"Why Believe in God" ad campaign

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by David E

\ Whether or not these depend on God for validity, it just happens to be historically true. Picasso’s sketches were criticized by those who said that an eight year old child could have drawn them. His response was: “Maybe, but the eight year old didn’t.” I am trying to build my case on results, not theory.

The fact that religion is the framework under which the current workable moral social contract was built is not proof that it's the only one that works.

I’m not sure if the idea of specific rights can even exist without someone conferring them to someone else – can molecules or matter or give us rights?

Can electrons and phosphorus make a TV show? The concepts of "rights" and "morality" exist solely on the level of interpreting brain activity. So the answer to your question is that molecules and matter give rise to the ability of humans to think about the concept of rights.

And, as a matter of fact, there is good evidence that there IS a universal morality. Responses to hypothetical moral dilemmas like these are very similar across cultures. That includes JC, tribal cultures, atheists, etc. Even when respondants are unable to articulate WHY they make the moral choice that they do, they seem to come to the same conclusion as most other people a large percentage of the time.

In the end, though, skimming some earlier posts, I think we all agree on some level. You made mention of the important part of religion being the stable, teachable framweork of morality that instills the particulars to the next generation (my paraphrasing). I believe in the same. I simply disagree that religion is the only possible source of that framework. It is irrelevant that religion happens to be the one that's been used recently to such a large degree. That doesn't make it right or the best option. I think the fact that we can have a public education system that teaches civics and ethics without resorting to "God said so", but rather, "Because the United States said so" should be proof enough.

No one is suggesting just dumping any attempt to define a group morality that may restrict some random individual's personal morality that might not agree with yours. All we're saying is that the desire for such is pretty universal and it would happen with or without religion. Religion is a result of that desire, not the cause. And in the end, those of us arguing against it feel that the benefits of religion as you defined them (a way of formalizing societal morallity) are available without it and thus without the drawbacks of religion (promotion of blind observance without critical thought).

[David E]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Can electrons and phosphorus make a TV show? The concepts of "rights" and "morality" exist solely on the level of interpreting brain activity. So the answer to your question is that molecules and matter give rise to the ability of humans to think about the concept of rights.

Yeah but everything, both material and thought, is little bits. That doesn't mean that's the definition of a right, anymore than it's the definition of a chair, which is also made of the same stuff.

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

And, as a matter of fact, there is good evidence that there IS a universal morality. Responses to hypothetical moral dilemmas like these are very similar across cultures.

It's just amazing to me that you would put so much hope and emphasis on a hypothetical study about how people might unconsciously act on a bridge with 5 guys, when it's so obvious that whole tribes of people throughout history and today made a living pillaging and enslaving other tribes, and very consciously and deliberately act like they are in a completely different moral universe. I mean really, how do you account for the differences in Nazi and Jew, Imperial Japanese and Chinese, Muslim Palestinian and Christian Palestinan, Slave master and slave, and other blatant examples I keep pointing out?

Now the study might be true, that in a split second situation, there might be a common human reaction that is good or moral, but how often does that happen compared to the stuff I listed above that goes on all the time?

[David E]

"Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." --Einstein, Albert"

I wanted to comment on the Einstein quote you publish because it directly addresses the main question of this thread.

He is kind of right in that mankind is indeed in a bad way. While it's true that not everyone needs ultimate reward/punishment to regulate behavior, its also pretty obvious that many do. Many adults don't believe that those consequences exist in a literal way, but anyone who has raised children (or remembers their childhood) knows that reward and punishment are basic to creating behavior in those who can't see the bigger advantage to what they made to do. As they become adults, they don't consciously stop to think "I may go to hell for this", but they now have the feeling that it's wrong. This is not even a religious vs secular issue: Dessert / No TV works the same way as Heaven / Hell.

Now as adults, think about doctors who perform a needed service to society. If they became independently wealthy, how many of them would continue to practice for free? Aren't they motivated by the reward of earning a paycheck and trying to avoid not being able to make their house payment? Would you do your job if you were not paid? If not, are you in a poor way?

I don't see what's so distressing about these motivations. I'm much more concerned with results.

Two other points:

1. Are the billions who believe in the Vedic tradition of Karma (punishment and reward) "in a poor way"?

2. A mathematical genius does not necessarily have extraordinary perception in other areas. Intelligence does not equal wisdom.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by David E

I mean really, how do you account for the differences in Nazi and Jew, Imperial Japanese and Chinese, Muslim Palestinian and Christian Palestinan, Slave master and slave, and other blatant examples I keep pointing out?

Often the difference is the power and cherished freedom to behave badly. There is genocide in the Old Testament. One of the subtler lessons of Hanukkah is how, after the Maccabees helped the Jews overthrow their worldly Hellenic overlords, they basically became just like them. I remember Pope John Paul II berating Poland for its culture of sex and death that emerged after the fall of Soviet Union. And, of course, we've seen how well the loosening of the Soviet bonds has brought out the best in the various Balkan states.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by David E

It's just amazing to me that you would put so much hope and emphasis on a hypothetical study about how people might unconsciously act on a bridge with 5 guys, when it's so obvious that whole tribes of people throughout history and today made a living pillaging and enslaving other tribes, and very consciously and deliberately act like they are in a completely different moral universe. I mean really, how do you account for the differences in Nazi and Jew, Imperial Japanese and Chinese, Muslim Palestinian and Christian Palestinian, Slave master and slave, and other blatant examples I keep pointing out?

Easy. The fact that they bother to define themselves as Nazi, Jew, Imperial Japanese, Muslim Palestinian, Christian Palestinian, etc. For reasons too obvious to go into, humans evolved a tendency towards different "in-group" vs. "out-group" morality. Religion doesn't cause that, it does however exacerbate that. It gives people an artificial definition of who is in your group and who is out of your group, and therefore a reason to ignore the moral code that they would apply to people who they deem worthy.

Even if you accept that Hitler was an atheist (which is highly debatable), there is no doubt that religion was a categorizing tool he used to carry out his evil. There is no doubt that without relying on religious conviction and the xenophobia it creates (whether out of genuine belief or intelligent manipulation), he would never have had a country's worth of people helping him.

I won't claim that lack of religion would rectify that, but it would remove the largest source of "in-group" vs. "out of group" definition we currently have.

Now the study might be true, that in a split second situation, there might be a common human reaction that is good or moral, but how often does that happen compared to the stuff I listed above that goes on all the time?

\You say that the justification for continuing to promote religion is that the morality taught by religion is what has founded our society. Have you read the bible lately? Old testament or new, there are heaps and heaps of moral "lessons" in there that are appalling by today's standards. So here's the question. It seems that far from basing our society on scriptural morality, we've picked and chosen the "good" parts. We've decided to ignore the wrathful, vengeful god. We've decided to ignore the Jesus that, cult-like, asked his followers to abandon their parents. Or that, with text book in-group morality, marked only Jews for salvation.

Our morality is simply NOT based on scripture. Scripture was a heavily influencing reference book. But decisions were made as to which parts to take at face value, and which parts to ignore as allegory and irrelevant. That's the relevance of the study. It answers the question of how the heck we can possibly make those decisions, and it shows that the basis is not god, the basis is humanity.

[David E]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Our morality is simply NOT based on scripture.

I see from these posts that religion and God for most here triggering associations with specific negative historical and theological aspects. Please look at post #167 where I tried to clarify the difference between theology and a value system, which is what I am concerned with. Furthermore I am not denying the negative aspects. One thing I am trying to do is put it in perspective in relation to the comfort and meaning it has given to millions.

Saying religion should be abolished because of its historical abuses is like saying you want to abolish car travel because of accidents.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Still feeling the effects of last night's dose of NyQuil, so forgive some level of incoherence in this post

Originally Posted by David E

Saying religion should be abolished because of its historical abuses is like saying you want to abolish car travel because of accidents.

And saying that religion should continue to be accepted because it's the contextual basis of our current morality is like saying slavery should be reinstated because it's the contextual system under which our country was made as strong and powerful as it is.

Just because something produced a positive result by one definition of positive does not make it a good thing.

But let me be clear on a few things.

1) I am not arguing that religion should be "abolished". I'd prefer it if people would move beyond it and stop teaching it, but I would never support any sort of legal authority to abolish it.

2) It's not because of historical abuses that I prefer people move beyond religion. It's because of future ignorance. Religion, by definition, promotes irrational thought and requires flatly ignoring observable fact.

Israelis and Palestinians are killing each other. Why? You can trace it right back to the fact that both sides are certain that their religion gives them justifiable claim to a chunk of desert and that any deaths resulting are a small price to pay for doing god's work. And if you think that's just from the Palestinian side, you are sorely mistaken.

STDs and unwanted pregnancy continue to be a major issue in this country because we can't have an honest, open discussion with our children because sex is dirty and wrong because god said so.

Irish schools remain segregated by religion, perpetuating centuries old hatreds that result in bloody deaths.

These aren't "historical abuses". These are real, palpable consequences of the absurd notion that the world should be separated by which invisible deity you pray to.

So here's the calculus that I see.

Without Religion - A continual social discourse on what morals we should ascribe to. Individuals will disagree, individuals will purposely attack that morality and act without it. As a society we would be continually evaluating new knowlege and how it might help better promote morality and well being

With Religion - A continual social discourse on what morals we should ascribe to. Individuals disagree, individuals purposely attack that morality and act without it. Those individual are given extra ammo to act immorally based on their belief that they have moral superiorty granted by god. As a society, we are afraid of new knowledge and actively work to slow its progress because it doesn't agree with the version of the world laid out in contradictory texts.

It bears repeating that there is no evidence that the morality that you are arguing for can be attributed to religion. Religion mimics morality. Religion has changed as morality has changed. Religion doesn't cause that change, if anything it resists it until it begins to lose its influence, and then it changes to garner back more followers.

[David E]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

And saying that religion should continue to be accepted because it's the contextual basis of our current morality is like saying slavery should be reinstated because it's the contextual system under which our country was made as strong and powerful as it is.

I gave the car travel analogy as an example of an invention that works pretty well, despite what problems it has. Not as an example of a an enduring institution. If we had hover cars, we would switch to those. Changing my analogy to something evil like slavery, which then implies a correlation to religion, isn't fair.

Just as a matter of historical clarification, now that you do mention slavery, it is not what made the US powerful, in fact it tore it apart. The slave states were pretty much only agricultural, party because of the longer growing season, and yes, because of the labor situation. The north, where slavery was prohibited, prospered much more in every other regard: manufacturing, trade, diplomacy, the arts, charitable institutions, urban development, etc. And don't forget that the abolitionist movement was Christian.

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by David E

And don't forget that the abolitionist movement was Christian.

Alas, so was the pro-slavery faction.

[Betty]

And then you have people like this who are still burning people alive when they think they are witches or sorcerers.

A woman in rural Papua New Guinea was bound and gagged, tied to a log and set ablaze on a pile of tires this week, possibly because villagers suspected her of being a witch, police said Thursday.

Her death adds to a growing list of men and women who have been accused of sorcery and then tortured or killed in the South Pacific island nation, where traditional beliefs hold sway in many regions.

The victims are often scapegoats for someone else's unexplained death --

In a well-publicized case last year, a pregnant woman gave birth to a baby girl while struggling to free herself from a tree. Villagers had dragged the woman from her house and hung her from the tree, accusing her of sorcery after her neighbor suddenly died.

Emory University anthropology Professor Bruce Knauft, who lived in a village in the western province of Papua New Guinea in the early 1980s, traced family histories for 42 years and found that 1 in 3 adult deaths were homicides -- "the bulk of these being collective killings of suspected sorcerers," he wrote in his book, From Primitive to Postcolonial in Melanesia and Anthropology.

Did it ever occur to them that if they were capable of doing magic, they would either kill the people trying to set them on fire or use their magic to escape.

Clearly what's good and moral isn't universal when things like that are happening now. Although you have to wonder if they really believe they are doing something good by torturing people like that.