"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.

[€uroMeinke]

The problem with absolute belief systems is they are absolute and almost require the banning or destruction of the other (if it is to survive). If Islam is frightening, it's also a monotheistic belief system, with it's own ethics and morality. If you accept Christianity only for those reasons then you must also accept Islam - or this just becomes an argument of justifying your own beliefs of what is good or evil.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[David E]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

The problem with absolute belief systems is they are absolute

Why is that a problem? Our criminal law reflects our beliefs – shouldn’t murder laws apply to any two people given the same circumstances? Why would it be wrong for one but not the other? (See my other post about absolute vs. relative morality)

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

and almost require the banning or destruction of the other (if it is to survive).

Well some do and some don’t. To recap the previous examples:

1 Radical Islam does what you say and requires the destruction of the other.
2 Dictatorial Secularism doesn’t require it but often destroys outside (and inside) threats to it.
3 Buddhism passes judgment on evil, but does not use violence to stop or prevent it, leaving it to Karma.
4 Western European style Secularism does not pass judgment (relative morality) or use violence to stop evil.
5 Judaism/Christianity requires the destruction only of evil systems and so would act against 1 and 2 but not 3 and 4. (Note that judgment on what is evil is made on the basis of behavior, not on the basis of differing beliefs.)

Looking at the list, it seems that all systems are absolute except 4, which is relative, and the one I assume you favor. No. 2 I think has an absolute system: survival of the fittest where strength, power and self-preservation are revered (Saddam, Pol Pot).

So destruction of the other can be good sometimes, if the other is bad, which is why I prefer 5.

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

If Islam is frightening, it's also a monotheistic belief system, with it's own ethics and morality. If you accept Christianity only for those reasons then you must also accept Islam

No, I said I was skeptical about systems with their own morality. The bus ads are talking to our culture (4’s and 5’s) and are trying to get rid of the No. 5 God.
Regarding Islam, I don’t accept No 1, but I support Islam as it is practiced in America, which has been compatible with our value system, (probably more with 5 than 4). For example, if practicing Muslims dominated an American city, I would feel safer about leaving my car unlocked and worry less about my daughter being killed by a drunk driver than in a secular dominated city. American freedom of religion has led to good manifestations of it.

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

- or this just becomes an argument of justifying your own beliefs of what is good or evil.

Well, yeah, of course I am; everyone on this thread is advocating for what they believe. Don’t you believe 4 (WE) is better than 5 (JC) and present your case to justify that choice? As adults, we get to look at the choices and switch based on looking at what each has to offer. That’s what the bus ads are trying for.

[David E]

Originally Posted by Prudence

This is the facet of religion with which I currently struggle. So many of the "instructions" were clearly (from our modern perspective) designed to address social issues of the time. And we have no trouble, as a (western) society, dismissing the rules about stoning and selling daughters and whatnot. But the other rules society swears are the unerring Word of God and must be obeyed blindly.

I have been advocating the guidance of a fixed set of moral values (vs. Moral Relativity). But in every age, these have to be applied to the situation by using our intelligence and logic (Situational Ethics). I think both secular and religious people get confused about how to do this. There really are two areas of confusion:

1. Moral Relativity and Situational Ethics.

Moral Relativity vs. Absolute or Universal Morality
An ethicist has asked hundreds of high school students who they would save first if both their dog and a stranger were drowning. 1/3 say the dog (a more secular response, because they love the dog and not the stranger), 1/3 say the stranger (a more religious response, because people created in God’s image and are more valuable than animals) and 1/3 say they don’t know. But my point is about a follow-up question: When either dog or stranger savers were asked if the answers of the others were wrong, very few would say they were. In other words, they feel that everyone’s sense of right and wrong is personal and does not necessarily apply to others. This is what I said about the danger of the bus ads, that everyone can make up their own rules, as opposed to norms that apply to everyone.

Situational Ethics:
Many religious people will confuse Moral Relativity with Situational Ethics. They might say “lying is always wrong”. If you were sheltering Jews in WWII and the SS came to your door and asked “Do you know where any Jews are hiding?”, wouldn’t the ethical answer be to lie?

2. Institutional vs. Personal
“Turn the other cheek”. This makes a great deal of sense on a personal level. If we never forgave people who wrong us, we would end up with no friends. Sadly, many people shut others out of their lives because of intolerance of any transgression.
But it makes no sense to apply this on a national level. Do we say to our enemies who bombed New York, “OK, now you can bomb LA?” Many secular people will point to teachings that were meant to be a guide for the individual and mis-apply it to the behavior of governments.

In the example of lying, many times on a personal level lying is the right thing to do (“honey, do I look fat in this dress?”). But on a national level, it is almost always disastrous.

There has been bit of discussion about selfishness. Religion has seemingly contradictory answers. Rabbi Hillel said, "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, who am I?”. I think in this case, in the personal realm, selfishness drives others away and will lead to unhappiness. But in the intuitional or national realm, an entity has to know what it stands for and pursue its mission (provided it is a good one). So it becomes a responsibility to defend oneself against aggression and to help others who are victims of it where possible.