Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Morality without a God
by David Roffey
"… consolatory nonsense seems to me a fair definition of myth, anyway … Myth deals in false universals, to dull the pain of particular circumstances." Angela Carter
The Preface to Richard Dawkins' new book, The God Delusion, says: "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." On the face of it, a deeply unlikely ambition, and not one that is borne out by the quality of the writing. Along the way, however, it does raise some important questions about the nature of morality, and the relationship of morality to religion.
Let's start with Dawkins' tome …
The God Delusion
Since time immemorial, people have been ascribing what they don't understand to gods and magical beings. This is still the essential argument of many deists, most notably the Intelligent Design / Creationists: "it's too complicated to be explained, therefore a God must have done it". Richard Dawkins, it seems, has had enough of writing popular science texts that attack this idea by explaining the complicated, and has moved on to attack the basic premise.
Dawkins is careful to define the God he is attacking: "a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us." (p.31) and: "in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation." (p.18). Examples: Yahweh, Christ, Allah, but not Buddha or Confucious.
So, we are not here discussing an Einsteinian or Spinozan amorphous belief in (eg) a god or force who designed the universe but has taken no actions in it for several billion years once it was set up or sneezed out of the Great Green Arkleseizure * (busy with some other project?). "To adapt Alice's comment on her sister's book before she fell into Wonderland, what is the use of a God who does no miracles and answers no prayers. Remember Ambrose Bierce's witty definition of the verb 'to pray': 'to ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner, confessedly unworthy'." (p.60)
Failure to understand this distinction as it is intended renders, for example, the New Scientist review of the book meaningless, as well as many other criticisms of it from those who say they do not recognise the God they believe in as the one under attack – simultaneously not recognising that the God they believe in is not the same one that their church, temple or mosque believes in, either.
Second definition: Delusion: "a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence" (MS Word dictionary). Dawkins notes with interest that the illustrative quotation for "delusion" in the Penguin English Dictionary is "Darwinism is the story of humanity's liberation from the delusion that its destiny is controlled by a power higher than itself" (Phillip E Johnson).
Now, clearly any follower of any religion believes that theirs is the only true and valid view. However, there is a wide range of views about what to do about the infidels who don't believe (or, worse, believe in something else). I have a vivid memory of a service led by the saintly Rev Dr Ann Wansbrough which began with a welcome that included the words: "My God loves you whether you believe in him or not." Like everyone else, I also have many vivid memories of news of incidents perpetrated by those who think in more violent terms on how you treat unbelievers. Dawkins' motivation for attacking religion, rather than just ignoring it, is essentially because of the growing prevalence of the fundamentalist and intolerant view amongst followers of many religions (but most particularly in the three Abrahamic faiths). Anyone who has seen Andrew Denton's low-key masterpiece God on my side has seen some good examples. (NB, keep watching to the end of the credits for the best question of the whole film.)
Dawkins has the traditional fun with the myriad contradictions and inconsistencies of the Bible story, and the unlikelihood that anyone could live their life following God's word as set out in it without being banged up for life:
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a mysogynist, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." (p.31)
Knockabout stuff, but not really up to the task of persuading the deluded that Dawkins has set himself. A confirmed deist who took on the penance of reading the whole thing will have no difficulty brushing off the rational (after all, faith in the irrational is how they got where they are to start with). They might give up on page 253, just after St Paul is described by Dawkins (with every justification, admittedly) as "barking mad, as well as viciously unpleasant".
Which would be a shame, because they'd miss some of the more important questions on the next few pages, as Dawkins raises questions of just what exactly is the morality we can get from religious teachings, and where they can lead us. A few recent debates elsewhere on Webdiary might be illuminated by the discussion of Israeli schoolchildren's reactions to and learnings from the story of Joshua and the battle of Jericho (pp.255-7) [NB – worth reading the whole paper by John Hartung from which Dawkins' discussion is drawn.]
Choosing which of God's Rules to follow
The key point raised is this: clearly, good Christians don't get all of their moral teaching from the Bible, or, more accurately, don't get their moral teaching from all of the Bible – they pick and choose amongst God's word for the principles they feel comfortable with, and discard the ones they don't. Faced with the injunction to " utterly destroy all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword" (and keep the gold for the Treasury), most of us have second thoughts, and those that don't tend to end up on trial, as do those Muslims who follow up on the equally lurid odd passages of the Koran.
We all interpret and choose amongst the moralities set out around us, and the evidence is that the choices that atheists and religious people make when faced with moral dilemmas are very similar (pp.222-6). So, Dostoevsky's Ivan Karamazov was almost certainly wrong, and without god, not everything is permitted, and not only because "conscience is that inner voice that warns us that someone may be looking" (HL Mencken).
As one of Dawkins' chapter titles asks: why are we good? He provides a good summary of the evolutionary reasons why individuals might be altruistic, generous or 'moral' towards each other: kinship, reciprocation, reputation-building, and advertising ourselves as good breeding mates. Once we started banging the rocks together with a purpose, thoughtful humans have selected towards these characteristics (though not completely – see Capitalism's Moral Bastards). People who care are just more likely to successfully pass on their genes. We don't need that 'someone who may be looking' to be some omniscient and personified surveillance system with a penchant for smiting or torturing for eternity those who transgress.
On the other side, as we've already aired here, those who do want to do almightily awful things to their fellow human beings (and the rest of the denizens of the planet), can find plenty of justification in the weirder outreaches of their holy books.
As Dawkins sees it (and I agree), the big problem with religion is not so much in the detail of the Jericho's and the '72 virgins', but in the absolutism of the handing down of knowledge, and the aversion to discovery (not to mention the whole Armageddon movement and its view of all the fire, flood and disaster as being preliminaries to final days – and thus not only unavoidable / unpreventable, but to be welcomed).
The question is, now that we're applying intelligence as well as instinct and evolution to our morality, just how do we choose the rules we follow from among those set out by our peers, our parents, or our favourite prophet?
=============================================
Morality without a God
As it happens, while I was reading The God Delusion, I was also reading another book covering this ground from a very different direction: Values, Ethics and Society: Exton Land [an alter ego of writer LE Modesitt Jr (LE = Leland Exton)] **
"What is ‘ethical’ or moral? A general definition is that actions that conform to a ‘right set of principles’ are ethical. Such a definition begs the question: Whose principles? On what are those principles based? Do those principles arise from reasoned development by rational scholars? Or from ‘divine’ inspiration? Does it matter, so long as they inspire moral and ethical behaviour? ... In practice, with or without a deity, every action is permitted unless human social structures preclude it. Yet, on what principles are those social structures based? Ethics and morality?
Theocracies and other societies using religious motives, or pretexts, have undertaken genocide, torture, and war. Ideologues without the backing of formal religious doctrine or established theocratic organizations have done the same. The obvious conclusion is that ‘moral’ values must be ethical in and of themselves, and not through religious or secular authority or rationalized logic. This leads to the critical questions: How can one define what is ethical without resorting to authority, religious doctrine, or societal expediency? And whom will any society trust to make such a judgment, particularly one not based on authority, doctrine, or expediency?"
Setting out some principles
On the face of it, the definition of ethical looks pretty straightforward. It is relatively easy to set out a "new ten commandments" that fit most people's ideas of ethics and morality – Dawkins references some of these – and they will have a substantial overlap with the principles in the Sermon on the Mount – which is one of only three incidents in the story of Jesus that are agreed upon by all the Gospel writers (the others being the baptism and the passion week story). The problem is that atheists are no more likely to actually act on those principles in their day-to-day life than Christians are. If you think I'm being harsh, try looking for the frequency of application of a few examples, say (not at all at random): "Agree with thine adversary quickly" or "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you" or "Judge not, that ye be not judged".
The Golden Rule ("do as you would be done by") would tend to come first, followed by "(strive to) do no harm". Of the original Ten (though actually there is not agreement amongst the sects on what the original Ten are), we can fairly easily accept the injunctions against murder, theft and perjury, while wondering how it came that coveting your neighbours' stuff got to be more worth mentioning than, say, rape or child abuse, and not getting too distracted by the thought that at least some sects have used "honour thy father and mother" as justification for forms of the latter.
"To insist that people not annex their neighbor's cattle or wife 'or anything that is his' might be reasonable, even if it does place the wife in the same category as the cattle, and presumably to that extent diminishes the offense of adultery. But to demand 'don't even think about it' is absurd and totalitarian, and furthermore inhibiting to the Protestant spirit of entrepreneurship and competition.": (Christopher Hitchens, in Slate)
Dawkins, with a modern sensibility, argues for "do not discriminate or oppress on the basis of race, sex or (as far as possible) species", "do not indoctrinate your children" and "view the future on timescale longer than your own". (pp.263-5)
However, this only takes us so far along the route. The principles may be clear, but how do we actually operationalise them in our individual lives and police them in society's rules – and how much do we respect other society's/people's different rules.
"Traditionally, one of the fundamental questions behind every considered attempt to define ethical behaviour has been whether there is an absolute standard of morality or whether ethics can be defined only in terms of an individual and the culture in which that individual lives.
Both universal absolutism and cultural relativism are in themselves unethical. Not only is the application of universal absolutism impractical, but it can be unethical, because the universe is so complex that there are bound to be conflicts between standards in actual application, unless, of course, the standards are so vague that they convey only general sentiments.
‘Be kind to one another’ is good general guidance, but it does not qualify as an ethical standard because the range of interpretation of the meaning of ‘kind’ is so broad as to allow individuals incredible discretion. That does not even take into account the problems when society must deal with unethical or violent individuals.": 'Exton Land'
Interpreting the rules
It isn't only the definition of 'kind' that has been a problem. The other big problem in "be kind to one another" has traditionally been the circumscription of 'one another' to a severely reduced subset of humanity. Dawkins points out that the original Ten Commandments' "thou shalt not kill" only applied to other Jews – killing non-Jews didn't count (and in the case of Jericho and numerous other examples was at God's command). For most of history, 'one another' also didn't include any females, or at least not to the same extent – recall that Lot proved his status as the only man worth saving in Sodom by offering his daughters up for gang rape in place of the angels he was sheltering.
The modern response to these dilemmas sometimes seems to be ever more detailed definition of exactly what is or isn't forbidden / punishable / suable for, with piles of precedent and litigation to hone the edges of liability and guilt. Almost makes you want to hark back to the false certainties of doing what the AllFather tells you…
"The Judeo-Christian concept of ‘original sin’ as defined in basic Christian theology was and remains an extremely useful tool for social indoctrination, because (1) it provides a reason for evil while also allowing people to accept that evil is not the fault of the given individual; (2) supplies a rationale for why people need to be taught ethics and manners; and (3) still requires that people adhere to an acceptable moral code.
Only a small minority of human beings have a strong predilection toward either ‘morality’ or ‘immorality’. This has historically posed a problem for any civil society based on purely secular rule because (1) society in the end is based on some form of self-restraint; and (2) the impetus to require self-discipline and to learn greater awareness of what is evil and unacceptable lacks the religious underpinnings present in a theocracy or a society with a strong theocratic presence. Likewise, history has also demonstrated most clearly that the majority of individuals are uncomfortable in accepting a moral code that is not based on the ‘revelation’ of a divine being, because in matters of personal ethics, each believes his or her ethics are superior to any not of ‘divine’ origin.
As transparently fallacious as this widely accepted personal belief may be, equally transparent and fallacious – and even more widely accepted – are the ethical and moral systems accepted as created by divinities – and merely revealed to the prophets of each deity for dissemination to the ‘faithful’. Throughout history, this has been a useful but transparent fiction because the ‘divine’ origin of moral codes obviates the need for deciding between various human codes. Humans being humans, however, the conflict then escalates into a struggle over whose god or whose interpretation of god is superior, rather than focussing on the values of the codes themselves.": 'Exton Land'
Focusing on our values
It really is becoming very important that we try to focus on the values of the codes (and our society) themselves. We have let our society drift for the last fifty years or so along a path where the values of the individual and the market have been allowed progressively to dominate: where the central dogma is that there is no dogma – there is always another way of looking at things - that all voices deserve a hearing, that all points of view have something of value to offer.
"There is indeed an ethical absolute for any situation in which an individual may find himself or herself, but each of these absolutes exists only for that individual and that time and situation. This individual ‘absolutism’ is not the same thing as cultural relativism, because cultures can be, and often have been, totally unethical and immoral, even by their own professed standards. That a practice or standard is culturally accepted does not make it ethical. There have been cultures that thought themselves moral that practiced slavery, undertook genocide, committed infanticide, and enforced unequal rights based on gender or sexual orientation.
The principle practical problems with individual absolutism are that, first, one cannot implement a workable societal moral code on that basis, and, second, that any individual can claim unethical behaviours to be moral in a particular situation, which, given human nature, would soon result in endless self-justification for the most unethical and immoral acts. That said, the practical problems do not invalidate absolute individual morality, only its societal application …
In practice, what is necessary for a society is a secular legal structure that affirms basic ethical principles (eg, one should not kill, or injure others; one should not steal or deceive, etc), and that also provides a structured forum, such as courts, in which an accused has an unbiased opportunity to show that, under the circumstances, his behaviour was as moral as the situation allowed. Such a societal structure works, however, as demonstrated by history, only when the majority of individuals in the society are willing to sacrifice potential self-interest for the value of justice, and such societies have seldom existed for long, because most individuals eventually place immediate personal gain above long-term societal preservation.
The faster and more widely this ‘gospel of greed’ is adopted, the more quickly a society loses any ethical foundation – and the more rapidly it sows the seeds of its own destruction.": 'Exton Land'
The reaction to blatant wrongdoing that contravenes our basic values can be reduced to "well, that's the only way you can do business over there". If the only values we all submit to are the values of the market, then 'a fair go' doesn't get a market value, nor do the rest of the 'Australian Values' the Commonwealth is about to spend a small fortune on in our schools. (Hands up who can name them? - to save you, they are: Fair Go; Care and Compassion; Understanding, Tolerance and Inclusion; Integrity; Doing Your Best; Freedom; Respect; Responsibility - and doesn't our Federal Government stand up for all of these every day as an example to our kids.)
Letting market value determine the rules
"What happens to ethics and morality when economics reigns unchecked – when the negative externalities of not following an ethical course are not included in the marketplace? Laissez-faire economic systems simply assume that everything has a price, and that, if left alone, supply and demand will balance at an optimum price. As a general rule, it works fairly well. Or it does so long as there is an independent moral system underlying it.
Assume everything has a price. Does that mean that ethical behaviour also has a price? And that, if it is scarce, it becomes harder and harder for the average citizen to purchase?
Look at history, How many societies were there where ethical behaviour in trade and government were not the norm, but where bribery was necessary merely to ensure that both merchants and functionaries did their jobs? Then, in the worst cases, whether or not the job was done depended not on ethics, but on market power, on who could pay the highest price. In some societies, that was obvious. In others, that aspect of the market economy is far from obvious. They have an elected government, and everyone can vote. And they have a seemingly open legal system. But that system is based on the assumption that an adversarial system will provide the truth and justice. At times, it does, but only when both advocates are of close to equal ability and when the issues are relatively simple. Most times, the court ends up deciding for the party with the most resources, unless the case happens to be one that is truly egregious. The same thing happens with legislative bodies, because once large nation-states developed and modern communications emerged, the number of citizens represented by each legislator grew so large that only those candidates with the resources to purchase those communications services could reach the citizens. So, in the end, both the laws and their interpretation become commodities purchased by the highest bidders.": 'Exton Land'
How far are we down the road to a society where market power overrules democracy always and everywhere? I'm fascinated by how the Right are divided over this question: while some will protest that all is best in this best of all possible worlds, and our version of democracy is so strong and pure that it must be exported to the rest of the world (at gunpoint, if necessary), there is another faction that may have gotten quieter about the 'greed is good' philosophy since Wall Street, but basically believes it still.
The latter view is often mixed up with some simplistic interpretation of Adam Smith's 'invisible hand', and views such as this:
"The rich ... divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal proportions among all its inhabitants." Adam Smith (1759), The Theory of Moral Sentiments. London: A. Millar, 1790. Part IV. Of the Effect of Utility upon the Sentiment of Approbation in paragraph IV.I.10
This earlier 'invisible hand', which predates the more famous one in the later Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), exposes the habitual misapplication of the term, because The Theory of Moral Sentiments is imbued throughout by the unstated assumption that the aforementioned rich operate in a society with a shared set of values ('moral sentiments') based on pervasive agreements on ethics and morality that our society has largely left behind (or reserved for a small and compartmentalised segment of life).
A 'crisis of faith'?
There is some (mostly anecdotal) evidence that the general run of our society is becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the direction we are taking. Whether this unease or malaise is going to translate into action is far from clear.
"A societal crisis of faith occurs when the values that produced a particular incarnation of a society no longer correspond to the values held by the individuals and organisations holding economic, political, and social power in that society. Paradoxically, these value changes seem to occur first on a social level. In reality the changes are already far advanced by the time they appear, because in most societies social standing and mobility lag behind economic and political power. Those with economic power seldom wish to flaunt values at variance with social norms, and those in the political arena prefer a protective coloration that in fact straddles the perceived range of values, while ostensibly preferring the most popular of values …
Although all stable societies rest firmly on a consensus of values, invariably the individuals in those societies prefer not to discuss those values, except in glittering generalities, not because they are unimportant, but because they are so important that to discuss them seriously might open them to question and interpretation. Thus, the very protections of a society’s values preclude any wide-scale and public re-evaluation of those values and any recognition of a potential crisis of values.": 'Exton Land'
The need for a new consensus
We are coming to a period where the challenges to society are going to require actions that need a radical change to the fundamental ethics we hold so deeply that we haven't hardly questioned them at all. Only a short while ago, our Prime Minister got away almost unquestioned with the theory that we couldn't possibly consider doing anything about the future of the planet if it was going to potentially cost Australian jobs: even now the rhetoric is still (qua the Stern review) that saving the planet is only on the agenda because it might not cost any jobs after all.
We need a new consensus on morality and ethics. Coming full circle to where we started, I don't think we can look to religion to get us there, because although there are many wonderful and moral people in all major religions, large factions of the religious hold to various versions of either "let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth", or "these are the latter days, fire and flood, and there is nothing we can do to stop it" – this last being a direct quote from conversation with a famous Australian of evangelical bent.
Where are we going to get our consensus? Everywhere, I guess. David Curry's boy gets his worldview at least in part from The Lion King. Probably a better place to start than The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, which in the film version at least was so heavily into the Church Militant and smiting that I ended up cheering for the Witch. I, in my turn, have taken much of my text from the sidebars of a novel.
However we get there, the process must be at least as moral and ethical as the result.
"From the beginning of human history, there has always been a debate over the ethics of ends and the ethics of means. Can a good and ethical solution result from the use of unethical or immoral means? Does the end justify the means? Virtually all ethicists would agree that, of course, it does not, because, first, actions should be ethical in and of themselves, and, second, because corrupt means almost invariably result in corrupting the ends."
=============================================
Notes
* "The Jatravartid People of Viltvodle Six firmly believe that the entire universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called The Great Green Arkleseizure. They live in perpetual fear of the time they call The Coming Of The Great White Handkerchief." The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy: Dawkins' book is dedicated to Douglas Adams.
** 'Exton Land's writings are scattered through the section and chapter headings of Modesitt's books: all of the quotes above come from The Ethos Effect. As David Brin noted in the speech cited in the text, science fiction is one of the places where human creativity can explore the big questions without getting bogged down in the specifics of history and particular hard cases.
 |
 |
 |
| © 2006, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
one may lead an 'orse to wardah®...
... but an Esel might say "I don't want!"
Subtitle: I speak only for myself; I report: you decide.
-=*=-
Let's consider the phrase: "proselytizing atheists".
I believe - ooops! See believe[2] and belief[0] - I'll start again. IMHO, the expression 'proselytizing atheists' is technically incorrect.
I cannot, of course, speak for Dawkins (only for myself, see my subtitle), but again IMHO, I believe (Haw! - Balance of probabilities), that not only is there no g*d, but that such a concept is an impossibility according to physics as we know it (i.e. the conservation laws, which have never been shown to be violated); the only possibility - also by definition - is that any g*d[3] is supernatural[4], as would be any related 'soul[5]' concept. At this point the argument goes 'circular,' so we must 'JOOTS.' (Jump out of the system.)
But, my point: IMHO, I do not "not believe" in some g*d construct; I have no 'belief' whatsoever related to any g*d (aka a toadal® absence of belief), I merely say: based on 'the balance of probabilities,' a) there is no evidence - but stronger, b) there can be no evidence, and c) there is no requirement to add unnecessary complication (on the 'keep it simple, stupid' principle) - and so I conclude, that as far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as a g*d construct. (Except, of course, in the minds of believers; once again we must 'JOOTS.')
I know this gets complicated; SBNTS (sorry but not too sorry); and incidentally I've just discovered that denying the existence of some xxx is considered as yyy by some zzzs. (Interesting when one 'neutralises' the language, eh? Here, 'yyy' is blasphemy.) I'm not happy with my dictionary's atheism[6a,b] definition; I want to say that atheism is "a toadal absence of belief in any g*d construct."
-=*=-
Long story short (part 1): IMHO. 'believers' as a class form a hopeless case; there is no point in attempting to alienate them from their belief. Point here: no conversion of belief is sought (by me). So, in addition to 'proselytizing atheists' being technically incorrect, the task is to argue that any attempt at promulgating the (IMHO!) utterly baseless 'g*d/immortal soul' meme should be postponed to well after any human child can a) fairly evaluate all the nuances, and b) not be bulls**tted by the pernicious death threat.
I believe [Haw the 3rd] there's a concept of 'informed consent?'
-=*=-
Part 2: It's the war, stupid!
(Think you knew that was coming? Well, surprise! I'm not talking here about 'murder for oil' aka war after our money (yet), I wanna pursue the war after our minds first; Ta ra! The propaganda war.)
Our 'prime monster' can hardly open his mouth without issuing some form of fear/threat. In 2001 it was 'queue jumping' asylum seekers who would bring disease and or Islam and or Jihad, you name it. Then comes this:
[Gerard Henderson/Amnesty, from the practical truth]
'Scuse? Resolved? How? IMHO, propaganda. Amnesty criticised our prime monster, Henderson comes bashing back. Who pays him, I wonder?
[7.30/Prof Somerville discusses the ethics of medical breakthroughs]
Phew! How many (propaganda!) bombs did she just throw? I've not heard of this one before; that same-sex marriage must imply some right to raise a family, and the idea of "know ... their biological parents" seems to be a toadal furphy (although 'fashionable, trendy.') My 7.30-attention was piqued by a prior exposure to this so-called 'ethicist' in an item I saw yesterday:
[Margaret Somerville/Fundamentalism, religious or secular, gets us nowhere]
Astounding! But there's more, much more. So much, that I'm not gunna quote anymore; I've given the links... Oh, alright; just one more:
[ibid.]
IMHO, there's at least two things wrong with this; a) although as said, I cannot speak for Dawkins (only for myself), I am under the impression that it is an accepted principle that science can neither prove nor disprove any 'g*d delusion,' so this whole 'proof paragraph,' as in 'proselytizing atheists' discusses an invalid concept. Then b) I think Somerville is a propagandist arguing for some role for religion in society ('accommodated'), which would conflict with the necessary separation of church and state. Again IMHO, religion would be best ignored, and its promulgation to minors prevented. My opinion. And whatever it is that Somerville is selling, I'm not buying.
-=*=-
Fundamentalism has no 'two sides,' atheism is not the opposite of belief but the absence of belief. Fundamentalism is the extreme form of religion, and religious belief itself is irrational (by definition). Religion is being used (yeah, by both 'sides') but for almost no good purpose (I can't think of any). The Anglo(Christian)CoW® is deploying religion as a propaganda tool against us, we the sheople®, to inveigle our compliance with the malfeasances of TWOT (a manufactured crisis, see 'murder for oil), just as the mostly oil-owning 'towel-heads' employ religion as a tool, i.e. suicide bombers, say - in an attempt to fend off the murdering CoW occupier/thieves (See Perkins' "Dying to win.")
-=*end*=-
PS This topic is 'Morality without a God.' Each and everyone of B, B & H claims various degrees of religious association, yet all are involved in deeply immoral acts, up to and including mass-murder for spoil. Morality exists, and can be present with or without religion; I claim it could be, should be toadally independent. Saying "Can't legislate morality!" is a full-strength cop-out; within a very short period I formalised my own morality (see the chezPhil morality; here a summary: leave each other alone, do no harm!) - almost all one would ever need as a basis for a fair society. What we drastically need is the rule of (fair!) law, what we are living through (and sooo many dying through) is a total travesty; a completely immoral and lawless nightmare.
Ref(s):
[0] From my 'faith, hope and charity_1678,' 'belief:'
[1] proselytize v. (also -ise) (-zing or -sing) (also absol.) convert or seek to convert from one belief etc. to another. [POD]
[2] believe v. (-ving) 1 accept as true or as conveying the truth (I believe it; don't believe him). 2 think, suppose. 3 (foll. by in) a have faith in the existence of (believes in God). b have confidence in (believes in homoeopathy). c have trust in as a policy (believes in telling the truth). 4 have (esp. religious) faith. believable adj. believer n. [Old English] [ibid.]
[3] g*d n. 1 a (in many religions) superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature, human fortunes, etc. [ibid. - '*' mine.]
[4] supernatural —adj. not attributable to, or explicable by, the laws of nature; magical; mystical. —n. (prec. by the) supernatural forces, effects, etc. supernaturally adv. [ibid.]
[5] soul n. 1 spiritual or immaterial part of a person, often regarded as immortal. 2 moral, emotional, or intellectual nature of a person.
[6a] atheism n. belief that there is no God. atheist n. atheistic adj. [Greek a- not, theos god] [ibid.]
[6b] atheism noun [mass noun] the theory or belief that God does not exist.
DERIVATIVES
atheist noun
atheistic adjective
atheistical adjective.
ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’. [Oxford Pop-up]
Albert Einstein's lack of wonder
John Pratt: "I particularly liked the quote “There has always been good people and evil people but it takes religion to make good people do evil."
That explains Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung, then.
[David R: so you're saying that Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao were good people, not evil people, then, CP? - if not, this sentence is about as meaningless as it gets]
Jenny Hume: "For instance, suggesting that belief in a God prevents people from having a sense of wonder at the magnificent world around them, stops them having an inquiring mind, or words to that effect....."
For example, Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, typically blinkered religious adherents, one a Unitarian and the other a Jew.
Howard drives atheist to prayer.
[Phillip Adams' blog at The Australian]
Howard has driven many an atheist to prayer.
nice black boots
If you need a broomstick Jenny, I can lend you mine my dear.(cackles)
Got some nice black boots too, but they're a bit..........um....
Never mind!
On the best authority
Well Kathy. Send both over. Last time Margo summed me up it was to tell me I was a witch, but a white one. I am still trying to figure that one out. In the meantime I should keep a broom handy in case I need to make a hasty retreat.
But for now I will just go and submit to the Protestant work ethic.
Cheers.
Men in the church have no compasion for women.
[The Age]
This is an example of good people doing evil. Put yourselves in the position of these poor women. Often abortion is the only answer for them.
Religion makes good people do evil.
The ABC screened “The root of all evil” last night on Compass.
It was excellent, and thought provoking. I particularly liked the quote “There has always been good people and evil people but it takes religion to make good people do evil.” Dawkins picked verses in both the New Testament and the Old Testament that encouraged good people to do evil. That is the problem with the written word it is thousands of years out of date. Our idea of morality has outgrown these ancient writings. You can choose to believe only the good bits, but the problem with that, some people still choose the bad bits. The book is out of date; the Christian church has always fought change, trying to make the world fit the book often at the point of the sword.
The Evil Men Do
John, you make valid points about the hypocrisy and harm that emanates from organised religion.
The point that I would like to raise is that "the Christian church" is as far removed from its supposed spiritual founder, Jesus Christ as one could get.
Christ formed no institutions, gathered no wealth, garnered no earhtly power, shunned no one except the powerful and hypocritical elite.
All of the major churches and smaller perversions such as Hillsong and other bastardisations that embrace "wealth theology" and political power have nothing to do with the founder that they proclaim.
However, the fault lies not just with the institutions but with the deluded members who neither understand nor believe the Word that they read and proclaim so assiduously.
Anybody who follows the Christ must give away all they possess and even disavow their own families, "who is my mother?", where necessary. The exhortation, plainly written, is to "take up the cross and follow me". Nothing in the life of Christ would support the sheer lies and bastardy that are foisted onto us by leaders, political and ecclesiastical. But more fools us for believing that we can have our cake and eat it too.
The reason that there are so few Mother Theresa's is that only a miniscule handful of people are prepared to follow The Way. It is just too hard! The folly of Dawkin's book is that he tackles a non-existent problem. The problem is not God, it's people first and last.
Dawkins has no idea
John, I recommend you read McGrath's book Dawkins God. He shows just how little Dawkins has actually bothered to learn about religion and how facile and intellectually weak his case against religion and God really is.
Last night I happened to tune into a few minutes of Compass and there was Dawkins rattling on with what could only be described as utter bs. For instance, suggesting that belief in a God prevents people from having a sense of wonder at the magnificent world around them, stops them having an inquiring mind, or words to that effect, followed on by several more such ridiculous generalisations simply demonstrates what an intellectual lightweight he is when it comes to really understanding what religion is all about. And McGrath exposes him brilliantly in that regard.
And I say it again, great evil has been committed by those who held to a Dawkins style of atheism, that sees religious belief as evil. As a result millions upon millions lie in graves for no other reason than they had a religious faith. That to me is true evil.
Sure religious people can commit evil, but that simply makes them hypocrits. It is not the faith itself that is to blame. On balance I would say that religious belief is more likely to lead to development of a society with good moral values, than one that it totally atheistic.
But Dawkins will have it that we are just another animal species, which has more than any other species worked out ways to supress the more selfish intincts, in order to live together in harmony, share resources and develop a moral code for living that helps the species to survive. He would not I would think believe that religious belief played any role in the development of the moral society, and in fact would be working against such development. And that is clearly bs also.
And I would put it to him that loss of belief is in fact reversing that development and very rapidly. If you look around you what do you see. By and large as religious belief in this country declines you see a rapidly developing greedy, materialistic society. Teenagers are rarely seen in church at all these days. Instead we see them glued to computer or TV screens, and just look at what they are doing there. More often than not they are playing violent games and watching even more violent films. Or they are devouring garbage like Big Brother, and learning that the show is more important than attending the funeral of a parent. Or worse, they are increasingly out there gathering in parks and blowing their minds through binge drinking. Or even learning how to kill themselves and self harm.
So there is a cry going up now from increasing numbers of worried parents. And I will dare to suggest that the majority of them have never bothered to take their kids to church once.
Religion brainwashes children we are told and as Dawkins would have it, likely set them on a path to commit evil. And playing violent war games and watching porn and violent films, does not? Atheists like Dawkins would clearly argue that that, and gaggling around together in parks getting drunk, would be preferable than seeing them go to church.
Well. No thanks. I will continue to take the kids to church for I know that they are likely to be better people as a result and are likely there to find spiritual enrichment that will help them weather life's challenges.
And none of that is to say that atheists cannot be good people. For to claim that would be to be like Dawkins, sprouting nonsense.
But as I said to F Kendall. Clearly I am a misfit on this site. Few here share my views. But I can live with that.
Cheers John. No quarrel.
Religious wars; just another excuse to enpower and enrich.
Jenny Hume reckons: “…millions upon millions lie in graves for no other reason than they had a religious faith. That to me is true evil.”
Indeed it is evil; however it’s not entirely true. To say “…for no other reason” is just too simplistic. People aren’t simply killed just because one belief system is pitted against another. There is usually one of two driving energies behind such conflict that leaves so many people dead for no apparent reason other than their belief – religious or otherwise. The reality is often far more prosaic. Religious differences, like political or racial differences, are often used merely as a pretext for other ulterior motives that usually relate to empowerment, maintaining an existing power or to enrich.
While there are plenty of incidents in history where the actual people doing the killing did so out of a belief that those they were killing were being killed solely because of their belief but I can’t think of one incident in history where supposedly the mass killing of one group of people by another wasn’t in reality related to something that went beyond simple hatred of a religious belief.
To some extent that is true Damian but...
Damian, well all that is true, but I suspect those who died in the concentrations camps simply because they were Jews might have had a different view. Of course a group seeking power and advantage will fuel and captialize on religious prejudice in a population in order to gain support for its suppression of another group.
The Tibetan Buddhists are persecuted for their beliefs. Pol Pot deliberately proscribed all religions and untold numbers of Cambodians were murdered solely on the basis of religious belief and practice. Thought control was a primary aim of the Khmer Rouge and religious thought was not to be tolerated. So they had to go.
It is hard to see that the murder of little children in their hundreds of thousands simply because they were Jewish could have had any other motive other than a desire to stamp out their religion at its roots. What threat did those children pose other than that they represented the future of a particular faith, a faith that had to be stamped out at any cost? And what threat did those hundreds of thousands of eldery Jews represent. I suggest they represented no threat to anyone, and were mudered solely on the basis of their Jewishness.
Just some observations. For whatever reason, it was very evil business and hard to accept that it all happened in our lifetime.
Innocent people die for all sorts of reasons...
Jenny, you say that you suspect that “…those who died in the concentrations camps simply because they were Jews might have had a different view.” That’s the point Jenny. Did they? Would they have stopped to ponder the question? And, if they did, what would have been their view?
Not every one that died in concentration camps died because they were Jews. Many people died in concentration camps because they were Gypsies. Others died because they were Jehovah’s Witnesses. Others died because they were homosexuals. Others died… well, they just died. Had Hitler succeeded in conquering
But I digress, the Jews of
You say: “…the Tibetan Buddhists are persecuted for their beliefs.” No they are not. Some of them are persecuted but not because of their beliefs but because of their influence on the rest of the populace – it’s just politics.
You finish by saying: “For whatever reason, it was very evil business and hard to accept that it all happened in our lifetime.”
I couldn’t agree more, but the real question we should be asking is: Will we allow it to happen again – for whatever reason, regardless of whether it is religious or political or just business?
We do all the time Damian
Damian, will we allow it to happen again? Well sadly we do. We only have to look to Burma where the ethnic minorities are being systematically driven from their homes and murdered as they flee.
And look at the 800 000 or so who died in the Hutu and Tutsi massacres. They waited for help that never came. Darfur. Zimbabwe. The Bosnian Muslims. Genocide goes on and on.
For all sorts of reason, including religious, millions are dying violent deaths in many regions of the world to this day. Nothing has changed and the rest of the world seems pretty powerless to do much about it.
I am aware that Hitler did not just concentrate on murdering the Jews and that his policy was essentially one of racism. The issue of Jews as a separate race has been argued over on this site before. Their religion is Judaism. Whether it was their Semitic blood that was uppermost in Hitler's mind, or their religion is probably irrelevant. Either way they had no place in his vision of a master race.
But would he have sent a blue eyed little Aryan boy to the concentration camp if he was seen attending a synagogue? I have no doubt that he would have. But I could be wrong.
Back where we started Jenny
Jenny, your original assertion was: “…millions upon millions lie in graves for no other reason than they had a religious faith. That to me is true evil.”
I simply argued that that wasn’t the case because it was too simplistic and that other dynamics have always played a role in the mass killings of one group of peoples by another – always.
Religion invariably is merely a tool by which manipulators can control and influence those that do the actual killing.
Over the top.
When Jenny has something to say, she comes straight out with it!
Having read quite a few of Jenny's posts, I think her sentiments are always sincere and heartfelt. She doesn't beat around the bush!
If her comments were directed at you specifically, F Kendall, she would have said so.
Yes, I would Kathy
Kathy, yes, you are quite right. I would. Being oblique is not my form.
I have posted a response to F Kendall tonight. And no, I was not directing any judgement at her personally and on re-reading that comment I am at a loss to understand as to how she could read it that way.
Oh well, the halo was getting a bit too heavy anyway. I might ditch it altogether and try the witch's cap instead.
Hello Jenny Hume
Hello Jenny Hume: So, I've been outed. That's right, everyone: I've donated nothing to the site. A fair enough call - although I'm not sure that it is appropriate use of insider information.
And yes, your comments were generalised, but the post was addressed to me, so I take them personally. I quote your own words: "such type remarks/words are used obliquely in a clear attempt to sting a person." Indeed. Well said, Jenny.
However, I find the words "diatribes", "takers" and "meanness", purely nasty. I take offence..... because they are meant to be offensive, aren't they?
I'm sorry that I can't modify your views a little, Jenny. You see, when you make comments, (and this is not the first), such as "most here will have no need of a chapel or a preacher, " as if you are able to, and have a right to, judge others' souls and their relationships with their gods, I wonder whether this is quite rational....or, Christian. Not in my church, certainly.
I've noted my admiration for you on several threads, Jenny. I'm sure that you are a good and nice person. As most people are. Although comments such as "the rest of us have to read their diatribes" are initially hurtful, it is always ultimately good to know what others really think.
Cheers, my dear. Over and out.
F Kendall - outed? Inside information? Oh dear!
F Kendall, outed? By yourself my dear. While I may know Margo, I have absolutely no idea who has or has not donated to WD. If she knows I have not asked her and it would be highly unethical for me to do so. So yes, the remarks were general, and not directed at you personally at all. For all I knew you might have been the biggest donater of all this past year. Clearly there is risk of misunderstanding however in putting general comments within a Reply to something else.
Insider information? Now that is an accusation you really should withdraw for the impropriety it suggests. I am not privvy to any information concerning WD donators anymore than you are. I rely entirely on David Roffey's reports, which speak for themselves and I drew a valid conclusion from them. And that is, that while there are several hundred comments published each month, donations are almost non existant.
I think it is quite valid to suggest that those of us who use the site most should contribute if funds are needed to keep it going. If it is left up to just a few, then clearly others are prepared to ride on their benefice. Well I myself would not do that. Takers, meanness? Being nasty? No, just making a point, a valid one in my view. If I used this site a lot and failed to contribute when funds were needed I would consider myself a taker and rather mean if I knew I could afford to give, if only twenty dollars, and refused to do so. And I would view others likewise. But clearly you do not agree. Fair enough. But again, I had no idea whether you donated or did not, so I was not referring specifically to anyone.
I don't judge others souls. I was merely responding in what I saw was a light hearted way to what I took as a light hearted comment from you about a refund for my sister in burying the old man. My quip, in the context of their failure to make donations, was merely that any WDiarist who was derelict (and I would be most surprised if any are) could at least save the State on the matter of the preacher's fee as most here openly profess atheism. Simple statement of fact if you look at most of the comments over the past year. Not a judgement. And little respect for my beliefs shown therein by many of them if I might say so. In judging Christians to me in the vein that has been done, they are by default judging me. Why I could even be seen to be accused of child abuse, in that I took my kids to church. I wonder how many times I have read that ridiculous statement quoted. Oh yes, and believers are suffering from a mental illness. That too. But I let it pass in good spirit as a rule.
Diatribes. There have been imho many diatribes on this site and I would consider some of my comments probably fit that category from time to time. A few have been directed straight at me and I hope that those who do are generous enough to donate to the site! But again, the figures would suggest otherwise.
I was not however, till now, aware of any diatribe from you aimed at me, though the above might just be a first.
But since you took what I wrote as referrring personally to you, and understandly therefore felt upset, then I apolgise.
BTW: You cannot possibly know whether I am a nice, or good person or not. Only those who know me, know that. All we see here are the facades. I am in fact many things my dear, and probably most of all a misfit around this site. Too long in the bush I suspect.
As you say, over and out.
Time to listen to reason.
[The West Australian]
The popularity of anti religious books is on the rise. The resentment of nonbelievers is beginning to be heard. It is time for people of all religions to listen to reason.
Religion is not the problem
John, it is not about religion. It is about extremism in every form, be it religious or atheist. Extreme atheism can create hate in the same way that extremist religious belief can. You only have to look to 20th Century history and see how millions died under extreme atheism. Pol Pot outlawed all forms of religion and murdered half the population of Cambodia. Stalin similarly was responsible for millions of lives lost.
So it is extremism that we have to fear, both religous and atheist. Dawkins is not promoting tolerance with his utterances about religion being evil. Quite the contrary. He should look at the effect of Bush's words about the axis of evil and reflect on that. Those words fuelled fear and suspicion in the countries they were directed at. They were far from helpful and no doubt he wishes he had never uttered them in the first place.
As for that museum. I am sure most people will simply make up their own minds as to which theory of creation they wish to accept. Kids simply need to be told that there are different views on the matter and let them ultimately decide what they want to believe.
And if they do accept that the world was created just six thousand years ago, then the dinosaurs were not around then anyway. They may think they were, but that does not mean to say they were. Most people will figure it out for themselves in the end.
Cheers.
No wonder American kids are confused.
[Sunday Telegraph]
More on the Christian museum note that half of Americans believe that they were created in the last 10,000.years. I thought Americans were dumb but this is really dumb. It means they listen to their Christian Mullahs just like the Islamist do. If we are to overcome the creation of theocracies around the world we must defend the scientific view. Richard Dawkins is only defending scientific method.
More like you
You are a good person Jenny Hume. The world could do with a few more like you my Dear. Cheers. And I hope you get heaps of rain... God Bless...
Mud on my shoes Kathy
Kathy, thank you but I have had to scrape a bit of mud off my shoes at times in my life. (You at least will appreciate the metaphor!) But I try to keep them clean which is fairly easy as there is only one pair. Or to put it another way, the halo you see on my head has sometimes had to be righted a bit.
But I do know that I am a giver, not a taker in life and that is what matters. It is not how much or in what form one gives, but that one does.
I think it may have something to do with the degree of hardship one has had in one's own life and the example set by others. Values are learnt early in life or not at all. We were poor, dirt poor and at times I would feel jealous of other little girls in their pretty smocked dresses. But out mother never let us feel sorry for ourselves. She, like her orphaned father before her would, despite our own poor cirucmstances, still take needy people in, and by that I mean really take them in, as in give them a home and feed them. She herself had grown up with six adopted siblings whose parents had abandonned them or who had died. I recall once we had nothing to eat for a whole week when I was a child other than tins of pea soup, and even that was washed up in the flood. Mother was deeply religious and said: You see, God will provide when we are in most need. But I hope next time he might vary the gift a bit. To this day I cannot face pea soup.
I think having to struggle financially when one is young is a gift for it allows one to seek happiness and contentment in more spiritual ways, and I do not mean just through religion. To me as a child my greatest pleasure was seeing a butterfly and I would sit for hours each day watching for them. To this day the beauty of a butterfly in the air means more to me than any diamond ever could.
My late brother used to employ four kids on odd jobs on the weekend from a single parent family to give them some pocket money. They were aged from 7-11 and stayed with us into their late teens and finished up being almost part of the family. When I asked one little boy what he would do with the money he earned, he said: I am saving to buy Mum a birthday present. Another time he said I am saving to buy some new school shoes. I think values really are learnt early in life, and that children should be taught from a very early age that life is not a free ride. Kids like that have no option.
But I despair for the values many kids in our now very materialistic and affluent society are beginning to show and I think their parents have to take a big responsibility for that.
Thank you for the wishes. We had 2 inches of rain on the farm in the last cloud band which has helped kick off some winter feed for the agisted cattle and to get a crop in. That will not break the drought by any means but we are hopeful that God will smile on all the farmers again soon.
Cheers to you too my dear and yes, God bless.
Atheist love thy neighbor.
“Do proselitising atheists (and we see a bit of that on WD) actually dig deep into their pockets when the church based Funds appeal for donations, or do they think twice and even refuse because it is a religious organization that is running it. So, on seeing the Childcare ad, do they put their minds to finding a secular organisation that might be doing the same work?”
Jenny, as one of those proselitising atheists, I do think twice before giving to a religious organisation. My wife and I have supported many foster children through Plan International.
For nearly 30 years now we chose Plan because it is an organisation dedicated to realising the potential of all the world’s children. Our special concern is for the millions of children who currently live in poverty in developing countries. Plan was established as an international community development organisation that is non-religious and non-political.
The money is given without strings attached, we are not trying to convert anyone just give a helping hand. I don’t think we are unusual and I don’t think religion of any sort has a monopoly on charity.
When I retired I chose to work as a volunteer for RSL Care, RSL Care is the top non-religious charity, earning $648 million last year, followed by the Red Cross with $527 million.
Jenny, you might think this strange but I give out of love to my fellow man. I don’t want a reward, whether it is now, or in some imagined afterlife. I also don’t want to impose my believe system on anyone else. My family was helped after Cyclone Tracy with support from the Salvation Army as a result we give generously to them when ever there is an opportunity. They are a religious organisation that gives without expectations.
Although I am not religious, I believe in the main message from Jesus was “love thy neighbor as thyself”
I find it obscene, when I hear the fortunes spent on religious buildings and museums like the one I mentioned in my earlier post, that cost $23 million, when a lot of our neighbors in the developing world don’t have an adequate roof over their head and their kids are dying of hunger. If Christians really believed in the word of Jesus, they would sell all their property and give to the starving as he commanded.
Religion tends to be a barrier between me and my neighbor that is why I reject it.
No John I don't
John Pratt: "Jenny, you might think this strange but I give out of love to my fellow man. I don’t want a reward, whether it is now, or in some imagined afterlife. I also don’t want to impose my believe system on anyone else. My family was helped after Cyclone Tracy with support from the Salvation Army as a result we give generously to them when ever there is an opportunity. They are a religious organisation that gives without expectations."
No John, I don't think it strange at all. Those that give usually do so without any thought other than to help their fellow man or beast, and do not do so, even if they are Christians, to earn brownie points in the here or in the hereafter. Giving is not confined to believers of some faith and I have never said that, but I do believe the religious are more likely to give and more likely to give the most. But there will always be exceptions.
I am not aware that the religious charities necessarily act with strings attached at all. They certainly may add a spiritual dimension to their work in the third world, but they do not pick and chose who they will help on the basis of the belief of the person in need. The world would be a much poorer place without the big Christian charities imho.
I do not object to the spending of money on the building of a church, or believe that believers should impoverish themselves and give all away, only then to become dependants on society themselves. People have a responsbility to work and support themselves and should be able to enjoy at least something of the fruits of their hard labour.
But I do have problems with greed and meanness. There are a lot of very well off people in this country and many would not give a dime to help their fellow man. I think you would find if it were all totted up the vast majority of money spent in this country is by people spending it on themselves, not on the building of churches. And most is spent on things that they could do without if they really wanted to. I really do think we are a much meaner society these days. It is not a society that I recognise.
As for the rich who throw money into the gambling casinos, now those I do really have contempt for. The millions they waste could put food and water into the mouths of millions. But instead they spend it on a game. That is obscene.
Cheers John. I am off now to other things for awhile. I've been spending too much time as usual here.
The state provides
Jenny Hume, I see here (.pdf) that the state provides for the burial/cremation of the destitute, including "where relevant, for a priest or minister to be in attendance" and "upon request by ... or friends ... for a chapel or graveside service."
Your sister may be entitled to a refund.
Still, I admire what she did. Perhaps her ire reminded him of his mother. In my experience, many old people yearn for mothering.
The derelict (or ?mean) WD contributors.
F Kendall, I don't think my sister would bother with a refund and there was no one to come forward to even bother to find out if and how the old boy could be given a decent burial, let alone a cross to mark the spot. You still see the pathetic unmarked graves in the cemeteries to this day. C'est le mort.
I don't think my views need modifying really. People do give to their favourite charities such as Careflight, Cancer Funds, and are often influenced by what life has dealt them. But I suspect it is the religious that carry the biggest donation load of the big Christian charities who do so much work in the impoverished third world. But I do not deny that some people of no religous belief can be very generous. But I know if I was in real need my best chance would probably be through a Christian charity and I think more Christians would go the extra mile in giving than non Christians. Simply because of their religious belief. Others will not agree, but from my observation and long experience it has certainly been true.
In the meantime WD struggles along with little giving at all from its contributors as evidenced by the lack of donations. It seems there are quite a few here who believe they owe the site nothing in return for the rest of us having to read their diatribes. I think I have contributed sufficient in the past year to have a reasonably free mind on that score, but clearly we have more takers than givers in our midst.
So a lot of talk about a fair go, morality, giving and all that stuff, but little putting money where the mouth is as far as supporting their mouthpiece is concerned. If I were the editors I would simply go on strike over the level of meanness displayed.
Oh I see, most WD contributors are down to their last buck, even derelict perhaps. Pull the other one! Oh well, at least when their time comes they can be assured the State will bury them and it will not cost much as most here will have no need of a chapel or a preacher.
Perhaps we should revisit that earlier thread about whether we had become a meaner society. Might be interesting to go back there and see who was saying what, but frankly I can't be bothered. It is not what people say that counts, it is what they do, and when it comes to contributing to WD, well clearly the verdict is in.
Nice human beings
I am certainly not trying to disagree with you Jenny ... (hey, but I am probably trying to modify your views a little).
Direct intervention is one thing. I have no information, and accept that you may well be correct, but with the number of charities in Australia, and the huge amount donated every year, I would be quite astonished if only church-goers were their support base. I would suggest the possibility of, say, those who have been touched by cancer tending to support the cancer charities; those close to blind people to support the guide dogs; those who care about children to donate to everything from Careflight to Barnadoes to youth charities to red nose day, etc. I would be surprised if the bulk of the money to AIDS charities came from the religious. Were they mainly church-goers in your animal welfare group? I find most people to be generous and kind, irrespective of faith. To suggest otherwise, to me, suggests that they have no heart, yet I constantly see kindness and generosity around me. People care because they are nice human beings. Not because the Bible tells them to.
OTOH you have church leaders like the Reverend Kevin Webb, who has a whole page once a week in our daily paper. His latest gem was an exhortation to women about how happy they would be if they only stopped aping men, and accepted the biblical truth that the man was the head of the household to whom women should defer. More or less, that they shouldn't worry their little brains about worldly matters: their husbands know best, and they should leave it to them.
You must, like me, have heard bush men say of someone: "He was the most Christian bloke I ever knew." They are never talking about church-goers.
Did you see Andrew Denton's "God on My Side"? The Christians he showed were distinguished by their remarkable happiness: one of the benefits of certainty, I would think. But, marked also by their intolerance. Those people were not helping to create a happier, more peaceable world, (nor were they interested in doing so).
Its fact dinosaurs were on the ark!
[NYT]
That’s right dinosaurs were on the ark! What a joke.
Jenny: I was very
Jenny: I was very interested in your story of the woman-under-the-bridge.
What would I have done? Probably nothing: I admire you for not taking my path.
In my very limited experience of (apparently) less needy people, they are in fact in need of a benevolent parent figure: someone to look after them, someone to rely on, someone to assume responsibility for them . I have found myself dogged by someone who is like an old, clinging and wilful teen, who has all the normal human needs: some of which, usually financial, she assumes that I will satisfy; and for others, she turns to wildly destructive, dysfunctional and exploitive men. And they cling like limpets.
I now take what I believe is the Buddhist view : if I interfere in someone's life, I am responsible for the way that it then unfolds.
On the other hand, I rejoice in the way that M, a longtime schizophrenic, is met in our community. I see, eg, the way that the girls/women in Woolworths shepherd him, treat him with dignity, check that he is buying suitable quantities, that he has put his change away safely. Always with both respect and affection. Only in smaller communities? I doubt that many of these assistants are church go-ers. They are just good people.
A moral life, a giving life, and about dinasaurs
F Kendall, on the subject of the needy my husand noticed today a woman talking on a mobile in the middle of a traffic island, waiting to cross a busy intersection. Along comes a blind man with a stick, to also wait. Does she assist him across? No. She glanced at him and then simply went on chattering on her mobile.
Yes there are good people and there are not so good people. And there are the really evil. I have no doubt there are those who call themselves Christians or religious people in all three categories, as well as non believers in all three.
Sometimes people are just reluctant to get involved in the lives of others. And the more we see the circumstances of the needy person as being a probable consequence of their own deliberate life choice, the more we figure it is not our responsiblity to help them out of the gutter, or from under the bridge. It is a hard call as no one wants to be an enabler.
About God and Morality. I think one should define what one actually means by morality. Most Christians will refer straight to the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Christ, and I would think most non believers would support the same general principles contained therein. So I am sure you can have a moral society within the narrow definition of morality as most would currently tend to define it, with or without religion.
But what I am not so sure about is whether that society will be as caring, giving and compassionate as one that is predominantly living under the Christian umberrella of religious belief. And I deliberately emphasise as...as here to head off the usual dramatics from some.
I would really be interested to know to what extent non believers regularly give to the Christian charities which are prime movers in providing aid, particularly overseas, though the Salvation Army would be the major one in Australia I would think. There are of course secular aid societies but probably not as many or as large as the big Christian ones such as Childcare (formerly the Christians Childrens' Fund) and the Christian Blind Mission.
Do proselitising atheists (and we see a bit of that on WD) actually dig deep into their pockets when the church based Funds appeal for donations, or do they think twice and even refuse because it is a religious organization that is running it. So, on seeing the Childcare ad, do they put their minds to finding a secular oranization that might be doing the same work and give there, or they just chose to do nothing. It would be really interesting to know to what extent the givers in society are actually practising Christians. Are they giving the most? Certainly in our family they are, and by a long shot.
So I think when we talk about morality we should really define what we mean by a moral society. Morality is probably not the right word. It is too narrow. A moral society may not necessarily be a very nice society, or a giving or compassionate one in my opinion.
Just in passing you will be interested in this little story. Some years ago a derelict person who had been living for many years under a bridge in my home town was brought into the hospital where my sister worked as a trained nurse. He was dying, but that did not stop him for several weeks in language and blashemy uninviting abusing the nurses at the top of his voice. One day my sister had had enough and told him to stop, and proceeded to give him a lecture on the teachings of Christ. He was clearly a very angry old man.
After that he quietened down and finally apologised and became very peaceful and talked non stop about God, thanking her for saving him. He later died and being derelict there was no money for a proper funeral. My sister thought that no one should be denied a proper and Christian burial and so she took up a collection, organised a minister and they went out to the cemetery for a small service. They also organized a cross for his grave with his name on it.
Ten years later a couple of tourists were passing through and wrote their names in the visitor's book of our family home. My sister had been taking them for the tour. When she saw their name, it was the same surname as the old man she had buried. She told them the story and lo and behold he was their long lost uncle they had been searching for for years. They were so pleased he had been given a decent burial and headed out to visit the grave. Nice co-incidence eh!
I wonder if a non believer would have bothered to go that extra mile for that old man. Maybe.
John Pratt, as I understand it there would have been no dinosaurs on the& Ark simply because by the time of Noah, they were long extinct, along with all the other megafauna. So Noah never had to face the dilemman of where to put the big guys. Yes, I know, six days and all that, but I do not take that as literally as some. So no, no dinasaurs on the Ark.
Sacked for hugging
See here. A good example of why religion and politics don’t mix.
objection, your honour!
Subtitle: kindly distinguish between fact and opinion, please.
Jenny Hume: "Phil Kendall has issue with what he sees as moral relativism. But it is interesting, is it not, that when non believers want to justify their atheism, they simply point to the past wrongs of the church, the pedophile priests and so on. They ignore the good that is done and no doubt will continue to be done by believers all over the world who see they have a Christian duty to help their fellow man."
IMHO, this is not only untrue and unfair but propagandistic to boot.
a) As a declared 'seeker of truth,' I seek to discover then report the truth, seek explanations for why something may happen, and then possibly add my opinion 'on top.' That's the 'normal' sequence; perhaps this will be 'spread' between posts. Any and all are free to challenge my reporting (doesn't happen too often, haw!) - but my opinions (democratically!) stand alone.
b) So 'justify[1]' is simply untrue (I don't justify per se, rather I seek to report/explain), and as this scurrilous allegation could be taken as undermining my work, so the making of such an allegation is unfair.
c) In the JH framing, "G*d is (only!) good", but IMHO that's arguable; hence my mention of propagandistic: Jenny's 'pushing a barrow' aka running an agenda.
As am I; but I think there's a difference. My agenda (widely sprinkled 'in here') is primarily to encourage all "TO LEAVE OTHER PEOPLE ALONE"; see the chezPhil morality.
This is to be contrasted with any proselytisers actively seeking to convert/recruit/support followers to/of some 'G*d', this recruiting which can include premature humans, aka babies and young children, usually by f**king their minds (ooops! - IMHO) with the spectre of death, and that usually well before these premature minds have learned to think, aka reason for themselves. In this sense, the attempted recruitment of minors is exactly as Dawkins charged: child abuse.
More when I feel like it.
-=*=-
Which is now; WD being 'down.'
'Pedophile (n. (Brit. paedophile) [POD]) priests', I would'a thought, is a (relatively!) small problem.
Here's a difference between some G*d-botherers and me:
Me: "Leave it to Blix!" - "Stop the killing!" - "NO WAR!"
(Note: there were plenty of (purported?) Christians on the barriers with me; the questions are three:
1) Q: what about the renegades (see below),
2) Q: what has happened since? A: largely silence, and a Howard re-election, then
3) Q: how did all of the Aus-Christians vote? A: not in a distinguishly anti-Howard-group way, that's how. Either that, or they're in an ineffectual minority.)
Tom Frame: "just war." (Me: Too late, mate.)
Peter Jensen: "... but can be just." (Me: The 'just war' construct is a cynically filthy, kleptocracy-supporting sell-out, part of WW2 possibly excepted, but never the A-bombing.)
GWBush: "G*d made me do it!" (My paraphrase.) The US motto: "In G*d we trust."
But it wasn't 'just' GW, it was Bush the elder, and Clinton, between the three of them they might'a killed - or be responsible for the deaths of - around two million Iraqis all up, and the count still going up; we don't know the actual total because 'they don't do body-counts,' aka they do countless murders. All to enable filthy, criminal oil-theft.
Q: How many Mother Teresas would it take to 'compensate(?)' for one GWBush (with UK-poodle ("I passionately believe!"), Aus-dag, all self-called Christians), one toadally® out'a control m/i-plex®, one entire Anglo(Christian)CoW® bent on mass-murdering for oil?
-=*=-
Enough? One might'a thought so, but no. There's the slight matter of the JH-linked article.
My (opinion!) summary: disgusting.
Here, it's enough (don't wanna get too long), to reiterate: once more around the (moral relativism) paddock, it doesn't matter about any far-away tyrants, what's under discussion is the actions of our so-called (lying) leaders, our (murdering) military and associated (profiteering) m/i-plex and (thieving) big-oil etc, it's our part in murder for oil. See?
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[1] justify v. (-ies, -ied) 1 show the justice or correctness of (a person, act, assertion, etc.). 2 (esp. in passive) cite or constitute adequate grounds for (conduct, a claim, etc.); vindicate. 3 (as justified adj.) just, right (justified in assuming). 4 Printing adjust (a line of type) to give even margins. justification n. justificatory adj. [POD]
My comment: I am concerned with justice and correctness, but I think it's fair to say that I mostly criticise thieving, murdering - aka unquestionably bad behaviour; if I wanted to justify anything, it'd need to be something - not bad - but of questionable good. Sooo, Q: does my alleged atheism (demonstrably, IMHO perfectly benign) need any justification?
Got'a end this; Jenny Hume: "Each to his or her own provided as you say they do no harm. On that I think we might just be in agreement."
The way to do this, it seems to me, is for everyone to leave all others in peace; it means Christians leave Muslims alone (and vice-versa), it means no stealing, no murdering; it means, say: "Yanks go home!" Oh, yeah; and USrael to stop the 60-years-long killing and return to pre-67 (better, pre-47) borders, say - but with adequate compensation - and a big "Sorry!"
[2] Objection! atheism n. belief that there is no G*d [POD, my *] - Does not compute. I'd say 'atheism' is entirely the wrong word - and before that it's 'belief' that's wrong; an absence of 'belief' in some thing is not the same as a 'belief' in some negation; i.e. here, actually a non-existence. 'Atheism' is a framing I reject; further, my mind - don't take it personally - but my mind rejects the concept of any non-thing for which there can be no evidence... it's a toadal® absence of any 'belief,' null but no void.
Undermining your work - oh come on Phil
Phil Kendall, Oh for heaven's sake calm down. Scurrilous, allegation, undermining your work, proproganda, pushing a barrow. Spare me the dramatics. But if we want to talk about barrows, your own gets a pretty good go around here.
I was writing to John Pratt and if I want to refer to your raising the issue of moral relativism against me I will. If you wish to then interpret my following statement in the terms you have then do so. But frankly you are off on the wrong track. Perhaps if I had started a new sentence you would have not taken it so personally.
But I repeat, but will for your benefit add Phil, that from my experience atheists who want to make their points in favour of their non beliefs, point to the failings of the church and individuals in it as some sort of justification. They usually also throw in a good amount of ridicule of one's beliefs as well. And I will add that when they do that, it is insulting to the millions of Christians world wide who live and let live and who practise their faith quietly with no harm to others, or they practise in such a way that brings hope and help to tens of thousands around the world. Facts from my experience Phil, facts.
I do not go around proselatising. I let others believe what they want so long as they mind their own business and leave me and my beliefs alone. But the Dawkins of this world cannot do that. They see religious belief as some sort of evil while failing to acknolwedge the evil that has been perpetuated on millions in the name of atheism. Moral relativism? Hypocrisy springs more readily to mind.
Well too bad for them because they have no hope of destroying religious belief for the true believers and are in fact likely to have the opposite effect. They will likely feed the very thing they most oppose, religious fundamentalism.
I do not intend to engage further on this issue with you Phil. It will only end up like the map meme merry go round on the What if ..Iran thread. So in the interests of not going there I will allow the rest of your comments to pass without contest. Do not however take that as my being in agreement with them. No offence. I just have better things to do with my time than ride on this particular merry go round. If John Pratt wants to engage with me further on the comment I directed to him, I will look at what he has to say.
Good Atheists
Thanks Roger, and Jenny, for you insightful response to my which God question. I think your right; faith is often a driver for good. I think that the fact people that have done well in this world have often come from a religious background is a little unfair, there are far more Catholics in the world than Atheists. I have come up with a few Atheists that have made positive changes to the world.
To act or not to act, that is the question
John, yes there are many people who have no religious belief who have worked for the common good and believers do not hold any patent on morality.
You might be interested in this Opinion piece in the SMH today which brings a bit of balance to any discussion about religion and its place in the world, something I think is very lacking in Dawkins case.
The point made about what advice Hitler might have been given had it been bunch of hand waving singers exalting people to follow Christ as opposed to the scientists and rationalists around him is spot on. I doubt the former would have been helping design his gas chambers and more efficient ways of killing.
I made an interesting observation in our own family, where there are believers, agnostics and non believers. When we received information that a woman was living under a bridge near our property and had been for almost a year, a discussion developed as to whether we should try and do anything to help her and if so what. We knew the Police had visited her on a number of occasions but were unable to help her, or could not be bothered - I don't know which.
The believers amongst us were the most pro-active in arguing we should try and help her. The agnostics argued that if the Police could not help her then she probably would not listen to us so there was probably little we could do anyway, and the non believers inclined to the view that it was her choice and she should be left to live her life how she chose to live it - that we should not interfere.
Ultimately it was two of the believers, myself and my sister, who went down there and talked to her. She was clearly sick, cold and was lying on the bare ground. At first she was reluctant to talk, and when we told her we might be able to help her find a place to live she at first declined. Two days later when it was snowing my sister took her some hot food and again asked her if she would like some help. (The non believers in the family relied on our first failed attempt to rationalise their not getting involved). This time the woman agreed to go with my sister, and has now been living for two years with all mod cons in a caravan park owned by our cousin and is exceedingly happy there. My sister and other church people visit her regularly. She clearly has a slight mental disability and had simply fallen through the cracks.
I think this could be a microcosm of the wider world. When we look at the organizations active in the third world you will find they are predominantly religious based.
That is not to say there are not secular organizations and non believers out there doing good works -there are- but the lead has clearly largely been taken by the churches.
Phil Kendall has issue with what he sees as moral relativism. But it is interesting, is it not, that when non believers want to justify their atheism, they simply point to the past wrongs of the church, the pedophile priests and so on. They ignore the good that is done and no doubt will continue to be done by believers all over the world who see they have a Christian duty to help their fellow man.
Would the world really be a better place if religion died? Frankly I think it would be a far more selfish place. Evil will be done in its name, but balancing that will be an enormous amount of good as well. Good that may well be a lot less in a world favoured by Mr Dawkins and his ilk. I doubt that religion can be killed off, despite the Dawkins of this world. Stalin proved that.
Cheers John.
moral relativism
Subtitle: No response required
G'day Jenny Hume: "If one accepts your argument that it is for oil and only for oil then the answer is NO."
Me: Bravo for your "NO." But. You might care to look above your answer, Jenny, and re-read my words which you accurately quoted, then tell us where you got the "only" from in your "for oil and only for oil"? Or perhaps, anywhere that I might'a said "only for oil?" (Tip: I never did.)
Perhaps my title gives something away: either murder for oil is wrong or it's not (IMHO it is), and in which case it's wrong under all circumstances; one simply can't claim 'extenuating circumstances.'
An exception to this "can't" was given in MBD's claim that the killing of a human could be justified in self-defence (or in the defence of another, one's child, say) - but this would always depend (one might'a thunk) on the immediacy of the threat. (And here recall that Saddam didn't do '9/11,' didn't chat with al-Qaeda, was contained and neutered - the US even said so. Round and around.)
Now, we've had the (paraphrased) question: "Was knocking off Saddam worth it," which I addressed in my 'one way or another - Parsons et al' on May 13, 2007 - 5:17pm, concluding with this:
SBNTS; you may disregard the 'hmmm,' it's an arty-fact®. And see that I have used the word 'only' here, but only in the sense that to ensure the oil-theft, the ugly occupation will continue. Bets?
Sooo (it's always a long way around), if one wanted to claim any moral high-ground, i.e. claim some 'extenuating circumstances' which may 'excuse' oil-theft, then one would have to show that any oil-theft was unavoidably required to depose Saddam. Ooops! Saddam is long gone, but the oil theft is still 'on!'
A-a-and once more around the (moral relativism) paddock, it doesn't matter about any far-away tyrants, what's under discussion is the actions of our so-called (lying) leaders, our (murdering) military and associated (profiteering) m/i-plex and (thieving) big-oil etc, it's our part in murder for oil. See?
Only one more loose-end that I can see; and that is claiming the 10s, possibly 100s of 1000s - hinting at a million - deaths since the "Mission Accomplished" stunt as the work of Iraqis, Jihadis, al-Qaeda et al. - i.e. not to be attributed to the US/UK/Aus is, once again this lovely word: risible. Powell warned them: "Break it, it's yours," and the (again: risible) rules of war make the occupier responsible. To charge the deaths to the Iraqis - then gruesomely warn them to reach 'benchmarks' (aka pass the 'oil law') or else - is similar to the way the Israelis treat the Palestinians, 60 looong years of failure there, the same now coming to Iraq. Israel murders for land and water and the US for oil; each specifically here, more generally after adding in the Israel Lobby: USrael murders for spoil.
-=*end*=-
Ref(s):
[1] Moral relativism
[wiki/Moral_relativism]
Which God?
The problem I have with God, is which one? It obvious most people follow the example of their parents. For example in
Now if you take God seriously I believe that you should do some research into all religions to find out which one contains the truth. I feel this is a logical step, rather than remain with the religion you where accidentally born into. I desperately wanted to believe in God. I was born into a lapsed Anglican family, so I began my search in my late teens and for about thirty or forty years I studied various organized religions. I tried to seek God through religion. Most religions, I found said they had the only truth, and often inferred that all others were doomed to rot in hell. So it seemed very important to find the correct God or I could be doomed. Some religions, I researched had, in their past histories of torture or murder to persuade non believers. I disregarded these, as the God I was seeking would be a loving God, and would not condoned such practices.
As I searched I came to the conclusion that all religions are born of man. Most claim God’s influence, but the crucial ideas were developed by man. Often the success of any religion is who won the war. The truth we have been handed down is tainted with blood.
I saw the rise of the religious right in the
It is mostly through a religion that large numbers of people get taught what most would regard as insanity. For example; suicide bombers, and female persecution.
I think Richard Dawkins is on the right track, religion has played big part in forming the world as we know it. It seems to me the challenges that lie ahead will demand more of us.
To avoid a clash of religions, that might lead us to a Muslim versus Christian holy war.
To better share the resources of the planet we need to realize that the rich will have to give to the poor. Greed is not so good.
I think it is extremely dangerous to think that the events that are rapidly approaching us are being planned by a supreme being and we are in safe hands. No, I think we are on a very small planet in a very large universe and if we are to survive, it is up to mankind! No one else in the whole universe cares.
Which God? Who knows!
John, there is a great line in the first Crocodile Dundee movie, Mick Dundee says "it's like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog".
That is religion in a nutshell. Religion is not spirituality, it is not an expression of faith, it is not a unassailable body of knowledge.
Most people have a very humano-centric view of their relationship with God. It is inconceivable to imagine that any of us is actually correct. How could we possibly be unless we were gods ourselves?
The unfathomable God is immune to description, is beyond any attempt to encapsulation. The conceit of religion, and to some extent, philosophy and theology is that they present an essentially puerile view of a Supremity, as fact. This works because the human mind is amenable to such trickery as any politician knows.
However, beyond the strait jacket of religion, in fact even within the community of those whose lives are committed to the institution, there is a work in progress that redeems the odium that religious hypocrisy engenders.
This is the work of an individual who lives a life of faith. A living, working faith is an enabler of the heroic and the constant. Phil posed a question as to whether an athiest cannot also be involved in a life of good works and the answer is plainly yes. However, the difference is that few examples are available of the athiestic Mother Theresa or Albert Schweitzer and a host of others. Atheism does not seem to promote selflessness on the same scale as those have devoted their life as emissaries for a God who for them is the exemplar of loving good.
The God Greed
John, I agree, study them all and that I did, but returned to the one I knew best. But I am not religiously arrogant. I say live and let live, believe and let believe, provided one does no harm with one's beliefs to others, atheism included because it is in effect a belief system in itself which some have sought in the world to force on millions during the last century. It can be, and has been, just as dangerous as religious fundamentalism.
And by the way, I was brought up to believe that my God will help those who are prepared to help themselves. So we have to take reponsibility for what we ourselves are doing to this planet and millions of our fellow man and do something about it.
I agree though that greed is now the God of many and that does not augur well for the have nots, or the planet itself.
Cheers. I guess it is still raining up your way as usual. But you will be pleased to hear there is a green tinge creeping over the brown earth out west here. Why soon the grass might even reach to the top of the fences again. I recall, when the last one broke, an emu struggling to get his head above it to see where he was going. I was doing the same on the quad bike and we near had a head on. Ah the memories of yesteryear!
responding, not answering
Subtitle: waving, not drowning (hateful Ami-speak? Spit!)
-=*=-
G'day Jenny Hume. So you don't answer to hmmms, eh? Well sorry - but not too sorry - and as to any offence, that's probably more in the eye - or susceptibilities - of the beholder. And kindly note, that while a 'hmmm' or two leaves the question a bit open (allowing for some flexibility in responding, say); if you wish - your expressed preference - to be restricted to specifics then that's OK with me. And a re-read of my text confirms that my intentions when writing were met to my own satisfaction: I don't have a problem with believers per se or what they may or may not think or believe, but I do have trouble with what some self-called believers actually do, a lot - far too much (one is already too much but the talk is of 100s of 1000s if not millions), when it comes to killing - far too much of this doing being contra to their expressed beliefs, aka hypocrisy. Worse; it's murdering, thieving hypocrisy. Hmmm? Ooops!
1st specific: Do you, Jenny, believe that murdering to steal oil is an OK thing for professed Christians to do? Or for professed Christians to support? Do you, Jenny, personally support murder for oil?
At this point I imagine you saying something like "My G*d! Can't we ever get away from that f**king war??!" (This is not to suggest for a pico-sec that you might actually think like that let alone say any such thing, not even with the door closed and lights off (haw!) Consider it my atmospherics.)
Well not sorry, and no. But if you wish for another specific, a non-war specific even, then let's consider one Tony Abbott. Can't seem to keep his nose out'a womens' wombs, eh? An example, a very good example of a religious nut interfering in things he has no legitimate business with. And it isn't just wombs, sometimes it's women themselves; look at his shameful "Pauline" pursuit. Boo! Hiss! Thug. Religious thug. Pious, devout, sanctimonious thug.
Sorry and not sorry
Phil Kendall: "1st specific: Do you, Jenny, believe that murdering to steal oil is an OK thing for professed Christians to do? Or for professed Christians to support? Do you, Jenny, personally support murder for oil?"
If one accepts your argument that it is for oil and only for oil then the answer is NO.
Abbott: Pious thug? Stalin: Atheist thug? Plenty of examples of both to compare if one wants. Difference here, Abbott thinks he is acting for the good of humanity, eg the unborn child, while I doubt Stalin entertained any such notion for himself as he sat up late at night signing away the lives of his people.
BTW Not only the pious and religious have problems with aborting the unborn child Phil. To not be at least ethically challenged by such practice (whether a believer or not) is to my mind, a statement of not giving a damn. Probably most don't anyway. These days too many people seem concerned only with the things that affect them or theirs personally, and God can save the rest.
Abbott and Hanson. I agree. Nasty political thuggery. But at least in this country he had to do more than sign a paper to despatch her.
And there I will leave it. Like you, sorry, but not.
faith, hope and charity
Subtitle: the 'spiritual' life.
-=*=-
First of all, 'belief[1].' With sooo many words in the English language, it's too bad that we're stuck with this awkward dichotomy; a) 'belief' in some 'god' (i.e. on zero evidence, aka 'faith[2]') and b) 'belief' in some thing based on 'hard-data' someone has adjudicated (aka science), or as a slightly inferior 'balance of probabilities' (aka best fit to partial evidence). In summary, the same word 'belief,' used both with and without evidence. Silly, really. If I use 'belief' on my own behalf, it is exclusively in the evidence-based sense.
That brings us to our first 'binary split;' the real-world/supernatural[3] bifurcation. By definition (confirmed by the conservation laws, which have never been shown to be violated), any 'god' or 'soul' constructs must be entirely separate from the observable universe (or our science is not seeing a very large Elephant).
Indeed, this 'fact,' that 'souls' must be separate from the real world is a requirement for the central tenet of belief in some religions, namely the 'life-after-death' construct.
The latter could be paraphrased as "Whatever turns you on!" - or helps you through the night. (The looong night of death, say.)
-=*=-
This topic is "Morality without a God," via Dawkins' "The God Delusion," in which Dawkins claims (hopefully? Haw!) that any 'religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.' That's obviously too forward for some; I don't much care what any other 'believes,' it's when any 3rd interferes, believer or not, that I may take offence.
I have attempted a ('godless') formalisation of my own, the chezPhil morality (the 'basic' crimes being lying, cheating, theft and murder) and for particular attention here the suggested and herewith adopted addition: "Do no harm!"
Another way of saying the latter is MYOB; "Mind your own business!"
-=*=-
So. I don't give a flying fig for faith (in any insubstantial 'god,' say), and whether any person has it or not. But I would prefer all to MYOB!
Now to consider organised religion, which I would summarise as any cooperating/coerced 'god-believer' group; 'standard' churches, say, or TV-evangelists et al. If these people restricted themselves to actions within their own groups things could be better, but the problem is that they interfere outside their remit. Of the interferences, two occur to me to stand out:
1. The 'just war' accommodation, aka the thou-shalt-not-kill cop-out.
2. Sex-life interference, i.e. contraception bans. One obvious effect of the latter is over-population, what we simply do not need. There're other MYOB problems such as gay bashing, etc.
My response: "Live and let live;" MYOB!
From the chezPhil morality:
... be free, be whatever you are, do whatever you want to do, just so long as you don't hurt anybody.
[HAÎR]
-=*=-
Any system with ambition to be fair must be fair to all; black, white or brindle. Believers of any flavour including 'none' should all just MYOB and get on with the business of their own lives, which I reckon should/must be "Enjoy every pico-sec!" - thanks, Harvie Krumpet.
If we loop back to 'whatever helps you through the night,' be it religion or TV or any (sane) alternative, the question has to be put: if we wanna enjoy life to the full (yes, we do!) then are artificial aids to be allowed? Obviously 'yes,' and such have been long in use. (Drugs could be part of this discussion; for another day.) And as to negative consequences to any 3rd, these are also present, some of which having been pointed out above.
Do we not owe it to ourselves to eliminate any and all negative interferences?
-=*=-
Now, I've grouped religion with TV for a good reason, without intending to offend, both religion and TV may be considered to be a mix of truth, lies and fantasy (amongst some 'good stuff,' for sure, as in: "It's only a movie!") For those with faith, their religion (one supposes) contains few lies, but in both religion and TV tranquillity is a prime aim. Both contain 'news,' both of contested veracity. See where I'm going? One could say, that both program the sheople® to 'accept their lot.' If one accepts my contention, that the 'news' coming from both sources contains (deliberate!) lies intended to deceive and divert attention... then any resulting euphoria ('eternal life,' 'cargo-cult heaven') would be a bit questionable, eh? It seems to me that "Don't worry, be happy" is a responsibility cop-out, just as its corollary "Can't influence anything, why worry?" is part cop-out and the rest laziness. There's also a bit'a "Stuff you Jack (I'm OK)" in here.
Surprise ending: "The truth can set you free!"
-=*end*=-
PS
Any claim that this (i.e. Aus) is a largely Christian-inspired society is to be regarded with deep suspicion; some underlying 'truths' (i.e. lies, cheating, theft and murder; war against hapless Iraq, general rip-offs and corruption, the venal & traitorous MSM... how long the list, how many times?) - some'o the things that we see happening, simply do not conform to any Christian principle. Similarly, to say that some non-Christian or atheistic societies may be worse is not only toadally® irrelevant but worse, no bloody excuse at all; it's here where we live and how that's of prime importance. True, some, even lots of people confess to believing, but it's not what anyone thinks that's decisive, but what they actually do that really counts. Hmmm, Jenny Hume?
Mathematically seen, the chezPhil morality is - more or less - wholly contained within some Christian morality scheme, but I claim that it's fully independent from any such. But, IF I were to adhere to the chezPhil scheme (I do), AND if that scheme fits within some Christian scheme (it probably does), THEN how would my (supposedly atheistic) life differ from the (supposedly spiritual) life of the believer? Hmmm, Roger Fedyk?
Faith, hope and charity sound great; but only results count.
Ref(s):
[1] belief n. 1 firm opinion; acceptance (that is my belief). 2 religious conviction (belief in the afterlife; has no belief). 3 (usu. foll. by in) trust or confidence. [related to *believe] [POD]
believe v. (-ving) 1 accept as true or as conveying the truth (I believe it; don't believe him). 2 think, suppose. 3 (foll. by in) a have faith in the existence of (believes in God). b have confidence in (believes in homoeopathy). c have trust in as a policy (believes in telling the truth). 4 have (esp. religious) faith. believable adj. believer n. [Old English] [ibid.]
[2] faith n. 1 complete trust or confidence. 2 firm, esp. religious, belief. 3 religion or creed (Christian faith). 4 loyalty, trustworthiness. [Latin fides] [ibid.]
[3] supernatural —adj. not attributable to, or explicable by, the laws of nature; magical; mystical. —n. (prec. by the) supernatural forces, effects, etc. supernaturally adv. [ibid.]
Hmmm Phil?
Phil Kendall - Hmmm yourself. If you want to ask a question then ask it? This Hume does not answer to hmmm. I find such expresson discourteous as it infers a judgment without the utterer being prepared to state what that is. But never mind. Clearly you have problem with believers in God, but that is not my problem. You'll just have to live with it as best you can.
BTW My opinion that atheism has little to offer is not a judgement about atheists themselves or their morality. Each to his or her own provided as you say they do no harm. On that I think we might just be in agreement.
On the other hand, John Pratt
On the other hand, John Pratt, when I was a child, any boy with a learning disability was just bashed on a daily basis.
This certainly looks like an improvement.
Religious morality?
This is another example of religious morality:
Religion putting millions at risk of AIDS.
Religion has a lot to answer for; superstitions should not stand in the way of health messages necessary to stop the spread of AIDS.
A Complex Problem
John, my wife and I have been involved in AIDS support groups here, in the US and the UK.
Everything that pertains to the management and treament of HIV is complicated. Today barely 20 years after the first case, AIDS is on the rise due to unsafe sex practices in communities around the world including here and in other developed countries.
The attitudes and pronouncements of religious institutions have a negligible affect.
Religion and the blame game
John Pratt, while the Catholic church in particular does stand in the way of health messages I think you will find that HIV/Aids is just as bad in countries where religion plays little if any role at all. I am thinking here particularly of some countries in South East Asia.
It is very easy to blame religion for the ills of the world, but one must never forget that atheistic regimes have an equally bad track record, if not far worse.
I have just finished reading Alistair McGrath's Dawkins God - Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life and I recommend it to all those Dawkins fans here. It exposes brilliantly and with authority the flaws in Dawkins arguments in support of his atheism, which as McGrath points out is almost a religion in itself. McGrath was himself an atheist and is now one of the world's leading theologians. He has studied in the sciences and is well equipped to challenge Dawkins on his own territory.
It is interesting how those who attack religion can have quite the opposite effect to that which they might have wanted or expected. I note the SMH story today of the growth in religious tourism in the Mediterranean following publication of The Da Vinci Code. Out of such tourism are likely to be new converts for religious places and shrines can inspire people to think about their beliefs, or lack of them.
Dawkins is hoping for converts to his rabid atheism and he may get a few. But I doubt there will be any mass conversions a la Billy Graham simply because atheism has so little to recommend it. No doubt that is why so many in the former Soviet Union bloc have turned back to their religion, despite decades of attempts to stamp it out.
Enough is enough!
Enough is enough lets have more free and open debate. Time to leave our religious past behind and step into the brave new world. Where our fate is in our own hands. No more muslims no more christians just people stuggling to survive in an increasing hostile world.