I have long since contended that we would have at the most, half as many Christians or even religion if we did not start the conditioning from birth.

The ethics question is difficult. The advantage of a rwligion is that it provides a handy, easy to use template. Without a template, one eventually must confront difficult questions. Why shouldn't I steal that candy bar? Why shouldn't I bully that kid? "Because God says" is such a simple answer...

"Kitcher agrees that mere liberation from theism is not enough. Atheists, he maintains, need to undertake the positive project of showing how their worldview can take over what he calls the ethical "functions" of theism."

-The northern europeans live in a secular society and have not developed an atheist ten commandments or set up a godless golden calf. Simply following the Golden Rule (which was discovered by many societies at different times) solves many everyday moral problems.

Atheism has always seemed so blindly obvious to me that I've never seen the point of trying to convince anyone. If you can't come to the logical conclusion by yourself, then you're probably not smart or open-minded enough to understand the arguments anyway. You don't promote atheism by breaking down the bible piece by piece and pushing it in people's faces; you do so by teaching people to think logically, think critically, and question what they are told.

Also, I've always been a little disdainful of people who stopped believing in God after a personal tragedy or national disaster: child dies in a car accident, Hurricane Katrina, something bad happens even though you were praying really, really hard, etc. Did you really think that these things never happened to anyone before, or that up til this point God was just protecting you personally because you're really special?

"because you're really special?"

Yes. Of course. Look at any of the major religions, and one way or another, you are special, you play an important role in the world. You are not just a random speck of protoplasm sitting on a little rock orbiting an unimportant star in an unimaginably vast universe.

I don't remember which author it was, but I remember reading a lovely passage. It went something like this: Religion is like a nice fire in the fireplace. You sit next to it and imagine that the whole world is a warm place; you carefully keep your back to the window, because outside is cold reality.

Religion makes people feel good, both about the world and about themselves. That's fine. If it only goes that far, and people accept that others may have different views, there is no problem. The problems start when religious people want to impose their views on others.

We should all know that anything that does harm to another is wrong. It is the height of arrogance to presume that you are better than others, so your comfort/happiness outweighs any discomfort or harm to others.
I would like to say that I come by this belief without religion, but I cannot as my upbringing included western religion. But it seems obvious to me that it doesn't require any religion to know this basic truth.

"If you can't come to the logical conclusion by yourself, then you're probably not smart or open-minded enough to understand the arguments anyway."

What a conceit. I have met brilliant, informed believers, and equally brilliant and informed atheists and agnostics. I have found zero---absolutly zero--correlation between intelligence and/or knowledge base and faith in a deity or afterlife of some sort.

You can (and very much should) be an atheist or agnostic without presuming to be smarter or better informed than other people who do believe.

Amy: "Again, we have evolved morality that is part of our genetic makeup, same as our evolved jealousy when someone we care about is looking at another potential partner."

Can you accept, as well, that the human pre-disposition toward religious thinking/feeling may also be an evolved characteristic of our genetic make-up?

-Jut

Which ties in nicely to an interesting attitude to God I came across in the last few days

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IjBi1eEaAA

Really, really NSFW kids.

Atheism has always seemed so blindly obvious to me that I've never seen the point of trying to convince anyone. If you can't come to the logical conclusion by yourself, then you're probably not smart or open-minded enough to understand the arguments anyway.

I hate this kind of blinkered thinking. I have been on both sides of this issue. I was an active Catholic until age 25 or so and am a non-believer now. When I was religious, I could see the contradictions of individual creeds but it seemed so blindingly obvious to me that there must be a creator behind it all, however little we may know or understand him. Now, it seems equally obvious to me that there is no evidence whatsoever for this belief, but unlike Shannon, I remember when the reverse was true. This is not about intellect or critical thinking. It is about how, fundamentally, you evaluate the evidence you are presented with and what base belief is driving your view of the world.

Dawkins is a perfect example. Like him, I am an atheist and a scientist but what annoyed me most when reading him was his conceit that logical thinking would cause all smart people to arrive at the same political conclusions, which unsurprisingly were his.

Amy: "Absolutely. Which doesn't mean you can't use your ability to reason to understand that there's no evidence there's a god and that it makes no sense to spend your time closing your eyes and asking some big man in the sky to do nice things for you."

Likewise, why should I let my "evolved morality" dictate my actions? I can just use my reason to determine a cost/benefit analysis of whether a certain course of action benefits me, without worrying about silly notions like right and wrong.

-Jut

I can just use my reason to determine a cost/benefit analysis of whether a certain course of action benefits me, without worrying about silly notions like right and wrong.

And now we're treading onto the well-worn turf of utilitarianism, or at least a decent straw-man facsimile thereof.

Disbelief in God doesn't mean no ethics or sense of right and wrong. I can be concerned for my fellow man without a book of rules to check with, thanks.

I'll stick with "Fuck you God". To paraphrase Groucho Marx, "I wouldn't want to belong to any religion that would have me as a member".

@Cat:

> I have long since contended that we would have at the most, half as many Christians or even religion if we did not start the conditioning from birth.

Well, DUH. We'd have - at most - half as many people speaking English if we didn't condition people into it.

That's why English isn't much spoken in, say, Azerbaijan.

I simultaneously think that the thesis is true and meaningless.

Religion is ok if you keep it to yourself and not tell others what to do. Too bad Atheists don't follow what they "preach".

If you're not Atheist you are closed minded. That's very elitist of you. Thank you for sharing.

ltw: "Disbelief in God doesn't mean no ethics or sense of right and wrong. I can be concerned for my fellow man without a book of rules to check with, thanks."

Amy: "Your evolved morality isn't about being nice, per se; it's about functioning within a society."

My point is that Amy talked about "evolved morality," suggesting that we have a moral sense "in our genes," so to speak. Thus, God is not a necessary condition for morality. I suggested that God could be a similar thing. Human beings have evolved in such a way that the desire/need/propensity to believe in God is part of our make-up.

Amy, while agreeing with that idea, derided it. My challenge is that, if both morality and God are somehow a by-product of our evolutionary development, why can I not deride this moral sense in the same way she dismisses theology?

And, yes, I agree that you can be concerned for your fellow human beings without a rule book, as long as you agree that there is nothing wrong with my desire to take advantage of them at every turn.

And, Amy, I do agree that morality serves a purpose in helping people in a society get along with each other. But Amy, does that mean, being an American, can I kill all the Belgians I want, because they are not part of my society? (Please say yes, please say yes....)

-Jut

"The Bible contains several examples of God and Jesus appearing to sanction what seems arbitrary or cruel conduct...Jesus' casual slaughter of the Gadarene pigs"

James Wood needs to brush up his Gospel. The story of the Gadarene pigs is a story of kindness and healing. There was a man near the Sea of Galilee who was suffering terribly from possession by demons (mental illness in a modern context):

Mark 5:2 And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit

5:3 Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains:

5:4 Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him

5:5 And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones

What means did ancient peoples have of dealing with the violently mentally ill, other than chaining them up somewhere? But when this poor soul saw Jesus, he begged him for help:

5:6 But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran up and worshipped him

Christ obliged:

5:8 For he said unto him, Come out of the man thou unclean spirit

Now the demons that Jesus cast out of the man had to go somewhere. Fortunately:

5:11 Now there was nigh onto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding

Problem solved! Hooray!

5:13 And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea

If you're going to bash Jesus, get it right. Unless you're a member of PETA, or some other such organization that thinks pigs matter more than people, you can't interpret this story in any way that casts Jesus in a bad light.

Yes martin, Jebus helped one person. But what of the herder(s), or merchant(s) if the pigs had been sold, whos flock(s) he destroyed? What ever happended to that guy or guys who were finacially ruined? And their famillies? And those affected by the suddden food shortage? How many peoples lives were ruined by the destruction of such a large investment?

Or the costal property owners who had to deal with thousands of dead demon infested pigs washing upon their shores? How many people were subsequently possesed by those 2000 individual demons that hadbeen convently trapped inside of just one man?

Ever think of that? Also as Jebus is supposed to be allpowerful why did he have to send the demons into pigs? Why couldnt he have just killed them outright?

It's a STORY, lujlp! If Chaucer & Shakespeare & Mark Twain had to tie up every loose end for every character in every story, they could have never written anything worth reading.

And if you're looking for happy endings, how 'bout the Book of Job? After all his plagues & sufferings, Job was restored to health & prosperity, sired seven studly sons, three lovely fuckable daughters, and lived to a ripe old age surrounded by throngs of grandchildren & great-grandchildren. Let's see James Wood top that!

@TJIC

Well, DUH. We'd have - at most - half as many people speaking English if we didn't condition people into it.

Most of the religious people I know would disagree with you there. They look at their religion as a light, a beacon, that leads those of all upbringings toward it.

Likewise, the don't think that they themselves adhere to their religion simply because they were brought up in the church. Ask them if they'd still be Christian if they were brought up in, say, Saudi Arabia, and they'd claim that God would have drawn them to the self-same mega church in Texas they now attend.

You're right, but a lot of deeply religious people tend not to see things that way.

Religion is like a nice fire in the fireplace. You sit next to it and imagine that the whole world is a warm place; you carefully keep your back to the window, because outside is cold reality.

Agreed. I haven't been to church (besides weddings and funerals and the odd Christmas Eve service my mom forces me to) since I was 11 years old.

But religious traditions can be beautiful and comforting. Lit candles and songs on Christmas Eve in the church I grew up in are still something I enjoy -- not because I actually believe the teachings, but because it brings back warm memories.

I was recently at a family member's funeral, held in a Catholic church my family has attended for generations. And it was so comforting -- the incense, the prayers, the songs, the traditions. I don't "believe" in any of it, but the familiarity of the actions and traditions were warm and safe and provided a template of sorts that held me together during a really awful time.

...you can bet, though, that I'm going to pitch a hissy fit the next time my BF tries to convince me that I should attend mass with his mother.

Religious experience is not usually a main argument for the existence of God. But even if it were, I don't see how this does anything to refute somebody who wanted to argue on those grounds. Could not God communicate to a person in a way that was in sympathy with their own cultural experience? Might that not make the religious experience more understandable and vibrant for that person? Of course He could, and of course it could. So this argument is fairly pointless.

As for the "Euthyphro dilemma", this is an old philosophical argument that was answered long ago. The "solution" to the horns of this dilemma is this: God neither arbitrarily decides what is moral, nor is he subservient to a higher "absolute" moral standard. Rather, God's very NATURE is the decider of what is moral. Morality equals the very nature of the Creator. Good is called "good" because God is good. Compassion is the way to be, because that's how God is, and so on. So there is no real dilemma here, and once again, we have "New Atheists" arguing philosophy that has long since been well answered!

"...you can bet, though, that I'm going to pitch a hissy fit the next time my BF tries to convince me that I should attend mass with his mother."

Why not go? I am not religious, but derive the same warm memories from either a Catholic or Episcopal service that you do. The only reason that I would attend church now would be to make a loved one happy.

If I was married to a practicing Catholic or Jewish man, I would attend Mass or Synagog with them for one simple reason, because it would please them, and not hurt me one iota.
I could never be married to a fundamentalist because those people are basically nuts and therefore the marriage, and subsequently attending religious services with them would never come up. :-)

Thank you, David, I now know why Allah is all merciful and great. And all is justified in the name of Allah.

As for Jehovah, I think the Canaanites might disagree, but what the hell do they know about it. Whatever God commands is good...I don't think this was really settled.

I have no idea about Shiva although I do like the "I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds". Hey, guess it is all good.

Plato, IIRC, was as much an advocate of technocracy as anything else. Now I have two reasons why he's never given me a warm and fuzzy.

"Also, I've always been a little disdainful of people who stopped believing in God after a personal tragedy or national disaster..." - Shannon

Even as a child, I had a hard time swallowing the religion idea. It just didn't make logical sense to me, and I found the preachers terrifying. Stories like those of Abraham and Isaac or Job didn't help. But it's what I was supposed to believe, so I had a hard time admitting my feelings. Who wants to go to hell?

During my own personal/family tragedy, my religious relatives took comfort in their beliefs and expected me to be there praying right alongside them. I tried; I really tried. It just left me feeling empty and angry. No more trying. I'm an atheist.

My point is that Amy talked about "evolved morality," suggesting that we have a moral sense "in our genes," so to speak.

Actually, I don't agree with that Jut. Evolution aka nature is red in tooth and claw, and the behaviour of small children is a good case in point (you really do have to tell them to stop biting each other)

It's the society around us that imparts those values that we regard as "morality". What Terry Pratchett, Jack Cohen, and Ian Stewart would call "extrinsic intelligence" - a shared history and culture that says, "this is right and this is wrong". Religion is one way that this gets transferred, yes, and there does seem to be a yearning within the human soul for some sort of received wisdom.

But for all the practical benefits, I don't see an unblinking faith in an omnipotent god as a very helpful way of achieving this.

Whatever it is, it's not 'evolved' in the sense of being programmed into DNA.

Ariel,

Your "but which God?" type comment is a red-herring. The assertions were basically:

1. Because people's religious experience seems to be manifested based on the culture where they are based, doesn't this disprove that those experiences are real and external to those cultures?

The answer is "of course not". That doesn't logically follow. It is perfectly reasonable to imagine that God would communicate with people in a way that would be most meaningful to them and their experience, individually. And their culture is going to be a big part of their identity. So no, cultural differences in experiences do nothing to rule out "true" religious experience.

2. The Euthyphro dilemma is a proof that there are no absolute morals, or that God does not ground absolute morality. Why? Because if God simply commands an activity is moral, then it is arbitrary, not absolute. However, if God is going along with an absolute, then absolute morals are not grounded in God.

Answer - there is no dilemma here, because one other possibility is overlooked - God neither decrees things as moral arbitrarily, nor does he simply agree with an outside absolute. Rather, the very NATURE OF GOD HIMSELF is what constitutes morality. It is not external, nor is it something that is decreed as an arbitrary thing. Morality is rooted in the nature of the Creator. Anything comporting with the nature of God is moral, anything that does not comport with the Creator's nature is immoral. Again, this answers this objection, cancelling out the dilemma, and cancelling out its use as an atheist argument.

Ltw: "Actually, I don't agree with that Jut. Evolution aka nature is red in tooth and claw, and the behaviour of small children is a good case in point (you really do have to tell them to stop biting each other)
...
"Whatever it is, it's not 'evolved' in the sense of being programmed into DNA."

I don't know that I agree (that is, I don't know what the science says). I think Amy's point makes sense, though. From an evolutionary stand-point, those who were more socially adept would be more likely to survive and the anti-social people would not. Nevertheless, I think that there is a constant struggle in people between their selfish tendencies (which children generally have) and their need for social interaction. (And, I have not read it, but I would not be surprised if Amy's book would reveal that sort of struggle.)

I think God is similar. As a result of our ability to reason, people have a curiosity about the world that surpasses that of any other animal. However, that ability is limited. And, we can understand that there are unknowable things and logical paradoxes. if I were looking at God from a purely atheistic or anthropological point of view, I would say that the tendency for people (most, if not all cultures) to come up with some notion of a god or gods is the result of 1) their ability to reason; and 2) their inability to have a perfect comprehension of the world around them.

Thus, while God or morality may not be "programmed" in our DNA, they are by-products of our nature as social and rational animals (and those traits may be tied up in our DNA).

-Jut

If morals are just products of evolution, then they are completely non-binding and ultimately meaningless. So, a person has an incentive to appear "good" and likeable to others, but if they can get away with something to enhance their own status or position, then under pure naturalism they should do so. They are just fools not to. Likewise, the Holocaust was not really "wrong" per se. It's just that a bunch of us didn't like it. But as a simple act of jostling molecules bouncing off each other in a purely meaningless physical universe, the Holocaust is no more moral or immoral than eating a piece of chocolate cake or staring at the moon. It isn't REALLY evil, because there is no such thing as evil in a universe without an ultimate standard of morality, and an ultimate structure of accountability. In Nazi culture the Holocaust was good, so who is to say that our version of what is good is the "real good"? Nobody. There is no "real good", only preferences of certain jostling physical molecules over others.

I think people know, deep down, that the above isn't true. Certain things are just right or wrong, and they know it.

"From an evolutionary stand-point, those who were more socially adept would be more likely to survive and the anti-social people would not."

That is true at some times and in some environments, but the tendency for selfish anti social bastards to survive at a higher rate in some circumstances such as war and famine (which are constants in human history) is why there are so many of them still around today.
I think the survival traits that are passed on genetically, the most frequently are both long term planning (how much food do I have to put aside for my family to survive the winter?), and also adaptability, (when is it in my survival and reproductive interests for me to cooperate socially and when is it in my best interests to abandon everything and cut and run?)

I've no idea what to make of these arguments. Here on terra firma, systems of gov't based on the rule of law work pretty well. The US's founding fathers were that would be the case.

Answer - there is no dilemma here, because one other possibility is overlooked - God neither decrees things as moral arbitrarily, nor does he simply agree with an outside absolute. Rather, the very NATURE OF GOD HIMSELF is what constitutes morality. It is not external, nor is it something that is decreed as an arbitrary thing. Morality is rooted in the nature of the Creator. Anything comporting with the nature of God is moral, anything that does not comport with the Creator's nature is immoral. Again, this answers this objection, cancelling out the dilemma, and cancelling out its use as an atheist argument.
Posted by: David at September 21, 2011 9:32 AM

Now, now David,that is some mighty fine footwork there,but if your assertion is true the the following things would be moral as they were at one time or another endorsed by a god.

slavery
genital mutilation
genoide
human sacrifice
rape

I'll mention here that the 9/11 hijackers were absolutely convinced that flying airplanes into skyscrapers comported with the nature of God, and that Allah would reward them in Paradise.