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. |
Jesus loves Osama - 'it's official', says Anglican Church
A HARBORD church ``misjudged the merits'' of displaying a controversial ``Jesus loves Osama'' sign and has removed it after receiving complaints of offence.
The Rev Terry Bowers, who has presided over St Marks Anglican Church at Harbord for four years, said he was sorry he had installed the poster and that its intended message of love had done more harm than good.
The poster has been supplied to 120 churches of 12 denominations around the county by Outreach Media.
Mind Games
“Roger misunderstood me when I said atheists have no ideas.”
Not so, Jenny Hume, I fully understand you think atheists have no ideas about god, after all that’s what atheists do. But my previous post was more an attempt to differentiate between ideas about god and a relationship with god.
We can all have ideas about god, our creator, but they would be all just ideas in the mind, make believe. If you think about god then you are not having a relationship with god, you are having a relationship with yourself.
Ideas of god are mind stuff but a relationship with god is mind-less stuff. When one understands this, not on an intellectual level but a psychological level then it starts to make sense.
In short we can think all we want about god but that’s all we’ll be doing, playing mind games. If we want to have a relationship with god then thoughts will only complicate the process.
Relating to oneself.
Roger: "We can all have ideas about god, our creator, but they would be all just ideas in the mind, make believe. If you think about god then you are not having a relationship with god, you are having a relationship with yourself."
Well I guess that is how atheists explain it all to themselves. Delude themselves if you like so that they can feel more comfortable with their own lack of belief, and that which they are unable to explain. All in the mind, I suppose. What was that about having a relationship with oneself? Hmmm as Mike would say.
But what is the point of all this? Probably more profitable to just sit and count the stars, and then we can argue over how many there are. Or is it that none of you can see them for all those city lights? If so, come out here on the plains on a cold clear night and bring a calculator. One that can handle a trillion, if there is such a beast.
Now I think I will give God a rest. As for morality, David Roffey, well maybe we start by setting out what each of us think constitutes moral behaviour/conduct, and that I think would be most interesting. Most interesting indeed. There would be some givens for sure, but I am sure there would be an awful lot of grey areas too on which believers will no doubt take one stand, and non believers no doubt quite the opposite.
No delusion in acknowledging one's limitations
Jenny said: "Well I guess that is how atheists explain it all to themselves. Delude themselves if you like so that they can feel more comfortable with their own lack of belief, and that which they are unable to explain."
Jenny, it is not a delusion to acknowledge the fact that we are limited beings in a vast cosmos and there are some things we simply cannot know. Such as how the universe came into being. Just as a dog cannot hope to understand quantum physics, all beings have their limitations, including us humans. And as Dirty Harry said, a man's gotta know his limitations.
What IS a delusion is to fill that gap with fantasies.
Being able to prove they are
Mike: "What IS a delusion is to fill that gap with fantasies."
Provided it is able to be proven that they are fantasies, which it is not. And so we return to where we started which is a good place to leave off I would think. So I will do just that.
proof
Jenny, Christianity is proven false by its many internal contradictions and its various claims about the universe that have been proven false (such as the notion that the earth is the unmoving center of the universe, the sky is a solid dome, etc.). Also the Universe does not behave as if it were created by an intelligent designer - see Dawkins' chapter "Why there almost certainly is no God."
As for proof needed to disprove fantasies, why not believe that the universe sits on the back of a giant turtle? There is no proof that this isn't the case.
As Victoria Secunda says
Jenny Hume, as Victoria Secunda says in her clever book re mothers and daughters, even if she had been an evil witch, you would miss your mother. A mother's role is so fundamental, so vital, she will be with you all the days of your life, even, or maybe especially, if she were foul. But if she had been an excellent Christian, with poor mothering skills, it may have been harder for you to honour her. Fortunately, your mother obviously had both.
Women miss their mothers. Full stop. And men do, too, (but won't talk about it or admit it) - but we tend to see this as a weakness in them. Unfair? So what's new?
How many wives can accept that their husbands may secretly love, respect and honour their own mothers, or the memories of them, over their wives? How many men could even discuss this with their wife?
It is commonplace for people to see their parents as fine, or even as the best, but it is not something that they broadcast as a given. In that this is tacit, unspoken, it is unusual for you to laud your parent, as "the most" of anything, as you do, as if your parent were superior to others' parents. It is a common value and understanding that we each feel that ours were "the best", and such claims are usually avoided because of mutual, communal respect.
An insistence that indeed "ours" were better than "yours", by claiming that our parent was "the most....something or other", does not lead to harmony.
Obviously, your mother was the best mother that you had; almost everyone feels exactly the same way that you do. Are we to enter into competitions as to who was the most...anything?
It's odd that I saw you as promoting an OT biblical understanding of "religion" or "Christianity" on this thread, whereas you say that you were merely promoting theism. Put it down to my careless reading.
BTW: I'm fascinated; What kind of bird was it?
Some mothers do have us
F Kendall: If I gave the impression that I would try to compare mothers then that was not intentional. I thought I only wrote what Ian said, that my old mum was the most Christian woman he had ever known and that I really miss her. Whether she was the best mother in the world I would not know. She was the only one I had, and she was just fine to me, as I am sure most mothers are to their offspring. One or two of my friends have rather distant relationships with their mothers which I find rather sad, but that is their choice, and no doubt they have their reasons.
I used to think as a child that to lose one's mother must be the worst experience of all in life, and one day a girl came to school having lost her mother the week before. I did not expect to ever see her again and was shocked to see her come back to school. I remember staring at her and wondering how on earth she could ever want to come to school again. I expected her life to have somehow ended! I guess that was only a case of projection of my own feelings.
There are of course mothers whose mothering does leave a lot to be desired, as also with some fathers. Drugs and acohol abuse play a big part. I think country kids are lucky in a way as they see both their parents more as the father is around most of the day.
I agree, men are not good at showing the depth of their feelings, but I have no doubt whatsoever that they experience the losses of life in much the same way as we women do. Why wouldn't they?
The little bird my mother had as a young girl was a green leaf parrot. Whenever she was out of sight it would call to her. She used to put it into bed and it would lie on its back in its little cot with its sheet tucked under its chin, or should that be beak. But it would get up the moment my mother left the room. One day she found it dead and she talked about that little bird right to the end of her life. The call in the night that last week of her life was a high pitched call like little parrots have so my mother declared that it was her little bird calling her home. Who was I to say don't be silly mother?
I am not sure I was promoting anything really. I observe some basic rules in life, derived from my religious upbringing and my reading of much of the Bible. I have a belief in a God Creator but I do not get bogged down in the dogma of the Churches, or even in the contradictions that are in the Bible. I go to Church when I can though it is a 50km trip to do so up here. I am not one for bashing on doors to sell the Christian message but I do encourage parents I know not to deny their children some religious teaching. I support Christian charities such as the Christian Blind Mission as I think they do valuable work, as do of course many non Christian charities. And that is about it. It does not upset me that people on WD probably think I am somewhat deluded or likely even a tad mad. So what?
Mike: I can think of no reason why the whole of Creation should not have had an intelligent Creator. Something created it. Why should that not be an intelligent being? When time permits as I said and I come across Dawkins book I might have a read of it though at this rate if I hold out long enough I might find a copy in the mail from you! But as I also said I live with a Dawkins type right here and in thirty years he has not turned me away from my church or religion, not that he wanted to anyway. I have just waded through a long article he has posted on another site on intelligent design. It explained a few things. In particular why the washing up was left undone for the few days I was away. But since I have just returned from Church I will not say anything uncharitable.
Cheers to you both.
Delicious!
To whoever, on some previous thread, gave the recipe for vegetarian burgers - thank you. They are excellent.
Dawn chorus
Jenny Hume, I don't see many dawns at this time of the year, but I often wake to hear the dawn chorus: birds don't keep the timetable of an industrialised world.
That is why I was surprised when you said that the bird calling during the night before your mother's death was unusual. In my experience, not so. Wander through space at night, and you will meet much that is surprising and glorious. Going out at dawn? of course there are birdcalls.
"It is difficult to remove by logic an idea not placed there by logic in the first place."
Many arguments on this thread have faced the above barrier.
In your last post you seem to speak of "believers" versus "non-believers": the essence of the thread, surely: whereas to me, your previous posts were not about this at all, but were, well, a little stridently, sectarian.
I had seen you as an evangelical sort of Pat Robertson-sectarian- old testament adherent.
I admire Christ and his ideas hugely: however, following him it too hard. Many Christians, atheists and agnostics admire these ideals - pop songs are littered with the values.
However, many Christians, unwilling to take the hard yards that Christ demanded, have retreated into the Torah, and resort to quoting the old testament. Christianity is about the words and ideas of Christ, not so?
Dawn birds and nightingales
F Kendall: From my experience around the old home at Goulburn the birds went to bed and twittered a bit as night fell and then fell silent, but none ever that I can recall called loudly in the late night as happened that night. It was quite unusual, so unusual that my mother went outside in her dressing gown to listen to it. I still recall the sight of her standing there in the dark, it was so moving. God how I miss her - despite all those whacks she sent my way my dear! But yes, the wonderful dawn. I wake every day before dawn, (habit I suppose from growing up on a dairy farm) and all the birds come awake just before light begins to break. I just love that time of day even though Ian grumbles about being married to a morning lark.
We can get magnificent dawns here, (even better than sunsets) as the sun creeps up over the rim of the distant Warrumbungles, an old volcanic range of stunning geological formations, which sprawls across the eastern horizon like a sleeping crocodile. To the west of us are the never ending plains where the sunsets can also be glorious indeed, particularly if there are storm clouds about on a very not summer day.
On reflection, there are of course the nightbirds such as the mopoke with its call mopoke mopoke in the dead of night. Then there is that most depressing I think of all calls, the city pigeons that call non stop and never seem to sleep. And the curlews which seem to say: where are you and the other comes back with, over the creek over the creek. But none of those equated to that little bird my mother heard.
My goodness, is that the impression I give? I am far from an evangelical type, and not the best of church goers. And I am one for the teaching of Christ as a basic code by which to try to live one's life, and not really into the Old Testament. Strange to say I was accused of heresy by one Christian on this site because I said that it did not really bother me if there was not afterlife, no heaven. It would be nice to see the ones that have gone again, but if I don't I probably will not know anything about it anyway.
I just believe that life, earth and the universe is so incredible that it is quite possible that a force greater than ourselves created it all. In fact, its very existence suggests that rather than the opposite which is what atheists want to believe. None of us know what shape that force might be; we believers believe it is an intelligent force, ie God. Atheists I suppose just accept it without having any ideas about how it might have come about. Roger misunderstood me when I said atheists have no ideas.
His last post described emotions and feelings that are common to believers and non believers alike when confronted with the enormous wonder of it all. But as to ideas as to how it all came about, well, atheists don't really offer anything as an alternative to a Creator.
But as I said, I think tolerance is what it is really all about. I think religion and the state should be separate, and that includes ideologies that take the form of religion, such as Marxism, and fascism. Religious belief should be a personal thing and no one should attempt to impose their beliefs on others, or ridicule the beliefs of others. I have no time for radical Islam, movements like the Brethren, fundamentalist Christianity who try to seal their message through fear and control, or, worse, suicide bombings. And I have no time for the atheistic ideologies that seek to persecute religious believers.
My atheist Ian said that my mother was the most Christian woman he had ever known, in terms of how she lived her life. I try to follow in her footsteps but suspect that I am quite often rather wanting.
Now I am being good, trying not to be on WD too much, so I will now depart back to the burr cutting. Burrs are not one of God's better creations and I am hell bent on destroying as many as possible.
Convenient design - idea, ideal, idol.
‘It is only the atheists that have no ideas at all.’
We all have ideas, just not all the time, thank Tooth Fairy.
When we stand outside under the evening stars, or on a cliff top gazing out to sea, what ideas enter our minds? What is it we feel?
I don’t know about you, but I think nothing and feel awe inspired, humble and innocent. There is not a single idea in my head, for my mind and the outside world become one. No ego just a pure and totally innocent relationship with the universe, where the mind becomes quiet, the internal chattering ceases and you surrender yourself to reality, giving you the freedom to connect. When the mind is still it will become innocent and alert, experience will be sincere and fearless and the observer and observed become one.
I’m sure we all know this feeling, it comes naturally; it is no different to being totally absorbed in a piece of music, something that captures your total awareness. Or playing with your children; they know when you are not giving them all of your attention. The experienced surfer will know about oneness, the Taoist, the Buddhist, but it does not matter what you know or believe; it is the experience in itself, something that transcends belief and belief systems, yet so often is embraced by those very systems to legitimise their existence.
It is wrong to say atheists do not have ideas, for we all have ideas, atheists simply have no personal beliefs (ideas) in god, for such ideas are make believe, fantasy. But that does not mean atheists cannot experience the awe and beauty of life itself, and do not Christians interchange the terms god and life? It would be rather ironic if atheists, by having no preconceived ideas about god, do in fact free their minds of dogma and superstition, thus enabling them to experience god (the living god), with the innocence and purity of a child?
I do not want to suggest
I do not want to suggest that my "conviction" was anything other than a bizarre notion. That it fortuitously turned out to be of present advantage, is coincidental. On a longer timeframe it may turn out to be a disaster.
Publishing personal attacks
David R,
Perhaps your comments to Mike should be applied to Simon Dennis and his comments to me on the B Brown thread.
Seems to have slipped through the net somehow mate.
To Mike. Who died on the cross? Google Jesus and read. By the by. Neither place exists except in the minds of those that want to believe such.
David R: my comments to Mike are and were applied to Simon Dennis's published comment, as they are to all of them. If we treated every piece of condescension or patronizing remark as abuse, some days we'd hardly publish anything at all, since it probably constitutes the primary Australian mode of debate.No Jenny. I was woken
No Jenny. I was woken one morning at about 3 am, with an absolute conviction that we had to sell. So we did, thank heavens, thereby missing this drought and more.
We don't usually have bees around at this time of year, as precious little is flowering. I hear on the country hour that they're busy in Alice Springs. But for the last few years there have been only the odd moth, few flies post-Christmas, no flying ants. Maybe it's backyard fly traps and insect zappers, but I sort of miss them. There are still mosquitoes though, of course.
Conviction - but no power of persuasion
F Kendall, ah yes, conviction. Had the same one ten years ago myself, but my conviction does not appear to carry any power of persuasion with a certain Scot. So here I am, stuck in the middle of the willy willys, going round in the ever increasing circles. A few bees hang around the cattle troughs, mostly falling in trying to get a drink, so I spend a lot of time baling the silly beggars out. If one wants some honey one has to help the species survive, no? But every other creepy crawly in creation infests the place in its billions when rain is about, which is rather rare. Wonder where they go in the dust storms?
Well I am ready to go, just biding time. No wonder the English overran the Scots. They probably never saw them coming. Bye anyway.
Mike Lyvers: I apologise
Mike Lyvers, yes, I have completely misunderstood you, and I apologise.
Indeed we are and were
Indeed we are and were fortunate, Jenny Hume, and are very grateful for that ... but such good fortune seems to have been commonplace on the farms that I know.
Presumably, the "despair that walks" with you every day of your life gives you a particular perspective ... but, when you look at the history that you relate of the trail of disobedience and deaths, can you really be sure that your way is more successful than mine?
That is a rhetorical question, Jenny. Get back to your writing, girl!
Prosit.
Rhetorical but. answer debateable nonetheless
F Kendall, rhetorical but the answer is highly debateable. We four at least were spared by the firm hand of the old girl, so her way worked to keep us alive back then at least. The bottom line is those many whacks never did us any harm whatsoever, quite quite the opposite I suggest.
The trail of deaths of children on the farms around us, including sadly our own, are in the past ten years and if our small area is indicative of any national rate well then, it far far suprasses anything I knew as a kid.
Might say quite a lot about the new way methinks.
But yes, more important writing and matters call. BTW. Are you, like us, still trying to extract the milk and honey from this wide brown land? If so, where have all the bees gone do you think?
And finally, I do not agree with you Mike that believers think they have all the answers. I get the opposite impression from this thread. But who really cares?
dictator model
Christians basically assert a "dictator model" of the Universe where there is a cosmic dictator in the sky (out in space somewhere, presumably), and a nasty henchman underground who endlessly tortures those who are sent there by the big dude in the sky because they didn't believe in him or his son. The great sky god is said to have impregnated an earth woman (like Zeus did when he fathered Hercules and Julius Ceasar) who gave birth to his only begotten son who was tortured and killed as a bloody human sacrifice to the great god, which was supposed to compensate somehow for all the bad things humans do. The son is then supposed to have risen from the dead. If we don't believe all this fairy-tale stuff we are destined for the molten cavern where the evil henchman will torture us for eternity.
Please forgive me if, as a rational person, I find all the above quite deserving of ridicule. Religions are ideas and should be treated as such. The editorial guidelines don't prohibit ridiculing of political views, so why should religious ideas be treated any differently? Why the sensitivity - is it because of a principle that the more absurd the idea is, the more it deserves protection?
David R: let's try restating this simple but obviously-difficult-to-grasp distinction a few different ways. The Editorial Guidelines don't prohibit the ridiculing of any ideas at all. What they do prohibit is the ridiculing of any people. You can say what you like about their ideas, but you can't say anything at all about them: if you say "I believe this to be silly", that's allowed; if you say "you must be stupid to believe that", it isn't allowed and won't be published. If you try to get round this edge by subterfuges and sneakily derisory asides, they probably won't be published either. What the guideline actually bans is: "criticisms that depend for their sting even obliquely on a Webdiarist's specific (known or imagined) sexuality, gender, race, religion or nationality". It's not an easy edge to interpret as a moderator, but actually is relatively easy for you to know as a writer whether or not you're risking non-publication in what you write, assuming you can put yourself in the shoes of the recipient ...
No evidence of God?
MIke, I think all the non believers should just go and stand under the stars and look out at the universe and there they will see all the evidence they need to prove there is a greater power than them or anyone else out there. What actual form it might take may be debateable but that is about all that is debateable. The Christians have their view based on the teachings of their religion, others have different views. It is only the atheists that have no ideas at all.
Some atheists I have known have been so obsessed with the notion that there is no God, that they feel very personally threatened when they are amongst believers. I find that curious. Maybe they just protest too much.
I think everyone should practice tolerance. I have been able to do that, otherwise I could never have married an atheist, (and like you he has read both the Old and New Testament) and who has taken a particular interest as a scientist in primate evolution and bipedalism, and whose papers I always read. I doubt Dawkins can add much to the arguments I have already lived with for 30 years! Yet none of that can prove to me there is no God. Laugh all you like, ridicule belief as much as you like. You will need to do better than that to convince me that the universe has no intelligent creator.
F Kendall, I am working on my conviction. It just takes time. I think you made the right move. My conviction wavers everytime I see the sunset and the dawns out here. I would miss them.
Intelligent design?
Jenny, the Universe most definitely does NOT exhibit any evidence of intelligent design, and that is the heart of Dawkins' book. You really should read it.
Non-believers are comfortable with the Mystery; believers are not. Non-believers look up at the cosmos with awe and wonder rather than trying to compress it into some tiny fantasy that fits the imagings of primitive peoples of the distant past. Ezekiel says the stars are little lamps hanging from the ceiling ("firmament") rather than the glorious blazing of distant suns; Christians traditionally deny the great antiquity of the earth and universe; Psalms tells us the earth does not move. The Christian tradition is one of denying not only the Mystery, but also of denying the infinite vastness of the cosmos. If there is an intelligent God, I would think he or she would be offended by such a lack of appreciation of his or her creation. (I'm not referring to you here, Jenny, but to the countless Christians I have known who take exactly such a stance as described above. And they outnumber you, I'm afraid.)
As for atheists being obsessed, I've never had an atheist bother me early on a weekend morning by banging loudly at my door and trying to convert me to their worldview.
Atheists At The Door
Mike: "As for atheists being obsessed, I've never had an atheist bother me early on a weekend morning by banging loudly at my door and trying to convert me to their worldview."
Yeah? What about this guy?
Yes, I'm quite familiar
Yes, I'm quite familiar with farms, Jenny Hume. My children, (growing up on one - cropping, sheep, cattle), were not hit, were told what to do, had dangers pointed out to them, and survived without incident. And, no graves on our acres.
I use the word "bashing" because "the odd whack" is open to subjective interpretation, and was widely abused when it was permitted....and as for a "tap". Come on, Jenny, there's no point in hitting anyone unless your intention is to hurt them.
But, I agree that this is off topic, and best abandoned.
Jenny - I love the way you say "cheers". I imagine you sitting at the computer at 10.31 a.m. raising your glass to me. (That's a joke, by the way).
Indeed F Kendall
F Kendall: Indeed then you know and you were all fortunate, so very fortunate to survive, without incident. Many did not and there is no refuge for the mind when a child is gone. And yes, a tap is meant to deliver a message, but better a sore bum, than the other alternative imho.
But each to his or her own view, conditioned as it always will be by one's own experience. With that I think you would at least agree.
And yes, cheers. And with that I depart. I intended to six weeks ago so I am running late. No discipline you see. Need me old mum back methinks.
You also deserve an answer
You also deserve an answer, Jenny Hume, re your encouragement for child-bashing, so I also am testing the policy limits. But, they can always post this tomorrow,
Yes, it's no longer allowed in our society, and thank God for that.
But, as this absurd rule that you could physically flog children but not adults only disappeared from our society about 1980, there is a huge time lag, as those who were physically abused by parents and the state are now parents and grandparents. Who can wonder that they have few resources to handle children, when they grew up in a system that said authority came with fear of physical violence? Who can wonder that these people, reared on slaps and much worse, or the fear of such, have no innate feeling of dignity or authority with which to interact with their own children?
Proponents of physical violence towards children tend to use cutesy euphemisms like "spanking" or "smack on the bum". ...but, they are euphemisms. What does a "smack on the bum" stop you doing, Jenny?
I was never assaulted as a child. I was told that some action was "not right". That's it. I learned, ie, my parents taught me. What's wrong with that? How would things have changed if they had chosen to hit me instead?
Miles Franklin describes her huge humiliation and rage at being struck. And physical punishment does indeed disempower the child. And emotionally separate them from the instigator, making them more likely to strike out on a path of rejecting that instigator's values.
If hitting children is the right course of action, is the Singaporean action of caning adult offenders something that you approve of?
Our society has a history of thinking it's ok to bash shorter/smaller people. I don't agree.
Margo: It's Sunday, so one last God post allowed.F Kendall: Etchings on the rear, etchings on the mind
F Kendall, as I said I am leaving this thread and this subject is off thread anyway. It was also done to death on another thread last year. But I would be silly to let the following quotes sit unchallenged:
Well my dear, it is IMHO a mighty leap from the odd whack on little Freddy's rear to child bashing, but I know the parentally correct will always make that leap, and it is such leap that has seen us all go from one extreme to the other. And I think parents' problems today are more likely to stem from that, than from what you assert in the last quote. I, in fact, found that last quote rather sweeping and I doubt it can be backed up with any empirical evidence.
And you refer to disempowering the child. Well I do not believe that children should have equal power, let alone greater power in the home, far from it. (Pol Pot was the most extreme example of one who empowered children over their parents.) Children cannot make mature judgements. I have been in homes where the kids, often very small ones clearly wield the power. Society will no doubt have to sort them out somehow in the future whereas a tap on the rear at the right time may have been all that was necessary.
Now was I ever whacked? Yes. Have I ever whacked a kid? Yes. Would I do it today? Yes. Why?
Well I do not know very much about the dangers kids face who live in the cities today and it seems to me they spend a lot of their time glued to their computers at home. That of course has its own risks.
But farms are very very dangerous places, always were, and always will be. If you don't believe me then come for a tour just in our neck of the woods alone and we will visit at least five small graves. Experience the heartache in those homes. Or better still, come into my own heart and share with me just for a day the despair that walks with me every single day of my life.
But just looking back to my childhood, I first encountered death as a child, of a child, in our small country town before the age of ten. Three children were missing after the 1949 floods. I recall the whack we all got at the time of that flood. Why? Well what would you as a mother do if you looked out over a swirling sea of muddy water, ten feet deep and saw your three youngest far out, all under 10, in a rowing boat, with two 12 year olds supposedly in charge, and seeing the struggle as they tried to get ashore? We had been told not to go out there. We disobeyed and our little derrieres got a smart one from our frantic mother. We never did it again.
And what would you do as you saw your toddler being dragged from the dam by your 6,7 and 8 year olds. The leaky tub sank, we had been told not to try and paddle in it across the dam. We did. We got whacked, and we never did it again. And there were many such occasions. We knew the rules and we broke them, most days, for we did not see the dangers lurking in the shadows out the door as our mother did. We saw only the excitement. (BTW I read of one family lost four small children in a farm dam, yes four) .
Are those whacks etched on my mind today. Am I a traumatised person as a consequence? No. The pain inflicted on my small rear or legs for the risks we took soon faded. But as for what is etched on my mind. Therein lie the nightmares to this day. The eyes of a boy who drowned. I still see them to this day. I was 8. The dark patch of blood outside the school gates. No one thought to wash it away. (We had been told not to push when the bus arrived. Some kids did and a little girl went under and was crushed). I was 6 and that dark patch is right there before my eyes to this day. The limp body of my little brother in my mother's arms as she cried: Why does the ambulance not come? I was 5 and I can see still see his little head hanging down over her arm. Those are things I remember and which haunt me to this day, not the stinging of my rear.
And how did we see our mother when we grew up?. Did she alientate us and cause us to be emotionally separated from her? Well let me quote from her as she recalled her own mother. Oh I would give the world and all could she be here today. That says it all for me too. But above all I think it was due to her kind of discipline, that we lived while other children did not.
I did not have any children of my own, but I raised two stepchildren and yes they got one or two whacks. As did various nephews and a niece, when on the farm. How do they see me today? Well try this: You were the best mother we could ever have had. And I am told I am the favourite aunt, so I must have done something right? And I kept them safe.
Now if ever I had a child up on the farm, (and I often do) where I know the dangers still lie, and help is very ar away, and that child repeatedly engaged in behaviour that placed it or other children at risk, would I resort to a whack if he or she continually disobeyed me? Yes. If that is what it takes to spare any mother the despair of sitting in a gutter outside a hospital, having just held the cold body of a child in their arms, then so be it.
There is to my mind an enormous difference between a responsible parent tapping a little rear and one that bashes a child. Unfortunately the former tool has been removed from the parental toolbag by those who think they know better, and because of the sort of leap you have made above. But I reserve the right to keep the whack on the little derriere in my tool bag for reasons that should be clear. If any parent or kid objects, then they have the option to stay at home.
And on this matter I will not engage further, not on this thread anyway. I wrote of much of this before on the same issue for the same reason.
But Cheers my dear and relax. I have kids at the farm quite often and I have not tapped any little bum in a very long time. But I will if I think it necessary.
Mike Lyvers: I had
Mike Lyvers, I had meant to include a quote from my late father, (remembered, not channelled, you should be pleased to note):
"Ah, the confidence of people who know the answers to the questions that wise men of the centuries have pondered over."
Congratulations, Mike. You know the answers.
F Kendall -
F Kendall, I have never said I have all the answers. I just said I do not believe in things for which there is no evidence. As for the many unknown aspects of Reality, I take the stance of embracing the Mystery. Religious types deny the Mystery, as they are the ones claiming they have all the answers. You've got things exactly backwards here.
Mike Lyvers: Michael
Mike Lyvers, Michael Bentine, (you may be too young to remember him), has written of his great difficulty and distress, in his role of "seeing off" departing aircrews on their night time sorties during WW2, because those who were not going to return would be apparent to him as skeletons. Sheridan Morley, Ruth Park, Joanna Lumley, Fay Weldon, Kathleen Raine, Tony Booth are among the many who claim supranatural experiences. It seems a little high-handed, from my perspective, for you to be so dismissive of other peoples' experiences as to regard them as "ridiculous in the extreme" and "not deserving of respect."
Rather, your comments remind me of the English reactions to the initial descriptions of the platypus: this is outside our experience, therefore it is obviously fraudulent
James Randi's site, and your own tv experience, presumably show only that such experiences cannot be called up on demand, rather than anything larger.
Even that arch-sceptic, Philip Adams, says that the Rudolf Steiner bio-dynamic farming, (including adding manure stacked into cows' horns at a certain phase of the moon and buried for etc etc) is absolute mystical mumbo-jumbo, that confounds him by working.
Malcolm B Duncan: "The only rational solution is to reject the lot."
Hardly a logical conclusion, surely. But then, I'm drinking a 1964 Coonawarra hermitage, so my judgement might be off. I'll try water tomorrow, and see how it looks.
Tread softly, because you tread on my memes ...
This pun © R. Dawkins esq.
Tread carefully please
One could ask whether comments that contain such subjective words as dumb, infantile, immature, uneducated, and contain deliberate ridicule of belief, when addressed to a known religious person on the site, constitutes sneering, even criticism of that person. I have even seen it implied that believers are mentally ill. Further when such type remarks/words are used obliquely in a clear attempt to sting a person due to their religious belief why that would be let through, when such is not acceptable if referring to race, sexuality, ethnicity etc? (Your editorial policy, which I note includes religion in that clause.)
As probably one of the few believers on the site whenever I enter a discusssion on religion these are the tactics used by some when responding to me. Now as a pretty together sort of person and comfortable in my beliefs, it is not something I want to make an issue over, but you might like to consider whether such tactics would drive others from the site or turn them off it. I actually see those who need to do this as having some sort of personal problem themselves but many believers would take it personally, particularly those who come to belief through some crisis in their life, and who have a desperate need to believe irrespective as to whether that is seen by some as irrational. They can be very vulnerable people. For them to come to this site and have that sort of stuff directed at them if they entered the discussion, would not make it a safe site for them.
There is not a person in my wide circle who has ridiculed my beliefs even though I know some are not believers themselves. And I do not ridicule their atheism. That is the mark of tolerance in a civilised society. Is tolerance not one of our agreed values?
An objective discussion of religion and religious belief should be possible without oblique or implied criticism/questioning of a believer's intellect or sanity.
I am not sure that ridiculing a believer, even obliquely by means of ridiculing their beliefs, is not as bad as ridiculing a person on the basis of their race, sexuality etc which is why I guess it is included in your editorial guidelines.
I suspect most moderators by their own comments are not particularly religious folk, so maybe this is just something you never really thought much about.
Food for thought as I said. Maybe Margo has an opinion.
Treading on eggshells
Nice is a biscuit.
I have put the case for there being no rational reason for preferring one god over another and, given that they can be jealous gods indeed, the only rational solution is to reject the lot. If people want to belive in things, they can read Paul Sheehan and drink water.
Hmmm, Margo and Jenny.
Jenny, you write: "As probably one of the few believers on the site whenever I enter a discusssion on religion these are the tactics used by some when responding to me."
First off, you need to realise that what you referred to were not "tactics," they were honestly stated opinions about the issue under discussion. I bear no ill will towards you as a person at all; indeed, from what I can gather you seem like quite a nice person. What I was criticising and ridiculing were ideas which I regard as ridiculous in the extreme, and which are not deserving of respect - though those who hold them are certainly entitled to respect as human beings ("love the sinner, hate the sin" perhaps??). When the issue is anything but religion, there is usually no problem, but when religion is the idea being discussed or debated, religious types all too often cry foul - as you have here. But to even consider that criticising or ridiculing one's beliefs - ideas that can be accepted or discarded at will - are equivalent to deingrating one's race or gender is absurd in the extreme and would take us down exactly the path those who rioted in response to the Danish cartoons would want.
Hmmmm again, or hymnnn if you prefer.
Jenny, a few more responses if I may:
"I move constantly between the rural and urban scene. Due to the drought I see a lot of the have nots out in the bush these days, and there one has a sense of shared hardship, shared compassion, mutual support, shared understanding and the youngsters I meet display high levels of social consciousness, commitment to the family and community as a whole; but when I return to the city, I get the opposite sense."
Do you really think that such compassion and support is only because these people believe they will burn for eternity in a molten cavern deep underground if they don't behave in that way? Empathy and compassion are common human traits (except in psychopaths), but the extent to which such traits are expressed to others often depends on the degree to which people have been conditioned to regard certain others as equivalent in an important sense to themselves. Religions tend to divide people into in-groups and out-groups and nowhere is this attitude more on display than in the Bible - especially the New Testament, where those who do not believe are described as followers of a demon, evil, deserving of torture for eternity, never destined for heaven, etc. It was the religious divide between the dominant Christians and the minority Jews of Europe that produced the centuries of persecution of Jews by Christians, culminating in the Holocaust. As well as Inquisitions, witch burnings, etc. As for the differences you describe, I suspect they have more to do with other differences between rural (sparsely populated) vs. urban (densely populated) environments rather than differences in religiosity.
"I cannot think that Dawkins can add anything new."
How would you know unless you check it out?
Regarding the relationship between religion and intelligence, I don't doubt that many Christian believers are highly intelligent - Kevin Rudd and John Howard come to mind - but not all intellectually smart people can rise above their childhood conditioning (Dawkins cites several examples). But more do than those lower in education or IQ, on average. There is indeed a negative correlation between religiosity and education as well as between religiosity and IQ, and this pops up in a number of studies - such as the 2003 Harris Poll on religiosity in America. Dawkins cites a study in which Fellows of the Royal Society - the U.K.'s highest intellectual achievers - were surveyed about their beliefs; 79 percent strongly disagreed with belief in a personal god. Do you think these members of the Royal Society are dangerous and immoral people? In the U.S., various studies (including the Harris Poll I cited but which Dawkins seems to have missed) have found a negative correlation between religiosity and IQ or education level (Dawkins cites several on pgs 102-103). Does that mean all religious people are dumb and all atheists are smart? No.
As for the police turning to psychics, they sometimes do so only as the very last resort, when all other avenues of investigation have yielded nothing. In the vast majority of cases, psychics are completely ineffectual, but one or two get lucky on occasion - those reflect the laws of chance. The psychic I tested was not consciously a fraud, he sincerely believed in his abilities and was certain he could prove them. And he turned rather angry when he failed.
PS - one last thing:
On this business of religion and morality. Dawkins and others (such as Sam Harris) have pointed out that the states in the U.S. that are the most religious have the highest per capita rates of violent crime such as rape and murder. Such evidence clearly contradicts Jenny's notion that the Christian religion is the answer to violent crime or other social pathologies. Sam Harris, indeed, was subjected to numerous death threats from Christians after he wrote a book critical of religion. (By contrast, I doubt that Dawkins or Harris ever physically threatened a Christian on behalf of atheism.)
Jenny Hume: On this
Jenny Hume, on this thread, I feel as if I have seemed to be disagreeing with you, or undermining you. This has not been my intention, however, I have found some of your statements to be, well, iffy e.g. J Winston H also attended church dances as a young man, and I notice that it seems a long time since he was referred to as "Honest John". Church social groups were always a good way for the young to meet other rather like-minded, socially equivalent young, and I'm sceptical as to how much deep religious belief was widely involved.
I notice that some family members close to the Defender of the Faith have set a pretty poor public example of Christian morality in some circumstances, despite a presumably Christian education and attendance at Christian schools. Arguably this, with its wide publicity, has altered public moral standards a great deal.
I'm on Ross's side, that faith is what we need, not religion. Not that I believe that religions cause all warfare, they just provide an excuse for what seems an atavistic urge for men to fight, and old men to get rid of young men. But, they provide plenty of ground for squabbles.
Jan Morris said in her autobiography, that one of the pleasures of becoming female, (apart from the freedom to park carelessly), was the freedom to express marginal, whimsical and non-scientific views. She said that men are under a great deal of social pressure to express only rational and pragmatic views, or face ridicule.
I do wonder whether that is one reason why men, (rather than women) seem to have found it easier to shuck off the beliefs that were (largely) passed on to them by their mothers.
PS RE: generalizations about Jews
PS. Jenny, your statement can be construed as racist because "Jew" refers to both a religion and an ethnic group (my reference to the "Wholly Babble" does no such thing). Therefore you should retract your statement in the name of decency. I doubt that anyone but a few fanatical ultra-Orthodox Jews actually takes literally the quotes Ian posted from the Bible about being the chosen people. But of course to assert that Jews generally believe that is a common slur used against Jews by racist neo-Nazis.
Margo: Not on., Mike. Not on. Stop it, NOW.Ian, I never disputed that the Bible says such things. But what Jenny said about Jews would be like me claiming that Christians believe they should all be allowed to own slaves because God and his son expressly permit it in their holy books. Or that they advocate any number of truly absurd or abominable things God says to do in the Bible, and which have long been transcended by enlightened human progress.
Mike - Decency and respect
Mike, no, I will not retract but you are right, one should not use generalisations. So I will reduce it to some Jews, since what I wrote has been clearly stated to me by some Jews of my acquaintance during my life, but not all. If you think they are fanatical for saying that, then I make no comment on that. If they hold that view it does in fact not bother me. Why should it? For a believer like me the special relationship God had with the Israelites is a given. Moreover, I have had many many conservative Christians who support the Jewish resettlement in Israel say quiet categorically to me that the Jews have a right to those promised lands, adding they are God's chosen people. Does that make those Christians neo nazis? Is that an indecent thing for those Christians to say. I think not.
I think you disrespect people when you ridicule their religious beliefs. The editorial guidelines include religion in with race, ethnicity, and sexuality. Take it up there if you do not agree with its inclusion.
I am not commenting on this thread any further other than to say you and Dawkins may think the world will be a better place without religion but I think you are both wrong, quite wrong.
I am over my limit Editors, but I think Mike was entitled to a reply. So my apologies.
Margo -
F Kendall. Out for the count methinks.
F Kendall, I am out for the count already so this will be very brief. Do not in general disagree with what you or Ross say. Not sure about the men thing, shucking off belief more often, (we better be careful of our spelling here my dear!). Know so many men who haven't. Different circles maybe. Maybe Jan Morris is right. Men do not like risking ridicule so may in fact not admit their beliefs too freely, as with their feelings and emotions. Hard to be male maybe. Yes, dear editors, I'm going. Thank you for your patience. Cheers.
Teenagers
Hi Jenny, I note your comments re educated people being both anti Howard and worried about spirituality. And teenagers. Religion is being pushed at people who know it for what it is. A con. Don't confuse this with faith Jenny, or others. It is religion that is being pushed, for political gain, votes. No more.
Quoting bible passages and cuts from other man written "orders" is demonstrative of a lack of personal belief to me. It shows people need to keep repeating those quotes until they themselves believe it. No one else does. Such people should question why they use those quotes. Question the source. Who wrote them, when where and why?
Who was Jesus? Where did he come from and where did he go? India and Kashmir seem to be the most logical if you read up on it rather than re reading the bible.
There is no difference between educated and uneducated people Jenny, just some have tickets for jobs and others don't. It's how people use that education that counts and I'm afraid mostly what I see is those educated people using that for one purpose. Claiming shaky high ground. People are the same inside Jenny.
What do you define as "educated". My official education really stopped at about age 15. I stopped competing and started learning things that interested me. Not studying to pass an exam. I knew I didn't need what education offered. I matriculated, through boredom really but had no interest in further study as there was nothing on offer that I could see as useful.
Education is a state of mind, it's how you use what you have, not using what others have got. The word is bandied about in a condescending quasi intellectual way as if there's some difference in people who have higher ed. It's again how that is used and to hear and see people using their education as a weapon sickens me, big time.
Education does not hold the key to anything society wise. Look at all the Uni grads in Parliament for example. What do they achieve? Absolutely nothing. Well, fear.
We do come from different worlds. Teenagers in my time couldn't wait to get hold of a drink and party down. Music was our life, still is really. Unlike today though most of it was show as few actually liked the taste of alcohol. It was "the thing" so we all did it. And had some bloody good times too.
I don't despair for today's teenagers. They are not lost at all. What they are is sickened by what they see from society's so called leaders. By the constant barrage of Do's and Don'ts. All teenagers will try what they want, when they want and decide for themselves if it's for them.
It is today's teenagers that will make the difference, not us. We had a shot and screwed up. Our generations produced the current lack of honesty, the lying, the misuse of religion, the lot really. The greed, worship of the dollar. The generation before us actually did their best given their living through WW!,2 and the Depression. They taught us to be careful, to look to the future, attain security and lots of "good" habits.
Which we immediately rejected and rebelled against. We were lazy Jenny. Just accepted the good life we were given and screwed it up by being part of the "Me" movement. Me first, you nowhere.
Religion is not an issue for today's kids, except in seeing what it does to a society. Which is destroy it. Religion in today's environment makes as much sense as a digital watch in Jesus's time. It just doesn't fit.
Of course there are the Hillsong people, but why are they there? Music? It ain't faith, it's being with a group of like minded people, no violence, just fun.
Enough 2 Party barracking.
I think that parents of
I think that parents of teenage children have always been worried about the slippery slope, Jenny Hume. Short skirts! Girls in trousers! The Charleston! The Black B**t**m! Pianos without skirts on their legs to hide their nakedness!
Has your friend who has just completed her masters in counselling perhaps become a little jaundiced from her studies? The young that I know - and they are not a homogenous group - are certainly not "lost". They are fine people.
F Kendall and Ross -just reflections and observations
F Kendall, no, she studied part time. She works at the sharp end and sees an awful lot of her so called 'lost kids' so I guess she is affected by that. I see many fine young people too, and many who are not. They needed a good smack on the bum IMHO long ago, but the rod was spared and the child was spoiled and society at large carries the cost. But I come from another generation so we won't go down that path again. Let the new age parents carry screaming tantrum throwing little Freddy to the time out room, there to scream his little head off for an hour or two. Their ears, not mine but one notices little Freddy often comes out just as sullen and surly as when he went in, ready for the next round. But he will be a better adjusted and more socialiable human being won't he, than if he got the occasional whack on his little derriere? Well as Malcolm B Duncan is want to say at times, I say also: bollocks.
If the skyrocketing admissions to hospitals for alcohol abuse in young people (I read only a week or so ago, it has increased by over 100% in the past two years, far more than for illicit drug use) is anything to go by, there is certainly a massive social problem developing out there amongst our youth. And there is clearly a growing public concern over this and the other night those parents were talking about that very issue, saying how many of the peers of their kids are getting blind drunk. And these are mid teen kids, not 18 year olds.
I think when kids turn to drugs and alcohol to the extent they now do, it tells us something is wrong in our society. Many will grow out of it, but many will not. It never ceases to amaze me to see parents even now offering alochol to sometimes even very small kids saying, just a sip won't hurt. Rubbish I say. Think of that first ciggy. Alcohol is an addictive substance. It was not surprising therefore to see comment in that same report that kids said their parents introduced them to alcohol. Better the bottle than the church it seems. To introduce them to church is said to be child abuse. But not so to the bottle of grog. I see the introduce them to alcohol in the home to encourage responsible drinking line is now undergoing some hasty review.
Many crimes and social ills such as domestic violence derive from alcohol abuse. Looking at how that abuse is growing rapidly in our young, so standby for more of the fallout in the decades to come. Get them out of the pub and back to church I say. None of the teenagers in the church I know are into alcohol abuse.Says something to me anyway.
Ross, I could not agree with you more in regard to education, which is why I took Mike up on the issue when he said religious belief is correlated with education, (ie that people less educated follow religion) and used such terms as dumb, infantile, immature to describe belief, and by inference believers. In other words, only the uneducated, dumb and immature have religious belief which is clearly nonsense.
Education is something that goes on throughout life. Some have more opportunity for formal education than others but that does not make them dumber. Some of the most intelligent and insightful people I know have little formal education. I consider my formal tertiary education to have given me a few analytical and literary and other skills, but generally I had to rely on common sense and basic intelligence to deal with the multitude of problems I have had to deal with in my life. Languages and the sciences (chemistry) were my forte, yet I quit maths at age 15. But my intermediate certificate maths against my husband's uni level maths, is far superior when it comes to handling financial and accounting problems. I can calculate mentally very quickly, while he reaches for the calculator every time.
And give him a legal document to read and he just goes blank. Yet he is one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable people I have ever known. We are best at what interests us that is all. Many of my parents generation left school at age 12. Yet they and their even less educated parents, poor uneducated immigrants mostly, built this country. Ah yes, there is much to be learned in the University of Life.
From what I have written here it goes without saying that I do not agree with you on the matter of religion. I see no reason to reject religious belief, quite the contrary. Cheers. I am gong to try to withdraw from this thread now as we are heading back to the farm where other priorities must reign over WD, so do not take it personally anyone if I do not respond to comments addressed to me..
Enough Mike
Hi Mike, you complain about unpublished posts. Now published. I too have several unpublished on this thread. Enough of this line. It's sick. If you wish to continue let's do so face to face, email. Whatever, just give this a miss here.
Where do these generalisations come from? Agnostic and atheist Jews? Give it a rest. What next? Moderate Muslims?
Enough 2 Party barracking.
The Covenant
Mike Lyvers, according to the Hebrew Bible, Israel's character as the chosen people is conditioned by obedience to God's commandments. "Now therefore, if you will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then you shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people. For all the earth is mine: and you shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation" (Exodus 19:5, 6). "The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because you were more in number than any people; for you were the fewest of all people; but because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your ancestors." (Deuteronomy 7:7, 8).
It is hard for any group of people to believe they are God’s Chosen if they don’t believe in God. But the idea of the Covenant and the Chosen has a bit more substance to it than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It is actually based on scripture, though understandably the Holocaust led many Jews to believe that if God did exist, He didn’t give a damn about them.
More here. Also there.
The sociologist Emile Durkheim maintained that when a group got together in the ritual of religious worship, while ostensibly worshipping a deity, it was actually worshipping itself. Certainly, all religious ceremonies are designed to enhace group cohesive strength, and not dissipate it. Consequently, sects tend to multiply, each believing that it is on the true path, while all its rivals are somehow in error. This is why eucumenism is so difficult, and has had such a chequered history.
A Sad Moment
You were merely being asked how an atheist can support the choice of lands for resettlement of the Jews, when they had no other claim to those lands other than that they were vested in them by God, as per the first five chapters of the Bible. ... The Jews consider themselves God's chosen people, with a God given right to the lands of Israel. -- Jenny Hume
Oh dear. This is another of those "why do I bother" moments. Maybe it has got to the stage when it is time to stop wasting energy on words and simply focus on the adequacy of the ordnance and ammunition stocks.
Jenny, how could you?
PS
Jenny, surely you aren't serious with your claim that "Jews consider themselves God's chosen people." I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood, most of my friends were Jews, and none of them EVER claimed such a thing. Nor do my current Israeli Jewish friends. I suspect that comment of yours is what made Geoff sad. I would hope you would retract it in the name of decency. Indeed, the vast majority of Jews I have known were atheists or agnostics. Good on them too.
Don't be sad Geoff
Geoff, don't be too sad. I doubt that it suits you. And I think the whole Israel/Palestine thing got a fair run to put it mildly so I ain't going to buy into it, what with our self appointed expert now departed and all. I am just curious, given this is a thread about atheism how an atheist does reconcile support for the return of the said lands, given the underlying God given basis of the claim to them. It just the inconsistency that I find interesting. Nothing more. No judgement of the issue itself one way or tuther. So cheer up Geoff. And no need to check the ordinance and ammo on my account. No point, coz I always miss anyway.
Hmmmm.
I posted a lenghty response to Jenny the other day but it hasn't been posted. Nothing offensive in the least so I wonder why.
Craig R: Mike, you exceeded 5 comments on that day with that one. That's why. I've pasted it below. Please keep it to 5 in future.
Anyway, with regard to the Israel thing, the U.N., not Yahweh, established the modern state of Israel in the traditional homeland of the Jewish people after centures of persecution of them by Christians. Seems pretty reasonable to me, so I support the existence of the modern state of Israel, gods or no gods.
---
Jenny, it is very revealing that while I have read both Old and New versions of the Wholly Babble, you refuse to read Dawkins' book, which is what this thread is all about! Why comment on something you have never read and have no intention of ever reading?? That epitomises the closed-mindedness and bigotry of the religious mind-set. You dismiss my criticisms of your Bronze Age beliefs as "intolerant" but quite honestly, if I were the ruler of the world I would never try to force you to change your beliefs. I am a fanatical advocate of freedom of thought and belief, as is Dawkins.
As for so-called psychics, as I said, any psychic who can actually demonstrate psychic abilities stands to win 1 million US dollars from The Skeptics Society; why do you think none have ever taken the Skeptics' money? I would be the first to initiate a massive research effort on psychic abilities if there was ANY evidence whatsoever for such magic, and that was the reason I tested that famous Australian psychic's claims several years ago. I was hoping to find that he actually could do something, but the results revealed the opposite - as have ALL controlled studies of so-called psychics. Reality won and that is how science works.
Like I said, if Jesus were to walk down from the sky and perform miracles before me, I would become a Christian immediately. But such an event will never happen because it is all a primitive and quite stupid fantasy. As for Jews considering themselves "God's chosen people," you apparently have not known any Jews. I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood of Los Angeles (though not a Jew myself) and NEVER met a Jew who believed that. Nor even my current Israeli friends. So you clearly have no idea what you are talking about here. As Wittgenstein famously said, in such instances it is best to remain silent.
Yes the comfort women issue. Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not putting Japan forward as an ideal society. But you listed a bunch of problems, from drug abuse to violent crime, that you claimed were the result of a lack of religious faith. I only pointed out that the most irreligious society on the planet also has the lowest rates of the very problems you listed. That presents a problem for you, not me.
PS I hope you saw the program I just watched on SBS - about how many faithful Christian priests and bishops, and of course Arab Muslims, helped members of the SS and concentration camp guards escape Europe at the end of WWII. They all believed in the project of the elimination of Jews from the planet. You can cry all you want that they weren't "real" Christians, but that's a bit like complaining that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot weren't "real" communists, isn't it?