Defenders of the Faith

Defenders of the Faith

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/opinion/12zizek.html?th&emc=th

By SLAVOJ ZIZEK
Published: March 12, 2006
London



Michael Bierut
FOR centuries, we have been told that without religion we are no more than egotistic animals fighting for our share, our only morality that of a pack of wolves; only religion, it is said, can elevate us to a higher spiritual level. Today, when religion is emerging as the wellspring of murderous violence around the world, assurances that Christian or Muslim or Hindu fundamentalists are only abusing and perverting the noble spiritual messages of their creeds ring increasingly hollow. What about restoring the dignity of atheism, one of Europe's greatest legacies and perhaps our only chance for peace?

More than a century ago, in "The Brothers Karamazov" and other works, Dostoyevsky warned against the dangers of godless moral nihilism, arguing in essence that if God doesn't exist, then everything is permitted. The French philosopher André Glucksmann even applied Dostoyevsky's critique of godless nihilism to 9/11, as the title of his book, "Dostoyevsky in Manhattan," suggests.

This argument couldn't have been more wrong: the lesson of today's terrorism is that if God exists, then everything, including blowing up thousands of innocent bystanders, is permitted — at least to those who claim to act directly on behalf of God, since, clearly, a direct link to God justifies the violation of any merely human constraints and considerations. In short, fundamentalists have become no different than the "godless" Stalinist Communists, to whom everything was permitted since they perceived themselves as direct instruments of their divinity, the Historical Necessity of Progress Toward Communism.

During the Seventh Crusade, led by St. Louis, Yves le Breton reported how he once encountered an old woman who wandered down the street with a dish full of fire in her right hand and a bowl full of water in her left hand. Asked why she carried the two bowls, she answered that with the fire she would burn up Paradise until nothing remained of it, and with the water she would put out the fires of Hell until nothing remained of them: "Because I want no one to do good in order to receive the reward of Paradise, or from fear of Hell; but solely out of love for God." Today, this properly Christian ethical stance survives mostly in atheism.

Fundamentalists do what they perceive as good deeds in order to fulfill God's will and to earn salvation; atheists do them simply because it is the right thing to do. Is this also not our most elementary experience of morality? When I do a good deed, I do so not with an eye toward gaining God's favor; I do it because if I did not, I could not look at myself in the mirror. A moral deed is by definition its own reward. David Hume, a believer, made this point in a very poignant way, when he wrote that the only way to show true respect for God is to act morally while ignoring God's existence.

Two years ago, Europeans were debating whether the preamble of the European Constitution should mention Christianity as a key component of the European legacy. As usual, a compromise was worked out, a reference in general terms to the "religious inheritance" of Europe. But where was modern Europe's most precious legacy, that of atheism? What makes modern Europe unique is that it is the first and only civilization in which atheism is a fully legitimate option, not an obstacle to any public post.

Atheism is a European legacy worth fighting for, not least because it creates a safe public space for believers. Consider the debate that raged in Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, my home country, as the constitutional controversy simmered: should Muslims (mostly immigrant workers from the old Yugoslav republics) be allowed to build a mosque? While conservatives opposed the mosque for cultural, political and even architectural reasons, the liberal weekly journal Mladina was consistently outspoken in its support for the mosque, in keeping with its concern for the rights of those from other former Yugoslav republics.

Not surprisingly, given its liberal attitudes, Mladina was also one of the few Slovenian publications to reprint the infamous caricatures of Muhammad. And, conversely, those who displayed the greatest "understanding" for the violent Muslim protests those cartoons caused were also the ones who regularly expressed their concern for the fate of Christianity in Europe.

These weird alliances confront Europe's Muslims with a difficult choice: the only political force that does not reduce them to second-class citizens and allows them the space to express their religious identity are the "godless" atheist liberals, while those closest to their religious social practice, their Christian mirror-image, are their greatest political enemies. The paradox is that Muslims' only real allies are not those who first published the caricatures for shock value, but those who, in support of the ideal of freedom of expression, reprinted them.

While a true atheist has no need to boost his own stance by provoking believers with blasphemy, he also refuses to reduce the problem of the Muhammad caricatures to one of respect for other's beliefs. Respect for other's beliefs as the highest value can mean only one of two things: either we treat the other in a patronizing way and avoid hurting him in order not to ruin his illusions, or we adopt the relativist stance of multiple "regimes of truth," disqualifying as violent imposition any clear insistence on truth.

What, however, about submitting Islam — together with all other religions — to a respectful, but for that reason no less ruthless, critical analysis? This, and only this, is the way to show a true respect for Muslims: to treat them as serious adults responsible for their beliefs.

Please forgive my posting of the entire article. It was all so importantly great that I could not delete any part of it.
Harold

I do not see this kind of respect demonstrated by the vast majority of those who claim to "believe." Religion is the greatest expression of human selfishness. Immortality, the crown jewel of human greed.

Ironic that godless atheist liberals offer the most tolerant environment for all the worlds religions to coexist.

I can't wait to see the response you will receive from this forum..........

:popcorn:

:thumbsup:

The response from the rabidly religious should be interesting, though...

:popcorn:

and thanks for sharing it. I really wasn't aware there WAS an atheistic legacy, as I had (wrongly, it appears) figured atheists were usually loathe to come out of the closet.

I especially enjoyed the ironic statement that atheists come closest to what Christianity is supposed to be. We we go so far that we come 360 degree, perhaps we have some thinking to do.

What I have learned from this forum is that most atheists believe that there is no such thing as objective "good" or "evil." Therefore, no deed is any more "good" than any other deed.

In light of this frequently expressed belief of atheists, it is laughable that the atheist author of this piece claims that atheists do "good deeds" simply because it is the "right thing to do."

By what measure are these deeds "good"?

I also object to the attempt in this piece to lump Christians and Hindus in with Muslims, and thereby somehow tar Christians and Hindus as crazed fanatics bent on terroristic destruction. I call bs on that one.

However, the piece does contain one revealing and utterly true statement:

"a true atheist has no need to boost his own stance by provoking believers with blasphemy."

:shrug:

:popcorn:

I am referring to the following quoted from the piece:

"Today, when religion is emerging as the wellspring of murderous violence around the world, assurances that Christian or Muslim or Hindu fundamentalists are only abusing and perverting the noble spiritual messages of their creeds ring increasingly hollow."

That's lumping.

The passage refers to fundamentalists, of whatever faith. So the passage,which you accuse of "lumping", actually seems to be quite fair.

that the non-existence of an objective "good" or "evil" doesn't preclude subjective classifications.

Because even your "objective" standards are subjective, Zebedeo. When the bible doesn't lay out exactly what's right and what's wrong, you don't have an objective standard. Is abortion OK? Homosexuality? How about blood transfusions or organ donation? Slavery? There are thousands of moral issues on which your bible is either silent or ambiguous.

You bash atheism for a problem that sticks out like a sore thumb right in your religion!

What makes atheism stronger is that it acknowledges that "good" and "evil" are human creations. We as humans get to define those labels.

I think almost all humans, religious or not, can agree that those actions which help others are "good" and those which harm are "evil." If we can put religious decrees on morality aside, and study which moral stances benefit humankind versus which do not, we'd make a lot more progress than religion has managed.

Thanks for your thoughtful post, trotsky.



True, but if there is no objective good or evil, then all subjective classifications are equal, with none more valid or more correct than any other.

That would mean that a subjective moral code that says that needlessly inflicting human suffering in order to satisfy sadistic impulses is "good" would be no more or less moral than a subjective moral code that says needlessly inflicting human suffering in order to satisfy sadistic impulses is "bad." It would be like Jack saying "strawberry tastes better than vanilla" and Jill saying "no, vanilla tastes better than strawberry." Is that what you really think?

As to what is "not covered in the Bible," I really don't think there is that much. "What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9 If I have a moral quandary, and can't find a Scriptural guidepost, I simply seek the Lord, and I have my answer. You must remember this from your days as a Lutheran.

Anyway, I liked your post. It made me think.

if there is no objective good or evil, then all subjective classifications are equal, with none more valid or more correct than any other.

Utterly and totally false. We as a society have to come to conclusions about what rules will work. We determine what's more valid. And rules about how we live together are undeniably more important that ice cream flavor preferences.

You don't think there's "that much" not covered by the bible, eh? Then address my examples. Abortion. Homosexuality. Those are rather important issues, aren't they? Why don't they qualify as "that much" for you? They are causing great schisms among Christians, both sides thinking they have determined the moral "truth." Can you set the issue straight for everyone?

Here's something interesting: Lot's daughters got him drunk and committed incest with him. Bore him children, even. God had no problem with it, no one was punished, so is incest a moral act according to the bible?

1)"We as a society" can make up any moral code we want to, and conduct in compliance with that code becomes "good"? I disagree.

The Nazis had a society. Their moral code included a policy of exterminating Jews. Did the society's approval make exterminating Jews "good"?

No, there is an objective good and evil. It is not determined by what the society "determines."

2)Abortion and homosexuality - You have asserted that these are not addressed in the Bible and have asked me to address these examples. I would rather not get into my personal views, because I don't think that is relevant to the discussion, and I would rather not go off on a tangent. Suffice it to say that I do not condemn homosexual people as sinners, because who would I be to cast the first stone? However, as a former believer, I am sure you are aware that the Bible does address certain types of homosexual behavior -- as opposed to homosexual orientation. As for abortion, there is not much guidance in Scripture, but God does say in Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." On the issues of abortion and homosexuality, I think it is appropriate for each individual to seek the will of God through prayer. Sometimes when I have been considering a course of action, I seek the will of God, hoping for a certain answer that would allow me to do it. As often as not, the answer I get is not what I was hoping for.

3) Lot's daughters having incest with Lot. This is a bogus argument, and you know it. Lot's daughters thought that they and their father were the last humans left on Earth. So they got him drunk in order to get pregnant by him and thereby propagate the species. This hardly means that incest is condoned by God. Besides, who says that the daughters were not punished? From this union with their father, they begat the Moabites and the Ammonites, two peoples characterized by their wickedness. One could argue that this was a curse that befell them as a result of their actions. The fact that this act of incest is mentioned in the Bible does not mean that it is approved by God. As you know, the Bible relates many stories of acts of mankind, both good and evil.

Every society has made its own rules. Those societies that made bad rules didn't last long. Can you prove to me the existence of "an objective good and evil"? Because I can produce at least 5 billion people who will disagree with you, and probably 3-4 billion of those disagreeing merely because they have a DIFFERENT "objective" standard.

2) See, that's the problem. The bible isn't clear. Other people interpret it differently than you do. THAT'S THE POINT. Even IF the bible contains this objective moral standard, it's written in such a way as to be readily interpreted a variety of ways. Thus, it can't be the source of this objective morality you claim.

3) Baloney. Read the passage. Genesis 19:32 - Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father. There is absolutely nothing in there indicating they thought the human race was going to die out. In fact, they were probably well aware it was just Sodom & Gomorrah that were destroyed, and so your explanation falls flat. And besides, the act of incest was never condemned by god. (Unless you're just fine with god punishing innocent children for the incestuous acts of their ancestors.)

1) Just because "we as a society" say something is good cannot make it good. You have asked me to "prove" to you the existence of an objective good and evil. The proof is self-evident, because the contrary position leads to absurd results and an obviously false conclusion. If there is no such thing as objective good and evil, then any act is no more objectively "good" than any other act. So burning out a baby bunny's eyeballs with a magnifying glass is just as "good" as petting that bunny. Do you believe that? Seriously? If no act is objectively more "good" or "evil" than any other act, then Hitler did no more evil than Mother Theresa, objectively speaking. Some people prefer Hitler, others prefer Mother Theresa, but who's to say which one did more "good" and which one more "evil"? It all depends on your personal or societal preferences. Is that what you believe? It's absurd!

2) The Bible is a guidebook. Being finite, it cannot possibly contain detailed discussions of every hypothetical situation that could occur in the future. However, it contains the general principles, and when there is doubt, Christians are supposed to let the Holy Spirit indwell them and guide them to the correct choices in life. Through prayer and communion with God, guidance is available. Obedience to God is the objective standard that defines "goodness." God's will is set forth in the Bible, but that is not the only method of God's communication with mankind. There is also prayer, communion, indwelling of the Spirit, etc. Furthermore, God has written His laws on our hearts - all of us, Christian and non-Christian alike -- and I think you will agree, most of the time that we do something wrong, we know it is wrong. That writing on our hearts is one way God has communicated His will to each of us.

3)I disagree with your interpretation of the story of Lot and his daughters. Here is the relevant excerpt:



So it is clear that

1) Lot is completely innocent of any wrongdoing, because he was unconscious throughout both episodes.

2) The daughters had just seen Sodom and Gommorrah destroyed by God, then seen their mom get turned into a pillar of salt. They thought that "there is not a man in the earth" other than their father, who was old. They clearly thought that all of humanity, except the three of them, had been destroyed by God.

Why else would they mention the fact that their father was old? It had to be because they thought he was the last man on Earth. If he was not the last man on Earth, there would be no significance to the fact that he was old. Also, this business about "preserving the seed of our father." You think that just means preserving the family line (and that is how it is translated in the NIV). But let's think about this. If there were other men on Earth, why would the two daughters have to have sex with their father in order to preserve his family line? They could simply go and get married, and carry on the family line through their children. What the KJV says is that they wanted to "preserve the seed" of their father, because he was old, and "there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us." Why would they say "there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us" if they were aware that there were other men on Earth, and they were just motivated by preserving the family line? How do you account for this?

1) Good grief, no, of course I don't. From my moral standpoint, what they did was wrong. But good and evil have ALWAYS been defined within a social context. You can't make moral judgments without one! You have taken your societal mores and declared them "objective." Countless other societies have done so, too. They would say you are wrong, just as you say they're wrong. It is totally inappropriate (and a piss-poor argumentation tactic) to equate the claim that society determines morality with saying "you think that killing people is GOOD."

2) "General principles" won't always get you specific answers. Witness the hundreds of different moral claims of people who identify themselves as Christians. You think that with proper study, everyone will come around to the correct point of view (i.e., YOURS). In other words, you blame every other Christian in the world and their inability to see things your way as the reason why the bible doesn't deliver an objective morality.

3) A) Oh, you didn't say beforehand which version of the bible you'd accept. (Hehe, ANOTHER zinger against your "absolute morality" claim. Which bible?) In the NIV, Gen 19:31 says "there is no man around here to lie with us" - clearly not the same as what your version of the bible implies. Secondly, Lot's innocence wasn't in question. It was the acts of his daughters. They were not condemned nor punished by god.
B) Even your version has problems. Verse 34: "...that we may preserve seed of our father". Not the human race, the seed of (their) father. Everyone knows sons were more valued than daughters. The "seed" of the father means sons.

1) So you don't agree with the Nazi society moral view that extermination of Jews is "good." But your disagreement with Nazism is just a matter of personal preference, and there is no objective standard by which your view and the Nazi view can be measured to determine which one is more moral. Right? So while you don't agree with the views of the Nazis (and the neo-Nazis that still exist) about Jews, you assert that there is no way to determine which of you is morally correct - you or the Nazis. They have their view, and you have yours. They like strawberry, and you like vanilla. They are wrong from your perspective, and you are wrong from their perspective, but neither of you is objectively right or wrong, because there is no objective right or wrong. I'n not trying to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I have misstated your position. That is your position, isn't it?

So when you say that "society determines morality," you are not saying that individual Nazis were moral because their views were in line with the majority view in their society. You are saying that their whole society's view was morally wrong -- but not objectively. They were only morally wrong according to your subjective view, and your subjective view is variable depending on what society you were raised in.

2) I don't know where you came up with your assertions in #2 of your post. I never said that
with proper study, everyone will come around to the correct point of view. Nor did I say that my view was necessarily correct. I am open-minded and capable of being convinced that I have misunderstood God's will on a particular topic. And who says that I "blame every other Christian in the world and their inability to see things" my way? Also, when did I ever assert that "the bible doesn't deliver an objective morality"?

3A) If the translations differ on a particular point that is being discussed, and the issue is important, I think it makes sense to go back to the earliest available version. In this case, that would be the original Hebrew. I don't happen to read Hebrew, so I don't know how it reads in the original text. My assumption is that the older KJV is closer to the original Hebrew than the NIV. Do you have some contrary information?

You assert that the daughters were not condemned nor punished by God. How do you know this? As I said, the Bible recites what happened - both good and bad. The fact that a story is told in the Bible does not mean that the actions of each of the participants are approved by God. The fact that there is no statement in Genesis 19 that God disapproved of the actions of Lot's daughters does not mean that God did not disapprove. Furthermore, begetting the Ammonites and Moabites (peoples known for their wickedness) could easily be seen as punishment to the daughters.

3B) Yes, the seed of their father -- because he was old, and there were no other men in the world - or so they thought. Why do you think they cited the fact that he was old as a reason for what they planned to do? What difference would it make that he was old, unless he was the last man on Earth?

1) 'Fraid so, there is nothing objectively wrong with what the Nazis did. That of course doesn't mean I support or condone what they did. Nor does it mean I can't be morally outraged and disgusted at the atrocities of the Nazi era.

But ONCE AGAIN, let me explain to you that acknowledging such isn't the same as an ice cream flavor preference. Here's the fascinating thing - you're in the exact same boat and you don't even realize it. Since you cannot conclusively demonstrate the existence of your objective morality, and since the Nazis also insisted that THEY had a corner on the market of objective morality ("Gott Mit Uns"), you're right back in the spot where you attack moral relativists. How would you have shown the Nazis they were wrong? Could you have shown the Nazis they were wrong? Their "objective morality" said what they were doing was right!

2) Sure you did. It was fully implied - and you even confirm it again. You say you are open-minded and capable of being convinced that you have misunderstood the bible. But, that means that you believe everything you think about the bible AT THIS VERY MOMENT is right. And everyone else is wrong, until they can demonstrate to you why they're right. Thank you. You've backed up what I said.

I brought up the existence of millions of Christians who disagree with what you think is the "objective morality" presented in the bible. You countered by saying the above, that you will change your mind if they convince you. In other words, you're right, they're wrong. I'm just cutting through the crap, Zeb.

3) I suggest you go learn Hebrew so you can argue this point. Later versions of the bible, like the NIV, have the advantage of centuries of scholarship and translation improvements vs. the KJV. The case can easily be made that the NIV or other newer versions are much closer to the original text. Otherwise, yet again, you're right back in the same spot - you can't even read the original text of the book you claim is the source of your objective moral standard! How can you possibly claim it's the source of all morals if you can't even read it? :rofl:

I see where you're going with the Lot story. You're spinning away the problems with standard biblical apologist tricks. "There is no mention of punishment, but that doesn't mean there wasn't." Okey dokey. Shall we lay down that ground rule first - when you find that your book of objective morality doesn't support what you're saying, you get to make something up to put in it. Is that the rule?

1)reductio ad absurdum. Your position as revealed in your last post is so absurd, that you must be taking it only for argument's sake. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who agrees with your statement that "there is nothing objectively wrong with what the Nazis did." If you really do believe that, and you are not just saying it for argument's sake, I truly feel sorry for you.

And you have NOT explained why your view is not the same as ice cream flavor preference. How is it different?

And I am NOT in the same boat as you. I assert that there is an objective morality. The fact that different cultures and societies have a different view of what the moral standard is, does not mean that it does not exist. My position is not absurd, like yours. Your position is that there is no objective morality -- which leads to absurd results, like "there is nothing objectively wrong with what the Nazis did." My position does not lead to absurd results. I say that some people are right, and some are wrong. The Nazis were wrong. Probably many of them KNEW that what they were doing was wrong. Some may not have. However, that is not an absurd result. People can be wrong about objective things, and some of the Nazis were wrong about what is "good" and what is "evil."

My point that started all this is that what is "good" and what is "evil" are not determined by what the society says. A bad act cannot be made good just by the society saying it is good. If that were true, then a single act could change from good to bad to good to bad every day, just because the society says so. That's just not how it works. The act is either good or bad, and if the whole world calls a bad act "good," that doesn't magically change it into a good act.

2) Of course I think I'm right. Just as you think you are right. Every person thinks s/he is right about whatever they believe -- otherwise, they wouldn't believe it!

3)You suggested that I "go learn Hebrew" so I can argue the point about Lot's daughters. Yet you are the one who brought up this point in the first place. Why don't you "go learn Hebrew" so you can argue your own point? Then you said "How can you possibly claim (the Bible) is the source of all morals if you can't even read it?" As you know, I did NOT claim that the Bible, or Genesis, or the Old Testament or any such thing was "the source of all morals." I said that God's will is the standard for morality. If it is God's will, it is good. If it is against God's will, it is evil. That's what I said, and you know it. I specifically explained that the Bible is only ONE source of God's will, and I identified various other sources and methods of determining God's will, including communion with the Holy Spirit, prayer, etc.

Then you accuse me of "making something up" and assuming that there was punishment of Lot's daughters. Your accusation is quite ironic, because (1) I never made anything up; (2) I never assumed that there was punishment of Lot's daughters; (3) You did assume that there was NOT punishment of Lot's daughters. I simply pointed out that the fact that an act is recited in the Bible does not mean that God approved of the act. If only acts of which God approved were recorded in Scripture, it would be a pretty short book, and would not be quite as useful of a guide to life, wouldn't you agree? Are you suggesting that there should be parentheticals inserted thousands of times throughout the Bible - ("God disapproved of this.") ("God approved of this") ("God thought this was OK") ("God was a little disappointed in this.")? Get real.

In what other literature do you assume that if something is not mentioned, it definitely did not happen? If you read War and Peace, and there is never a mention of anyone using the toilet, do you assume that none of the characters ever used the toilet?

You accuse me of using "standard apologist tricks," yet it is you who are the one engaging in invalid and preposterous reasoning. I assumed nothing. YOU ASSUMED that because there is no mention in Genesis 19 of God disapproving of the actions of Lot's daughters, He didn't disapprove. That assumption is invalid, because the fact that something is not mentioned in a story does not mean that it did not happen. Please notice that I DIDN'T SAY IT DID HAPPEN; YOU SAID IT DIDN'T. You are the one making assumptions and engaging in argumentation "tricks," not me.

you actually have to produce a conclusion that LOGICALLY doesn't make sense. The fact that we don't have an objective moral standard to tell us the Nazis were wrong isn't logically problematic. It's morally problematic, to be sure, but it's not an absurd result. I'm sorry you can't understand this, and I'm sorry that somehow you think that twists around to mean I support what the Nazis did.

People read the same bible and come to a thousand different conclusions than you.

People pray to the same god and come to a thousand different conclusions than you.

People have "communed" with the holy spook and come to a thousand different conclusions than you.

So I ask you, what is the difference between:
A) An objective morality does not exist.
and
B) An objective morality exists, but we have absolutely no reliable way to figure out what it is.

FYI - Lot's daughters committed incest with their father, and were not punished. You can pretend that other events happened that aren't mentioned in the bible, but if you go strictly by what the bible says, they were not punished. QED

True, the atheist doesn't do "the right thing" in belief of a metaphysical reward, but it's the lack of a defined "right thing" that is the shortcoming. THAT'S the hole that needs to be filled, a void that one can largely avoid on DU where most everyone present already has a shared set of values and not much discussion of deep philosophy needs to go on.

I mean, not only do religions themselves disagree on morality, but adherents within religions and sects disagree too. So obviously the objective moral foundation they crow about is as much of a fantasy as can be.

:banghead: What do you do when you encounter a situation that the bible doesn't cover? Do you just resort to violent anarchy? If someone cuts you off in traffic are you allowed to shoot them in the head? Bible doesn't answer that question for you, but, I imagine, you are still able to handle yourself well. Why can you make "good" choices without the bible but not atheists? And why do you "know" that the shitty parts of the bible are not the parts to be followed since the Bible is your "objective" standard?

So you are somehow better than Muslims? Christians haven't done the same crazy shit that Muslims have? Fundamentalism is shitty. Do I need to constantly remind people of the big list of shit that has come down the pipe from the Christianity that you don't want lumped into bed with Muslims? Crusades, Inquiusitions, Salem Witch Trials. Heard of them?

As to your last dig, do you seriously think, outside of DU, that I go around throwing blasphemy into the face of every religious person I see? No. But guess what? This is a forum specifically designed for the discussion of religion and theology. So I can discuss. If you don't like that, it isn't my problem.

the writer seems to be taking the violent fringe elements of some religions and saying they are the whole. The vast majority of the religious around the world are actually led more toward their gods than they are cowed by threats of hellfire or promises of paradise. Even some of the fundies I've met are far more interested in being "born again in Jesus" here in this life than what that means after death.

European, like Japanese, secularism just might be primarily because the traditional religions just haven't made themselves relevant today. The fundamentalists are gaining their members by trying to go back in time while the rationalists just haven't figured out a good message for the future. And, I can't help but wonder what living in what seems like a lasting peace after centuries of being ravaged by war has done to their spiritual outlook. Mayhap they have come to associate peace as closer to the existentialists than their gods.

Fascinating article. The Slovenian liberal paper's support of the Muslim mosque was an admirable example of how atheism can create "a safe public space for believers." (Although one only need take a trawl through DU's R/T forum to see that not all atheists practice this same tolerance). The part about Europe's atheist legacy not getting the credit it deserves was an excellent point. I would certainly agree with the author's point that religion is not the only path to morality. I'd like to add, though, that I think too much is made of the usefulness or "un-usefulness" of religion. So often religion is touted as some kind of medicine (Lost? Unhappy? Take two Messiahs and call me in the morning) rather than as philosophies/statements about the nature of the universe (however true or untrue those may be). The real question that should be asked of religion(s) is not how happy or safe it makes you feel or, on the other hand, how people have grossly misused it, but whether or not it's true. Given that, I think the author's statement
"What, however, about submitting Islam — together with all other religions — to a respectful, but for that reason no less ruthless, critical analysis? This, and only this, is the way to show a true respect for Muslims: to treat them as serious adults responsible for their beliefs."

is brilliant and it's high time we put it into practice. There was a segment on NPR today--I only caught a snippet so I don't know which show it was on--that spotlighted High Tech High School's experiment in teaching evolution. Rather than approaching the topic from a standpoint of fear (either being afraid that teaching evolution would lead to total immoral anarchy, or thinking that even talking about the Bible in school threatens us with religious oppression), the teachers had students read Darwin, Intelligent Design theorists, the book of Genesis, Joseph Campbell on creation myths, and eastern philosophies on the subject. The students were then assigned a viewpoint (always a viewpoint opposite to the one they actually believed) and asked to present arguments in support of that position. Though the students varied widely in their beliefs (from staunch creationists to staunch atheist evolutionists), each of them more or less retained their original beliefs at the end of the classes, but they all seemed to gain a greater respect and tolerance for the other viewpoints. If only this kind of dialogue, presentation of all sides of an issue, and treatment of people "as serious adults responsible for their beliefs" were practiced in schools and political forums worldwide.

appeals to me, too, but my experience seems to suggest that believers are so sure that the Christian Bible is sacred, they seldom get past quoting the Bible as though it is obvious truth. When in fact its contents being true or false is the issue. Presumably this would be a problem in debating other religions as well. However, that is only a guess.

debate, Christians unfortunately "seldom get past quoting the Bible as though it is obvious truth." Although in this high school's experiment, none of the students ended up changing their beliefs, suggesting that atheists and people of other religions aren't that open to opposing beliefs either. It's just a natural psychological tendency to justify your own position, and certainly I agree that debate regarding belief systems and science would not result in a lot of people changing their beliefs. A lot of the time it might even strengthen their beliefs if they are made to respond to other people's attempts to disprove them. Which could sometimes even be a good thing. But even if people don't change their beleifs, anything in this day and age that increases dialogue and tolerance is a good thing.

The facts of evolution trump anyone's fragile belief system. I don't see any reason to coddle adults who are creationists, or even let them waste my children's classroom time. There's plenty enough to learn that is clearly true, and no need to shovel crap.

You know what I think of Creationists? Half of them are cheats and liars, and the other half are astonishingly ignorant. That's the line in the sand I draw as an adult. Anyone want to play, or would you rather I not waste your time? I tell you my opinion straight up.

I hate this kind of pseudo-intellectual bullshit, and I'd be pissed if my children were forced to argue on the side of Creationism.

There's a difference between telling your opinion straight up and being reactionary. To say that "Half of are cheats and liars, and the other half are astonishingly ignorant" is just plain inaccurate. I'd say that a small percentage of them are cheats and liars, and ALL of them are astonishingly ignorant (willful ignorance being a prerequisite for a belief in creationism). While I understand your frustration with people who insist on creationism despite the facts (believe me, I live with them), like it or not we live in a country where a large percentage of people believe in it. That's the hand we were dealt and I'm just saying maybe it's better to play it than to fold out of frustration. I'm not advocating giving any credence to creationism, or even wasting much time on it. We learn about Greek mythology and world religions in school, not because the school sytem is preaching them but to inform people about what is out there contributing to world cultures. I'm all for separation of church and state, but if we completely ignore the discrepancy between what's being taught in schools and what's being taught in churches, it feeds ignorance and animosity. All I'm saying is, expose beliefs to the light and maybe the truth will shine through, and even if it doesn't, hopefully we'll at least get along a little better. Maybe then the creationists wouldn't be so afraid of the other side that they feel the need to do drastic things like vote for Bush.

They do not back down until you PROMISE to confront them.

I'm fed up with Creationists and "Intelligent Design" proponents trying to weasel their blatant deceptions into the public school curriculum. Sometimes the only way to keep them out is by raw intimidation -- a personal promise to rip apart their geology, their theology, and their personal credibility if they ever venture forth in a public school setting.

"Fundamentalists" of any stripe often seek to kill science and other intellectual pursuits. Cults feed upon ignorance, and for that reason cults must promote their ignorance. Some of these cults will happily use deception to protect the feeble foundations of their religions.

Before you mark me down as an angry atheist, I'm not. I'm a social justice Catholic with an attitude. I'll stand my ground with anyone, even authorities within my own church. My church hasn't kicked me out (yet???) even when I've been very outspoken about issues that put me in in direct conflict with the Church's teachings, such as my support for birth control, sex education, and gay marriage.

My own personal community includes people of many religions, including a few creationists. But the creationist I know are rather like the Amish: they reject scientific descriptions of evolution in the same way the Amish reject electricity, it's a matter of faith with them. They do not deny the science of evolutionary biology, they simply believe it's not a complete picture, and that it detracts from the practice of their own faith. But they would not impose this belief on outsiders, and they do not want to see religion infiltrate our public schools because they know any school based religion would conflict with their own, especially in our community which is mostly Catholic.

Yes, we do learn about Greek mythology and such, but I think the creationists would be very upset if we lumped their beliefs in with this "mythology." In the same way I get very upset when creationists call their own beliefs science. If they don't want to fight about it, then they shouldn't bring it to school, and they shouldn't bring itbefore the legislature. When they do they are asking for a fight. The founders of this nation were very wise when they established the seperations between church and state.

So if you believe in God, and you believe in evolution, wouldn't that mean you believe in Intelligent Design? (assuming the definition of Intelligent Design is 'evolution with God as the conductor,' since obviously there are differing definitions of ID)
Yet you call it "blatant deception." I'm totally confused.
By the way, more power to you for standing up WITHIN your church for birth control, sex education, and gay marriage.

Believe it or not, there are ways of presenting "Intelligent Design" and even "Creation Science" with some sort of intellectual honesty. I'm very fond of the Amish/Electricity analogy. The Amish do not use electricity or modern conveniences, but they do not deny such things exist. They don't cover up their children's eyes whenever a car drives by.

I know and have met many honest young earth creationists who simply state they don't "believe" in evolution because it conflicts with their faith. They choose not to make it part of their life in the same way the Amish chose not to use electricity. Some of them home school, which is probably a great loss for their children, but many of them send their children to public schools with no expectations that the science of evolution will be "debated" as if it were just another creation myth.

My personal opinion is that there is so much we don't understand about this Universe that it is entirely unwarranted to seek any "scientific" support for the existence or nonexistence of God. One scientist might look at the universe as an amazing Creation, while another scientist might look at the universe as an amazing and entirely random event, yet the science remains the same. But if anyone has to pull out a "god card" whenever they don't understand something, then they are not doing science.

Quite a few fairly honest supporters of Intelligent Design were taken in and used by the radical right after efforts to supplant science with "Creation Science" in the schools failed. One irony here is that many creationists find most versions of intelligent design to be just as abhorrent as evolutionary biology. To these people putting God behind the curtains is just as bad as denying His existence.

I'm not Baptized Roman Catholic, but I have been attending Mass near twenty years now. There's a couple of sticking points that prevent me from entirely formalizing the relationship, so I'm left floating out in the Catholic schisms. It's a long story, almost Byzantine you could say, but not relevant to the points I'm making here. As far as I can tell, Protestants don't seem to have these sorts of problems; it always looks to me as if they simply go to a another church and that's what they are.

In any case, the various forms of Catholicism -- Roman, Orthodox, etc. -- do not have problems with the science of evolutionary biology; in fact to carefully study Creation is to celebrate Creation. I'm certain atheists find very similar sorts of joy when they study science. It's not within me to understand why anyone would close their doors to such knowledge.

My favorite science is evolutionary biology, and that's the subject of most of my university training. I've taught junior high school science, and I've also worked with outdoor schools and science camps. But mostly I'm a concerned parent who doesn't want people who are willfully ignorant messing up my children's science education.

As a funny aside, I saw a statistic somewhere that American Catholics are more likely to use birth control than the general population. When my wife and I went off to our engagement encounter (no you can't just get married if you are Catholic, you've got to prepare) a very, very sincere couple taught us all about natural family planning. I've got to say the engaged couples there looked icreasingly skeptical as the lessons went on.

So I think that what you're saying is, evolution is true, but even top scientists don't know everything about the exact process or the origins of the universe, so we all get to a point where we say, "Beyond these scientifically proven facts, I don't know." Theists explain this realm of "I don't know" by saying, essentially, "that's where God steps in" and atheists might explain it by saying "we don't know everything now, but one day science may explain it." However, since in either case, the realm of "I don't know" can't be tested scientifically, it should be left out of the classroom. If I'm misunderstanding you, I apologize.

I did want to clarify something, though. You imply that at the school where this evolution education experiment took place, "the science of evolution" was "'debated' as if it were just another creation myth." It was my impression that the teachers at the school were NOT themselves proponents of ID or creationism, but of evolution. Their goal was not to attempt to debunk evolution but to involve students of varying beliefs in discussion. Actually, I looked up the school (Hi-Tech High) and they seem to debate EVERYTHING this way (looking at it from multiple perspectives), from world trade to health care to nuclear proliferation.

And that includes when, where, or if "God steps in." We don't know. There's nothing there to argue about, it's all wild speculation. That's not the same as claiming, "Well, then God must have done this."

Placing science into the same category as religious beliefs, and then "debating that" among ignorant people who know little or nothing about either science or theology is a depressingly common creationist tactic.

I did a quick search of "Hi-Tech High" and it looks as if they do good science, but in the real world high school science teachers are expected to do labs with a couple of dollars per student per semester while teaching to an increasingly bizarre "fill in the bubble" curriculum that gives students little feeling for what science is actually about.

I'm not arguing what you're saying, but out of curiosity since you taught science, what do you mean by "an increasingly bizarre 'fill in the bubble' curriculum?"

Ideally the curriculum would be closely linked to the actual practice of science. Instead many textbooks (and the multiple choice exams that go along with them) are mostly based upon previous texts, with minor course corrections to account for current scientific discoveries.

While scientists are constantly building up and tearing down the intellectual scaffoldings they work from, textbooks tend to be creaky old fixed scaffoldings decorated with shiny new scientific "facts." The multiple choice bubble exams that accompany these texts reflect this structure. As time goes on these textbooks drift further away from what is actually science. Most modern high school biology texts are so far removed from the modern practice of biology that we would be better off without them.

Typically a modern biologist thinks in terms of chemistry, genetics, evolution, and ecology. A modern introduction to biology would reflect this. It would begin with the chemistry of living things, and the entire structure of the text would be built upon a framework of evolutionary theory. Evolution would be the sturdy skeleton of the text. The exams would reflect this structure.

Instead we are trapped in the eighteenth century scientific world of Linnaeus, apparently still cataloging all the wonders of God's creation. Without mentioning God, the U.S. high school biology curriculum still reeks of creationism.

But they just don't seem to get:

Fundamentalists do what they perceive as good deeds in order to fulfill God's will and to earn salvation; atheists do them simply because it is the right thing to do. Is this also not our most elementary experience of morality?


Doing good for a reward, to avoid punishment, or just because somebody/some book told you to is not moral. Doing good because it is the right thing to do is moral.

"Doing good for a reward, to avoid punishment, or just because somebody/some book told you to is not moral. Doing good because it is the right thing to do is moral."


I'm wondering whether you believe, then, that "goodness" or morality is inherent in some people? They don't need to be taught? They just "know"? (...just because somebody/some book told you....)

I wonder this because as a teacher I have seen children who, despite loving and attentive parents who have taught them right from wrong (not getting into what if anything they learned in church) still behave in "immoral" (i.e. bullying, stealing, selfish behavior) ways. It has always intrigued me.

I'm saying that they shouldn't be told things like "don't do XYZ because it's against God's Will" or "do ABC because that way you'll get into Heaven". It should be, "ABC is wrong because it is harmful to people" and "XYZ should be done because it helps others". When the child is old enough appeals to empathy can be utilized ("would you like for someone to do that to you?"). There is no need to call on mysticism and artificial constructs for morality. Ordinary human psychology is sufficient.

This "good deeds" is entirely undefined. Therefore we not only can't tell if atheists are doing them, we can't say why they do them.

See my post above.

That's what struck me. I thought about all the posts by militant athesists having fun with the DU christians struggling with whether fundamentalist right wingers are "real" christians. Now this guy comes up with "true atheist" and not a peep. And yet, this same guy pooh poohs the very debate by saying "assurances that Christian or Muslim or Hindu fundamentalists are only abusing and perverting the noble spiritual messages of their creeds ring increasingly hollow."

I see. Those bad atheists? Not true atheists. Those bad religious? Sounding hollow when other religious disavow them.

*sigh*

It's the writer's opinion. Just as DU Christians all have opinions on what a "real" Christian is. Doesn't mean we agree, and certainly the 99.9% of the piece that ISN'T about what the author thinks a "true" atheist is, is still quite interesting.

The author of the essay is saying that an atheist does not have a metaphysical reason to do those things. They do not earn god points for proving their religion is better, like, say, the crusades. But in the end, if that guy were here to post, I'd ask him if that is what he really meant, and, if not, I'd question further.

It's just the sort of thing that would get a run of the mill poster on DU a good shellacking, over the very issue where he shows a little internal inconsistency.

My point was that I would ask him what he meant and then have a discussion. He would either be able to defend himself or not. But he isn't here. So we should have a little "fake" exchange about it?

standard, then atheism would be...a religion?

Or at least an organized entity. Not quite sure what the definition of "religion" is.

Or a normative system. But something more than the mere definition of "a person that doesn't believe in a deity" that is insisted upon in this section. Hard to say if it was more than a throwaway line to distance himself from people he would rather not be associated with just becasue they are in the same ISM; but it seems the entire post is that the atheists are to thank for tolerance, and therefore atheism includes as tolerance as part of some sort of belief system.

to know if you attempt to quantify an atheist's belief system, you'll meet with a lot of disgruntled atheists! And they have a point, as it seems their very nature is the opposite of a belief system.

Heh. Just kidding. Thanks TallahasseeGrannie. You've identified the one reliable thing you can say about atheists as a group.

for by my firm belief in genetic predetermination. In other words we are pretty much stuck with the way we are. We puzzle over those who change some basic view as inconsistent with the dictates of genes, but comparing the religious, sexual identity, political affiliation many flip flop on occasion. I suspect this flip flopping too is dictated by genes.

Christianity that Atheists are deeply worried about what he might do next. This hypocrisy issue IMO has paid off by successfully labeling Bush as strange and not suitable as a President. I also hope that voters have learned again that separation of church and state is a good thing.

When this worry goes away I'm sure the Atheists will be less inclined to bash religion because of religion's connection to a valid concern.

...are NOT moral people, but selfish assholes. A truly moral person doesn't need the threat of punishment to do the right thing.

...that us atheists must be all relativists and nihilists, with is BS. My own morality is a mix of J. S. Mill, David Hume, and Aristotle.