@lancethruster Perhaps you should be writing the material for the comics, then! ….”Maybe one day I’ll cobble together some of the episodes in my life. I get people telling me I should be a stand-up comic (which stand-up comics will tell you are the LAST people who should be stand-up comics!)”
Another correction – I should have said Christopher Hitchens as he hated to be called Chris. Also, the Eddie Murphy movie I was thinking of was probably actually “48 Hours.”
@dam – If I could be consistently funny (and draw!), doing a comic could be fun. Here’s a comic site I love (http://www.bugcomic.com/), and a particular comic that I find adorable (http://theoatmeal.com/comics/dog_paradox)
Beware the invisible horsebeast!
Bonus link – In keeping with the godless theme of the blog, I highly recommend “The Adventures of God-Man” from “Tom the Dancing Bug.” (see – http://www.fecundity.com/pmagnus/godman.html )
Thank you for speaking out against the Catholic church. The crimes they have committed and continue to commit in the name of god are just astonishing. And the fact that after all the scandals, the pedophilia, the financial misdeeds, people still follow these criminals mindlessly is just beyond comprehension. I think the pope, the vatican and the catholic church represent one of the largest dangers to humanity.
@ deosullivan 3
“Oh dear, another religious person trying so hard to sound logical.”
There is no need to talk as if I am a child. I am not.
“First of all, citing the bible as an authority to refute the god-centric interpretation of Christian morality is just a breathtakingly self-defeating strategy.”
I cited the Bible as an authority of Christian doctrine.
“Second, the bible verse you cite is not talking about morality. It is talking about the ‘law,’ i.e. Jewish law, which the Gentiles do not have, but the ‘requirements of which’ are written on their hearts with the ‘consciences also bearing witness.’”
The Jewish law or Mosaic law includes the ten commandments which contain moral laws such as truthfulness, marital fidelity, and respect for human life. The Gentiles, which includes everyone who is not a Jew, know these moral laws intuitively even though they were not provided with the Mosaic law as the Jews were. It is unlikely that Paul was saying that Gentiles intuitively know to keep the Sabbath for example. Of course they do not. But they do know intuitively to be truthful, to honor your commitments (of which the marriage vow is one), and to not murder.
“The preceding verse states: ‘For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it are those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.’ So we’re right back to people who obey god’s law are declared righteous, which is what you’re saying the bible argues against.
I do not know how you think I was arguing that the Bible does not affirm that people who obey God’s law are declared righteous. Of course it does. I was arguing that Christian doctrine states that all people instinctively know moral laws whether they believe in God or not.
“The next verse (verse 16) then threatens those of us who don’t believe with god’s final judgment, which is a fallacious argument known as the Appeal to Force or Argumentum ad vacuum.”
So, yes, those who obey God’s law are declared righteous (Romans 2:13). But who has obeyed? No one. None are righteous (Psalm 14:1, Romans 3:23). So, all will face judgment. But here is where the uniqueness and beauty of Christianity begins for while all other faiths say “do, do, do” to be declared righteous at the time of judgment, Christianity says “done”. You are declared righteous at the time of judgment through trust in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. (Romans: 3:24-26, Romans 10:9-10, 2 Corinthians 5:21).
“Saying that morality has evolved in chimps and in humans does not mean that the morality is the same. Moreover, what is documented in that film is not rape among chimps: the scientist says that it is believed that sexual intercourse in that species as a way of reconciling among members who were in conflict. Sexual morality across species cannot be compared in the way that you are doing it in your comment.”
I did not say that if the morality of chimps and the morality of humans developed through evolution it would be the same. I said that since the process by which the moralities of each species developed (ie. by evolution which is driven by survival) is the same a chimp forcibly copulating with another chimp is no different than a human forcibly copulating with another human. These acts among both species are not wrong they are merely not beneficial towards the survival of the species.
“Finally, in your little proof, you take an unproven assumption as your premise.”
Richard Dawkins agrees with what I state above because he knows that there is no right or wrong, good or bad, just blind pitiless indifference without God and he agrees with premise 1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
“I am not sure that ‘objective moral values’ are, or rather, what you mean.”
Is not committing rape an objective moral duty? Is murder an objective moral duty? Are truthfulness and commitment objective moral values? These are all objective moral values and duties not affected by human opinion or action.
“I watched your video thinking that it might shed some light on it, but it too is so rife with logical fallacies that it would take many more posts to lay them out.”
You are more than welcome to post these fallacies on the comment string of that video or to send an email to the address to the right of the blog page as I agree this blog is not the format to further this discussion.
“Here’s the upshot: you believe in god. We don’t. You believe in god because you were taught to believe in god and you’ve accepted to believe based on your faith that god is out there somewhere. We do not take things on faith. We weigh evidence, and there is no evidence that god exists. Sure, there are lots of books that say god exists, but that’s not evidence. That’s called hearsay.”
I am glad you are here to clear up for me why I believe in God. I was raised to believe in God, however I weighed the evidence later in life and it strengthened by belief. The Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument, the Argument from Reason, the Argument from Intentionality, the Minimal Facts Argument, and the Moral Argument (which was in my last comment) are just some of the evidences I have faith in the Christian God. Biblical faith is not a blind faith. Scripture tells us to love God with all of our heart, soul, strength, and MIND. Paul did not show up at synagogues and tell people to believe in Christ blindly. He offered the eyewitness testimony of hundreds of the resurrected Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:1-7) and fulfilled prophecy as evidence. Finally, the absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. We clearly saw this several months ago when the Higgs Boson particle was discovered. For decades we had no evidence that such a particle existed, but it was there all along.
@ deosullivan 3
“Oh dear, another religious person trying so hard to sound logical.”
There is no need to talk as if I am a child. I am not. You may not have intended it to sound this way, but that is how I took it. Please correct me if that is not how you meant it and I apologize if I misunderstood you.
“ First of all, citing the bible as an authority to refute the god-centric interpretation of Christian morality is just a breathtakingly self-defeating strategy.”
I cited the Bible as an authority of Christian doctrine.
“Second, the bible verse you cite is not talking about morality. It is talking about the ‘law,’ i.e. Jewish law, which the Gentiles do not have, but the ‘requirements of which’ are written on their hearts with the ‘consciences also bearing witness.’”
The Jewish law or Mosaic law includes the ten commandments which contain moral laws such as truthfulness, marital fidelity, and respect for human life. The Gentiles, which includes everyone who is not a Jew, know these moral laws intuitively even though they were not provided with the Mosaic law as the Jews were. It is unlikely that Paul was saying that Gentiles intuitively know to keep the Sabbath for example. Of course they do not. But they do know intuitively to be truthful, to honor your commitments (of which the marriage vow is one), and to not murder.
“The preceding verse states: ‘For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it are those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.’ So we’re right back to people who obey god’s law are declared righteous, which is what you’re saying the bible argues against.”
I do not know how you think I was arguing that the Bible does not affirm that people who obey God’s law are declared righteous. Of course it does. I was arguing that Christian doctrine states that all people instinctively know moral laws whether they believe in God or not.
“The next verse (verse 16) then threatens those of us who don’t believe with god’s final judgment, which is a fallacious argument known as the Appeal to Force or Argumentum ad vacuum.”
So, yes, those who obey God’s law are declared righteous (Romans 2:13). But who has obeyed? No one. None are righteous (Psalm 14:1, Romans 3:23). So, all will face judgment. But here is where the uniqueness and beauty of Christianity begins for while all other faiths say “do, do, do” to be declared righteous at the time of judgment, Christianity says “done”. You are declared righteous at the time of judgment through trust in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. (Romans: 3:24-26, Romans 10:9-10, 2 Corinthians 5:21).
“Saying that morality has evolved in chimps and in humans does not mean that the morality is the same. Moreover, what is documented in that film is not rape among chimps: the scientist says that it is believed that sexual intercourse in that species as a way of reconciling among members who were in conflict. Sexual morality across species cannot be compared in the way that you are doing it in your comment.”
I did not say that if the morality of chimps and the morality of humans developed through evolution it would be the same. I said that since the process by which the moralities of each species developed (i.e. by evolution which is driven by survival) is the same a chimp forcibly copulating with another chimp is no different than a human forcibly copulating with another human. These acts among both species are not wrong they are merely not beneficial towards the survival of the species.
“Finally, in your little proof, you take an unproven assumption as your premise.”
Richard Dawkins agrees with what I state above because he knows that there is no right or wrong, good or bad, just blind pitiless indifference without God and he agrees with premise 1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
“I am not sure that ‘objective moral values’ are, or rather, what you mean.”
Is not committing rape an objective moral duty? Is murder an objective moral duty? Are truthfulness and commitment objective moral values? These are all objective moral values and duties not affected by human opinion or action.
“I watched your video thinking that it might shed some light on it, but it too is so rife with logical fallacies that it would take many more posts to lay them out.”
You are more than welcome to post these fallacies on the comment string of that video or to send an email to the address to the right of the blog page as I agree this blog is not the format to further this discussion.
“Here’s the upshot: you believe in god. We don’t. You believe in god because you were taught to believe in god and you’ve accepted to believe based on your faith that god is out there somewhere. We do not take things on faith. We weigh evidence, and there is no evidence that god exists. Sure, there are lots of books that say god exists, but that’s not evidence. That’s called hearsay.”
I am glad you are here to clear up for me why I believe in God. I was raised to believe in God, however I weighed the evidence later in life and it strengthened by belief. The Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument, the Argument from Reason, the Argument from Intentionality, the Minimal Facts Argument, and the Moral Argument (which was in my last comment) are just some of the evidences I have faith in the Christian God. Biblical faith is not a blind faith. Scripture tells us to love God with all of our heart, soul, strength, and mind. Paul did not show up at synagogues and tell people to believe in Christ blindly. He offered the eyewitness testimony of hundreds of the resurrected Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:1-7) and fulfilled prophecy as evidence. Finally, the absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. We clearly saw this several months ago when the Higgs Boson particle was discovered. For decades we had no evidence that such a particle existed, but it was there all along.
There is a recurring criticism here that some in organized Christianity teach that people cannot lead moral lives outside of faith. I would like to provide an alternative perspective that may be helpful in understanding what I believe to be a misconception.
Jesus did not teach that his purpose was to make me wealthy or influence my sports team or make me perpetually happy or any other of my self-serving ends – including making it possible for me to live a moral life. What Jesus did do is set a high standard for moral living by his teaching and by example of his life. I think that part of what Christians are trying to say on this point is that everyone falls short of the ideal that Jesus sets. Individuals inside and outside of religious practice are, by their own choices, capable of both good and evil.
One of the cornerstones of the Christian faith is access to complete forgiveness and acceptance. However, that forgiveness is not described as a license for amoral living – Jesus was very clear about that. I share your frustration with those who claim a higher moral standard but then act very differently.
To a previous post, the community who posts here is entitled to their unbelief. Many of the criticisms of bad behavior by those claiming to be Christian would be shared by Jesus himself. My council is to listen, understand and love where you can.
I apologize for the duplication of my comment to deosullivan. The comment did not show as “Awaiting Moderation” when I clicked submit and even after I refreshed, so I thought it did not post.
@lancethruster I’m a little behind on the comments, but wanted to let you know I checked out the comic sites and loved, loved the oatmeal. That’s my dog! And the author’s story on the bug. Thanks for sharing those!
@ Chasen
Interesting that you took my first comment as though I were talking to you like a child.
Here are some characteristics of children:
1. They often have imaginary friends and believe in things like Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny.
2. They crave the approval of others and will do things to please others, especially parents and father figures.
3. They base their actions on promises of reward and threats of punishment.
I will let you draw your own conclusions here, but let me just say one thing, if you’re going to post videos to a site like this where people are educated and hold higher education in esteem and that video comes from an organization whose motto is, “Undoing the damage of the University… five minutes at a time,” you should probably think twice.
@jp Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.
@dam – Glad you liked the comics. The Dog Paradox one really gets to me because I’ve lost a couple of pets (cats recently) to old age and I’m amazed at the strength of the bond (They were endearing little nuts that I miss terribly now they’re gone – I have one left that is also elderly but she’s still going strong. President’s Day is the date I lost my rescue Dalmatian years ago. He was a treasure too).
Here’s the “Tom the Dancing Bug” comic that introduced me to God-Man…”Fluffster Unbound.” (makes about as much sense as any of the rest of the mythology) — http://web.archive.org/web/20080525164605/http://archive.salon.com/comics/boll/1999/04/29/boll/index.html
Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel.
@lancethruster Like that quote…life is both a comedy and tragedy, then, because none of us just think or just feel. So, is God-Man a graphic novel?
@dam – That’s what my friend asked (i.e. What is life for those who think *and* feel? – Answer: life).
It’s like a KV joke (hope I don’t wear out KV’s welcome…or my own) –
Q: You know what that white stuff in the middle of a bird poop is?
A: That’s bird poop too.
Ba-Dum-Bump!
“God-Ma”n is an ongoing character within the “Tom the Dancing Bug” Comic.
It used to be in the LA Weekly (local free press), and then online only (AFAIK) at Salon.com.
Matt Groening’s “Life in Hell” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_in_Hell ) used to be in LA Weekly too but they’ve lost the budget (I guess) to run any comics anymore.
Speaking of “Life in Hell,” here are (is?) a baker’s dozen of gems – http://www.buzzfeed.com/summeranne/13-of-the-best-life-in-hell-comics-by-matt-groen
And an article on its ending –
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/177889/simpsons-creator-matt-groening-to-end-life-in-hell-comic/
I was subbing for 2nd grade today at a Catholic school, and our religion lesson was on penance, most notably that if you sin, you must be sorry for it and vow to do better; it is not enough just to confess and move on, knowing you will do it again. This is the main reason why I stopped confessing using birth control (in addition to my just disagreeing with it, though I do understand where the church is coming from).
I am fairly certain I would be a good person whether or not I believed in God and/or had a religion, though I would probably stop turning my cheek so darn much if I had no beliefs. I know good people who have no religion/beliefs and crappy people who sit in church every Sunday (and I unfortunately know more of the latter). And don’t even get me started on people, usually self-proclaimed Christians, who do things like shoot doctors who perform abortions. In my mind, if there is a God and a heaven, He will welcome anyone who is good; it won’t matter that they did not believe. Because treating people kindly/loving one another is what should matter most in this world.
@wisestoffools
“you should really lookup the meaning of the word objective. It means not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.”
Impartial justice, truthfulness, kindness, mercy, marital fidelity, and respect for human life. Are these objective moral values and duties? Yes, they transcend human opinion and action. I have a firm understanding of the word objective.
We all know the moral values and duties listed above, and others such as courage and respect for the property of others, intuitively and thus we all can be moral. As I stated in my first comment, Christian doctrine affirms this in Romans 2:14-15. It does not state that people who do not believe in God cannot be moral. Deborah stated in this post that all mainstream religions preach that without God people cannot be moral. The main point of my comment was to correct this misrepresentation of Christian doctrine.
@Chasen Many mainstream, but not all, preach that nonbelievers are amoral. I should have said that. It is not surprising, though, because they have to believe that or what are they selling?
As for the “objective moral values,” those you’ve listed are some of what we’ve decided, as a society at this point in our history, are “objective moral values.” The universe does not discriminate; it knows no difference. We evolved to this point only because our other needs have been met.
@facie I agree, “Because treating people kindly/loving one another is what should matter most in this world.”
@dam
“the ‘objective moral values,’ those you’ve listed are some of what we’ve decided, as a society at this point in our history, are ‘objective moral values.’”
I want to make sure I am understanding you correctly, so please correct me if I am mistaken in what you are stating. Are you saying that impartial justice, truthfulness, kindness, mercy, marital fidelity, respect for human life, courage and respect for the property of others are morally right because current human society has deemed them to be morally right? It also sounds as if you are saying that because human society decides what moral values are, current human society could have very well evovled with a completely different set of moral values. This therefore means that, in the future, human society could evolve into a society which upholds as moral values the opposite of all of the values listed above (i.e. instead of truthfulness, deceit; instead of kindness, cruelty; instead of courage, cowardice; etc.).
Take slavery for example. As you know, during the beginnings of America and for almost a century after America declared independence, the majority of American society decided slavery was right. Was it therefore right? From what you are saying, if I am understanding correctly, it was. But of course it was not right and never will be right. This means that there are moral values and duties that human reason and evolution cannot ground. What then is the source of an objective moral duty such as condeming and working to prevent slavery?
@Chasen How do it follow that slavery was “right” because I said that morality is defined by humans, that the universe has no “morals,” that it is neutral. Of course slavery is wrong–to us. We defined it so. That’s why there is no “objective” morality handed down by some third party, IMO.
@dam
“Of course slavery is wrong–to us. We defined it so.”
So, when we defined that slavery was not wrong was it not wrong?
Oh, by the way, how is your son doing? Did he not break his hand or wrist recently? I remember seeing on one of the comment strings that he broke something.
@Chasen Slavery is wrong to us here and now. It has existed and continues to exist in other parts of the world. Our nation once accepted slavery for many years. There is no “objective morality” and the universe is indeed indifferent to us and any other animal. Otherwise, when people captured and took on slaves, there would be some sort of repercussion.
@dam. So, because southern slave owners faced no consequences for their actions (Which I would argue that there were consequences. Slave owners died in the Civil War. Those that did not lost their ‘right’ to own another human and faced economic hardship because the southern economy was built on the backs of slaves. But for the sake of argument I will concede) slavery is not objectively wrong? By this logic, you have no grounds to state that “slavery is wrong to us here and now”, for by your own admission, slavery still exists. There are still people capturing and taking on slaves without any repercussion from others.
@Chasen. This is the same discussion I’m having with Joe K. “Objectively wrong” to whom?
@dam It is wrong for all people, in all places, at all times to condone or participate in slavery. This is a properly basic belief grounded in moral experience. The moral experience that human beings are persons not to be treated as property or treated cruelly regardless of the determination of others that it is acceptable to treat people as property. Until I am provided with reason to doubt this moral experience I will continue to hold this position. You have given me no reason to think that things like slavery, murder, rape, and child abuse are wrong because the majority of society have determined them to be wrong. For example, you stated that slavery was accepted by our nation. But it does not follow that it was acceptable. Slavery was wrong despite the acceptance of it by the majority of society. People are not to be treated as property or treated cruelly whether others determine that they can be or not. It is the same for other acts such as murder and rape. A theistic worldview supports this.
Here is another example. In your most recent post you said that it is “wrong, wrong, wrong. .. just wrong in so many ways” when parents get their rights to raise their children as they see fit yanked away from them by a government. Is it wrong just for you or wrong for everyone? If it is wrong just for you, then is it not just your opinion of what is wrong? If it is just your opinion of what is wrong, why “does your way have to be everyone’s way”? On the other hand, if it is wrong for everyone, what is the basis for why it is wrong for everyone? If the basis for why it is wrong for everyone is human determination, what happens when humans determine that it is right for everyone? Will you still hold that it is wrong?
@Chasen Yeppers. Slavery was deemed acceptable in this country until enough people got on board to make it otherwise. And yes, again, it is wrong, wrong, wrong IMHO. I don’t speak for anyone but myself. Yet, because we all share the same experiences, we can agree (or disagree) on issues. I think we’re going in circles now. I do understand and hear you. You believe there is an objective, universal morality. I get that and a lot of people believe like you do. We are good.
@ dam If I still believed in saints, I’d nominate you for the patron saint of patience.
@deosullivan3 lol….that’s nice. I don’t feel that way sometimes.
Well, you can tell that I run out of patience for the logically challenged far sooner than you do. Thanks again for this blog.
@deosullivan3 You’re very nice. Thanks for contributing to this blog.
@chasen: A simple lithmus test will do. Does something abide the Golden Rule? Would you want to be a slave – most likely not, thus slavery is wrong. No religions or faith needed there.
@ dam
You understand that I think there are objective moral values and duties. I knew that early in our discussion. But do you know the reasons I hold this worldview? You may, I do not know. I understand that you think there are not objective moral values and duties. I understood this early in our discussion. However I do not understand your reasons for holding this worldview. You provided one reason for why you think this way (i.e. humans determine what is right and wrong). But I was trying to understand your reasons for thinking that the ownership and cruel treatment of human beings is right if the majority of a society determines that it is right.
So, my intention in the discussion was to increase understanding on both sides. It was not to try your patience. I am sorry if it came across this way. Thanks for the discussion and for hosting a blog where all people (even the “logically challenged” like me
) can come to to gain understanding of each other and the world we live in.
@saab93f
The Golden Rule lithmus test is a great way to discover that slavery is wrong. But why is slavery wrong? Are my wants or my reasoning the basis for why it is wrong? Then what about the people who want to, and reason that it is ok to, make me a slave?
I never said in any of my comments that religion or faith is nesscessary to discover what is wrong. I stated that Christian doctrine does not state this either. It states that we all intuitively know what is right and do it whether we are a believer or non-believer. I also stated that a theistic worldview is the best grounding for why things like slavery, murder, and rape are wrong. Under an atheistic worldview, the universe is indifferent to the outcome of humanity, so why continue with the illusory notion of morality? Why continue saying that acts such as murder, rape, and slavery are right or wrong, good or bad when they are really just beneficial or not beneficial for the survival of humanity?
@chasen: We disagree very strongly. I really honestly do believe that theistic worldview is based on lies and is morally corrupt. Slavery in the US alone shows how little good a Holy Book could do. Your response was not well-put either. The Golden Rule is not about whether I´d like to enslave others but would I want myself to be enslaved – and then act accordingly.
We unbelievers do good things for goodness´sake. That is what we (I am generalizing here) really do believe in – to live in a world in which you have a positive worldview, only to be proven unfortunately wrong sometimes. People are good basically – even the religious ones.
@saab93f I like this and agree: “We unbelievers do good things for goodnesssake. That is what we (I am generalizing here) really do believe in – to live in a world in which you have a positive worldview, only to be proven unfortunately wrong sometimes. People are good basically – even the religious ones.”
@Chasen You may find me logically challenged!!
I know what you are saying–that humans are innately good (and the next question is, how did that goodness get there?). I read an essay once where someone argued that is proof of a loving god, which seems false when you further examine that because god also allows bad things to happen. I personally find slavery wrong, but at one point in our nation’s history, many did not. Attitudes do sway and shift. We rub off on each other, we change, we evolve. I happen to think the predisposition for good evolved in us as a way to live in society. I hold goodness as especially important because my children, my parents, my fellow man are counting on me to be good and do my part. I could choose bad, but then that is not contributing to society in a helpful way. We’ve all agree that certain things–child abuse, murder, stealing–are wrong. We have developed our own moral code. It continues to grow and change.
It is interesting what you wrote to saab93f here: “I also stated that a theistic worldview is the best grounding for why things like slavery, murder, and rape are wrong. Under an atheistic worldview, the universe is indifferent to the outcome of humanity, so why continue with the illusory notion of morality? Why continue saying that acts such as murder, rape, and slavery are right or wrong, good or bad when they are really just beneficial or not beneficial for the survival of humanity?”
Just because the universe is amoral and indifferent to us does not mean that we have to be that way….We have evolved a conscience.
@dam: The case should be given a rest right here and now. Anything more makes it only worse. Thank you.