Post-Christianity? (probably not the right title)

[cardw]

Quote:

If there is no god than we are all just animals. If it is acceptable for a lion to kill a zebra (or another lion) why is it wrong for me to kill another person - who is nothing more than an animal? Plato was not an atheist. Plato was polytheistic. So he had lots of gods to base morality on.

Well you are ignoring the fact that we have feelings. Fortunately we don't make ethical decisions based solely on authority of sacred books and logic. Our feelings can act through empathy as a moral guide.

Clearly Jesus referred to our ability to empathize as a major influence on moral decisions. To ignore this is to ignore one of the most brilliant wisdom saying of Jesus.

Quote:

Friedrich Nietzsche traced the origins of morality to either class(master-morality), that is rich people deciding what is right and wrong or to religion (which he called slave-morality).

I would agree that religion is slave-morality. I am good because God gave me a set of rules and he is going to punish me if I don't keep them. I wouldn't even call this the most advanced form of ethics because as soon as the restraints are removed there is nothing there to keep a person moral.

Quote:

Who says causing pain is wrong - if there is no god? If that is the case, lions eating zebras is definitely morally wrong. This should outrage us and we should do something about it. Maybe the UN should form a committee to stop lions from eating zebras.

I don't have to determine if pain is wrong or right. Most people naturally don't desire to feel pain. Again you are ignoring one of the most important aspects of being human, our ability to feel. One cannot experience love, joy, satisfaction, gratitude, and pleasure without the ability to feel.

When you reason from this position you are using arguments that see people as objects. When we know how to feel, we gain a connection with other people that clearly tells most of us that it would be terribly wrong to harm another human being. One of the few things that cause us to override this natural inclination is religion. The other is fear.

Quote:

So it is with the good-hearted atheist. He doesn't know where he has come from. Doesn't know where he is going. Doesn't know why he is here. However he helps others and is a good citizen and in so doing quiets what would be an otherwise disturbed conscience.

That's quite a judgment. I could say the same thing about Christians. They only do good things because they know if they don't their god is going to punish them. I happen to know that there are Christians who do good things simply out of the joy of doing good things. I also know a lot of non-believers who do the same.

Most people have consciences because we have empathy. If I do something that causes someone else harm, I automatically imagine how I might feel. If I am being honest with myself, I go and make amends to the best of my ability. I feel better when I do that. So, yes I want to clear my conscience when I have done something that harms another.

But, if I choose to give aid to someone or offer a healing process to someone, there is great joy to be had simply in doing that. To see the look on someone's face as they become free of pain or sorrow is a wonderful thing. And to feel the love returned in the form of gratitude is not matched by any other experience.

You're a mean one Mr. Grinch.

[Nightingale]

I doubt anyone here is foolish enough to think that atheists cannot have ethics. The question is what happens to those ethics under crisis? Studies done of people in the concentrations camps of WW2 showed that there is a big difference between the endurability of the ethics of religious people and the ethics of atheists. The religious people did much better at sharing and practicing love and thus surviving the ordeal than did atheists who only practiced their ethics when there was something in it for themselves but who got rid of their ideals as soon as it appeared that they wouldn't survive unless they stole. The Christian prisoners went on loving and sharing even after they had no reason to believe that doing so was any advantage to them. The atheists did not.

[cardw]

Quote:

doubt anyone here is foolish enough to think that atheists cannot have ethics. The question is what happens to those ethics under crisis? Studies done of people in the concentrations camps of WW2 showed that there is a big difference between the endurability of the ethics of religious people and the ethics of atheists. The religious people did much better at sharing and practicing love and thus surviving the ordeal than did atheists who only practiced their ethics when there was something in it for themselves but who got rid of their ideals as soon as it appeared that they wouldn't survive unless they stole. The Christian prisoners went on loving and sharing even after it became obvious that they would not get anything back in return. The atheists did not.

And what about all the good Lutherans who were guards at the camps? And what about the Adventist church in Germany at the time? Neither of these has stellar records. I would also like to see where this claim comes from. How did we determine who was an atheist or not? Who did this research? Or is this just a myth?

Here is a story of an Atheist who exhibited ethical behavior beyond the norm and under extreme circumstances.

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/foxhole1.htm

Obviously individual behaviors don't speak for a group whether those behaviors are good or bad. We need to examine if a particular belief makes any difference based on the merits of its teachings. Fortunately Christianity has found ways to ignore its previous violence justifying theologies, but this has come not by reading the Bible, but by re-interpreting it.

[Bravus]

An issue that I've raised here before is that the statistics for child abuse and spousal abuse are basically exactly the same between Christians and the population as a whole. If Christianity provides a divinely ordered ethical framework that is superior, we would expect to see some difference. In the absence of such difference, what are we to conclude?

(And 'not all who claim to be Christians really are' doesn't cover it - even if some proportion of Christians behaved differently we'd see difference in the stats.)

[Neil D]

Quote:

Every time I put something forth to examine, like the man gathering wood being stoned to death, you say I'm not willing to examine the whole thing. We have not finished examining this one. Bring your evidence. Most of this looks like smoke and mirrors to me.

Quote:

If you are not willing to handle the difficult passages then there is not a commitment to honest evaluation. I admit there are some good ideas within certain passages, but there is no way that the whole Bible is something produced by an intelligent, just, and loving God. You have not provided any evidence that this is true. All you provide is a bunch of protests.

Hmmmmmm.....Aside from all the complaints about me, looks to me that maybe you still want to look at something...but your jumping around from examining the bible to defining a perfect God who is just loving and intelligent.......Since I have limited time here, and can not do many, I suggest that you boil down your premise...Let's examine ONE premise, since I think that we will, of necessity, use the bible as evidence to subtanciate your claims...and we will have to agree that the bible can provide evidence to substanciate your claims...and mine.

I don't know how 'honest' WE can examine either premise, since WE can not come to a agreement as to whether scientific methods in a court room setting is viable in examining the bible as evidence. [it has taken nearly 9 pages, and not all of those are my post that you are responding to]..I think we can, at least, when it comes to examining the character of God, and whether there was consistancy in His dealings with Isreal. [That last sentence, btw, is a viable premise, if you want to examine that]

[cardw]

Quote:

I don't know how 'honest' WE can examine either premise, since WE can not come to a agreement as to whether scientific methods in a court room setting is viable in examining the bible as evidence.

A court room is not the application of the scientific method period. It may use the results of scientific inquiry, but it is a judgment of what is true on a lot of levels. And since we don't have a judge or jury to preside over our discussion I think this model is a waste of time. I would rather look at what is reasonable and leave it at that.

Quote:

[it has taken nearly 9 pages, and not all of those are my post that you are responding to]..I think we can, at least, when it comes to examining the character of God, and whether there was consistancy in His dealings with Isreal. [That last sentence, btw, is a viable premise, if you want to examine that]

Consistency is only a virtue if you are consistently virtuous. I could be consistently evil. So your premise is really has no meaning unless you consider consistency itself a virtue.

I will repeat what I have been saying all along. The Bible is not a Divine document. It does not prove that the God of the Bible is a just and loving God, because of the unjust system of laws and various orders instituted by this god, particularly in the Old Testament. At best it would indicate that this god got better as the culture progressed, but then it would no longer be a perfect all knowing god.

Because god gets kinder and more loving as the narrative continued is more evidence that men progressed than that god progressed. And this god did not even progress far enough to establish that slavery is immoral or that women are fully human.

There is no commentary provided by this god for this book to help interpret it. This commentary is provided by numerous human authorities, many at odds with each other and each claiming to have THE truth. This looks no different to me than most other human dialogs.

The people who follow this book have not demonstrated any superior behavior as compared to other religious groups and to non religious groups and yet they claim to have the most accurate version of the truth. In fact Christians claim to have the only version of the truth and if you don't agree to this truth, then their god is going to eventually kill you.

This is quite a claim that, to me, has no basis in logic, reason, or truth what-so-ever. And the bible provides no evidence of this what-so-ever, but in fact demonstrates only an iron age ethic followed by some remarkable Jesus philosophy that is high jacked by some violent results if you don't agree. Hardly the musing of a superior intelligent virtuous god.

[Taylor]

Even the good in an athiest...the good in ANYONE comes from God, even if God isn't acknowledged or even recognized.

[Gerr]

I would suggest that your statistics be refined further. For example, the divorce rate between Christians and non-Christians are often cited as being about the same. Then someone refined it a little further and categorized them into Christians who went to church 1/mo, 2/ mo or more often. It turned out that the frequency of church attendance was inversely proportional to the divorce rate. I suspect that the same will hold true with the statistics on spousal or child abuse or whatever other kind of abuse.

Gerry

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

you are ignoring the fact that we have feelings.

I am quite sure my dog has feelings. I haven't worked with lions and zebras but wouldn't be surprised if they have feelings too. Putting that aside, if there is no god, who says is wrong to hurt other people's feelings anyway? I had an algebra professor once that hurt my feelings and it resulted in a change of behavior that enabled me to pass the class.

Quote:

I could say the same thing about Christians. They only do good things because they know if they don't their god is going to punish them.

Many Christians fall into that category. Charles Finney has a famous sermon addressing that very issue. Of course that is not consistent with the Biblical doctrine embraced by the Adventist church.

Quote:

Most people have consciences because we have empathy.

And what causes empathy? Can we assign a biological function to it? Do any animals display empathy?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I doubt anyone here is foolish enough to think that atheists cannot have ethics.

Then issue isn't IF atheists can be moral people. Of course they can. The issue is WHERE do their morals come from. Basically morality is traced back to either religion or an elite class (like royalty) that dictated right and wrong.

Then we ask 'by what authority?' Does religion have the right to dictate morality? Does a king or an elite class of people have the right to dictate morality?

Of course atheists will reject religion's right to dictate morality because they do not believe in God. So by default they either accept elitists' definition of morality or proclaim there is no morality at all.

Logically, why would a king or an elitist have any more right to determine morality than a peasant? And if the objective is to create a pain-free world where no one gets their feelings hurt, the process is doomed from the start. If there is no god and all creation has evolved from nothing, then man is just another animal. Why would he be subject to any type of morality different than any other animal?

[cardw]

Quote:

I am quite sure my dog has feelings. I haven't worked with lions and zebras but wouldn't be surprised if they have feelings too. Putting that aside, if there is no god, who says is wrong to hurt other people's feelings anyway?

Well you are assuming that we apply philosophy like religionists apply rules. Because I am willing to admit that I don't know every singe thing in the universe I am open to changing my mind as new information comes along.

A religionist's goal is to make everything fit into what they have decided beforehand is right. For example the Sabbath has to be THE day of rest. All arguments from that perspective assume that it must be right because that is what God said in the Bible.

We certainly don't eat our dogs because we apply human feelings to dogs. There are certain natural orders to nature that we don't apply the morality or murder to since to do so would produce disease from overpopulation and would cause the extinction of a number of predators. I don't apply rules to every little thing in life because rules simply cannot cover every singe situation.

It is ultimately we who decide what is specifically wrong or right even if you believe in God. There are ethical problems that the Bible can't answer. There are ethical problems that no one has the answer for. To say that because atheists don't have an answer for such and such means that God must exist is really not accepting the complexities of life.

So, when Jesus says to do unto others as you would have them do unto you it provides for the flexibility needed to work through every situation. That's part of its brilliance. Unfortunately most Christians miss out on the deeper aspects of the philosophy of Jesus because they get hung up on his so called Divinity and Paul's theology of salvation that got added to the story.

Quote:

And what causes empathy? Can we assign a biological function to it? Do any animals display empathy?

Again, there are a lot of questions we don't have the answer for, but that doesn't mean that there is a god like the one described in the Bible. I admit there are great mysteries to be contemplated, but I wouldn't presume to assign my concept of god to any of them.

[David Koot]

As I have followed this thread with interest, I get the picture of a master swordsman successfully parrying the thrusts of his opponents--you, Richard, being the master swordsman. (And not meaning to downplay the important contributions of many to this thread. I simply see you doing an expert job at parrying the thrusts.)

Yet, reflecting on so much of what you have shared, both in your blog entries and on this thread, I see what appears to be a pattern, a consistent perspective. I see a number of people on this thread who are rallying to the defense of what they believe, yet it all seems to be on the level of frontal assaults, bashing it out (which is usually rather costly and wasteful) yet, are they getting to the heart of the matter?

The pattern I see on your part, Richard, seems to be a tendency to see things in a certain way--a mindset, a set of assumptions. Others respond on the basis of their assumptions--and there is a clash of broadswords. Yet, "never the twain shall meet," because the two sides are coming at things from their differing perspectives, and apparently failing to deal with what is at the core of those differences.

Dave

[Neil D]

Quote:

And since we don't have a judge or jury to preside over our discussion I think this model is a waste of time. I would rather look at what is reasonable and leave it at that.

Hmmmmm....YOu get to be the judge of what is reasonable?

Hmmmm...I wonder what Sam Harris would say to this?

Quote:

Quote:

[it has taken nearly 9 pages, and not all of those are my post that you are responding to]..I think we can, at least, when it comes to examining the character of God, and whether there was consistancy in His dealings with Isreal. [That last sentence, btw, is a viable premise, if you want to examine that]

Consistency is only a virtue if you are consistently virtuous. I could be consistently evil. So your premise is really has no meaning unless you consider consistency itself a virtue.

Hmmmmm....Devine commentary on virtious parenting by Richard....Interesting....

Quote:

I will repeat what I have been saying all along. The Bible is not a Divine document.

What do you mean by "Divine document"? If you mean that it has godly powers..I would NOT agree. If you mean that it is a document that describes a Being who claims to be Divine, I would agree.

Quote:

It does not prove that the God of the Bible is a just and loving God, because of the unjust system of laws and various orders instituted by this god, particularly in the Old Testament. At best it would indicate that this god got better as the culture progressed, but then it would no longer be a perfect all knowing god.

So, you are saying that Christians say that the Being who claims to be Divine [aka "God"] took a primitive culture, and made it perfect with His laws. And by us examining this supposed "perfect culture", we see that this 'perfect culture' wasn't perfect at all. In fact, God did a poor job creating this perfect culture. When we look at it, we see bad laws enforced and bad rules established. A great example of this poor culture is where women should be treated fairly when victimized by rape.Or the continuation of Slavery when it should have been abolished. [is this a fairly good reflection of your thesis?]

Quote:

There is no commentary provided by this god for this book to help interpret it. This commentary is provided by numerous human authorities, many at odds with each other and each claiming to have THE truth. This looks no different to me than most other human dialogs.

When commentary by the bible is provided, is it permissible to allow it to comment on itself? Or is this a forbidden thing to do? My understanding is that you have rejected this in the past. Am I correct or will you allow commentary by the bible when appropriate?

Quote:

The people who follow this book have not demonstrated any superior behavior as compared to other religious groups and to non religious groups and yet they claim to have the most accurate version of the truth. In fact Christians claim to have the only version of the truth and if you don't agree to this truth, then their god is going to eventually kill you.

[TIC]When this is applied to you, I see nothing wrong with this..... [/tic] my bad....

Quote:

This is quite a claim that, to me, has no basis in logic, reason, or truth what-so-ever. And the bible provides no evidence of this what-so-ever, but in fact demonstrates only an iron age ethic followed by some remarkable Jesus philosophy that is high jacked by some violent results if you don't agree. Hardly the musing of a superior intelligent virtuous god.

I can see where you are coming from...obviously, I don't agree with it...I don't see where God is "musing" at all...And I do see

an Iron age ethic...and the difficulties of an abstract thinking viewing the deep thoughts of Iron Age concrete thinking....But then, you are not taking that into consideration, are you...?

[cardw]

Quote:

Hmmmmm....YOu get to be the judge of what is reasonable?

Hmmmm...I wonder what Sam Harris would say to this?

Smoke and mirrors. Rather than reading more into what I am saying than is there, put up your reasons. You have put up very little substance. You will note that I look up information and post it. I look for evidence and give the best reasoning that I have. Is it perfect? No, but I have yet to see you present a rational explanation for the stoning of a man for gathering sticks, based on the Bible's explanation or otherwise. I have yet to see a rational explanation of why a god would order rape and killing as a means of reforming a culture.

With all the information we have on the effects of violence, I find it very hard to believe that the promotion of violence would achieve anything other than more violence. In these stories god uses violence, the threat of violence, and orders his people to participate in violence. And because god endorses, orders, and uses violence in these stories, this has justified the theology of religious violence. You can read the theology of religious violence within most of the church fathers written material. If you need the evidence I can give you pages and pages.

Quote:

Hmmmmm....Devine commentary on virtious parenting by Richard....Interesting....

So how do you determine what is virtuous?

Quote:

If you mean that it is a document that describes a Being who claims to be Divine, I would agree.

Well, it does do that. But I don't agree with the claims. You have yet to demonstrate that the actions of this god, as described in the Bible, are the actions of an advanced, intelligent, wise, and loving god. Again, quite complaining and demonstrate your reasons. Make your case.

Quote:

and the difficulties of an abstract thinking viewing the deep thoughts of Iron Age concrete thinking....But then, you are not taking that into consideration, are you...?

I won't take it into consideration without evidence. Where is your evidence? Explain to me why an advanced intelligent, wise and loving god would consider the use of extreme violence, the ordering of the use of violence and threats of violence as the best solution for "peace on earth and good will to ALL men?"

[cardw]

Quote:

The pattern I see on your part, Richard, seems to be a tendency to see things in a certain way--a mindset, a set of assumptions. Others respond on the basis of their assumptions--and there is a clash of broadswords.

This is an excellent analysis. I am aware of the assumptions both by myself and others. Sometimes it takes some time to let those assumptions come to the surface. The tricky thing about assumptions is that they exist without proof. One has to start with an assumption. That is the nature of the human condition.

We all have to decide what set of assumptions work for us. I have assumed that an empirical method works the best for me based on my experiences. Basically I do what I observe working within my own life. It makes more sense to me that an dynamic empirical approach has the best chance of finding balance in one's life versus a "slave morality" that is based on a book. I think we forget that the written word is a man made technology.

And I believe that if each person takes responsibility for finding this balance within their own lives the influence of this balance will benefit all those who come within the sphere of their influence.

This belief has come from real life experience and a series of successful outcomes within my own life as evidenced by a larger sense of well being. I don't have to draw on theories in areas where I know something works. I don't have to quote a scripture or an author to understand these things on a practical level.

I also know what doesn't work for me and I know that any document, held as an authority, that promotes fear has great potential for harm. The Bible is not the only holy book that does this.

There are other aspects to this that I am simply unable to communicate because they can only be learned through experience.

[Gerr]

Quote:

If there is no god than we are all just animals. If it is acceptable for a lion to kill a zebra (or another lion) why is it wrong for me to kill another person - who is nothing more than an animal? Plato was not an atheist. Plato was polytheistic. So he had lots of gods to base morality on.

Well you are ignoring the fact that we have feelings. Fortunately we don't make ethical decisions based solely on authority of sacred books and logic. Our feelings can act through empathy as a moral guide.

Feelings/empathy as a moral guide? Feelings that are just as fickle as the weather? Hmmmmmmmmm, I wonder how much feelings of empathy Ted Bundy had for his victims. Or Hitler. Or Stalin?

Isn't that one of the reasons the world is in such a mess? People acting on the basis of feelings? "If it feels good do it?"

Gerry

[Bravus]

Gerry wrote:

Quote:

Oh, yes, it is certainly possible to come up with a system of ethics without God, but by what/whose authority? Without a higher authority, in crunch time, it is everyman for himself.

(Shane made a similar point later in the thread.)

I'm just pointing out that the idea that a code of ethics is something that needs to be either delivered or guaranteed by some authority figure is a particular way of viewing the world that I know I don't share and suspect Richard doesn't.

The idea that ethics are imposed (lovingly or otherwise) by an external authority rather than chosen by the individual speaks to a particular stage of moral development in Kohlberg's framework. (It also tends to lead to the assumption that the only imaginable alternative is unenlightened selfishness and anarchy.)

[Gerr]

Quote:

We all have to decide what set of assumptions work for us. I have assumed that an empirical method works the best for me based on my experiences.

So then, we're back to every man for himself; every man does what is right in his own eyes. Chaos, my friend, chaos!

Quote:

Basically I do what I observe working within my own life. It makes more sense to me that an dynamic empirical approach has the best chance of finding balance in one's life

And the observation that makes sense to me is: I look up into the sky/space and I see the handwork of an awesome Creator. I look at/into the human body, and I see the fingers of a Master Designer.

Quote:

versus a "slave morality" that is based on a book. I think we forget that the written word is a man made technology.

Slave morality? Who is the slave? The one whose morality/ethics is ruled by his whims/feelings or the one who transcends his own whims/needs/feelings and looks out not only for his own but that of others?

Gerry

[Gerr]

But isn't Kohlberg's moral development within the setting of a religious framework?

Gerry

[Bravus]

Kohlberg postulated, but did not formally make a part of his theory, a seventh stage beyond the six he originally described, which would correspond to a religious or transcendental ethics. Presumably though that would need to be different in some way from Level Four, and what I'm seeing described so far in terms of ethics and religion here fits neatly within Level Four.

[Bravus]

I realised that these last couple of posts have the potential to sound like attacks, and they're absolutely not intended to be. I'm not at all interested in the game of tying up someone else's belief system, claiming to have defined it and then claiming it is in some way inferior. I hate having it done to me and I don't want to do it to anyone else. Please consider these to be invitations for further discussion among friends.

[Dr. Shane]

Shane never indicated that atheists cannot have a code of ethics. My point was that if we are just another species of animal, then morality would have no more of an application to us than it does other animals. Some atheists reject that by trying to differentiate us from other animals by the fact we have the ability to reason. From my perspective, I don't buy that. I see that many animals have the ability to reason too.

[Bravus]

Sorry, what I meant to say was that you indicated ethics are based on God's authority.

[Dr. Shane]

Of course I do not agree with Friedrich Nietzsche's world view but for purposes of communication I will use his terminology.

Non-religious people are more inclined to accept master-morality instead of slave-morality. However the question arises, 'what difference does it make?' If nothing we do matters. If the universe is destined to go black. If we are all destined to die and there is no afterlife, why does it even matter? Because it causes pain? Because it hurts someone's feelings? Well if that be the case, and we are just animals then it would reason that morality for us would be the same as it is for animals. Is it wrong for a lion to steal meat from another lion? Is it wrong for a mother sow to eat her piglets? Why was it wrong for Hitler to try and exterminate the Jews? If he believed they were an inferior race, exterminating them (in his mind) would have made the world a better place - just like natural selection eliminating the weak and less useful species.

[cardw]

Quote:

So then, we're back to every man for himself; every man does what is right in his own eyes. Chaos, my friend, chaos!

No, because every man for himself doesn't work. We essentially do what is right in our own eyes whether we are religious or not. There are checks in the natural world established by the community. We see this in animals as well.

I once observed in a herd of 60 horses when one horse killed another during feeding time. While I was not there, it was immediately obvious which horse had killed the other. All the other horses turned their back on this horse and moved as far away from him as possible. He was rejected by the herd.

These types of natural processes happen all the time. I believe chaos results when people are taught to rely on an outside moral guide and that force is removed.

Quote:

Slave morality? Who is the slave? The one whose morality/ethics is ruled by his whims/feelings or the one who transcends his own whims/needs/feelings and looks out not only for his own but that of others?

Slave morality is based on the idea that I can't come up with any moral guide myself since I'm totally depraved. So I need a book of rules to guide my life backed by the threat of punishment.

If animals can develop basic moral principles within their own group, I think its more likely for humans, who have access to feelings, thinking, and reasoning, to come up with sophisticated moral guidelines.

I would suggest that greater cruelty has resulted from ignoring the feelings of empathy than all the silly self indulgent things we do from feeling. It is religionists who decided when they had rejected their feelings of empathy, that they need to burn witches at the stake. It was religionists who reasoned that the indians weren't really people or that black people where descendants of Ham and were cursed that decided that certain people should not be treated even as well as animals.

This suggests that feelings of love and empathy are of prime importance to being fully human. Feelings may not tell us why something is working or not working, but they quickly tell us when things are out of balance.

Even the mentally retarded can tell when they are being insulted through the use of feelings. They may not be able to add and subtract or form thoughts in sensible ways, but through their awareness of emotions they certainly can tell when they are not being treated with respect. I have seen this many times. So there is a complex intelligence at work in the process of feelings that has been marginalized far too long.

Again, it is this intelligence of feeling that I believe Jesus referred to in his statement to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.