Atheist Summer Camp
Very amusing Times article about Camp Quest, a place for the children of atheist, agnostic and secular families who, “face more than their share of bigotry.” Is that true? Are irreligious people discriminated against and actually need to organize their own gig to get a piece of mind? Anyway, what I kept thinking about was this: can atheism as an organized educational movement really be non-dogmatic, like it should be? You start off with kiddie skits about evolution, next thing you know you’re holding hands and chanting something new agey about Darwin, maybe throw in a ritual or two, etc.etc. But the most ironic thing is that it seems like the subject of god (albeit in questioning) is broached there waaay more than at certain shabbat dinners I’ve been to.
Oh, and of course, half of the people mentioned in the article (campers, organizers) happened to have Jewish last names.
Personally, I’m planning to open a Chassidish Nihilist daycare, if anybody is game, let me know.
Hey, most of the Zionist youth movement summer camps — that is, those of Hashomer Hatzair Socialist Zionsit Youth and of Habonim Dror Labor Ziuonist Youth were historically secularist, as were their respective movements.
Of course, Zionism itself was historically mnot only a secular but a secularist movement.
And what about the summer camps of the Workmen’s Circle, other Yiddishhist non-Communist summer camps, and the IWO?
lemme guess … judging by the photo … it’s an athiest fat camp right?
KIDDING!
today i was being interviewed by bnai brith magazine and the question about jewish athiests came up, and whether or not they were still jewish by my definition. my response, “athiests are still in relationship with god.”
I went to a LGBTIQQ (anything left out there?) Muslim coffee klatch this year to market our Jewish/Muslim Dialog weekend at Camp Tawonga. The weird thing was that a full FIFTY PERCENT of the people present grew up Jewish. Now THAT’S wacky.
I’ll point out that not all Jewish summer camps are very theistic, at least the way you might think they are. We are awfully inclusive of secular and non-Jewish points of view at Tawonga.
I’d like to chalk up one more for the secular jews. I was born and raised jewish, but I don’t beleive in anything other than science. If it’s something science hasn’t explained or cannot disprove I simply “don’t know” as science doesn’t know. That is to say I wont make up beliefs to fill in the blanks simply to make myself feel better. I don’t make up lies to myself to feel better about the world.
I do however, greatly enjoy jewish culture. The songs, the food and such. I also value the torah for it’s common sense teachings that are applicable in every day life. For example, I take “don’t cook a calf in its mother’s milk” to be the lesson “don’t add insult to injury”. Taken literally it’s quite silly as obviously a cheeseburger isn’t going to cause you great harm, nor will a deity smite you for eating one. But adding insult to injury is a good lesson in how not to live a crappy life. Because this is the only life you are guaranteed to have.
As for the atheists, yeah, they seem to be turning atheism into a religion all its own. Kind of like how anarchy makes a great paradox of being the lack of government, yet a form of government simultaneously. They’d be much better off sending their kids to a completely secular camp not associated with any religion.
i appreciate the gist of your post, scott, but i don’t think that judaism “makes up lies … to feel better about the world. ” you make great points about how to take things literally or interpret them in a more modern, “logical” bent but you don’t have to attack the classic expression of religion to do so.
i don’t feel better about the world because the Torah says man was created in G-d’s image…I feel better about the world because I had a Shabbat dinner that brought people together to eat, sing, talk about shared values and, yes, perform some rituals that some people may find quaint.
jewish culture – songs, food, such – is temporal. what many refer to as jewish culture (bagels, knishes, klezmer, the new york times) will certainly give way to a new jewish culture and another one after that. i am sure that secular jews will be part of shaping that culture.
there is a long, beautiful tradition of jewish intellectual agnostics and atheists who are still part of religiosity, part of midrash, part of interpretation, and part of culture…no matter how adamantly they deny it.
i do appreciate your intent…i am just increasingly weary of the “cultural judaism” label. do we refer to non-religious mainstream americans as “cultural christians?” hell, i don’t know, maybe some people do.
about 1/2 of jew marry non jews. 90% of america is xtian, at least culturally. and 90% of the grandchildren of mixed marriage jewish/non jewish couples are xtian. so scott, hope you enjoy those bagels, because the odds are that if the religion means nothing to you, then your grandchildren won’t even like the lox.
Scott says:
“That is to say I wont make up beliefs to fill in the blanks simply to make myself feel better. I don’t make up lies to myself to feel better about the world.”
Gauntlet thrown. So when I (and hopefully others) respond, let no one say that the theists are mistreating the atheists.
“I was born and raised jewish, but I don’t beleive in anything other than science. If it’s something science hasn’t explained or cannot disprove I simply “don’t know” as science doesn’t know.”
That’s nice. Can you tell me of any theory of morality (prescriptive) that has been explained by science? If not, according to you, is there any reason not to murder people for the thrill of it (assuming the killer has arranged a way to evade the law, or just doesn’t care if he’s caught)?
“Taken literally it’s quite silly as obviously a cheeseburger isn’t going to cause you great harm, nor will a deity smite you for eating one.”
I didn’t see Mengele’s actions cause him any great harm, nor did any deity smite him. Any other possible arguments for not behaving as Mengele did?
I sure hope you have some answers. If not, could you blame those people who do believe, or acknowledge the possibility of G-d, for not trusting people who openly announce that morality has no basis?
Its Ok J, he obviously has an elemetary knowledge of science at best, I am no science whiz myself, but the more I learn about it, the more proof of G-D I see in the world. An Interesting side note, my Cousin who has a PHD in CHemistry really didn’t take much of an interest in G-D until he really started learning science
These kids are going to end up door-to-door mormans.
In my experience, when religion (or non-religion, in this case) is THRUST upon these kids, and they’re basicaly told what to believe, they’ll rebel, and to the opposite.
This place BREEDS bible-thumpers.
Sarah wrote:
I went to a LGBTIQQ (anything left out there?) Muslim coffee klatch this year to market our Jewish/Muslim Dialog weekend at Camp Tawonga. The weird thing was that a full FIFTY PERCENT of the people present grew up Jewish.
and JB wrote:
These kids are going to end up door-to-door mormans.
In my experience, when religion (or non-religion, in this case) is THRUST upon these kids, and they’re basicaly told what to believe, they’ll rebel, and to the opposite.
– – – – – – – – – –
… yes indeed.
The wave of BT return-to-Judaism on the part of ultra-secular Jews is also confirmation of this.
I have Recon cousins who used to argue about religion with my (neo-Ortho) parents. Now one of their children is Conservadox, and one is a fundamentalist Xtian.
i remember reading this old school “Free Thought Society Pamphlet”, and it talked about how to raise one’s children : as free thinkers or not? Surely if one were to raise one’s own as free thinkers, went the panphlet, this was tantamount to the the indoctrination that us free thinkers are trying toe scape from!? It concluded that Free Thinkers should not raise their children to be Free Thinkers. Ones children should be allowed to emerge however they want, according to the dictates of their own conscience ONLY. I was really impressed with the consistency of this approach. However I was also aware that it meant the Free Thought movement would not raise a new generation of disciples (like other communities – such as us Yids); and I also felt that it pointed to a lack of confidence in their beliefs.
Wow, I can’t believe I got those kind of replies. To avoid flamewar I’ll just address the comment related to morality.
“That’s nice. Can you tell me of any theory of morality (prescriptive) that has been explained by science? If not, according to you, is there any reason not to murder people for the thrill of it (assuming the killer has arranged a way to evade the law, or just doesn’t care if he’s caught)?”
Who needs a theory or science of morality? I don’t kill people because I love people. I wouldn’t get any “thrill” from killing, it would in fact depress me incredibly. I don’t kill people because I believe this is the only life they have and taking it away from them is just plain wrong. Wrong in the same way that adding insult to injury is just plain cruel. Do unto others, golden rule. And that’s just killing. Do I really need a reason to be a good person? Just because I don’t have the fear/love of some deity in me doesn’t make me without morals. I have a conscience, and in everything I do I try to make the world a better place, for the sake of making it a better place and nothing more.
What you’re basically saying is that if there was no G-d, no religion, you would have no reason not to kill people and do other amoral things. That you want to do all sorts of evil things, and only your belief of supernatural consequences is keeping you in line. What does that say about you as a human being?
scott, its not flaming to point out you are wrong. no one is saying you are evil: just that if a person’s belief system is self-originated, it can go wrong. if you are a believing jew you don’t murder. if you base your morality on your own internal belief system, who knows? the proof – the most educated, culturally advance civiliazation of the 20th century were the germans, need i point out what their internal instincts resulted in? and btw, again, if you care about the continuation of judaism, you will raise your kids religiously jewish, that desire to taste bagel and lox really doesnt last that many generations.
“Can you tell me of any theory of morality (prescriptive) that has been explained by science?”
The “Discourse Ethics” of Jurgen Habermas is based on Kohlberg’s research on moral development and perspective-taking.
And there are many theories of morality that use scientific methods and concepts to explain the existence of altruism. Franz DeWaal’s work comes to mind.
“…is there any reason not to murder people for the thrill of it (assuming the killer has arranged a way to evade the law, or just doesn’t care if he’s caught)?”
You will feel guilt if you are a neurophysiologically normal human being. Guilt is extremely unpleasant. If one is incapable of feeling guilt, as sociopaths are, then religion ain’t gonna help. The BTK killer was a church leader after all.
I can’t believe I’m posting again, you got me in the troll trap.
avi, if your internal belief system is that broken, then obviously you aren’t an intelligent or good person. Good people are not so morally unstable as to require a book of rules to remind them.
And are you capable of making a single post without referring to Nazis? You’re like uncle Leo on seinfeld. “anti-semite! anti-semite!” I’m sure you’ve heard of Godwin’s law.
While I’m at it. can you think of one reason why children can’t be raised to be ethnically jewish without belieiving there is a deity? I see it is a very real possibility, why can’t you? I mean, my parents raised me, right?
Hopefully, I wont be dragged back into this to post again. Darn my weak will and free time at work.
Scott-
Your mistake is resting your argument on the fact that you need no external moral system to be a good person. That’s wonderful. I agree that one can certainly be led down a path of kind and ethical living based upon one’s own personal experience. But, your personal feelings of right and wrong can say nothing about another person’s actions. You think that it is wrong to kill someone. The crazy mass murderer here disagrees. On what basis can you claim that crazy mass murderer is wrong? Mr. Dickforce suggests that it is wrong because the average person would feel guilt. But crazy mass murderer doesn’t feel guilt. He enjoys it because he thinks all (insert ethnic group here) are subhuman. Almost everyone you will ever meet thinks that raping and killing young girls is wrong, not just for them, but for everyone. It’s wrong whether you feel guilt or not. I suspect that you feel that child murder and rape would be just wrong _even if_ it were in a society that sanctioned it. That is, you probably believe (think about it) that those things you call “plain wrong” are wrong independent of personal or societal feelings on the topic. Science may be able to explain why an individual person feels that something is wrong (your own explanation). Science may also explain how societal moral norms are established (see Dick’s comment). But science cannot account for the belief that even most staunch secularists share that some things are just wrong independent of society or personal belief. It is something that you admit to believing is just inherently true in the universe…yet oddly, outside the realm of science.
Don’t worry, though. There are lots of things that science doesn’t explain that you probably hold dear. Love, perhaps? Sure, we have neurotransmitters, brains, bonding pheromones, etc. But, say to your spouse/girlfriend when she asks if you love her: “Well, I have the correct configuration of neurotransmitters in my brain to make me act as if I am bonding strongly to you” and you won’t likely get the response you want. Why? Because “love” as a concept is inherently outside the realm of scientific explanation. Sure, its based on real, physical interactions. But its also a feeling, an emotion, and experience. Unquantifiable. Untestable. Unpredictable. That is, unscientific.
I’m a physicist. I believe in love. I believe that child rape is wrong for everybody. That puts me well on my way to theism.
Scott says “Wow, I can’t believe I got those kind of replies. To avoid flamewar I’ll just address the comment related to morality. ”
And I can’t believe that you can’t believe you’d get such replies. For one thing, you expressed an opinion on a highly controversial and hugely important topic. But above all, when you wrote
“That is to say I wont make up beliefs to fill in the blanks simply to make myself feel better. I don’t make up lies to myself to feel better about the world.”
did you imagine that that wasn’t a condescending remark, at best? And now your’e shocked to be responded to in kind. You like science? Remember the “equal and opposite reaction”?
Now the substance. Point by point (will be somewhat redundant with 1.5 opinions’ excellent post, but my approach is that Scott’s views are internally inconsistent).
“I don’t kill people because I love people.”
Good for you. But what if you didn’t love people? And to those who don’t love people, what would you say? (I also suspect your love for people comes from generations of religious thought that was passed on to you.)
“I wouldn’t get any “thrill” from killing, it would in fact depress me incredibly.”
Well, some people do get a thrill that way. Your argument to them? In fact, on what basis could you say your tastes (because that’s all they are, according to you) are superior to theirs?
” I don’t kill people because I believe this is the only life they have and taking it away from them is just plain wrong.”
Just plain wrong? Says who? Under what moral theory?
” Wrong in the same way that adding insult to injury is just plain cruel. Do unto others, golden rule.”
Golden “rule”? Without a moral theory, there are no rules.
“Do I really need a reason to be a good person? Just because I don’t have the fear/love of some deity in me doesn’t make me without morals.”
That’s the question I asked you. In the absence of some deity (or some other moral theory, which I’ve yet to hear about), not only is there no reason to be good, the very concept of “good” vanishes.
” I have a conscience, and in everything I do I try to make the world a better place, for the sake of making it a better place and nothing more.”
Without a moral theory, that’s like saying “I like chocolate ice cream, so everyone else must like it too.”
“What you’re basically saying is that if there was no G-d, no religion, you would have no reason not to kill people and do other amoral things. That you want to do all sorts of evil things, and only your belief of supernatural consequences is keeping you in line.”
That’s an exaggeration. What I’m saying is that some people would do the most evil things. In my case, I don’t get off on malevolence, but there are plenty of lesser crimes that would serve my self-interest that, yes, I would like to commit but don’t because of morality. I doubt there’s anyone on earth who is not tempted to do something wrong.
And where do you get the notions of “amoral” and evil”? Didn’t you say above that you express no opinion if science can’t explain it?
Further, the idea that the sole reason for a religious person being good is the fear of supernatural consequences is a misunderstanding of religion. The fear exists, yes, but the core reason for morality is that the deity has imbued His creation with MEANING (and is the sole source of meaning), and that the primary prescription for humanity in accordance with this meaning is to behave morally. To act immorally, then, is to contradict the very meaning of our lives, the meaning that allows us to rise above the status of being purely physical objects.
“What does that say about you as a human being?”
Given the often tragic history of human beings, it says my evil inclinations make me a … human being.
I bear you no malice, Scott. But I really think that you don’t understand your own position, not to mention the positions of your opponents. Ideas have consequences, and whether or not there’s a G-d is one of the most (really, THE most) important questions that exist. You owe it to yourself, and to others, to think this all through thoroughly. Sorry to lecture (my usual style is to make my points, refute my opponents, and leave it at that), but at least the lecture is only coming from an anonymous source. Please at least ask a fellow atheist (or two) what I asked you, and examine his response.
Original Dickforce-
I’m not familiar with your sources, but from what I can tell they are all DESCRIPTIVE theories of morality. Obviously science (or at least social science) can come up with descriptive theories, but I specifically asked “Can you tell me of any theory of morality (prescriptive) that has been explained by science?”
Not only have I never heard of science coming up with PRESCRIPTIVE moral theories, I’m not sure how a descriptive field like science could prescribe anything.
If anything, scientific theories regarding altruism tend to undermine (though not make impossible) prescriptive moral theories.
“You will feel guilt if you are a neurophysiologically normal human being. Guilt is extremely unpleasant. If one is incapable of feeling guilt, as sociopaths are, then religion ain’t gonna help. The BTK killer was a church leader after all.”
If the guilt is so unbearable, then the only people doing anything wrong (even lesser crimes than murder) would be sociopaths. Are there really that many sociopaths out there? Doubtful. The vast majority of wrongdoers are well within the range of normal. Even if I conceded that religion is useless with sociopaths (really, I’ve never studied the issue), there’s still that vast majority of non-sociopaths to consider.
I.5:
It’s Ms. Dickforce.
“I agree that one can certainly be led down a path of kind and ethical living based upon one’s own personal experience. But, your personal feelings of right and wrong can say nothing about another person’s actions. You think that it is wrong to kill someone. The crazy mass murderer here disagrees.”
If your moral system is designed so that *you* know that serial killing is wrong then, in my opinion, it’s not a great system. And neither secular or religous ethics lessons will prevent a serial killer from killing.
And reducing non-religous moral systems to purely “personal” or “scientific” systems is a cannard.
In the long run, groups of people are happier when they are good and free…when there exists a balance between rights and liberty. What does religion have to do with that?
J: Jurgen Habermas, and many other more current ethical theorists, suggests a prescriptive system based on scientifically arrived at descriptions of normative human behavior. Your point doesn’t really have much practical relevance anyway. *Anyone* can make-up a prescriptive morality. Who cares?
“If the guilt is so unbearable, then the only people doing anything wrong (even lesser crimes than murder) would be sociopaths.”
No, that’s not the argument. Gulit and shame are what allows normal people to *know* the difference between right and wrong. Remember, you started this line…arguing that only religion can provide something aproximating an absolute point of reference for moral judgement. I’m merely suggesting an alternative. Let’s not start arguing about which kinds of authoratative moral systems most effciently control behavior.
Bonus question: Would there be religion without death?
Ms. Dickforce (sorry for the mixup):
I am a bit confused by the concept of “a prescriptive system based on scientifically arrived at descriptions of normative human behavior.” The concepts of “scientifically arrived at” (meaning, I presume, arrived at via the scientific method involving observation, empirical data, modeling, and predictive ability) is in direct conflict with the concept of “normative” (arrived at via a consensus). That is, knowledge of the consensus opinion is not a coherent, scientific model of morality.
I don’t think that any moral or ethical system could efficiently control behavior. On can not believe in God or not believe that he will get caught or not care what his neighbors think and the result is the same: actions outside the accepted moral framework.
I was not claiming that I “know” something to be universally right or wrong…only that I _believe_ certain things to be. And furthermore, so do most staunch secularists.
In practical terms, a moral or ethical system applies in terms of when and how we punish or shun others. If society did not feel that murder was at all wrong, we wouldn’t jail murderers. Those folks who felt that killing runaway slaves in the South was justified were typically also no punished. In order for a moral or ethical system to be of use, it must be, at least, a societal consensus. I think that you would agree with that. My point is that I think that slavery in America was morally wrong, independent of the societal consensus back then. But, it was the will of the majority for quite a long time. Only with a system that is external to a society or individual can one make such a statement.
Sure, it is a matter of belief. That is thrust of my argument. If you believe that certain things are wrong… If you believe that a societal consensus cannot make certain things right… You must, MUST have some external system on which you base those beliefs. Whether that system is God or not is up to you.
In response to the bonus question, I think that there would be more religion without death.
After all, while death scares us and hence drives many to some belief system, death also drives us to a “you only live once” materialism and hedonism. Might as well make my time matter, you know.
I think that without death, people would soon begin to seek some meaning in life. Whereas death gives some meaning to our lives as mortal beings, immortal beings would need to seek something else. People would enjoy themselves for a while, sure. But then, they’d grow up and begin to search for a deeper understanding of the world. Or go crazy.
lemme guess … judging by the photo … it’s an athiest fat camp right?
KIDDING!
today i was being interviewed by bnai brith magazine and the question about jewish athiests came up, and whether or not they were still jewish by my definition. my response, “athiests are still in relationship with god.”
mobius1ski • 06/29/05 03:34pm
I went to a LGBTIQQ (anything left out there?) Muslim coffee klatch this year to market our Jewish/Muslim Dialog weekend at Camp Tawonga. The weird thing was that a full FIFTY PERCENT of the people present grew up Jewish. Now THAT’S wacky.
I’ll point out that not all Jewish summer camps are very theistic, at least the way you might think they are. We are awfully inclusive of secular and non-Jewish points of view at Tawonga.
sarah • 06/29/05 03:34pm
I’d like to chalk up one more for the secular jews. I was born and raised jewish, but I don’t beleive in anything other than science. If it’s something science hasn’t explained or cannot disprove I simply “don’t know” as science doesn’t know. That is to say I wont make up beliefs to fill in the blanks simply to make myself feel better. I don’t make up lies to myself to feel better about the world.
I do however, greatly enjoy jewish culture. The songs, the food and such. I also value the torah for it’s common sense teachings that are applicable in every day life. For example, I take “don’t cook a calf in its mother’s milk” to be the lesson “don’t add insult to injury”. Taken literally it’s quite silly as obviously a cheeseburger isn’t going to cause you great harm, nor will a deity smite you for eating one. But adding insult to injury is a good lesson in how not to live a crappy life. Because this is the only life you are guaranteed to have.
As for the atheists, yeah, they seem to be turning atheism into a religion all its own. Kind of like how anarchy makes a great paradox of being the lack of government, yet a form of government simultaneously. They’d be much better off sending their kids to a completely secular camp not associated with any religion.
Scott Rubin • 06/29/05 04:21pm
i appreciate the gist of your post, scott, but i don’t think that judaism “makes up lies … to feel better about the world. ” you make great points about how to take things literally or interpret them in a more modern, “logical” bent but you don’t have to attack the classic expression of religion to do so.
i don’t feel better about the world because the Torah says man was created in G-d’s image…I feel better about the world because I had a Shabbat dinner that brought people together to eat, sing, talk about shared values and, yes, perform some rituals that some people may find quaint.
jewish culture – songs, food, such – is temporal. what many refer to as jewish culture (bagels, knishes, klezmer, the new york times) will certainly give way to a new jewish culture and another one after that. i am sure that secular jews will be part of shaping that culture.
there is a long, beautiful tradition of jewish intellectual agnostics and atheists who are still part of religiosity, part of midrash, part of interpretation, and part of culture…no matter how adamantly they deny it.
i do appreciate your intent…i am just increasingly weary of the “cultural judaism” label. do we refer to non-religious mainstream americans as “cultural christians?” hell, i don’t know, maybe some people do.
sarah • 06/29/05 04:55pm
about 1/2 of jew marry non jews. 90% of america is xtian, at least culturally. and 90% of the grandchildren of mixed marriage jewish/non jewish couples are xtian. so scott, hope you enjoy those bagels, because the odds are that if the religion means nothing to you, then your grandchildren won’t even like the lox.
avi green • 06/29/05 06:04pm
Scott says:
“That is to say I wont make up beliefs to fill in the blanks simply to make myself feel better. I don’t make up lies to myself to feel better about the world.”
Gauntlet thrown. So when I (and hopefully others) respond, let no one say that the theists are mistreating the atheists.
“I was born and raised jewish, but I don’t beleive in anything other than science. If it’s something science hasn’t explained or cannot disprove I simply “don’t know” as science doesn’t know.”
That’s nice. Can you tell me of any theory of morality (prescriptive) that has been explained by science? If not, according to you, is there any reason not to murder people for the thrill of it (assuming the killer has arranged a way to evade the law, or just doesn’t care if he’s caught)?
“Taken literally it’s quite silly as obviously a cheeseburger isn’t going to cause you great harm, nor will a deity smite you for eating one.”
I didn’t see Mengele’s actions cause him any great harm, nor did any deity smite him. Any other possible arguments for not behaving as Mengele did?
I sure hope you have some answers. If not, could you blame those people who do believe, or acknowledge the possibility of G-d, for not trusting people who openly announce that morality has no basis?
J • 06/29/05 06:13pm
Its Ok J, he obviously has an elemetary knowledge of science at best, I am no science whiz myself, but the more I learn about it, the more proof of G-D I see in the world. An Interesting side note, my Cousin who has a PHD in CHemistry really didn’t take much of an interest in G-D until he really started learning science
DiGiTaL • 06/29/05 08:29pm
These kids are going to end up door-to-door mormans.
In my experience, when religion (or non-religion, in this case) is THRUST upon these kids, and they’re basicaly told what to believe, they’ll rebel, and to the opposite.
This place BREEDS bible-thumpers.
JB • 06/29/05 10:09pm
Sarah wrote:
I went to a LGBTIQQ (anything left out there?) Muslim coffee klatch this year to market our Jewish/Muslim Dialog weekend at Camp Tawonga. The weird thing was that a full FIFTY PERCENT of the people present grew up Jewish.
and JB wrote:
These kids are going to end up door-to-door mormans.
In my experience, when religion (or non-religion, in this case) is THRUST upon these kids, and they’re basicaly told what to believe, they’ll rebel, and to the opposite.
– – – – – – – – – –
… yes indeed.
The wave of BT return-to-Judaism on the part of ultra-secular Jews is also confirmation of this.
I have Recon cousins who used to argue about religion with my (neo-Ortho) parents. Now one of their children is Conservadox, and one is a fundamentalist Xtian.
Ben-David • 06/30/05 12:46am
i remember reading this old school “Free Thought Society Pamphlet”, and it talked about how to raise one’s children : as free thinkers or not? Surely if one were to raise one’s own as free thinkers, went the panphlet, this was tantamount to the the indoctrination that us free thinkers are trying toe scape from!? It concluded that Free Thinkers should not raise their children to be Free Thinkers. Ones children should be allowed to emerge however they want, according to the dictates of their own conscience ONLY. I was really impressed with the consistency of this approach. However I was also aware that it meant the Free Thought movement would not raise a new generation of disciples (like other communities – such as us Yids); and I also felt that it pointed to a lack of confidence in their beliefs.
Ezra • 06/30/05 01:14am
Wow, I can’t believe I got those kind of replies. To avoid flamewar I’ll just address the comment related to morality.
“That’s nice. Can you tell me of any theory of morality (prescriptive) that has been explained by science? If not, according to you, is there any reason not to murder people for the thrill of it (assuming the killer has arranged a way to evade the law, or just doesn’t care if he’s caught)?”
Who needs a theory or science of morality? I don’t kill people because I love people. I wouldn’t get any “thrill” from killing, it would in fact depress me incredibly. I don’t kill people because I believe this is the only life they have and taking it away from them is just plain wrong. Wrong in the same way that adding insult to injury is just plain cruel. Do unto others, golden rule. And that’s just killing. Do I really need a reason to be a good person? Just because I don’t have the fear/love of some deity in me doesn’t make me without morals. I have a conscience, and in everything I do I try to make the world a better place, for the sake of making it a better place and nothing more.
What you’re basically saying is that if there was no G-d, no religion, you would have no reason not to kill people and do other amoral things. That you want to do all sorts of evil things, and only your belief of supernatural consequences is keeping you in line. What does that say about you as a human being?
Scott Rubin • 06/30/05 03:42am
scott, its not flaming to point out you are wrong. no one is saying you are evil: just that if a person’s belief system is self-originated, it can go wrong. if you are a believing jew you don’t murder. if you base your morality on your own internal belief system, who knows? the proof – the most educated, culturally advance civiliazation of the 20th century were the germans, need i point out what their internal instincts resulted in? and btw, again, if you care about the continuation of judaism, you will raise your kids religiously jewish, that desire to taste bagel and lox really doesnt last that many generations.
avi green • 06/30/05 06:59am
“Can you tell me of any theory of morality (prescriptive) that has been explained by science?”
The “Discourse Ethics” of Jurgen Habermas is based on Kohlberg’s research on moral development and perspective-taking.
And there are many theories of morality that use scientific methods and concepts to explain the existence of altruism. Franz DeWaal’s work comes to mind.
“…is there any reason not to murder people for the thrill of it (assuming the killer has arranged a way to evade the law, or just doesn’t care if he’s caught)?”
You will feel guilt if you are a neurophysiologically normal human being. Guilt is extremely unpleasant. If one is incapable of feeling guilt, as sociopaths are, then religion ain’t gonna help. The BTK killer was a church leader after all.
Original Dickforce • 06/30/05 07:34am
I can’t believe I’m posting again, you got me in the troll trap.
avi, if your internal belief system is that broken, then obviously you aren’t an intelligent or good person. Good people are not so morally unstable as to require a book of rules to remind them.
And are you capable of making a single post without referring to Nazis? You’re like uncle Leo on seinfeld. “anti-semite! anti-semite!” I’m sure you’ve heard of Godwin’s law.
While I’m at it. can you think of one reason why children can’t be raised to be ethnically jewish without belieiving there is a deity? I see it is a very real possibility, why can’t you? I mean, my parents raised me, right?
Hopefully, I wont be dragged back into this to post again. Darn my weak will and free time at work.
Scott Rubin • 06/30/05 08:28am
Scott-
Your mistake is resting your argument on the fact that you need no external moral system to be a good person. That’s wonderful. I agree that one can certainly be led down a path of kind and ethical living based upon one’s own personal experience. But, your personal feelings of right and wrong can say nothing about another person’s actions. You think that it is wrong to kill someone. The crazy mass murderer here disagrees. On what basis can you claim that crazy mass murderer is wrong? Mr. Dickforce suggests that it is wrong because the average person would feel guilt. But crazy mass murderer doesn’t feel guilt. He enjoys it because he thinks all (insert ethnic group here) are subhuman. Almost everyone you will ever meet thinks that raping and killing young girls is wrong, not just for them, but for everyone. It’s wrong whether you feel guilt or not. I suspect that you feel that child murder and rape would be just wrong _even if_ it were in a society that sanctioned it. That is, you probably believe (think about it) that those things you call “plain wrong” are wrong independent of personal or societal feelings on the topic. Science may be able to explain why an individual person feels that something is wrong (your own explanation). Science may also explain how societal moral norms are established (see Dick’s comment). But science cannot account for the belief that even most staunch secularists share that some things are just wrong independent of society or personal belief. It is something that you admit to believing is just inherently true in the universe…yet oddly, outside the realm of science.
Don’t worry, though. There are lots of things that science doesn’t explain that you probably hold dear. Love, perhaps? Sure, we have neurotransmitters, brains, bonding pheromones, etc. But, say to your spouse/girlfriend when she asks if you love her: “Well, I have the correct configuration of neurotransmitters in my brain to make me act as if I am bonding strongly to you” and you won’t likely get the response you want. Why? Because “love” as a concept is inherently outside the realm of scientific explanation. Sure, its based on real, physical interactions. But its also a feeling, an emotion, and experience. Unquantifiable. Untestable. Unpredictable. That is, unscientific.
I’m a physicist. I believe in love. I believe that child rape is wrong for everybody. That puts me well on my way to theism.
1.5 opinions • 06/30/05 08:33am
Scott says “Wow, I can’t believe I got those kind of replies. To avoid flamewar I’ll just address the comment related to morality. ”
And I can’t believe that you can’t believe you’d get such replies. For one thing, you expressed an opinion on a highly controversial and hugely important topic. But above all, when you wrote
“That is to say I wont make up beliefs to fill in the blanks simply to make myself feel better. I don’t make up lies to myself to feel better about the world.”
did you imagine that that wasn’t a condescending remark, at best? And now your’e shocked to be responded to in kind. You like science? Remember the “equal and opposite reaction”?
Now the substance. Point by point (will be somewhat redundant with 1.5 opinions’ excellent post, but my approach is that Scott’s views are internally inconsistent).
“I don’t kill people because I love people.”
Good for you. But what if you didn’t love people? And to those who don’t love people, what would you say? (I also suspect your love for people comes from generations of religious thought that was passed on to you.)
“I wouldn’t get any “thrill” from killing, it would in fact depress me incredibly.”
Well, some people do get a thrill that way. Your argument to them? In fact, on what basis could you say your tastes (because that’s all they are, according to you) are superior to theirs?
” I don’t kill people because I believe this is the only life they have and taking it away from them is just plain wrong.”
Just plain wrong? Says who? Under what moral theory?
” Wrong in the same way that adding insult to injury is just plain cruel. Do unto others, golden rule.”
Golden “rule”? Without a moral theory, there are no rules.
“Do I really need a reason to be a good person? Just because I don’t have the fear/love of some deity in me doesn’t make me without morals.”
That’s the question I asked you. In the absence of some deity (or some other moral theory, which I’ve yet to hear about), not only is there no reason to be good, the very concept of “good” vanishes.
” I have a conscience, and in everything I do I try to make the world a better place, for the sake of making it a better place and nothing more.”
Without a moral theory, that’s like saying “I like chocolate ice cream, so everyone else must like it too.”
“What you’re basically saying is that if there was no G-d, no religion, you would have no reason not to kill people and do other amoral things. That you want to do all sorts of evil things, and only your belief of supernatural consequences is keeping you in line.”
That’s an exaggeration. What I’m saying is that some people would do the most evil things. In my case, I don’t get off on malevolence, but there are plenty of lesser crimes that would serve my self-interest that, yes, I would like to commit but don’t because of morality. I doubt there’s anyone on earth who is not tempted to do something wrong.
And where do you get the notions of “amoral” and evil”? Didn’t you say above that you express no opinion if science can’t explain it?
Further, the idea that the sole reason for a religious person being good is the fear of supernatural consequences is a misunderstanding of religion. The fear exists, yes, but the core reason for morality is that the deity has imbued His creation with MEANING (and is the sole source of meaning), and that the primary prescription for humanity in accordance with this meaning is to behave morally. To act immorally, then, is to contradict the very meaning of our lives, the meaning that allows us to rise above the status of being purely physical objects.
“What does that say about you as a human being?”
Given the often tragic history of human beings, it says my evil inclinations make me a … human being.
I bear you no malice, Scott. But I really think that you don’t understand your own position, not to mention the positions of your opponents. Ideas have consequences, and whether or not there’s a G-d is one of the most (really, THE most) important questions that exist. You owe it to yourself, and to others, to think this all through thoroughly. Sorry to lecture (my usual style is to make my points, refute my opponents, and leave it at that), but at least the lecture is only coming from an anonymous source. Please at least ask a fellow atheist (or two) what I asked you, and examine his response.
J • 06/30/05 10:05am
Original Dickforce-
I’m not familiar with your sources, but from what I can tell they are all DESCRIPTIVE theories of morality. Obviously science (or at least social science) can come up with descriptive theories, but I specifically asked “Can you tell me of any theory of morality (prescriptive) that has been explained by science?”
Not only have I never heard of science coming up with PRESCRIPTIVE moral theories, I’m not sure how a descriptive field like science could prescribe anything.
If anything, scientific theories regarding altruism tend to undermine (though not make impossible) prescriptive moral theories.
“You will feel guilt if you are a neurophysiologically normal human being. Guilt is extremely unpleasant. If one is incapable of feeling guilt, as sociopaths are, then religion ain’t gonna help. The BTK killer was a church leader after all.”
If the guilt is so unbearable, then the only people doing anything wrong (even lesser crimes than murder) would be sociopaths. Are there really that many sociopaths out there? Doubtful. The vast majority of wrongdoers are well within the range of normal. Even if I conceded that religion is useless with sociopaths (really, I’ve never studied the issue), there’s still that vast majority of non-sociopaths to consider.
J • 06/30/05 10:18am
I.5:
It’s Ms. Dickforce.
“I agree that one can certainly be led down a path of kind and ethical living based upon one’s own personal experience. But, your personal feelings of right and wrong can say nothing about another person’s actions. You think that it is wrong to kill someone. The crazy mass murderer here disagrees.”
If your moral system is designed so that *you* know that serial killing is wrong then, in my opinion, it’s not a great system. And neither secular or religous ethics lessons will prevent a serial killer from killing.
And reducing non-religous moral systems to purely “personal” or “scientific” systems is a cannard.
In the long run, groups of people are happier when they are good and free…when there exists a balance between rights and liberty. What does religion have to do with that?
Original Dickforce • 06/30/05 10:39am
J: Jurgen Habermas, and many other more current ethical theorists, suggests a prescriptive system based on scientifically arrived at descriptions of normative human behavior. Your point doesn’t really have much practical relevance anyway. *Anyone* can make-up a prescriptive morality. Who cares?
“If the guilt is so unbearable, then the only people doing anything wrong (even lesser crimes than murder) would be sociopaths.”
No, that’s not the argument. Gulit and shame are what allows normal people to *know* the difference between right and wrong. Remember, you started this line…arguing that only religion can provide something aproximating an absolute point of reference for moral judgement. I’m merely suggesting an alternative. Let’s not start arguing about which kinds of authoratative moral systems most effciently control behavior.
Bonus question: Would there be religion without death?
Original Dickforce • 06/30/05 10:52am
Ms. Dickforce (sorry for the mixup):
“I am a bit confused by the concept of “a prescriptive system based on scientifically arrived at descriptions of normative human behavior.” The concepts of “scientifically arrived at” (meaning, I presume, arrived at via the scientific method involving observation, empirical data, modeling, and predictive ability) is in direct conflict with the concept of “normative” (arrived at via a consensus).”
The validity of psychological or social-scientific theories of human behavior are based on statistically normative models, whether arrived at through rigoruous observational or experimental methods.
“You must, MUST have some external system on which you base those beliefs. Whether that system is God or not is up to you.”
Sure, I agree. But I thought you were originally arguing that some ‘external systems” were more valid than others.
OD:
“Jurgen Habermas, and many other more current ethical theorists, suggests a prescriptive system based on scientifically arrived at descriptions of normative human behavior. ”
Not having read Habermas, I don’t know for sure, but I think your’e confusing refinements in the (or some already existing) moral code (what Habermas is doing) with a theory that allows for morality to have a basis in the first place. If I’m wrong, could you explain here, briefly, how Habermas is justifying morality?
“Your point doesn’t really have much practical relevance anyway. *Anyone* can make-up a prescriptive morality. Who cares? ”
My whole point is that there’s huge importance in whether we believe morality is made-up or true.
“Gulit and shame are what allows normal people to *know* the difference between right and wrong. ”
Sez who? Are you saying that there’s an inbuilt reaction of guilt or shame that dictates our morality? Isn’t it more likely that the teachings of a society and/or the musings of the individual generate the notion that certain behaviors should lead to feelings of guilt or shame? And is it not possible for someone to overcome feelings of guilt and shame enough to commit a crime, but then not commit the crime based on principle?
“Remember, you started this line…arguing that only religion” can provide something aproximating an absolute point of reference for moral judgement. I’m merely suggesting an alternative.”
What is the alternative?
“Let’s not start arguing about which kinds of authoratative moral systems most effciently control behavior.”
That’s an entirely different argument, I agree. The first step is to ask whether morality in general (rather than a specific system) is truly real or if it’s just made up and imposed.
“Bonus question: Would there be religion without death?”
Just getting into that would be to concede that all religions are constructed solely by people for the sake of comfort. If there is a G-d, and if He demands morality, I would have to answer yes.
“And reducing non-religous moral systems to purely “personal” or “scientific” systems is a cannard. ”
OK, show us otherwise.
“In the long run, groups of people are happier when they are good and free…when there exists a balance between rights and liberty. What does religion have to do with that?”
Who said the ultimate goal is happiness (what about goodness)? Doesn’t religion teach about people being good? Do you think religion opposes freedom? (Some do, but others promote it. How free could anyone be in a society where anything goes?)
“…when there exists a balance between rights and liberty.”
Religion was a source of the notion of rights long before the Enlightenment. And although the religious notion of liberty may be more restrictive than you’d like, your’e not in a very different position re liberty than many religions have been. The religions had to decide what’s permissible and what’s beyond the pale, and although you may be more expansive on the permissible side, you still have to make the same decisions.
Do you think the Enlightenment ideals just came out of nowhere in the Seventeenth century? (And if the French version of the Enlightenment borrowed a great deal from its surrounding religious/traditional culture, how much more so the British and American?)
“Not having read Habermas, I don’t know for sure, but I think your’e confusing refinements in the (or some already existing) moral code (what Habermas is doing) with a theory that allows for morality to have a basis in the first place. If I’m wrong, could you explain here, briefly, how Habermas is justifying morality?”
Very generally: I think his main point is that we can ground morality in universals if we examine normative moral development in individuals (cross cultural psychology) and phylogenically (in terms of the social evolution of the species). In addition, the (perhaps) uniquely human ability to take the perspective of another and the developing abilty to communicate one’s own perspective are critical to his theory as is an almost common sense notion of rationality. In fact, his argument rests on what he calls “Universal Pragmatics” which says something about language functioning as a tool in the service of acheiving mutual understanding between minds and groups. (Or something…I can’t remember college so good.)
“My whole point is that there’s huge importance in whether we believe morality is made-up or true.”
Habermas argued the same thing vehemently in his career-long debates with (yuck) Derrida.
“Are you saying that there’s an inbuilt reaction of guilt or shame that dictates our morality? Isn’t it more likely that the teachings of a society and/or the musings of the individual generate the notion that certain behaviors should lead to feelings of guilt or shame? And is it not possible for someone to overcome feelings of guilt and shame enough to commit a crime, but then not commit the crime based on principle?”
I think there is something inborn that allows one to feel morally disgusted or repulsed. Of course, how one construes a moral situation will depend on social conventions. But our ability to reason about this construal is also ‘natural’. How we choose to act depends on a lot of things. As a society, our ability to make rational judgements collectively about what is right or wrong is a function of our unique cognitive abilities.
“And reducing non-religous moral systems to purely “personal” or “scientific” systems is a cannard. ”
“OK, show us otherwise.”
i will if you do it first. That is prove to me that the moral code prescribed by L. Ron Hubbard has less authority than the one written in the Torah.
“Who said the ultimate goal is happiness (what about goodness)? Doesn’t religion teach about people being good? Do you think religion opposes freedom? (Some do, but others promote it. How free could anyone be in a society where anything goes?”
I guess I was making a Socratic argument…and one that I believe in…that people are happiest when they are good and truthful with themselves and others.
“The religions had to decide what’s permissible and what’s beyond the pale, and although you may be more expansive on the permissible side, you still have to make the same decisions.”
I agree, and I’m not bashing religion. I just don’t think religion is necessarry for grounding morality, although it may in some cases sufficiently do so.
I really don’t have any desire to get in to the morality issues. They have been very well covered.
The only comment I really feel the need to make is directed at Scott’s comments about only accepting what science has proven. (And this comment is more generally aimed than at Scott specificly.) I find it odd that people are unwilling to believe in G-D because it doen’t make sense to them, but are willing to believe that matter just simply existed for no reason. It is a matter of faith that either G-D is timeless and eternal or the ‘univeral all’ that exists is timeless and eternal. Either way you are making a leap of faith.
some of your posts are crazy long, so I didn’t read all of them detail for detail, but it seems most of you are saying do you really need G-D in your life to be rational enough to know that murder is wrong… well look at every great Pre Monotheistic Judaic society(Roman, Greeks, Aztecs, Mayans, etc) and see how they valued life (Human Sacrifice, Infanticide, Kiling for sport/pleasure etc) so what caused the big turn around? THe founding basic priniciple of One G-D?
The bottom line is this: You don’t need to believe in God and follow a strict set of religious rules in order to be a moral person. Likewise, just because you believe in God and adhere to a strict set of religious rules does not necessarily make you a decent, moral individual. You can bet that Baruch Goldstein would never have been caught dead wearing a linen-wool mixture or eating a cheeseburger. Yet he committed mass murder because he thought that he was doing something that God wanted him to do.
And since someone brought up the Holocaust, I think it is only fair to ask about what the Almighty One was doing between 1933 and 1945 while the Nazis were savagely slaughtering six million of His chosen favorites. I mean, He did a lot of intervening on their behalf during the good old biblical days; so where was He when they really needed Him?
What the hell are these perverts doing at “Camp Quest” anyway?
Photo:
http://www.camp-quest.com/cq20…
OD:
I found the Habermas summary very interesting, but I don’t think it gets you where you want to go. The summary does show that humans are “built” for morality, and possibly that they would be happier, in the aggregate, where morality is the norm. All worthwhile points. But I’m not seeing how Habermas explains how morality is RIGHT, in absolute sense. If I granted every word of your summary, I would still not be able to tell a thrill-killer that he’s wrong. I could say that he’s harming others. He’d say, “why should I care?” I could say that he’s decreasing the happiness of society. Same response. I could tell him that he’s going against his nature. He’d laugh.
(I am intrigued by the line of thought you presented, however. Do you know which book or essay I can find it in?)
“Habermas argued the same thing vehemently in his career-long debates with (yuck) Derrida.”
Heh. I agree about Derrida. But why did Habermas waste so much time on that nonentity?
“I think there is something inborn that allows one to feel morally disgusted or repulsed. Of course, how one construes a moral situation will depend on social conventions. But our ability to reason about this construal is also ‘natural’. How we choose to act depends on a lot of things. As a society, our ability to make rational judgements collectively about what is right or wrong is a function of our unique cognitive abilities.”
Fair enough, but the argument about our cognitive abilities really only kicks in AFTER the moral project is shown to have grounding. It may be best for an entire society to have moral rules purely on pragmatic grounds, but establishing such societies and maintaining them requires sacrifices from certain individuals (taking the risk of signing the Declaration of Independence; fighting in wars). For these individuals, the costs of their actions outweigh the benefits of living in a well-run society. Either theyr’e fools suckered by a Platonic fantasy, or heroes operating under a true, not pragmatic, morality.
“i will if you do it first. That is prove to me that the moral code prescribed by L. Ron Hubbard has less authority than the one written in the Torah.”
What I meant was, show me even one example of a nonreligious but universally binding morality (a serious argument for morality, not something made up for pragmatic purposes or profit).
Re Scientology: How about Tom Cruise? Seriously. OK, also L. Ron’s conversation with a fellow SF writer about how he could get rich if he started his own religion. More generally, the Torah can boast numerous generations that have upheld and advanced civilization. L. Ron can boast fleecing a few suckers and allowing an actor to pretend he’s an expert in psychology (guy’s not even an expert in acting!).
“I just don’t think religion is necessarry for grounding morality”
I’m not seeing it.
MX:
“You don’t need to believe in God and follow a strict set of religious rules in order to be a moral person.”
That’s true, but I don’t think anyone has argued otherwise. However, consider that unless you come up with an alternative grounding for morality, there is no significance in being a moral person in the first place. (Presumably, you aprove of people behaving morally. I ask you why. If you can’t tell me, there’s a problem.) Also, pragmatically, I have to wonder how many generations can pass without there being an expressed grounding for morality before people start to become less moral.
“Likewise, just because you believe in God and adhere to a strict set of religious rules does not necessarily make you a decent, moral individual.”
No argument there.
“And since someone brought up the Holocaust, I think it is only fair to ask about what the Almighty One was doing between 1933 and 1945 while the Nazis were savagely slaughtering six million of His chosen favorites. I mean, He did a lot of intervening on their behalf during the good old biblical days; so where was He when they really needed Him?”
I consider this a very solid argument against the theist position. I’ve never liked any of the answers given. But a solid argument alone doesn’t necessarily carry the day. (If you show that a position is contradictory, you win the argument. Other evidence, like your example, can help make a position more likely to be true, but are not slam dunks.)
Consider this: if G-d doesn’t exist, how do you propose to say that the Nazis were evil? Put another way, was Wallenberg good and Mengele bad, or was Wallenberg foolish (threw away a rich and happy life to save Jews, ended up rotting and dying in a Soviet prison) and Mengele wise (had himself a royal good time during the war, stole Nazi gold and partied away the rest of his natural life in South America)?
And to be fair, the Bible also records many instances of the Jews not being rescued.
You know, when I put up this post, I really didnt expect this much shenanigans (last time I posted something here, a poem actually, it got like five responses which were sweet, but man, there weren’t of ’em!) I’m glad people are talking metaphysics, but what’s with all the hostility? I personally was very happy about Camp Quest – people are standing up for their (lack of) beliefs, etc and it’s their right and I appreciate it. The point I was hoping to get across (and a bunch of folks agreed with) was that once you announce yourself an active Atheist, you no longer are an Atheist, because you’re entering a new ritualistic discourse, which works with the negative space and is some hard core kind of theology, I’d say. The fundamentalism of metaphysics.
That said, whoever uttered “yuck” about Derrida, please, take my shoulder-shrug as a signifier of the suggestion to re-read and reconsider. I think, he was the most exciting and possibly, the most important philosopher of the past 50 years, and Habermas is a rather minor figure compared to him (but than again, to be fair, I haven’t read much of H., mainly his work on Walter Benjamin so i could be wrong)
Peace!!!
J writes:
“However, consider that unless you come up with an alternative grounding for morality, there is no significance in being a moral person in the first place. (Presumably, you aprove of people behaving morally. I ask you why. If you can’t tell me, there’s a problem.) Also, pragmatically, I have to wonder how many generations can pass without there being an expressed grounding for morality before people start to become less moral.
Consider this: if G-d doesn’t exist, how do you propose to say that the Nazis were evil? Put another way, was Wallenberg good and Mengele bad, or was Wallenberg foolish (threw away a rich and happy life to save Jews, ended up rotting and dying in a Soviet prison) and Mengele wise (had himself a royal good time during the war, stole Nazi gold and partied away the rest of his natural life in South America)?”
Why should we be moral as opposed to immoral if there is no God or Big Brother out there monitoring our actions? Well, we’re here and if we are all going to live on the same planet together then we have to get along with each other (can’t we all just get along?). So by being moral and decent it keeps everything running smoothly. Otherise you have chaos. I think that there is something out there called “basic human decency.” Either you have it or you don’t. And it doesn’t necessarily come as a result of a good religious upbringing. Mengele, by the way, grew up in a devout Catholic family.
The idea that without God you cannot say that something, like what the Nazis did, is evil, is absurd. There is a reason why what they did was called “crimes against humanity” and not just a crime against the Jews. All the peoples of the world – both believers and non-believers – could agree on it.
I also didn’t read all of the long posts, and I hope that I’m not re-hashing something that’s already been mentioned, but I’d like to jump in at this point with two comments:
1. For at least the past few decades, a number of biologists and behaviorists have developed arguments for a biological basis to altruism and morality – that it has to do with preserving the gene pool and so forth. I believe that the sociobiologists are big on this.
2. The Buddhists have some elegant metaphysical arguments in which they attempt to explain the existence of reality, and of a system of cause and effect while eschewing the idea of a creator.
A number of you are arguing that humans can’t behave morally – or, at least, define it as such – without the existence of an external authority. It’s also being asserted as self-evident that the universe couldn’t exist without an intelligent creator. I can’t agree that it’s self-evident. I do tend to agree that the existence of God can be neither proven nor disproved; my point is that sophisticated arguments can be made from many different perspectives. For example, Aquinas, Hume and the Buddhists all dealt with the problem of infinite regression and how it relates to the idea of a creator, and each came up with a very different answer. I feel that at a certain point, it becomes impossible to judge between the relative merits of different arguments, especially when they’re coming out of radically different cultural contexts. Ultimately, I think that the most important factors in determining religious affiliation or worldview are probably personal preference and communal identification – with whom we feel comfortable.
Speaking to the article’s original question, “Are irreligious people discriminated against…†– I think that, given the current cultural climate, with the religious right engaged in an orgy of self-congratulation, I’d have to say that they probably are. And if they aren’t being discriminated against now to any great extent, they probably will be in the near future, along with everyone else who isn’t a conservative evangelical Christian.
MX:
You say “Why should we be moral as opposed to immoral if there is no God or Big Brother out there monitoring our actions? Well, we’re here and if we are all going to live on the same planet together then we have to get along with each other (can’t we all just get along?). So by being moral and decent it keeps everything running smoothly. Otherise you have chaos.”
Yes, it is best for a SOCIETY to have its members behave morally. The problem is that any society is actually just a set of individuals. For many of those individuals (especially the most powerful ones), the benefits of being immoral outweigh the benefits of being good. In general, any criminal can say that his crime only slightly destabilizes his society (it’s only the actions of one member of the society), but the benefits of the crime accrue solely to the criminal. The criminal is happy to, say, benefit from the $10,000 he stole, while living in a society that has been made only the tiniest fraction less stable because of his actions.
“I think that there is something out there called “basic human decency.” Either you have it or you don’t. ”
I suppose that exonerates all criminals. But do you really think that it’s not possible for someone to improve? In any case, this is beside the point. Pointing out an ingrained trait only describes what’s there. It says nothing about what people OUGHT to do.
“The idea that without God you cannot say that something, like what the Nazis did, is evil, is absurd. ”
People are way too easy with the word “absurd”. It seems more like a way of stifling debate (“we can’t argue about that – it’s not only wrong, it’s absurd!”) than prevailing in one. Go ahead, tell us why the Nazis were evil. For that matter, how is anything evil? And where do you come off telling members of another culture such as the Nazi culture that they’re wrong, let alone evil? (Relax, all you literalists; that was a rhetorical question.)
“There is a reason why what they did was called “crimes against humanity” and not just a crime against the Jews. All the peoples of the world – both believers and non-believers – could agree on it.”
I had no idea that we’re doing morality by consensus. Good thing the Nazis didn’t win WWII. Then you’d be saying (if that were possible) that the Jews deserved their extermination because “all the peoples of the world – both believers and non-believers – could agree on it.”
At my school, the athiest club is made up of mostly people with at least one jewish parent.
J:
“What I meant was, show me even one example of a nonreligious but universally binding morality (a serious argument for morality, not something made up for pragmatic purposes or profit). ”
You’re missing my point I think. The morality is not ‘made up’ if grounded in our evolutionarily unique cognitive-communicative abilities and goals. Serial killers lie outside this system the same way that animals and space aliens do. In this nontrivial sense moral truth is real, because particular features of what it means to be human are real.
If the Nazis had ‘won’ eventually they would have ‘lost’ because such tyranny is not sustainable. Maybe this is sort of an “End of History” sort of argument?
OD:
“You’re missing my point I think. The morality is not ‘made up’ if grounded in our evolutionarily unique cognitive-communicative abilities and goals.”
No, that kind of morality would not be ‘made up’, but it would suffer from its not being BINDING (I would agree it’s universal enough). Just because you can show that humans have a great many built-in tendencies that cause and promote moral behavior, it doesn’t mean that you’ve shown any reason why morality is binding on any given individual. Under the view you’ve presented, anyone can announce that they’ve decided to use their evolutionarily unique cognitive-communicative abilities for the purpose of roasting babies, and you’d have no answer (just because someone’s abilities or characteristics may lead them naturally down a certain path, in what way are they bound to remain on that path if they choose otherwise?).
It looks to me that in order to have true (universal, binding, not just pragmatic, not manufactured) morality, you need something transcendent. I tend to be a rationalist, and consequently I’m always raining on the “spirituality” parade, but in this one area I think we’re forced to resort to metaphysics.
“If the Nazis had ‘won’ eventually they would have ‘lost’ because such tyranny is not sustainable. ”
That level of tyranny, maybe not. But the ideology? Not so sure. Anyway, don’t read too much into that line. I was only trying to show why you can’t decide moral questions by consensus.
we adore lox and we actually are burnt if we touch a mezzuzah.
Anyone ever notice how most mammalian species don’t hunt their own? Lions, wolves, etc. engage in dominance battles, but they usually don’t even seriously injure their own. Why? Because it’s bad for survival. A species doesn’t survive over others by killing its own, unless it has a high birth rate (i.e. insects… black widows kill their mates, sure, but after they’ve mated, ensuring the laying of hundreds of eggs) or few natural predators (i.e. modern-day humans). This is seen back millions of years. You rarely see a T-rex fossil that looks like another T-rex took a chunk out of it, or a raptor fossil with the same, or a saber-tooth one. It’s bad for your survivability as a species to kill/injure your own kind. No idea why nobody’s mentioned this one here before… just seems like common sense to me. Would not surprise me if a set of “don’t kill your own kind” morals developed a long time ago for most advanced species.