What lies at the root of our Democratic commitments?

I have been given some very good advice by a few thoughtful people here in R/T. To wit: reply only to responses which deal with your original posting, and ignore all those who just want to pull your chain. Avoid getting involved in the issues that come up that are not directly related to what you first wrote. Make a serious effort to elevate the conversation by suggesting matters of substance.

I am more than ready to listen to serious advice. So here goes.

Let me offer a basic proposition. Religion, theology and philosophy are not about doctrines, texts, creeds or who is in and who is out. They finally deal only with the following question: Does life have any meaning, purpose or value? Some answers are nihilistic. They suggest that there is no such thing as meaning. “(Life) is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” On the other hand, there are believers, non-believers, and those who admit they just don’t know, who hold that life has meaning and that there is some underlying purpose to it all. For them, in various ways, how they live flows from the underlying values they affirm. The ancient Greeks held that love, truth, beauty, valor, wisdom etc. are written into the very fabric of existence and that every human act or feeling is simply a concrete example of these eternal “forms.”

My question: If there are no ultimate values, and if life has no final meaning, why or how should one deal with the sorts of critical matters we face as a nation? To put it specifically: We Democrats do believe that there are overriding concerns we must address. There are values which we affirm out of our Democratic commitments. Where do these values come from, or are they just political expedients which have no ultimate rootage? If there is no reality written into the universe, why is justice better than injustice or love better than hate or peace better than war? Where do these beliefs come from? Why believe anything if existence is without purpose?

At its core, religion affirms that these things are basic to the structure of life. In its simplest form, there is such a thing as “the good.” All religious signs, documents, rituals, creeds are only feeble efforts to reach for these more substantial realities. The myths, ceremonies, stories, creeds which make up religion are not ultimate or “real”. They simply seek to affirm that existence has meaning. I am curious as to how others, particularly atheists, deal with these basic questions

Religions are most definitely about doctrines, texts, and creeds.

They also generally lay out some ethical/moral modes of behavior, but those are not necessarily religious in nature, and most are held in common by almost all religions and philosophies.

At its core, religion has to do with issues beyond reality, such as deities, cosmology, and what happens, if anything, when an individual human dies. The moral teachings are separate from that core issue.

Atheists, individually, have their own ethical beliefs, generally based on experience and reason. Most often, those ethics are a close match with the ethical/moral teachings that are held in common by most religions. Why? Because those ethics produce good results and have been shown to produce good results.

Religion is about things humans can't experience directly. It is not about ethics and morals. Those are secondary issues, instituted to achieve some sort of peace and order.

That existence has meaning is obvious to anyone who exists. What that meaning is is something that is determined by individuals or taught by religions or other philosophies. Existence is. It is that simple.

I find your interest in atheism to be fascinating, but I must wonder whether you really are interested or are trying to convince atheists that they are incorrect.

I suppose additional posts by you will reveal that.

Ethics, morals, and "values" appear to have no connection to one's religious belief. If they did, there would not be so many people who profess religious belief who behave unethically, immorally, and have little respect for any values of the society in which they live. There would also not be so many atheists who exhibit all of those things and demonstrate a strong sense of ethics and values. I leave out morals, because they're pretty much a religious matter.

Ethics and values are more a function of a society than of a religion. In some cases, the two things are virtually identical. In other cases, such as the United States, they are relatively unrelated, with ethics and values being a feature of the society, despite a wide variation in religious adherence.

People can value justice, and peace, and kindness for *their own sake*. As far as I'm concerned 'the good' means helping others, avoiding harm to others, and doing one's best in small or great ways to make the world a happier place for more people. My moral viewpoint is basically that if you do something good, then in a usually tiny way you've made the world a bit better. If you do something bad, then you've made the world, even if in a tiny way, a bit worse. You don't need to believe in God to prefer the former to the latter.

Religion is more, in its various forms, about ultimate *causes*. People have a tendency to want to find out the cause of everything ('Mummy, why is the grass green?') which is part of our general spirit of enquiry; and when a natural cause is not obvious, may look for a supernatural one. Most religions have doctrines about the world was created, and how people in particular were created. It also includes theories about what will happen to us after death: heaven or hell; reincarnation; etc - though not all religions have strong depictions of an afterlife, and some non-religious people believe in some form of afterlife, e.g. in ghosts. I don't think that such beliefs are essential to perceiving a meaning to existence. In fact, the gradual development of life through a long-drawn-out natural process is just as awe-inspiring as creation by a God; existence may seem even more vital if we feel that this is the only life we've got, so we had better make best use of it.

My feeling is that people's basic values tend to come first, and religion or other ideologies reinforce these. Kindly-inclined people will use their beliefs, religious or otherwise, for good; harsh or violent people will use their beliefs to reinforce their harshness or violence.

If religion and theology "are not about doctrines, texts, creeds or who is in and who is out," then why do doctrines, texts, creeds, and in-group/out-group issues constitute the bulk of religion and majority of theological discussions?

The past 2000 years of Christianity are a prime example of this. Numerous councils formed for the express purpose of deliberating doctrinal issues, voting on them, and branding the minority as heretics. Schisms, driven by disagreement even the most minute differences of opinion regarding texts, giving rise to 38,000 denominations (and counting). The afterlife concept of Heaven and Hell is the ultimate in "who is in and who is out."

Even if we were to assume that religions deal only with the question of value, meaning, and purpose, the answers are invariably derived from doctrine and texts, and often become incorporated into creeds which address "who is in and who is out."

as the means of baptism is a core issue, right? And what of transubstantiation? These are core issues that determine how we behave towards one another, I'm sure. Why, people have died defending their position. And we won't even mention indulgences. That could start a freaking war, you know...

I believe they come from our evolutionary history. Man is a social animal and all social animals behave "morally" toward their group. Our rationality can allow us to analyze and improve upon our sociability beyond merely enhancing the survivability of the group.

Life may have no ultimate meaning, but it has the meaning that we give it. Paraphrasing Camus, "It's all rock and roll." An excerpt from The Myth of Sisyphus:

to discuss his/her thread.

that apparently didn't get the ringing and unconditional acclamation that he expected.

he's unresponsive, so I'll just skip these threads from now on.

I mostly agree with your post that the basis of a lot of human morality is evolutionary, but I disagree that all social animals (including man) are moral in regards to their own group. There are plenty of humans, regardless of religious bent (or lack thereof), who act in an exact opposite manner, in detriment to society. State's exhibit "A" would be Dick Cheney.

The fact that someone wrote them down a couple of thousand years ago?

I claim that YOUR values are no more "ultimate" and your religion offers life no more "meaning" than any other philosophy or theological position on earth.

And since your "ultimate values" don't preclude insulting everyone who disagrees with you, I see absolutely no reason for you to proclaim their superiority.

An ancient invention completely antithetical to the Abrahamic tradition. Search the Bible or the Koran for any voting, you will come up empty. The decision making machinery was either the dictates of kings, the dreams of seers, or the roll of the dice.

I believe voting in the modern world comes from the north. Those rascal Vikings were pretty independent.

choose to take the point of view that life is meaningless -- but those, who say life is meaningless, are announcing that they regard everything as meaningless, so their subsequent utterances can consistently be dismissed as things they themselves consider meaningless, and hence not much deserving my attention

When I say that we choose our "ultimate values," I do not mean that it does not matter what we choose: I instead mean that we choose something about the world we live in and how we live in that world, and those choices determine who we are and who we become. As a practical matter, I think it is more or less a waste of time to try to sort out "where values come from" -- what matters is choosing our values and trying to live them. If one has no real notion distinguishing justice from injustice, or cannot see that love trumps hatred, no philosophical arguments will help

In the same way that one could choose not to live in a world where gravity rules (say, by jumping off a high cliff wearing a pair of halloween costume wings), one could choose not to live in a world where people object to throwing live babies into crematoria. Either seems to me the wrong choice, but this is an axiomatic matter, not a matter for deduction

"Religion, theology and philosophy are not about doctrines, texts, creeds or who is in and who is out. "

Yes, religion and theology ARE about those things to a substantial extent. You're a theologian and should know that perfectly well. Perhaps you wish they weren't or think they shouldn't be, but that doesn't change the fact.

You've been reading too much Neitzche my friend.

None of those things have anything to do with religion. They are Enlightenment values that are antithetical to religious dogma and the unquestioning servility it requires.

As far as your threadbare argument about life's ultimate meaning, you are arguing the consequent. If there is no god, life has no meaning, ergo there must be a god. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy. It ignores the possibility that in point of fact life might have no meaning. If true, pretending there is a god does not change that. The meaning and values that humanity has made for itself are far better than the empty promises of religion. It promises what it cannot deliver and claims authority it does not have.

But to quote Lawrence of Arabia, "Nothing is written, lest we write it."
We make our own meaning. What we do and how we live gives our life meaning.
We don't need some larger force to tell us what that meaning should be.
And if we atheist are right, then those people finding meaning in fulfilling God's will, are just running in circles and their life really has no meaning.

Turtles all the way down.

Life is infinitely amazing and beautiful - full of wonder - full of love and beauty - full of joy to be a part of life itself.

without god - the issue of evil makes sense - evil is the inhumane things people do to others - not some god figure full of contradictions and negative human emotions.

without god - the choices people make are based upon ethics and reason - suffering is sometimes caused by those choices - even when those choices are the good and ethical thing to do - and sometimes we simply have to accept that the world is not set up to honor the ethical or good - there is no reward for choosing this right thing other than the knowledge that you have chosen to live your life in such a way that you honor the well being of others and the idea of an ethical principle. honor, in other words.

we are all immortal - we are the stuff of matter and we cycle infinitely through life in one form or another.

ego - the bane of religion, and also its cause - is consciousness in one form or another - with the death of one's ego - someone's life goes on, but not in the form in which the ego wants it to - but, again, that is the limitation in thought of our corporeal selves - and religion plays to ego by presenting it with a belief that a particular ego will be immortal. the ego's fear of not being is our source of survival in this world - but it's not the reality beyond death in the view of some of us - and to accept this is to accept that life lived here and now matters more than any promised reward - do good in this life because it is simply the ethical thing to do.

religions tell stories about why life has meaning but those stories don't create meaning for many people - in order for religion to give existence meaning, someone has to agree to the premises behind them - when those premises make no sense for some people - religion provides the opposite of meaning.

I read your post after I published my last long thing. Thank you. While I disagree with your basic anti-religious thrust, you have offered a thoughtful response and I accept it as your legitimate viewpoint. I do not want to argue with you, just to appreciatively hear a rational well-put statement.. But I must say that the stories religion tells have created powerful meaning for millions of people. How many lives have been transformed by the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son and the Exodus from Egypt.

there is common ground - it's just not in the classroom, the doctor's office or the offices of policy-making.

"This planet is not terra firma. It is a delicate flower and it must be cared for. It's lonely. It's small. It's isolated, and there is no resupply. And we are mistreating it. Clearly, the highest loyalty we should have is not to our own country or our own religion or our hometown or even to ourselves. It should be to, number two, the family of man, and number one, the planet at large. This is our home, and this is all we've got."

— Scott Carpenter, Mercury 7 astronaut, speech at Millersville University, Pennslyvania. 15 October 1992.




This is a true acknowledgement of reality, and it
makes me want to cry and change at the same time.



Do you really think that life "has no meaning" if you don't get a personal "reward"
for believing a certain way? If so, I don't understand you at all.

thanks for posting this

The preservation of the earth is just about my highest concerns.. The quote is marvelous. In some other forum I would like to tell you how I am involved. And it is a deep powerful involvement. If I had your e-mail I would send you a column I have just published about this.

I DO not think life has no meaning in you don't get a personal reward.That rewards business is superstition, not legitimate faith.

I would like to read it.


I was under the impression that the idea of an eternal
reward is a component of most religions.

"meaning " or "purpose" is so fundamental to the human experience that those who are unable to seek it are considered mentally ill.

Religious practice is by no means inconsequential in the search for meaning and the establishment of values for right human behavior. The "doctrines texts and creeds" are indespensable tools of human cooperation for the perpetuation of the species. But they are not the only tool.

Another important tool for understanding right human behaivor is a theory of mind. We, more than any other species, can consider what others may think or feel. That ability is indispensable for the kind of cooperation that makes us what we are.

It is unfair to decline to discuss the expressions or your search for meaning while asking others to act as apologists for their own. Tell us what you perceive to be the expressions of a search for meaning and right human behavior in those who you consider atheists.

When you claim that "there is such a thing as 'the good.'", what exactly is that supposed to mean? Some sort of Platonic ideal of which day-to-day examples of "good" are but mere shadows?

While there are a fair number of commonalities among humans across times and cultures, there are also some glaring differences of opinion about what constitutes "the good". If people can't agree on what "the good" is, it's ultimately inconsequential whether or not some ideal version of "the good" exists. People end up operating in on the basis of uncertain, personal, culturally dependent and provisional sets of values anyway -- oddly enough, exactly the same end result as if no ultimate, ideal concept of "the good" exists.

The essence of your question is where do democrats find justification for policies - what is the basis for policy.

Policy in a democracy should be decided based upon research into issues of concern - a look at history to see how various policies effected people - a look at the current time to see how various policies are effecting people - and a look to the future to see how policies will impact those who come after.

From studies of Americans' view of fairness in society - the overwhelming view is that income should be distributed far more evenly than it is now. (you can find Dan Ariely's pdf of this study online.)

Our tax policies do not reflect this view. But we aren't a direct democracy, so people cannot vote to raise taxes to match their view of how income should be distributed in society. We don't get direct vote about a lot of things that impact our lives.

Our representatives, in order to represent us, need to reflect our beliefs in fairness - no matter what the fear-mongering from radio hosts, iquitarodders, and others with big mouths and nothing to say of value.

Studies indicate that democracies perform better with a strong middle class. Our policies as a nation should encourage a strong middle class. We do not encourage a strong middle class by favoring ponzi-scheming bankers over mortgage holders. No god is needed to understand the economic policy failures of the last 30 years - deregulation, "free trade," and change to tax policy explain things very well. We have shifted more income to the wealthy and deprived everyone else - this is the action of a nation with an aristrocracy that claims entitlement to their wealth by policies they enacted - and this is utter bullshit and unworthy of any democracy. The closest thing the U.S. ever had to an aristocracy was with slavery in the south - and we, as a nation, fought a war to do away with that bullshit line of action.

An agreement that we support human rights indicates that we must not be a nation that tortures people. As a nation we agree to uphold treaties and conventions that we sign so that other nations can deal with us in good faith. We agree that people are equal - that they are entitled to the same rights as adults that we give to ourselves. Choice about private matters - the right to create associations and unions.

I don't see where or how god has anything to do with finding policies that define a political party in this nation.

religion, and certainly not from Christianity, which for most of its history championed the decidedly undemocratic rule of kings by divine right. Much more fruitful ground can be found in the secular, human-based principles of the Enlightenment.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

religion is not just unnecessary, but very often antithetical, to concerns about creating the greatest good or minimizing harm in this physical life.

Often it is part of the problem. And often it is a sane voice for justice, peace and hope. Do you really want to take ML KIng et al, for instance, out of the equation? Do you really want to stop me working for human rights, peace, Gay rights, women's rights, labor rights when that is what my faith teaches me I need to do?

There is no need for any faith or creed - merely the application of basic principles any human feels for themselves (benefit is better than harm - I want to maximize the former and minimize the latter) to all. You asked what the root of Democratic priciples and human compassion is. You may prefer the philosophical skin I put on it. You may prefer the various "Golden Rules" of which Christianity's is merely one far from original example. You may prefer a Marxist collectivist skin, but it's at its source a basic human attribute caused by our gregarious evolution and honed by countless generations of social interaction. Religion or the lack thereof is immaterial except as one handy communication vehicle of the basic idea, neither better nor worse than any other. Take religion away and the concept remaind. Just as if Bentham and Mill had never lived - I would still "get it".

Unless you are the worlds biggest hypocrite, then we need to allow ALL that "faith teaches one to do", right?

Faith not based in a humanistic ethic is probably superstition or indigestion.

Who can judge what is and what is not a persons religious beliefs?


Unless you are saying that only those that believe the same as you do are righteous and the rest are not?

your assertion that "None of us would want to live in a society without some sort of an ethical sensitivity based on solid religious faith."?

Why not just accept the ultimate reality of existing as a human being on Earth? Why do you feel compelled to root your ego in 'belief' or 'nonbelief'? Why not just be aware of reality?