TheVillageAtheist

They'd be wrong. Religious ideology, more than any other kind, breeds violence because of the grand claims it makes for itself. It positions God as the creator, the source of all life, and makes him the ultimate moral authority. And adherence to his creeds promises the ultimate reward, while the ultimate punishment is meted out to those who do not. No non-religious ideology could possibly make such claims, and without such claims there are--as history has proven--far fewer people willing to sacrifice their integrity and common sense. Yes, non-religious ideologies can and do lead to violence and other ills, but not with the rate or consistency of religion. If most people came to their religion by choice, I might agree. But the vast majority of people who belong to a given sect do so because they were born into it, so it's difficult to say that violent people are more prone to religion when it in fact was not violence that lead them there but chance. And we have plenty of evidence of otherwise normal, well-adjusted people killing themselves and others in the name of their faith.These two Boston bombers, for example. One was a boxer, but he was by most accounts a pretty normal guy. He wasn't torturing cats, or fitting the profile of the kind of person you're imagining would be drawn to violent ideologies. It's going to turn out that he did this for Allah. How many of the 9/11 hijackers were otherwise normal people? Many had college degrees and careers. So I'm not buying that religious violence is perpetrated even predominantly by crazy people. History shows us again and again that religious ideology is a powerful influence on the human psyche, and makes even normal, peaceful people do terrible things. No other ideology that I can think of is capable of such a thing.

Ideology can be dangerous regardless of the brand. However, religious ideology tends to be dangerous with more frequency than non-religious ideology. I also would hesitate to classify the soviets as irreligious. Yes, atheism was a bit of a prerequisite for Stalinism, but Stalinism was also something of a pseudo-religion. North Korea is a more crystalline example of this: A non-theistic nation that has simply replaced traditional gods with the Dear Leader.

If you're going to break rank and assume God isn't so good after all, why not just go all the way and assume he doesn't exist?

This is an interesting observation, and I think you're right. At least in the west, where adhering to religious practice is impractical, we see few strict observers. I think that's why some of them have trouble believing that religion is the chief cause of unrest in areas like the middle east. After all, it isn't a chief cause of anything in their own lives, so how could it possibly be the cause of something like deadly violence? Real belief is pretty serious business, particularly in the Abrahamic faiths, where there exists strict dietary and social restrictions.

Yes, religion is extremely important in our world. It is a motivator for good and bad behavior, sometimes exceptionally good or bad behavior. It colors our language and our culture. It is the hinge of hugely consequential social and political debates. The reason we should debate the merits of religion or the existence of God is that, like any philosophy, it has real consequences. A thousand years ago, when Islam was inclusive and promoting art and science, you would hope that people continue believing to foster the atmosphere of discovery and scholarship. Today, with terrorism and poverty and oppression perpetrated and perpetuated by Islamic fundamentalists, you might want to convince people to leave the faith.

How could geometry be subjective or objective without making some statement about it? I mean, are you saying that morality is objective just because it exists as a concept? And anyway, to say that one morality is more true than the other, or that the more useful morality should be applied is a subjective statement, even if the usefulness of said morality is objective. But the valuation you give to each of the items in your code of morality is subjective, even if you are basing it its usefulness to the human race, because you must apply a subjective value to whatever end you are attempting to reach through this code. For example, if your morality states that harming children is bad, and you base this on a study that finds children who have been abused are 70% more likely to commit a violent crime, you are placing a subjective value on the decrease of violent crime. So it may be "objectively" immoral according to your code, your code itself is subjective. This is not like saying geometry is subjective, it's like saying that your preference for this particular geometry is subjective. Of course it would, because morality is not the measure of a planet, but the proposition that one planet is better than the other. Your use of the word "mimicking" does my work for me on this one, but I'll go ahead and sum it up anyway: People who feel no empathy only know right from wrong based on what they've learned from society. A sociopath blends well (or doesn't) because they're good at copying what they see. A sociopath in Qatar is quite likely to answer the question of "What is right?" differently than a sociopath in Idaho. I disagree. They may see it as suckers with money getting what they deserve for being stupid. By your logic, they would also see prison as immoral, since prison almost by its definition devalues others while causing their suffering. You could argue that people in prison are there for doing something stupid, but you could say the same thing about the victims of a Ponzi scheme. Had they been more thorough, they could have avoided their loss. The point is, no action is objectively wrong; it all depends on where the individual places their values. Yet without it, we have no basis for avoiding things like the causing of suffering, and no drive to alleviate it. There would be no such thing as charity if not for empathy, no orphanages or hospices. I'm using the word "objective" to mean how everyone means it in this context: That there are inherent and definitive "good" and "bad" acts in this world, that there is some cosmic rightness and wrongess, independent of what anyone believes. Like, a morality mathematics. And it doesn't exist. Exactly! What you call compassion is not what I call compassion, and even if we agree on the definition we almost certainly won't to which degree we should be compassionate. In other words, subjective valuations. You could only know this from experience; ie You've hurt someone before. Or you've read about it, or heard second-hand stories. Without empathy, there is no intellectual reason to assume that others feel pain unless you have experienced that they do. And even then, a thick-skinned person is more likely to say blunt, hurtful things, because they don't have that hitch in their throat to stop them that someone more sensitive might. Couples get into arguments about this sort of thing all the time, where one is called "thoughtless" for not doing something amazing on an anniversary. It's not that the thoughtless person didn't care, it's just that they never would have expected or needed some kind of hubbub made over the occasion, so they had no reason to expect that the other would. Unless, of course, the other said something beforehand. Why would they know? This analogy requires there to be some kind of over-arching truth to morality, as in "this concept is good always, even if it takes slightly different forms." But this is inaccurate. There is no moral statement that can be shown to be true as a concept always, even if it varies slightly from time to time. Not rape, not killing, not theft. There are no objective moral truths. Keep in mind, however, that I do not disagree with Sam's general assessment of science and how it can relate to morality. But even he does not maintain that morality is objective. He says that science is capable of having its own say in the realm of morality by adopting a particular worldview--ie That we are to avoid the greatest possible suffering--but he never asserts that this is more correct than any other moral code, only that it is a moral code that can be derived from science.

No. Even if we were the product of a supreme creator, the mandates of that creator must still be given a subjective value by its subjects (i.e. "us"). Without that valuation, even the words of a god are empty. We can say much more than that. It is a fact that morality is subjective. It's entirely up to the individual to decide for itself what constitutes "right" and "wrong." We can intellectualize these opinions and make compelling, logical arguments for one code over another, but the strength of our position ultimately lies in our ability to build consensus. In other words, morality's strength is in its numbers.

Um, no. First and foremost, not everyone agrees that killing, cheating, and stealing is wrong, and not everyone believes that altruism is good. Many people think charity is counter-productive, for example. So your assertion is incorrect right from the start. But what I'm curious about is why "even aboriginies, indians etc." are treated as something other than people in your post? What do you mean "even" they have morality? This is incorrect. I can say with confidence that Adolph Hitler was wrong, and I can give you an reasonable, rational explanation for why. Just because there is no cosmic "correctness" to behavior, it does not mean that all opinions are therefore correct.

Flood myths exist in most cultures because people tend to settle around bodies of water. If you live near a river now, you see how flooding even today can be a major problem, and major flooding can be catastrophic, so imagine how even a mild flood thousands of years ago could totally turn civilization on its ear. That said, the Biblical flood story isn't necessarily based on a real flood. First of all, Noah's flood story is based on the flood story from the epic of Gilgamesh, and the flood part of that story may itself be a late addition based on the flood myth from the epic of Atra-Hasis, so it's unlikely that there was any singular event that triggered the Noah flood myth. Instead, there probably were several floods that ingrained themselves into the culture, and became a popular backdrop for morality and hero stories. A modern example would be counter-terrorism/special ops/black ops books/movies/games that pit heroes against forces of radical political or religious ideologies. Now, we can't say any one particular terrorist attack served as a catalyst for this kind of story, but their ever-present threat make them fertile ground for such stories.

If you're just going to call the laws of the universe "God," then what's the point? It's theoretically possible, but there's no evidence to suggest it and the concept doesn't provide a better understanding of the universe. The better, broader question is whether or not science is compatible with religion, and as we've seen, it very much is. Catholicism is already fully on board, and others are going to have to follow if they want to remain viable in the West as time goes on. Science isn't going away, in other words, and as we continue to shed light on the truth in ways that nakedly contradict literal interpretations of popular monotheistic texts, the big players will have to adapt or face extinction. That isn't to say religion will disappear, of course; rather, old religions will likely lose out to newer variations that do not oppose modern understandings of the world.

Fair enough, but usefulness is a subjective quality as well. Okay, it was admittedly a poor example. But morality isn't something you can measure. You can look at a planet and say "That planet is objectively this size," but you can't say "This ethical code is objectively good." It all depends on what you consider "good" to be. You've proposed Sam Harris' "Avoid the worst possible suffering," which is noble, but not one I agree with. You're making two huge assumptions here. First, that they agree with the concept of charity, and secondly, that they find no humor in making fun of those with diseases. And in either case, it's only because of social conditioning. There is nothing inherently good or bad about either of those items. For instance, people have contracted diseases through tainted blood transfusions, and making fun of disability can help people coping with it...well, cope with it. But again, morality can't be measured in such a way. How else would they know? Because they do not feel empathy or remorse, the societal restrictions put upon them appear arbitrary. I don't agree with that at all. Without empathy, much of our moral consciousness is not intuitive. Solidarity with strangers is not intuitive. Sharing resources is not intuitive. Are the morals of Wahabi Islam intuitive? Would you know instinctively that you should remain faithful to your partner without an intuitive understanding of what it might feel like to be cheated on? Of course not. But none of these are actually objective qualities. What does "better" mean? What does "benefit" mean? How do you mean "value others?" Even "compassion" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. Does "thrive" simply refer to how many people there are in the world, or to the extreme level of comfort available only in a few places in the world? You may value population growth, but all that really means is that there are more people suffering from illness, hunger, and poverty than at any time in history. Is that really something worth valuing, or is it just a part of existence that is neither inherently good or bad? And going to the other extreme, all of our success through cooperation might just lead to our destruction. People are only now starting to realize just how badly we have damaged our environment since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and we be approaching a point where the damage is irreversible. That's what our progress has wrought. I'm not saying it's a bad thing objectively, I'm just saying that things you're tempted to call objectively good are actually very bad by the same logic in the long run. To you and me, perhaps. Others may not agree. Humans don't need to live in cities to survive. We don't need to cooperate beyond our family unit. We can, and we do, but it's not necessary, so in order to call those things "good," you have to apply our own subjective valuation of those other items.

No, I did not. What I said was that I had a problem that he included the Judeo-Christian myth because of this specific reason. I made this plain in my post; I am not responsible for your reading comprehension level. And I ask again: Do you plan on adding to this conversation, or are you just here to troll? Excuse you? I'm the one being attacked here. I'm simply defending myself.

I'm no mathematician, but I have heard that proof only exists in math, so I would assume that if there was any place one could find true objectivity, it's there. As for your overall point, I was say that you're right. I hadn't thought of it that way, but now it seems obvious. You learn something new every day, I suppose! Unless your arms and mine are the same length, then arm length is not objective. Even your own arms are of different lengths, same goes for your legs. There is no objective mold from which a person comes from. Not liking the implications of something is certainly not a good enough reason to disbelieve. What do you mean "recognize" morality? There is no true, objective morality for them to recognize, so if they in fact do intellectually understand that they have done wrong, it is only because they are aware of what the law says. There is no "true' morality. Anything you think is objective requires a subjective valuation of that principal. But solidarity and compassion aren't always good for humanity. Sometimes cruelty is required. Or if not required, at least you can achieve the same goals using different methods. That isn't to say there aren't some things that most people would agree upon, or that you can't make a reasoned argument for the rightness of something, but at the end of the day you still have to make a value judgment, and value judgments are subjective. You don't need moral objectivity to argue against Bronze Age ethics. Hitchens liked to point to the fact that the liberation of women was one of the few things we know works as a cure for poverty. This is a sound argument that makes no reference to the moral rightness of the liberation of women. But if that's not enough, you can make intellectual arguments that are stronger than "God says so," without the need for an objective basis. And what exactly is this objective quality? I'm curious.

What the hell are you talking about? I never said the conversation didn't belong in the religion forum, and I never tried to lay out the parameters for what can and cannot be discussed. How about you actually contribute something to the discussion? Or are you contended in being a troll?

Sam Harris' argument still begins with a subjectively valued premise: We should try to avoid the worst possible suffering. While this is a noble thought, it's not something everyone agrees with. And of there is a difference between morality being innate--which it is, as it arises from and is rooted in our ability to feel empathy--and morality being objective. Arms and legs are innate, yet their lengths and specific measurements are subjective. In other words, just because we feel empathy doesn't mean that morality is therefore objective. It doesn't take a psychopath to feel less empathy for a serial killer on death row than, say, me. I imagine empathy is as subjective as anything else.

I could care less what lip-services he gives to being all-inclusive; I'm concerned with the point he actually attempts to make, which is that the Judeo-Christian creation myth belongs in the conversation because, as he rhetorically asks: So "Divine Creation," at least to him, appears to mean specifically the Biblical myth.

The whole case against there being objective morality is the evidence for morality's subjectivity. You couldn't therefore say that "Okay, well morality is subjective after all. But it still could be objective, and you can't prove it isn't." If it is subjective than it cannot be objective, and yes we did just prove it.

Okay, how about the Makiritare myth, which is that the world is just a god's dream? Or how part of the world is made from concentrated butter, as in the Hindu creation story? Why give the Judeo-Christian myth preference? The passages in the Bible about clay are metaphorical, not literal. Clay was the most popular and useful crafting material at the time, so invoking it in the holy literature would have made perfect sense to the people for whom the message was intended. It would be like today if you say that television is a black hole of culture, you don't literally mean that television is a black hole, you mean that television kills culture. The term "black hole" makes you think of destruction, of an inescapable force. The image of god forming man out of clay is exactly the same idea. And if I'm not mistaken, man is created from a clot of blood in the Quran. In any event, even it they were literal, you'll notice that only man is created from clay, not all of life. If God were truly just dumbing-down the scientific explanation of abiogensis, he wouldn't have excluded animals from the process. Of course, clay isn't the only model; we still don't know how life started here. Oh, and as for the compiling of the Quran, supposedly the process began immediately following the prophet's death, so it's easily a more historically-correct document (in the sense of being the actual words spoken by the actual person) than anything else in the Abrahamic faiths. Well, at least prior to the Book of Mormon.

Why exactly are we limiting ourselves to the Abrahamic creation stories? Why not the thousands of other creation stories?

I still don't know what you mean by "black and white." You contrast my position with a Christian who cherry-picks what to believe, which seems to suggest that you think I'm someone who believes everything. I assure you, this is not the case. We have plenty of evidence to suggest that most of the key events didn't happen, and enough common sense to know that the magical stuff is bogus. So I'm not really sure where this charge of seeing the Bible in "black and white" comes from or refers to. As to Jesus getting people to think differently about the "church" (it would have been a temple, not a church) Jesus certainly wasn't the first radical rabbi, and we know he wasn't the last. In fact, Jesus, (or the character/characters he was based on) is not even the most influential person in Christianity's history. That honor belongs to Constantine I, whose conversion is likely the reason the faith exists today as anything other than the obscure Jewish cult it began as, and was destined to remain. And since Judaism does not represent the first organized religion, I'm not sure why you see Jesus' influence as being some kind of--forgive the term--revelation. He certainly wasn't the first person to challenge establishment. He's just the most popular, which again isn't even his doing; if not for Constantine as well as the appropriation of Pagan myths and rituals, then there's every chance you never would have heard of it. Jesus' actual effect on the temple was far, far less than that. He was a pesky apocalyptic rabbi who was arrested and crucified (if the story is true). The Jewish faith carried on, and still does to this day. All that changed was that there began another new branch of Judaism (which is what Christianity is) that eventually (hundreds of years later) became the largest religion in the world. I suggest reading the Bible. Your second-hand information isn't helping you.

Sounds like an evasion tactic to me. What exactly have I made black-and-white, and what nuance am I missing out on? And where did this image come from, exactly? You've admittedly read very little of the Bible, so I'm curious as to how you've reached your conclusion with such conviction. It seems to me that you began this experiment with a preconception of Jesus in mind, and ignored everything that might contradict it. That's not something an intelligent or intellectually honest person would do.

Promiscuity is also logical, natural, and works fine in the animal kingdom, yet we humans tie ourselves up in monogamous relationships all the time. This has nothing to do with morality, yet we go against our natural inclination to bang everything that moves. Why? Social pressures, of course. The point is, just because something can be viewed as acceptable in evolutionary terms doesn't mean that humans would or should be okay with it. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who believe in exactly that, or some variation on it. I'm sorry, since when does subjective morality equate to Social Darwinism? I mean, people can believe the above is the right way to do things, but I have no idea what makes you think this should be the prevailing opinion. What about subjective morality makes you believe that it must be dominated by slavery? There was nothing sudden about it, and as I said above, slavery is still practiced in parts of the world. To that end, the premise of your question is flawed. We didn't simply flip a switch and decide not be to slavers. Some cultures abandoned it before others, as well, and the people behind these abolitionist movements were great moralists and philosophers. You seem to be American--have you not studied how slaves came to be free in our country?

Obviously. But if we're simply going to ignore the words attributed to him, how is it that you draw your conclusion that he was the "Einstein of his time," (which isn't even remotely accurate, by the way)? You base your opinion of this character one way or the other on his teachings. There are no other sources. He didn't write a memoir, and there is no archival footage of him. What you're doing is engaging in the same kind of delusion religious people do. The difference is simply in the details. But at least Christians actually base their opinions of Jesus on the things he said. You, meanwhile, have simply created an imaginary vision of him in your head.

In what way does "I have not come to abolish the law of the prophets" work as a metaphor?

Well, cultures always define codes of law and ethics, but that's simply a function of survival. Without them, society couldn't exist. You'll notice that no two cultures can ever seem to agree on just what constitutes "good" and "evil." But just think about how it works on smaller scales, like in a classroom. You walk into a classroom, and your teacher is going to lay out the ground rules. Is this because there are objective rules to classroom etiquette? No, they do it because without rules, the class couldn't function. Nobody would learn anything if they were allowed to chat and play on their phones or make out with their girlfriends or boyfriends. Yes. Even seemingly objective moral statements like "Do not hurt children" relies on a subjective value being placed on children. I think most people tend to agree with statements like this because most people feel empathy for children, but there are those who don't. And there are also those who believe that hurting a child can be beneficial to the child. The fact that sweatshops exist should give you some clue as to the nature of morality. Not necessarily. Everyone has to pee, too. Does the universality of peeing signify our divine origins? But even before we get to that point, you'd have to assume that there are objective rights and wrongs, and you simply can't do that. There are no universal rights and wrongs, not even within a single society. Well, if I'm not mistaken, either apes or chimps (or possibly both) have displayed proto-moral traits (they've even shown signs of culture, where apes in one part of a country use stone to crack open walnuts, and apes in another part use wood even though stone is available), so morality as a concept doesn't seem to be entirely unique to humans. Our morality is certainly more complex than any other animal, but it needs to be, because our behavior in general is more complex than any other animal. I won't say humans would entirely die out without morality, but you couldn't live in a city without law or ethics. There needs to be some kind of guiding influence. Yes, and thus no religion is required to explain it. Though it is obvious that religion was perhaps our first proto-philosophical attempt at such an influence. You'll notice that the Bible, Torah, and Quran all not only cover spiritual matters, but day-to-day matters, from what clothes to wear to how to prepare your food. None of them. I don't understand the question. Atheism is not a religion, if that's what you're asking.